HomeMy WebLinkAbout4503APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Lora S. Collins
George Homing
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064
Telephone (516) 765-1809
Special Exception
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING DATE: April 16, 1998
Appl. 4503-SE Hay Harbor Club, Inc. PARCEL: 1000-9-12-8.1
STREET & LOCALITY: Oriental Avenue, Fishers Island, NY.
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS: September 11, 1997; October 23, 1997; December 11,
1997; January 15, 1998; February 26, 1998.
REQUESTS MADE BY APPLICANT: Applicant, Hay Harbor Club, Inc. is requesting a
Special Exception as provided by Article III, Section 100-3 lB(7) of the Code of the Town
of Southold, for approval of use as a non-profit golf club related to the existing golf
course activities. Applicant has expressed interest in demolishing the existing Golf Club-
House use and continuing the same use in a new, reconstructed Golf Club-House building,
further described below.
I1. EXISTING PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION:
This property is located in an R-120 Zone District, being situate on the southerly side of
Heathulie Avenue, Fishers Island. The entire parcel consists of a total lot area of
approximately 44.5 acres as shown on the County Tax Map and Town Assessment
Records, however, a survey prepared August 27, 1996, updated 9/9/97 by Chandler,
Palmer & King and site plan map dated July 1997 indicates the property is 37.3 acres.
The subject premises is improved with an existing nine-hole golf course, one of the oldest
golf courses in the Country, and a Golf Club-House building, which is used seasonally.
The club is non-profit.
Spe, cial Exception Page 2 of 10
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Meeting 4/16/98
The Golf Club-House building was constructed in 1929 in a small triangular section at the
northwest corner of the 37.3-acre parcel. It is set back one foot from Heathulie Avenue
and is tucked into a steeply sloping, wooded hill with adjacent homes elevated at
approximately 30 feet above grade. The remaining part of the property consists of the
nine-hole golf course, with the exception of the south side which is wetlands that extends
to the Sound. The area is primarily residential in nature.
The total floor area of the Golf Club-House building contains 5012 sq. ft. of which 2812
sq. ft. is the existing first-floor and footprint area limited to a 51 ft. by 56 ft. area. The
entire 5012 sq. ft. principal building has been utilized for activities related exclusively to
the non-profit membership golf club and its staff and employees at this site.
The existing setbacks of the building have been confirmed by surveyor's letter dated
February 24, 1998 at distances of one foot from the front property line and 32 feet from
the closest northerly side property line.
A 50 ft. by 20 ft. on-site parking area is proposed as shown on the February 24, 1998
surveyor's map along the front yard area. Applicant plans to continue to use the present
off-site parking areas upon and along private land owned by Husband across the street,
and on other property near Fox Avenue about a mile away. At this time applicant
confirms there is no plan to obtain a written lease or other agreement for off-site accessory
parking on Husband's property or on property within 300 feet of the Golf Club-House
building.
III. CODE PROVISION/BASIS OF APPLICATIONS:
Chapter 100, "Zoning" under Article III, Section 100-3 lB(7), reads as follows:
"Uses permitted by Special Exception" upon receiving approval from the Board of
Appeals for the following:
Beach clubs, tennis clubs, country clubs, golf clubs, public golf courses and annual
membership clubs catering exclusively to members and their guests and accessory
playgrounds, beaches, swimming pools, tennis courts, recreational buildings and
maintenance buildings, subject to the following requirements:
(a) No building or part thereof or any parking or loading area shall be located
within one hundred (100) feet of any street line or within fifty (50) feet of any lot line.
(b) The total area covered by principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed
twenty percent (20%) of the area of the lot.
(c) Such use shall not be conducted for profit as a business enterprise.
Special Exception Page 3 of 10
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Meeting 4/16/98
(d) No such use shall occupy a lot with an area of less than three (3) acres.
Section 100-12 (Definitions) of the Zoning Code provides:
MEMBERSHIP CLUB, COUNTRY or GOLF COURSE, NONPROFIT.
A not-for-profit corporation, as defined in Section 102 of the Not-For-Profit
Corporation Law of the State of New York, established for the principal purpose of
engaging in outdoor sports, such as golf, tennis, swimming, fishing, hunting or similar
activities but not including any form of aviation, outdoor trap, skeet or target shooting or
motorboat racing. The activities of such a club shall be limited to its members and its
guests and shall not be extended to the general public.
Applicant has confirmed the following with regard to the mandates of Section 100-
31 B(7), subsections (a) through (d):
1. The total area covered by principal and accessory buildings total less than 20% of
the 37.3 acres.
The principal use requested herein will continue~ once the building is reconstructed
and issued a new Certificate of Occupancy, as a nonprofit golf club facility and
shall not be conducted for profit as a business enterprise. The existing nine-hole
golf course would remain "as is."
3. The size of the land upon which this use will occupy is 37.3 acres (as a minimum).
The setback of the new, reconstructed principal building is shown on the maps
submitted by applicant to be three feet from the front property line and 23 feet
from the nearest side property line.
The parking area is shown to be less than 100 feet from the property lines, and in
fact is shown to be along the front property line at the side yard area to one corner
of the building.
6. The loading area is shown to be less than 100 feet in the same location as the on-
site parking area near the street.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Board held public hearings on September 11, 1997; October 23, 1997; December 11,
1997; January 15, 1998 and February 26, 1998, at which time all those desiring to be
heard were heard; and
Spe, cial EXception Page 4 of 10
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Meeting 4/16/98
The Board has considered all testimony, documentation, evidence submitted by the
applicant and a majority of the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question, its present zoning and the surrounding area; and
On the basis of all testimony and documentary evidence received and on file, the Board
finds and determines as follows:
Applicant is proposing a new reconstructed Golf Club-House building with an overall
footprint of 56 fi. by 56 tr. or 3136 sq. fl. The architect for the applicant has confirmed an
overall building increase of 1130 square feet, although the actual footprint area is being
increased by approximately 300 sq. ff The proposed plan shows replacement of the
existing club-house within most of the same existing footprint area, except areas noted
below:
a) the front yard setback will be modified from one foot to three feet, and the side yard
from 32 feet to 23 feet.
b) the proposed square footage of the entire building area, without basement area, is
shown proposed at 6272 sq. fi. (3136 sq. fi. for each the first including proposed 616 sq.
fi. covered porch area and 616 sq. fi. covered porch).
c) three-thousand one-hundred thirty-six (3,136) square feet for each of the two proposed
floor areas. The areas of the Golf Club-House proposed for seasonal housing in two
apartment areas and four bedroom areas will be used only for employee and staff persons
of this golf facility.
d) the setbacks of the new 56' x 56' building are confirmed by surveyor's letter dated
February 24, 1998 and site plan dated February 24, 1998 prepared by Chandler, Palmer &
King, proposed at three feet from the front property line, and at 23 feet from the side
property line, at its closest points.
e) based on observations made by members of the Board, the existing structure does not
have central heating or air conditioning, relying only upon space heaters and no air
conditioning. Applicant indicates that the new structure will have central heat and air.
f') the existing structure has a limited capacity to be used for parties and gatherings, due to
its dilapidated condition. The new structure will be far more safe and attractive than the
existing structure. There is indication in the file of correspondence from the club to its
members which proposes to increase the use of the new structure for purposes of parties
and gatherings.
The Building Department by its Director of Code Enforcement has calculated a
requirement of 213 parking spaces based upon Section 100-191 of the Zoning Code for
both the Golf Club-House facility and the Main Building approximately a mile away.
Special Exception Page 5 of 10
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Meeting 4/16/98
Applicant has not provided adequate on-site (or off-site parking areas), and the Board has
requested a written lease or other authorization from the landowner (presently the
Husband Family) for off-site parking upon the Husband lot and upon other property near
Fox Avenue about a mile away. During the hearing, the Board has asked for adequate
parking plan for the safety, health, and welfare of the community at large. Applicant has
not offered any legal agreements or legal documents for additional parking, or intent to
acquire long-term authorization for an additional 21 parking spaces in the area. Applicant
asserts that the parking has not been refused for the past 20 years on private land presently
of Husband, and therefore the applicant does not feel an agreement for permanent parking
is necessary. There has been testimony but no record of a written offer with intent to
purchase or other intent by the applicant to acquire rights to additional land for club
parking.
The Zoning Board finds that the use, subject to the limitations of its current structure as
to comfort (heat/air), attractiveness and safety, does not have significant impacts on the
neighborhood parking, even if relying on use of the volunteered lot of an adjacent
neighbor. However, the Zoning Board foresees that the use operated out of a new building
has significant potential for imposing parking problems on a residential neighborhood. The
presence of heat and air conditioning will expand the months in which the structure can be
comfortably used. The improvement in appearance, comfort and safety in the new
structure, as well as the addition of several more accessory living units, has the strong
potential for increasing the number of users and vehicles at the facility. Finally, the ability
of the club to continue using the neighbor's parking spaces has not been established,
despite repeated requests by the Zoning Board.
The applicant has not as of today filed a complete site plan for reviews as to parking,
landscaping buffers, and other site elements, which are under the jurisdiction of the
Planning Board, and has not submitted an additional parking plan which is required to be
adequate and safe, and therefore this project does not meet the requirements of Section
100-191H Additional parking is required by code and the new proposed 1,000 sq. fi. on-
site parking area is the only permanent parking plan offered.
The club membership for both this Golf Club-House building and the Main Building is
presently 410 and has been capped at a maximum of 440 members.
There are two golf club staff employees housed at this facility. The Applicants have
offered use of its other site at the "Main Building" located within a mile of this facility/site
for parking, and transportation of employees between the two sites.
The subject Golf Club-house building as exists is in a deteriorated state, has suffered from
flooding problems due to leaks, and does not conform to the current New York State Fire
Prevention and Building Code or to the handicap Accessibility Codes.
Special E~ception Page 6 of 10
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Meeting 4/16/98
Based upon these findings, the Zoning Board makes the following specific findings
pursuant to Sections 100-263 and 100-264:
1) This use as requested is reasonable in relation to the District in which it is located,
adjacent use districts, and nearby and adjacent uses because of its existence since the early
1900's in an area of homes which have existed for many years.
2) The Special Exception use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent
properties except for potential parking difficulties, which are addressed by special
condition to this approval. Additional parking is required by Code and the new 1,000 sq.
ft. on-site parking area is the only permanent parking plan offered by applicant. Parcel
exists as open space with improvement as a club-house which is the nature of this
application;
3)
This use will not prevent orderly and reasonable uses which may be proposed or
existing in adjacent use districts since the golf club has existed as a private, non-profit
club with approximately 420 members for many years; applicant indicates that this
project is not an increase in its present operations or activities, and that the same uses
which existed in the present building since about 1929 will remain. Parking is the
single area in which this use may create disorder in a primarily residential
neighborhood, since the use is required by Code to have 213 spaces and only has 23
spaces available. The reduction in the number of spaces might be acceptable, but is
further exacerbated by the fact that they are off site, and are located on property on
which applicant has no clear right to use for parking. If the landowner's approval
were withdrawn for any reason, almost all club member parking would have to be on
the road. This would clog the residential streets and create safety problems for both
club members and the neighborhood. For that reason, a special condition has been
placed on this approval to ensure compatibility of the parking needs of this use with
the neighborhood.
4) The applicant has testified there will be no increase in its present
operations or club activities that have existed since about 1929. Therefore the
safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, order of the town should not be
adversely affected by the size and reconstruction efforts in this project as
presented, but there is a potential for a newly rebuilt clubhouse to increase
parking needs, which must be addressed pursuant to a special condition of this
approval.
5) It was decided by the enactment of this Code in January 1989, and subsequent
amendments thereto, that this type of use is authorized after appropriate reviews.
6) Under Section 100-263 the Board also finds and determines:
Special Ekception Page 7 of 10
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Meeting 4/16/98
A. The use has existed and has not prevented the orderly and reasonable
use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts.
B. The use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or
legally established uses in this district, or of permitted or legally established uses in
adjacent use districts.
C The safety, the health, the welfare, the comfort, the convenience or the
order of the town will not be adversely affected by the golf-club use and its location,
which use and location have existed for many years except as provided in (4) above.
7) The use is in harmony with and promotes the general purposes and intent of this
chapter.
8) The use is compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the
neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scale
and overall appearance.
9) All proposed structures, equipment and material will be readily accessible for fire
and police protection.
7) Section 100-264: After considering all testimony and documentation furnished at the
public hearings held September 11, 1997, October 23, 1997, December 11, 1997, January
15, 1998 and February 26, 1998, and after having personally viewed the premises in
question, having knowledge of the property's zoning status, and knowledge of the
character and uses in the surrounding areas, the Board also determines following as
regards the proposed use:
A. That the long standing existence of the use establishes that the character of the
use is compatible with the district.
B. That it will not hinder the conservation of property values and the
encouragement of the most appropriate uses of land.
C. That additional areas for parking are required as part of this approval, in
addition to the on-site parking offered by applicant in this reconstruction project.
Presently there is only a handicapped parking space available on-site and temporary
parking area on a separate privately-owned parcel (Husband Family lot) in the vicinity.
The location of additional parking area and modified entrances and exits as per fire and
safety codes, will provide better public safety.
D. That there is availability of adequate and proper public or private water supply
and facilities for the treatment, removal or discharge of sewage, refuse or other effluent
Special E~(ception Page 8 of 10
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Meeting 4/16/98
(whether liquid, solid, gaseous or otherwise) that may be caused or created by or as a
result of the use.
E. That the use or the materials incidental thereto or produced thereby will not
give off obnoxious gases, odors, smoke or soot.
F. That the use will not cause disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, dust,
light, vibration or noise.
G. That the continuing operations in pursuance of the present uses will not cause
undue interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public of parking or of recreational
facilities, if the parking conditions are complied with under this special exception.
H. That the necessity for bituminous-surfaced space for purposes of off-street
parking of vehicles incidental to the use is not adequate and appropriate, and this Board
determines that the applicant can seek additional areas for adequate parking, by written
agreement, ownership, or other methods, for parking near or adjacent to this club
property, and this determination has been conditioned upon meeting this provision of the
Code.
I. That safety hazards to life, limb or property will be reduced with the proposed
reconstruction and full compliance with the current Building Fire Codes of the State of
New York, and fire, flood, erosion or panic would not be created by reason of or as a
result of the use or by the structures to be used therefore or by the inaccessibility of the
property or structures thereon for the convenient entry and operation of fire and other
emergency apparatus or by the undue concentration or assemblage of persons upon such
plot.
J. That the use or the structures to be used therefore will not cause an
overcrowding of land or undue concentration of population if there is compliance of this
Board's Conditions for additional parking, as required under Section 100-191H of the
Code.
K. That the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the use and the
reasonably anticipated operation, however, the plot area for any future expansion thereof
is not adequate and appropriate due to setback nonconformities of the building and
parking areas proposed by applicant.
L. That the golf club-house use is not unreasonably near to a church, school,
theater, recreational area or other place of public assembly.
M. That the site of the proposed use is particularly suitable for such use because
the same use and overall footprint, with the exception of approximately 300 sq. fr., has
existed since about 1929.
Special E~ception Page 9 of 10
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Meeting 4/16/98
N. That adequate buffer yards and screening will be provided to protect adjacent
properties and land uses from possible detrimental impacts of the proposed use, as
determined by authority of the Planning Board under the site plan approval procedures of
the Code.
O. That adequate provisions have been made will continue to be made for the
collection and disposal of stormwater runoff, sewage, refuse and other liquid, solid or
gaseous waste which the proposed use may generate, and also as determined by authority
of the Planning Board under the site plan approval procedures of the Code.
P. That the natural characteristics of the site are such that the use has existed there
without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems or
processes and without risk of pollution to groundwater and surface waters on and off the
site.
With respect to Sections 100-31B(7), subsections (a) through (d), the Zoning
Board grants a variance as provided for in a separate resolution, and makes the
following determinations:
· The total lot area covered by principal and accessory buildings is less than 20% of
total acreage.
The principal use requested herein will continue, once the building is reconstructed and
issued a new Certificate of Occupancy, as a nonprofit golf club facility and shall not be
conducted for profit as a business enterprise. The existing nine-hole golf course will
continue and remain unchanged ("as is").
· The size of the land upon which this use will occupy will be at least 37.3 acres.
· The setback of the new, reconstructed principal building is shown on the maps
submitted by applicant to be three feet from the street, front property line.
The parking area is shown to be less than 100 feet from the property lines, and in fact
is shown to be along the front property line and within a side yard area of the subject
premises.
· The loading area, when used, will also be less than 100 feet from the street.
VI. RESOLUTION/SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
On motion by Member Horning, seconded by Member Collins, it was
Special E~ception Page 10 of 10
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Meeting 4/16/98
RESOLVED, to GRANT the Special Exception requested under Appl. No. 4503
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I) The golf club use may continue in the existing structure with no change in the parking
arrangements. As a prerequisite to the issuance of any building permit for reconstruction
of the Golf Club-House, the Hay Harbor Club shall establish at least twenty one (21)
permanent parking spaces on Hay Harbor Club property at the Golf Club-House location,
such spaces to be situated in accordance with the ruling of the Planning Board in the
normal site review process. Alternatively, Hay Harbor Club may satisfy this requirement
by entering into a lease or leases with one or more private property owners, with a term of
at least ten (10) years, giving Hay Harbor Club the use of at least twenty (21) parking
spaces within convenient walking distance of the Golf Club-House
2) The use is subject to site plan review and approval by the Southold Planning Board.
VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Members Goehringer, Tortora, Homing, and Collins.
NAY: Member Dinizio (objected to condition regarding additional parking).
WAS DULY ADOPTE
RECEIVED AND FILED
7P, E SOUT~-IOLD TO~:.rN CLE~/K
In the Matter of the Application of
ItAY RARBOR CLUB, INC. in appeal #~.~.66
To the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
for Special Exception Approval and Variances
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION
Patricia C. Moore
Attorney for Petitioner
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, New York 11952
(516) 298-5629
Facts:
Application of
Hay Harbor Club, Inc.
The Hay Harbor Club, Inc. seeks to reconstruct an existing two-story golf club building in
substantially the same location. The golf club building contains an off]ce, women's and men's
locker rooms, small pro-shop, open porch, storage area, and two residential apartments for their
staff. The only modification to the existing use is 4 rooms for the senior staff. The use is
permitted in R-120 by special exception and the building is a preexisting nonconforming structure
with regard to front and side yard setbacks, and parking.
Lflw~
L Preexisting structure and use
The golf club building is a nonconforming building or structure as such is defined in the
Southold Town Zoning Ordinance:
"a building or structure legally existing on the effective date of this chapter or any
applicable amendment thereto but which fails, by reason of such adoption, revision
or amendment, to conform to the present district regulations for any prescribed
structure or building requirement, such as front, side or rear yards, building
height, building areas or lot coverage, lot area per dwellin8 unit, dwelling units
per building, number of parking and loading spaces, etc..."
As a pre-existing non-conforming structure it is entitled to continued protection under the
law (ie. the building may be used notwithstanding its nonconformity)
The use of the building as a golf club pre-dates the enactment of the town's zoning
ordinance, and such a use is permitted by the zoning ordinance in the R-120 by special exception.
So~hold Town Code section 100-31(7). As a special exception use, the pre-existing status oftbe
golf club use does not constitute a non-conforming use.
A special exception use is ,~ presumptively valid use in that the town has legislated that
the use is in harmony with the general zoning plan. Therefore, to the extent that a preexisting use
(existin~ golf club) is classified as ape .rmitted use, by special exception, this application should be
encouraged.
II. Additional accessory rooms
do not increase the nonconformity
The new structure will not change the use or intensity of use. The golf club and
residential apartments have remained the same since prior to zoning. The new structure will have
· no impact on the parking or cause an increase in traffic because the existing uses will not change.
The four employees occupying the accessory dormitory will similarly have no impact on the
existing use. The employee parking is restricted to the main club house and is controlled
contractually(as a restriction in the employment contract). The use of the building is seasonal,
and vehicular access and volume is limited by Fishers Island access from Connecticut (not
New York).
m. Parking and access improved
While the parking and access issues are not relevant since the use and structure are
preexisting and the parking regulations were created long after this use was established, in
2
actuality the club will provide new handicap parking. The new parking will be improved with an
asphalt surface and an additional space is provided adjacent to the building. The parking needs of
the club are adequate. Off-street parking exists on the property across the street. The private
property has been the parking area for the club for the past 20 year and there is no evidence that
any measures will be taken to discontinue the use. The club and properly owner have worked
cooperatively for over 20 years. Moreover, as a gesture of good faith the club has extended a
continuing offer to the owner to formalize the relationship with acquisition or lease.
The access road for the club, Heathule Ave., is a 50' public right-of-way (town road) and
runs entirely along the southerly side of the golf club. In addition to the 20-30 private parking
spaces across from the club, and the 56 parking spaces at the main club house, the club members
could park along the 800 + feet of public road. The club has no problem meeting the parking
needs of their members. While the code would require over 200 spaces for a" membership club",
the use is preexisting and the parking is grand-fathered. Nevertheless, the available parking has
always been suflficient.
IV. The increase in the building footprint is
necessary to comply with state & federal codes.
The new structure requires an insignificant increase in the building foot-print (4 feet) in
order to provide a means of secondary egress for the apartments. Without the additional 4 feet
for building code compliance the residential use is prohibited. The 4 feet are unequivocally
necessary for the continuation of the preexisting residential use.
The building is presently non-compliant with all federal and state codes. The building
code would prohibit the type of alterations needed to keep the property fi.om falling down without
reaching the threshold which mandates compliance with state and federal building codes. The
existing building is completely inadequate to "shore up" and requires significant investment and
alterations. Once the improvements begin, the New York State Fire and Building Code requires
compliance with the current codes and regulations. Moreover, it is economically and
architecturally impossible to simply make alterations to the existing building on the original
foundation. See previously submitted outline by contractor.
V. Town Code permits remodeling
and reconstruction and enlargement
Section 100-242(A) oftbe Southold Town Code states:
"nothing in this article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, reconstruction
or enlargement of a nonconforming building with a conforming use provided that
such action does not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of
nonconformance with regard to the regulations."
The difference between the existing and proposed structure are an oddition~1304 sq. Ft:
Specifically, 10' x 8' existing structure is squared offand 4' x 56' along side is added. The
additional square footage does not constitute a new nonconformance and the increase in degree of
nonconformance is de minimus.
In Mo~er of Fragella Mushroom Farms. In¢. V. ZBA of the Town of Coe_~ans, herein
attached, the zba denied a special use permit to construct two story apartment building containing
12 units, each designed for 4 workers, to replace laborer's substandard housing. The Appellate
Division overturned the denial as arbitrary and eapri¢ious. As with Hay Harbor which is
continuing the use and similarly replacing an existing building, the applicant was replacing existing
dilapidated farm housing for their workers with housing meeting the state buildin~ codes. The
court held that "it would be inconceivable that the new building, replacing dilapidated shacks and
trailers, would detrimentally affect adjacent land, [residences], ...or the general appearance of the
It would be in the beat intereat of both the Hay Harbor Club and the Fishers Island
community to replace a dilapidated building with a building meeting both the state building and
fire code and federal ADA standards. The insignificant increase of the existing foot print is
necessary to meet the current state and federal codes. Such a minor increase in the foot-print of
the building is inconsequential. The existing sideyard is deereased by 4 feet towards the Hobson's
property line, and the entire Hobson family expressed their support for the application, and the
improvements to the property that same would accomplish.
The Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals has addressed the expansion of pre-existing
golf course uses before. Specifically in appeals #3434 and #3435, the North Fork Country Club
sought and obtained/varianCes from the board.
The North Fork Country Club was an 15 hole golf club with preexisting 9,837 sq. ft.
facility which burned to the ground. A special exception permit application was granted to the
preexisting use. The building was replaced with a 13,020 sq. fc structure containing a restaurant
with seating capacity of 180 persons, kitchen facility, 1,794 sq.ft, ballroom, grill with 17 person
seating capacity, locker rooms (80 ladies' and 199 men's lockers), pro-shop, and storage. The
significant expansion oftbe building required additional parking and variances for the setback of
the parking as well and the number of spaces. These variances were granted. In the North Fork
Country Club decision, the zba properly recognized the customary accessory uses to this golf
club- a restaurant and grill, as well as a ballroom for events.
A significantly smaller structure than the North Fork Country Club is proposed by the Hay
Harbor Club. The use is far less intensive in that no restaurant or ballroom is proposed.
However, as with the North Fork Country Club appeal, a long standing club wishes to improve
and provide a fac'dity which complies with state codes and meets current needs. The board
properly legitimized the preexisting golf club use by granting the special exception use to North
Fork and, certain customary and accessory uses were permitted. The Fishers Island proposal is
far less grand in both scale and use but equally important to the club.
VI, The residential uses are permitted nccessory uses
The residential use with the golf club is customary to the operational needs of seasonal
golf clubs. The club has a contractual obligation to provide housing to their senior employees.
In addition, at the main club, dormitory style housing is provided to college age persons. This is
not unlike camp counselors being provided housing on site during the summer they spend
working at a camp.
The building contains a common room (sitting area for stafroniy), 2 preexisting
apartments with 2 bedrooms for the golf pro and tennis pro. And accessory bedrooms for 4
senior staffoniy (sailing master, assistant mamaiger, chef, and chief cook). The use is as a
dormitory only ( no cooking) only for senior sta~
The accessory use is crucial to the club. Employees are seasonal ( for golf- April to
October)and due to the seasonal nature of the use, employee housing is customary and incidental
to club operation. The club board testified regarding the financial need for the rooms. A
6
significant financial hardship is created if the rooms are eliminated (~400,000 cost to club).
Four people on the second floor in a seasonal occupancy is a far less intensive accessory use than
a typical single family residence. The club management is on the premises, meals are served at the
main clubhouse and parking is regulated for atter club hours and staff parking is regulated by club
roles at main building.
The club would accept as a reasonable condition of the grant of the special exception with
the accessory 4 rooms: that the 4 employees' vehicles will park at the main building during the
club hours of operation.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, and based upon the record and testimony presented at the
public hearings, we request that the proposed Hay Harbor Club application be granted in all
respects.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia C. Moore
Attorney for Petitioner
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, New York 11952
(516) 298-5629
Copyright (c) West Publishing cO. 1997 No claim to original U.S.
Govt. works.
451 N.Y.S.2d 207, 87 A.D.2d 962, Frangella Mushroom Farms, Inc.
v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals. of Town of Coeymans, (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.
1982}
*207 451 N.Y.S.2d 207
87 A.D.2d 962
In the Matter of FRANSELLA MUSHROOM FAPJ~B, INC.,
ZONINS BOARD OF APPEALS OF~the TOWN OF COEYMANS,
Petitioner,
Respondent.
Supreme Court', Appellate Division,
Third Department.
April 29, 1982.
Owner of mushroom growing farm brought Article 78 proceeding
to review determination of town's zoning board of appeals, which
denied his application for special use permit to construct
apartment building to replace laborers' substandard housing. The
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that evidence failed to
support findings used by zoning board of appeals to deny farm
owner's special use permit.
Petition granted and determination annulled with directions.
fl.
in General
N.¥.A.D. 1982.
ZONING AND PLANNING k645
414 ....
414X Judicial Review or Relief
414X(C) Scope of Review
414X(C)2 Additional Proofs and Trial De Nero
414k644 Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
414k645
Permissions or certificates.
Evidence was insufficient to support findings of
town's zoning board of appeals in denying special use permit that
apartment building to be built by owner of mushroom growing farm
to replace his laborers' substandard housing would not be in
harmony with orderly development of district, would not enhance
appearance of town, would discourage appropriate development of
adjacent land and would impair property values of adjacent
residential district.
ZONING AND PLANNING k378.1
414 ....
414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals
414VIII(A) In General
414k378 Grounds for Grant or Denial
414k378.1 In general.
N.Y.A.D.
1982.
Formerly 414k378
Where a proposed use will create a safety hazard,
a board of appeals may properly refuse a special use permit.
Uses
trailer parks.
N.Y.A.D. 1982.
ZONING AND PLANNING k391
414 ....
414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals
414VIII(A) In General
414k384 Nature of Particular Structures or
414k391
Multiple dwellings, lodgings and
Town zoning board of appeals could not properly
refuseto grant owner of mushroom growing farm a special use
permit to construct apartment building on its farm to replace
laborers' substandard housing, on the basis of incidents of
violence and noise associated with farm workers, or that the
town's police force might be inadequate, because any violence or
noise were existing conditions, independent of the proposed
apartment construction, and because owner did not seek to add any
more Deo~ or roads or access point~ to its farm, just better
'oh--6~ing.
in General
N.Y.A.D. 1982.
ZONING AND PLANNING k645
414 ....
414X Judicial Review or Relief
414X(C) Scope of Review
414X(C)2 Additional Proofs and Trial De Novo
414k644 Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
414k645
Permissions or certificates.
Evidence failed to sustain finding of town's
zoning board of appeals in denying special use permit that
apa~.~ment building sought to be constructed by owner of mushroom
growing farm to replace his laborers' substandard housing would
cause traffic congestion or that the proposed 12 parking spaces
would be inadequate.
Se
records.
N.Y.A.D.
ZONING AND PLANNING k439
414 ....
414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals
414VIII(C) Proceedings to Procure
414k436 Hearing and Determination
414k439 Findings, conclusions, minutes,
or
1982.
Finding of town zoning board of appeals concerning
state of existing housing on mushroom growing farm was irrelevant
to application by farm owner for special use permit to construct
apartment building to replace laborers~ substandard housing,
because it was unrelated to any standard set forth in zoning
ordinance.
t
in General
N.Y.A.D. 1982.
ZONING AND PLANNING k645
414 ....
414X Judicial Review or Relief
414X(C) Scope of Review
414X(C)2 Additional Proofs and Trial De Novo
414k644 Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
414k645
Permissions or certificates.
Record failed to support finding concerning fire
protection made by zoning board of appeals in denial of mushroom
farm owner's application for special use permit to construct
apartment building to replace laborers' substandard housing,
because testimony of fire commissioner relied upon by board in
support of the finding spoke to tax revenues rather than fire
protection.
ZONING AND PLANNING k378.1
414
414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals
414VIII(A) In General
414k378 Grounds for Grant or Denial
414k378.1 In general.
Formerly 414k378
N.Y.A.D. 1982.
A permitted special use may not be arbitrarily
denied without a rational basis, and denial solely because there
is a general objection to the special use would be arbitrary.
*Z08 Lyons & Duncan, Albany (E. David Duncan, Albany, of
counsel), for petitioner.
DeGraff, Foy, Conway, Holt-Harris & Mealey, Albany (David
Kunz, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
[87 A.D.2d 964] Before MAIN, J. P., and CASEY, YESAWICH,
WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
[87 A.D.2d 963] Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78
(transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at
Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination
of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Coeymans which
denied petitioner's application for a special use permit.
Petitioner owns a mushroom growing farm in the Town of
Coeymans which normally employs over 150, mostly migrant,
laborers. In January, 1981, petitioner applied for a special use
permit to construct an apartment building on its farm to replace
the laborers' sub-standard housing. Respondent denied the
/' application, and petitioner *209
" review proceeding.
has commenced the instant
Under the town zoning ordinance, apartment buildings are a
permitted special use in the R-A (residential and agricultural)
zoning district where petitioner's farm is located. Respondent,
in denying petitioner's application for a special permit, made 17
specific findings. On the basis of the record, however, the
findings are arbitrary and capricious, and, therefore,
insufficient to sustain a denial (CPLR 7803, subd. 3; see Matter
of North Shore Steak House v. Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of
Thomaston, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 331 N.Y.S.2d 645, 282 N.E.2d 606).
[1] Respondent found.(Findings 3, 4, 13, 14, 16) that the
proposed apartment building would not be in harmony with the
orderly development of the district, that it would not enhance
th~ appearance of the town, that it would discourage the
appropriate development of adjacent land, and that it would
impair the property values of the adjacent residential districtL
There is a lack of evidence in the record, however, to support
these findings. The DroDosed apartment building would replace
~existin~ dilapidated farm housinq on petitioner,s property. It
would be two stories high and would contain 12-~nits, eac~
designed for four workers. The apartment is to be located in the
fenced area of petitioner's farm, and within 60 feet of six
mushroom growing houses, all much larger than the proposed
apartment, and within 200 feet of petitioner's main office, a
200-foot metal frame building. The only nearby properties are a
church, a two and one-half story building occupied by
farmworkers, and two apparently unoccupied houses. The proposed
apartment building, surrounded by the much larger mushroom
growing houses and the 200-foot office building, would certainly
be in harmony with the farm and the R-A district in which it
would be located. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that the new
building, replacing dilapidated shacks and trailers, would
detrimentally affect adjacent land, the adjoining R-2 (single and
two-family residences) zoning district, or the general appearance
of the town.
The lack of evidence to support these findings is not
salvaged by the fact that respondent's findings purport to be
based in part on the personal knowledge of its members, since in
this respect the board's decision contains only a bare conclusory
statement without supporting facts to provide a basis for
judicial review (Matter of Community Synagogue v. Bates, 1 N.Y.2d
445, 454, 154 N.Y.S.2d 15, 136 N.E.2d 488; Matter of Weidenhamer
v. Bundschuh, 37 A.D.2d 720, 323 N.Y.S.2d 992).
[2][3] Respondent further found safety and welfare problems
(Findings 5, 6, 7, 15), in that there had been incidents of
violence and noise associated with the farmworkers and that the
town's police force might be inadequate. Where a proposed use
will create a safety hazard, a board of appeals may properly
refuse a special use permit (Matter of Shell Ct. Sailing Club v.
Board of Zoning Appealsof Town of Hempstead, 20 N.Y.2d 841, 285
N.Y.S.2d 80, 231 N.E.2d 773). However, any violence or noise
here are existing conditions, independent of the proposed
apartment construction, and since petitioner does not seek to add
any more people or roads or access points to its farm, just
better housing, it is incredible to claim that improved housing
conditions for the existing group of 48 farmworkers will create
an increase in crime and noise problems.
[4] Nor does the record support contentions that the
apartment building would cause traffic congestion or that the
proposed 12 parking spaces would be inadequate (Findings 8, 9,
10, 11). These findings are contrary to the evidence, which
shows that the proposed housing is to replace existing housing on
petitioner's farm, that the farm population will only be
relocated, not increased, and that River Road will remain the
only access road from petitioner's farm. Thus it is obvious that
the t~affic exitinq from the farm will remain the same after
construction of the .~D~z~a~e]l~huildinq as before. As far as
paring capacity, [87 A.D.2d 964] respondent merely states that
it is in apparent conformity with the zoning law, but inadequate
when compared with national ,210. averages. The tenants are
farm workers, flown here from Puerto Rico, hardly a group to whom
national averages would be applicable.
[5][6] Finding 12, concerning the state of the existing
housing, is unrelated to any standards set forth in the zoning
ordinance and is, therefore, irrelevant to the application.
Finding 17, concerning fire protection, is unsupported by the
record. The testimony of the fire commissioner relied upon by
respondent in support of this finding speaks to tax revenues
rather than fire protection. As such, it should be disregarded.
[7] The remaining objections to the permit contained in the
findings consist of nothing more than general criticisms of the
existing conditions of migrant farm workers on the farm and the
problems to the town caused thereby. A permitted special use may
not be arbitrarily denied without a rational basis, and denial
solely because there is a general objection to the special use
would be arbitrary (see Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v.
Van Wagner, 41 N.Y.2d 1028, 395 N.Y.S.2d 631, 363 N.E.2d 1376;
Matter of Fox v. City of Buffalo Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 60 A.D.2d
991, 401 N.Y.S.2d 649). "The inclusion of the permitted use in
the ordinance is tantamount to a legislative finding that the
permitted use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will
not adversely affect the neighborhood" (Matter of North Shore
Steak House v. Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30
N.¥.2d 238, 243, 331 N.Y.S.2d 645, 282 N.E.2d 606, supra ). On
this record, to the extent that the denial was based on these
general objections, it was contrary to the findings, implicit in
the ordinance, that an apartment building would not adversely
affect an R-A zoning district.
For all of the foregoing reasons, respondent's determination
should be annulled, and respondent should be directed to issue a
special use permit to petitioner.
Petition granted and determination annulled, without costs,
and respondent is directed to grant petitioner's application for
a special use permit.
(/-.y/G) ?GSqSop reft
fax.
April 20, 1998
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
Moore & Moore
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Re: Appl. #4503 and 4514 - Hay Harbor Project
Dear Mrs. Moore:
Enclosed please find copies of the Appeals Board's
determinations with conditions, and Interpretation, all adopted
at the Board's April 16, 1998 meeting. Before proceeding for a
building permit, it is our understanding that you will be making
other applications through the planning and health department
agencies.
We have today furnished copies of these determinations to
the Planning Board and Building Department offices for their
update and filing information.
Very truly yours,
Linda Kowalski
Board Secretary
Enclosures (3)
Copies of Decisions also to:
Building Department (update)
Planning Board and Staff
Originals filed with Town Clerk's Office 4/20/98 a.m.
August 7, 1997
HAY HARBOR CLUB, Inc.
Fishers Island, New York 06390
To The Membership of the Hay Harbor Club:
As the Members present on Fishers in July have reviewed the plans for the Golf Clubhouse, a
number of you have offered comments and suggestions, either in writing or in person to a
number of Board members. Although the Board will carefully consider ail comments made by
the Membership, there still seems to be some confusion about the need for and purpose of the.
new structure. I thought it would be helpful, therefore, if I reviewedthe rationaie for the building
and responded to Members' comments pemaining to design and construction.
Why is the new building needed? - Although the overall number of members has been level
in recent years, the number of people using the Club .is growing rapidly as we replace
resigning members who seldom use Hay Harbor with young families that include two or
more children actively using the Club's facilities and programs. The list of families hoping
to join the Club is long, and I would venture to say that over the past severai years Hay
Harbor has become one of the most desired family clubs on the East Coast. Hay Harbor is
full and vibrant, but the consequence of a growing Club population with more diverse
interests is that staffing requirements have increased and the age and maturity of the staff is
rising.
~ithout which we will not be able to accommodate the expected growth of the Club
from legacies, let aione from prospective new member families. We have no room to house
addltionai summer staff, especiaily at the senior level, and consequently are housing most of
our senior staff off-campus in housing that adds significant costs (rentai and tax-related costs)
to our operations. As I have writter~ to you before, for primarily environmentai reasons the
Planning Committee determined that we cannot build anymore on the main Hay Harbor
campus, and the cost of and other issues surrounding buying and improving other houses off-
campus made this solution inappropriate as well.
I would invite you to take the time to look around the existing building. ~llll~l~l~lt
~ un~rStateta~nttt~ ~s~/~ ~4~S~,~f repaffi~ This 70-year old structure is basicaily a one-
story building plus an attic with dormers which over the years has accommodated the golf
pro. ~e new building, which essentiaily overlaps the footprint of the old structure will
~'- ~~~.~ti~it~l ~10~d upgrade the infrastructure for modern usage. ~
ll]]~~~~6il~titgqi~lt~llt will aiso give our Club ~
opportunity to generate additional revenues through the rental of a new common room facility
for receptions and parties, an important aspect as we face a steady increase in operating costs.
Do we need all of these bedrooms? - Absolutely. We currently have an assistant Club
manager who has three children living with him and his wife. Bill Gray's children are also
performing valuable roles at the Club as staff members. We would like to ensure that Gene
and Peggy Mulak remain happy with their accommodations at the Club, or that we can
provide the necessary housing for any future pro with a family. In addition, we can fill today
three of the four single bedrooms currently planned on the second floor with senior staff now
living off-campus, and believe that the fourth will be needed in the not too distant future. As
I communicated to the membership many times over the last two years as we developed this
project, we need to most efficiently solve our~allvmt~allfl~an~¢ipated housing problems¢~nd
this project gives us the opportunity to accomplish this goal at the same time we are making a
needed replacement of our golf clubhouse facility.
Is the common room on the second floor necessary? Won't it create noise and become a
problem? - The people living in this building will be only the most senior employees of the
Club, except for the Club Manager. The common room is a place for them to sit, read and
talk to each other outside of theft bedrooms, a space which they deserve to have available to
them. The Board will clearly define the roles they must all live by if they are to occup3~ this
space. This is appropriate, necessary space for the senior employees we have on staff, and
will not be a problem for either the other inhabitants of the building or the Club's neighbors.
The two large apartments (each with two bedrooms) should be on the second floor in
their entirety and should face the golf course. The golf pro should be able to keep tabs
on the golf course from his apartment, which should take advantage of the prevailing
breezes of a Southeasterly exposure - There are very few golf clubs that we are aware of
that house their golf pro in the golf clubhouse, and there are even fewer that place the burden
of off-hours supervision on the back of the club pro. We are lucky that Peggy, Gene and
Kelley have been so diligent both in the pre-season and so far during the season at making
people sign-in and keeping unauthorized play at a minimum. However, the Board feels that it
is not appropriate that we demand that the golf pro spend his or her after-hours time as
watchdogs for the Club.
One of the clear messages Dan Colvin gave us as we sought his advice prior to design of the
building was that as his years at Hay Harbor passed he felt a greater and greater need to
separate his work life from his social and family life. Consequently, had he stayed at the
Club, he and Amy would have moved out of the Clubhouse this season to achieve the privacy
they felt they did not have in thc current building. Dan, of course, would have expected the
Club to pay for this rental. Appropriately, we placed significant weigh{ on the perspective
Dan had developed after many years at the Club.
The Planning Committee, with Dan's guidance, concluded that a very attractive living space
with more privacy could be achieved by putting the apartment in the northeast quadrant of the
building, with an outside deck on the first floor for socializing. This solution was preferable
2
to duplicating the current apartment on either side of the building and subjecting the
occupants to the reduced privacy that has resulted from this layout in the past.
Privacy, then, was the major consideration we believed it was necessary to address, and we
concluded that the greatest amount of privacy is achieved for the golf pro in the planned
location. Ventilation on the second floor will be significantly enhanced because of the
greater ceiling height of the building, but if it gets very hot the golf pro will use the air
conditioner, as he does today, regardless of the location of the apartment.
We should have a dining room, or at least a snack bar in the new building to
accommodate the expected increase in popularity of the game of golf and our golf
course, especially if we ever are able to increase the scope of the course to 18 holes -
Although this suggestion was considered seriously, the Committee concluded that we cannot
predict whether the Club will ever have the opportunity to expand the golf course; that the~
additional space required to support such an operation would add substantial cost to the
project with little prospect that future net revenues would be sufficient to. cover this cost; and,
from a strategic planning perspective, such a facility does not now reSl~O-nd t6 identifiable
programmatic needs of the Club and the Membership.
The new plan is cumbersome with carts in the basement, since golfers at present carry
their bags onto the porch, place them on a cart, and proceed to the first tee. The carts
on the porch take up a large portion of the available porch space and provide a tempting
source of potentially hazardous recreation for the many young children who are on the porch
during the day. We know of no other clubs which keep carts in the clubhouse proper. The
Golf Committee is planning to replace all of the Club's own existing pull-carts with new
technology, easily and efficiently stackable carts that will be kept in the bag room while
taking up very little space. The large majority of Members, therefore, will be able to simply
place their bags on one of these carts and go down the ramp to either the first tee or the
putting green.
The Planning Committee and the Board, however, felt that those members that have made an
investment in private carts should be able to keep them at the Club, although in an area in
which they will not take up useful space. Keeping the pull-carts under the porch will keep
them out of the way, yet with easy access to the golf course.
The bag room should be close to the pro shop to prevent theft of clubs and balls - In an
effort to increase bag room security, the plan for the new clubhouse building reverses the
placemem of the pm shop and the bag room, thereby removing the greatest current danger of
theft, that from the mad. The person staffing the pro shop will have a direct view of the
entrance to the bag room (and the first tee as well) through the doors into,' and then out of, the
common room. If it appears for some reason that additional security is required after hours,
between when the golf pro has left but before evening settles, we will develop additional
security measures as appropriate.
3
8. The porch area is too small and the "common area" on the ground floor is eliminating
the essential center section of the porch - The area of the new porch will actually be a foot
deeper than the existing porch. However, once we move the pull-carts from the porch to the
area under the porch, the porch area itself will be much more spacious than the current porch.
It will be an area that can accommodate many more people in comfort, all with a beautiful
view of the course, and allow for the changing of shoes and any other preparations for play.
The new common area, on the other hand, will be a place, fully open to the porch through
multiple wide doorways, where the membership can congregate without being in the path of
the play~f golf. As I wrote in one of my previous letters on this subject, the Board feels that
the golf clubhouse should be a place which furthers the purposes of Hay Harbor as a social
club, and not simply a walkway from one's car to the course.
The common room also provides some other pronounced advantages. In the event of sudden.
and aggressive inclement weather, this room will allow Members wishing to walt it out to
remain protected by closing the doors between the common room and the porch. These
doors, when closed, wilt also be very helpful in preserving this portion of the building which
now remains open to the weather throughout the year, particularly during hard winters:
Finally, as I have already mentioned, this room will prove to be a useful space as we strive to
enhance the Club's revenues.
Who will be responsible for supervising the in-season and off-season use of this
common room, e.g. for parties and rentals? - As has been the case at the main clubhouse
when we have rented the Club for weddings and/or parties, the renters are responsible for
careful preparation and complete clean-up of the facilities after their use. Dick Duggan has
been available from mid-May to early October on weekends, in the normal course of his
management of the Club, when such events occur to ensure that renters have lived up to their
agreements, and in any event we have been careful to rent to people we are confident will be
responsible. To date we have had no problems with such events.
10. Tiled floor in the bathrooms and common room will be dangerous - The current building
code requires bathrooms to have tiled floors. The Committee is still investigating flooring
alternatives for the porch and common room. Tile flooring was put in the plans for the
common room to ensure that the bids we received would cover any possible flooring solution.
The flooring for these areas will probably not be tile.
11. Fireplace in the common loom is unnecessary - The fireplace was included as a common
room feature with an eye towards encouraging use of the space by members for events in the
off-season. We have received independent offers from two members, who wish to remain
anonymous, to donate the cost of the fireplace.
12. We question the need of two men's rooms. There is only one men's room, and one ladies'
room, on the ground floor. There is also one unisex handicapped bathroom which eliminates
the need to build otherwise code-required handicapped stalls in each of the men's and
women's bathrooms. We have incorporated sufficient space in this unisex handicapped
4
bathroom to allow for inclusion either of facilities for the maintenance people cleaning the
facility, or for a shower stall to allow both women and men to shower if ~th65' need to.
Currently, only the men's locker room has shower facilities.
13. We should be using an on-Island architect sensitive to the issues in building on Fishers
Island, and we should be bidding the plans to Fishers Island contractors - The Board is
sensitive to issues of conflict of interest while balancing the goals of lower construction
costs, higher quality of work and local employment. The Board selected a team of architects
for this project, including an Island resident, based, on their credentials and on their
willingness to work with the Planning Committee to keep fees at a minimum. The team has
given us a simple and attractive design consistent with our long-term planning goals and in
keeping with the architecture of the Island.
Although Members have made a few additionhl comments, I hope that my responses to those
above indicate clearly the thought and effort that went into development of this p~oject over a
two year period. I and the entire Board greatly appreciate that Members care enough to have
taken time to review the building plans and provide us with their comments, and we are looking
forward to hearing from those of you able to share your thoughts with us in August. Howeyer, I
ask that everyone try to keep in mind that we are t~ing to accomplish the long-term planning
goals which I have shared with you frequently during the past two years, and which the Board is
convinced are in the long-term interests of the Club
We have recently been notified by the Town of Southhold's Building Department that the
Planning Board and the Zoning Board intend to take more time than we had hoped to review our
golf clubhouse plans. Nevertheless, we are continuing to pursue the two necessary variances (for
(i) the golf shop and (ii) the setbacks from proper~y lines, which are required simply because the
current footprint is not in compliance with existing setback restrictions).
The delay in beginning the project will allow the Board to review and consider all of the
comments received from the Members in both July and August. Clearly, the second installment
on the assessment will be delayed until shortly before construction commences. Those of you
who diligently paid the second installment in advance of the billing, and would like this amount
refunded to you, please call either Mary Walter at the Club or Mark Gaumond at (203) 353-3620.
We will keep you informed of any changes to the project timetable as they become clear to us.
Please feel free to get in touch with me or any Member of the Board if you have any questions
about the development of the project. Comment cards will be available for your use throughout
August at both the main and golf clubhouses. .
5
I hope you all have been able to enjoy the great weather this summer has brought to Fishers
Island, particularly at Hay Harbor which has been bursting with activity and usage by the
Membership all month.
Sincerely,
Christopher A. di Bonaventura
President
6
Page 15 - Hearing Transcripts
15ecember 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
8:00 P.M. - Continuation of HAY HARBOR CLUB, INC., Fishers
Island Applications described as follows:
Appl. No. 4503 Special Exception under Article III,
Sections 100-31B(7), subsections (a) through (d), to construct
proposed new building for existing golf course and related golf
USeS.
Appl. No. 4514 - This is an application based upon the July
22, 1997, Notice of Disapproval by the Building Inspector in
which a permit to demolish and reconstruct a golf clubhouse and
employee housing were disapproved on the following grounds:
"...Being located in an R-120 District this non-conforming
building with a non-conforming use, permitted only by Special
Exception (under Section 100-31B) shall not be enlarged,
reconstructed or structurally altered or moved unless the use of
such building is changed to a conforming use, Article XXIV,
Section 100-243A,..." for approval by Variance and/or
Interpretation that golf club may have accessory employee
housing. Location of Property: Fishers Island, Town of
Southold, N.Y.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Moore, this nice gentleman here
with the very colorful tie said that he would like to try and
make the Ferry. Is there anything that he would like to say
before, to allow him to do so?
MS. MOORE: OK. Actually I don't, only if you have questions
of him. So, that's why, in fact, thank you, I'm glad you pointed
that out because I was going to suggest that if any of the Board
Members, I want to also welcome the new Board Members, I don't
like to be rude and not not welcome you all and thank you for
the opportunity here.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't have any specific questions
except that those questions that are going to continue that are -
well, let me just there are specific questions. Parking is
still a specific question. And there are other areas that we
will discuss with you throughout the continuation of this
hearing. But parking is a particular problem.
MS. MOORE: Well, let me say this that he, if you can't think of
a question right off the top of your head and as I go through
and if you do come to a I would say management type question,
which is operational, housing, that type of issue, then just
stop, interrupt me and we'll address it, and then when you start
looking at your watch and you have to leave, you know, please
just, excuse him and he'll leave quietly and we'll just continue.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to introduce the three
members? I know that Sandy is a Member too.
Page 16 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI:
for the record? Thank you.
Can I have the names again
MS. MOORE: Yes, I'd like to do that. First I'll introduce
myself. Patricia Moore, 315 Westphalia Road, Mattituck. I have
with me this evening Chris Di Bonavantura, who is the President
of the Hay Harbor Club,
CHAIRMAN: He sat on the end the last time.
MS. MOORE: Yes, he did. Last time I had five board members,
six.
CHAIRMAN: Six, right.
MS. MOORE: We've windled it down. Dick Duggan is the
Manager of the Club, and Sandy Esser is designer of the
project, but also Vice-President of the Hay Harbor Club. If I
can start, and then again, please interrupt me at any point.
What I did for you and I hope it will be helpful. Please
don't rely on it exclusively. I would like everyone to review
the transcript. I'm sure you will, as well as what we discuss
today. What I tried to do is prepare an outline of all the
points that or many of the points that I raised and it's done in
outline form. Sometimes a little more verbose than it should be
but I was hoping it would be helpful for the new Members so
that we could kind of identify some of the issues and the facts
with regard to this case. So I hope that will be helpful. I
]earned from teachers that you never give your audience, your
students, something to look at while you're trying to make a
presentation because they'll never pay attention. So I'll give
it to you at the end, if that's all right.
To begin with, we have - to bring the new board members
up to speed, the property is zoned R-120 which would be
three-acre zoning there. In the section of the code that deals
with the R-J20 zoning, a golf course is a use that is permitted
by special permit, special use permit. That, if the board
reaches the decision that a special permit should be granted in
this case, then the use becomes a permitted use, and it should
be considered as a permitted use with whatever variances that
may be necessary or additional issues particularly with the
housing thereafter. So, that's something to look at this, even
for the old members of the board. If you look at this as if we
didn't plan to make any changes to the building, we could come
in to the Board and say, "We would like to bless this use
because we don't know what the use is going to be 10 years
from now, what the zoning is going to be ten years from now,
and we would like to bless it now with a special permit." That
way it would make it easier for small modifications, even if the
Page 17 - Hearing Transcripts
l)ecember 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
Building Department - just to get a window changed, we would
have an easier time because it would be a use that would listed
as a permitted use. So, what we have today is a special use
permit as well to legitimize. I want to say legitimize the use
that's there.
We have an existing golf course.
golf course. The course the greens
1890s.
It has been an existing
have been there since
The building, the structure, was constructed in 1929.
Yes. That's correct, because I'm going by memory at this
point. So we have a structure that, based on the testimony we
provided for you before, we believe: (1) it's a use that's
there. So, even if we were to do nothing to the building, we
would hope that you would bless it as a use that would be
authorized in that zone.
The Legislators, the Boards have decided that in residential
zones, an R120 is a three-acre residential zone, that golf
courses should be encouraged because it's open space. It's not
passive open space. If I played golf it would be because it
would get very little use out of it, but generally it's an active
open space. But it is a use that would be encouraged in that
zoning district. So that's something to keep in mind as you're -
if not news -- the forest through the trees type of thing - look
back, step back and say, "OK the town said golf courses belong
or given the right circumstances, belong in residential zoning."
In this particular case, our difficulty is that in 1929, it
must have been appropriate or it was the right thing to do to
locate in a 34 acre parcel for the golf course, we're going to
put the building over here. Because we would have more
beautiful greens. It's all waterfront. It's an open space.
(Side A of tape ended). We're going to tuck the building into
the corner here, and which is what happened, in 1929 and the
structure hasn't been significantly altered would you say,
Sandy, since 19297
MRS. ESSERS (Architect):
but that's about it.
Repaired after the 1939 Hurricane,
MRS. MOORE:
essentially in
since 1929.
It survived hurricanes. But the building is
the same condition, it certainly is the same place
The placement of this building and I again for the benefit
of the new Board and maybe to refresh the recollection of those
that are there. Could we have the picture? While Sandy is
pulling out the picture, the design (I don't want to exclude
you but I think that Ms. Collins probably would benefit from the
Page 18 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
photograph.) This is the golf course right here. This is
looking at it from the putting green. This is the structure
there on the road. This is the start of the hill, to remind you
also, the building is tucked in to the Hill and you can see that
the, we]] it's almost a 45 degree slope and the elevation from
grade or from flooding actually to the top of the hill is
approximately 60 feet. We guessed it was over 55 feet, so closer
to 60. I']] leave these, these photographs can stay. These will
be photographs for your record so that you can look at it as
you're deliberating. This is a photograph of the colored
rendering that was prepared by Sandy. Do you have the
colored one here too? (Sandy responded no). OK, well, the
color one is much nicer. As you can see, we have retained the
windows. I believe that some of these windows that are in the
present structure are going to be relocated and installed and the
architectural features will be retained. This area here, under
here, is the covered porch; and as you can see there'l] be a
nice sturdy foundation with an access. Is that an access door
in '~he basement? (Sandy responded, an access door for
hand-pull carts, porch). I just learned something because
they were talking about - I think that some of the
correspondence going back and forth was questioning where were
the carts going to be held, you know those types of issues and
they'll open it up and the carts will be stored under the
building. Presently the structure- presently the golf course,
you roll up the carts and you take up all of the space on the
first floor. The design is when you accommodate golfers ! think
better.
What I did is very quickly dealt with the special permit
use. There was an awful lot of testimony last time, and in my
outline I tried to incorporate as much as I could from the
testimony.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's have Dick come up one more
time because you're going to leave soon- I know within five
minutes.
MS. MOORE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just tell us why it is imperative to
put the amount of people in this building that you were talking
about before, you know, with the changes that are going to be
done, because I don't want you to miss the ferry- at the same
time, I want to give you lead time to get there.
MRS. MOORE: Thank you. I appreciate your doing that.
CHAIRMAN: And I don't mean to cut you off.
Page 19 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
MRS. MOORE: No, no, I asked you to do that, it's perfect. In
fact, we're going to add to that what he tells you with financial
data and Mr. Di Bonavantura will provide you with that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As you know, we saw you last
summer. We saw the place. We were upstairs. We toured the
pro's quarters and those sleeping quarters at the end of the
building, which are going to be substantially changed in the new
building. Tell us why they're being substantially changed in
your opinion?
MR. DUGGAN: Presently, we have two people housed there.
We have a shortage of housing. Without that additional housing,
I am now renting four additional housing to house senior staff.
We will put in there the golf pro, tennis pro, assistant manager.
There would be an older assistant golf pro in there. There
would be adults in that housing and it would save us $50,000 to
$60,000 this summer. Some of the members, some of the people
in the area expressed a fear of becoming a party center. I've
been out at Hay Harbor now for three summers. They know the
staff has been kept under control. I'm hiring older people. I'm
also hiring much more responsible people. I don't keep people
that cause problems. The number of children in our club has
increased tremendously. I've had to increase our life guard
staff alone to seven life guards, and in order to properly serve
the members and to teach the kids, they need housing. And for
a golf pro and tennis pro I need something that's nice and for
an assistant manager, I need something that's nice.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are there any questions of this
gentleman? Yes, Lora.
MEMBER COLLINS: Just to follow up on that because I know of
the former hearing only from having read the transcript. In the
building as it exists now, there are two apartments so-called, I
gather. It's a 70 year old building so they're probably -
CHAIRMAN: : Right, one up and one down.
MEMBER COLLINS: So they're probably nothing very great but
there are two apartments for your golf and tennis pros. Are
there facilities for other staff to sleep in the building now?
MR. DUGGAN: In that building?
MEMBERS COLLINS: Yes.
MR. DUGGAN: No.
MEMBER COLLINS: No. OK. So, the proposal which entails
in the new building two apartments, presumably better, and also
Page 20 - Hearing Transcripts
~)ecember 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
I see four pure sleeping rooms. That is a net increase then in
the building in this spot?
MR. DUGGAN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The new proposed building?
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, there would be a net increase of four
staff members who would be living there. OK, I just had to be
clear on that.
MR. DUGGAN: Yes.
MRS. MOORE: Yes, the feeding occurs, why don't you tell him
of feeding and daily operations.
MR. DUGGAN: The golf pro, well presently only the golf pro
eat and his wife would eat at the golf house. The tennis pro
has cooking facilities downstairs. We only plan on the golf pro
and tennis pro having cooking facilities there. Any additional
staff staying there would be fed with the remainder of the staff
in the staff dining room which is at Hay Harbor. So, that part
would not change.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's in a different area?
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I understand.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else have any questions of
Dick before he leaves? Yes, George.
MEMBER HORNING: Perhaps not of Dick,
mentioning additional bedrooms. The existing
square foot of the building. Can you give that?
but, you were
square, livable
MR. DUGGAN: I don't have that.
MS. MOORE: Sandy will provide that later.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Well, Sandy will give you that.
OK, we thank you so much and we wish you a Happy Holiday.
Please go and get the Ferry. You do have two board members
here.
MR. DUGGAN: Thank you very much.
MS. MOORE: I don't want to miss the one point that I do want
to stress.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for bringing Dick
tonight. That was very nice of you to do so.
Page 21 - Hearing Transcripts
December ll, 1997 - Board of Appeals
MRS. MOORE: He did it on his own.
With respect to the residential use, because one, I point
out in an affidavit that I, that you have in the file from an
unrelated golf manager with respect to what housing, typically
the expectations of housing for the staff for a club of that
nature, and that's already been put on the record.
What I want you to keep in mind also is that with an R-120
Zoning, if this were not a golf club, this could be turned into
10 three-acre parcels with at minimum 3,000 sq. ft. homes with
all of the activity that a house generates. So, one thing we
have to keep in mind is that these additional four bedrooms
which is, again, we're going to point out that the financial need
for this. It's so crucial that it really jeopardizes the whole
application if we can't get these four bedrooms because of the
cost factor that they considered when they were thinking about
what they're going to do with this building and renovating this
building. Keep in mind that the alternative, you've got, these
bedrooms are residential uses, OK. Residence is a permitted
use. It's a Residential Zone. You have a single person at
most. Right, single maybe a married couple in one room? No,
single person.
SANDY ESSERS: No, just one person.
MS. MOORE: Just single-person occupancy in one individual
room and that's something to keep in mind, that it is not an
increase in the actual density. It is not an intensity of the
use that's presently there. It's a continuation of a
residential use. No difference. Again, looking at it in
prospective, if you have a 34, 36-acre parcel, it's a golf club
where the house - the one unit, the one person is in this, this
one additional person is in this facility. That's quite
different than if this were just a standard residential
property. You could generate a great deal mope activity. So,
the intensity of the use is very minimal compared to what the
intensity of the use would be if this was a residential, just
what it is, a residential parcel. I don't know if I'm clear
enough on this or I've made the point clearly enough I
apologize, but, that's the point I want to make is that this one
additional person would not be an increase in the intensity of
this use.
I'll go straight to the area variance at this point because
I don't want to be cut off and run out of time.
CHAIRMAN: Now, would we do that to you? (Jokingly)
MRS. MOORE: Never again.
Page 22 - Hearing Transcripts
i~ecember ll, 1997 - Board of Appeals
To start with an area variance: The first criteria is that
no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or detriment to the nearby properties, if the
variance is granted. As I said, the existing club contains the
two apartments, the staff rooms. We've pointed out from the
previous affidavit and the information that you have for the
special permit is certainly applicable to the area variances and
will be overlapping to a great extent. The staffing is customary
and incidental to the golf club. From the outside of the
building you can see the design and the photocopy is not as
good, but the outside of the building will not change. It will
appear the same, size and design, whether you have four
bedrooms upstairs, or ten bedrooms upstairs. You have the
limited square footage of the foundation of the building, and
then you have essentially the second floor, which is the
dormitory area. They're not expanding the building in order to
accommodate the dormitory. The building is essentially in the
same footprint that it is today. We are squaring off the
building if you remember. For some of you, others I'm sorry
you haven't seen the building, but there is a like a bite taken
out of the building from the years in which it was constructed.
They've ]eft a bite out. They're squaring it off and then there
is 4 additional feet which is towards the north, which is the
side into the hill. So, it is not, visually you probably
wouldn't be able to tell, but 4 feet is the difference between
the original footprint and the new construction.
The second point under area variance. What.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning has a question.
MS. MOORE: Yes, you have a question?
MEMBER HORNING: I'm curious. Are you saying, that the
overall height of the proposed building is the same as the
existing building?
SANDY ESSERS: Not the height, no we're talking about the
footprint.
MEMBER HORNING: I understand that, but she was saying that
it was not going to look anything different.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Her roof line will be different.
SANDY ESSERS: No, I think what she was saying, is that if we
don't build, we don't have the four additional sleeping rooms.
We'd still like to build the same building. We won't build a
different building because we need to have that space in order
to accommodate code related issues, double stairwells for example
for fire egress which we don't have now, handicapped
Page 23 - Hearing Transcripts
f)ecember 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
availability, things like that, that are required by New York
State.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: The second issue that we have to deal with an
area variance is that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot
be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue
other than a variance. I apologize I'm just reading the
standards to you because it'll hopefully make more sense as you
read the transcript and my notes.
As I pointed out before the existing club was built in 1890s
and as you saw from the transcript we have flooding problems,
we have leaks and the property has really deteriorated over
time. The building does not conform to the Handicap
Accessibility Code or the New York State Fire Prevention and
Building Code. So, right now, you can't really do anything
with the building without properly, and our proposal is to tear
it down in order to build a new conforming State Code
Structure. What we did, is there was a question Mr. Goehringer
posed to Sandy which was, "Tell us what the cost would be if
we were to say, listen, use the existing building as let's say a
frame for the new building." There is, and you'll have it in
your packet, B and D Remodeling and Restoration. A
gentleman, David Beckwith, submitted a letter to Sandy, and
Sandy, why don't you describe it for them.
SANDY ESSERS: Well what you had asked us to do was to look
at the existing building, the foundation of which is in very poor
condition and is actually only about half way under the
building. Jack the building up, take out that foundation,
rebuild the foundation, put the building back down, take off the
super structure, and use the existing structure as the basic
structure for the new building, and Mr. Beckwith's proposal has
accounted for that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can that be done?
SANDY ESSER: I think with great difficulty because the
building is really built in pieces that are not at the same, but,
the floor plates are different points. But, he gives us a total
figure for that. If we deduct the amount for building a new
foundation, a new super structure from the original estimate, his
estimate for the increase in the price is about $500,000.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Do you know why I asked for
that Sandy?
Page 24 - Hearing Transcripts
becember 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
SANDY ESSER: Well, because I think if we kept the original
foundation, we'd be permitted by code to build the building
within that footprint.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we still are toying with the
entire problem of what exists. The lack of parking, and so on
and so forth and for the new Board Members, I know George
you probably know Sandy. I'm not trying to grill this nice
lady. She is an extremely astute lady in her field. There's no
doubt about it. Thank you, thank you very much. Ok, we're
sorry to make you jump around here.
MRS. MOORE: I can't remember which standard I was on now.
MEMBER TORTORA: Alternative.
MRS. MOORE: It cannot be achieved by some other method, yes.
We'll have as Sandy points out, it is an additional cost to the
club of at least $500,000. He identifies the different parts of
the construction and the shoring up of the existing building to
allow for the demolition would be $150,000. To demolish the
existing foundation and provide new footings and foundation,
would be $85,000. To reframe the existing structure to allow for
the new configurations would be $480,000. So, adding up ail
those numbers together and then deducting the cost of what a
foundation would be taking it all out and starting over.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
Million Three ($1,300,000).
So, instead of $800,000 we're at a
MRS. MOORE: Oh, it's quite a significant increase.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for doing that.
SANDY ESSER: You're welcome.
MRS. MOORE: That the third standard is that the area variance
is not substantial weighing the benefit to the applicant versus
the detriment to the community. As I've said before, the
location of the building is presently there. It's wooded from
behind and it's, the homes that are surrounded are elevated at
least 50 feet from the grade. The road is a secondary road, not
to insult Fishers Island, but they don't even put names on the
roads. So, it is an island and there's limited vehicular traffic
that's generally -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it's a dead end street, right?
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's not dead end, but it's pretty much at the
end.
.Page 25 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
SANDY ESSER: It's not really.
then it hangs right.
It goes down to the ocean and
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, does it.
SANDY ESSERS: But there's very little. That's really a very
unrealized road there.
MS. MOORE: The building right now does not need any of the
Fire Prevention and Building Codes. The new building will. It
will meet handicap accessibility requirements. Those things are
issues that we should keep in mind that it's going to be a
building that will meet all State Codes. What you have there
today is really a dilapidated building. The building cannot be
moved back, it's in the hill. The putting green is to the south.
I'm used to Long Island, at least there's landmarks for east,
west, north, south. The putting green itself would be about
$200,000. That's the cost of a putting green. If it were even
possible to relocate a putting green which there is no other area
on this golf course that we could relocate it plus it's nobody
would ever accept -
SANDY ESSERS: It's over 100 years old.
MS. MOORE: Right, it has a historic significance to it.
MEMBER TORTORA: Can I stop you? And ask some questions
on the putting green?
MRS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: So to reconstruct that structure.
MRS. MOORE: What, the putting green?
MEMBER TORTORA: The structure. To move it up to the first
two, for example, hypothetical. That would just to get this
clear that would create the need to put a new putting green at a
cost of $200,000?
MRS. MOORE: No, no. You've got the putting green that's
right next to the building right now. The first tee is actually
the elevated up high.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes.
MRS. MOORE: OK, there's, well (unfinished).
SANDY ESSERS: That's directly to the east. The road is the
boundary to the west, the putting green to the south, the first
.Page 26 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
tee to the east, and the hill to the north. So, we're right
there in a little pocket where the building is now.
MEMBER TORTORA: In other words what I was trying to
determine is the $200,000. I wondered if you had looked at,
because this had been discussed at the last hearing, at
alternative locations on the property that would have conforming
setbacks and negate the need for an area variance?
MS. MOORE: Yes, well, the first tee there (unfinished).
SANDY ESSER: The first tee has been there forever.
MS. MOORE: Yes, this golf course - again, it was designed, it
was created in 1888. So, you're going to have - if you think
that construction is controversial, eliminating a golf - it's not
a course, is it a tee? OK, that would cause absolute havoc.
The tees have been established. The putting green is - that's
really the area where the children practice and the putting
green itself is a significant cost of the $200,000 price tag on
it.
MEMBER TORTORA:
would cost? I mean
of the alternatives.
Do you have any estimate of how much it
hypothetically I'm just trying to look at all
MRS. MOORE: Yes, alternatives, right.
SANDY ESSER: Well the property is really maxed out and there
are houses encroaching on the north boundary of the golf course
and a road to the west, government property to the south, I'm
sorry, to the north east there's a road - (took out map).
MRS. MOORE: Do you have a survey or something? You see
it's really tucked in there so that's why the alternatives are
nonexistent.
SANDY ESSER: I could describe for you.
MS. MOORE:
circle.
Yes, if you look at the site plan there's a little
SANDY ESSER: A tiny diagram on the lower right -
MRS. MOORE: Yes, that helps that's actually gets better.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. Well, we also have the putting green
and the map of the proposed septic system.
MRS. MOORE: Right.
.Page 27 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, are you basically asking -
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm asking if there are alternative locations
on the site where the clubhouse could be built that would not
require a setback variance?
MRS. MOORE: No. There are no - well I - ail throughout the
testimony has been that we are tucked into the hi]], so
topographically you are tucked in there. That's why it's on the
road. You have the first tee which is up high on the second
level, let's say second layer of the golf course and then you -
does the road go by there? There's a house, Hobson's house is
right there.
SANDY ESSERS: Hobson's house is right behind us, then the
ninth green, then the Pagnotta house, the Meddler house, the
Fogert house and then the road, then there's Navy Federal
Government property and then the ocean on the south, and then
the road on the west.
MEMBER TORTORA: Do you want to pursue that?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, well what would be the negative
impact on the club? Let's not even talk conforming location of
taking a portion of the putting green?
SANDY ESSERS: Negative impact?
island. That would be the first one.
I'd have to move off the
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no,
putting green. I said a portion of the
would you have to move off the island?
didn't say the whole
putting green. Why
MRS. MOORE: Because they would be lynched.
MRS. ESSERS: I'm already attached to this project more than I
want to be (joking).
MRS. MOORE: They had obviously when they came to this
Board, they had considered alternatives. As a Board, they had
considered alternative sites. The cost factor was significant.
But, secondly practically there is no other location other than
the existing site which is most likely why in 1929 they located
the building here, because the golf course was designed and laid
out in 1890. So, this is the area that we have left. Do you
have a question (to Member Tortora)?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I understand the politics of the Club
as it were, but, quite frankly that's not really a consideration
under 267.
,Page 28 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, ]997 - Board of Appeals
MS. MOORE: But it is, financial is.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, and that's what I'm looking for.
MRS. MOORE: Yes, well financial-
MEMBER TORTORA: If you have, in other words when the Club
first decided where to, you know, how to handle this, let's go
all the way back to when you decided, "yes, you're going to
reconstruct it here" and you looked at other alternatives
presumably during that. Perhaps you have some figures. You
know, hard cord numbers as to (interrupted).
MRS. MOORE: Well, Sandy, you actually are the one who
considered the putting green, costs.
SANDY ESSERS: Yes, to build a normal green -
MRS. MOORE: Would you just stand up and just go on the
record and if you want to swear her in, we can swear her in.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wasn't she sworn in the last time?
MEMBER TORTORA: I think that was Pachman and all.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI:
was a different hearing.
No, I don't think so. That
MS. MOORE: Yes, why don't you swear her in.
SANDY ESSERS: I could do it again.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you solemnly swear the
information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of
your knowledge?
SANDY ESSERS: I do.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright.
MEMBER TORTORA: I would like any financial information that
you can provide for us when you were looking at alternative
locations and any cost associated with other locations, if you
have that?
SANDY ESSERS: The other locations - we did investigate at one
point trying to purchase property from the Navy which is
adjacent to our golf course. They're very uninterested in
selling that property. We had at a former Board Member who
was an Annapolis classmate of the current Commander of the East
Coast Property for the Navy, and he investigated that. They're
.Page 29 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
very uninterested in selling that property even though they
don~t really utilize it too much. It's still theirs and we can't
encroach upon it.
The topography is actually one of the issues. If you're
familiar with this sought of very hilly nature of Fishers
Island. In a way, this part of Fishers Island is more like
Connecticut than it is like Long Island. It's very hilly and
there's a big gulch sought of off the road on the east side of
the property and there's also a tee there, and in from the tee
there's another hole which comes towards that and there's a
drop-off towards the ocean and that's all wetland. So, the
whole south side of the property is wetland, which goes right
into the ocean. As I said the west side is all the road and all
along the west side immediately adjacent to the west side, which
is the road, is the first fairway. The putting green, the only
financial information I can give you, is that the standard rate
to build a standard green for a golf course from scratch is about
$85,000, for a standard green. Now, this is a putting green
with nine holes. So, it's about 2-1/2 times the size of a
standard green which is about $200,000. If we were to try to
move the building, I guess the nonconforming part is the
proximity to the road. If we were to move the building to the
west, we would obstruct the first tee, which is we've said
before. In fact, we gave you a photograph the last time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have it in the office.
SANDY ESSERS: Right. Of what that tee looked like in 1888
with a golfer there looking out over the rest of the course. So,
from our viewpoint protecting that view and that, I mean we
couldn't use that if the green if we put, I mean as a tee, if we
were to put the building there cause you couldn't drive golf
bahs over the building in order to move the building to the east.
MEMBER TORTORA:
that part of this is
historic value.
So if I'm hearing it correct, you're saying
not only financial but to a preserve the
SANDY ESSERS: Of the cost.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's tradition.
MRS. MOORE: You have three aspects here. You have
practical difficulty of the topography and really the only
location is the existing location. The financial impact which
would be, there really are no alternatives without either
eliminating a tee or putting green and that's a very expensive
proposition.
page 30 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
#
Third, is the historic 1890s Is one of the first golf
courses or the first golf courses?
MRS. ESSERS: One of the first golf courses. There's a little
incontention there whether it was the first or the second.
MRS. MOORE: One of the first golf courses so it has great
significance, I guess really all of Fishers Island but
particularly to the club and the golfers.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is the first golf course in
Fishers Island?
SANDY ESSERS: No, no, but it's one of the first in the
Country.
MRS. MOORE: In the Country. Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: I remember that from the prior hearing.
MRS. MOORE: Right. So, they are constrained, and they meet
all the standards that you have to consider for area variance.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Proceed.
MRS. MOORE: Thank you
apartments. The apartments,
re¢onfigured, one there, it is
operations.
Sandy. With regard to the
the two apartments that are being
part and parcel of the golf club
Secondly, it is a residential use and as a residential use
we're in a Residential Zone and the use is consistent. The
apartments will conform to State Code. They will be safer.
They are right now traps, fire traps. They're quite cute. I
think that all of us went in there and from the outside it really
looks horrible but at least on the inside they did a nice job in
maintaining it. It's charming, but it certainly doesn't do the
trick for any of the State Code requirements and the Fire
Codes. Those issues.
The four additional rooms and I pointed out earlier are
crucial to the operations of this Club and Mr. di Bonavantura I
think you're going to testify to the financial aspects of the
four rooms and why it's so important. Are you ready?
MRS. MOORE: Do you want to swear him in?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will you raise your right hand? The
information you're about to give us is the truth to the best of
your knowledge?
page 31 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
MR. di BONAVANTURA: Yes it is.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: In our two years of deliberations on
this project, one of the things that we looked at were the
demographics of our Club Membership. I addressed this a little
bit with the Board last time we were here. We have been seeing
as in the recent past some of our elder members resigning in
greater numbers, and of course the folks that we would like to
have in the club and who we invited to the club are generally
young families with young children, usually more than one and
often more than two. The impact of that is that we are bursting
at the seams in terms of our programs. The only way that we
can continue to replace the resigning members with new
members, in the same numbers, and therefore have the same
amount of initiation fees which are very important to our budget,
and the same amount of dues each year which is very important
to our budget, is to have more staff to handle what Dick said,
the teaching of those increased numbers of kids.
This year just a point of fact, we've basically come to
realization that though we have lost somewhere between 13 and
15~ I can't remember the number now~ 13 and 15 members who
resigned from the club last year, we're really only going to be
able to accept 9 or 10 this year. So, we're going to begin to
see the impact of that this year in our budget where our dues
revenues are going to go down, and our initiation fees will go
down from the prior year. And that's a trend that we anticipate
is going to continue. Surprisingly for a club that has a lot of
interest from people who join it, our membership is likely to
decline in the coming years. So, the additional housing is very
important to us.
In order to try and alleviate the burden of higher dues our
members going forward, we would like to accept into the club
more young families than we're currently going to be able to.
And the key component to that aside from the facilities, which
also constrained ultimately the size of the membership that we
can have, is the number of staff people that we can have and
can afford.
In some of the things, some alternatives we've investigated,
really everything other than housing the additional staff here on
our property in golf house, entailed a tax consequence to the
Club. Not a tax consequence but, an economic consequence
driven by tax law. If we house our staff off-campus, any
housing that we rent for them or any housing that we provide
for them, the imputed value of that housing must be grossed up
because they are going to have to include that amount or that
page 32 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
value for that rental or that value on the W2. So, we were
very, very cognizant of that.
Dick said, our estimated rental cost, were going to be
$50,000 to $60,000. He must be speaking from his recent review
of the market because last year I think our actual grossed up
rental cost, including the tax, was about $40,000. I've heard
that the rental market is tighter or seems to be tighter, I don't
know if that's the case, but he's been actively trying to find a
place for staff for next summer. We looked at that scenario
continuing to rent over a 30 year period. We think it's
appropriate to look at it over that, the building and this
project and any rentals for our staff over a 30 year period and
looked at the present value cost of those rentals, assuming
static rental rates and static tax rates. And the present value
of that $40,000 number assuming that it doesn't go up - tax
rates don't go up, is somewhere north of $600,000, in today's
dollars, discounting back all those 30 years of $40,000 rental
fee~.
Another alternative that - well when we add that to redoing
this building, which we feel we really do have to do because it
doesn't have much longer before it will be unsafe and will serve
no use to the membership at all given this condition. The cost
would be adding that $600,000 in present value rentals, about
$400,000 more than the cost of this project. We also looked at
buying other properties.
MRS. MOORE: Do you understand all this? Ok, good.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: We also looked at buying other
properties. Some scenarios based on the properties that were
available at that time to purchase in pure dollar terms would
have reduced that differential to somewhere in the range of
$250,000 to $300,000. Prior to the tax gross up for that value
on an annual basis for 30 years. If you add that tax
consequence again to the number it would have raised it
further. I haven't done the math.
MS. MOORE: Just explain. Tax gross up, what happens as an
employee, you get a certain salary. The salary has to be, let's
assume $30,000, but if it costs the club an additional $10,000 to
cover the taxes of your housing, off-campus housing, they have
to absorb that cost. So, it's not, it's your salary, but the
employee gets an 'x' amount of money. They don't want to hear
about the fact that because its off campus housing, they have to
pay an additional tax. That's not the way it works. The club
has to absorb that so that they take that into account as well.
It's very different if its on-campus housing, there is no tax
consequence. Off-campus housing there is. So, that's when
you talk about gross up.
page 33 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
MR. di BONAVANTURA: That's exactly right. Again, so we
also looked at purchasing rental properties and the additional
cost of that. We also looked at the concept of buying a house.
There's a whole host of other issues that are readily apparent to
everybody. When we got done with the process, again Sandy
led this process for over 1500 hours of free time on this
project, this was by far the most cost effective way for us to
achieve the two major goals that we were trying to achieve as a
Board and the first goal was to ensure that we could continue to
have a healthy vibrant membership and that we could continue to
meet the demand of the families who are members of the club and
two, that we could handle our facility problems which we saw
becoming very serious.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MRS. MOORE: There was always a, there was an off ( ) from
the last meeting that this housing is for senior staff. They
could certainly agree to any condition that limits them to that
because that is the intention that there will be no rental of the
rooms, it is not income-producing, it is for senior staff, it's,
what else?
MR. di Bonavantura: Maybe it's worth my just saying that
who the senior staff is, and Dick went through it to some
extent, but he left out a couple. We include in that group, not
only the golf pro and the tennis pro, both of whom are 30 years
old or thereabouts. Both probably will have families shortly.
We have also, an assistant club manager who is a person of
around 50 years old, a very, very mature and capable person
who will probably end up having that second apartment only
because he has a family today. In addition, we have a chef for
our restaurant which on an annual basis seems to be generating
for the club about $10,000 in net revenue, net profits for us,
which is very important for us as well. We're looking for those
kind of opportunities. He is a senior guy. A 30-year old
person who will manage a staff of three cooks. A cook for the
staff, a cook for the restaurant, a cook for the snack bar, etc.
We also share with the Yacht Club on the island a Sailing
Master; he or she performs Sailing Master role for the Yacht
Club for us the head of our sailing program. This person also
is a very mature older person. So, in that space of, I think in
just those five people you have five very senior, older people,
olde~, staff people who are different than we had been used to at
the club for many years. We used to have college kids, who
were, you know, who were sophomore to juniors in college
running all of our programs. Well, we're at the point now, that
we can't do that. We need the responsible people in those roles
and I would expect that very soon we will have an assistant
.Page 34 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
cook, or, we'll have another staff member who, or another tennis
pro who we need to bring on who will also be older in age and
will not be willing to live in a place like the lower apartment,
like the lower apartment is now at the old clubhouse. Or at the
bunkhouse for that matter.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, this is just a side. But, why
impact this location and not impact the other location with that?
MR. di BONAVANTURA: I need to defer to Sandy because
Sandy looked carefully at that.
MRS. ESSERS:
same question.
I'm glad you asked that, because I asked the
(Brief interruption to change tape.)
SANDY ESSERS: We did look into that actually and what we
discovered was that our main property is built now to the max.
We have a lot of wetlands on the property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We didn't see that by the way.
SANDY ESSERS: No, actually some of your members did but
you did not. I think the guy from the Health Department came
over to talk to us. We also looked at perhaps expanding the
base building on the existing footprint. However, in order to
do that, we would be doing enough construction to force us to
bring that whole building up to code and although we don't
think the building is dangerous, because we've closed off certain
parts of it, and we've added fire protection and all kinds of
devices to make it safe. If we were to do construction to add
this additional area for sleeping, you know, living rooms for
these people, we would have to bring the building up to code,
which we really can't do which would be another financial
hardship.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MRS. MOORE: The next consideration the Board should make is
that the variance will have no adverse effect on the impact on
the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or
district. In fact, it's quite the opposite. We're going to be
making the building safer, Eliminate health hazards with the
flooding that they've experienced from the basement from the
roof. The building is leaking from top to bottom and is a health
.Page 35 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
hazard, a fire hazard as well. The new building will provide for
drainage. They're going to install french drains. They're
going to install a whole new sanitary system. So, the
environmental affects of this new building will actually lessen.
They'll be less of an impact than the existing building because
your going to have everything that is going to be to code. In
particular the health, the sanitary system.
In addition, the design of the building is going to be in
keeping with the neighborhood. We discussed the design
before. The architectural design is in keeping with many of the
magnificent homes on Fishers Island and the building will be
3,000 perimeter-wise 3,000 sq. ft. So, it will in fact, be
somewhat smaller than some of the adjacent properties that I
believe are in the range of 5 to 7,000 sq. ft. in perimeter. So,
we're not talking height or second story. It's the main
structure.
The difficulty was not, is not self created. The structure
was constructed in 1929. It is a golf club with residential uses
prior to zoning and it's continued since zoning to the present.
So, and again we've gone over all the alternatives, so, really
this is the one and only location.
The final criteria is that the variance requested is minimal
variance practical given the personal benefits anticipated by the
applicant. Again, we've gone over each of the financial
consideration that they undertook. They really - as an entire
Board they looked at this project from all angles and all
alternatives because if they didn't have to be here, they
wouldn't be here. And they came to the conclusion that this
application was necessary. I believe that's all the standards.
We may have answered all of your questions before, but let me
very briefly, the parking plan, the sketch of the parking plan
for the existing club, should be on the plans. Is it on the
pla?_~?
SANDY ESSERS: I think we did one, yes.
MS. MOORE: Yes, we provided a plan for you. Across the
street, I know you're going to get to this, the property has
been used for the parking, the access parking for the past 20
years.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no contact with Mrs. Husband?
MS. MOORE: They've tried.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: We've tried. She is in Arizona. We've
been unable to reach her. I sent her a letter recently hoping
for a return.
,Page 36 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok.
MS. MOORE: And in fact, her letters never really addressed
any objections to the parking. That was not one of the
objections. Her concern was the residential use which we think
we've addressed as far as this is not going to be a college
hangout or partying. It's going to be senior staff and if you
look throughout the code, when it talks even about residential
use, -
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Excuse me, we're trying to
find where the other parcel is on this map.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not on the map.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Alright.
MS. MOORE: No, it wouldn't be.
It's a mile away.
It's about how many miles?
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is it a mile away?
SANDY ESSERS: Oh, the other parcel from the club?
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: For the parking?
SANDY ESSER: Yes, it's about a mile away.
MS. MOORE: Yes, about a mile away..
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, not for the parking. The
parking is across the street on Mrs. Husband's property.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is it across the street?
MEMBER COLLINS: Clarification time here. OK. What I'm
looking at, is in fact the drawing of the sanitary, prepared for
the sanitary system. But, it is a complete drawing of the
project with the -
MS. MOORE: Yes, you should have it in your file.
have an extra.
In fact I
MEMBER COLLINS:
I understand that.
the -
Yes, and the parking is across the street.
I just wanted to make sure that we're ali on
SANDY ESSER: I had done a sketch which I gave the Board in
the last package of where it was.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll look in there.
Page 37 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER COLLINS: That I have never seen.
MS. MOORE: I don't even have that.
SANDY ESSER: I don't have a copy of it.
the plan that you have?
Do you have it on
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're referring to the parking, the
on-site parking where you're niching it into the hill?
SANDY ESSER: On site parking.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's right.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, we can see that on this drawing.
Proposed gravel parking, and it's clear that it's pushed into a
hill and it's about three times the size of something marked
'existing parking area.'
SANDY ESSER: Correct.
MEMBER COLLINS: And this is at the north side of the club
and the remainder of the parking now and in the future is this
along the street parking across the road.
MS. MOORE: There is - you haven't had the benefit of seeing
it, but, across the road is a - there's about 15-20 feet depth,
it's a hill -
MEMBER COLLINS: I've seen the photos.
MS. MOORE: Oh, OK, alright, well sometimes it's not quite as
clear. 7 feet?
MR. DI BONAVANTURA: 7 - 8 feet -
MS. MOORE: Well it looks bigger.
street, and then you have -
Well you go across the
SANDY ESSERS: It's enough for a whole car.
MS. MOORE: Yes, a whole car so it got to be -
SANDY ESSERS: It's got to be 16 feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
so, it's a little less.
Well then, you diagonally park it,
SANDY ESSERS: Straight in. Sometimes it's diagonal.
.Page 38 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER COLLINS: No, I read in the testimony or some I
have read the entire record, that it was on the order of 18 to 20
cars could park on the space across the street?
SANDY ESSERS: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: Right, OK.
MS. MOORE: In fact, there is a barn there as well.
SANDY ESSERS: Yes, there is a little a - on the outside it was
against the little part that Mrs. Husband also owns that's down
the hill which shows actually a corner of it shows in one of the
photographs.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's the parking plan we
don't have on the map, the 18 to 20 cars.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, they don't own the property.
BOARD SECRETARY: No, they don't own the property, but I
just wanted to mention it.
MRS. ESSERS: -drew a plan on one of the maps that were
submitted to the Board.
(Inaudible discussion between attorney Moore and Ms. Essers
about a sketch).
MRS. MOORE: I didn't realize that we had one.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't remember seeing it.
MRS. MOORE: Why don't you look in their file and identify it?
MRS. ESSERS: A smaller plan perhaps.
It was with, like red magic marker.
Not on a large plan.
BOARD SECRETARY: Do you want to look at the file (Chairman
holding file).
MRS. ESSERS: Yes. It would be helpful.
MEMBER COLLINS: This is all I have. I really must say -just
because I wanted to be brought up to speed on this, I went
page through page the file in the office, and I didn't see a
drawn sketch.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
recess anyway, Sandy.
the next 18 days or so.
We'll take approximately a five minute
We're going to have another meeting in
.Page 39 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
MRS. ESSERS: OK. Good night (Club Member leaving meeting).
CHAIRMAN: I need a motion, ladies and gentlemen?
MEMBER TORTORA: So moved (to recess for a few minutes).
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Motion carried.
Hearing reconvened and continued as follows:
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I need a motion (to reconvene).
MEMBER DINIZIO: So moved.
Motion was carried. (During the break Mrs. Essers was able to
draw a parking plan on the map that was in the board file
showing the parking plan off-site on property of Mrs. Husband.)
MRS. MOORE: I have put in front of you during the break the
outline so you'd have it for reference, and I tried to point out
all of the standards identified. I've done five of them and
point out some of the facts that apply. That together with the
transcript should be helpful.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Before we get to the actual
Board Members, it somewhat appears to me that from the
dialogue that we had during the break, that we may have future
questions. So, in order to not close the record, we do have a
hearing scheduled for January 15th, so we may just conclude
quickly with you at that particular point. I don't know if it is
particularly necessary for you to bring these nice people from
their far places, OK and if there are any questions that - I'm
not telling you not to tell them to come, I'm just saying to you,
that you know, it is winter time; and you know, if there are
any questions that you can't answer, we certainly will give you
time to reduce it to writing, but we'll see how that goes.
MRS. MOORE: OK, maybe if we can address all your questions
now, we'll try.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing, do you have any
questions of these nice people?
MEMBER HORNING: I have a couple of questions. I would like
to know what the existing square footage of the golf building is,
living space that is, first floor, second floor?
SANDY ESSERS: Well all of it -
MS. MOORE: Go ahead, yes you'rer the keeper -
~Page 40 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
SANDY ESSERS: George, have you been in that building?
MEMBER HORNING: Yes I have.
SANDY ESSERS: So, you know all of it is not living space?
MEMBER HORNING:
put it that way.
That's right. Well, useable space, let me
SANDY ESSERS: OK, useable space, that's a little different.
The footprint is about right now is 56 x 51 (2856) which
computes to something over 2500 sq. ft. at grade and then
another I'd say 1500 up above which brings a total up to about
4,000. So, we're adding about - we're going to 56 x 56 (3136),
which is 2500 plus, so, we're going to a little over 5,000, maybe
5500.
MEMBER HORNING: You don't have exact figures on that?
MS. MOORE: On the plans does it show the sq. footage?
SANDY ESSERS: No, it just has the square footage of the
footprint.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, just let me reduce this for him.
Just give us in your estimation of the total second floor
apartment, front to back, meaning when I say front I mean road
front to back and then the lower apartment the first floor
apartment -
SANDY ESSERS: Just the apartment? He was asking -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what you want, right?
MEMBER HORNING: No, I was wondering how much bigger
square foot is the new building?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, the new building itself.
thought you're talking apartment to apartment.
MEMBER HORNING: No.
SANDY ESSERS: No, I'd say the new building is maybe 1500
sq. ft. bigger, but the footprint isn't that much bigger.
MEMBER HORNING: I understand that.
SANDY ESSERS: It's just that we've built out, you know, the
footprint on both levels.
MS. MOORE: You've used the architectural style of the -
~Page 41 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
SANDY ESSERS: The double gable roof.
MS. MOORE: The double gable roof.
MEMBER HORNING: How much taller will the new building be?
SANDY ESSERS: It's actually only about 6 feet taller.
MEMBER HORNING: About 6. Do you have an exact figure?
SANDY ESSERS: We do have it on an elevation. I'll look it up
for you.
MEMBER HORNING: I thought it was about 8?
SANDY ESSERS: It's been a while since I looked at that
particular one. Yes, not including the chimney.
MEMBER HORNING: Right.
SANDY ESSER: It's about seven (7).
MEMBER HORNING: OK.
MS. MOORE: There's a peak it would be where the 72.6?
SANDY ESSER: Yes.
MS. MOORE: The height of the roof line is 72.6.
SANDY ESSER: Right and the existing building is about 65.
MEMBER HORNING: The peak?
SANDY ESSER: Of the existing building, yes. As you know
from the site, it doesn't obstruct anything. If you know the
house behind it, the Hobson house, it's quite a bit higher. In
fact, I think we have photo of that some place.
MEMBER HORNING: Well the roof line right now in my mind,
level with the grade of the Hobson house.
SANDY ESSERS: It's just a little bit lower.
MEMBER HORNING: So, the roof line of the proposed building
will be 5 - 6 feet taller than the grade.
SANDY ESSERS: But they have a hedge up to theirs.
MEMBER HORNING: Yes, they do have a hedge.
.Page 42 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
SANDY ESSERS: Also, if you look out from any of their
windows, you will not see this building.
MEMBER HORNING: Well -
SANDY ESSERS: Because their building faces a different
direction.
MEMBER HORNING: Right and there are trees there but, this
time of year the leaves are gone.
SANDY ESSER: Right, but they have no windows that face
over this building.
MS. MOORE: And if you saw - you should have gotten in the
mail from the Hobsons, all of the Hobsons. I think every single
one of them, heirs and the property is in a Trust, so they had
everybody sign off, and they are very much in favor of this
project and their support; and they're really the most - the most
affected because the building is close to us.
MEMBER HORNING: I want to ask a question on the parking
problem there. If you fo]ks had approached - Mrs. Husband's
name has come for example. Couldn't you approach her and get
a 100 year, 200 year lease or something, or a swap of land that
could be utilized for parking?
MRS. MOORE: Yes, you didn't benefit from the last hearing.
Why don't you talk about the conversation you had with the
Husbands?
MR. di BONAVANTURA: Sure. Mr. Homing we as I mentioned
last time we were here made a pretty significant effort to talk
to all the neighbors that we could find throughout the island. I
think the only immediate neighbor of the club that we didn't talk
to was Pagnatta who I haven't seen in the years I've been going
to the island. I know exists, that's all I know but, we spent
about 1 hour and 15 minutes to an 1-1/2 hours with each of the
neighbors, including Mrs. Husband and her two sons. We had a
very, we went through the plans in detail. This was sought of
midsummer. Went through the plans in detail, top to bottom,
answered any questions they had, made ourselves available,
made sure they understood, that if they had any problems or
any concerns with the project that they could call us and should
call us. It was myself and two other Board Members, Mr.
Anthony, who was here the last time and Mrs. Parsons who
unfortunately couldn't get down from Providence for this meeting
tonight. She hoped to be able to do that. We had a very nice
conversation with the entire family. I think that if I had the
foresight to have a letter in hand that would have said, 'we like
.Page 43 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
this project, and we're very comfortable with the project,' that
all three of them would have signed it right there on the spot.
I continued to be a little surprised that given my privy to
Mrs. Husband except that she is a little bit of an elderly woman,
that I didn't hear anything from them before this letter came
in. As I mentioned the last time, I did speak to her son and
read the letter to him, that he is convinced that his mother
didn't write the letter, she certainly signed it, it seems, but
he's convinced that she didn't write it. So, I'm kind of in a
vacuum about it. All I can say is that when we left her house
after going through the plans with her in detail, all three of us
felt very comfortable that we had the entire family for support
for the project.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
key issue.
You understand why that's such a
MR. di BONAVANTURA: Probably as not as deeply as I should.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, off site parking which we're - I
mean we're talking on-site parking of three cars here, or
whatever the proposed amount is. Basically that's ADA's
standards anyway and you might stick another car in on a good
day. Please that's not a sarcastic statement. It's very
difficult to have the amount of acreage that you have and not
have on-site parking. All your parking is off site and you don't
have a parking agreement with this lady. Now, we realize that
you in time and years to come, and I'm not wishing that the lady
passes on, but if she does pass on, it appears that you do have
a dialogue with her two sons who will probably bequeath the
property. So, there is that anticipation that you might have an
agreement with them as Mr. Homing had mentioned. However,
at this time there is no agreement. She could very simply
extinguish that at any time by putting up a cord and cording off
that entire area.
MRS. MOORE: I don't believe that legally she would be able to
do that. And I don't want to - in fact the Gazette read the
transcript and said, oh, you're going to bring an adverse
possession. I said, no, no, no, and I very careful that we
don't get into too much of whether who's going to do what and
anticipate what the reaction of the effect is going to be. They
have used this area for 20 years.
SANDY ESSERs: More than.
MS. MOORE: More than 20 years. Adverse possession goes
after 10 years. All right. So, there is clearly, they have used
it, it has been open and notorious, and all of the aspects of an
adverse possession claim, they've been using this property.
.Page 44 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
The reality is that the golf course is presently there. The
testimony has, that Chris has given you is, is that the size of
the club is dictated by the membership and the membership from
last meeting is actually limited not so much by this building,
but by the pool and other facilities at the main building. So
that, right now, you have a membership with the use of this
facility. I can understand the reluctance or the concern, the
overwhelming concern if we were talking about a vacant piece of
property, and we were trying to locate for the first time the
golf club right here on this site. But, what we have here, is a
presently existing building where it has been located. I think
even if we had a vacant parcel we'd meet all the standards, all
the burdens to be able to locate it here because we've
established financial hardship in being able to locate it
anywhere else. But, we're dealing with the same parking, the
same activity that presently exists. So to make that such an
obstacle, I don't believe it's founded.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not an obstacle, we're just trying
MS. MOORE: I wish we could. If we had it in our power to
give you something to make you be able to be more comfortable,
believe me, all of us would certainly provide that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, no, Chris asked the question,
that's why I attempted to answer it, net only for the three
existing Board Members, but for the two new Board Members.
MS. MOORE: Oh, yes. No, this is an issue that has to be
addressed.
SANDY ESSERS: The other thing you have to remember is this
is only a 9-hole golf course. We never have 9 foursomes on that
course. I think George would attest to that. There's one day a
year when we do, and that's when we have the Hog, for the
Walsh Park open and that's when we have you know, shotguns
start and we have teams of six going off and there's a charity
event and stuff like and people basically park at the beach.
It's a 9 hole course. You never have to get a tee time. People
walk out there when they get there. They walk out on the golf
course and they play golf. They're usually two people at a time
on each hole. It's a very under-utilized facility. It's not
like we have 200 people coming to play golf all at one time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. OK.
· MR. di BONAVANTURA: Just if I can respond to your comment,
your question, Mr. Homing. The club is always as long as I've
been there had a very good relationship with its neighbors.
know from the standpoint of the Boards that I have been on now
,Page 45 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
for five years that every time the neighbor has a comment or a
suggestion or question we take that very seriously and we act
on it. And that goes to parking in front of their homes, that
goes to closing off a parking area next to our upper tennis
courts at the Main Club because it was causing inconvenience for
neighbor. We try and respond very aggressively and Dick
would say the same thing were he here to be good neighbors.
We try very hard to do that. I think that I have to talk to my
Board, but we may now have to go and ask Mrs. Husband, just
to ensure that we are going to not have any altercation with she
and her family for something like that. An agreement for the
right-of-way, whatever it would happen to be. I loathe to do it
because this has always been a trusting relationship between the
club and all of the neighbors. This letter which I find very
unfortunate because in no way is reflective of the spirit of the
conversation that we had with her.
MRS. MOORE: In fact, it doesn't address the parking at all.
Even that letter she doesn't say I don't want their parking.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know, you talk about the
heartbeat of the President and the Vice President. In a
heartbeat, you know, the Vice President becomes the President.
It's the same situation here. The drawing of a deed, now enters
you into a Bar Claim Action to get an Adverse Possession Claim
for this piece of property if she just decides to sell her
property, and it's the same situation.
MS. MOORE: It may be, but, this property has actually been in
the family for generations. But, keep that in mind, and you
have a woman who, honestly I've never met her, but from what I
understand she's elderly and her faculties may be a little more
affected and her sons are truly the ones that are going to be
stepping into this property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's what I said, but I mean -
MR. di BONAVENATURA: What you're saying as a matter of
prudence.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that's what I'm saying because
really quite honestly, you know, I mean she could decide to give
the property to a foundation. I mean, who knows?
MS. MOORE: That's true, but, that would not prevent us from
bringing an action at that time. I mean we have, there has
been a right established by the use of that area. It has been
cooperative. It has not, no-one needed to bring an action to
compel the use of it.
· Page 46 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, it's not one person. It's
several members of the club at certain times have parked on the
property. You know what I'm saying? It's not like just one
family using a driveway. You know what I'm saying?
MRS. MOORE: No, I understand, but the club as a group, as an
organization has used that just like the club as a corporate
entity.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think it more difficult to bring that
action when you're dealing with it on that basis.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I would have thought that the fact
that it's myriad individual people who were doing the parking,
not the club, not the club saying this is our lot and you can
park here, but rather simply that the property owner tolerated
the golfer's parking. It would just make it much harder to make
that kind of claim. That was my reaction.
MS. MOORE: It may or may not. I don't know I have never
researched the question whether or not we could bring such an
action. It's not - it hasn't been necessary, it may never be
necessary. In fact, the topography of that parcel I think
they've got 3.5 acres, something like that and they are really
barricaded from site .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It appears so.
MS. MOORE: By that huge hill and in fact, the barn is there,
it's really - I'm surprised that the town didn't come through and
actually acquire that area because I think that the Highway
Department-do they use it for the truck or something in the
barn?
SANDY ESSERS: The mosquito girls.
MS. MOORE: Oh, the mosq- what? The mosquito girls?
SANDY ESSER: The mosquito girls.
Mr. Di BONAVANTURA: It's worth explaining Sandy.
SANDY ESSER: Don't ask.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: In 30 seconds.
MS. MOORE: Yes, tell us.
SANDY ESSER: We have I think, part of our tax dollars go to
Mosquito Control?
Page 47 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct.
SANDY ESSER: And we have two young women who usually help
contain mosquitoes by spreading stuff around on the Island and,
they actually live in the barn and park their truck there. Well,
that's what it is used for.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. George?
MR. HORNING: I'd like to address another issue here also.
Concerning the usage of the premises there. You go to great
length it seems in a lot of this literature to present historic
usage. You have this first tee, that it's been there's since day
one. You have this putting green that's somewhat historic nature
and financially would impact you if you did anything with it.
The building itself historic use as a golf clubhouse, and yet you
seem to be proposing to completely change the usage of the
premises by having these apartments for people who are not
working at the golf course.
MRS. MOORE: No.
MR. HORNING: Yes.
SANDY ESSER: They work at the club. The apartments have
never been particularly designated for golf use. They've always
been apartments that were available for club staff. It's never
been necessarily for golf use only.
MEMBER HORNING: But, you want to change that and make it
the tennis pro, the cook?
SANDY ESSER: No, it's always been that way.
MEMBER HORNING: No, it has not.
MR. di BONAVANTURA:
number of years now.
It's had the golf pro in there for a
MR. HORNING: Yes, right.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: For the last 15, 16, 17 years.
MEMBER HORNING: Well, since I was a youngster, when
Rowland Oswell was the golf pro and they lived there.
MR. DI BONAVANTURA: For a long period of time.
MEMBER HORNING: Yes, years, 50 years maybe.
· Page 48 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
MR. di BONAVANTURA: The other apartment has always had
someone non, not related to golf. Has always had someone who
has been in recent years as far back as I can remember, has
been the tennis pro.
MEMBER HORNING: And now you want to increase this usage
by club people who don't work at the golf course.
MS. MOORE: Well, keep in mind, that the club consists of the
golf club and the swim club. That's Hay Harbor Club, Inc.,
correct?
MS. ESSER & MR. di BONAVANTURA: Yes, Right.
MS. MOORE: OK, so, Hay Harbor Club, Inc. consists of two
maii~ outbuildings. The four rooms, for four senior staff are for
the employees of Hay Harbor Club, Inc., and it would be for the
chef, the manager, the assistant chef and the sailing master, or
any -
SANDY ESSER: Whoever the most senior people.
MS. MOORE: It would be the staff. The senior staff of Hay
Harbor Club, Inc. So, we're not proposing to bring somebody
from the liquor store to come in and rent from Hay Harbor Club
one of the rooms. In fact, we've said, absolutely not. That is
not something that we're proposing we would covenant what you
can do it as a condition of an approval or we would certainly
agree in our own testimony. We have already that it is for staff
only. So, with respect to the use it's an accessory incidental,
it's all part of running a club, a recreational facility and
under the Zoning Code, it could be a swim club, it's a golf
club, it's you list all of them, I don't belong to club, but
there are various types of clubs, and it's this housing for
senior staff that is crucial to the operations of a clubhouse.
They can't afford to bring out, to rent and house people. It's
part of their salary structure, it's part of their expectations
when they bring people in from wherever, these pros or
professionals, they come from all over the country and they have
to be attracted to this facility and one of the things that is
almost, is mandatory, is to provide them housing and adequate
housing.
MEMBER HORNING: I understand that. I'm just trying to make
this clear in my mind what the club is trying to do. I'm reading
here from material that you submitted, Sandy Esser says 'there
would be four bedrooms on the second floor at the front of the
building for 8 staff.' Now, this in addition to the two
apartments. So, you're talking about -
SANDY ESSER: No, it's not going to be 8 staffer, for -
Page 49 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
;
MEMBER HORNING: This is what this statement says.
SANDY ESSER: Oh, I was mistaken. I've told you, it's just for
4.
MS. MOORE: Which statement, my statement?
MEMBER HORNING: July 19, 1997, meeting between the Members
of the Board of Directors of the Hay Harbor Club and the
Golfing Members of the Club.
MS. MOORE: Oh, you're reading the, what is it, the Minutes of
the Meeting, or something like that?
SANDY ESSER: No, that wasn't a hearing that we had here.
MEMBER HORNING: I'm not saying that it was a hearing. I'm
saying it's information that you submitted.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: What was the date of that, July 19,
19977
ME~.IBER HORNING: Yes. So, I'm reading here, there would be
four bedrooms on the second floor, the front of the building for
eight staff. That's in addition to the golf pro and the tennis
pro which you're accommodating in two separate apartments.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: No, it's intended to be, it was
intended to be four staff.
SANDY ESSER: Four staff.
MS. MOORE: Four staff, yes, keep in mind that the transcript
is the relevant information, that letter -
MEMBER HORNING: The transcript doesn't mention numbers of
people. It mentions numbers of bedrooms.
SANDY ESSER: No, we've talked many times about 4 people. I
think Dick Duggan mentioned 4 people.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 4 people and 4 bedrooms.
SANDY ESSER: 4 people and 4 bedrooms.
MEMBER TORTORA: Five staff people in my notes.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: In keeping with the notion that we
will only be putting senior staff in there for whom it would be
inappropriate to have a roommate.
Page 50 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
MEMBER TORTORA: I just want to get this correct because I
did make notes on this before and if my notes are incorrect -
MS. MOORE: Yes, please.
MEMBER TORTORA:
before.
I thought you did mention 5 staff people
MR. di BONAVANTURA: In addition to the golf pro would be in
there.
MS. MOORE: Why don't you clarify who is going to be in there.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: We have two big apartments and then
we have 4 bedrooms upstairs. The golf pro will take one of the
big apartments. My guess is that the assistant club manager
because he is most senior and is with family also will take the
second apartment.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, you had said that.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: And then, we have the head chef.
MEMBER TORTORA:
the assistant.
The chef, the sailing master and possibly
MR. di BONAVANTURA: And the tennis pro as well.
MEMBER TORTORA: So the total is?
MR. di BONAVANTURA: 6 people all together. 4 singles and 2
apartments, maybe families.
MEMBER TORTORA: OK. I think we've got it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything else, George?
MEMBER HORNING: Yes, I want to pursue this too because of
the context of, it's important how many people staff are there
because it might increase parking considerations.
MRS. MOORE: Oh, we should point out, yes, that the parking,
go ahead you talk about the facility.
MR. di Bonavantura: Yes, one of the things Dick mentioned, I
think at the last meeting, Mr. Homing, was that the plan will be
for none of the staff living at that building other than the golf
pro.
.Page 51 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
SANDY ESSERS: Other than the two apartment owners because
there are two parking spaces for those two apartments in
addition to the handicap space that we own.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: To have their cars at that site.
MEMBER HORNING. The only two people will be the people in
the apartment of course.
MR. DiBONAVENTURA and MRS. MOORE: Right.
MR. DiBONAVENTURA: The other four will have their cars at
the main clubhouse and will either be driven back and forth by
truck or will have bicycles and travel in that way which is for
the employees.
MEMBER HORNING: OK. And my other question would be I'm
interested in an overall picture of what the Club is trying to
accomplish because I understand from what you said and my own
knowledge of being in the Fire Department, the Main Clubhouse
itself has condemned areas in the building that if they were not
condemned could be housing these people. Possibly, that you
want to house off site. Do you have any long term intentions
to do anything with the Main Clubhouse, which may be in as bad
shape as the golf building?
MR. di BONAVANTURA: Let Sandy respond to that.
SANDY ESSERS: Luckily, the main clubhouse has been attended
to over time much better than the golf building and it's not as
nearly in bad condition as the golf building and as Mr. Homing
mentioned, the third floor of the main clubhouse, has been
condemned because of the fire egress situation and we've been
told by the Building Inspector that we cannot bring that up to
code, no way can we ever open that third floor up for housing.
I'm sorry. What was the other part of your question?
MEMBER HORNING: Well, I mean unless you rebuild that
building.
SANDY ESSER: We would have to tear it down and build it
again.
MEMBER HORNING: Have you been thinking about doing that at
all?
SANDY ESSER: No. We can't afford that.
MEMBER HORNING: OK, and one final question then for Mr. di
Bonavantura. I'm curious in the transcript of the hearing that
occurred already, you mentioned having a policy of having 440
Page 52 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
memberships which are families. You mentioned that you
currently have a total of 410. You'd like to increase it. That
would be 30 more families.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: We can't.
MEMBER HORNING: And yet if I may quote you, it says, "the
impact of that is the impact of your current membership is that
the pool, the swimming areas, the sailing programs, the tennis
courts have been maxed out. In terms of capacity those are the
facilities that are controlling the level of our membership."
MR. di BONAVANTURA: Correct.
MEMBER HORNING: So, why are you trying to increase your
membership by 30 more families? Wouldn't that create more of a
parking impact than what you already have?
MR. di BONAVANTURA: I think it's a - it would if that were
the case. I think the way we run our club is to make sure
that the club is user friendly as we can make it for the
membership. One characteristic of that is that is not so overly
crowded that everybody has a terrible time and doesn't want to
go there anymore. So, even though a long time ago, way before
my time, there was an arbitrary number of 440 members a set.
That is not what is going to govern the number of members we
had. If we had, however, if we had 30 older members who came
once every two or three weeks to play tennis on the tennis
court, we could accommodate that and have 30 more members in
the club today. The realities of life are we are losing those
members and have an interest from young families with more
children, and so that 410 members that we had at the end of last
year will probably go down to 404, 405 this year, or the
subsequent sum.
MEMBER HORNING: OK and one final question or comment then.
Since everybody has agreed that I've seen that the building
suffers from drastic neglect and the main building does also to
maybe a slightly lesser degree, but has portions that are
condemned, what assurance would anybody have that going into
the future, you wouldn't neglect your new building?
MR. di BONAVANTURA: We've seen the results of the non,
neglect in this - in having to do this project. We struggled a
long time as a Board; and number 1, incurring for the members
of the club this kind of additional cost. Many of us, on the
Board, initially wanted to avoid that as much as we possibly
could.
Page 53 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
Number 2, we didn't want Sandy to have or anybody on the
Board to have to spend the amount of time that was necessary to
develop the project to the state that it's in today.
I think we are at a point where the record is so clear, that
the result of the neglect of the deferred maintenance that we
practiced on this golf clubhouse has been so severe for the
membership of the club that that won't ever happen again and
we had in the last 7, 8 years under Sandy's direction and the
direction of the two past Presidents of the Club and myself made
sure that part of our budget every year is a substantial enough
capital budget to make sure that our facilities are maintained in
as good working order as we can possibly make them, and that
goes for the Main Clubhouse as well. The Main Clubhouse we
have put a lot of money into making sure that those portions
which are not condemned are in as top quality shape as we can
make them. And none of our Planning Committee discussions
have included over the last three years or two years since I've
been President, three years before that, have included any
discussion about doing anything significant with the Main
Clubhouse. We've view that clubhouse aside from the condemned
portions, as being in very, very, good shape, able to meet the
requirements of our membership.
MEMBER HORNING: OK. Thank you very much. Thank you,
Jerry.
SANDY ESSER: Can I just say one thing?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely.
SANDY ESSERS: I'd also have to say the condemnation of our
third floor has nothing to do with neglect. There was nothing
about neglect on the third floor. It has to do with the turns
and the stairs and the egress problem. It has nothing to do
with neglect.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: Or deferred maintenance.
SANDY ESSER: Or deferred maintenance.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to say, apart from what
Mr. Homing asked, it's the impact to this site that we're
talking about tonight, that has caused you to impact and bring
this application before us. And that's where we're delving into
those aspects of that; and of course not ever having seen the
other site, this is not a sarcastic, this a straight pragmatic
statement, OK, as generic as it can be, that we're not here to
evaluate the other one, we're only saying that your coming in
and you're building additional staffing here, which is something
that we are addressing as a matter of this application.
Page 54 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
SANDY ESSERS: Well, if I can say just one more thing. I
think the question, how can you be sure that we won't allow this
new building to experience neglect? That's kind of a political
question.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, not really.
MRS. ESSERS: I don't think that relates a lot to our application.
CHAIRMAN: It does in some respects because if you were to
come, we may not, any of us may not be on this Board, and
quite honestly, it could be your children that could be back
here in ten years and say, listen the building is neglected, we
now want to build 4 more rooms.
SANDY ESSER: This building is 70 years old.
CttAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no,
just, we're just giving you some
personal.
I understand that. We're
impact. So don't take it
MRS. ESSER: I won't be here next time.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: But you're still going to be an ad hoc
member of the facility (joking).
MRS. ESSER: Never.
MR. DiBONAVENTURA: What I wanted to say basically was,
that you know I think our, our, what we suffered in a
probably the 20 years prior to the last ten years was a
membership that really did not want to pay for the maintenance
of the club. It was very purely that, and that included at that
time the Members of the Board. Since that time, over the last
ten years, you will see if you came with us, a pattern of
increased dues, increasing dues and increasing initiation fees,
so that we could insure that we number 1, covered our annual
maintenance budget and our annual capital expenditure budget
which we're very careful about doing today; and 2, built up
what we call this rainy day fund, which is a fund that we
basically are reserved for catastrophes and for unexpected
capital requirements.
The way the club is being managed today financially is a
new legacy for the future. It's a ten-year legacy already in
place. Very different from the prior 20 and 30 years which was
no-pay legacy. We know that we have a tremendous asset
here. The Board knows that our children will have a
tremendous asset here if we take care of it, and we've been
very financially careful to insure that we make those needed
repairs and those needed commitments for capital dollars each
and every year, and if we find out that in our budget process
Page 55 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
we're not going to have the money, we're going to raise the
dues.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: I've expressed my concern.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: I don't think I have anything further at
this time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, more of a comment than anything else.
Certainly I think the additional four feet that you're putting on
this building is more a function of safety and a new stairwell, a
new thing like that as opposed to aesthetics or even increasing
the volume sought of speak of the building. I would dare say,
that neglect of that building I didn't see it. I didn't really
see neglect. I saw maybe 70 years ago a building a house into a
hill probably was something you want to do, but, I mean at this
time, you know, you probably wouldn't do that and certainly you
would do it a lot differently and I would say, that if you were
to try stop the leaking from the foundation, certainly you would
probably trigger what you're here now for. If you were to go
and replace that foundation, I feel it would be just entirely too
much to spend. The Building Inspector would say, no, you
can't do that, you have to come for a variance, etc., it would
be the whole same thing. I can't see in my opinion why
anybody wouldn't want to make the situation upstairs better.
I mean, if we have Fire Codes and they're 1997 Fire Codes, that
building doesn't cut it in anyway. In my opinion anything you
can do to make that a safer place is going to be helpful.
Certainly comparing it to any other club, that other
clubhouse, I've never seen it, but I can just tell you that I
don't know of any building that could possibly be built with
three stories in Southold Town. I don't believe that you can do
it and I believe that's the reason why it's condemned. You
utilized it, I'm assuming you utilized at some point in time and
someone said, someone with a little common sense said, wait, it's
a fire trap, it's condemned just as the building we're talking
about right now in my opinion should be.
In my mind, I mean, the Hobsons they sum it all up.
Again, a new clubhouse does not present any change in the
current situation which is perfectly acceptable and perfectly
acceptable is I see probably no increase in use here. Certainly
the parking situations are questioned, but if the place remained
the way it was, the question would still be, where are you going
Page 56 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
to park the cars? The only reason why we're talking about
parking at this particular situation at this time is because you
want a place that's going to meet current codes. That's the
only reason why we're talking about parking. We wouldn't be
talking about parking if as you are perfectly allowed to do right
now, have people living in there and basically an unsafe
structure and have the parking the way it is currently. You
could live like that for 100 years from now. You could still
have the same thing. Patch the roof, put a pump in the
basement, you know, I mean so to my mind I think you
presented the case very well; and I'm hoping that people will see
the light that parking is not particular to this application in
my opinion, and that you're not asking to increase anything. I
don't believe you are. If you are, correct me, but, it seems to
me, that you're just asking to improve on the condition of
safety. That's basically all I have. I think you did a
marvelous job presenting it. I read your little thing while you
talked to me and this will be helpful.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Final question to Sandy.
and air conditioning of the new building?
Heating
SANDY ESSER: Yes, both.
May to October.
The golf pro is there actually from
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So he needs a substantial amount, he
or she.
SANDY ESSER: Right. He will have both heating and air
conditioning. The four sleeping rooms in the front, upstairs,
will not have air conditioning because they have good
ventilation. But, the golf pro because of the length of time
he's there, because he's the most senior, he'll have heating and
air conditioning.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MRS. MOORE: Just for your records, during the break, we took
the diagram and we identified 260 linear feet in front of the
building. It was the area that's been used as parking. We
estimate, really it's wider than code, but 10 feet width so you
have 26 parking spaces that are available there; and that's what
has been used during the past.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can't think of anything else.
Shall we close the hearing pending any further communication
with these nice people?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I'm concerned about I guess the people
who have the parking and that particular person. Is there
. Page 57 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
anything that you think that you could possible could give us
that would.
MS. MOORE: We tried and in all this time we've been trying
and the problem is, as I see it, well first the mother is living
in Arizona, so the distance is difficult.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, would another month help you? I mean
in other words, do you know what I mean?
MS. MOORE: The problem is that if we don't come up with
anything in a month. I mean, if we come up with anything we'll
send it to you and we hope you'll incorporate it.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: We'll keep trying.
MS. MOORE: Yes, we'll keep trying. You could leave it open
for purposes of any correspondence that we get from the
Husband family.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll close it to verbatim then and
we'll leave it open until January 15th.
MS. MOORE: All right.
sensitive. She's elderly.
We'll keep trying but really it's very
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that alright?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh, yes. I'm just concerned that they have
every opportunity at least.
MS. MOORE: Oh, yes, we'll keep trying.
SANDY ESSER: I think it's probably more likely that we might
be able to do that when we can have a face to face conversation
with her in the summer. I'm not saying, we're going to continue
this problem. We're going to have a meeting with her face to
face. She's, we can talk to her.
MS. MOORE: It would be advantageous for them to have
something in writing, an easement, certainly something legal for
future, from now to the future.
MEMBER TORTORA: I'd like to say something you may consider
inappropriate but my sense of the concern is that this is a key
factor in the Board's determination; and I would urge you to
treat it that way.
MRS. MOORE: We have taken it very seriously. I also what to
caution the Board that this golf course, and Mr. Dinizio really
pointed out very distinctly that the golf club has been used and
. Page 58 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
the residential use, the two have been used since the 1900s, and
it will be continue to be used, so if we could provide the Board
with something in writing we would.
To deny this application based on the fact that we have to
rely on off site parking, I think would be inappropriate given
the fact that we have an existing condition that is not going to
be intensified. It is what it is. We have it, we can continue
it, and what we want to do, is bring everything up to code.
We will keep trying. Keep in mind that she is elderly.
Mr. di Bonavantura has spoken to her and the sons, and the
sons really kind of monitor what she does and take care of her;
and at that time there is no problem, and again the son really
felt that that was not a letter that she would have drafted.
Whether she knew exactly what she was doing when she signed
it, there's no way of telling and we'll keep trying, but
certainly because I won't have a chance to come before you to
explain it away if we are unable to get anything in writing
that should not be a reason for a denial.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, that's my concern, that you won't have
the opportunity to, you know, come face to face with us also.
I mean, if I'm looking into the future, I'm looking into maybe
somehow parking being incorporated into the decision as some
type of stipulation.
MRS. MOORE: Well then we would seek it some time in the
future. That's admirable, but I think it takes two people to
agree to getting something like an easement, a permanent
easement, or even an acquisition and that would be wonderful
and I think the (club) board would, it would be in your best
interest to so something like that.
SANDY ESSERS: That's what they want to do.
MS. MOORE: Yes, but I don't think - you haven't offered to
buy it perhaps to my knowledge?
SANDY ESSER: No.
MS. MOORE: It's been such a cooperative venture and
everybody has been the same, all the people, all the parties
have been the same. That, that issue hasn't had to be
pursued. You know, it's a gentlemanly island and woman, but,
everybody is cordial, gentle person, and there's no need for
aggressive action by anyone. I think that's - certainly as a
club you don't go after your neighbors and the Husband Family
based on prior conversations and interactions, there has been no
reason to believe that they would change their mind or change
their attitude about this parking.
Page 59 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
MR. di Bonavantura: I also would like to mention that we in our
conversations with Mrs. Husband and her sons, we did not go
into the financial details of why we wanted to do this particular
project versus something else. So, we didn't talk about the
impact of something else. A thousand dollars per family for 400
families on the island, I mean, she is unaware of any of that
information. When she signed this letter, you know, we have
some idea of who prepared it and asked her to sign it. She was
given none of that information either, and I would venture to
say that she did not have at her fingertips the information that
we had shared with her when we went to speak with her. But,
my feeling is that when we get a chance to, when I get a chance
with my board to sit with her, and speak with her and explain
everything to her and explain the impact on the members of the
club, individually, the 400 members, financially, and on the club
as a whole as an organization, that I think given that she is a
lovely lady, that she will have a different reaction than her
letter seems to suggest to the project as a whole. But, I don't
think we're going to have that opportunity unless I get on a
piane and go to Arizona.
MS. MOORE: And even that's not appropriate without her sons
being present.
MR. di BONAVANTURA: The logististics of that are difficult.
We probably won't have that opportunity until June.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sandy, the actual increase in square
footage between the old footprint and the new footprint is what?
SANDY ESSERS: 56 x 4 which is 200 (224) and then that jump
that's 10 x 10, so it's 300 sq. ft.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At two story, so that's 600?
SANDY ESSER: Six hundred,
building has all these setbacks so
I'd say overall it's about 1500.
but you know, the original
it's very hard to determine.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 1500 sq. ft.
SANDY ESSER: Yes, because you know, if you look at the
pictures of the building, the back of the building is really
sought of single-story and dug out below kind of, so, I'd say
about 1500 more.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Larger.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, and then the actual size of the
footprint of the living areas, in your opinion, between what
Page 60 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
existed or what exists now. I mean, let's be honest, the
existing apartment on the second story is a large apartment?
SANDY ESSER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean that's big. It runs the whole
distance and includes the gable end.
SANDY ESSER: Well the whole second floor is residential. The
first floor, actually only about one-third of it is residential
at the back. I guess the stairway is hard to calculate but I'd
say the actual living space and the rest of it is common area,
bathrooms and a common room and the pro shop and back
storage.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any guess on what the second story
is in square footage?
SANDY ESSER: 25 x 25. It's the same footprint. Well, there
are also setbacks. You know there's that little in the front,
that little served porch. So, it's 2500, probably 2200.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think it's less than that.
SANDY ESSER: Maybe.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know why, because it's pretty
narrow upstairs once you get up there. Under the eaves.
MRS. MOORE: It's narrow unusable space.
SANDY ESSER: Yes, parts of
gable. So, I don't know what
closets are really useable.
MEMBER DINIZIO: By today's standards, all upstairs is not
usable.
SANDY ESSER: It's not, OK.
MEMBER DINIZIO: At this point. I mean at this point.
MRS. MOORE: You mean State Code?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right.
MRS, MOORE: Well, that's something else. I
talking layman's term of usable you know, is usable.
it are closets because of the
you consider usable. I think
mean you're
Page 61 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: What you're using and what you can continue
to use, in perpetuity as opposed to what's usable which we'll
discuss are two different things in my opinion, and you know
start counting closets you know, what's a three-foot door? You
know, a closet.
SANDY ESSER: I'm just talking footprint. I mean I don't really
know what the distinction is. Obviously there's been circulation
issues and there's stairways and hallways and so on and I guess
you don't consider those as living area. Do you want a really
specific calculation?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it would be nice.
*SANDY ESSER: I'll do that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you don't mind doing that.
SANDY ESSER: I don't mind. I'll do it for the next hearing,
for the record or whatever.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, you can give it to us by
January 15th. We don't want to impact your Christmas here.
Any further comment on your part?
MRS. MOORE: I don't think so. No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any further comment on the Board's
part?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, do you want to close the hearing?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we're only closing it as to
verbatim, and it will be closed permanently unless we hear that
you have some inkling of an agreement somewhere then we can
change that by January 15th.
MEMBER TORTORA: What's the, I mean then what's the
(unfinished).
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's to close the hearing and then the
62 days start.
MEMBER TORTORA: Is there a purpose that we're not closing it
tonight ?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I'd like to see if they can have, if they
can give us anything to that point.
Page 62 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And Sandy is going to give us the
information that I just asked for.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm kind of wondering why are we closing it
to verbatim too? Why?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we don't have to close it to
verbatim. But, I mean, I can't see any reason to continue -
MRS. MOORE: Put it this way. I won't plan to come in to
continue a presentation because they're really the ones who can
answer the detail questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And there really is no reason to
continue the presentation quite honestly to be honest with you,
Jim.
MS. MOORE: Right.
to hear.
I think you've heard everything you want
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well with the exception of, you know,
anything that might come up between then.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Then we can reopen it. That's the
point. What we're saying, we're reducing it to writing at this
point. If there is anything that changes that requires it to be
reopened.
MS. MOORE: I just request (unfinished).
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Either it be a letter on either
persons part and we'll do it, and it may not be a mutual date on
the 15th because you may not come, you may not be able to
come, whatever, we might have to make it at a different date.
MRS. MOORE: That's if we need testimony, if we don't need it
then on January 15, it will close.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If we need testimony, right.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The written portion will close?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
Everything will close.
Yes, the written portion.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No wait, you're saying two
things.
MRS. MOORE: No, he's saying let's leave, since it's staying
until January 15, let's leave it open and carry it over.
· Page 63 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, my original request was close it
to verbal. No, my first was to close it. Now, it's close it to
verbal.
MRS. MOORE: Right.
BOARD SECRETARY: Close it to verbal, Pat, extend the
written to January 15th, that was his offer. OK?
MRS. MOORE: Ok and?
BOARD SECRETARY: And then respond in writing if you get
something, send it in writing, and if the Board wants to ask
questions, or if you want to add anything verbally the Board
can make a motion to readvertise it and reopen the hearing. It
would (in that case) be for another date other than January 15th.
MS. MOORE: What I'm trying to do is move this along. The
15th, if we!re going to make all the correspondence until the
15th, then, let's just leave it open until the 15th.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: If you leave it open, then the
Board has 62 days from then to make a decision so it goes into
the end of March.
MRS. MOORE: Right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's fine, too. Let's do that.
MRS. MOORE: Yes because hopefully if the Board grants the
apl~z,oval, then they can start building in March which is a
practical time.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well you may not have a
decision until March that's what I'm saying.
MS. MOORE: Right.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI:
weeks after.
Building Permit takes several
MS. MOORE: Well maybe not. Maybe by then we'll get it within
two days.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, then we'll make a motion
continuing the hearing until January 15th at which point we will
close the hearing.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
.... Page 64 - Hearing Transcripts
December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And this will be a normal, natural
closure, with not specifically the anticipation of any specific
testimony.
MS. MOORE: Correct. I don't intend to continue the testimony
unless necessarily.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Unless necessarily.
a resolution.
I'll offer that as
MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll second it.
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
CHAIRMAN: On a side note, we thank you for all your
testimony.
End of Transcript.
HAY HARBOR CONTINUATION
January 15, 1998
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Oh, she wanted to ask a question.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, you want to ask a question?
MEMBER COLLINS: Well, I wanted to, I've been hem and hawing
about, let me say it.
MRS. MOORE: Yes, go ahead. I rather you say it in my presence
Ms. Collins.
MEMBER COLLINS: Right, these hearings of course have gone on
since before my time and may continue after I've retired.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, you really can't say that we haven't
MEMBER DINIZIO: I've had that feeling also.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You
tried to thrush you into
tried.
really can't say Lora,
the main stay of this.
that we haven't
That we've not
MEMBER COLLINS: I've read every word of the testimony before I
came on the Board and I've listened a lot and I just wanted
to make a brief statement while you're here, about my perception
of where I think this thing stands. You have a request in for a
Special Exception and a request for Variances. The Special
Exception request strikes me as absolutely critical. It's your
first step.
MRS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: If the building can't be transformed from a
nonconforming building which it is, to a conforming use, nothing
further is going to happen. Would you agree with that? That is
a threshold step that is sought of essential before anything
further can be done with the building?
2 - Hearing Transcripts
January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MRS. MOORE: I'm not sure if it's black and white;.yes or no,
because what happens, you've got a preexisting nonconforming
structure use.
MEMBER COLLINS: Right.
MRS. MOORE: The Special Permit makes it much simpler process,
because once you've established the Special Permit Approval,
then, the standard for modification to the building should be a
simple process.
MEMBER COLLINS: Right.
MRS. MOORE: I think wrongly~ou don't issue a Special Permit,
because you have a use ( ) there and as a Special Permit it's
presumed to be allowed and it's your burden to say, that that
use doesn't belong there. So, you and I as attorneys can say,
the burden shifts and you've got to put something on the record
like golf course doesn't belong there. I think you'd be hard
pressed to be that. But yes, the Special Permit is the first,
is really crucial to this whole thing, because it simplifies the
rest of the process.
MEMBER COLLINS: Alright.
MRS. MOORE: If you want to make it difficult.
MEMBER COLLINS: Alright. I perhaps then, I overstated a bit
the crucial nature of the Special Permit. But, it really is a
critical first step and my perception has been, that in the
hearings there hasn't been very much discussion about the
Special Permit issue. The discussion has dealt with, has
proceeded with I think from an assumption that the building will
become a conforming building and now we're going to worry about
as they discussed this evening, are we going to increase the
nonconformance by reducing the setback from the adjacent
property. Are we going to intensify the residential use of the
building and is that a permitted accessory use in a golf club.
Those are the kind of things that have been discussed and I'm
personally concerned over the Special Exception because of the
way our code is written and the way I think you read the Dennis
Case. Our code says, that a golf course is indeed a permitted
use in a residential area provided that, it has certain setbacks
which this club of course doesn't have. Doesn't come within
light years of having. And obviously is not an area of law I've
studied by any means. I've just kind of read the few things
that have flowed past and it strikes me as not totally clear
that the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority under its
variance power to waive those setback rules for the Special
Exception. Dennis case appeared to say that you could and my
perception is, that's not clear.
-3 - Hearing Transcripts
January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MRS. MOORE: OK. What I pointed out and when I say the Special
Permit there was a extensive testimony of the Special Permit
criteria.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, yes.
MRS. MOORE: From the first hearing was Special Permit
criteria. So, if you think that we need to concentrate more on
Special Permit criteria, I'd be happy to elaborate on it, but, I
think we've said everything that could be said with regard to
the Special Permit. The law changed in the nineties, and the
law itself, the town law itself, says that the Special Permit
you do have the authority on the Special Permit and that you
have the authority to give variances on the Special Permit area
variances, non waiver of a condition. There are, if you have a
gas station for example, gas station may say, with regard to
self-service, you must have certain pumps designated
self-service as a condition of the Special Permit. That's a
condition and that is what you're not authorized to waive
because that would be what is described in the Town Law as a
waiver of a condition which is not within the purview, it's in a
legislative decision. What the Town Law doesn't authorize you
to do is to consider area variances with regard to the location
of the Special Permit and that's what I, the first day that I
was here, because I know that that was a concern of the Board
was, do we have jurisdiction over this? Can we say yes? And, I
said, absolutely. Look at the Town Law, that's step one. The
Town Law tells you, absolutely. That any common sense tells
you, that your whole purpose in life as a Zoning Board is to
give variance on, is to give area variances. That's first and
foremost because, while the Town Board and I won't be critical
of the Town Board, but, if a ridiculously placed 300 foot
setbacks on structures, that there are three structures in town
that are already of that use, and they don't need it. But, the
place burns down and now you've got to build it back up. You
can't say that that use doesn't belong there and then now the
building given the situation of the property can be setback 300
feet. That's one that doesn't make any sense. Common sense
tells you no, but, the Special Permit criteria under the Town
Law, and take a look at that first. And the Town Law ~is very
clear that there are three criteria on Special Permit. One is,
area variances giving you that authorization. Two is, waiver of
conditions and there the case law is relatively pretty clear
that you can't make waivers of conditions. So, that's where,
that's why I keep saying, I think the Special Permit is a,
should be a slam ( ) because we did provide, it's very
overlapping testimony because the setback restrictions on the
location of the building, are the same circumstances that give
us the reasons for the area variances that we need. So, it
becomes somewhat redundant and repetitive because you can only
come up with the same type of facts give the situation over and
over.
MEMBER COLLINS: Alright, thank you. I'm a glad I brought it up.
4 - Hearing Transcripts
January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MRS. MOORE: I'm willing to stay here and talk some more if you
want to take care of them and I'll get back ( ).
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You going to say something? I just want
to say that I have to reopen the hearing to accept all of the
information that was just forthcoming OK, and then recess the
hearing again.
MEMBER COLLINS: That was why I was debating my time, but I'm
glad I didn't.
MEMBER TORTORA: Before you close it, I just want to, yes, you
know I ( ), that a critical component that is your
interpretation requests because the Building Department has the
Notice of Disapproval, maintains that the use is nonconforming.
In order to -
MRS. MOORE: I disagree with their - go ahead.
MEMBER TORTORA: I realize that but, that is why you've asked
for an interpretation presumably. Because, your contention -
MRS. MOORE: Well, I did it because, yes, I don't want to go
back and, essentially, I'd like to clarify the way the~rewrltlng
these disapprovals because I don't think that they~should be
disapproved as not a permitted use in the zone. It should be
permitted by Special Exception, subject to Zoning Board of
Appeals. That's the appropriate way I think of writing it
because that directs the applicant to go to a Special Permit
Application. We don' t even have to go to the Building
Department because it's direct appeal. So, I wouldn't even had
to~gone there, except for the fact, that we want to make sure
we cover all area variances that may be necessary.
MEMBER TORTORA: Could you allow me to finish? The purpose in
my mind, correct me if I'm wrong,the Building Department has
maintained that not only is the building itself nonconforming
because of the setbacks, etcetera, it's maintained that the use
is nonconforming because of the accessory apartments and
proposed dwellings, and your purpose of the interpretation is -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Precedent proposal.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. What you're requesting is an
interpretation that these are indeed accessory to a golf club.
Is that correct? ~n which case, the use could no longer be
nonconforming, the use would be conforming. The building would
be nonconforming.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nonconforming as to setbacks.
'5 - Hearing Transcripts
January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MRS. MOORE: Absolutely, right. It's really complicated and I
appreciate. I know how it's been difficult to understand.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only final issue is, before we close
it, and that is the discussion of why the setbacks can't be
conforming and the met! which we know, alright. And the
magnitude of that nonconformance based upon the fact, that you
are no longer rebuilding the building in place, in kind,
reconstruction, alright. You are changing the footprint. The
building is being straightened, the building is being squared
off, and you are still at zero lot line. You understand, I mean
if it's one feet, two feet, whatever it is. But, it's still
zero lot line as opposed to what the magnitude of what the code
says in reference to what it should be.
MRS. MOORE: OK, but, that is why I went beyond the area
variance criteria and I gave you financial hardship, alright.
The degree of nonconformity, you know, if it was a minor
inconvenience, then certainly that would be something to
consider. It is beyond the minor inconvenience. It is a
financial, well, it's a practical problem~ your~in a hill. You
can't go further back than the hill, but the hill is there.
But, beyond that, you've got a financial problem in that you've
got the tee that is a $200,000 replacement cost which can't even
be replaced because you would have to eliminate one of your nine
holes. So it is beyond, that's why I gave you so much financial
information in addition to the standard area variances because
yes, I agree, there's a substantial variance in that it's a zero
from, it's not, you can't go 100 feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's 98%.
MRS. MOORE: Absolutely. It doesn't mean you can't grant it
given the fact you've got multiple facts here that you
already have a preexisting use and building there. What we're
really asking for is an area variance on the additional 10 x 54
feet is the difference between, it's that little strip. It's
the squaring off I say, is as a matter of right you can do.
It's not even a problem with that. It's that extra little
square footage that you need to square off the building and make
it conform with the State Code. So, it's, you've got everything
that is there. If I had a vacant piece of property and I had to
locate the building for the first time there, I think I'd think
I still had enough financial information and financial data to
support the case of a substantial setback. Because, beyond
that, I've got an existing building that has been used there
since 1920 and there's no other place to put it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But the purpose of asking you or asking
Sandy to rip this building down to the first story, and utilize
it from that particular point on, was to use the utilize the
existing footprint.
6 Hearing Transcripts
January 15, 1998 Board of Appeals
MRS. MOORE: And we put that on the
additional $400,000 or maybe more,
of my head, but it's close to -
record that it would cost an
I don't remember off the top
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I still have question, I still haven't
gotten to the point of question that person who wrote that,
alright, so, I understand where that $400,000 is coming from,
because I don't understand. It's not broken down for me and
that's basically the situation and that critical to my
analysis. I'm not only speaking but I'm talking about what
we're discussing, alright.
MRS. MOORE: Well Sandy, then I, certainly Sandy will be here
and she can go over that analysis and why it's as much as it
is. You know just from our conversations, it's the actual
removal of material. It's the, you know, pouring concrete
around existing structures. It's taking what is a non
structural first floor and using it to support a second floor.
It's the kind of structural supports you need to maintain the
second floor, you know every single part of it. When you have a
building that's like a summer cottage, it's equivalent to the
construction quality is equivalent to a summer cottage. You
can't expect it to support without a substantial additional
cost, a State Code building. But, she can go into that in more
detail.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, thank you. Hearing no further
comment, I'll make a motion recessing until February 26.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Did you rescind your first one?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We didn't rescind that.
but nobody voted.
I did rescind it,
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, let's vote on that and then we can -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, first I need to rescind the
original first recess.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: On which Hay Harbor?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On this one, yes, so
incorporate all the testimony that we just stated.
motion recessing the hearing until February 26.
that we can
I'll make a
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Lora S. Collins
George Homing
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064
Telephone (516) 765-1809
VARIANCE
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 16, 1998
Application No. 4514 for Variances
APPLICANT: HAY HARBOR CLUB~ INC. PARCEL: 1000-9-12-8.1
STREET & LOCALITY: Oriental Avenue, Fishers Island, NY.
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: September 11, 1997; October 23, 1997; December 11,
1997; January 15, 1998; February 26, 1998.
I. REQUESTS MADE BY APPLICANT: Applicant, Hay Harbor
Club, Inc. is requesting the following:
Area Variances to Article III, Section 100-31B(7) of the Code of the Town of Southold,
for:
1) Permission to DEMOLISH a preexisting golf clubhouse with a non-
conforming front yard setback presently at one foot and nonconforming side yard setback
at 32 feet, and to RECONSTRUCT the building with a front yard depth of three feet,
instead of the required 100 feet, and with a side yard depth of 23 feet instead of the
required 50 feet; and
2) Permission to EXPAND an existing two vehicle on-site parking area in order to
add one handicap space with ramp; and to CREATE a parking area 45 feet long by 20 ft.
wide in the front yard/side yard parallel to the street line instead of the code requirement
of 100 feet from a street line or 50 feet from a lot line; and
Variance Delenninalion
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Meeting of April l& 1998
B. Interpretation and/or Area Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-243 and
Article III, Section 100-3 lC, that the two existing employee apartments in the golf club-
house are a permissible accessory use to the Hay Harbor Club and its facilities; and that
the four proposed new bedrooms, to be occupied by senior employees on a seasonal basis,
are accessory residential uses customary to the operations of golf club facilities. This
request will be addressed in a separate decision.
II. EXISTING PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION:
This property is located in an R-120 Zone District, being situate on the southerly side of
Heathulie Avenue, Fishers Island. The entire parcel consists of a total lot area of
approximately 44.5 acres as shown on the County Tax Map and Town Assessment
Records, however, a survey prepared August 27, 1996, updated 9/9/97 by Chandler,
Palmer & King and site plan map dated July 1997 indicates the property is 37.3 acres.
"fhe subject premises is improved with an existing nine-hole golf course, as one of the
oldest golf courses in the Country. Also at the premises is a non-profit Golf Club-House
building, which is used seasonally.
The Golf Club-House was constructed in 1929 in a small triangular section at the
northwest corner of the 373-acre parcel. It is set back one foot from Heathulie Avenue
and is tucked into a steeply sloping, wooded hill with adjacent homes elevated
approximately 30 feet above grade. The remaining part of the property consists of the
nine-hole golf course, with the exception of the south side which is wetlands that extends
to the Sound. The area is primarily residential in nature.
The total floor area of the Golf Club-House building contains 5012 sq. ft. of which 2812
sq. fl. is the existing first-floor and footprint area limited to a 51 ft. by 56 ft. area. The
entire 5012 sq. ft. principal building has been utilized for activities related exclusively to
the non-profit membership golf club and its staffand employees at this site.
The existing setbacks of the building have been confirmed by surveyor's letter dated
February 24, 1998 at distances of one foot from the front property line and 32 feet from
the closest northerly side property line. Also, an improved area exists for two vehicles in
the front yard/side yard parallel to the street line.
lIl. CODE PROVISION/BASIS OF APPLICATIONS:
Chapter 100, "Zoning" under Article III, Section 100-31B(7), which reads as follows:
Variance Determination
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Meeting of April 16, 1998
3
"Uses permitted by Special Exception" upon receiving approval from the Board of
Appeals for the following:
Beach clubs, tennis clubs, country clubs, golf clubs, public golf courses and annual
membership clubs catering exclusively to members and their guests and accessory
playgrounds, beaches, swimming pools, tennis courts, recreational buildings and
maintenance buildings, subject to the following requirements:
(a) No building or part thereof or any parking or loading area shall be located
within one hundred (100) feet of any street line or within fifty (50) feet of any lot line.
(b) The total area covered by principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed
twenty percent (20%) of the area of the lot.
(c) Such use shall not be conducted for profit as a business enterprise.
(d) No such use shall occupy a lot with an area of less than three (3) acres.
Section 100-12 (Definitions) of the Zoning Code provides:
MEMBERSHIP CLUB, COUNTRY or GOLF COURSE, NONPROFIT.
A not-for-profit corporation, as defined in Section 102 of the Not-For-Profit
Corporation Law of the State of New York, established for the principal purpose of
engaging in outdoor sports, such as golf, tennis, swimming, fishing, hunting or similar
activities but not including any form of aviation, outdoor trap, skeet or target shooting or
motorboat racing. The activities of such a club shall be limited to its members and its
guests and shall not be extended to the general public.
Article Ill, Section 100-31C provides as follows: "...Accessory uses, limited to the
following uses and subject to the conditions listed at 100-33 herein: ...(l) any customary
structures or uses which are customarily incidental to the principal use, except those
prohibited by this chapter... ?'
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Zoning Board held a public hearing on this matter on September 11, 1997; October
23, 1997; December 11, 1997; January 15, 1998; February 26, 1998 at which time written
and oral evidence was presented. Based on all testimony, documentation, personal
observations of members of the Board and other relevant evidence, the Zoning Board
finds the following facts to be true and relevant:
Variance Delerminalion
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Meeting of April 16, 1998
1 . Applicant proposes a new reconstructed Golf Club-House building with a 56 ft. by
56 ft. footprint that closely overlaps the existing 51 fl. by 56 ft. footprint. The proposed
plan shows replacement of the existing Golf Club-House within most of the same
(existing) footprint area with the following modifications noted;
The proposed building would contain a total floor area of 6272 sq. ft. the existing
building contains a total floor area of 5012 sq. ft. The applicant's architect has
verified that the total floor area would be increased by 1130 square feet.
The proposed building would be slightly shifted and straightened to provide a
three foot front yard setback instead of the existing one foot setback; and the side
yard setback would be decreased from 32 feet to 23 feet, at its closest points, all
in accordance with the site plan dated February 24, 1998 prepared by Chandler,
Palmer & King, and confirmed by surveyor's letter dated February 24, 1998.
The proposed 56 fi. by 56 fi. building would square offan approximate 8 ft. by 10
fi. (80 square fi.) bite in the north corner of the existing building, and a graded 3
ft. to 4 ft. by 56 ft. strip (200 sq. ft. max.) Would be added to the north side of the
building.
d The total increase in footprint is approximately 300 square feet.
e. The square footage for each of the two proposed floor areas is approximately
three-thousand one-hundred thirty-six (3,136) square feet.
2. The club membership for both this Golf Club-House building, and the Main Building
approximately a mile away, is presently 410 and has been capped at 440 members.
3. The Golf Club-House building is in a deteriorated state. It has suffered from flooding
problems, leaks, inadequate and/or unsafe wiring, inadequate fire escapes, and the
foundation has been described as "unstable and at risk." The building does not conform to
the New York State Fire Prevention and Building Code or to the Handicap Accessibility
Codes.
4. Applicant's architect has testified that the 300 sq. ft. increase in the footprint is
required to conform to provisions of the Federal Handicap Access statute and to the New
York State Fire and Building Codes. It is a de minims change that does not increase the
degree of nonconformity.
5. The use of the Golf Club-House will not be intensified. The two existing apartments
Variance Determination
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Meeting of April 16, 1998
have been occupied on a seasonal basis by either the golf pro, cook and their families as
well as other employees of Hay Harbor Club, Inc. for at least 22 years (many years), and
probably longer. The proposed four new bedrooms will not contain cooking facilities, and
are for single occupancy use by senior staff only, on a seasonal basis from May 30th to
September 1~t. Two of the three on-site parking spaces will be specifically designated for
the two apartments.
6. The applicant has offered to accept conditions that the four employees will park their
vehicles at the Main Club Building approximately a mile away, during the daily operations
of the subject Golf Club-House building; that the four bedrooms and two apartments will
only be used by senior staff employees of the Hay Harbor Club for seasonal occupancy;
that the apartments and bedrooms will not be rented; that no occupancy will occur from
October 1~t to May 30th.
The Building Department by its Director of Code Enforcement has calculated a
requirement of 213 parking spaces based upon Section 100-191 of the Zoning Code for
this project. Applicant has not provided adequate on-site (or off-site parking areas), and
the Board has requested a written lease or other authorization from the landowner
(presently the Husband Family) for off-site parking upon the Husband lot and upon other
property near Fox Avenue about a mile away. During this process, the Board has asked
for adequate parking plan for the safety, health, and welfare of the community at large.
Applicant has not offered an any legal agreements or legal documents for additional
parking, or intent to acquire long-term authorization for an additional 21 parking spaces in
the area. Applicant asserts that the parking has not been refused for the past 20 years on
private land presently of Husband, and therefore the applicants do not feel an agreement
for permanent parking is necessary. There has been no record of applicant's ability to
provide additional land for club parking.
The applicant has not as of today filed a complete site plan for reviews as to parking,
landscaping buffers, and other site elements, which are under the jurisdiction of the
Planning Board, and has not submitted an additional parking plan which is required to be
adequate and safe, and therefore this project does not meet the requirements of Section
100-19IH. Since additional parking is required by code and the new 1,000 sq. ft. on-site
parking area is the only permanent parking plan offered by applicant, this Board is
requiring compliance with conditions incorporated into this determination (before issuance
of a building permit for a new building).
Because of the similarity in variances requested for the existing setbacks and the setbacks
for the proposed alterations, the findings for these variances have been combined into a
single set.
Variance Determination
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Mecling of April 16, 1998
6
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REVIEW STANDARDS SET FORTH IN TOWN
LAW SECTION 267-b-3 'AREA VARIANCES,' THE BOARD OF APPEALS HAS
CONSIDERED THE BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT IF THE VARIANCES ARE
GRANTED, AS WEIGHED AGAINST THE DETRIMENT TO THE HEALTH,
SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY BY
SUCH GRANT, THE BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING FACTORS
AND DETERMINES THAT:
1. Grant of the area variances for the Golf Club-House building will not produce
an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties. The "Golf Club-House" building has existed in its present location for 71 years
in harmony with the residential character of the neighborhood. The proposed 56 ft. by 56
ft. new building will be retain the architectural style of the Fisher Island "Hay Harbor
cottage design", and will be similar in size and design to many homes on the Island. The
proposed new "Golf Club-House" building will be an improvement to the community, and
its safety, because it would replace a deteriorated structure that does not meet Federal
and State building codes.
2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than area variances. The Golf Club-House was constructed
in 1929 in a small northwest corner section of the property, directly adjacent to the nine-
hole golf course that was established in 1880. It is bounded on the south by the putting
green, to the east by the first tee, to the west by Heathulie Avenue, to the north and
northeast was by a steep hill. The remainder of the property consists of the golf course and
wetlands.
If the proposed new building were to be relocated to comply with the code's setback
requirement, it would necessitate the loss of the putting green, which applicants have
testified would cost $200,000 to replace. However, there is no other land upon which to
relocate the putting green, and its loss would be a detriment to the historic and cultural
values of the community. The $200,000 additional costs is not justified because the
existing location of the building has not had an adverse impact on the environment,
surrounding properties or neighborhood for 71 years. The benefit to the applicant of a
new improved, safe structure with proper drainage can only benefit the Community as
well.
3. The requested variances are substantial.
A. Applicant's request for a front yard setback of three feet instead of the required
100 foot minimum required represents a 97% reduction. The requested side yard setback
Variance.Determination
Re: 1000-9-12-8.1 (Hay Harbor)
ZBA Meeting of April 16. 1998
Members Dinizio and Collins, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT the Variances noted above, subject to the
Conditions rendered under Special Exception No. 4503.
VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS GOEHRINGER, TORTORA,
HORNING, and COLLINS. (Member Dinizio abstained from voting.) THIS
RESOLUTION WAS DULY ADOPTED (4-0, with one abstention.)
GERARD P. GOEHR1NGER, CHAIRMAN
Approved for Filing 4/19/98
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXEClJTiVE
April 29, 1998
STEPHEN ~vk ,JONES, A.I,C~P
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
Town (if gonthold
Zoning Board of Appeals
Applicant:
Hay Harbor Club, Inc.
Municipal File No.: 4503-SE and 4514
S.C.P.D. File No.: SD-98-01
Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative
Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning
Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination as there is no apparent significant
county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be
construed as either an approval or disapproval.
Comment:
Additional parking should be provided on or near the subject property within
convenient walking distance of the Golf Club House, preferably as set forth
by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Very truly yours,
Stephen M..Tones
Director of Planning
S/sGeraldG. Newrnan
ChiefPlanner
GGN:cc
C:\111 CC~ZONING'tZONING\WORKING\LDS'C, PR\SD98431 APR
LOCA~ ON MAILING ADDRESS
H LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 411t FLOOR · P O. BOX 6 I O0 · (5 I 6) 853-5 I gO
I O0 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY I 1788<2)099 TELECOPIER (5 I 6) 853-4044
765-18o9 Z:B.F4 te(
765-9o64 Z:BDt te[efax.
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Dear Ken:
Ken Edwards, Fishers Island P.B.J~le~mber
Jerry Goehringer, ZBA Chairmim:~
September 4, 1998 '-~
Your Inquiry (Pending Litigation)
At this time we are not able to discuss matters such as Hay Harbor because it is
pending in Court and has not been concluded. Any possible conclusion is in the
hands of the Town Attorney. When the Town Attorney settles the case, we would
be happy to discuss this matter with you or any Member of the Planning Board.
Thank you.
cc: V. Scopaz
OFFICE OF
BOA.RD OF A.PPF_,AfL.,S
53095 M~ir, Ro~d.
So~thold, ~ 119~1
(1-516) ~65-1809 tel. (1-516) ~-18~3 f=
X
X
Variance from the Zoning Code, Article XXIV , Section 100-24§A
Variance from Oetermination of Southold Town Building Inspector
Special Exception, Article IIIL~ , Section 100-31B(7)
Special Permit
Appeal No: 4503 Applicant: Hay Harbor Club, Inc..
Location of Affected Land: n ~ental
County Tax Map Item No.: l~O~- Ave., Fishers Island, N.Y. 06390
9-12-8.1
Within 500 feet of:
'Town or Village Boundary Line
· X Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary)
State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway
Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally Owned Land
Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Park or other
Recreation Area
Existing or Proposed Right-of-Way of any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by
the County or for which the CounTy has established Channel Lines, or
Comments..
Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant
Within One Mile of an Airport
Applicant is requesting permission., to
~nn~llnt p~npos~J n~w h,,i!ming
~'pies of Town file an~ related ~ocumen~s encloseo for your review.
Dated:~//~ 9~
April 20, 1998
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
Moore & Moore
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Re: Appl. #4503 and 4514 - Hay Harbor Project
Dear Mrs. Moore:
Enclosed please find copies of the Appeals Board's
determinations with conditions, and Interpretation, all adopted
at the Board's April 16, 1998 meeting. Before proceeding for a
building permit, it is our understanding that you will be making
other applications through the planning and health department
agencies.
We have today furnished copies of these determinations to
the Planning Board and Building Department offices for their
update and filing information.
Very truly yours,
Linda Kowalski
Board Secretary
Enclosures (3)
Copies of Decisions also to:
Building Department (update)
Planning Board and Staff
Originals filed with Town Clerk's Office 4/20/98 a.m.
HAY HARBOR CLUB, Inc. '~"-7 ~/"/~"J'~'"c"~',,~ ~;
Fishers Island, New York 06390
January 14, 1998
Mrs. Elizabeth F. Husband
4 Spear Road
Box 27
Cochise, AZ 85606
Dear Mrs. Husband:
Bob Anthony and I have just spoken and he has briefed me on his conversation with you
regarding the golf clubhouse project. I was very pleased to hear that in principle you are not
opposed to the project. I hope you understood clearly from Bob that you need not be concerned
about additional noise from the four additional sleeping rooms in the new building. Our Club
Manager will ensure that only the most senior and mature staff members will have access to these
quarters, but if for some unlikely reason you or any of our other neighbors are disturbed by the
occupants of these rooms, we will take swift action to correct the situation. As it has for many
years, the Club remains dedicatml to maintaining very positive relationships with you and all of
its neighbors.
You should also know that the staff sleeping in the four addition rooms will not be permitted to
park their cars at the golf clubhouse at night, but instead must leave their cars at the main
clubhouse. They will be l~ansported in the Club's truck (or will have to walk or use bicycles) to
and from the main clubhouse. The only people parking on the golf club's property at night will
be the golf and tennis professionals, who are doing so now.
As you know from the golf clubhouse project, the Hay Harbor Board of Directors has been
focused for the past three years on a broad s~ategic planning initiative that is designed to ensure,
as best we can, that the Club goes forward into the next millennium with a healthy membership
and in solid financial condition. Although no degree of planning can address all of the future's
uncertainties, our strategic planning committee has made a substantial effort in this direction.
For many, many years, Mrs. Husband, you have willingly and very generously permitted Hay
Harbor Club golfers to park without charge on the strip of your property across the street from
the golf clubhouse, and I know that the membership greatly appreciates the ability to do this. It is
tree that, although this area provides ample parking for the needs of our golfers, this is the only
parking our members have access to in immediate proximity to the golf course. Therefore, the /
Executive Committee of the Board has asked me to request that you consider the possibility of
,/
Hay Harbor either (i) entering into a long-term lease with you for this s~ip of property or (ii)
Mrs. Elizabeth F. Husband ~
January 14, 1998
Page 2
acquiring this small bit of property at fair market value. In either case, there would of course be
no change in the number of cars parking on this property, and no increase in traffic to the area
over what is experienced today.
I hope you will consider this proposal, as either solution will ensure that the Club and its
membership will experience stability well into the future. Please do not hesitate to contact me, or
have your representatives do so, at (212) 816-2870.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. If I do not have the opportunity to see you before
your return to Fishers Island, I will look forward to seeing you as the summer begins. Hoping
that you are enjoying the new year, I am
Sincerely,
Christopher A. di Bonaventura
President
CCi
Bob Anthony
Hay Harbor Club Executive Committee
ELIZABETH F. HUSBAND
4 SPEAR RANCH
BOX 27
COCHISE, AZ 85606
January 14, 1998
The Zoning Board of Appeals
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Southold Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Mr. Goehringer:
Upon further consideration, I hereby withdraw my objections to the proposed Hay Harbor Club
Golfl~ouse project on Fishers Island. I feel comfortable that the Club will respect my previously
stated concerns as the project moves forward.
Sincerely yours,
Eliza~lSe~ F. Husband
March 16, 1998
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattimck, New York 11952
Tel: (516) 298-5629
Fax: (516) 298-5664
Margaret Rutkowski
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Hay Harbor Club, Inc.
Dear Linda:
In response to the Chairman's questions at our final hearing
of the above referenced application enclosed please find:
1. ' ' : The proposed project has gone out to bid, and
enclosed are three bids from local Fishers Island contractors.
Demolition & Removal cost range from lowest-S20,200.00 (Z & S
Contracting, Inc.); $26,160.00 (BD Remodeling & Restoration), To
highest $26,880.00 (Walsh Contracting, Ltd.).
2. Hayharbor Board's financial consideration of alternatives:
Mr. Christopher A. di Bonaventura prepared a letter to the board
together with the "Alternative Project Cost". As is shown on the
exhibit, the Existing Plan will cost 1.2 mil; Plan A- the loss of
the four rooms for accessory dormitory will cost the club an
additional 250,000 (1.45 mil); Plan B- the "Do Nothing" alternative
postpones the eventual need to rebuild the existing structure at a
later date (1.457 mil.); Plan C- Rebuild existing structure but
rent additional housing for four senior staff persons over the
next five years, this alternative would costs the club a minimum
of $340,000 (1.54 mil). Acquisition of property to accomodate the
four senior staff persons on Fishers Island would result in
significantly higher cost to the club.
The Special Use Permit must be granted, the dormitory is an
accessory use to a Golf Club, and the financial need for the
accessory use is highlighted by the ualternative project cost"
considered by the club.
This completes all requested information, we would ask
that the board proceed with their decision as soon as possible.
Veered_ truly yours,
NO. :
~'eb.
MODELING & RESTORATION
P.4
14 1997 85;,3~Ff, l P2
}tan N. Cghoun
David C. [k'ckwlth
Febmaxy 14, 1997
Ms. Sandy Esser
Vice Pzeidem, Faegiu'~s
The Hay ~bor Club
~ ~ E~r,
We appr~te ~ oppo~ity to ~b~ ~ ~o~8 pr~ns~ ~m~ ~r ~e n~
~y ~bo~ golf ~ubhou~. ~ e~mst~ ar~ ba~ ~ ~e pl~ ~i~ ~ If, 1997.
~ ad.on to ~ ~tes we ~ pro~ ~o o~ ~s o~d[~ed below.
I, ~ co~s ~e b~ok~ dow~ ~to the ~egod~ ~q~ ~e ele~l ~d
plUS have ~ ~ated ~d · h~g e~ti~ ~s ~ ~o~
~. E~les or.st we ~el co~d ~uc~ ~e coas of~ ~ ~d pr~ a
more qu~job ove~.
Section.l
Pe~ you~ ~eques~ the bid is b~mg pze~mted ~s follows:
D¢~aolition tad removal
$26,160.0o
Site p~a~atlon $3,4S0.00
Fotmdatio~, fxsr,~k.g aZd exterior carpentry $361,968.00
Dfyw~ and carpentry $145,000.00
Elcctric~l ' $'12,075.00
Paint lind f:mishes
P~,mli$ and signoff, s
pktmblug $31,818.00
Heating
Totd $773,22L00
4:~E+PH ~HETIER
Z & S CONTRACTING, INC.
13OX 202 , FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK 06390
(Sl~) 7U-7557
FAX: {Sl~) ?Ba-560Q
P,3
February 14, 1997
0~nd¥ Es.~er
Hay Harbor Club
Fishers Island, NY 06390
Dear Sandy,
Below please find our preliminary estimates for the new golf clubhouse at the
Hay Harbor Club, I've ~dded {t f~w ~at~go[ie~ in addition to the ones that you sent, but
if I ~an be of any further help, please do not hesitate to call me.
The new design of the building looks really good, I hope the club decides to go
ahead with this project.
*Demolition and Removal
'Site preparation, retaining wall,
sidewalk, grading & septic
*Foundation, framing & tlrel~laee
*Ce, rpentry & drywall
*Plumbing & electrical
*Painting and finishes
*pen~nlts & sfgnoffs
$20,200.00
38,500.00
269,238,00
179,675.00
45,23O.O0
44,891.00
goo.oO
Once again, please call if you have any further questions.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas J. Shillo
President,
Z&S Contracting Inc.
Walsh Con~'acti~, Ltd.
P.O. Box 476
Fishers l~laad, NY' 06390
C~I.AI)RIEL II
DATE
2/15/97
Estimate
E~I'IMATE
~ay I-]~bor Club
ATT: Sa.ndy
BY FAX212-592-9449
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
D&R
SitcPrep
Found~Fm..~,~
Dr~ran/carp
PlbgrEl¢¢
Petmits/$tgnO
ESTIMATE TO CONSTRUCT N~W GOLF CLUB HOUSE ON SITE
OF EXISTING BUILDING
PRELIM]NARY ROUGH ESTIMATE BASED ON ARCHITECTURAL
DRAWINGS
DEMOLITION & P,.EMOVAL
SITE PKEPARATION
FOUNDATION & FRAMING
DRYWALL & CARPENTRY
PLUMBING & ELECTRICAL -- } ~c~;t..d. t,o
p~-It. IV[ITS 8~ SiON-OFFS
ESTIMATE AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY APPLICABLE
SALES TAX
26,880.00
18,000.00
226,706.40
331,629.60
124,825
144,454.g0
2,4O0.00
NEW CONSTRUCTION/CAPITAL 1M~PKOVEMENT Total $g74,$96.00
11:04AH
,P.~/4
HAY HARBOR CLUB, Inp,
Fi?,he~s Island, New York 0G390
March 10. 1998
Mr. Germd P. Gochrin~.cr
Chairman
Town of Soutlmld Zoning ~ ~ard of Appeals
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Hay !t~Jbo,' Clut, G_'?!!'_Clubllouse project
Deal' Mr. Goehrmger:
Enclosed please find the ml'm marion you requested summarizing our analysis of the
preseut 'value cost of the variou~ project alternatives we reviewed. As is plainly clear, the
proposed project i~ the nt.~t cost-effective for the memberqhip, In the analysi& we haw
assumed that rental costs do not rise over time (an aggressive assumption), but as
illustrate{:{ by t ~e robie ench)~ed, it is the rent for ourirdl~ ~taff that most affects the cost
of the alternatives to our i)h.mcd project.
In additioo to the cost be/~cfils o£ the existing plan. the ability to avoid additional siting
issues, keeping the number ut .eigbbors of the Club at the existing level and limiting th~
r number of p,'opert, e5 fi~r whi{q~ we are, respnnsihlt~ were all ad~iitional. ~Ib¢il; illtV, llgiI01¢
benefits, of the existing in qiec't over all others.
I would like briefly to address an issue you raised in the meeting on February 26°'. The
characterization that we lmve a lot of dissent in the membership reg~dmg this project is
siJnply incorrect and reflective of the misinformation wlficb has been disseminated by
those few who are aggrcsmvely against the project.
The fact {hal: (i) there were o.}y bye of our members who chose to write to you in
opposition to the project; i'ii) d{e of't-mentioned l~titiul~ ~g,,ed by a pot'tion of our
membership was not aggg!l.st, tj!e~p~, but opposed to some architectural details in the
project (which. in at least ooe case, the petition had 3'roug); and (iii) we have received the
first payment fi'om vlrtu~dly illc entire membership, suggest~ th~ vu~y ,~t,o.g suppm't file
· project has from the large ma.lol'i y of our members}Lip. They now have a better
understanding, of the reasons thc project was developed as it was, told a much clearer
Mm:ch 10, 1.998
Page 2
P.3/4
understanding of the addnim,al cost of thc alternatives, wllich'were examined at length by
the Hay .ltm bet Board.
Also, the infm marion 5'~,:~ received that suggested the second apartment in the existing
golf clubhouse has ncvcr hcen used to house staff Js completely erroneous. It is
reflective, i. my judffnlcnt, of the significant nfisinfotmation that has been disseminated
by a small group of peol"le who, in my judgment, struggle with change and. perhaps more
importantly, do not want Io Incur the cost of the necessary assessments. Most of our
membership, including myself, would like to avoid paying the.se a~sessments. Yet most
also realize the seriou:; need.,; of the Club and that we have developed a solutioa that is
least costly to them aii(l retest right for the Club, our neighbors and Fishers Island.
Please also keep in rmnd that our dues are very low for a seaside golf club in lower New
England timt also ol'fet'q hr:~t rate tennis facilities, wondexa~u] children's program's and a
wondexful seas.ide dining experience.
As I understand it, th J:'; i."; lhe lmal piece of J. nformation the Zoning Board requu'es. Thank
you for the time in considering this project with the care that you have.
Sinccrely.
Christopher A. di BollaVcnhu a
Presidcnt
Enclosure
Constrnclion Costs:
HAY HARBOR CLUB
Alternative Project Cost Scenarios
Existing Plan Plan A Plan B Plan C
ConstructionCosts $ 930,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 1,1013,000
Architects' F~es[1] 30,000 55,000 55,000 65,0~0
Other Consonants 20,000 25,000 30,000 30,000
Farniture 25~000 20,000 20,000 25,000
Site Work/L~dscapmg 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Filing Fees/P~~.tmits 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Contingency ~50,000 45,000 45.000 60,000
$._. t.100.000 S 890.000 $ _895.000 ~
AnnaM Operating Cosa:
Rental Experse [2] S 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000
7ax Gross-U? 14,000 14,000 14 000
h. laintenm~ce 4,000 3,500 3,500 5,000
Real Estate Taxes 5~000 2,500 2,500 5,000
$ 9.00_~0 $ 30.00~! $ 50~09~ $ 54.00~0
Present Value of All Annual Costs (~4' 8%~
$ 101,320 };. 562.889 $ ~552,8g~9 $ 215.606
Total Present Value roms
& i ,2()L3'2~ 1; 1,452.889 .~_t,4. 7,889 $1.540,60~
PLAN A
PLAN B
PLAN C
Rebuild existing building with two staff aparm~euts; remaining sen.or staffoff-campus
Do nothing t ntit existing structure fully deteriorates, then rebuild (10 years est.); all staff off-campas
Eebuild exis'ing building; acquire and renovate additional propert3, for senior staff assnmes rentals for 5 years
[1] For Plans A,B & C includes existing architeclural and icg'al ftes incurred to date for Existing Plan
[2] Assumes no escalation in rental expense
~ SENDER:
3. At,cie Addressed to:
Mr. John W. Mittler, III &
i Ms. Cornelia Daley
950 Third Ave.
New York, NY 10022
5. Received By: (P#nt Name)
-- PS Form 3811, De{demi)er 1994
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an
extra fee):
1. [] Addressee's Address
2. [] Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee:
4a. Article Number
P 336 410 924
4b. Service Type ,,
i-I Registered ~ Certified
[] Express Mail [] Insured
[] RetumRsseipt for Merchandise [] COD.
Addressee's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
102~Q~ ~7 B O17G Domestic Return Receipt
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No. G-10
· Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
Patricia C. Moore
Attorney at Law
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Eay Harbor
.~ SENDER:
· Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the
~ ·CompJete items 3, 4a, and 4b. following services (for an
.Pfintyo~rnameandaddreseonthereveraeofthisformsothatwecenretumtht~ extra fee):
card to you.
deflvered. Consult postmaster for fee..
i 3. Article Addressed to: 14a. Article Number
Albert C. & V. Wall I P 336 411 020
136 E. 79th Street 14b'ServiceType
W V ~- ~-V lnn?l Ir"l Registered ~ Certified
..ew --or.., ........ Jrl ExprecsMail ~] Insured
-- ICI Return Receipt for Merchandise [] COD ·
r. Receiv~ ey: (P,.t N~m~) 18~ Address (Only i7 r~queeted
PS Form 3811, December 1994 lO2595-97-8-0179 Domestic Return Receipt
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permt No. G-10
· Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
Patricia C. Moore
Attorney at Law
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
{ay Harbor
SENDER:
wCemplete itern~ 1 and/or 2 for additional ser~ces. I a~so wish to receive ne
,*Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. following services (for an
card to you extra fee): ,
· Attach this ~orm to the front of the ma~lpiece, or on the back if space does not 1. [] Addressee s Address
· Write 'Return ReC~p~ Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. [] Restricted Delivery
delivered. Consult postmaster for fee.
~ ~c~e Num-"~T --
Z 286 590 323
Jaan L. Pagnotta --__
4b. Service Type
c/o Stephen Pagnotta
Driver & Ripps
66 Summer Street
P.O. Box 593
North Adams, MA 01247
5. Received By: (Print Name)
· ~ 6. Sigl~?r~e'c.~ddress6eorAgent)
o,. X/~ ~.~ ~.~
[] Registered
[] Express Mail [] insured
[] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] COD.
7. Date of Delivery
8. Addrsssse's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
-- PS Form 3811, December 1994
Domestic Return Receipt
UNITED STATES POSTAL SE'~II~L~'D ~"~H 0I ~. ~, - ~'osmge &'Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No. G-10
· Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
Patricia C. Moore
Attorney at Law
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Hay Harbor
~ SENDER:
· Complete items 3, 4a, a~l 4b. following services (for an
· Print your name and address on the reverse of this fora1 so that we can return tl~s , ~
card to you. extra fee). ~
3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number ~.
Ms. Margaret M. Bogert i
1 E. 66th Street
New York, NY 10021
P 336 410 925
4b. Service Type
[] Registered
~] Ce~fled ~
5. Received~Pfint Name)
6. Signa.t~r(~-~5~:/ressee or't)
PS Form 3811; December 1994
[] Express Mail [] Insured.
[] RetumRessiptforMerchan~se [] COD.
7. Date of Delive~
8. Addresses's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
102595-97-B-0179 Domestic Return Receipt
· [ II I/[ First-Class Mail
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Perm t No. G-10
· Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
Patricia C. Moore
Attorney at Law
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Hay
I,,,ll,,,lll,l,,,hl,,,hltl,,,,h,ll,,I,,,Ihl,,I,,,Ih,ll,,I
,~ SENDER:
· Complete items 1 ancVor 2 for additional se~ces.
· Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b.
· P~nt your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this
card to you.
· Attach this fon~ to the front of the mailpiece, or on the hec~( if space does not
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an
extra fee):
1. [] Addressee's Address ~
2. [] Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee; ~'
3. A~cleAddressedto:
Ms. Louise M. Doyen
Box 306
Fishers Island, NY 06390
4a. Article Number
~1 018
141~ Service Type
I [] Registered
Certified
[] Express Mail [] Insured..~
[] R.t.m [] COD
:' Date °f Delte~ X ~{~
· Ad~essee's Addr~ (Only if r~u~t~
PS Form 3811, December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
First-Ctass Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Perm t No. G-10
· Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
Patricia C. Moore
Attorney at Law
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Hay Harbor
RICHARD H. STROUSE, P.E., L.S.
GORDON C. HYDE, A.I.A,
Charles E. Chandler (1878-1929)
Shepard B. Palmer (1884-T943)
Benjamin H. Palmer (1923.1972)
Shepard B. Palmer Jr. (193g-!978)
Percy Jce King (19§9-1989)
February 24, 1998
Ms. Patricia Moore
P.O. Box ~83
315 Westphalia Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
RE:
Proposed Club House - Hay Harbor Club
Heathuile Avenue, Fishers Island, NY
Zone R-120
Dear Ms. Moore:
Below is a listing
the captioned property.
of existing and proposed setback dimensions for
on our
Required Existin9
Front Yard 60 ft. 1'
Side Yard 30 ft. 32'
I have also shown this information
enclosed ~ix copies for your use.
Pleas~ ~tact me with any ~uestions.
H. Strouse
RHS/md
Proposed(Building)
3'
23'
site plan and have
enc.
110 BROADWAY NORWICH, CONNECTICUT 06360-4452 PHONE 860-889-3397 FAX 860-886-7801
February 24,
Southetd Town Zoning ~oard of
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
B~Uthold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
D~ar Li. nda;
4547
1. Hav_Karj~zr_~ ~li~k~D&:,,: Chili.ali.er, Palmer & Kiu~, Su~"~eyorS
proposed front and $i~e yard ~et ~.acks, ! ~houl~ r~celv~ ch~
as 1 have it.
revie~ of your fzle tod~y, g<}~ ~,h~u ~,rt,. par~; g p; . ~
your file #1 of 2.
5th, I will review the corre~p~%d~i~ fr~m t~ :~a~mtm~ Boa~i a~nd
ad~l. se you of same,
If you have any ~ea'tion~, or r~tu~ any a~i~i~na~ doC~e~ts
~tao
FROM : MILLBRO0~< SCHOOL LIBRARY
, g lillbrook School
15 199:3 01:06PM P2
January15,1998
The Zoning Board of Appeals
Gerard p. Goehringer, Chairman
Southold Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Mr Goehringer:
For your background information, I wanted to summarize my recent tdephone conversations with
Mrs. Elizabeth Husband who is wintering in Arizona. As you well know, Mrs. Husband is a
neighbor of th9 Hay Harbor Golf Course on Fishers Island. I have spoken with her twice this
week ~ When I talked with her on Monday night and explained to her that we were working
against a Thursday deadline, she immediately stated that she couldn't believe that the letter she
signed had so much power and impact on this project. After we talked for awhile, she said that
she had not intended to interfere or block the project in any way, but she merely wanted to voice
two concerns which she had.
I asked her ifsbe would be willing to write a two sentence letter explaining her new position and
to fax it to mc and she didn't know what a fax machine was, nor did she have any stationery wit.h
her in Arizona. She then referred me to her banker in Waterbury, CT whom she said perhaps
could write the letter for her. I contacted this gentleman the following ntoming after great
difficulty (the number she gave me was incorrect !) and I spoke with him at considerable length.
He understood our dilenuna and promised to try and reach her later that day. He finally reached
her yesterday - on her 88th birthday- and he reported back to me the following:
Mrs. Husband adnfitted to him that she didn't write the original letter, but signed it because two
of her friends who wrote it and were against the project asked her to.
* She had no idea that the letter would carry any weight at all and, as a former member of the
Club, she never intended to block this project, but merely to voice her concerns.
When I asked him if he would fax a letter to me regarding his conversation with her, he said he
didn't have power of attorney for Mrs. Husband and he didn't want to get in the middle of
something that might adversely af~ct her doing business with his bank
I thanked him and then called Mrs~ Husband again. She reiterated to me that she has no objection
to the project and oesn t understand why we need her retraction in writing. Nonetheless, I have
d '
prepared a short letter ( a copy of which accompanies this letter) which I have sent to her and
asked her to sign and return While I am hopeful that she will in fact sign and return it, her banker
cautioned me that thax he only gets about one third of letters he sends her for her signature back
from her.
School irlmd, .Millbrook, Ncw 5~rk 12545
Tel. (91,1) 677~8261 F. AX (914) 677-859S l~-mail: rnillbro~k@nlillbrook.pv~&12.nyus
~ROM : MILLBROOK SCHOOL LIBRARY PHONE NO. : 914 6?? 8261+ .Tan, 15 1998 01:08PM P4
I hope this summary is helpful and ifI can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact me. I want to express my appreciation to you and the Board for your efforts and work on
this project. It is of great importance to the future of Hay Harbor Club.
Sincerely yours,
Robert W. Anthony
Secretary of the Board
Hay Harbor Club
Jan. 15 1998 01:07PM P3
ELIZABETH F. HUSBAND
4 SPEAR RANCH
BOX 27
COCHISE, AZ 85606
Ianuary14,1998
The Zoning Board of Appeals
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Southold Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Mr, Goehringer:
Upon further consideration, i hereby withdraw my objections to the proposed Hay Harbor Club
Golthouse project on Fishers Island, I feel comfortable that the Club will respect my previously
stated concerns as the project moves forward,
Sincerely yours,
Elizabeth F. Husband
OFFICE OF
BOARD OF APPEALS
53095 M~in Read
Southold, NY 11971
(1-516) 765-1809 tel. (1-516) 765-9064 fax.
February 11, 1998
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
P.O. Box 483
315 Westphalia Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
Re: Hay tIarbor Club Applications
Hearing Date: February 26, 1998
Dear Mrs. Moore:
This is sent as a reminder that the public hearings on the above
applications will be continue on Thursday, February 26, 1998 as
requested by you for new information and possibly questions. The time
has been scheduled for this project to begin at 7:40 p.m.
Very truly yours,
IAnda Kowalski
Beard Secretary
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard R Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tonora
Lora S. Collins
George Horning
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
RO. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1809
December 22, 1997
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
315 Westphalia Rood
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Re: Applications of Hay Harbor Club, Inc.
Dear Mrs. Moore:
Boord Members are requesting the following information
regarding the above project for submission prior to the hearing, if
possible:
* Survey, site plan or other map showing available parking
spaces, buildln~ location and other land areas for the Main club
facility, which facility was discussed during prior public hearings.
* Number of employees housed including the Main club
facility and the locations of all on-site housing provided at the
different club sites.
Tbenk you.
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
GG:lk
........ ;..~......~..~ ............................................ .~,.. TRAMSMISSION RESULT RePOrT .................... (JAM 07 '98 10:35AM) ..................
TOWM HALL 516 ?65 1823
................................................................................................................................................................................. (AUTO) ......................
DATE START REMOTE TERMIMAL TIME RE- MODE TOTAL PERSC~L LABEL FILE
TIME IDEMTIFICATIOM SULTS PAGES MO.
JAM 07 10:34AM 2985664 01~19" Ok S 02 018
E)ECM >)REDUCTIOM S)STAMDARD M)MEMORY C)COMFIDEMTIAL ~)BATCH
D) DETAIL $) TRAMSFER
F)FIME P)POLLIMG
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATYIAM, JR.
RICI-IARD G. WARD
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Zoning Board Office
Planning Board
Request for comment
December 29, 1997
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
Appl. #.4503 - Hay Harbor Club
Fishers Island
SCTM 1000-9-12-8.1
The Planning Board cannot comment on the above site plan because there is no
application for Hay Harbor in this office.
EDWARD FORRESTER
Director o f Code Enforcement
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1802
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Jerry Goehringer, ZBA Chairman
Ed Forrester, Director Code Enforcement ~)'"
January 13, 1998
Number of Generic Parking Spaces
In response to your request for a calculation of generic parking spaces required
for a golf course facility, I have made the following determination. Given the
parameters supplied by you and using the figures available in sec 100-191 of the
Code: 213 parking spaces will be required.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
ED FORRESTER, BUILDING DEPARTMENT
JERRY GOEHRINGER, ZBA CHAIPuV~N
JANUARY 13, 1998
NUI~ER OF GENERIC PARKING SPACES
As a general hypothetical situation, we are asking your
general opinion as to a general number of parking spaces
that would be required for a facility described similar to
the following:
Private 9-hole golf course and
Private clubhouse
Membership: 410
Full-time On-Site Employees: 8
Total building floor area used
As a clubhouse with related
Accessory activities: 5200 sf.
The above is based, of course,
other code requirements would
zoning district.
on the presumption that all
be met in the appropriate
Thank you for your assistance.
v.a T .~.RIE SCOPAZ
TOWN PLANNER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
::-7: '
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Gerald Goehringer, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
Required Parking Spaces
January 14, 1998
JAN 4 -
In response to your memorandum of January 9th in which you request an
opinion as to the number of parking spaces that would be required of a
private 9-hole golf course with a clubhouse comprising 5200 square feet of
floor area.
Section 100-191 of the Zoning Code requires one parking space for each
two members of a membership club (or of accommodations, whichever is
greater), and one parking space for each employee. (No distinction is
made between 9 or 18 hole courses.)
In the hypothetical, but very specific example set forth in the memo, the
minimum number of parking spaces that would be required are:
410 (membership) / 2 = 205 parking spaces
8 employees x I = 8 parking spaces
Total = 213 parking spaces.
The figures noted above will hold true only if the membership in this
hypothetical example (410) is the maximum number of people that will be
granted membership in the club. If the physical accommodations (whether
it be the greens, the clubhouse, the locker rooms, whatever) on the site
were capable of handling more than 410 people, then more parking spaces
would be required.
I hope this analysis answers your question.
cc: Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement
TO:
DA T~ ~
ED FORRESTER, BUILDING DEPARTMENT
JERRY GOEHRINGER, ZBA CHAIRMAN
JANUARY 13, 1998
NUMBER OF GENERIC PARKING SPACES
AS a general hypothetical situation, we are asking your
general opinion as to a general n~mber of parking spaces
that would be required for a facility described similar to
the following:
Private 9-hole golf course and
Private clubhouse
Membership: 410
Full-time On-Site Employees: 8
Total building floor area used
As a clubhouse with related
Accessory activities: 5200 sf.
The above is based, of course, on the presumption that all
other code requirements would be met in the appropriate
zoning district.
Thank you for your assistance.
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard R Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Lora S. Collins
George Homing
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1809
December 22, 1997
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mat~tuck, NY 11952
Re: Applications of Hay Harbor Club, Inc.
Dear Mrs. Moore:
Board Members are requesting the following information
regarding the above project for submission prior to the hearing, if
possible:
* Survey, site plan or other map showing available parking
spaces, building location and other land areas for the Main club
facility, which facility was discussed during prior public hearings.
* Number of employees housed - including the Main club
facility and the locations of all on-site housing provided at the
different club sites.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
GG:Ik
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
315 Westphalia Road
P.O, Box 483
Mattituck, New York 11952
Tel: (516) 298-5629
Margaret Rutkowski
Secreta~
December 5,1997
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Hay Harbor Club, Inc.,
Dear Linda:
Enclosed please find a copy of a petition which was discussed
at the last Zoning Board hearing on the above matter. The Hay
Harbor Club Inc. Board of Directors wished to discuss the petition
merely to dispute rumors and factually inaccurate statements being
.circulated, and possibly expressed to the board.
As was testified to by the Hay Harbor Club Inc. President,
Mr. Christopher A. di Bonaventura, this petition addresses the
club's internal operations, not the zoning use or pending
applications. Furthermore, the petition signatures were not
properly notarized or witnessed, certain signatories signed names
for others, and many of the signatories later retracted their
support of the petition.
In light of the irregularities of this petition the board
should disregard this document.
If you have any questions, or request any additional documents
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
~. Moore
cc: Sandy Esser
otl ~e front
etimalOo told tw~ nnwd~-'~--~,:'.7-,'?'--" ~v~-~. me other PLanned dulVa~x,
--,,,,,.,,, .ms wu~u present Problems 13ecau~e of noise.
bllament. ' ' "" '"~w I~a~q m curnDer'eott~ wit~ caidl in the
I
EXCEPTION)....APPLICANT REQUIRES A SETBACK VARIANCE
BECAUSE STRUCTURE BUILT BY ROAD, THE STRUCTURE DOES
NOT NOW MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS
Zoning Board Authorization:
PROPERTY ZONED R- 120
AT ARTICLE III SECTION 100-31 SUB. 7-
SPECIAL EXCEPTION 100-31 (7) Country Club, Golf Club etc. listed
TOWN LAW 274-b (3) Where Special Use Permit contains one or more
feature which do not comply with the Zoning regulation- application
may be made for an area variance...by direct appeal (No Denial of
Building Permit by Building Inspector)
.Dennis v. ZBA Village of Briarcliff Manor 167 Misc. 2d 555, 637 NYS2d
266 (Westchester County, 1995) After Town Law Amended: The Zoning
Board of Appeals has authority to grant area variances in connection with
Special Use [Exception] Permit~ Village Law 7-725-b (3) / equivalent
language in Town Law 274-b (3) (case presented to board with copy of
relevant Village/Town Law)
The set back of the building is an area (dimensional) variance not a
waiver of a condition. An example ora condition is the use with the condition of limiting
the hours of operation.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION CRITERIA:
PRESUMPTIVELY VALID USE 1N THAT THE TOWN HAS
LEGISLATED THAT THE USE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL
ZONING PLAN.
(IN OTHER WORDS R-120 ZONING ALLOWS OWNER TO PUT HIS
PROPERTY TO A USE WHICH THE ORDINANCE EXPRESSLY
PERMITS)....THE USE IS CONTEMPLATED BY THE ORDINANCE
SUBJECT TO REASONABLE CONDITIONS TO MINIMIZE THE
IMPACT ON THE' SURROUNDING AREA
STANDARDS FROM 100-263
A. THAT THE USE WILL NOT PREVENT THE ORDERLY AND
REASONABLE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR OF
PROPERTIES IN ADJACENT USE DISTRICTS AND B. THAT THE
USE WILL NOT PREVENT THE ORDERLY AND REASONABLE
USE OF PERMITrED OR LEGALLY ESTABLISHED USES IN THE
DISTRICT WHEREIN THE PROPOSED USE IS TO BE LOCATED
OR ADJACENT USE DISTRICTS:
-GOLF COURSE & CLUB HOUSE LOCATED IN 1890'S AND THE
BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 1927. THE GOLF CLUB WITH
EMPLOYEE HOUSING CONTINUES TODAY
- THE CLUB HOUSE IS TUCKED INTO A WOODED HILL, THE HILL IS
~'~ 60 FEET ABOVE GRADE, THE HILL IS ON THE SIDE & BEHIND
THIS STRUCTURE AND THE FIRST TEE IS AT THE TOP OF THE HILL.
ABOVE THE CLUBHOUSE IS THE CLOSEST ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNER (HOBSON FAMILY). THE CLUB IS PRESENTLY LOCATED
ON THE ROAD, AND ADJACENT TO A $200,000 PUTTING GREEN.
THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF A 9 HOLE GOLF COURSE WHICH
FACES THE WATER.
THE STRUCTURE IS A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING BILDG (70
YEAR OLD STRUCTURE) .... THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING WAS
ESTABLISHED WITHOUT ANY FRONT YARD SETBACK IN 1929.
-THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE USE (EXIST SINCE 1920'S). THE
STRUCTURE DOES NOT DICTATE THE MEMBERSHIP. THE
MEMBERSHIP IS FIXED (440 MEMBERS), THE NEW STRUCTURE
WILL NOT CHANGE THE USE OR INTENSITY OF USE. NO CHANGE
Ftq PARKING OR INCREASE IN TRAFFIC BECAUSE THE EXISTING
USES WILL NOT CHANGE.
THE EMPLOYEE PARKING IS RESTRICTED TO THE MAIN CLUB
HOUSE, THE BUILDING IS LOCATED WITHIN A CUT IN THE HII.L
AND THE TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY
ACTUALLY CREATE VISUAL & SOUND BARRIERS. THE LOCATION
OF THE PUTTING GREEN & FIRST TEE PROHIF~IT CREATION OF A
PARKING LOT, ( THE HISTORIC GOLF COURSE IS FROM THE 1890'S,
ONE OF THE OLDEST GOLF COURSES IN THE COUNTRY)
HOWEVER, HANDICAP PARKING IS IMPROVED WITH ASPHALT
SURFACE AND AN ADDITIONAL SPACE ADJACENT TO THE
BUILDING. THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET HAS BEEN THE
PARKING AREA FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS. THE CLUB AND
PROPERTY OWNER HAVE WORKED COOPERATIVELY.
C. THAT THE SAFETY, THE HEALTH, THE WELFARE, THE
COMFORT, THE CONVENIENCE OR THE ORDER OF THE TOWN
WILL NOT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED USE
AND ITS LOCATION
-THE 56' X 52' + BUILDING IS FALLING DOWN AND IS A CONCERN
TO THE CLUB - THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE HEALTH, WELFARE
& COMFORT OF THE RESIDENTS IS ALSO A CONCERN: -THE ROOF LEAKS
-FLOODING IN BASEMENT/FOUNDATION LEAKS
-LOCATION TUCKED INTO HILL RESULTS IN RUNOFF FROM
THE ROAD AND HILL ENTERING INTO THE BUILDING
- THE BUILDING DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE HANDICAP.
ACCESS. CODE OR THE NYS FIRE PREVENTION & BUILDING
CODE [THE NEW BUILDING IS 56' X 56' (4 FEET ON SIDE FOR
CODE COMPLIANCE)]
D. THAT THE USE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH AND
PROMOTE THE GENERAL PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS
CHAPTER
THE USES ARE ESTABLISHED: THE GOLF CLUBHOUSE
BUILDING IS ESTABLISHED ON THE PROPERTY WITH THE
STAFF HOUSING. THE OLD BUILDING IS A LESS THAN
DESIRABLE STRUCTURE, THE BUILDING IS DECAYING AND
WEATHERED. THE NEW BUILDING WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH
STATE AND FEDERAL CODES, AND ARCHITECTURALLY IN
CHARACTER WITH THE ELEGANT AND GRACEFUL HOMES ON
FISHERS ISLAND. THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE HISTORIC "HAY HARBOR COTTAGES"
E. THAT THE USE WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH ITS
SURROUNDINGS AND WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND OF THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL,
PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO VISIBILITY, SCALE AND
OVERALL APPEARANCE
-BUILDING WILL BE GREATLY IMPROVED
-ARCHITECTURAL STYLE/NATURAL MATERIALS MATCHES
THE NEIGHBOR'S "HUSBAND FAMILY HOUSE"
- ALL PROPOSED STRUCTURES, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL
SHALL COMPLY WITH STATE & FED. REGS
- THE STRUCTURE WILL BE 3,000 SQ. FT., SMALLER THAN
MOST OF THE HOMES ON FISHERS ISLAND.
ONCE USE IS PERMITFED BY SPECIAL PERMIT 100-242 (a) IS
APPLICABLE. NOTIIING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE DEEMED
TO PREVENT THE "REMODELING, RECONSTRUCTION OR
ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING BUILDING WITH A
CONFORMING USE PROVIDED THAT SUCH ACTION DOES NOT
CREATE ANY NEW NONCONFORMANCE OR INCREASE THE
DEGREE OF NONCONFORMANCE WITH REGARD TO THE
REGULATIONS
SANDY ESSER'S TESTIMONY:
MEETS STATE CODE...MEET HANDICAP CODE/ACCESSIBILITY
FOOTPRINT CONTINUED...ENLARGEMENT IS TO MEET STATE/FED
LAWS
4 FEET ON WESTERLY SIDE...SQUARED OFF
CONTINUED AS TWO STORY BUILDING
PARKING- 2 EXISTING- ADDING ADDITIONAL HANDICAP (THREE
TOTAL) WHICH X~/ILL BE LEVELED, CLEARED AND PAVED FOR
HANDICAP SPACE
PARKING ACROSS STREET.. USED FOR OVER 20 YEARS.
CLUB OPERATIONS:
RESTRICTED STAFF PARKING TO MAIN CLUBHOUSE
MEALS ARE AT MAIN CLUBHOUSE..8:00 AM START/WORK THE
STAFF IS OUT OF THE APARTMENTS BY 6:30-7:00 A.M.
RESIDENTIAL USE IS A PERMITTED USE:
THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 34.8 ACRES (ASSESSORS RECORDS
ARE 44 ACRES?)
THE RESIDENTIAL USE WITH THE GOLF CLUB IS CUSTOMARY TO
THE OPERATIONAL NEEDS OF CLUB-Affidavit by Club Manager for
Golf Club, CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE HOUSING TO
EMPLOYEES
RATHER THAN A SEPARATE STRUCTURE ON THE CLUB GROUNDS
THE BUILDING INCORPORATES BOTH USES- SECOND FLOOR
RESIDENTIAL & FIRST FLOOR CLUB HOUSE.
COMMON ROOM- SITTING AREA FOR STAFF ONLY
EXISTING 2 FULL APTS. W/2 BD. (GOLF PRO. & TENNIS PRO) AND
THEIR FAMILIES WITH 4 BEDROOMS FOR SENIOR STAFF (SAILING
MASTER, ASS. MANAGER, CHEF, AND CHIEF COOK) - DORMITORY
ONLY ( NO COOKING)ONLY FOR SENIOR STAFF
( FINANCIAL NEED FOR ROOMS = ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL
HARDSHIP TO THE CLUB IF YOU ELIMINATE ROOMS ~,$400,000
COST TO CLUB). IN ADDITION TO RENTAL COSTS, SALARY COSTS
INCREASE: BY PROVIDING TO THE EMPLOYEES "MANDATORY"
ON-CAMPUS EMPLOYEE HOUSING THE CLUB ELIMINATES THE
NEED TO ADJUST SALARIES UPWARD TO COMPENSATE THE
EMPLOYEE FOR OFF-CAMPUS HOUSING INCOME TAX LIABILITY.
( RENTAL HOUSING IS LIMITED, POOR QUALITY (DOCUMENTED IN
"THE GAZETTE" ~qEWSPAPER) AND EMPLOYEE NEEDS EXTEND
BEYOND THE SUMMER RENTAL SEASON.
SECOND FLOOR HOUSING LESS INTENSIVE USE THAN RESIDENCE
BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL USE IS IN SAME STRUCTURE,
MANAGEMENT ON THE PREMISES, MEALS AT MAIN CLUBHOUSE
PARKING AFTER CLUB HOURS & STAFF PARKING MANDATED BY
CLUB RULES AT MAIN BUILDING
EMPLOYEES- SEASONAL ( FOR GOLF APRIL TO OCTOBER)
RENT NOW AT GREAT EXPENSE ($40,000/YR.+)
,HOUSING OF STAFF CUSTOMARY & ACCESS TO CLUB
OPERATIONS AND THE RESIDENTIAL USE IS A PERMITTED USE.
880 MEMBERS- 440 FAMILIES ( LIMITED MEMBERSHIP DUE TO THE
USE OF THE POOL AT THE MAIN CLUB HOUSE)
GROUP OF OBJECTORS-25
RECEIVED SOME LETTERS IN SUPPORT (ADJACENT OWNERS
HOBSON & BOGERT)
MRS. THOMAS HUSBAND- HAY HARBOR HAS USED LAND ACROSS
STREET TO PARK 15-20 CARS... CLUB USE FOR OVER 20 YEARS
( LAW PROVIDES THAT ADVERSE POSSESSION CLAIM CAN BE
MADE AFTER 10 YEARS) MR. DI BONAVENTURA SPOKE TO HER
AND SON, AND THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF PROJECT
FINANCIAL HARDSHIP
RESIDENTIAL USE- HOUSING COSTS AND AVAH.ABILITY ~400,000
WITHOUT INCORPORATING USE INTO GOLF CLUB-HOUSE
BLDG. IN VIOLATION OF ALL FED. & STATE CODES
MUST BE RECONSTRUCTED TO MEET STATE CODE...BUILDING
CODE WOULD PROHIBIT THE TYPE OF ALTERATIONS NEEDED TO
KEEP PROPERTY FROM FALLING DOWN WITHOUT REACHING
THRESHOLD TO MEET STATE & FEDERAL BUILDING CODES
LOCATION ESTABLISHED ADJACENT TO EXISTING GREEN
($200,000 COST OF A PUTTING GREEN)
rumors:
NO SNACK BAR
NO RENTAL OF APARTMENT OR ROOMS
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORITY TO MAKE APPLICATION- NO
VOTE OF MAJORITY OF MEMBERSHIP, A VOCAL MINORITY
AREA VARIANCE:
1. NO UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WILL BE PRODUCED IN THE
CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO
NEARBY PROPERTIES IF VARIANCE IS GRANTED:
EXISTING CLUB/CONTINUED 2 APARTMENTS WITH STAFF ROOMS
ARE CUSTOMARY & INCIDENTAL TO A GOLF CLUB- FROM
OUTSIDE THE BUILDING WILL APPEAR THE SAME SIZE AND
DESIGN AS MOST OF THE HOMES ON FISHERS ISLAND;
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE IS LARGER
NEW STRUCTURE WILL BE MORE ELEGANT THAN EXISTING
STRUCTURE. THE ARCHITECT HAS SAVED THE WORTHY
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF THE EXISTING BUILDING
FOOT PRINT .OF EXISTING STRUCTURE WILL BE SQUARED OFF
AND 4 FEET NEEDED ON THE SIDE TOWARDS THE HILL.
2. THE BENEFIT SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN NOT BE
ACHIEVED BY SOME METHOD~ FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT
TO PURSUE~ OTHER THAN A VARIANCE:
EXISTING CLUB BUILT IN 1890'S WOOD FRAME CONSTRUCTION
DETERIORATED DUE TO FLOODING/LEAKS/ELEMENTS -THE ROOF LEAKS
-FLOODING'IN BASEMENT/FOUNDATION LEAKS
-LOCATION TUCKED INTO HILL RESULTS IN RUNOFF FROM
THE ROAD AND HILL ENTERING INTO THE BUILDING
BECAUSE THERE IS INADEQUATE DRAINAGE
- THE BUILDING DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE HANDICAP.
ACCESS. CODE OR THENYS FIREE PREVENTION & BUILDING
3. THE AREA VARIANCE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHING THE
BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT VERSES THE DETRIMENT TO
COMMUNITY
LOCATION OF BUILDING IS INTO A HILL, WOODED FROM BEHIND,
,AND THE SURROUNDING HOMES ARE ELEVATED. THE ROAD IS
A SECONDARY ROAD USED MAINLY FOR CLUBHOUSE GOLFERS,
FISHERS ISLAND POPULATION DOES NOT EVEN PLACE ROAD
SIGNS IDENTIFYING ROADS. BENEFIT OF NEW CLUBHOUSE
MEETING THE FIRE PREVENTION & BUILDING CODE AND THE
HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS EXCEEDS THE
DETRIMENT TO COMMUNITY, THE LOCATION OF BUILDING IS
MERELY CONTINUED. THE BUILDING CAN NOT BE MOVED BACK
BECAUSE OF THE HILL, AND THE PUTTING GREEN CAN NOT BE
RELOCATED WITHOUT EXPENDING $200,000 DOLLARS. THERE IS
NO OTHER LAND TO RELOCATE THE PUTTING GREEN.
THE APARTMENTS ARE BEING REPLACED WITH SAFER
APARTMENTS, THE RESIDENTIAL USE WAS ESTABLISHED AND
THE 4 ADDITIONAL ROOMS ARE FOR THE SENIOR STAFF ONLY.
THE DENIAL OF THE 4 ROOMS WOULD CAUSE A VERY REAL
FINANCIAL HARDSHIP... THE STAFF MUST BE HOUSED PURSUANT
TO THEIR CONTRACTS ($400,000.00 IS THE ANTICIPATED COST OF
ALTERNATIVE HOUSING FOR THE 4 PEOPLE)
4. THE VARIANCE WILL HAVE NO ADVERSE EFFECT OR
IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT.
RECONSTRUCTED BUILDING WILL BE SAFER BY MEETING ALL
FIRE CODES, ELIMINATE THE HEALTH HAZARD FROM FLOODING,
LEAKS, OR ROOF RUNOFF BECAUSE THE FLOODING WILL BE
ADDRESSED WITH FRENCH DRAINS. THE USES WILL CONTINUE
WITH NO ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE
STRUCTURE WILL ENHANCE THE PROPERTY AND BE IN KEEPING
WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
5. DIFFICULTY NOT SELF CREATED
THE STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1929 AND THE GOLF
CLUB USE AND RESIDENTIAL USE WERE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO
ZONING.
,6..:. THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE
PRACTICABLE GIVEN THE PERSONAL BENEFITS ANTICIPATED
BY THE APPLICANT.
RECONSTRUCT BUILDING IN ORIGINAL FOUNDATION IS
ECONOMICALLY AND ARCHITECTURALLY IMPOSSIBLE SEE
ATYACHED OUTLINE BY CONTRACTOR.
ZBA QUESTIONS:
SKETCH OF PARKING PLAN FOR EXISTING CLUB- ON PLANS
ACROSS STREET- USED FOR 20 YEARS
EXISTING CESSPOOLS/WELL CAN NOT BE LOCATED NEW
SYSTEM REQUIRED
IIEALTH DEPARTMENT APPLICATION PENDING
SETBACKS SHOWN ON PLANS
ACREAGE OF PROPERTY- OLD SURVEY/34.8 ACRES...
CLUB HOUSE WITH POOL PART OF HAY HARBOR CLUB
TAXES:
1000-9-12-8.1 44.60 ACRES (MAY BE IN ERROR)
1000-9-1-20.65 ACRES $471.17
1000-9-3-1 10.10 ACRES $11,936.20
1000-9-10-5.30 ACRES $2,879.33
$11,988.55
SITE PLAN TO BE SUBMI'ITED UPON APPROVAL OF SPECIAL
EXCEPTION
FROM : BI) RI~IODELIHG & RESTORRT[~ PHONE HO~ : Dm=. 09 i9=J7 1~:5~PM P2
Island, I',,'Y
Davkl C, Rg*~rwlth
December 9,
Ms. S&udy Esser
Vice Presideat, l~c[lities
~he ~y H~bor ~b
De~ ~, Esser,
· ~s. is ~ response to yo~ ~ue~ ~ ~te ~ ~ ~e follo~ [~ ~r the
r~ova~on oFthe go~c[ubhoase at ~y ~bor. These ~e
on ~ obae~afiom ~d without ~r~ pl~s.
1) Shor~ up ~ b~ilt~ to ~ow ~or ~ ~mo~on ~sfing
3) ~ame exisfi~ s~ctm~e to ~low ~r aew
$150,000,00
$85,000.00
S450,000.00
P, espectgutly aubmitled,
David C. B¢ckwith
FROM ."' BD RI~MIDD~I. IN~ & RESTOR~TI PNQN~ ND,
F~her~ Ir, lai~, NY 063~0
Tel: 5~,6F/88-~919
15-,~4ent
De~ernb~ 9, 1997
~. Sa. dy
Vice Presider, ~a¢ilifies
Th~ ~y ~bor ~b
De~ ~, Bsser,
· ~.is ~ response m yo~ ~ue~ ~ ~te ~ ~ ~e follo~ i~ms ~r the
r~ovafioa of the Soft Clubhouse at ~y ~bor. These ~ estlma~s o~y ~ uc bMed
on ~ obs~atio~ ~d wilhout ~rg pl~s.
1) Shore up ~ buil~nE to ~ow for ~e d~o~fion of the
2) D~olish ~s~ lo.darien ~ pro~ n~ foofi~s ~d fo~dstion.
3) ~ame exis~ s~uctm'c to ~low ~r new
$150,000.00
S85,000,00
S480,000.00
Respectfully submitted,
Da. vid C. B¢ckwkh
FROM :'BD REMODEL[HG & RESTr~RRT[ PHONE
Decembe~ g, 199'/
~, Saudy F~ser
Vice Presider, y~ilities
· h~ ~y H~bor ~b
De~ ~. Esser,
· ~sis ~ ~spouse Jo yo~ r~ue~ m ev~Je ~ p~ ~e Follo~ [~ems ~r the
r~ovaGoe oF~he go, clubhouse ~t ~y ~bor. These ~ estimates o~y ~ ~e b~ed
on ~ obs~ations ~d without ~t~r~ pl~s.
1) Shore up e~ buil~ to ~ow for ~e a~o~on o~the ~lstin~
2) D~olish ~s~ ~d~tion ~ pro,de n~ foo~s ~ foundstion.
3) [~ame exi~ s~ctm'e to ~low ~r new co~stions.
$150,000.00
$85.000.00
$4~0,000.00
lkespecti'ully subn'~ed,
David C. Beckwith
F~0M :'~D R~MODEI_ING ~. R~STOI~ATI0
PHONE NOi
Tel: $16/78G-~19
Fax: 51A/78~.71.92
December 9, 199'/
Ms. Sandy Esser
Vice President, ~aciJlties
Thc H&y Harbor
Dear ~,
· ~s.i~ ~ response to yo~ ~ue~ ~ ~te ~ ~ ~e follo~ {~$ ~r the
r~ova6on o~le ~o~olubhou~e at ~y ~bor. These ~o eatim~te~ o~y ~ ~re b~
on ~s~ obse~ations ~d without ~r~ pZ~s.
1) Shore up e~ builtas tO ~ow for ~o d~o~on of the
3) ~ame oxis~i~ s~uctm'o to ~low ~r n~ co~ation8.
$150,000.00
S85,000.00
$480,000.00
Respec~ully submitted,
David C. Bock-with
OFFICE OF
BOARD OF APPEALS
53095 Main Road
$outhold, NY 11971
(1-516) 765-1809 tel. (1-516) 765-1823 fax.
December 19, 1997
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
P.O. Box 483
315 Westphalia Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
Re: Hay Harbor Club Applications
Hearing Date: January 15, 1998
Dear
This is sent as a reminder that the public hearing on this
application will be continue on Thursday, January 15, 1998 for new
information and possibty questions. The time has been scheduled for this
project to begin at 7:20 p.m.
Very truly yours,
Linda Kowalski
Board Secretary
ADDITIONAL HEARING(S)
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1998
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town
Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following applications
will be held for public hearings by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF
APPEALS, at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Ro~d, Southold, New
York ]197], on THURSDAY, JANUARY ]5~ ]998 at the times noted
below (or as soon thereafter as possible):
6:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4531 - DUANE PASCALE. Based upon the
Notices of Disapproval dated November 10, 1997, revised 12/]5/97, and
Disapproval dated November 17, 1997, applicant is proposing to build a
new deck addition and requests Variances under Article IliA, Sections
100-30A.3, Article XXIV, Sections 100-244B and 100-239.4B, for increase
of lot coverage over 20%, reduction in setback from the front property
llne, and reduction in setback from bu{khead. Location of Property:
3520 Minnehmha Boulevard, Southold; Parcel No. 1000-87-3-8.
6:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4501 - ELEANOR NAGY. (Hearing carryover
from September 25, 1997.) Applicant is requesting a Waiver under
Article II, Section 100-26 based upon the July 7, 1997 Notice of
Disapproval of the Building Inspector which states: "(1) under Article
II, Section 100-24A. (1) land area identified as 1000-27~4-2 and
1000-27-4-3 were created by deed in 1965 and do not meet the minimum
lot requirements (12,500 sf) and (2) under Article II, Section 100-25A,
total land area merger exists for 1000-27-4-1, 2 and having been held in
common ownership after July 1, 1983." Location of Property: Harbor
Road, Orient, NY.
Page .~ - Additional ~arings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Meeting to be held January 15, 1998
7:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4532 - SHAWN and DAWN WILLIAMS.
Applicants are requesting a Variance under Article III-A, Section
100-30A.4, based upon the Building Inspector's November 19, 1997 Notice
of Disapproval for the proposed relocation of existing accessory shed to
a new location in the front yard at a distance closer than the required
20 feet to the north (side) property line. This parcel contain.~ a total
lot size of 81,921 sq. ft. Location of Property:
Mattituek, NY; County Parcel No.
Flied Map of Shore Acres.
7:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4532
1000-106-11-20;
405 South Drive,
Lot D on the 1914
COHEN. Applicants are requesting a Variance under Article XXIV,
Section 100-244B and Article III-A, Section 100-30A.3, based upon the
Building Inspector's December 15, 1997 Notice of Disapproval for
construction of a wooden deck: (1) at less than the required 35 feet
from rear property line, and (2) exceeding allowable lot coverage.
This parcel contains a total lot size of 8,276+- square feet and is known
as 355 Skippers Lane, Orient; County Parcel No. 1000-24-2-4.
7:20 p.m. Continuation of HAY HARBOR CLUB~ INC. Project
location: Fishers Island, NY.
The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all
persons or their representatives desiring to be heard in the above
application. The hearing will not start before the time designated, and
written statements may be submitted before the hearing ends. The files
are available for review during Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.).
DEBORAH LYONS and ANDREW
Page ~-~ - Additional ~[~arings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Meeting to be held January 15, 1998
If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call 765-1809.
Dated:
December 18, 1997.
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chair,,mn
By Linda Kowalski
XX
LNAG.97/agl.15/p7-8
Mrs. Thomas B. Husband
F shers Island. NY 06~. 0
September 24, 1997
Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Rd.
Southold, NY 11971
Attn: Ms. Linda Walkowski
Re: Proposed zoning change at Hay I tarbor Golf Club, Fishers Island, NY
Gentlemen:
I wish to make a few comments on subject proposal
I have been a summer resident of Fishers Island for the past 70 years My home is on Halcyon Ave,
directly across the stree~ from the entrance to the Hay Harbor Golf Club. Over the years of my
residence, I have enjoyed seeing the golf course used, and appreciate that my neighbor is really open
space While not always quiet, it is peaceful
I believe that the proposed changes are really not in keeping with the neighborhood To place what
is essentially an apartment house in a locale oqsingle family dwellings does not seem in keeping
with the spirit of the island, The increased activity and its commensurate traffic and noise at night in
particular does not fit into the character of the area
In addition, this change would undoubtedly affecl neighborhood property values negatively While
this, perhaps, could be accepted if there were no other options, my belief is that there are a number of
other options availble to Hay Harbor, and this is not a hardship situation on the part of the club
Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
Sincerely,
TRANSMITTAL OF COPIES
To: ZBA Members
From: ZBA Office
Re: Recent }leaping
Date:
For your review are copies of information submitted by applicant or
others regarding the above hearing. The applicant did not have
extra copies to furnish each member during the recent hearing forum.
Attachments
====================================================================
In the Matter of Hay Harbor Ciub Inc,
Affi~avit
STATE OF NEW YOPJ{
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: es.
Joseph P. Pfaff, b~ing duly
1. That I am the club manager ?~t a ~r~ate Golf Club on
North Fork;
2. That I au a member of th~ Club Managerz A~sociation of
America (CF~kA) which represent~ 4500 Club Mana.ger~ world w~de;
3. That I hereby ~ubmit thi~ alff~dav[~ a% the request of the
~ay Harbor ~olf Club Inc., s~ a ~,r~f~ional, w}.th expertise in
Golf Club operations.
4. That I understand thut th.L~ affidavit will be ~ubm~.tted
to the Southold Town Zoning Board of' APpeals.
~, Staff Housin~ as part o~ the Golf Club facility is
customary and accessory to the u.~e of a private g~lf club, such as
the Hay Harbor Club.
6, Larger Privat~ Clubs bav~ c~stom~rily prov/.ded housing to
~helr ~enior staff. ~ircums. tance~ sUoh.a~ high housing cost,
ocalit£e~ with limited rental ava}.la~l}it~, the time commitment on
staff, and seasonal nature of the pom:f.~om~ necessitate the on~~ite
housing of the staff.
7. Accessory housing of staff
offered as an induoem~t to attract senior level staff. Hou~.in~
t~ ~dverti~ed routinely w~th )o.~' b ~o~t. ings n~io~wid, e,
incc~orated into compensation
8. On an island, a~ with F~b~rm I~land e~ Shelter I~land,
commuting to the club ~s either lmp~aC%ie~l or unavailable du9 to
partic~lar transportation ltm~tat[~, Houming of the staff ~
beneficial to proper o].ub operatio~.
.........
Sworn, to be before me t.hi~
~_X~day of September 1997
~ No~ry Public, State of New York
Regis~tion ~01L05047404
Qualified in Suffolk Cou~
My Cummission Expires ~
/ ,
the undemigne~ members of HHC, pelJlioll the Boald of HHC to review the
of th, H.y C-o C ubhou..nd
OI1 ~ urilll C~llaln ;3gnce1118 c;In be
This is tim[ and foremost a golf dub and these plans do not reflect the needs of
the golfcm.
We are losing the busy end essential center section of the porch. This will
become the -~ommon ro~xn' with fireplace and trophy case~.
Who will be the responsJble pemon to supewlse the irt-Season and off-seaSon
use of this "r.~mmofl ro~m', i.e. ~ and rentals.
The golf pro who spends live months here should have better housing. An
apartment on the front corner oved(mklng the gotf course taking advantage of the
prevailing breeze w~uld 13e mom a~pmprlete and more I:Nlvata than the clupiex
The staff housing should be on the first and second floors in back of the building.
The second flo~r common ama could pm~mnt 13mbtems becaum~ of noi~.
The golf'em at present carry their t~gs onto the porch, place them on a cart, and
proceed to the first tee. The new plan is cumbersome with cads in the
basement.
We question the need of two men's rooms. ,t~¢~,-,.,....~_,-.~. ~ ~ '~-3=-~5.cr.~3
We are concerned with the cgmt of this project and its futura malntanenoe.
We request that before this capital expenditure is undertaken these issues will be
addressed and the membership will be kept informed of your progress.
Moore Moore & Moore
Fax: 9 298-5664
16:36:21 10/22/97 Page 2 of 8 Log:142
DENNIS v ZONING BD. [167 Misc 2d 555, 637 NYS2d 266]
David Dennis et al.,
Appeals of the Village of
Briarcliff Congregational
Petitioners, v. Zoning Board of
Briarcliff Manor, Respondent.
Church, Intervenor-Respondent.
Supreme Court, Westchester County,
December 15, 1995
HEADNOTES
Parties--Standing-Challenge to Area Variance by Adjacent
Property Owner
1. Petitioner property owners have standing to challenge an
area variance issued to respondent church since the property is
adjacent to petitioner's lot. In land use matters petitioner
must show that it would suffer direct harm, or injury that is
different from that of the public at large. However, an
allegation of close proximity alone may give rise to an inference
of damages or injury that enables a nearby owner to challenge a
zoning board decision without proof of actual injury.
Municipal Corporations Zoning Variance -Effect of Issuance of
Special Use Permit on Challenge to Variance
2. The issuance of a special use permit by the Village Board
of Trustees does not render moot a claim by petitioner property
owners challenging an area variance issued in conjunction with
the special use permit to respondent church. While the Board did
not specify the Village Code provision under which it issued the
special use permit, it expressly relied, in part, on the fact
that the Zoning Board of Appeals had issued an area variance.
Additionally, it did not formally determ/ne that respondent did
not need an area variance in the first place.
Municipal Corporations Zoning Variance
3. Where petitioner property owners challenged a variance
issued to respondent chQrch in conjunction with a special use
permit to enable respondent to operate a not-for-profit private
nursery school at its parish hall, which was located on a
one-acre lot, and the zoning ordinance mandated two-acre lots for
nursery schools, respondent's arguments that the application is
for a religious school building which does not require a two-acre
minimum lot requirement or that the nursery school constitutes a
"pre-existing conforming use" for which no special permit is
needed, lack merit. These issues should have been raised before
the administrative boards. Finally, since neither the Planning
Board nor the Board of Trustees is a party to this proceeding,
the propriety of their determinations can neither be addressed
nor litigated.
. ~oore
/D. Moore Moore & Moore
Fax: 9 298-5664
16:36:22 10/22/97 Page 3 of 8 Log:142
Municipal Corporations--Zoning Variance-Power of Zoning
of Appeals to Grant Variance in Connection with Special Use
Permit
Board
4. A Zoning Board of Appeals has authority to issue
respondent church an area variance in connection with a special
use permit pursuant to Village Law S 7-725-b, since this statute
authorizes approval of special use permits and, specifically,
subdivision (3) permits a Board to entertain an application for
an area variance that may be needed in connection with an
application for a special use permit. A Zoning Board of Appeals
needs no authorization beyond that which is granted by
subdivision (3). In the event special use <*pg. 556> permit
requirements present dimensional difficulties to an applicant,
the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant an area variance.
Municipal Corporations--Zoning Variance
5. Where the Zoning Board of Appeals issued a variance for
respondent church in connection with a special use permit (see,
Village Law S 7-725-b), and the application was properly made and
reviewed as one for an area variance and not as an application
for a use variance, the Board was not required to make findings
of fact as they relate to use variance standards (see, Village
Law S 7-712-b [2]).
TOTAL CLIENT-SERVICE LIBRARY(R) REFERENCES
Am Jur 2d, Zoning and Planning, SS 733, 735, 737, 743, 744,
837, 902-905, 917, 958-960, 967.
CLS, Village Law S 7-712-b (2): S 7-725-b.
NY Jur 2d, Buildings, Zoning, and Land Controls, SS 260,
261, 264, 265,280-284, 289, 297, 298, 302, 306, 309, 310.
NY Real Prop Serv, S 48: 60.
ANNOTATION REFERENCE
See ALR Index under Variances; Zoning.
COUNSEL
David J. Bamonte, Ossining, for petitioners, worms er,
Kiely, Galef & Jacobs, White Plains, for respondent. Shamberg
Marwell Cherneff Hocherman Davis & Hollis, P. C., Mount Kisco,
for intervenor-respondent.
John R. LaCava, J.
OPI NI ON
· Moore
,~). Moore Moore & Moore Fax: 9 298-5664
16:36:22 10/22/97 Page 4 of 8 Log:142
I. BACKGROUND AND FACTS
David and Arlone Dennis (Petitioners) commenced this CPLR
article 78 proceeding to challenge respondent Zoning Board of
Appeals of the Village of Briarcliff Manor's (ZB~ May 16, 1995
granting of an area variance to intervenor-respondent the
Briarcliff Congregational Church (BCC).
The property that is the subject of this proceeding consists
of 1.281 acres. It is improved by BCC' s parish hall, which is
situated across the street from its church and rectory.
Identified on the Village tax maps as section 4, plate 23, block
17, the premises is within the Village' s R-20B Single-Family
Residence District which allows, among other things, private
nursery schools upon the issuance of a special use permit.
Petitioners <*pg. 557> own and occupy a dwelling situated on an
adjacent parcel of property.
In February 1995, BCC submitted a site plan application to
the Planning Board of the Village of Briarcliff Manor in
furtherance of its plans to lease the parish hall to the
Christian Nursery School, a not-for-profit corporation. Among
other things, it also submitted a special use permit application.
Upon revie~ the Planning Board determined that a variance
from the special use permit two-acre lot requirement for
privately operated nursery schools (see, Village of Briarcliff
Manor Zoning Ordinance S 4 [BI [ J] [ 10]) <fn *> was required.
Therefore, the Planning Board directed BCC to apply to the ZBA
for the area variance.
By application dated March 17, 1995, BCC applied to the ZBA
for the variance. Petitioners, and other neighboring property
owners, objected to the variance. Others appeared in support.
Traffic concerns were addressed, as were other issues including
whether the ZBA was empowered to vary the area requirements of a
special use in the first place. The variance was granted by
resolution dated May 16, 1995. It was filed in the Village
Clerk's office on June 20, 1995.
After having conducted public hearings, the Planning Board
granted site plan approval on June 21, 1995. Upon doing so, the
Planning Board place~ numerous mitigative conditions on the
approved site plan. Thereafter, the Planning Board recommended
to the Village Board of Trustees, which is ultimately charged
with granting special use permits, that the special use permit be
granted.
Upon conducting its own public hearing, the Village Board of
Trustees granted BCC a special use permit on July 13, 1995. It
also imposed mitigative measures.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
· Moore
O. Moore Moore & Moore Fax: 9 298-5664
16:36:22 10/22/97 Page 5 of 8 Log:142
Addressing the affirmative defenses raised arid the merits of
the proceeding, I reach the following conclusions:
1. Standing
In Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk (77 NY2d
761 [1991]), the Court of Appeals reiterated the oft-stated
principle that "[i]n land use matters especially, we have long
imposed the limitation that the plaintiff, for standing purposes,
must show that it would suffer direct har~ injury that is in
<*pg. 558> some way different from that of the public at large"
(supra, at 774 [ citations omitted]). It is still recognized,
however, that "an allegation of close proximity alone may give
rise to an inference of damage or injury that enables a nearby
owner to challenge a zoning board decision without proof of
actual injury" (Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning &
Appeals, 69 NY2d 406, 414, rearg denied sub no~ Allen Avionics v
Universal Broadcasting corp., 70 NY2d 694). As stated, this rule
is not absolute. Mere proximity may not be enough (Matter of
Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals, supra; see also,
Matter of Casement v ToWn of Poughkeepsie Planning Bd., 162 AD2d
685 [ 2d Dept 1990]) .
[1] While there may very well exist an absolute distance
from any proposal at which the presumption of injury will never
attach, generally, the determination must be made on a
case-by-case basis. Since, here, we are dealing with adjacent
properties, I find that petitioners have established standing to
attack the issuance of the area variance issued in connection
with a special use permit.
2. Statute of Limitations
The proceeding is not time barred under village Law $
7-712-c (1). It was commenced on July 13, 1995 which is within
30 days of June 20, 1995, the date that the challenged
determination is certified as having been filed in the village
Clerk's office.
3. Mootness
[2] The issuance of a special use permit by the Village
Board of Trustees has not rendered this proceeding moot. While
the Board of Trustees did not specify the subdivision under which
it issued the special use permit, it expressly relied, in part,
on the fact that the ZBA had issued an area variance.
Additionally, it did not formally determine that BCC did not need
an area variance in the first place.
4. Characterization of applicant and need for
variance
[3] The challenged determination has its genesis in BCC'S
application for a special use permit to operate a not-for-profit
Moore Moore & Moore
Fax: 9 298-5664
16:36:22 10/22/97 Page 6 of 8 Log:142
private nursery school. Having failed to challenge that
characterization below, BCC cannot now successfully argue that,
in fact, the application is really for a "religious school
building" for which there is no two-acre minimum lot requirement
(see, Village of Briarcliff Manor Zoning Ordinance $ 4 [B] [J]
[1]), or that the Christian Nursery School constitutes a
"pre-existing conforming use" under section 4 (B) (I) of the
Village <*pg. 559> of Briarcliff Manor Zoning Ordinance for which
no special permit is needed. BCC should have raised these
issues, in the first instance, before the Village Building
Inspector or the various boards before which it appeared.
Finally, since neither the Planning Board nor the Board of
Trustees is a party to this proceeding, the propriety of their
determinations can neither be addressed nor litigated in the
context of this proceeding.
5. Failure to state a cause of action
Keeping in mind that the petition must be viewed in the
light most favorable to Petitioners, I find that Petitioners have
sufficiently stated a cause of action.
6. ZBA authority
[4] The principal issue raised in this proceeding is a
novel one. It is whether section 7-725-b of the Village Law (L
1992, ch 694, as amended by L 1994, ch 486) empowers zoning
Doar~s of appeal to vary area requirements associated with
special use permits. I conclude that it does.
The pertinent parts of section 7-725-b of the Village Law,
entitled "Approval of special use permits", provide:
"1. Definition of special use permit. As used in this
section the term ' special use permit' shall mean an authorization
of a particular land use which is permitted in a zoning local
law, subject to requirements imposed by such local law to assure
that the proposed use is in harmony with such local law and will
not adversely affect the neighborhood if such requirements are
"2. Approval of special use permits. The village board of
trustees may, as part of a zoning local la~ authorize the
planning board or such other administrative body that it shall
designate to grant special use permits as set forth in such local
"3. Application'for area variance. Notwithstanding any
provision of law to the contrary, where a proposed special use
permit contains one or more features which do not comply with the
zoning regulations, application may be made to the zoning board
of appeals for an area variance pursuant to section 7-712-b of
th~s article, without the necessity of a decision or
determination of an administrative official charged with the
Moore
D. Moore Moore & Moore Fax: 9 298-5664
16:36:22 10/22/97 Page 7 of 8 Log:142
enforcement of the zoning regulations ...
"5. Waiver of requirements. The village board of trustees
may further empower the authorized board to, when reasonable,
waive any requirements for the approval, approval with
modifications or disapproval of special use perm/ts subm/tted
<*pg. 560> for approval. Any such waiver, which shall be subject
to appropriate conditions set forth in the local law adopted
pursuant to this section, may be exercised in the event any such
requirements are found not to be requisite in the interest of the
public health, safety or general welfare or inappropriate to a
particular special use permit."
Contrary to Petitioners' position, subdivision (3) of
section 7-725-b of the Village Law is not a procedural refinement
granting zoning boards original jurisdiction over area variance
applications only where area variance authority over special uses
is specifically granted to the zoning board by the village board
of trustees. By its very terms, "[ n]otwithstanding any provision
of law to the contrary", subdivision (3) of section 7-725-b of
the Village Law empowers zoning boards of appeal to grant
applications for area variances that may be needed in connection
w~n an appllcaL~on for a speclal use permlt. A zonlng Doar~ of
appeals needs no authorization beyond that which is granted by
subdivision (3).
Reference to the Bill Jacket for chapter 694 of the Laws of
1992 supports this application of the statute. In the "Summary
of Provisions" portion of the Sponsor's Memorandum of Senator
Cook introducing the bill, the following statement is found:
"Finally, the bill provides that in the event ... special use
permit requirements present dimensional difficulties to a
particular applicant, an area variance may be applied for to the
zoning board of appeals."
In addition the following is stated in the "Statement of
Support" portion of the Memorandum "Finally, by allowing appeal
to the zoning board of appeals, the bill provides applicants
faced with dimensional difficulty an opportunity for
administrative relief."
The "authorized board" referred to in subdivision (5)
relates to boards emPowered by trustees to hear special use
permit applications pursuant to subdivision (2). It is not a
reference to a zoning board of appeals' authority under
subdivision (3). Subdivisions (3) and (5) deal with very
distinct authorizations. Subdivision (3) addresses a zoning
board's power to grant variances from area requirements
associated with special use perm/ts. Subdivision (5), on the
other hand, deals with an "authorized board[' si" authorization to
waive special.use permit requirements. In contrast to a zoning
board's unconditional grant of authority under subdivision (3) to
entertain area variance applications associated with special
uses, an "authorized board['s]" power under subdivision (5) to
~ D. Moore Moore & Moore Fax: 9 298-5664
16:36:22 10/22/97 Page 8 of 8 Log:142
waive special permit <*pg. 561> requirements must derive from
further empowerment by the village board of trustees.
7. The variance
Having determined that the ZBA was empowered to entertain
the application for a variance from the two-acre lot requirement
of section 4 (B) (J) (10) of the Village of Briarcliff Manor
Zoning Ordinance, the remaining issue is whether the ZB~ s May
16, 1995 determination can survive the remaining assertions
raised in the petition.
[5] The application before the ZBA was properly made and
reviewed as one for an area variance (see, Village Law S 7-725-b;
6. ZBA authority, supra). It is not, as Petitioners suggest, an
application for a use variance. Therefore, I reject Petitioners'
argument that the determination should be annulled because the
ZBA failed to make required findings of fact as they relate to
use variance standards (see, Village Law S 7-712-b [2]).
Petitioners' conclusory contention that the determination is
otherwise arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion is also
rejected.
8. Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, the petition is dismissed.
<*pg. 562>
FOOTNOTE * This was incorrectly referred to as section 9 (C)
(8) of the former Village of Briarcliff Manor Zoning Ordinance.
(c) 1997, Alexander Treadwell, Sec of State, State of New York
Note§ 7-725-a 8 VILLAGE LA~I~'i~ Intt* ~i
Dept. 1992) 186 A.D.2d 202,587 N.Y.S.2d ~!
758, leave to appeal denied 81 N.Y.2dI~ - t2~
710, 599 N.Y.S.2d 804, 616 N.E.2d 159.
§ 7-725-b Approval of special use permits
1. Definition of special use permit. As used in this section
term "special use permit" shall mean an authorization of a Pardi
land use which is permitted in a zoning local law, subject to q ire-..~., m
ments imposed by such local law to assure that the proposed use is i~
'harmony with such local law and will not adversely affect the~
neighborhood if such requirements are met.
2. Approval of special use permits. The village board of trustees~m
may, as part of a zoning local law, authorize the planning board or~ [
such other administrative body that it shall designate to grant special~ [
use permits as set forth in such local law.
3. Application for area variance. Notwithstanding any' provisior~
of law to the contrary, where a proposed special use permit contain~
one or more features which do not comply with the zoning regula-,~[l
tions, application may be made to the zoning board of appeals for an~
area variance pursuant to section 7-712-b of this article, without
necessity of a decision or determination of an administrative offici~[[
charged with the enforcement of the zoning regulations.
4. Conditions attached to the issuance of special use
The authorized board shall have the authority to impose
able conditions and restrictions as are directly related to and
tal to the proposed special use permit. Upon its granting of
special use permit, any such conditions must be met in
with the issuance of permits by applicable enforcement agents
officers of the village.
5. Waiver of requirements. The village board of trustees
further empower the authorized board to, when reasonable, waiv~li
any requirements for the approval, approval with modifications
disapproval of special use permits submitted for approval. Any suc~][
waiver, which shall be subject to appropriate conditions set forth
the local law adopted pursuant to this section, may be exercised
the event any such requirements are found not to be requisite in
interest of the public health, safety or general welfare or
ate to a particular special use permit.
6. Public hearing and decision on special use permits.
authorized board shall conduct a public hearing within
days from the day an application is received on any
to it under this section. Public notice of said hearing shall be
in a newspaper of general circulation in the village at least five
6O
BUILDING ZONES § 7-725-b
~lrt. 7
prior to the date thereof. The authorized board shall decide upon
the application within sixty-two days after the hearing· The time
vdthin which the authorized board must render its decision may be
extended by mutual consent of the applicant and the board. The
decision of the authorized board on the application after the holding
of the public hearing shall be filed in the office of the village clerk
within five business days after such decision is rendered, and a copy
thereof mailed to the applicant.
7. Notice to applicant and county, metropolitan or regional plan-
ning agency. At least ten days before such hearing, the authorized
board shall mail notices thereof to the applicant and to the county,
metropolitan or regional planning agency, as required by section two
hundred thirty-nine-m of the general municipal law, which notice
shall be accompanied by a full statement of the matter under consid-
eration, as defined in subdivision one of section two hundred thirty-
nine-m of the general municipal law.
8. Compliance with state environmental quality review act) The
authorized board shall comply with the provisions of the state envi-
ronmental quality review act under article eight of the environmental
conservation law and its implementing regulations.
9. Court review. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the
planning board or such other designated body or any officer, depart-
ment, board or bureau of the village may apply to the supreme court
for review by a proceeding under article seventy-eight of the civil
practice law and rules. Such proceedings shall be instituted within
thirty days after the filing of a decision by such board in the office of
the ~illage clerk. The court may take evidence or appoint a referee
to take such evidence as it may direct, and report the same, with
findings of fact and conclusions of law, if it shall appear that
testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter. The
court at: shall itself dispose of the matter on the merits, determining
all questions which may be presented for determination.
10. Costs. Costs shall not be allowed against the planning board
or other administrative body designated by the village board of
trustees unless it shall appear to the court that it acted with gross
negligence, in bad faith, or with malice in making the decision
appealed from.
i1. Preference. All issues addressed by the court in any proceed-
ing under this section shall have preference over all civil actions and
proceedings.
CAdded L.1992, c. 694, § 4; amended L.1994, c. 486, § 16.)
t ECL 8-0101 et seq.
~ So in original.
61
§ 274-a
Nots 4c
seeking judicial review of administrative
decision, applied to declaratory judgment
suit challenging validity of local law which
amended zoning ordinance to provide that
site review application must meet all re-
quirernente for site plan approval within
one year or be considered void. Janlak
Town of Greenville (2 Dept. 1994) 203
A.D.2d 329, 610 N.Y.S.2d 286.
5..Judicial review
Claim that town misapplied State Fire
prevention and Building Code or failed to
implement the Code when it granted con-
ditional approval for installation of laun-
dromat sought review of administrative
~,sofetion and should have been commenced
Article 78 proceeding. Lund v.
Yorktown (3 Dept. 1996) __ A.D.2d
__, 641 N.Y.S.2d 438.
Decision as to landowner's building per-
mit application would be based on tewn
zoning ordinance as it existed when land-
owner submitted site plan application,
rather than amended zoning ordinance
which changad zoning of land from light
industrial to t~esidential, since planning
beard's failure to act on site plan was
designed to prevent lando~ner from de-
veloping its property prior to effective
date of resoning and was thus in bad faith,
and, had site plan been acted upon in
timely manner and building permit
mately granted, landowner could have
commenced substantial work on project
prior to rezoning, so as to acquire vested
right in industrial classification· Figgie
TOWN LAW
Intern., Inc. v. Town of Huntington (2
Dept. 1994) 20~ A.D£d 416, 610 N,Y.S.2d
563.
Trial court properly considered new
prnaf submitted on renewal and dismissed
proceeding to review detemination by
town planning board granting application
for filling and grading permit and deter-
ruination by town zoning board of appeals
granting application for issuance of spe-
cial permit to expand cemetery; new
proof was affidavit attesting to filing
dates of determinations under review, and
the additional proof of filing had been in-
advertently omitted when proceeding was
originally considered. Wateky v. Town of
Ossining Planning Bd. (2 Dept. 1988) 136
A.D£d 634, 523 N.Y.S.2d 598.
6. Estoppel
Local to~m officials were not estopped
from reviewing an oceanside resort devel-
ment, even though construction according
to the site plans app~oved for both phases
by the to~n planning boa~l had been eom-
pleted prior to a coart determination that
the State Environmental Quality Review
Act had been violated with respect to the
board's appcoval of the site plan for the
second phase, m~ appl~qng the doctrine of
estoppel against the government could rio-
late the doors'/ne of sepat"atkin of powers.
E.F.S. Ventua.es Corp. v. Foster, 1988, 71
N.Y.2d 359, 526 N.Y.S.2d 56, 520 N.E.2d
1345.
274-b. Approval of special use permits
1. Definition of slJecial use permit, As used in this section the term
"special use permit" shall mean an authorization of a particular land use which
is permitted in a zoning ordinance or local law, subject to requirements
imposed by such zoning ordinance or local law to assure that the proposed use
is in harmony with such zoning ordinance or local law and will not adversely
affect the neighborhood ff such requirements are met.
2. Approval of special use permits. The town board may, as part of. a
zoning ordinance or local law adopted pursuant to this article or other enabhng
law, authorize the planning board or such other administrative body that it
shall designate to grant special use permits as set forth in such zoning
ordinance or local law.
' 3. Application for area variance. Notwithstanding any provision of law to
,, the contrary where a proposed special use permit contains one or more
features which do not comp y with the zoning regulations, application may be
·made to the zoning board of appeals for an area variance pursuant to section
two hundred sixty-seven-b of this article, without the necessity of a decision or
determination of an administrative official charged with the enforcement of the
zoning regulations.
4. Conditions attached to the issuance of special use permits. The autho-
,.~..,~ ~ ...~.; ~.,.~ '.~,,~ ,~'~ ~ ~ ...'~,~.-'.~. ,-~ ~,~.~,.,~,~ ~'~'~, ",~"q]ble conditions and
~OWN LAW § 274-b
~strietions as are directly related to and incidental to the proposed special use
~*mit. Upon its granting of said special use permit, any such conditions
aUst be met in connection with the issuance of permits by applicable enforce-
sent agents or officers of the town. '
5. Waiver of requirements. The town board may further empower the
~tharizod board to, when reasonable, waive any requirements for the approv-
al, approval with modifications or disapproval of special use permits submitted
~r approval. Any such waiver, which shall be subject to appropriate eondi-
Ohs set forth in the ordinance or local law adopted pursuant to this section,
may be exercised in the event any such requirements are found not to be
requisite in the interest of the public health, safety or general weffare or
inappropriate to a particular special use permit.:
6. Public hearing and decision on special use permits. The authorized
board shall conduct a public hearing within sixty-two days from the day an ·
application is received on any matter referred to it under this section. Public
't.he town at least five days prior to the date thersof. The authorized board
~all decide upon the application within sixty-two days after the hearing. The
t~ne within which the authorized board must render its decision may be
ex~nded by mutual Consent of the applicant and the board. The decision of
the authorized board on the application after the holding of the public hearing
shall be filed in the office of the town clerk within five business days after such
deciaion is rendered, and a copy thereof mailed to the applicant.
!,
i ?. Notice to applicant and county, metropolitan or reginnal planning agen-
cy. At least ten days before such heaFing, the authorized board shall mail
notices thereof to the applicant and to the county, metropolitan or regional
planning agency, as required by section ~'o hundred thirty-nine-m of the
general munieipai law, which notice shall be accompanied by a full statement
of the matter under consideration, as defined in subdivision one of section ~vo
hundred thirty-nine-m of the general municipal law.
8. Complianse with state environmental quaiit7 review aetJ The autho-
rized board shall comply with the provisions of the state em%onmental quafity
review act under article eight of the envh'onmentai conservation law and its
iimplementing regulations.
i 0. Cour~ review. Any person aggrieved by a decision-of the planning
board or such other designated body or any officer, department, board or
bureau of the town may apply to the supreme eom't for review by a proceeding
under article seventy-eight of the ¢i~51 practice law and rules. S~aeh proceed-
ings shall be instituted within thirty day~ after the filing of a decision by such
board in the office of the town clerk. The eoart may take evidence or appoint
a referee to take such evidence as it may direct, and repo~ the same, with
findings of fact and eoneinsions of law, if it shall appear that testimony is
necessary for the proper disposition of the mattor. The com~ shall itself
dispose of the matter on the merits, determining all questions Which may be
~resent~l for determination.
10. Costo. Costs shall not be allowed against the planning board or other
dministrative body desigr'.ated by the town board unless'it shall appear to the
court that it acted with gross negligence, in bad faith, or with malice in making
the deaiaion appealed from.
11. Preference. All issues addressed by the court in any proceeding under
tiffs section shall have preferen~ze over ail civil actions and proceedings.
(Added L.100g, c. 694, § g; amended L.I~, e. 48~, § ~.) .
~ 'Hearings
Page 36 - Transcrip
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: HAY HARBOR CLUB, INC.
Special Exception Applications.
Variance and
The Chairman read the legal notice and application at the beginning of
the hearing.
CHAIRMAN G. GOEHRINGER: We have a map dated 6/24/97 - most recent
date 7/7/97. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax map showing
this and surrounding properties in the area. And as counsel knows, we
have visited the site. How are you tonight? Would you like to state
your name for the record?
PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: Patricia Moore. 315 Westphalia Road,
Mattituck. This evening I submitted for the record the Notice of Posting
and the green return receipts you have in your file at this point. I also
have the transactional disclosure form which I'H give you at the end of
the hearing process. Before I begin, I wonid like to introduce the
people sitting here this evening from the Hay Harbor Club. Christopher
diBonaventura is the President of the Club. Sandy Esser who you met at
the field inspection. Right here is the Vice President of the Club.
CIIAIRMAN: Minus the hat.
MRS. MOORE: Minus the hat.
MRS. ESSER: You have your hat though.
CHAIRMAN: I have both hats.
MRS. MOORE: Mark Goumand, did I pronounce that correctly?
MR. GOUMAND: Close, "Go-mond."
MRS. MOORE: He's the Treasurer of the Hay Harbor Club. Bob
Anthony is the Secretary. Dick Duggan, Club Manager. Tom Tammony
is the Head of the golf committee as well as a board member. And Jean
Thatcher who is also a board member. There she is, ok. They are all
here this evening to show their interest, their support and to answer any
questions you might have throughout the hearing.
The first issue I would like to address with the Board is whether
tile Zoning Board has authorization with regard ,to a special use permit to
vary from those (the) conditions. From the presubmission conference
that we had, I told you that at that time I was researching the law. I
did find a case right on point, and the ease is Dennlg v. Zoning Board
Village of Brlarcliff Manor. This ease I photocopied for you tonight
and would like to submit to the Board deals precisely with the issue of
what the Zoning Board can and can't do and whether or not area
variances are in the purview of the Board when there is a special
Page 37 - Transcrip~ Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southo]d Town Board of Appeals
exception that lists certain conditions as part of that special use
permit. The case is very clear. It discusses the Village line. I
attached to this case the Village Law, the State law - because as you
know in 1995 the State Law was amended to clarify the intent of the
drafters with regard to Zoning Beard authority, area variances and the
like. And the Village Law parallels directly the language of the Town
Law. So I attached both, the Village Law which deals with this case and
the Town Law, and you'H see that the language is identical and that the
case should be applied to Town Law Interpretation as well. So I have
that case for you this evening and it clearly says that as it should and
common sense would tell you that when you're considering a special
exception, special use permit, that many times there are conditions that
cannot be met because of the circumstances of that particular property,
setbacks, area variances, are a common-sense requirement and that's what
tbJs board sits and does on a regular basis. Finally, I found a case that
says precisely that. And I can tell you I was jumping for joy when I
found it. I'H submit that to the Board.
So now that we have reached the threshold issue of whether or not
we are dealing with a special exception and then area variances, I'll
begin with the criteria of a special exception.
A special exception is a presumptively va[id use. It allows you to
put the. property to the use which the ordinance expressly permits. The
use is contemplated by the ordinance subject to reasonable conditions to
minimize the impact on the surrounding area. That is what you should be
considering this evening. It's clear - the building has been built. It
has been built since 1890.
SANDY ESSER, ARCHITECT:' No. Since 1927. The golf course was 1890.
MRS. MOORE: 1927. I'm sorry. The golf course has been there since
1890. The building itself has been there since 1927. The setbacks have
been established with the building that is there. What we are proposing
to the Board and would like relief from is to reconstruct, to essentially
build the new bui]riing in the precise location with some slight
modification; and we will discuss that further on. So right now the
condition of the 100 ft. setback does not exist and cannot exist. The 50
ft. side yard setback from the property line does not exist today and will
not exist with the new building. So it's - those are the facts that we
start with.
The first consideration under a special exception is that the use
will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or
the properties in adjacent use districts and that the use will not prevent
the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in
the district wherein the proposed use is to be located. And I'll recite
for you because there are so much here, just to make sense of this all,
and when you go back to the transcript and consider this application, I'm
going to go through based on what are the standards and then what the
facts are so that hopefully it will make sense to you at the end.
:Page 38 - Transcrip Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
We have the golf course and the club house which is located on the
building, and to start with some photographs - I know you have been on
the site but these photographs are really wonderful and we should
incorporate them at this time. (Note from Board Secretary indicating
attorney will furnish PHOTOGRAPHS at a later time for the record for the
reason photos were on a poster board and Architect S. Esser want to
keep architect's rendition on reverse side till end. )
MRS. MOORE, continued: Sandy (Esser) did a beautiful job of showing
the building that you saw and really highlighting some of the special
features of this building. And I'm going to have Sandy - why don't you
come up. You'll never see it unless I bring it up to you, if that's all
right. Can I bring it up?
CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MS. ESSER: As you can see the buiJding ks right along the read
currently. Right in front of the building we have a putting green that
has been there for a considerable period of time. Up here we have a
first tee which we have an archival photograph of. It's been there since
1890. We don't want to - we can't - that's immediately to the east of the
building which would preclude us from meeting the setback requirement.
CHAIRMAN: How long is that hole?
MR. : 415 yards.
MS. ESSER: He's the golfer, the golf expert. The back of the building,
this is currently the back of the building showing the property. The
adjacent property owner's house is this way up here. So, thi.~ is actually
land that right now - we are asking for, which isn't where we are now,
but we are asking for an extension of the building footprint by four feet
to accommodate current code requirements for handicap accessibility and
fire-related issues. This ks the side yard of the building. Again, same
issue. There is no expansion asked for here, but as you can see we
really can't move the building 100 feet because there is a berm here
which precludes us from doing that.
These ars all pointing out conditions of the existing building.
Those of you who toured the building with me, there's about 6" of mud in
the basement. The foundation ks at risk. The upper floor meets in no
way the existing fire code. The stair risers are tee high, the stairway
is too narrow. There's no way to change it within the existing building.
Right now, this is the fire escape from the sec.ond fleer. It's a wooden
r~amp. Balanced on a subroof that's there. All of the wiring is scary.
That's about it.
MRS. MOORE: Sandy mentioned the historic nature of this property,' and
the first tee - this ks a photograph taken from 1890 and shows that it's a
really interesting photograph. That is actually the first tee which is
what you see, the building is down here, the clubhouse is dowu here,
.' Page 39 - Transcril- Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
when you go up the path way, the first tee is pretty much at the top of
that hill. The building as you recall is tucked in, nice and cozy into
that corner. And it is apprexfimately 20, 40 - what is the distance, the
height between the elevation of the build{ng and the neighbor, 20 feet?
30 feet?
MS. ESSER: The back of the building? It's hard to say because it's
quite a steep slope. The overall height of the building is about 30 feet,
27'2" and the berm, the site plan variation is about --
CHAIRMAN: About 56 feet it shows here?
MR. : About 20 feet.
MS. ESSER: Twenty feet. Right.
CHAIRMAN: By the way, we would like to keep this (1890 photograph)
until the end of the hearing (returned at end of tonight's hearing).
MEMBER TORTORA: Are you going to ask for the legal case?
CHAIRMAN: You are going to give us the legal cases too right?
MRS. MOORE: I'm going to give it to you right now.
SECRETARY: And the other photographs?
CHAIRMAN: You are going to give us that too?
MRS. MOORE: I'm going to give you everything I'm just presenting.
Yes. There's the case.
SECRETARY: Thank you.
MRS. MOORE: I'm going to show you this rendering for the purpose of
this hearing but she would like this back (architect's rendition behind
the multiple photograph display on poster board). So you have in mind
what the ultimate building -
CHAIRMAN: Can you send us a picture of that (architect's rendition)?
MS. ESSER: I can send you a picture of that. Yes.
MRS. MOORE: Yes. So when I discuss the character of the area (took
pho(ograph display back for presentation).
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MRS. MOORE: So, as Sandy pointed out the Clubhouse is tucked into
the hill. [ts closest - it's presently located on the road. It is very
close to the putting green, or right adjacent to the putting green and
Page 40 - Transcrip~ll~f Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Soutbold Town Board of Appeals .
just a few feet above is the first tee. The property also consists of a
nine-hole golf course which faces the water. So you can see from the - I
know you can see the building and the surrounding area, there really are
only a few properties that are affected. The property is really
surrounded by water aside from the road and the few houses up at the
hill.
The third issue that you have to deal with on the special exception
is that the safety and health, welfare and comfort, or the convenience, or
the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use
and its location. To start with, the building is falling down. You saw
that when you were there at the site. And Sandy can go into some moro
detail with respect to the condition of the existing building. It is a
concern to the club. It's public safety issue. And it should be a
health, welfare, comfort, and concern to the residents as well. With
respect to, Sandy, I don't want to be the one to testify - Sandy, maybe
I could - why don't you come up and explnin your credentials. That way
when I --
SANDY ESSER, ARCHITECT: I am Vice President in charge of the
facilities at the Hay Harbor Club. I actually have a history of
construction, currently I am head of construction for Cartier in New
York and I am rebuilding two landmark buildings on Fifth Avenue. This
is has no relationship to my credibility as a golfer. At this point -
MRS. MOORE: Sandy, excuse me. You work very closely with the
Architect?
MS. ESSER: Yes, I did. We've directed the Architect to design for us a
building that was very much in keeping with the rosidential quality of the
neighborhood, and in fact, we looked at the building. One of the
buildings - it's not photographed here, across the road, to get a lot of
the detaiis that are there in the building. To use as an example, which
is a very typical Fishers Island look as Serge (Member Doyen) can
probably attest. Much more so actually than this building. We've also
taken some of the existing features of the building and we are going to
remove them for demolition and reinstall them. The windows that are
here in this drawing are actually windows that are on the building now.
And this window is also replicated on our main clubhouse building, so
these three windows were built at the same time.
The existing building as I mentioned before is in very poor
condition. The drainage is very bad.
MRS. MOORE: What condition is the roof?
MS. ESSER: The roof is lesking.
MRS. MOORE: What is the structural integrity of the building?
Page 41 - Transcrit Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Soutbold Town Board of Appeals
MS. ESSER: The structural integrity is compromised because of the
water in the basement, which is actually just a half-basement. And it's
been Pun-off from the hill, that has accumulated over time. The drainage
was inadequate in the beginning and thePe'S no dl~ain really to take that
water away in the basement. At this point, it's really beyond the point
of reexcavating the basement and putting in additional drainage. In the
ladies locker room, for example, there's a whole in the ceiling about
this big - attributable to a leak that we cannot repair. It's someplace
that we cannot find. We've worked on that leak for years.
The windows are all - even though the dormers are all part of the
structure - they all leak and it has not really been through negligence of
the chib. This is a building that is now 70 years old and it has been
very much exposed to the weather. Over 70 years as buildings on
Fishers Island.
MRS. MOORE: Sandy, does it conform to any of the handicap
accessibility requirements?
MS. ESSER: None. No.
MRS. MOORE:
Building Code?
Does it meet any of the State Code, Fire Prevention
MS. ESSER: No. No.
MRS. MOORE: Thank you. The next issue that the Board should
address is that the use ~arill be in harmony with and promote the general
purposes and intent of this chapter. Well we have an existing golf club.
The code is R-120. It does permit by special exception a golf club. It
will be a new building which will be in compliance with all State,
Federal, and (County) codes so it will be a significant improvement on,
well it depends at least in the Board's opinion that it will be a
significant improvement to what is there today. Another issue that the
Board should address is that the use will be compatible with the
surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and with other,
and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility,
scale and overall appearance. Sandy touched on this point that the
building in size is about 3,000 sq. ft. at the first fleer, and another
3,000 sq. ft. on the second floor. So the size of the building is
actually to scale and in many cases smaller than many of the homes on
Fishers Island. The design of the building was based on Mrs. Husband's
hoose which is of s~milar type and, Mr. Doyen, you know the archi-
tecturai style of Fishers Island and this building is in keeping and
cerl.~inly taking great care to make a very beautiful building. And if you
bad a chance to go up and see the main clubhouse, that, too, is of
similar style. With the natural shape, the white trim and the gable roof
- what is the description?
MS. ESSER: Gambrel roof. It covers the roof - is a regular sloped
roof, it's not the same.
Page 42 - Transcrit; Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. MOORE: Oh. It's not this.
MS. ESSER: There are a whole series of buildings that were built by the
club which are called the Hay Harbor Cottages. All of those buildings
have the same roof line as the building that we have designed here.
MRS. MOORE: Another issue the Board must consider is that all
proposed structures, equipment and materials shall be readily accessible
for fire and police protection. While the building will fin~Uy meet
State Code, Federal Codes, it is - hopefully no personal injury attorneys
are listening - it is a fire trap now. It is structurally precarious and
this new building will be a significant structure.
My position is that once the use is permitted by a Special Exception
use, it should be considered until 100-242A which is the remodeling,
reconstructed or enlargement of a nonconforming building with a
conforming use. The building inspector cited us for a nonconforming
building with a nonconforming use. Once, and one of the reasons were
that this building does not have a special exception use to it so that it
is presently considered not a permitted use. Once you've given the
special exception approval, it does not create - we don't create any new
nonconformity or increase the degree of nonconformity with regard to the
regulations. Tile building is presently 56 by 52. There is an 8 by 10
bite taken out of the bui]dlng. You can see that from the plans. I have
for you this evening, Sandy prepared a site plan - I guess I could
describe it as a site plan. It's not the kind of a site plan that - it's
more of a survey. That shows the existing cinbhouse. And then the
proposed structure. You will notice there is only a four-ft, distance
towards the - would it be the westerly side of this north up here? OK,
the northerly side of - that is in order to meet the State and the State
Code. There were some questions the Board had that you sent me a
request to show the parking. There is an area that is parking right
now. It's certainty not a fixed up in any way. There will be an area
for parking that is shown and this is on the survey. I'll give that to
the Board. We're continuing the use of this building as a two story
building. There are two ex~sting parking spaces. There will be an
additional handicap space that will be paved for handicapped
accessibility. That area will be leveled and cleared, paved and used for
the handicapped parking. There is also parking across the street. That
parking area has been used for the past 20 years and it accommodates 15
to 20 cars. In the photograph you can see - I'll point it out to you
because I know the day we were out there it was kind of busy. Right
here is the photograph that shows you here's the club, here is the area
that has been used as parking. It is actually - we believe it's land
owned by Mrs. Ilusband but that area again has been openly, notoriously
used by the club for the past 20 years. Adverse possession only
requires 10 years, but there's been a very coopera[ive working
relationship with that family. So, when you're looking at the photographs
I'll just point out that stuff.
CHAIRMAN GOEIIRINGER: That's a diagonal parking across the street?
Page 43 - Transcrip~f Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MS. MOORE: Yes. There is also a great deal of parking at the wRin
building and there has been routinely the shuttling of staff and herself
from the main clubhouse to this facility. So, there is also off site
parking with regard to the main clubhouse. With regard to the rooms
that are upstairs. You knew I was going to get to that eventually.
There, I did some research and I called around to the different clubs,
golf clubs, unrelated, it had no relationship to Fishers Island and I
inquired. I said, well what is customary accessory to a goff club? And,
a very nice gentleman, a Joseph Pfaff who is - he preferred not for me
not to state which club he works for because obviously he had not gotten
permission from the club management or the Board of Directors of that
particular club to speak on behalf of Hay Harbor. But, he was willing to
provide an affidavit with respect to his experiences as a club manager
and he states this is an affidavit prepared by certainly prepared by me
based on the conversion I had with him. He signed it and notarized it.
It's signed September 23rd. He says that he is a club manager, at a
private goff club on the North Fork. He is a member of Club Manager
Association of America, CMAA, which represents 4.500 Club MAnagers
world wide. He submits this affidavit at the request of Hay Harbor and
as a professional with experiences in club golf club operations. He
also understands that this affidavit is going to be used by the Zoning
Board and relies on his statement. He says that the staff housing is part
of a golf club facility, is customary and accessory to the use of a
private goff club, such as Hay Harbor. That the larger type of clubs
have customarily provided housing to these senior staff and circumstances
reich as high housing costs, low ( ) with limited rental availability,
time commitment on staff and seasonal nature of the position necessitates
the on site housing of the staff. Now, he wasn't speaking specifically
about Hay Harbor but when he dealt with those issues, he said, it just
made sense. You have here high housing cost and I will have in a
moment some testimony with regard to the cost of housing the senior staff
for this club. The localities limited rental availability - well you aH
know how lovely Fishers Island is and certainly is an exclusive area, and
rental is at a premium. The time commitment on staff and we have a staff
manager, the Hay Harbor Club and he can attest to the time commitments
involved with running a club and the seasonal nature of the position
which you're not going to have on an average staff position - someone
that lives on Fishers Island. You're going to import from off the island
someone to work and it is a professional occupation as a golf prO, as a
tennis pre, a chef. These are positions that are very prized that there
is a demand for it, nation wide, and you have to track your staff and
encourage them to come and work for you. So, he was very, he
explained the operations of a club beautifully and I was able to put it
all in writing for him to sign. He says that, accessory housing of the
staff is common in the industry and offered as an inducement to attract
.~euior level staff. Itousing is advertised routinely with job postings
,,a(ion wide and is incorporated into compensation packages. On the
Island, such as Fishers Island, or Shelter Island, he used Shelter Island
as an example, commuting to the club is either impractical or unavailable
due to particular transportation limitations. Housing of the staff is
beneficial to proper club management. So I have that affidavit from
,'Page 44 - Transcrip~ Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Joseph Pfaff and again, he has no relationship to the Hay Harbor Club,
but educated me on the r~nning of a club and the need for housing. We
can get into if you like to at this time, do you understand the plans you
have before you? Would you like a little tour of what is involved?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll take a tour. A quick tour.
MS. MOORE: You'll take a tour, OK.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I should point out to you, that at 10:00
o'clock we have festivities tonight, OK.
MS. MOORE: Oh, we're going to celebrate.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is Mr. Doyen's last meeting.
MS. MOORE: Well I'll talk fast. You do this to me every time I have
important hearing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That doesn't mean that you cannot come back,
you know that Mrs. Moore.
MS. MOORE: Alright, I'li try to wrap it up as best as I can, OK. Well
then let me go through and then will do it at the end, a little tour.
CflAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MS. MOORE: You have two full apartments with two bedrooms, one will
be for a golf pro and the tennis pre and their families. You also have
four bedrooms which are dormitory style, there is no cooking, please
disregard any rumors you've heard, auy things that you've been told.
There is no cooking on the facility for the dormitory style rooms. It is
only for senior staff. The meals are provided at the main clubhouse, the
staff people have to be at the clubhouse by 8:00 o'clock in the morning,
there is no parking after hours, there's no partying after hours. It is a
very ridged working environment. They have their privacy and that's all
they have. The employees are seasonal. It is May 30th thru September
Ist. I'd like to get into the financial nature of the accessory use
because it is crucial to this club to have the apartments aud the
dormitories. I'I1 have some financial taformation now for you. You ready?
MEMBER DOYEN: Ready when you are.
MS. MOORE: OK, go ahead.
MR. GAUMOND: Don't you want to lead me through this?
MS. MOORE: Alright, well, alright. You know more than I do.
MR. GOLDMAN: I'm Mark Gaumond, I'm the Treasurer of the club.
:Page 45 - TranscripO Hearings
Meeting of October 23~ 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MS. MOORE: Can you describe how much it costs for you to house your
senior staff off premises.
MR. GAUMOND: Our present situation is this. We have three employees
and in some cases with their families and some case not, whom we house
off campus. This past year we paid some $25,000 to house those three
people off campus. Our view is, that with this new construction project
we'll be able to eliminate that cost altogether. Moreover we will be able
to continue to provide houses for the people who live at the clubhouse
presently. If we cannot do that, we think the estimates would run to
$50,000 per year in annual, in rental costs, and that presumes no
escalation for Fishers Island's rents and it presumes the availability of
off campus housing for our staff.
MS. MOORE: OK, thank you. Dick Duvan maybe you can present to the
Board, what is the, what are the limitations on your staff when they're
living in those dorms.
MR. DUVAN: In terms of time?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MR. DUVAN: The golf pro and his wife, their day starts at about 5:30
A.M. They're up, his on the ( ) tee by 7:00 A.M., he's not a late
man. You don't get, you can't find him up beyond 9-9:30 at hight. The
Assistant Manager, his first responsibility is to check the pool at 5:30
A.M. and then he's back for a tour of the golf course between 6 and 7,
checking out any problems, vandalism, anything that might be out of
line. He has living with him, two children, one college age, one high
school age. They work for us at the club. He also house with him, one
of my college age employees because they didn't have room in the dorm
for her. He's up early, both adults responsible to keep an eye on what
is going on at the golf house. Tennis Pre, his lessons start at 8:00
A.M. He's over for breakfast between 7-7:30 in the morning. The
Executive Chef, he works late, but, he has a heavy responsibility as
some mornings he's meeting the first boat when the truck comes over from
Hartford and he's unloading the truck and doing inventory at 5:30-6 in
the morning. Then we have an Assistant Golf Pre who puts in a long
day and he's in bed early. So, these people work in many cases 7 days
a week and they put in long hours.
MS. MOORE: Is there any intention of renting any of these rooms?
MR. DUVAN:
intend to put
cause trouble.
p rublems and
three summers
No, these facilities have never been rented out. I don't
in any kind of a partying crowd or people that want to
I won't put up with on my staff, people that cause any
I haven't had any complaints from members for the last
since I've been here, problems with our staff.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
;Page 46 - Transcrit Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Sonthold Town Board of Appeals
MS. MOORE: Mr. di Bonaventura, maybe you can give some information
with regard to the membership, and how many members you have, and
what is the I{raitation on membership right now?
MR. cli BONAVENTURA: OK, currently we have a policy of having 440
members, family members of the club. We're currently at a membership
total 410. The reason why we are capped at that level currently, is
because of the demographics of the membership. It is the facilities of
the club that control in the capacity of those facilities that control the
number of members that we actually can have. In recent years we have
been as is often the case, having as resignations older members of the
club who have not used the facilities with nearly intensity as some of the
younger members and we have been replacing those with younger
families. The impact of that is that the pool and the swimming areas, the
sailing programs and the tennis courts have been maxed in terms of
capacity. Those are the facilities that are controlling the level of our
membership.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not necessarily the golf course?
Mit. di BONAVENTURA: Not the golf course. We are interested in and
continually trying to find additional capacity because we would like to
haw~ more members of the club. But, as we a, just to keep the current
membership, we need to on occasion increase the number of staff because
we are having more and more children every year use the facilities of the
club and use the programs that we provide. So, currently the
membership is 410. We would like to, like to be our capacity at our
policy of 440, but we have not really be able to do that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
family?
What is the yearly cost per member, or per
MR. di BONAVENTURA: The annual dues Mark are ?
MR. GAUMOND: 20 a
Unknown male answered: I think it's 250.
MR. GAUMOND: No, I think it's more, Tom. Full family membership is
$2,200 approximately.
CItAIRMAN GOEItRINGER: OK, and the cost of the reconstruction of this
building will be borne by all 410 members?
MR. di Bonaventura: Yes.
CIIAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They will all be signing the mortgage and
bond, if there is a mortgage or they're will be?
MR. di BONAVENTURA: There won't be a mortgage. We've estimated
tile cost of about $1,000,000. $900,000 is construction, $100,000 is
Page 47 - Transcrip~ Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
landscaping and other ancillary costs. To finance it, we have assessed
the membershipS2,400 per member. They have variance installment
options available to them to pay and at this point the first installment
has been called for and it has been paid by 100-% of the membership which
we think is a very clear sign of their support. Some 10% of the
membership have paid the installment in its entirety this past summer
which we think is a further sign of support. The first installment was
50% with an option to pay it in over four installments if some chose. A
small percentage of the membership elected that option. The vast
majority took the 50% approach.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: With regard to the support of the membership clearly there
is a majority of this for new membership and I have a letter for the
record, detailing the Board's Authorization to do this that you have
received ( ) correspondence, accusations that the Board should have
gone to- like a referendum vote of their membership. That is not
necessarily, that was not part of their By-Laws and that their following
their procedures, their By-Laws. I want to put on the record -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to ask how they were elected?
MS. MOORE: How were you elected?
MR. di BONAVENTURA: There is an independent nominating committee
comprised of three members of the membership. Two out of those three
are past presidents of the Board. The Nominating Committee put forth
the nominations for. the six people each year. We have a three year 18
member board for roiling, relling membership. The Nominating Committee
put that forth at the general meeting of the membership, the annual
meeting of the membership at the end of August, the beginning of
September, the Labor Day Weekend, and the membership present at that
annual meeth~g votes on the board, on the Nominating Committee's
nominations for board.
CIlAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, there are 18 members?
MR. di BONAVENTURA: Yes, 18 Board Members, 6 come up every year.
CHAIRMAN GOEI1RINGER: Can I just ask, are all 18 in unanimity on this
construction, reconstruction?
MR. di BONAVENTURA: Yes, unanimous support, of the ( ).
MS. MOORE: While I, while you're standing there, I do want to address
the adjacellt property owners and whether or not that we have support or
they're opposed to it. There was one particular letter I want to
address. I think you and I spoke about it. Why don't you list the
adjacent property owners that are most affected and please state their
position.
;l'age 48 - Transcri~ Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. di Bonaventura: OK. We have two immediate neighbors, one is the
tlobson family whose house is above the first tee and above the clubhouse
and the other is the Husband family which is across the street and up
the hill across the street. The Hobsons are in, maybe I should talk
about our process first. We went a, Bob Anthony and I and a couple of
our other board members went and visited as many of our neighbors as
we could early on in the summer. In July to go through the plans, this
was our initiative to do this, to go through the plans and try to ( ) any
problems they may have. We did that with the two immediately adjacent
families. The Hobson f~mily, we don't have a letter from them tonight,
but, they have expressed their willingness to give one at anytime, is
fully in support of the project, had no problems with any of the details
of the plan, we went through it in great detail over about an hour and a
half worth of time. In addition, the Husband family, Mrs. Husband and
her two sons who live with her during the summer, we spent probably a
good hour and a haif to two hours worth going through every aspect of
the plan. Now, that's in front of you and received a great deal of
support for the project at that meeting. M~ny favorable comments about
many of the features about the architecture and about many of the
assurances that we made in terms of parking and staffing, that would be
living in that building. We did not ask for letters from those neighbors
at the time and we were pretty confident that we had done our due
dil/gence with them and gotten their full support to proceed and I think
they all knew when we were talking with them, had they voiced some
concern or had they indicated some concern that we would have
responded to that in the appropriate way. We subsequently learned that
Mrs. Husband has submitted a letter that opposes the project. I must
say, that that's quite a shock given the tone of our meeting with her and
her sons. We, over the past two weeks have tried to reach the one so,
we knew how to reach and finally did this morning and he was out on a
trip in Europe and just returned yesterday evening and he is completely
unaware of the letter that his mother has submitted. He is going to try
and find out for us what exactly transpired that wonid of caused her to
change her mind so completely about the project.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a key issue, OK. The reason why it's
a key issue is because she holds the parking, OK, for this club and it's
extremely important that this Board know which way they go concerning
that.
MS. MOORE: If you recall the letter it doesn't addressed the parking at
all.
CIIAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It doesn't address the parking but, if she is
of that particular feeling, you know -
MS. MOORE: No, no, you're absolutely right and that was an issue that
we wanted to address. My suspicions and they don't have to say~ my
,~uspiciolls are that she is elderly, she was approach, coerced, to sign
something st~e honestly didn't understand what she was signing. They
had the respect to meet with her with her two sons, she is elderly and
Page 49 - Transcript[ Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
her two sons who are the apparent heirs are the ones who were obviously
going to be impact at the most for this building for the new building for
years to come.
MEMBER TORTORA: Do the sons have Power of Attorney?
MR. di BONAVENTURA: I don't know.
MS. MOORE: We didn't address that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The other issue which cannot be cleared up
tordght though, is, is this route, you know, if she does try in cording
off the parking.
MS. MOORE: I, they wouldn't, she wouldn't be able to do that, at least
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You'd have to go to court with a ( ) claim
action, right?
MS. MOORE: Oh, absolutely. [ mean they have an adverse possession
like that. There has always been cooperation, she is a lovely lady, they
spent hours with her, her two sons and when I read the tone of the
letter and the language used there, it was clear that someone eise had
written that letter and fortunately we were able to reach the son and he's
goner to try and find out what happened, but, we suspect that that
letter does not actually reflect her opinion.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: We'll find that out. He has asked me tomorrow
to Fax that letter so that he can review it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything else you'd like to say.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: No. I thought I heard Mr. Doyen ask whether
the sons were members of the club and the an.~wer is that they are not.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Only the mother is a member.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: No, the mother is not a member of the club.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, she's no longer a member?
MR. di BONAVENTURA: She was a member.
CtIAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
member?
She was a member and she no longer is a
MR. di BONAVENTURA: That's right.
CttAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: OK.
~Page 50 - Transcrip~ Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER DOYEN: Well, just a minute. Incidentally, tell me, how did she
cease to become a member?
MR. di BONAVENTURA: I think she chose to resign.
(Unidentified voice)
a golfer and doesn't
younger members.
She resigned a number of years ago cause she's not
use the facility and she wanted to make way for
MEMBER DOYEN: Well, the rule in there such as it is, on Fishers
Island, didn't come out that way, she was asked to resign and she
resented it. Is that correct?
MR. dj BONAVENTURA: I highly doubt that, Mr. Doyen.
MEMBER DOYEN: Alright, that's what I'm just saying, those are some of
tile rumors that were going around.
MS. MOORE: Yes, I want you to ask, that's why they're here because I
know that the small island does create a lot of very interesting rumors.
Some of which I've gotten, some of which I don't know about.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to point out to you, that Mr.
Doyen will not be voting on this application, OK.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: But he asked and it's important that we respond
to those questions he had.
MR. DOYEN: Is it correct, that there was a petition of some 200 of your
members that were not in favor of this proposal?
MR. di BONAVENTURA: No, it is correct, that there was a petition
circulated, that actually was circulated for up to a month or more. The
number of people whose names appear on that petition, numbered
approximately 100 to 125. I forget the exact number. Many of those
people on that petition, we have spoken to since the petition was sent to
me, and we have heard some pretty snmzing things. That they were
cornered in church, that they were given no information, that they were
asked to sign this petition based on an understanding that we were going
to be putting up a hotel on the property. That there were all kinds of
representations made about what we were doing except for the information
which we have provided that group of people who put the petition
forward the week before the petition began. We sat down with that
group, at their request, and ran through the project, answered every
single one of their questions, they took minutes 'of that meeting, a all of
the information that we gave, say a little bit were in those minutes (end
of tape). That none o[' the people who signed that petition had the
benefit of that information other than the people who had been at .that
meeting which numbered about 10 or 12.
Page 51 - Transcril: Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: These people that signed the petition, were all
members of the club?
MR. di BONAVENTURA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
regular or whatever?
In some way, manner, fashion or family or
MR. di BONAVENTURA: Yes, but many of those signatures were, many
of those people were signed for by other members of the family, and a
couple of those people on the petition did not know that their oAmes had
appeared on the petition and there were a very large number of people
who subsequent to that after we had spoken with them, said OK, now I
understand, and after I had written this very lengthy letter, explaining
again, what our goals were and what our thought process was in coming
up with the project. Many people said, OK, now I understand what
you're trying to do, take my name off the petition.
MEMBER TORTORA: That puts us in a very awkward position because
those people aren't here tonight to say that that's just your word that
they said that. I mean, put yourself in our position.
MS. MOORE: If you would, put him on the record, swear him in. He
and the others will swear to the truth of what they're saying. My
concern is, petitions can be signed by anyone. Those are not sworn
statements and which you have is, rumor, innuendo, and some
neighborhood, no neighborhood, some internal strife within the club that
is giving much greater weight than is due in this particular case. So, -
MEMBER TORTORA: But it puts us in an awkward position when he
says, he's talked to those people and those people want the names taken
off.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well let me ask you. Then,
is, how many hard core people are still against the,
petition? I need the estimate.
the next question
that were on that
MR. dj BONAVENTURA: It's hard to tell. It's very hard to tell unlcss
we go back and canvas each one of those people that we know that have
not told us that they no longer are against the project.
MEMBER DOYEN: I have another question Jerry. You don't have to
answer this question, but, would you eventually guess why so of these
people might be oppose to the proposal.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: Mr. Doyen, I've been asking that question of
everybody I can for the last two months.
MEMBER DOYEN: Obviously the building is falling down. So, I was just
curious why there are some of your members oppose to it, because some
t'age 52 = Transcri~f Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Api0eals
of them are. I got phone calls, they informed me that they were opposed
to it.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: If you look at the petition itself and look at the
points in the petition, -
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI:
record. We have the letter but-
But, we don't have a Petition in the
MS. MOORE: You don't have it? You were, you never sent it?
Unidentified person: They were sent by Nancy Hunt. Nancy Hunt sent
that petition.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Mrs. Hunt sent a cover letter, but
there were no signatures attached to it. There's no signatures or
anything with it.
MS. MOORE: We'H give it to you tonight. If we have a copy, if not, I'H
give it to you later.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK, thanks.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: You will see that the petition itself does not
oppose the project. The petition opposes or addresses 6 or 7 details of
the project. It does not oppose the project.
CIIAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't have to give it to us tonight. You
don't have to rush Sandy or Pat. You know, this can be submitted.
We're going to carry this over until October, until November.
MS. MOORE: The point that I was getting right at this moment was that
the petition when you read, road and review the points that are being
made are operational there and to certain extent, some prefer the building
this way, some prefer the building this way, some would want it tiled,
some wanted it a, they didn't like the fireplace and the fireplace was
donated by a very generous benefactor. It was not going to cost
anybody anything. So, it was issues that nature that were coming in to
the petition. Not, we absolutely don't want to rebuild this building.
They just had certain points - oh, thank you. In the interest of time,
['11 just very quickly, I'H give this to the Board. This was the
petition. OK, they're losing busy in a central section of the porch. It
will be a common room. Who will be responsible person to supervise the
end season, off season use of the common room? The golf pro who
spends 5 months should have a better housing, he shouldn't have the
back, the front of the building so he can supervise rather th~n the back
of the building. Staff housing should be first and second floor in the
back of the building, not second for a common area. Golfers that present
carry their bags onto the porch, should place them on a cart and goes on
from there requesting the need for two men's room, one is being handicap
room we're concerned the cost of this project and its further
Page 53 - Transcrip~f Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Soutbold Town Board of Appeals
maintenance. We request that before the Capital Expenditure is
undertaken these issues will be addressed and the membership will be
kept informed of your progress. That's the petition.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sounds like membership issues.
MS. MOORE: Exactly, exactly.
MEMBER DOYEN: Answer my question.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: I'll try.
MEMBER DOYEN: One of your members was opposed to it. Just simply
said it was too extensive. You don't need a club.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: All I can respond to that and I've wrote a much
too lengthy letter in August. Everybody appreciated the information but,
wish that I had been much less opposed. All I can say is that we went
through a two year sought of long term planning effort. We had a
Planrdng Conunittee formed to look at the project to solve two problems
that we had. One was a facilities problem, one was a staff housing
problem. Both of those we]] within the purview of the Board's
responsibilities and once a week we took very, very, seriously. We look
at it from many prospectives, and one of those prospectives was, the
need, the needs of the membership, and the cost to the membership. We
firmly concluded that this is the least cost solution, for the membership,
timt it provides a, that it answers the two problems that we have on the
facilities standpoint and from a staff housing standpoint. It creates, we
think it makes an addition to the community, because of the style of the
design and the quality of the design. So, Mr. Doyen to answer you
prior question. I asked ali summer what is the real reason that you
oppose the project because the petition points really don't make sense to
me as the basis for opposing a project.
MEMBER DOYEN: Well I had several others that were passed along to me
and one of them thought they didn't care too much for the assessment.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: I tbinlr that there are probably are some of our
members who oppose that.
MEMBER DOYEN: Another one was oppose to it because they thought
that the people in residence would be too noisy for their neighborhood.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: Yes, and that's a, that's why we very clearly
made the point that this would be for senior staff housing only. That if
we do not have senior staff to fill up those roads, there will be nobody
in those roads.People who have worked with Dick and have seen how Dick
manages the club know that he doesn't put up with bad behavior
anywhere, for any reason, and that's a policy that this Board supports
and will put forward, and carry forward.
· I'age 54 - Transcril~ Hearings
Meeting of October 22~, 1997
$outhold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER DOYEN: Because that argument is always rather thin because
you don't know what's going to happen next year or ten years from now.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: True, but a, we can do what we can to
continue to carry that -
MEMBER DOYEN: I appreciate that, but I'm just saying -
MR. di BONAVENTURA: No, that's, that's true, that is true, Mr. Doyen.
MS. MOORE: There are certain conditions you can impose on the Special
Exception and certainly the condition of seasonal occupancy, no rental,
for staff housing only associated with the golf and the tennis club. You
may not be aware or you may, I'm sorry, is that there is the w~in
clubhouse and then the golf club house. Both incorporate the Hay
Harbor Club, Inc. and so just so you understand that that the two
separate buildings are aH part of the same club. So, when someone is a
member they have the benefit of both facilities.
CHAIRMAN GOEItRINGER: We had not seen the main facility or the other
facility only because of the time factor when we were over. Not that it
really makes a big difference except for the construction or
reconstruction of these rooms that you're referring to. OK, where do we
go from here?
MS. MOORE: Well I do have with respect to an area variance there are
some a -
CIIAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't we do this? Why don't we go
through some questions and then you can deal with since we have the
Board Members here, the Board of Directors here and then you can
continue that on November 13th.
MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you, that's fine and we can answer any other
questions that they don't have to be here and they could just relay that
information. Is that alright with you?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it's fine with me.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, fine. Mr. Dinlzio?
MEMBER DINIZIO: IIow many members do you have at your annual
meeting? How many members voted?
MR. di BONAVENTURA: Oh, probably, easy 10ft people I would say.
MEMBER DINIZIO: About 25%?
MR. dj BONAVENTURA: Yes. We have a again a se~sonal membership,
probably depending on the year, you know, 50% will come in July, or may
be 30% come in July, 30% in August and the remainder stay all summer.
Page 55 - Transcri Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
$outhold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: But 25% is apparent. Is that families, 4107 So, you
could have 1,000 members, I mean 1,000 people utilizing that facility.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: Oh, yeah, oh, yeah, that's true.
MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, so it is 25% members. I mean 100 fsmilies were
rep resented ?
MR. di BONAVENTURA: That's what it appeared to us. We did not take
attendance there, that's what it appeared.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You'd certainly know that if someone wasn't a
member and they were there attempting to vote, that they were not a
member.
MR. di BONAVENTURA: Yes.
CIIAII{MAN GOEHRINGER: My question is to Mrs. Esser and we did have
a great tour of the building and a I just have this feeling toward old
structures and my question to her is the same question as a metrical
matter that I expressed to her in August and that was why destroy the
building? I am also going to do a double thing and that is real]y to
charge her with over the next couple of weeks with a figure that would
involve the reconstruction of the existing building in a similar area of
what you want to do here without elongating the foundation and so on
and so forth. Give us a figure Sandy if you would in reference to what
your opinion would be in reference to the reconstruction of the existing
building and that means physically picking it up, putting a new
foundation underneath it, dropping it back down, ripping off everything
down to the first story or to the second story I should say, and
reconstructing it from that particular point up. The reason why I'm
asking you that question, is because we are still having, I'm still having
a very difficult time on a zero lot line. It's, it's just, it's to the
point where I don't know what to tell you, you know. We are not zero lot
line people. When new construction comes in, new construction is new
construction and we're not saying that it has to deal with the exact
fig~re of what the Code calls for. But, zero lot Line is very difficult
in this particular area because of the lack of parking that you have, you
literally have no outside parking, and the on site parking that you do
have, is the nature of an adverse possession claim across the street,
OK. Secondly, you walk off that sidewalk and you walk right into that
road and we did see that at a very, very busy time.
MS. ESSER: Can I address that for one second? That was the worse
day. That is the one time of the year that you're going to have all those
peop|e at one time.
CHAll{MAN GOEHI{iNGER: l{ight. I mean it is a dead end street sought
speak. I mean, but at the same time it was a busy day, OK.
MS. ESSER: The busiest day of all year.
Page 56 - Transcript~ Hearings
Meeting of Oc[ober 23, 1997
Seuthold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, maybe that was the best for us to see
and I don't mean that from a derogatory standpoint or anything, I mean
we're open people. We don't ask these questions because we're not
interested. We ask the questions because we are concerned and for the
next month we're going to be a three member board until the Town Board
appoints. Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: OK, let's see back to, I'm all the way back to
Dennison, Dennison?
MS. MOORE: Oh, the Dennison case, I'm sorry.
MEMBER TORTORA: Essentially we can get passed that issue everything
else is moot. So, we haven't had a chance to even look at that case and
I think that's a very important issue, because you said that you had ( )
case, you had ( ), that you can vary the legislative ( ) adoptive
criteria -
MS. MOORE: Keep in mind, that the town is with, directs the authority
o£ the Zoning Board and the Town Law specifically addresses Special
Exception uses and the criteria that a variance can be granted under with
a Special Exception use. It goes as basic as looking at the lack of Town
Law, that is where you derive your original power and it was from there
that I started. So, I think it's a very important case. Really, it does
set the tone for the whole town.
MEMBER TORTORA: No, I think, I agree, and that's why I think it is
important to you know, get our feet on the ground and just take a quick
look at that. Presuming, that that is so -
MS. MOORE: And it is.
MEMBER TORTORA: Then you are suggesting that the application of an
expansion of nonconforming use does not apply because once the Special
Exception in place, is in place, then 242 ( ).
MS. MOORE: Right, right.
MEMBER TORTORA: I just want to generalize it.
MS. MOORE: That's right, you got it right on -
MEMBER TORTORA: A parking, yes I did. How many spots are there
on the site?
CtlAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 18 right?
MEMBER TORTORA: On site, I oaly saw -
MS. MOORE: It's 15 to 20 can be off site plus that on site is three,
handicap and two.
Page 57 - Transcril: Hearings
Meeting o£ October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER TORTORA: Two handicap?
MS. MOORE: One handicap and two.
MEMBER TORTORA: One and two. The next step. Interpretation
aspect of it. You have two apartments now in the existing structure?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Full apartments. Kitchen -
MEMBER TORTORA: Two full apartments now and what is the size of a
new apartment. You're going to replace those with two new apartments.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MS. ESSER: Right now we have two - two bedroom apartments and we're
replacing them with two - two bedroom apartments.
MEMBER TORTORA: Is the footprint the same. Are they larger, or
what? ( ) do you know what the size, I really want to know what
the size of those apartments.
MS. ESSER: It's very hard to tell because it's actually on a different
level. We have two duplex apartments in one building and
MEMBER TORTORA: Square footage?
MS. ESSER: I can calculate them for you.
CHAIRMAN GOEttRINGER: Again, you don't have to do that tonight.
MS. MOORE: No, no, something that you should keep in mind that in
one of the points that you raised was, reconstruction of this building.
There is a point of no return and certainly the cost factors -
CtlAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's what I want from her is the points
of no return.
MS. MOORE: Right. There is also Building Code problems. That one
you start taking one piece at a time, the whole State Code triggers and
Federal Code, Handicap Accessibility. All those Codes trigger.
CIIAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, no, it's got to be taken into consideration
Ihe minute you sever that building.
MS. MOORE: Absolutely. Well, you start changing windows, and the
vaine is going to be brought up to a certain extent where the building,
certainly the Building Inspectors, the Building Code will say you've
expended more than a certain percentage of the value of the structure
:md now the whole building has to meet code. So, that's a very
important point that I want you to keep in mind.
'I'~,ge 58 - Transcrir Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I was referring to an entire tear down.
OK, and outside walls you ]Lnow, because you're going to have to replace
all of the windows.
MS. ESSER: So what you're asking me to do -
CHAIRMAN GOEIIRINGER: I'm asking to sever that building, excuse me,
I didn't mean to cut you off. Sever the building from the foundation,
reconstruct the foundation in its present footprint, rip the entire
periphery of the first floor wall with the stud standing, and then rip the
entire second story wall and reconstruct what you basically want.
MS. MOORE: So, instead its one timber at a time instead of demolishing
it. Is that correct.
MS. ESSER: Can I show you a photograph that would make that pretty
impossible? If you look at the way the building is constructed now, it's
actually two separate structures, so even the ( ) floor the apartment
is actually in this back section so the floor plans are not at the same
level. The studs aren't of the same height.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand that. I understand that, but, if
you actually raise the building and elevated it above the street, OK, so
that the back of that building Was one block high, assuming you used
block or 8" above the contour of that street, alright, regardless of what
you ended up with, in reference to level floor interiorly in the
building. I'm not asking you to do it, I just want to know what your
figure would be in reference to a total tear down of construction.
MS. MOORE: Keep in mind that part of my presentation which your
cutting me off is the area variance criteria.
CItAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I didn't say this was etched in stone.
MS. MOORE: No, no, I understand, but, what I will be presenting to you
in addition to what you've already heard is that the area variance
criteria and the cost of the feasibility of relocating the bo_i]ding or
providing parking by taking out a putty green or by affecting the golf
course in any way, is a financial hardship, so it's not only the
construction of the building, it's also if you start changing it around,
you're going to affect the golf course and that is, I mean it's the oldest
golf course in the United States? One of the oldest golf courses in the
United S~ated.
CHAIRMAN GOEIIRINGER: Well that's why I asli how long the first floor
MS. MOORE: Right, so it should be preserved a~d the cost of replacing
any of those particularly the pipe ( ) is an exorbitant cost.
Page 59 - TranscrilS~f Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're aware of that. Yes, you did express
that. I think at this particular point we just very simply would Like to
ask, Mr. Doyen, any way, I'm no trying, you have more questions.
MEMBER DOYEN: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Go ahead Mrs. Tortora.
MEMBER TORTORA: So, it's a two
square footage on that at a later (
want to normally ( )?
square footage and you will get the
). A we, a, Joseph Pfaff, does not
MS. MOORE: Yes, but it is a prestigious North Fork Club. You wanted
tile affidavit, is that what you were asking me?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, that's fine.
MS. MOORE: Please ask me now while the Board is here because I don't
want to have to guess what the answer is.
MEMBER TORTORA: You said that you are going to present the criteria
for the area variance and the cost of an old ( ).
MS. MOORE: Right.
CtIAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Doyen?
MEMBER DOYEN: No, I have no more questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEttRINGER: Is there anybody on the Board that my not
be here at the next meeting or the meeting after. I should bear in mind
to you and this is the derision that both your counsel and you have to
make, it probably would behoove you to have a Fishers Island Member on
the Board at the time of making the final decision. So, we really should
recess this to early December so to give the Town Board the time to -
MS. MOORE: Oh, you mean at Fishers Island from your Board. OK,
alright.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Zoning Board Member, yes. At least
be present for the last hearing too.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That doesn't mean that you couldn't present
your area irons, but I, you know, I would r~ther give everybody the
opportunity of having 4 Board Members, OK. We could have 5 Board
Members, alright. The extent of the r~sum~s' for the Fishers Island
Member I think, is November 6th. Is there anybody would like to say
anything prior to the recessing of this hearing?
MR. di BONDAVENTURA: Wetl, you asked a question about whether we
could all come back. ( ) date in December that would be a problem
Page 60 - Transcrip Hearings
Meeting of October 23, 1997
Southold Town Board of Appeals
because of time and difference of people's schedule that we can guaranty
that we can all come back.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I also want to point out to you too, that we
have pending two tele communication towers. That the moratorium is up
on November 17th. Is it the 17th? Yes the hearing is on November 12th.
So, we are going to be competing with those. I realize the time limits,
the construction situation and so on and so forth, but I personally think
that a December hearing is more favorable. We do appreciate it, we will
continue to study everything that you've given us.
MS. MOORE: Keep in mind that something that was raised tonight, that
there is a memberslrip limit. So that the existitlg conditions and the use
of the club today will not be changed tomorrow that this building is
there. So you, I would agree with you that there would be a, I would
have a real hard case if the building wasn't there today. So we have an
existing building.
CtlAIRMAN GOEtlRINGER: Well we thank you very much. We wish you a
safe trip home and we will regroup and a continue this process. We'll
make a motion recessing the hearing, reserving the decision, I'm sorry,
recessing the hearing until December llth.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could somebody second that?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes.
CIIAIRMAN GOEllRINGER: All in favor.
Motion 'carried.
Towm of Southold
Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board
c/o Ms. Linda Walkowski
Town Hall
Sol,hold N.Y.
Dear ~s.
17, 1997
Walkowski and members of the Boards,
This letter concerns Fisher~ Island and the plans of the
Hay Harbor Club Board of Directors to construct a new buildisg
at the Hay Harbor Club Golf Course. The ~resent building~ --
which is to be razed, was built to serve the gol~rs and to
house the golf pro ~ud his, or her, family. It is to be re-
placed by a structure which will serv~primarily as housings
for Hay Harbor Club staff-- two apartments ~J2r married staff
and four smaller single ones. Some thought, but not a ~rea~
dea4has been ~iven to the needs of golfers.
i~y concern as a golfer is not your concern. However, as a
property owner and tax-payer, I call on you to consider all
that this buildinE would mean to the neighborhood. It will be
a multiple dwelling in a n area of sin~lefamily homes, Off
street parking is limited to two spaces- - all others, in-
cluding residents of these new apartments, must park on the
street, which is not v~ry wide.~ And, most seriously, the stress
and strain on the s~ptx~ system~ould well~e more than it can
take.
Thank you for considering these problems before you grant
a b~ildlng permit. 5~any of us on Fishers Island be%ieve that
not enough thought has been ~iven to these ~roblems~oy the
Hay Harbor Club Board of Directors.
Sineerely yours,
Sarah ~. Ferguson
SeptemYer 15, 1997
ro~
Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board
Town of Southold
Re, Hay Harbor Golf Club, Fishers Island, NY
Attn: Linda Kowalski
Daar Boards,
Many members ~f the Hay Harbor Club, golfers in
particular, have raised numerous objections to the
Club's plans for a new Golf Club house. These objec-
tions have met with limited attention by the Club's
Planning Board. It seems appropriate to appeal to
you to consider the following questions before any
building permit is issued~
Golfers' cars already overflow the allotted
parking area. As the adjacent road is not very
wide, will there be sufficient space for the cars
of the 6 or more inhabitants of the proposed
building?
With those additional inhabitants and ~ more
bathrooms, has the problem of sewage disposal
been considered?
What impact will a multi-family dwelling
have on a single family neighborhood?
Are the concerns of golfers of any importance
in the planning of a new Golf Club house? They
are better, if not altogether adequately, served
in the present one.
The above lists only a few of the objections
raised by petitioning members. If you could hold a
meeting on this matter on the island, you would hear
many more.
Sincerely,
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
Zoning Board Office
Planning Board A
RE:
Request for comment
Hay Harbor, Fishers Island
SCTM# 1000-9-12-8.1
DATE: October 22, 1997
The Planning Board cannot comment on the above Special
Exception/Variance request because there is no application for Hay Harbor
before this Board.
~--.--~ CHANDLER, F~Aba/aER & KING
~--~-~ Architecture, Engin g & Surveying
nJ[~-~ 110 BROADWAY NOSWICH,.COi~N~CTICUT 06360-4452
T,~ Zoning Board of Appeals
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
DATE
A~J-ENTION
10/15/97
%inda
RE:
UL;I
WE ARE SENDING YOU ~ Attached [] Underseparatecovervia Federal Exoress
[] Shop drawings :J~ Prints [] Plans [] Samples
[] Copy of letter [] Change order []
the following items:
[] Specifications
COPIES DATE NO, ~- DE~ R?PTION )
6 Rv9/9/97 Site Plan L Hay Harbor Club,~athuile Avenue
~sners Isiand-~, NY - Proposed Septic Sys.
THESE ARE TRANSMI'I-rED as checked below:
[] For approval
[] For your use
[] As requested
[] For review and comment
[] FOR BIDS DUE
[] Approved as submitted
[] Approved as noted
[] Returned for corrections
I-1.
19__
[] Resubmit copies for approval
[] Submit copies for distribution
[] Return corrected prints
[] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO
If er~clo~ures are not as not~, kir~iy not#y us at once.
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Serge Doyen
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1809
October 15, 1997
BY FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Re: Appl. #4503 and #4514 - Hay Harbor Club Project
Dear Mrs. Moore:
This will confirm that the following information has not been
received relative to both the above applications:
*sketch of a parking plan for the existing club;
c,- *sketch of a parking plan for the new project;
*location of existing cesspools and well facilities;
*setbacks from all property lines of the new location of the
reconstructed principal building;
:.'" --*copy of an available survey showing the existing setbacks of
· the existing building and other survey information which is available
by a surveyor of record.
*confirmation as to the total acreage related to this golf
>,_course and golf club (34.8 acres as shown on the map or 44+ acres
~> as shown on the town's assessment records).
*confirmation of the type of lighting to be used ~
~ for consideration by the Board Members.
*we were not able to obtain coordinated comments from the
Planning Board and have been notified that a site plan application
has not been filed as of today with the Planning Board.
*just a reminder to send or bring the signed, notarized
Affidavit of Posting with the October 23, 1997 hearing date noted at
tile last paragraph of the Affidavit, and the green cards when
Patricia C. Moore,
Page 2 - October 15, 1997
Re: Hay Harbor Club, Inc.
returned to you for the certified mailings.
Thank you.
cc: ZBA Members
Faxed to 298-5664
Very truly yours,
/ CHAIRMAN
PLANNING BOARD M~EMBERS
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman '
WILLL~'~I J, CREMERS
tC~NNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITC~iIE I--~TH.~%4,
RICI-L4~RD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
September 17, 1997
Patricia C. Moore
315 WestphaHa Road
P.O. Box 483
PI~N~4ING BOARD OFFICE
TOVv-N OF SOUTHOLD
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE:
Request for Site Plan Waiver for
Hay Harbor Club
Fishers Island
SCTM# 1000-9-12-8.1
Dear Ms. Moore:
The Planning Board reviewed your request for a site plan waiver for the
reconstruction of the existing Golf Club facility and conducted a field
inspection of the site.
The Planning Board is not if favor of g'ranting a site plan waiver for the
proposed reconstruction. A site plan application must be submitted for the
proposed project.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above.
Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~/' ~
Chairman // 7~f
cc: Zoning Board of Appeals
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Serge Doyen
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Maureen C. Ostermnnu
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765~ 1809
MEMO
TO: Planning Board
FROM: ZBA
DATE: September 16, 1997
SIJBJECT: New Applications for Planning Board Preliminary Comments
Referred for preliminary comments are the following:
Also, please furnish information with regard to past Planning Board
actions and conditions found of record, if any. Thank you.
Southold Automotive (Tonyes Roalty) 1000-61-4-23. liB Zone.
Proposed addition (inspection station). ZBA Hearing 9/25.
Nagy 1000-27-4-1, 2, 3 (lot waiver request for 2 & 3 as one
lot). Please let us know if there are any subdivisions or
other prior P.B. actions of record.
J. MeHy. 1000-104-2-23 (lot waiver request). Please let us
know if tliere are any subdivisions or other prior P.B.
actions of record.
~/ llay
ttarbor Club - Variance for employee housing, setbacks, and
interpretation as to accessory uses. Possible Special
Exception. (This hearing has been adjourned to October
and the ZBA is awaiting more information with regard to
proposed parking. )
There is quite a bit of information in both the Tonyes Realty ZBA
file and the Hay Ilarbor ZBA file in the event you would like to
compare our documentation with yours. Thank you.
Oc~. 14 1997 1~:42PM P1
I 51991'
" FRIJOl '- Karen ~ Ri¢~a~ C~2S$e
PHONE NO.: 415 441 294~j~,1D Oct,. 14 1997 02:43PN P2
" FRO~ : Karen ~ RicHard
PHONE NO. : ~lS ~1
Oct. 14 1~? 02:4~PM P~
September 15, 1997
Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board
Town of Southold
Attn: Linda Kowalski
Dear Board Members,
I am a golfing member of the Hay Harbor Club on
Fishers Island and a co-signer fo the petition to that
Club's Planning Board which enumerated many objections
to its p~an for a new Club Kosse. That plan was devel-
oped for the housing of 6 or more staff and golfers'
concerns fell by the wayside. The present house, debi-
litated through inadequate attention, serves their needs
much better.
Must we have a multi-family dwelling in a quiet,
single family neighborhood? For years the staff has
been adequately lodged elsewhere.
Do we need more staff cars to compete with the
golfers' cars which already overflow the limited parking
area?
Do we need the pleasantly agreeable porch area to
be severely limited in order to provide a "common area"
which the Planning Board hopes to rent for parties?
What about the sewage problem with the proposed
7 bathrooms, 4 more than at present?
Though it is late in the season, you might consider
a meeting on the island to hear other objections. There
will be some stalwarts around to meet with you.
Sincerely,
September 15, 1997
Ms. Linda Walkowski
Township Building
Southold, NY
Dear Hs. Walkowski,
Please share the following with the Zoning Board
of Appeals and the Planning Board.
You may be aware of the large number of Fishers
Island's Hay Harbor Club members who have studied the
Club's plan for a new Golf Club House and have many
objections to it. If the proposed building is erected
on the site of the present structure, the island will
face 1) an increase of cars on an already overcrowded
road and parking area, 2) the intrusion of a multi-
family dwelling for 6 or more staff into a single
family neighborhood, 3) a possible problem with sewage
disposal as there would be 7 bathrooms instead of the
present 3, 2 of which are rarely used, and 4), given
the prevailing wind, a possible fire hazard or smoke
nuisance from a fireplace chimney near and below a
neighbor house.
Perhaps it is of lesser interest to the Southold
Boards that the concerns of golfers are not being
adequately addressed in the new plan. The proposed
structure is chiefly for staff housing, added revenue
from rental of a "common area", and does not satisfy
all the concerns of golfers.
So far, petitioning by a considerable percentage
of Club members has received limited attention by the
Club's Planning Board. Therefore, I appeal to the
Southold Boards for consideration of the above which
are only a few of the golfers' complaints but these
latter are less pertinent in affecting the granting
of a building permit.
Sincerely,
B. W. H~icl
1421 1~. 40th SC
All.town, P~ 15104
Sept 10, 1997
Zoning Board o£Appeal
ri Hay Harbor Club Conslxuc~ion
Ms Kow~ldfi-
Euclosedis a copy ofa l~u~r that I stat to 1~. diB~..~ara h Aug_ of 1996.
Unforvm~e~y there was no r~ponse to u!y le~t~r, ~nd pi~ for major ~mucti~m
i~ Nay I-Ilibor ~ ~ ~.~ed wilout approv~
Copy to:
Candy Sanger
S£P-10-97 11:05 FROM:LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES ID,9103~12434 PAGE 2/2
SF_P I 0199-(
B. W. Hakgi
1421N. 40th SC
AReatowlg Pa. lg104
Aug. 23, 1995
Mt. C. A. di Bonav~tura
F~L~rS T~l:*'nd
N.Y. 06390
Dear Mr. di Bm~veamra:
Thisis in reference to your letter ofAugust, 1996, to the g~u~al~h~ of
th~ oink You~ proposed ox~sn~iou pl~m~ are interco_ ;..~ aml in exper to proceed
~ a llleanln~o'fi]i way let me suggest the followhlg:
Tire date for the meeting can be Octobe~ or early November, 1996.
B. ARe~ the members have ~ a dllUlCe to evalllate the proposal, the ~ should
be put to a vote by club membem
Thank you for your continued effort to improve th~ chub, and have a great sm~-r
ami fall
WED
9:49 AM
FAX NO. 610 520 0792
Gee, W|lmerding & Associates, Inc.
DAvm R. WILut,m~c, Jr., C.EA.
MOORI~ GATi$.
September 10, 1997
ChristOpher A. di Bonaventura, President
Hay Harbor Club, Inc.
Fishers bland, NY 06390
De, ar Chris:
Thc dialogue over the renovation of the Hay Harbor golf clubhouse has polafzed thc membership
and must put you in an uucomfortablc position.
My concerns include the issue of parking a~d vchicular traffic, the prospc~ of achieving a better,
more efficient resolution of the staR'housing problem and the possib'flity that the interaction with
the Town of Southold has not been handled properly, especially in view of the hard questions
which have been raised.
The proponents of the current plan would be better sa:isfied and your leadership would be
strengthened if you were to question and recenfirm the Board's determination concerning at least
the essential, most controversial issues, possibly involving some objective representation of the
dLssidcnt group.
Please consider my suggestion, even though you arc likely to bc certain in your own mind of your
sense of direction. I have 'done time' on the board and as an officer and am anxious that Hay
Harbor continues to be as enjoyable in the future as it has for me and my family for so many years.
Sincerely,
CC**
Town of Southold Zouln8 Board of Appeals and Planning Board
atm. Linda Kowalski, Secy. (FAX 516-765-1823)
Mrs. Peter Sanger (FAX 516-788-5656)
p mB!
P 12
B. W. Hx~
14~I N, 40th
Sc, pt 10, 1997
I-lay
~ Kowalski:
F-aclosedlia copy ora ielIerthstlsmtto Mr. di Bfln _sveIglira iD. Atlg. of 1996.
U=~or~ately tae~e wa~ no rtap~ns~ to my l~tter, and phas for mijor ~
B~gl W. ~
Copy to:
C:may Stager
PAGE
B. W. Elakki
142,1 N. 40di St.
AIl~tow~ Pa. 18104
Aug. 2~, 1996
De~ M~. di Bouavem~a'
This is h, re.~ermce to your leaer of Augus~ 1996, to
d~ d~i). Your pmpo~d e~p~J~on .~t*~* ~ ime~l~g, am~ i~ oxd~ to pzocccd
A. 'l~ board should schedule an open meeung with the gmzentmembet~, m wk~ch
· ~ l~zoposd ~s disatssed h terms offs deuil~ repacumon% and conaqumc~s
~ d~te for zhe mee~ cml bo Octobc~ oF caFly No%~m~cr, 1996.
tho zn~mben lave had a cbanr, e to evalua~ the pZOl~OS& the issue should
P 02
Cr.~'is%,.;pher di Bonaventura, President, H~y Ha£bor Club,inc.
1997
Chris,
T~nk you and the other members of the Board for taking the
time to l~sten to Peggy Campbell et al'on July 19. There has
been an outpouring of comments concern.~ng the proposed new golf
clubhouse since the plans were released. This letter, the minutes
uf July 19, and the notice including 7 points used by the members
.~.o identify the perceived problems for sign up,are enclosed
fez your distribution.They constitute the major concerns of
a great number of members,limited to t~e four drawings out of
%he total bid set that were placed on view at the tennis
p,~xch. The present little building has served its purpose for
more than sixty years and hopefully the new one will do as well.
T~e relatively sho~t time it takes to evaluate these comments
and if required,to redesign is mlni~cule, compared to acce~ting
a building that is possibly flawed from the start. Members' names
On the petition will be given incrementally to the Hay Harbor
office as soon as they are collected.
'shat J.s important is that there are a lot of knowledgeable and
:~¢]icated members who have bothered to pore over the plans for
~.be ~:ew golf clubhouse to see how t.t will really work, not only
f~om a golf experience but overall.The fact that the drawings
are marked 90~ complete (not complete enough for bids) should
not be allowed to thwart a thorough zeview of the plans and
the possibility of rethinking the program, regardless of the
delays. If the Board so decided, new plans could be on the porch
before Labor Day. Getting a permit on the present plans, usually
shortens the permit process considerably despite realignment
o~ the interior spaces within the footprint.
Mb' role has been to hear the comments and project them in
a~(rhitectura], terms. It is not and I repeat no~ an attempt on
~y par~ to design or redesign any Dart of this project. In
summary,the 7 points raised by the members (see enclosure) are,it
seems to me, sensitive, insightful and useful, and should the
~oard agree, the project could be realigned within the the
same approximate footprint and budget. There are two ~ajor program
issues called into question:l) the mixing of staff housing with
strictly golZ and golf professional/family accommodations and
how t~at is accomplished;2)the golf experience.
])i agree with the members in that the tke two mapor apartments
should, receive priority locations on tht~ south with views of
th~.~ co,'rse, the water and access to t~e CW breezes. They
:'~.~r:aLnl¥ would have more privacy located entirely on the 2nd
fl~or which could eliminate 2 lnte£ior stairs a;~d 2 powder room-*.
If the. staff hoes. Lng must bm mixed,whic~ the members think is
a mls~.ake a~d a real potential contributor ~o burR-oUt for the .
golf or tennis pros,then it appears that stacking the ~ 9
bedrooms and baths, on two floors at the back of ~)- /~ ~
'golf or tennis pros,then it appears that
other 4 staff bedro~i~l~ and baths on two floors at the back of
t1'~e building (nort. h~ould be a better sound b~ier to the
apa=tments.Every year the vagaries and needs cftC. afl will be
d~fferent depending on age, sex, interests, special problems
etc.s~? that the 8 persons to be housed ~ere will not always
~'~t the neat category envisioned. A small common room for staff
could be fashioned from space saved.,e
...... ,., [ .... .T~o fire-rated stairs ~n :w~ separate
l¢cations could serve the apart~nents and the bedrooms on the
2 nd floor. One (north) could be a bridge outside the building
connecting to the higher grade; the other an entrance to the
apartments, linking directly to the outside downstairs and
upstairs to the north exit. Separation of fire exits ~s much
safer than two stairs in one locatLon as presently shown on
t.ha plar~a-
~ The g..;~lf experience:The new golf e~perience is entirely
cependaat on a dry, airy, light space ~elow the porch where
~he c~'ts will be stored and retrieved but there were no drawings
sh,.~wn to evaluate how this is accomplished architecturally. This
i& the area that was described as having mud slides; and the
floor elevation of the proposed cart area ts shown lower than
the f~aished grade outside. By the time tha: the drainage
solved and the wall perpendicular to the slope is structurally
%rested and waterproofed, the carts could be in relatively
expensive space both from first cost and continuing
~aaintenance. If in fact the space is wet,dark and muddy then
ti%e carts will come back up on the porch, only this time there
~5 less room and no protection from the weather. ~ will guess
:hat the re~tal carts will be there anyway because of control
~nd lf~ bad weather goiters will certainly drop o[f their carts
:3n the porch for an attendant to return down under. Probably
an attendant s~ould be there ful]. time to help people lug their
bags to the 1st tee and bring out their carts.Obviously this
doesn't affect young people but there is a need for controls
concerning the carts since they are out of sight from the
porcn.The porch which is shown as 11 feet wide is really too
small unless relieved by the "busy and essential center section
of the porch",where group activities are formed,sign ups and
b~zlleti~% boards and tables are located, in ~act where the
:?.verflow :s accommodated;the depth cf this center section also
~:.rov=des essential shelter from extreme weather. The old entrance
pr~vkded a weathe£ free shelter deeper into the porch, the new
en~:rance ~s exposed within the 11 feet of the open porch. The
propomed common room with its enclosed walls and doors on the
first floor in no way replaces this open recess on the porch
and should be eliminated. The fireplace and flu should also be
eliminated. The recent Lamborn fire snows clearly the danger
.of spar~s.from a sparkler;certainly the danger is far greater
. with embers from chimney top when neighboring houses are at
Limber ~levatlons. The whole idea of off-seaon rentals of the '
proposed common seems ug~eallstic. A!so !re is no
responsible at that time} it has been noted that the fireplace
in the ballroom o5 the main clubhouse has been bricked up.
Revising the second floor would also allow realignment of the
golfing operational spaces i.e.:connecting the golf shop,the
~o!f pro's office, the bag room with ~.~tendant repair area,and
velated storage, all of which allows Dotter control of operations
by one person. Also on the first floor the members feel a scaled
~own pantry (no dishwasher} is useful;~
m ! ~ _ _,It iS hoped that the the drink (soda) machine
could be out ot sight.
Based on the di~cus$ion with Sandy Esser, I can assume that
there is no problem with storm ~ater, suptic, or multiple housing
permits. I understand that a zoning variance is r~quired and
! assume that posting of the property has been done and that
a huaring date is set.
Ple~i~se contact Mrs. Robert (Peggy;Campbell i~ further info:ma%ion
is needed or for progress reports
£ ~xpect that inspection of the other drawings will raise
additional points that evoke co~ent; however it seems that
there is a classic disconnect between the Board and a large
group of members and we all hope that this can be resolved.
Sincerely,
w. ~oulten Kelly, Architect,
former HH board member, member,
bond holder
Gec, Wilmcvdlng & Associates, Inc.
V. mtA,ovA, PA 'x9o8~- m. 44~
September 10. 1997
Christopher A. dl Ie~onavcntma, P~csidcnt
Hay Harbor Club, Inc.
l-'i~her$ Island, lq ~' 06390
Dcac Chris:
The dinlo~ue over the renovation o£the Hay Harbor golf clubhouse has polarized the membership
and must put you in an uncomfortable position.
My concerns include the issue of'parldng and vehicular traffic, the prospect of achicving& better,
more efficient resolution of thc staff housing problem and the possibility that the interaction with
the Town of Southold has not been handled properly, especially in view of the hard questions
which have been raised.
The propOnents o£the current plan would be better satisfied and your leadership would be
strengthengd it'you were to question and re~nfirm the Board's determination concemln$ at least
the essential, most controversial issues, possibly involvir~ some objectlve representation of the
dissidcn~ Bsoup,
Please consider my suggestion, even though you are likely to be c~rtain in your own mind of your
sense of direction. ! llave "done time" on the board and as an offiae~ slid am anxious that Hay
Harbor continues to be as enjoyable in the fu(ure as it h~s tot me and my family tbr so many years.
:ihmerely,
Town of $outhold Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board
attn. Linde Kowalski, Secy. (FAX 516-765-1~23)
Mrs. Pcmr Sanger (FAX $16-788-5656)
P 85
We, the undemignecl member~ of HHC, petiliorl the Board of HHC to mvle~ the
ans t.h., of H,y H, o, C ubho , and to
ne alacang on hold until cartmn ;enmms can be resolved.
This IS first and forentost a golf club and these pisns do not reflect the needs of
the golfers.
We are losing the busy and essential canter sec~on of the porch. This will
become the 'common mom' with fireplace and trophy case~.
Who Will be the responsib/e person to supervise the in-season and off-season
u~e of this *common room', i.e. parties end rentals.
The golf pro who spends five momhs here should have better housing. An
apadment on the front corner ove~3oking the golf course taking advantage of the
prevailing breeze would be mom appmp~te and more i~vate than the duplex
on the back of the building. ~ same is tree of the other planned duplex. Two
staircases and two powder rooms could be eliminated.
T~hh e staff ho.u. sing should be on the first and second itoom in back of the building.
e saCona .oor common auaa cc~uld present problems because of noise.
The golfers at pm. scm carp/their bags onto the porch, place them on a ca~t, and
proceed to the first tee. The new plan i$ cumbersome with carts in the
We question the need of two men's rooms.
We are concerned with the coat of this project and its future maintenance.
We request that before this capital expenditure is undertaken these issues will be
addressed and the membership will be kept informed of your progress.
P 05
P 07
P 98
July 19, 1997 .,
Chd~ d! Bo~uro
~ob Anthony
Fronk Bun-
Mo~ Gaumond
Reyn P-,mur~
T~rn T~money
Gene Mu, lek
Peggy Campbell
Marie Geilllrd
pmer G.ilt~rd
Bo K~y
Mmry Meyer
Sheldon Meyer
Elele Pamon~
Kandi Sanger
~ aaid the~ the Golf Clut~use projed had been un~r
~m ~~ ~ ~ ~n~ C~, a ~n~ h~ ~n ~ ~
a ~du~. T~~~~a,~~~
~ by C~b mem~m e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
.pointed oul the clubhouse was I ima y to serve goUing
toro m .m,e ~,IUD a..n~ q m~(~NIdafi) to provide staff ho~ng. The Club needed
sense. The Pm we~ on the Is~ncl for ~o months of the year and ~ould have a view
over the coume, not of the bushes at the beck. Ho could then ovemee the course and
would be able to bring in gue~ fees. The back of the building could be used for other
s~ff and for the I~undry.
be~ ~ ~ that the prone for the golf pro'8 epmtment had been
....... '~ny_ ~ .~. ?~ ~oMn e comments. He f"qt that the go# pro should not be o~ c~#
ut ~m qmo~ ~lo ~ · ~ i aoartn~nt wo~.Jld be
duplex apartmoflts (ofle for tAe goJf pro aM the other ==esildv
nager or the tennis pro) hacl two hedro(m~ to allow mom for f~milies.
In responee to further quee}on~ concerning me housing. ~ ~ that
the plans included · deck for tho g¢df pro, but not for the other staff (thoro would be four
bedrooms on the second floor et the front ~ the buildino for eigM stall), Nook'
one, wit~ vents iff ~he reef, The bo apmtments heal heen plmnnod &s duplexes rather
then one on either ~ on the ~eoond floor becnuee of the number of ~tmin:m, o8
2
required by ~e Bulk;ik'~g ~ tm' public buildings; every room mu~t Imve access to two
smircasea.
~;~3~J]]~l~ mede · PMa for I(mg-mnge planning. She had nolad the
number of children et the golf clinic~ and wondered what the situation would be when
en°uOh t° adapt t° changes as the i"llrM doveiol3ed, in the yearn to come. for
i~tance, them might bi a quea~m of aclding nine more holes u~ng the Navy ~. It
~"emed tl~t the projecl h~d been cansidered mom from the h~using potnt d view ttmn
,GJ~-~ todd thm~ tho Club, 88 it was now. cxmicl not handle mom
members..o that theru would be no sub~ant~ increase in the number o~ go,em. The
common 8re~ in the new building, in add#Jori to the porch, would provide room for
~ commented thru them had be~n a number ~f ca:m~daints dudng the
current ~ee~an about people cutiing in by ~ on the r~h or eighth tee. Most club~
mCluire~ all golfer~ to st~t on the firm tee and Hay Harbor might hay. to adc~t that ~.
Responding to queMJons about the prop(wgl stone ~ Ik3or and fireplace. Sandy
Esaer said that no decL1k3n had yet been made about the iloor, tile had been inclu(]ed in
the SpecifiGalions for bids since the pflc:e quoMcI would be .ufr~iont to cover whatever
surfaco wao setectod. Them wis same corn=om about using wood since lac spikes
~ suggeuted using robber m~ng for the porch, A tile floor was required iff the
generating mom revenue and i~ wss hoped tho/the ciubtmuse could be used moro
during tAe ~odflg ~md fad, po~/bly for prJvmM poflMs, m~ Mill 88 fo~ evoflt~ dudflg tim
built tt~n to 8clcl it later. The flrepim:o, wt~ich w(x~ be dorutted by afl okMr Glub
okler members, wtm wished to use It oil seasoft,
~ aeked whelher them was any value In the exjsling ~xtur.~,
wMdo~s or
3
to 9o into the ~3p, # might genemM revenue. There would be two doom in the shop -
one to the common mQm and one to tho Ix)rch - end them would be a bet~r view than
said thet revenue~ were douwe cludng the cunent eeMon. It ,ill
depended on who mn the golf ~op. In answer to queitions, ha said thet them would
be a romp ooming in from the road and t~l t~ pon~ would be the ~ame ~iz~ ~ in t~
In answer to m quMt~on, ~v Emmr ~ ~ ~ ~ be no wooden
wallo~aybec, mmeoftheMu~gorml~. 'l'~M~gmd~ldown. Thecarrantfo~ndMio~s
In responM to a question about tho mmintenlnGe budget, ~ ~
tha~ltwlsn~yet known whet it would take, but he lhought there m enough. There
wM m field to pay ongoing ettenlJon to the capM needs of the Club. The current go~
Glubhou8o dfttod ~ 1929 and nothing had ix~n kw~itecl in it.
.G~fiLq~M]~13~ said the~ by ~ stuff hou~ng in the new building, the
Club would be ~ of off-Gempus expenGe8 and would save money beGeuGe of the
· l~emm way w wa, oak~mo for t~ ~taff. As to the Geet of the project, the
echemalio drawthg~ I~KI gone to th® oontmolom, who hed given a rough estimeta. He
did not wish to 8teto m figure becau8o of tho cort~donlb#ty of tho bidding proGe~. ~
believed that tho range would be w#hin the mser, stteflt anO every etfmt woukJ bo made
avoid another a~nt. The co8~ of the furnishings was inctudod in tho GelJmMe.
~ ~ that multiplying the amounl ol the aiMMment by the nurnW
members of the Club procluced = figure of $950,000, WhiGh M)omed yaP/high for a
two-~/buik~ing M feet by ,~ f~t: thet amountocito atotelofS,O00 square feet, or
~160 per square fo(X.
-: ~ Keilv said thai. as an andMmct, he was shocJ(ed ~M ~ ~mhip ~
bean a~k~KI for o0nu'nents only when ~0 per Gent of the drawings were completad; It
wes an In~ull to diq3My tl~ plans only et luch a late stage. He felt that he could take
$75,000 off the cost, but the plan would have to be moMnted. The ixiority housing
shoukt here the priohty exlx~um. On Fishera Isiancl, the m3uth-west expGeum was
o~tioaL, Tho two F.tority epartments couM be on the seoonO floor and the other staff
building, the fire staircases could Ix) oumide, thus avo~ling tho need for two of the
MaircaM~ idanned inside. He would put hi~ comme~t~ in w~ing for the Board's
att.ffdon.
P 11
U~ ~rl~ floor. She m~id that Gene Mulmk fMt tl~ that wee .ul~ent.
plains. In the now building, the he~t ~nd water would not be keft on all yea~, theywouid
bo zoned ~ncl turned oft at (]iftment staOe8. Jim RiohtM hed been t, hawn the iden8 as
en er~hilect and he had I1~1 ~nly ~ne comment, end IbM w~ about the rc~.
P er...~et~aM)M~ ~ u~ them eppeered to t)e a cordlict of priorities. Moreover,
while the project had been diecuemKI by the Boercl over · twO-yom' period, the
. membemhip had had no oppmtunity to comment readier.
~ ~ i~ w~8 unfortunme that there bed been no ennounGement
poetecl et the O(:df clubhouse that the plane were being dir~leyed on the Hay Harbor
porch.
deteils of 8uch a proJed, He mOmited that the meeibxa had teken pk~B et tim eMventh
hour. The uul~ h~d been urider clisGua~ion for ~ome time ~nd the Boarci hnd felt U. mt
~ lhsnk~d ~ mem~mm of ~he Bo,wcl for their
T~.q: (516)
F~x: ($16) 2~-,
,997
l¢~'~.e~ Rutkow~ki
P= 02
8mptember 10, 1997
By Fax
Sout~old Torn Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
sour. hold, NY 11971
Re: Application for a Speolal ~xcep~ion and Va~lsnce
Application of l~y H~rbor Clu~ Inc.
~ear ~inda:
Xn accordance with our telephor~ con~ersation, sandy Esser who
is mn officer of The Hay Harbor Club, as well ss the desLgn
professional, could not arrive from New York City for the hearing
.~R~L~af:r.~v-i~.m. end Mr. Doyen. the Fishers Island member of
the Board would not be available tomorrow night after a cer~aim
hour, we believed that it would be best for everyone if we
adjourned the hearing until your ne~t aYailahle date.
Please reschedula this matter for any time after 8:15 p.m. in
that Mrs. Eseer is traveling from N~w York City to attend ~ha
Zoning Board hearing.
If you receive any lettere, k£~dly forward a copy ko me.
T~ank yo~.
Pc~r
SBP-IO-97 WBD
9:49 AM O+-O~-O' 0~-0~-0+-0 FAX MO. 61f~ 520 0792
Gee, Wilmerding & Associates, Inc.
ON~ ALDHYH
VItL*NOV~,, PA 1~-~445
TEL:
FAX:
P. 1
Dxwo R, WIt~l£~m~tc, Jrt.. C.F,A.
September 10, 1997
Christopher A. di Bonaventura, President
Hay Harbor Club, Inc.
Fishers Island, NY 06390
Dear Chris:
The dialogue over the renovation of the Hay Harbor golf clubhouse has polarized the membership
and must put you in an uncomfortable position.
My concerns include the issue of parking and vehicular traffic, thc prospect of achieving a better,
more efficient resolution of the staff housing problem and the possibility that the interaction with
the Town of Southold has not been hand[ed properly, especially in view of the hard questions
which have been raised.
The proponents of the current plan would be better satisfied and your leadership would be
strengthened if you were to question and reconfirm the Board's determination concerning at least
the essential, most controversial issues, possibly involving some objective representation of the
dissident group.
Please consider my suggestion, even though you arc likely to be certain in your own mind of your
sense of direction. I have "done time" on the board and as an officer and am anxious that Hay
Harbor continues to be as enjoyable in the future as it has for me and my family for so many years.
Sincerely,
cc: Town of Southold ZonLug Board of Appeals and Planning Board
~ attn. Linda Kowalski, Secy. (FAX $16-765-1823)
Mrs. Peter Sanger (FAX 516-788.5656)
Re: }lay HarboP Club at Fishings Island
Assigm~d: Mclnbc~' Doyen wilh Chair'man
I PI)A I I,S - ZBA OFI,'ICE LEVEl, FOR I~()ARI) 1NFO:
9/5/97 - t/cct~ivcd lelcphone call Ih-em Attorney Pat Moo['e, confirming
Ihal she spoke with Ga~'y Fish and they discussed nonconfo~'mities
(sclbacks and employee housing use) as well as special exception
tn'ovisions of code.
MI?S. MooPe confimned lhal with m~gard to the ZBA:
a) she will file additional $200 filing fee and wt'itten
w~ia~me application requesting: (J) intet~pt~ctation that employee
housing is permitted as a use dir'eclly celaled to a golf course
facility, and altemmlively, a vat-lance for employee housing, and
(2) vatqance as to setbacks f~'om the ft'ont ya~'d mxluit'cment of 100
feet; alld
b) sho wishes to pr'ocecd wilh Ihe hea~'ing on the Special
Exeeplion application, although the vazqance application she
undet'stands would be not be limely for' a heatqng on 9/111/97 since is
has not been filed as yet.
9/5/97 - ZBA office confit'med the above with Assigned Membc~· S.I).,
ZBA Depa~'tmm~l Ilead (G.G.), ami lale~' with Member' I'o~tma when
sim ~ alk.d.
********************************** ns.new/912-18.1
Copies lo ZBA nlembcr' office boxes on !)/8/97 by(/J~.
? ""/3-,~ ~,
David C. Denison
Superintendent, Hay Harbor Golf Course
P. O. Box 276
Fishers Island, New York 06390
1997
Linda Walkowski
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
October 16, 1997
Dear Ms. Walkowski,
I am the superintendent of Hay Harbor Golf Course, and am responsible
for caring for the grounds and buildings there. I would like to comment on
the upcoming Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on October 23 concerning
a variance for the proposed rebuilding of the Hay Harbor Golf Course
clubhouse. I will be unable to attend the meeting due to the difficulty of
getting to "mainland" Long Island from here, so this note will transmit my
opinions in this matter, for what they're worth.
The existing clubhouse has been there since the early thirties. Over the
years, it has served the members and staff well. Unfortunately, it now has
several problems (leaky roofs, antiquated plumbing, rotting wood, broken
windows). In my opinion, it would be a waste to spend a lot of capital
fixing the old building when those funds could be put towards constructing
a new one.
Our staff has increased significantly over the past sixty years, and the
limited housing owned by the Clul~ can no longer ac~ohunodate these
additional personnel. With the exception of two of us who have our own
year-round homes, everyone who works at Hay Harbor needs a place to
stay for the summer. The proposed new building would allow several
semor staff members to stay "on campus", rather than have to try to find
rental places in the very competitive real estate market here on Fishers
Island.
The planners of the new building have been careful to preserve the style
and dimensions of the existing one. As caretaker of the green and tees
nearby, this is an important concern to me, as it means that these turf areas
near the clubhouse will not be adversely affected. It will be no closer to
the road or to neighboring property, and will look much nicer than the
current run-down structure.
In talking with members who play golf, I have heard a few concerns about
the new building. Club President Mr. di Bonaventura carefully addressed
each of these concerns in a letter to members, and his answers were logical
and explicit. It is my opinion that the majority of members are in favor of
the proposal, and that some who aren't are not looking forward far enough
to see that in the long run, the expense of the new building will be paid
back from savings in repairs and rent. The Board consists of officers duly
appointed by the full membership, and should have the authority to do
what they feel is in the best interests of the Club.
As a "hired hand" of Hay Harbor Club, I usually stay out of Club politics;
however, I strongly support this project and respectfully urge the Zoning
Board of Appeals to vote in favor of granting the variance as soon as
possible. If the construction is delayed too long into next season, it will
cause problems maintaining the turf areas around the work site. The noise
and commotion would be a great distraction to golfers and to the golf pro,
who often gives lessons and clinics on the adjacent practice green. The
Club might have to rent a trailer to serve as a temporary pro shop if work
proceeds into the summer, which would only cause unnecessary expense
and inconvenience.
Thank you very much for reading this letter and considering my opinion.
hope you will agree that this project is in the best interests of Hay Harbor
Club in particular and Fishers Island in general.
Sincerely,
\Y
LEGAL NOTICE
SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
THIJRSDAY,
FEBRUARY 26, 1998
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267
of the Town Law' and the Code
of the Town o[Southold, the fol-
lowing application will be held
for public hearing by the
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
OF APPEALS, at the Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road,
Southold,~ New York I 1971, on
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26,
1998 at the time noted beinw (or
as soon thereafter ~s possible):
~' 6:35:
RONALD 'J
SCHNIG. Request for Variance
regarding "as built" (existing)
location of open deck addition
for which an applica0on for a
building permit was d~proved
by the building insi~ector on
January 29, 1998 and which Dis-
approval reads as folloWS: "...un-
der Article XXIV, Section 100-
244B for nonconforming lots,
the 'as built' deck addition will
have a rear yard setback at
27'6"+-. Lot areas of 20,000 to
39,000 sq. ft. require a rear yard
setback of S0 feet. The existing
dwelling has a present noncon-
formthgsetbackof42 ft. +. Ac-
tion required by the Board of Ap-
peals..." Location of Property:
250 Jernick Lane, Southold.
County Parcel ID 1000-70-3-17.
Lot size: 20,586 s.f.
6:40 p.m. AppL NO. 45462
HERBERT SCANNEEL and
SARAH REETZ. Request for
Variance based upon the Febro-
aD' 2, 1998 Building Inspector's
Notice of Disapproval (and Stop
Work Order) regarding pending
Building Permit No. 24471Z and
reconstruction and replacement
of single-family dwelling with
.~nGvd Vonconforming setbacks, Article
, Section 100-242 (ret'. set-
backs under Section 100-244B)
of the Zoning Code. Location of
Property: 955 Cove Circle,
Greenport CTM # 1000-49_ 1.16
and 17 (as one lot). Lot size: .69
of an acre.
6:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4538-
MICHAEL RAND. Requast for
Variances based upon the De-
cember 29, 1997Notice of Dis-
approval regarding a building
permit application to construct a
three-ear accessory garage,
which reads as follows: ".i. Un-
der Article IliA, Section I'00-
30A.4 accessory buildings are to
be located in the required rear
yard. Since SCTM #10000-14-
2-10 and #1000-14-2-11 also
known as Petty Bight Subdivi-
sion Lots 12 and 13 have been
merged as per owner's request,
the proposed three-ear accessory
garage with storage above is lo-
cated in the side yard of the prin-
mpal dwelt/rig. Location of Prop-
erty: 1275 Bight Road, Orient;
County Parcel ID I000-14-2-10
and l l. Lot size: 85,115 s.f. '.
6:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4541-
R...I:~-I. ~EONAI~. Request for
a Waiver under Article II, Sec-
tion 100-26 based upon the
Building Inspector's January 7,
1998 Notice of Disapproval
which reads as folloWS: "...Both
pamels being located in an R40
Zone: Tax Map #1000-78-07-38
and 1000-78-07.39 are merged.
These pamels do not meet with
the exceptions as specified un-
der Article II 100-25C... ~ at-
tached determination by Town
AttorneY..," 755 and 795 Cedar
Drive, Southold, NY.
7:00 p.m. AipPL 'Nol 4540-
M~.__L~SSA SPn~O. Rmuest for
a Walvar under ArtiCle 1I, Sec-
tion 100-26 based upon the
building Inspector'S January 6,
1998 Notice of Disapproval
which roads as follows: ".;.Both
parcels being located in an R40
Zone, Tax Map Numbers 1000-
· 110-06-05 and 1000-110-06-
11.2 are merged. These parcels
do not meet with-the exceptions
as speeifted under Article II,
100-25C... Note: See attached
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STATE OF NEW YORK ss:
Patricia C. Lollot, being duly sworn, says that
she is the Production Coordinator, of the TRAV-
ELER WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed
at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the no-
tice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
has been published in said Traveler Watchman
once each week for /
........................................................................ weeks
:' '~"'. ",~mm,~ncJn~' nn the ..../_~..~
· -.' ~ ;.,,--
determination by.ToWn Allomey ' lng persons. Also is a scuytare
which states that lots ~ not ex~ except~I under Section 100-230
cepted...' Location of Property: . under ~Excmptiuns," or do the
340 Glenwood Road and 295 height limitations of Section
East Road, Cutehogue. CTM Lot
11.2 of 40,000 s.f. has a 1979
approval under Board of Appeals
#2554 (Moebions Associates -
Minor Subdivision)..
7:05 p.m. AppL Nol 4543.
~LI~ Kg?.OkOS~A. ~:
quest for a Variance based upon
~e Building Inspector's Deeem-:
r 24, 1997 Notice of Disap-
proval which sta~ that "...appl/-
cation dated November 17, 1997
for a permit to replace an exist-
lng dwelling is disapproved on-
.the following grounds: the exist-
mg nonconforming building con-
taining a nonconforming use if
damaged by fire or other cans~s
to the extent of more than filly
percent (50°/6) of its fair value
shall not be repaired or rebuilt
unless such building is made sub-
stantially to conform to the
height and yard requirements of'
the bulk acbedule, Article XXIV,
Section 100-242B-I. (Ref. all
sethaeks under 100-244 and 100-
239.4A). Location of Property:
54155 C.R. 48; Gmenport, NY;
Parcel ID #1000-52-1-2.
7:15 p.m. Appl. NO. 453~2
REQUEST By. SOUTHOLD
.TOWN BUILDING DEPART-
for Generic Town-Wide Inter-
pretation" with the following
questions: "Is a sculpture a
"building" under the Code Deft-
nitions at Section 100-13, since
a sculpture does not have a roi)f
and will not be intended for shel-
ter, business, housing or enclos-
' 100-33 apply.?"
7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4466-
ItAY HARBOR'OLUB Fishers
Island, continued hearing at re-
quest of applicant's attorney.
· 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4535-
WILLIAM and PATRICIA
MOORE as contract vendees.
R.¢quest for Special Exception
under Article IX, Section 100-
7 lB(2) for ptincipal offices (pro-
fessional and business) at 51020
Main Road, Southold, NY;
1000-70-2-8. Zone District:
Residential-Office.
' ~ p.m. Appl< No. 4536-
!NDEI~NDF-e~T GROUP
HOME L'I~G PROGRAM,
INC: _(V_~rb'l~un portion was
_cunc.lu~d. on l/"z~8. Proposed
Resgl0fion to closXa, the written
po~on of this recoXrd. 51550
61~3-1.
Th~ Bead ofAplxals w~l ~said
view during Town Hall business
hours C~4 p.m.), ffyou have ques-
765-1~09. ~
Dated: February 10, 1998.
BY ORDER OF THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS -
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
Chairman
IX-2/12/98(19)
LEGAL NOTICE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1998
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section P,67 of the To~,
Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following application will
be held for public hearing by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF
APPEALS~ at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, ~-:onthold, N~w.
York 11971, on THURSDAY~ FEBRUARY 26~ 1998 at lhe time notec~
below (or as soon thereafter as possible):
6:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4545 RONALD J. YIgDL(J[JT~CIiNI(~.
Request for Variance regarding "as built" (existing) location of open
deck addition for which an application for a building permit was
disapproved by the building inspector on January 29, 1998 and which
Disapproval reads as follows: "...under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B
for non-conforngng lots, the 'as built' deck addition will have a rear
yard setback at 27'6~ +-. Lot areas of 20,000 to 39,000 sq. ft. require
a rear yard setback of 50 feet. The existing dwelling ha.~ a present
non-conforming setback of 42 ft. +-. Action required by the Board of
Appeals .... " Location of Property: 250 Jernick Lane, Southold.
County Parcel ID 1000-70-3-17. Lot size: 20,586 si.
6:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4546 - HERBERT SCANNELL and SARAH
REETZ. Request for Variance based upon the February 2, 1998 Building
Page ~- Legal Notice
Meeting of February 26, 1998
Southold Town Board of Appeals
inspector's Notice of Disapproval (and Stop Work Order) regarding
pending Building Permit No. 24471Z and reconstruction and replacement
of single-family dwelling with nonconforming setbacks, Article XXIV,
Section 100-242 (ref. setbacks under Section 100-244B) of the Zoning
Code. Location of Property: 955 Cove Circle, Greenport; CTM
#1000-49-1-16 and 17 (as one lot). Lot size: .69 of an acre.
6:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4538 MICHAEL RAND. Request for
Variances based upon the December 29, 1997 Notice of Disapproval
regarding a building permit application to construct a three-car
accessory garage, which reads as follows: "...Under Article IIIA,
accessory buildings are to be located in the required
SCTM #1000-14-2-10 and #1000-14-2-11 also known as
Section 100-30A.4
rear yard. Since
Petty Bight Subdivision L(~ts 12 and 13 have been merged as per owner's
request, the proposed three-car accessory garage with storage above is
located in the side yard of the
Property: 1275 Bight Road, Orient;
11. Lot size: 85,115 sr.
principal dwelling. Location of
County Parcel ID 1000-14-2-10 and
6:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4541 - RUTH LEONARD. Request for a
Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26 based upon the Building
Inspector's January 7, 1998 Notice of Disapproval which reads as
follows: "...Both parcels being located in an R40 Zone: Tax Map
#1000-78-07-38 and 1000-78-07-39 are merged. These parcels do not meet
with the exceptions as specified under Article II 100-25C... See attached
Page -~ - Legal Notice
Meeting of February 26, 1998
Southold Town Board of Appeals
determination by Town Attorney .... " 755 and 795 Cedar Drive,
Southold, NY.
7:00 p.m. Appl. No. 4540 - MELISSA SPIRO. Request for a
Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26 based upon the building
Inspector's January 6, 1998 Notice of Disapproval which reads as
follows: ~...Both parcels being located in an R40 Zone, Tax Map
Numbers 1000-110-06-05 and 1000-110-06-11.2 are merged. These parcels
do not meet with the exceptions as specified under Article II, 100-25C...
Note: See attached determination by To~rn Attorney which states that
lots are not excepted .... " Location of Property: 340 Glenweed Road
and 295 East Road, Cutchogue. CTM Lot 11.2 of 40,000 sf. has a 1979
approval under Board of Appeais #2554 (Moebious Asssociates Minor
Subdivision).
7:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4543 - ALICE KONTOKOSTA. Request for a
Variance based upon the Building Inspector's December 24, 1997 Notice
of Disapproval which states that "...application dated November 17, 1997
for a permit to replace an existing dwelling is disapproved on the
following grounds: the existing nonconforming
nonconforming use ff damaged
more than fifty percent (50%)
rebuilt unless such building
height and yard requirements of the bulk schedule, Article XXIV,
Section 100-242B-1. (Ref. all setbacks under 100-244 and 100-239.4A).
building cent~inlng a
by fire or other causes to the extent of
of its fair value sh~{l not be repaired
is made substanti~ly to conform to the
Page ~- Legal Notice
Meeting of February 26, 1998
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Location of Property:
#10'30-52-1-2.
54155 C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; Parcel ID
7:15 p.m. Appl.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Interpretation" with the
~building" under the Code Definitions
sculpture does not bare a roof and will
business, housing or enclosing persons.
under Section 100-230 under "Exemptions,~ or
of Section 100-33 apply...?"
No. 4537 REQUEST BY SOUTHOLD TOWN
dated January 6, 1998 for "Generic Town-Wide
following questions: "Is a sculpture a
at Section 100-13, since a
not be intended for shelter,
Also is a sculpture excepted
do the height limitations
7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4466 - HAY HARBOR CLUB~ Fishers Island,
continued hearing at request of applicant's attorney.
8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4535 WILLIAM and PATRICIA MOORE as
con(ract vendees. Request for Special Exception under Article IX,
Section 100-71B(2) for principal offices (professional and business) at
51020 Main Road, Southold, NY; 1000-70-2-8. Zone District:
Residential-Office.
8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4536 INDEPENDENT GROUP HOME LIVING
PROGRAM, INC. (Verbatim portion was concluded on 1/22/98. Proposed
Resolution to close the written portion of this record. 51550 Main
Road, Southold, NY; 1000-61-3-1.
Page ~ - Lega! Notice
Meeting of February 26, 1998
Southold Town Board of Appeals
The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all
persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above application
or desiring to submit written statements before the hearing ends. The
hearing will not start earlier than designated. The file is available
for review during Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have
questions, please do not hesitate to call 765-1809.
Dated:
February 10, 1998.
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman
X
conforminn uae, A~iclc X~,
Ii~ ~ application w~ll I~ held
~ p~lbMaring by ~ SOUTHOLD
· lsslkdik' l,l~v York 1~9'/1,
i, DEC'~MBn:R 11,
at dek glare noted below (or as soon
~C~tinuation of IIAY
-
(s)
klllal Inspector in which a pemdt
bi' Vadance ~Vo~ In,-m
golf club ma), have
employee housing. Locatiom
Property: lqshon~ Island,
Southokl, NY.
time and plaee Ima. any m~d all [am~
or rqn~a~mtivee ~slrl~ to
and re~ive all written sl~tementa iI~.
mittecl befo~ the cad of dte abo~e hms,.
(8-4 p.m.) and c~pks may bo o~k~
by citlmr eomc~n~ our offk~ dbtnsll,
to our attention at (1-516) '/65-18~.
De, ed: November 21, 1997.
BY ORDER OF THE
STATE OF NE~ORK)
) SS:
._TY OF SUFFOLK)
~-] 1_[_~ [ /{0 ~-~of Mattltuck, in
said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she
is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a
Weekly Newspaper, published st Mattituek, in
the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and
State of New York, and that the Notice of which
the annexed is a printed copy, has been regular-
ly published in said Newspaper once each week
for ~ weeks successively, ~ommencing on
Principal Clerk
.dmssl~ and reconstruct a golf SOUTHOLD TOWN
and employee hq BOAR]) OF APPEALS
1= ~ ~ ~f~i~ ~ ~ day of_//~C. 19 'C~ --
MARY
DIANA
FOSTER
N~ARY PUBLIC, STATE OF N~ YORK
NO. 52~655242, SUFFOLK COUNW
COMM ~ ON ~P RES AUGU~ 31, Z9 ~
ADD
SOUTiiOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEs. I~
NOTIC~ IS IffiRI~y GIVEN, put-
~u to Secfiou 267 of the Town Law
and m,' Code of the Town of Souflmkt,
for public hearings by the
SOUTIIOLD TOWN ~ OF
.4,~P~.&LS, at the Souflmld Town Hall,
53~5 Main R~d, Sm~boid, New Ygwk
11971, m THURSDAY, JAd~[ARY
l& l~J~ at the times noted below (or ss
6~45 pm. AppL No. 453! -- DU-
N,~,i~ of ~ dated
Novemb~ 10, 19e//, ~ 12/15/97,
199'/, al~ is in~_ to tndM a
new deck addition and ~.quem
Va~m:~ unde~ Article HIA, Secfim~
100=30A.3, A~icl¢ XX]V,
100-244B nnd 100-239.4B, for
inc~ase of lot covm~e ov~ 20~
tcdm:~s~ in ~ lmm thc front
ln~m btdkd~ad. L~a~iou of Pmpe~c
7:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4532 --
SIIAWN ami DAWN WnJ.~&MS.
Applicants m ~eques~ng ·
~4, ~ u~n ~ Budding
~'s ~ 19, 1~ N~
~(~)~~ ~
~a~81~.~
Mauim~ ~; ~ty ~ No,
O~ LYONS ~ ~W
I~B ~ ~ m-~ ~
~r's ~ ~, 1~ ~
~D~~ofs
~n ~ (1) m ~ ~ ac
~ ~ 355 ~ ~, ~
7:~ p.m. ~tion of ~Y
~fi~: F~ ~ ~.
p.m.).
655 p.m. Appl. NO. 4501 -- ' If you ~ quesfig~s, please do not '
m~4NOR N~GY. (Heating car~-
ove~ from Septembe~ 25, 1997.)
Al~t is m~,,-~i-g a Waiver under
the JuJy 7, 1997 Nmice of Disavowal
"(1) undo~ Aflicle !1. ~on 10(0
~1) ~ a~ ~ as 100(0
T 2SA~ lo~l land asea me~cr exhts for
hcsitate to ~ 76.%1809.
D~ted: Decgml~ 18, 1997. .
BY ORDER OF THE
SOUTItOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
Omin~an
By Linda Kowalski
1267-1TJ8
STATE OF NEW YORK)
)SS:
.~.OUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
_~ f-~ Iii ~l II (t I~S of Mat.tuck, in said
county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is
Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a
weekly newspaper, published at Mattltuck, in
the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and
State of New York, and that the Notlce of which
the annexed is a printed copy, has been regu-
larly published in said Newspaper once each
week for
co .mmencing
.week%.~.successively,
19th~ .~r,-~ day
Principal Clerk
Sworn to be~re me this /.~ ~
dayof 19
Dear Louisa,
Would you be able to post the attached Legal Notice for us at tile
Fishers Island Post Office location? Serge. had done this in the past
for us and we find it helps. Thank you.
ZBA Office
At tacbment
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
*~erard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio. Jr.
I.ydia A. Torlora
Prepared 11/21/97
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTI IOLD
Southold Town ttall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765- 1823
'l~lcphene (516) 765- 18(}9
NOTICE OF IIEARING
SOIJTIlOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
TtIURSDAY~ DECEMBER ll~ 1997
NOTICE IS IIEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of tile Town
Law and the Code of tho Town of Southold, the following application will
bc held for public bearleg by the SOI/TIIOLI) TOWN BOAItD OF
AI'PF, ALS~ at tho Southold Town flail, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New
York 11971, on TilURSDAY, DECEMBER 11~ 1997 at the time noted
below (or as soon thereafter as possible):
7:30 p.~n. Continuation of IIAY llARBOR CLUB~ 1NC. Applications:
Appl. #4503.GG - Special Exception under Article Ill,
Sections 100-31B(7), subsections (a) through (d), to
construct proposed new building for existing golf course
and related golf uses.
Appl. #4514.LT - Tl~s is art application based upon the
July 9.2, 1997 Notice of Disapproval by the Building
Inspector in which a permit to demolish and reconstruct a
golf clubhouse and employee housing were disapproved on
tho following grounds: "...Being located in an R-120
District this non-conforming building with a
non-co~fforming use, permitted only by Special Exception
(under Section 100-3lB) shall not be enlarged,
reconstructed or structurally altered or moved unless the
Page ?,- Legal Notice~f Hearing
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Reg~dar Meeting to be held 12/11/97
use of such building is changed to a conforming use,
Article XXIV, Section 100-243A, .... "for approval by
Variance and/or Interpretation that golf club may have
accessory employee housing. Location of Property:
Fishers Island, Town of Southold, NY.
The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all
persons or representatives desiring to be heard, and receive all written
statements submitted before the end of the above hearing. The hearing
will not start earlier than designated. The file is available for review
during Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.) and copies may be obtained
by either contacting our office directly at 765-1809, or faxing
communications to our attention at (1-516) 765-1823.
Dated:
November 21, 1997.
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman
Town Hall
53095 M~in Road
Southold, NY 11971
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Serge Doyen
Jame~ Diqizi. o, .Jr.
2
Lydia A. Tortora
Maureen C. Ostermann
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1809
September 3, 1997
'Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Re: Appl. #4503 - Special Exception (Hay Harbor Club)
Dear Mrs. Moore:
We have at the office level received questions about why a
special exception was filed by the applicant without a variance for
the nonconforming use, and in the essence of saving time rather
than waiting until September 11, 1997 - the date of the hearing, ask
if you would clarify the following.
Would yo..u~ please confirm the reason why a special exception
was filed wit~.h~-n application for a variance (based upon the July 22,
1997 Notice of Disapproval). It was confirmed today by our Fishers
Island representative that the employee housing is being proposed in
the application and it was a nonconforming use. The Building
Inspector also has indicated the housing to be nonconforming.
In any event, if yon will be requesting a variance in addition
to the special exception, please complete the enclosed application
form and return to us with a $200 filing fee.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Enclosure
Linda Kowalski
Board Secretary
....................................................................I' ....... TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT "'I ........... (SEP 85 '97 0~:43PM) .................
· ~ ~ SOL~OLD TOWN HALL S16 765 1823
.................................................................................................................................................................................. (AUTO)
DATE START REMOTE TERMINAL TIME RE- MODE TOTAL PERSONAL LABEL FILE
TIME IDENTIFICATION SULTS PAGES NO.
SEP 85 02:42PM 2985664 08'48" OK S 01 005
E)ECM >)REDUCTION S)STANDARD M)MEMORY C)CONFIDENTIAL ~)BATCH
D)DETAIL $)TRAMSFER
F)FINE P)POLLING
.................................................................................... MEMORY STORAGE REPORT ........................ (SEP 03 '9? 12:06PM) .................
· ' · ' SOU TOWN HALL 516 ?65 1823
.................................................................................................................................................................................. (AUTO) .....................
FILE FILE TYPE 0PTIOH TEL HO. PAGE
003 MEMORY TX N MOORE 03
RE~qlMIHG CALL CARACITY 21
APPEALS )) O.~JlD MP_MB£RS
C~rard P. Ooehrin~r. Cl~irman
Serge Doyen
~am.es. Di~i.o, .Ir..
Lydia A. Tortora
BOARD OF APPEAI~
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 M=in girid
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
TeJepb0ne (516) 765-1~09
Septembe~ 3, 1997
· --Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
IVlattituck, NY 11952
Re: Appl. #4503 - Special Exception (Hay Harbor Club)
Dear Mrs. Moore:
We have at the office level received questions about why a
..................... t ....................................................... ,~. TRAMSMISSIOM RESULT REPORT .................... (SEP 03 '97 12:@IPM) .................
TOWH HALL 516 765 18~3
.................................................................................................................................................................................. (AUTO) .....................
THE FOLLOWIN~ FILE(S) ERASED
FILE FILE TYPE OPTION TEL NO. PACE RESULT
883 MEMORY TX W MOORE 00×03
ERRORS
1) HAM~ UP OR LIME FAIL 2) BUSY 3) MO AMSWER 4) MO FACSIMILE COM~ECTION
BOARD
Gem~l P. Goehrill~r, ~
Se~¢ Doyen
lam~. s. Di .~zi.o, ~Ir..
Lydis A. Tor[o~
BOAI~I) OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
$outhold Town Hall
53095 I~laln Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 76.%1823
TeleI~-one (516) 765-1809
September 3, 1997
· "Patricia C. Moo?e, Esq.
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattituek, NY 11952
Re: Appl. #450.2 - Special Exception (Hay Harbor Club)
Dear Mrs. Moore:
We have at the office level received questions about why a
53095 MaingOed Southold, NewYork PAMELA G. MOTT~I~¥ fggarolflg DUltOlng,wIm, n.sl~s~-~.~. ,. ,~s~ m tt~dhefor~h~ca ar h~gingis
11.971~'~n THUI~D.KY,"~qC'~I~?' ~-property located at 6850 indlnn Neck permtttco omy oy ~pecta] t~xc%. ..............
1997ntthethnesn6tedhelow(?,rss~ ~ Lane, Pecouic, NY; Counly Parcel (onderSectlon 100-31H)shailnotbe concluded. The files are available for
aoontherneftetaspo~ble):',/~ ~'~' #1000.86-7.$ of149,054 sq. ft.,forthe enlarged, reconstructed 0t store- . review dm'lng Town Hall business
7:00 p.m. APPL #4520 =-. 5'E - following approvals:
LEY PAWLOWgKI. Based upon the
Buildin~ Inspector's Augoat 28; 1997
requested for am "U built ~ ~couis coutt,
which construction eicnede,the 20%
allowable total lot Onverage. for all
buiJdings and structures ind for
approval of its present I~ation peffi, y in
n side Fred and at less than 10 fi:
stde and gem ~n~rty lines. Locati°n of
Properly:: 1785 'nCrown Lane,
Cutcbugoe; 1000-102-7-4. ,
7:10 p.m. Appl. ~4509 ~ TONY,S
1) Appl. #4522 -- Special Ex-
ception is requested to convert ex-
L istinli pflncipel bulldinli from one-
family ~0 two-family use, as pro-
vided under Article IH, Section 100-
3IH(I); ned
~) AppL #4523 -- Variamcsu
under Article IH, Section 100-32,
.. Bulk, Arcs and Parkin8 Schedule, ss
to the existing nonconformities of
the properly size and building set-
' backs, for the propmed converelon
of the existinli principal single-final-
REALTY CORP. d/b/S Southold ly use to a two-family dwailinli use,
Automotive 'corp. (C. attyover from in addition to the weexistinli ~ueat
9/'25), Property Location: Co/6er of~(o~,q~ cottage, which cottage is included in
~ Ave. and S/s Main Road, ~ February 6. 1986 Certificate of
_ So~old,e~%¥4pl~.~j~ .~ p~ting Occupamcy..~.Z-14212.
'the Septenfiret 24, 1997~Notlne Of · 1NOS: 'live appllcatinne by HAY
: Dlsspprovai, a vadam~ b requested
under Article XXIlI, Section 100-
239.4A(1) for permission to conetmcl
. dock addition within ~.00 feet of LI.
Sound bluff. Location of Property:
17975 Soundview Avenue, Soathold,
NY; 1000-~1-1-?,
?:2~ p.m, AppL #4512 --
CHURCH OF GOD IN CllRIST, A
~s~= ~ .Muinnce is reqnemd, bussd up~ the
..... Bullding lflspector'e September 2,1997'
I he held
HARBOR CLUB, INC. reliardinli
property located in an R-120 Zone
]District at Oflectai Avenue, Fishers
Island; County Parcel #1000-9-12-8.1,
for the following approvals:
1) Appl. #4503 -- This is an
· application for a Special Exception
under A~lcle II1, Section 100-
31B(7), subsections (e) through (d),
to construct proposed building for
existing golf cou~e and related golf
XX,~tione..2~.D(~ and (100-206B) : 2) Appl. #4514 -- This in an
for an ~ss built ~oond dgo in itl pre- applinedon based upon the July 22,
1907 Notine of Disapproval by tile
sent location, with interior li~htin&amd .
brick bsse. Locndon 0f prol~ty: 1~25 -~ ~uildinli [nepector in which n permli
C R. 48, Cotchogoe County Parnel , to' demolish and. reconstruct a golf
1000-101-~-10.- .~' ' clubhouse and employee housing
7:~0 p.m. JOINT PUBLIC II~AR- were disapproved on the following
toruily altered or moved unlus tho hours (8-4 p.m..). If you have questions,
use of such building is c~ed to a ' please do not h~ita~e to call 765.1809.
conforming use, Aflinle XXIV, Dated: Octoher 2, 1997.
Section 100-2~3A...' for approval . B¥ ORDER OF THE
by Variance ned/or Interpretation SOUTHOLDTOWN
that golf club may have aornesov/ .. ': BOARD OF APPEAi~
~ ' OERARD E ooEHRiNOER,
employee housing.
The Board of. Appeal~ wi it nald" Chairman
time and place hear any and ail penone By Linde Kowaiski
or representatives deaidng to he heard' . 116'2-1T?_
the Town of $outhold, County of Suffolk and
8tare of New York, and that the Notice of which
the annexed is n printed copy, ham been rek~lar-
ly published In enid Newspaper once eneh week
for ~ weeks sAae~esslvely, e~ommenelng on
theq day of (.~'~19~..
Principal Clerk
Sworn to before me thio /.~"~x
day of ~/. 10 ~ 7
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF N~ YORK
~. 52~655242, SUFFOLK coUNIY
CO~MISSION EX~RES AUGUST 3L
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERSi
Gerard R Goehringer, Chairman
Serge Doyen
James Dinizio. Jr.
Lydia A. Tonora
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1809
October 2, 1997
Dear
For your records, please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice
which will be published by our office in next week's issue of the Suffolk
Times.
As soon as may be possible, please send a copy of thLq legal notice
(or similar letter describing your project and confirmln~ the hearing
date, time and place of the public hearing) by certified mail, return
receipt ~quested, to all surreund~n~ property owners, including
property owners across streets or vehic,,la- rights-of-way and those who
ow~ va~nt lnnd.
~ Also enclosed is a si~n to be posted at the subject property within
ten (10) feet from the front property line for a period of seven (7) days
- or longer at your choice.
Please return the following to us when convenient for you, or at
the hear/ng, together with the completed Affidavits of MaiHn~ and
Post~ug:
a) pos~-~,'ked receipts Prom the post office showing the
date you roiled the notices by certified .~il;
b)
g-teen signature cards once they have been received (you
may return these later if you do not receive them all by
the hea~ng date).
If you have questions, please feel free to r~ll.
Enclosures
lnag. 97/appl. ne~
Very truly yollrs,
NlaryAnn Cybul-qld (PT)
Lucia Fa~reli (PT)
-/'ion'
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road,
Southold, New York, concerning this property.
OWNER(S) OF RECOR
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARINg:
5?'.oo OCk. 3, I qq7
If you have an .interest in this project, you are invited to view the Town file(s)
which are available for inspection prior to the day of the hearing during normal
business days between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS · TOWN OF SOUTHOLD · (516) 765-1809
NOTICE OF
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY~ OCTOBER 23~ 1997
:r_ NOTICE IS B~RY GIve, I, p~,--t to ~m 267 of ~e To~
~w ~d ~e C~e of ~e To~ of Sou~old, ~e foHo~ng appH~o~
~ be held for public ~n~ by
~P~S~ at ~e Sou~old To~ ~, 53095 ~,~n ~d, Sou~old, New
York 11971, on T~SDAY, OCTOB~ 23t 1997 at ~e ~ noted
below (or ~ s~n ~e~ter ~ possl~e):
7:~ p.m. Appl. ~520 - ST~ PA~OWS~. B~ed upon ~e
B~ding ~ector's A~t 2S, 1997 No~ of D~pp~v~, a ~nnce
~quested for ~ "~ b~t" ~enni~ ~, w~ ~cdon ex~ ~e
20% ~o~ble to~ lot ~ve~ for ~ b~d~n~ ~d s~c~s, ~d
for app~ of i~ p~s~t [~fion ~ ~ a ~de ~ ~d at less
~ 10 ft. f~m side ~d ~ p~e~ ~s. Lo~o~ of ~e~:
1785 Crowu r~ne, Cutchogue; 1000-102-7-4.
7:10 p.m. Appl. i~4509: TON~PES REALTY CORP.
Automotive Corp. (Carryover f,~um 9/25).
Hobart Ave. and S/s .M,~,~ Road, Sou%hold.
ci/%/a ScuT_hold
Properly Location: Corner of
7:20 p.m.
September 24,
Ar~ic!e
Appl. ~4519 - CAROLYN H. FISHER. Based upon uhe
1997 No~ice of Disapproval, a var~-nce is ~quesled ~der
S~n 100-239.~(I) for petition ~o ~c~ de~
ad~on ~rh~n lO0 f~t of L.I. Sold bl~. Lo~on of P~per~:
17975 So~d~ew Avenue, Sou~oid, ~; 10~-5I-i-7.
Page =~ Legal
October .03, 1997 Regular Meeting
Southold Town Board of Appeals
7:25 p.m. Appl. ~512 - CHI.ri{cH OF GOD IN CHRIST. A Var~-nce
is r~quested, based upon the Bu~dlng ~n-~pector's September 2, 1997
Notice of Disapproval, under Article XX, Sections 205D(5) amd 100-206B)
for an "as built" ground sign in its present lecatien, with interior
ligh~ng amd br~ck base. Location of Property: 15625 C.R. 48,
Cutchogue; County Parcel 1000-101-1-10.
'- 7:30 p.m. JOIiNT PUBLIC ~ARING$: T~o applications filed by
PATRICIA G. RUSHIN and PA~r.A G. MOTTLEY reg2rdinC property
located at 6850 Tndl, n Nec~ r~ne, Pecomic, NY; County P~el
31000-86-7-5 of 149,054 sq. ft., for the following approvals:
1) Appl. ~522 - Spe~ia| Exception is requested to convert
e.x~s~ng princl!:ml budding from one-f2m~]g to t~vo-f2m,~y use, as
provided under Article III, Section 100-$1B(1); and
2) Appl. {~4§23 - Var~mnces under Az~icle FrT, Section 100-32,
Bulk, .4_~ea and p~r~n~ Schedule, as to the exis~ng nonconformi-
ties of the prope=ty size amd bul]d~ng setbank.~, for the proposed
conversion of the exis*~,~g principal ~in~e-f,-,~y use to a
two-fmmily dwelling use, in addition to the preexJs~ng guest
cottage, which cottage_ is included in February 8, 1986 Certi~cmte
of ?~ug Occupancy ~Z-14~12. Zone: R-80 Residen~ml.
~ 8:00 p.m. JOINT PUBLIC ~ARLNGS: Two applications by
t{ARBOR CLUB~ !NC. regarding pro.~erry located ~n an R-120 Zone
District a~ Orienml Avenue, Fishers Islm~d; Coumty Parcel
~1000-9-12-8.1, for the following approvals:
!) Appl. ~503 - This is an appiication for a Sp~l ~p~n
~der .~e III, S~on 100-~lB(7), ~b~o~ (a) ~ (d),
~o ~ct p~pos~ b~ding for ~-g ~ ~e ~d ~t~
Page ,_~ Legal
October 23, 1997 Regular .%Ieet/ng
Southold Town Board of Appeals
golf uses.
2) Appl. #4514 - This is an application based upon the July 22,
1997 Not,ce of Disapproval by the Bulldlng rn-~pector in which a
permit to demolish and ~econstruct a golf clubhouse and employee
housing were disapproved on the follow~-g grounds:
located in an R-120 District thi~ non-eenfo~i-5 buflal-g with a
non-confor~.i-g use, permitted only by Spe,-'-I F~eept/on (under
Section 100-3lB) sh~l] not be eul-~ged, recoustrueted or
structurally altered or moved unless the use of such building is
chmng'ed to a confol~ng use, Article IXIV, Section 100-243A, ....
for approval by Var'-nee and/or Interpretation ~b.t ~lf club may
~_.~have aceessotsr employee housing.
The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all
'pereons or ~presentatives des/r/nC to be heard in the above
applicat/ons. Each hea_~ng will not start before the time designated,
and written statements may be submitted before each pa~tic~,l~, hes~ng
is concluded. The f~[es ~ av-fl-ble for ~ev/ew du~g To~n ~
business hours (8-4 p.m.). If ~Du have questions, p~-~e do not
hesitate to esll 765-1809.
Dated:
October 2, 1997.
BY OKDE~ OF T]FrE~ SOUTItOLD
TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
GEi%A~D P. GOk'FFF~INGEI{,
By T.i~da Kowa~sk~
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, New York 11952
Tel: (516) 298-5629
Fax: (516) 298-5664
September 9, 1997
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Ladies/Gentlemen:
?
Enclosed please find thirteen return receipt cards to be
attached to the Affidavit of Mailing, for the above referenced
matter, previously sent to you.
Very truly yours,
Patricia C. Moore,
By: Margaret Rutkowski,
Secretary
/mr
Encls.
BOARD OF AppEALS:TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Application
AFFIDAVIT
of
Hay Harbor Club, Inc. '
(Name of Applir~nts) x
AFFIDAVIT OF NLA17JNG AND POSTING
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
STATE OF NEW YORK)
New York, being duly sworn, depose and say tint:
~ - ~a3 I nersonnlly totaled,
On the day o~ '~ '~ [r~e ~-mv of the
1) " .... :-t '"~ues~eaz " ~v~.j
attached Le~t No.~_c~__,~a~,~nos/te their respective. Brines, ,hat
Demons at th~,aa~m~: o~-.~-~- -'---wn on the cv.~rent assess-
' below a/'e nose =~,,,
the add.~sses [is'l~ ..... =. that said Notices were mfle~., st
ment ons o _m.e said l~e~sOns by cez~fie~
+~ lTnited States [-os~. u~z*~ ~- ~ -
m~'l,"re--turn receipt req~ms~.ed:
ame of Surrounaime, owner_
and,
2) On the f~ day of October , 1997, I personally posted
~he property identified as District 1000, Section 9 ..,
~oc~ - -' ~ · =-~- the ~ro~erty line £acmg
ten (10> t'ee.t, or.._c.ios~_r,.,,,,,~'~"'and tl~it'I have checked t.o be
(or facing tl~e mgmt.-u~_-~..-~, .... v.. seven full days pmor
the poster has rem. . .-P--- -~ ~ea,~ noted -d~ereon to be held
date of the public nearmg tc~t~ u~ ,~ ---= ·
oct.
(sig
~wo~]t to before me this
O~'day of October , 1997.
Notary Public ~)
HELEN M. O'SHAUGHNESS~
Notary punic, $~te of New Yo~
No. 4t-29793g0
Quali~,i,:~l in Quee~s coun'~/
Cert. Filed in N~,,' York CountY[99~
Commission Expi~ February 28,
~ when
....... ...~-..-, t~ ~ ,',f4Eice of 'the '~oa-''~- Of:~A~,aL~
NOTICE OF
Chapter
NOTICE OF PUBLIC Tr~RI1WG
§ ~-L Pr~vid~f notice of public hear~t,~s.
[~rr.~TORy: Adopte~ by the To..,, Board of. ~e T,., of
~ ~ply. Upon d~m~ ~ ~ ~pH~on ~ ~mpl~,
~q ~ appff~on sh~ p~de for ~e
(10) f~C ~m ~e p~ ~e.
~ 58-L
SO Q'T~OLD CODE
from ~.he .~mperey inciuded in ~he appiicacion. $~ch
noeio shall be m~e by ~fi~ m~l. tatum ~ipc
~. ~ ac I~ ~n (~ d~ prior ~ ~e ~
of Lhe ini~ai ~biic h~n~ on ~e a~piimg~ and
on ~e [~ ~ m~ ~ ~C ~ ~ ~ail
file a,n a~d~. ~ ~he has compiled ~ii;h this
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, New York 11952
Tel: (516) 298-5629
Fax: (516) 298-5664
August 29, 1997
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Hay Harbor Club Inc.
Dear Ladies/Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find the Affidavit of Mailing to surrounding
property owners together with certified mail receipts for the above
referenced matter.
Very truly yours,
Patricia C. Moore
By: Margaret Rutkowski,
Secretary
/mr
Encls.
BOARD OF APPEALS:TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
in the Matter of the Application
of
AFFIDAVIT
Hay Harbor Club Inc.
(Name of Applicants)
AFFIDAVIT OF MakILING AND POSTING
cOLrNTY OF SUFFOLK)
STATE OF NEW YORK)
I, Ma~rgaret Rutkows~iresidlng at Theresa Drive, Mattituck, NY
New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that:
1) On the 27th day of August , 19:..97, I personally mailed,
by certified m.~i], return receipt requested, a true copy of the
attached Legal Notice, addressed to each of the following named
persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names, that
the addresses listed below are those shown on the current assess-
ment rolls of the Town of~Southold; that said Notices were nailed at
the United States Post Office to each of said persons by certified
mail, return receipt requested:
Name of Surrounding Property Owner ~l~ng Address
Thomas Russell, Jr. L4 Heritage Cove, 85 River Road, Essex, CT 06426
John W. Mittler III & Cornelia Daley 950 Third Ave., New York. NY '10022
Margaret M. Bogert 1E. 66th Street, New York, NY 10021
Albert H. Gordon 10 Gracie Ssuare. New York. NY 10028
Louise M. Doyen Box 306, Fishers Island. NY 06390
Alice H. Sinclair Box 16~ Fishers Island, NY 06390
Maud T. Kernan & Ano. c/o Indelli & Company~ Five Old Road, ElmsfoLd, NY 10523-3011
Francis Kernan & Ano. c/o Indelli & Company~ Five 01d Road, Elmsford, NY 10523-3011
Albert C. & V. Wall 136 E. 79th Street, New York, NY 10021
and, SEE ATTACHED FOR ADDITIONAL NAMES &
2) On the day of , 199 , [ personally posted
the property identified as District 1000, Section ,
Block , Lot ., by placing the Town's official poster
ten (10) feet, or closer, from the property line facing the street
(or facing the right-of-way), and that I have checked to be sure
the poster has remained in place for seven full days prior to the
date of the public hearing (date of hearing noted thereon to be held
Sworn to before me this ' [signature)
Z~'~ of O~ , 199 7. ~
~_~arv PubQc $~ ~- ~. 4881~
(Please =etu~ to the office of uhe Mo~d of ~ppea!m when ccmpleu~.
Thank V~. }
ADDRESSES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
Chapter 58
§ 58-1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIiNG
§ F~-I. Providing notice of public hearings-
[HISTORY: Adopted by the Town Board of~ the To.~u of
$ouChoid 12-27-1995 as I..L. No. 25-1995. Amendments
noi~d wher~ applicable.]
§ ~8-L provi,ll-g not'ice of public hearings.
Whenever the Code calls for a public hearing, ~his sect/on
shaft apply. Upon determining ~hac an applic:~ion is complete,
[he board or commission ,-eviewing ~he same shall ~x a time
and place for a public hearing ~hereon. The board or commission
~v~ew/ng an appftc~C/on shall provide for ~he g~ving of notice:
.~ By causing a notice ~ving Se ~ime, date, place and
nature of the hearing rn be pubiished in the official
uew~pa.oer within ~he period pr~sc~bed by law.
5. By r~quiring the applicant ~o erect the ~gn provided by
:he Town, whic.5 shall be prominently displayed on :he
premises fac/ng each public or private street whict~ the
property invotved in ~fie ippiicat/on abuts, ~ving notice
of [he application, ~he uacur~ of the approval sought
:he,by and :he ~/me and p~ace of the public hearing
Chef,on. The sign shall be sec back aec more than ten
(10) f~t ,~r~m [he proper~Y line. The sign shall be
di~.layed for a period of nec tess than seven (~ days
immediately preceding ~he da~e of ~he public hearing.
The applicant or his~her a~ent shall fle an affidavit ~ha~
s~he bas complied with this provision.
C. By requiring the applicant ~o send not/ce ~o the owne~
of record of every properry which abuts and every
p .roper~ wbic.~ ;~ across from any public or pr/race street
58-1
S 0 U~-IO LD CODE
§ 58-1
~'r~m [he proper~.f inciuded in ~he appilcntioe. Such
no[i~ shall be made by ca~ified mail, return ~ip~
~t~. 0cet~ at le~t seven (7~ da~ p~or m ~e dat~
ini~ai public hea~ng on ~e a~pii~tion anO
~ ~ ~ ~e ~e~ aC ~e add~ lis~ for ~hem
SENDER:
m Complete items 1 am:For 2 for additional ser~ces. I also wish to receive the
and 4b. following services (for an
extra fee):
· Attach this form to the froot of the mallpiece, or on the back if space does not 1. [] Addressee's Address
3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number
_ P 336 410 860
Mr. Thomas Russell, Jr. 4b. SerMce Type
L4 Heritage Cove 113 Registered
85 River Road
Essex, Connecticut 06426
5, Received By: (Pdnt Name) 8. Addressee's Address (~ly if requested
and fee is paid)
~ 6. Signature: (Addre~l~Agent)
- PS Form 3811, December 1994 ~~estic Return Receipt
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Perm t No. G-10
· Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Hay Harbor
SENDER:
B C~pl®te items 3, 4a, and 4b. following services (for an
3. Article A~ssed to: 4a. Ar~cle Number ~-
Jaan L. Pagnotta P 336 410 86~3 -
c/o Stephen Pagnotta 4b. SerMceType
_ [] Registered r-~ Certified
Dr~ver & Ripps
.... [] Express Mail [] Insured
oo ~ummer ~treet
...... [] RetumReceiptforMerchandise [] COD
5 Received By (Print Name) Ld~dr~S~se~.~ldress (Only if requested
6. ~,~/~,,~(Addressee or Agent)
PS Form 3811, December 1994 102595-97-s-0179 Domestic Return Receipt
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
0!.1 S, PFLD,
/ Permit No. G-10
· Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Hay Harbor
~ SENDER:
card to ~u. extra fee).
~ivered. Consult postmaster for fee.
Ms. Alice H. Sinclair P 336 410 77~
Box 16 4b. ServlceType
Fishers Island, NY 06390 [] Registered I~] Certified
[] Express Mail [] Insured
[] RetumReceiptforMerchandise [] COD
Date of Delivery
5. Received By: (Pdnt Name) Addresse~'s Addr~{s (Only If requested
and fee is paid)
6. SJgnature: ~A~dres,~e~ or ~ent)' /?'
PS F~rm--3811, D~cdl~ber 1994- ~ ~,j~5-97 ~ o179 Domestic Return Receipt
~ ...~lass~ Mail
· Print your name, address,~nd Zl~e in t~ ~
Patr~c~a C. ~oore~ Esq.
P.O. Box ~83
~att~tuck, ~ 11952
Hay Harbor
~ SENDER:
~,Comple~e items 1 end/or 2 for edditio~',aJ sen,ices. I also wish to receive the
,e ~C~plete items 3, 4a, and 4b. following services (for an
3. Ar~cle Addressed to: 4a. Article Number
Ms. Elizabeth F. Husband P 336 41~ 859
Trust Real Estate, Dept. T-4-1 4b. ServicsType
R1 Hospital Trail Bk-A [] Registered
Hospital Trust Plaza [] Express Mail ~ [] Insured
Providence, RI 02903 [] RstumReceiptf0rMerchandise [] COD
7. Date of Delivery
27
5. Received By: (Pdnt Name) 8. Addrsssee's Address (Only if requested
Signatur~eezjO~.~..__ or A~nl) and fee is paid)
6.
x
-- PS Fo~'~381~. December 1994
' 102595-97-B-0179 Domestic Return Receipt
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Perm t No. G-10 -,
· Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Hay Harbor
SENDER:
· Complote items 1 and/or 2 f~' additional sen,ices. I also wish to receive the
· Complote items 3, 4a, ~ 4b. following services (for an
· PIint ~,.our Ilame and address on the reveme of this form so lhet we can return this
card to you. extra fee):
m Attach this fo~n to the front of the maJlpiece, or on the back if space does not 1. [] Addrassee's Address
~ ~'~'~le Numbe---'~'~ --
Mr. William Secor, Jr., as Trus;¢~ P 336 410 858
c/o Trust Real Estate Dept. 4b. Ser~4ceType
i~ 1 Hospital Trust Plaza [] Registered
i [] Express Mail [] Insured
Providence,
RI
02903
[] RetumReCe~ptforMerch~se [] COD
7. Date of Delivery
i5. Received By: (Pdnt Name) 8. Addrassee's Address (Only if requested
and
fee
is
paid)
~ 6. Signature: (/~e orA~t)
x
-- PS Form 3811, December1994 ~025959zBo~79 Domestic Return Receipt
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Perm t No. G-10
· Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Hay Harbor
I,,,Ih,,llhh,,hh,,hllh,,,h,lh,h,,Ih h,h,,Ih,lh,I
SENDER:
· Complete iterr~ 1 ancFor 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the
· Complete iten~ 3, 4a, and 4b. following services (for an
· Pdnt your name and addtese on the reverse of this form so that we can retum thi~ extra fee):
card to you.
· Attach this form to the f~ont of the mallplece, or on the back if ~oace doe~ nol 1. [] Addressee's Address
· Write'RetumReceiptRequeeted'onthemailple~ebalowthear~icisnumber. 2. [] Restricted Delivery
· The Retum Receipt will show to whom the atticfo was delivered and the date
delivered. Consult postmaster for fee.
~ 3. Arlicle Addressed to: 14a. A~icleNu~ !
-- ! P 336 410 861
Mr. Henry Hobson, Jr.,~rustee /4b:~rviceType _
c/o Frost & Jacobs /, ,. /" ~'~, ~le~teret
2~00 PNC Center ~' I[~ Expr~s~l~'
· · ~ 9 ~1 ~-- ----- '
201 E. Fzfth Street i ^!is
Cincinnati, OH 45202 [ c~u ~ ~' 17. Date~D~ vem~lr,
5. Received~j?~rint Name) \~ ' ~ · ~ ~ ~, ~', ~resse; ~u~d~re~Only_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i~q~ls~d
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Perm t No. G-10
· Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
P.0. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
May Harbor
h,,Ih,Jlhh,J,h,,hllh,,J,,Ih,h,,Ihh,h,,Ih,lh,I
.~ SENDER:
inComplete items 1 an~/or 2 for additionet serv~e$. ~ aJSO wish to receive the
· Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. following services (for an
· Print your nam® and address on the reveres of this form so thet we can return this ·
__ extra fee}.
cam to you.
Consult postmaster for fee.
......... P 336 410 862
4D. Se~ice Type
136 E 79th Street .......
y-rO NY 10021 LI Meg~srerea ~ Ce~iflea
New
k, I-I Express Mail [] Insured
[] RstumReceiptforMemhandise [] COD
5. Received By: (Print Name) 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested
~nd fee is paid)
6. Sigr~re: (Addressee orA. gent) ~ ,
-- PS Form 3811, December 1994 102595-97-B-0179 Domestic Return Receipt
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No. G-10
· Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
Patricia C. Moor~ Esq.
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Hay Harbor
.~ SENDER:
· Complete iterr'~ 3, 4a, and 4b. following services (for an
delh,ered. Consult postmaster for fee.
~ -- -- ~cle Num--~-~ --
P 336 410 777
Maud T. Kernan & Ano. ~
c/o Indelli & Company [] Registered gq Corafied
Five Old Road
Elmsford, NY 10523-3011
5. Received By: (Print Name)
PS Form 3811, December 1994
[] Express Mail [] Insured
[] RetumReceiptforMerchandise [] COD
7. Dalai of ,DeJiveG,
Addrassee's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
)2595 97 B 0179 Domestic Return Receipt
· Print your name/ddt'e~, d ZIP Co(~'ii~-i~""l~'X.· ~--
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Hay Harbor
~ SENDER:
~ · Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional se~ces. I also wish to receive the
aComplete items 3, 4a, and 4b. following services (for an
i eP~int your name and address o~ the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee):
card to you.
· Attach this form to the frorff of the rnaJlplece, or off the back if space does not 1. r-I Addrescee's Address
~ ',~7~'~"cle Num--"6~' --
P 336 410 773
- Mr. Albert H. Gordon
10 Gracie Square
New York, NY 10028
PS ~~ember 1~
[] Registered [] Cerafied
[] Express Mail [] Insured
[] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] COD
7. Date of Delivery ~
8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
Domestic Return Receipt
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permt No. G-10
· Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Hay Harbor
.~ SENDER:
· Print your name and address on the reveme of this fown so that we can re~um this extr~ fee):
3. ArtJcle Addressed to:
delivered.
I. Article,
Mr. Francis Kernan & Ano.
c/o Indelli & Company
Five OLd Road
Elmsford, NY 10523-3011
5. Received By: (Print Name)
6. Signat~: (Addressee or/~ge~t)
PS Form~J~811, December 1994
Consult postmaster for fee.
4a. Article Number
P 336 410 778
4b. Service Type
[] Registered ,FI Certified
[] Express Mail [] Insured
[] Retum Receipt for Merchandise [] COD
Addressee's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
102595-97-B-0179 Domestic Return Re~eJOt
· Print your name,' ad..~____.~nd ZIP Code in this box · ~ .....
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Hay Harbor
i SENDER:
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an
extra fee):
1. [] Addressss's Address
2, [] Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee.
3, Arli~eAedmsssdto:
Ms. Margaret M. Bogert
1E. 66th Street
New York, NY 10021
5. Received By: (P8nt Name)
4a. A~cle Number
P 336 410 772
4b. Service Type
[] Registered ~ CeRtified
[] Express Mail [] Insured
[] RetumRec~iptforMerchsodise [] COD
7, Date of D~lvery ~' ~
8. Aedr~ssee's TKddress ~(Only if requssted
and lee is p~id)
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Fim~Class Mail
Pos~ge & Fees Paid
USPS
PermitNo. G-10
· Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Hay Harbor
SENDER:
· Complete items 1 enO'or 2 for additional services. I aJso wish to receive the
· Con, piers items 3.4a, and 4b. following services (for an
· Attach this fot~l to the front of the mallplece or on the back if space do~s not essee's Address
permit. ' 1. [] Addr .........
ddliverdd. Consult postmaster for fee.
P 336 410 771
Mr. John W. Mittler III &
Ms. Cornelia Daley [] Registered [] Certified
950 Third Ave. [] Express Mail [] Insured
New York, NY 10022 [] RetumR~eiptforMerchandise [] COD
~ Addres~see'~'A~
and fee is paid)
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVtCE I Postage & Fees Paid
I ~sPs
'~.¥F-~ "¢~3~F~ 'Hl"¢ 3,00 ~,~,3~5,,'E~? ~; ~,'~ F~ #~l~rmitNo. G-10
· Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 1~952
Hay Harbor
Complete items I and/o 2 for ~ddiitenal ser,~ces. I also wish to receive the
'~ inComplete items 3. 4a. and 4b. following services (for an
·Print your name and address on the rever~e of this form so that we can return thi extra fee): .~
card to you.
mAttach this form lo the front of the meilplece, or on the back if space does not 1. [] Addressee's Address
· Wnte'Remrn Receipt Requested'~ f~jJ~ece beiow the aritde number. 2. [] Restricted Delivery
~ffiii1'!e Return Receipt will show to ~ the~ticl~ was delivered and the date .~
delivered. ,' Consult postmaster for fee.
i 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. A~cle Num-"'~'~' -- ~
-- Ns. 1Lou±se H. Doyen P 336 4].0 774 _E
Box 306
Fishers Island, NY 06390
5. Received By: (Pdnt Name),~
~ 6. Signature: (Add~ee Or Agent)
~ X
4b. Service Type
[] Registered [] Certified
[] Express Mail [] Insured
[] Retum Receipt for Merchandise [] COD
7. Date of Doliv~.~
8. Addressse's Addres§ (Only if re~luested
and fee is paid)
-- PS Form 3811, December1994 10259597B01~9 Domestic Retum Receipt ,,
· Print your na~and ZIP C.o~~ ......
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Hay Harbor
~,,,ll,,,lll,l,,,hh,,I,IIh,,,I,,ll,,I,,,ll,l,,I.,Ih,ll,,I
Page Two
In the Matter of the Application
Of
Hay Harbor Club Inc.
Name of Surrounding ProDerty Owner
Jaan L. Pagnotta
Henry Hobson, Jr. Trustee
Elizabeth F. Husband
v~rflliam Secor, Jr., as Trustee
Mailin~ Address
c/o Stephen Pagnotta
Driver & Ripps
66 Summer Street, P.O. Box 593
North Adams, MA 01247
c/o Frost & Jacobs
2500 PNC Center
201 E. Fifth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Trust Real Estate, Dept. T-4-1
RI Hospital Trail Bk-A
Hospital Trust Plaza
Providence, RI 02903
c/o Trust Real Estate Dept.
I Hospital Trust Plaza
Providence, RI 02903
SENDER: I also wish to receive the
· Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services,
· Complete items 3, and 4a & b. following services (for an extra
· Print your name and address on the reverse of this fo m so that we con faa)'
does not pe mt
Consult postmaster for fee.
Mr. and Mrs. Anton,os Savapoulos ~.b. Service Type
2995 Reeve Road [ D Registered ~ Insured
~att~tuck, ~ew yor~ 11952 [~c,~fiea DCOD
~l ~ ~ ~ ...... ~ Return Receipt for
~1 ~,GK N~ Merchendme
n/ ~~. Date of Dehverv
al /~ -/ r'~~
~ 5. S~nature (Aaares~e~ ~ ~vA~ ~ 'l~J ] ~'~ fee is paid)
~= ~ ~ 6. Signature (Age
~ P~orm 3~1 1, December 1991 *u.s. eP~,~ DOMESTIC RETURN
APPEALS BOARD MEMBEP~
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Serge Doyen
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Maureen C. Ostermann
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765 - 1823
Telephone (516) 765-1809
August 5, 1997
Laud Use Advisory Committee of
Fishers Island Civic Association
Fishers Island, NY 06390
Re: New ZBA Application - Hay Harbor Club Reconstruction Project
Dear Sir or Madam:
ZBA Member Serge Doyen has requested that a copy of the
above application be forwardcd to you directly as per your interest.
Enclosed are a full set of maps and application by Hay Harbor Club,
Inc. A tentative hearing is expected to be held on September 11,
1997. Please call our office or Member Doyen about August 18th for
coufirmation of the time if needed, or if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
Enclosures
ZBA Staff
. BOARDOFAPI~ALS
THUR.ql)A¥;
SEPI'EM~ER 11, 1997
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, put-
,- smmt Io Sec~f~n 267 of ~te Town Law
for public~;.~ hanfln~s by -
SOUTHOLD TOWN ~O&RD OF
AH'~At,S, at the Son.old Town lhll,
53095 Main Road~ Sonthold, New
Yodr 11971;'on 'I~u~,SI}Ay, ~p.
6:45 P-re. AppLN°' 4356 -- MAR=
Building Inspector's Action of
Di~v~uval whk~ ~ ~aat und~
Article re,A, Sec~on 100-30A.4 (ret':
insu~dont fxonl yard sethck. Code
n~ulmm~s: 35 ~. m/,a,~,m f~ut
s~ck and ~ fora se~ f~n
11.2.
6~5 p,m. 'lXvo ap~Uant~an m-
Mtnonla Road, )a~t~. Pmcul
A) AppL No.. 4504
~-~OR CORWIN. This i~ a m-
SecUre 1~0-26 ~ ~ ~e July
1~97 No~e of l~u~al by the
the 14,113 sq, fL lot c~.~t,.a_ by deed on
Augus~ 21, 1978 doan nnt anof~nn to
1t for Ires c~.ated trier Decmber 2,
1971. Under ~ XXIV, 'Section
:~]mxemonfs ar~ a mlnhn,on of ~ ~
from yaof, ~5 f~ mar ~ud, sldt yard a~
10 fl- w~th bo~,h sides equal to 25 ft.
Su~'ey shows the proposed dwelling
·nd ~car yard Io~ llnm se.~b~c~.'
B) AppL No. 4505 -- JOYCE
GRA'rFAN. This is a requcs~ for
100-244B, for a prope~l ncw
o~llin[ wi~ ted, _,~_d ft~t y~d and
~ ~ ~ (~ July 10, 1~7
~ ~ by ~ ~J~ng
R C~ ~C. ~ ~.
~~in
~OR S~I~
(~ ~ ~ ~ ~ may
BY 0~ ~ ~0~
~OF~
H~I~
STATE OF NEW YORK)
) SS:
~of Mattituck, in
said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she
is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a
Weekly Newspaper, published at Mattituck, in
the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and
State of New York, and that thc Notice of which
the annexed is a printed copy, hu been regular-
ly published in said Newspaper once each week
for ~ weeks s~cc_e~ssi_v~ely, ~ommencing on
the ._~n~day of~lg~..
Principal Clerk
Sworn toil: fore me this
day of '~/*.~'. ~9 ~7
~0,
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Serge Doyen
James Dirdzio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Maureen C. Ostermann
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1809
August 19, 1997
Dear Re:~, Application Pending with the Board of Appeals
For your records, please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice
which will be published by our office in the upcoming issue of the
Suffolk Times.
As soon as may be possible, please send a copy of this legal notice
(or similar description which confirms the hearing date, time and place
and outline of your application) by certified ,mail-return receipt
requested to all surrounding property owners, including property owners
across streets or vehicular rights-of-way and those who own vacant
land.
Also enclosed is a sign to be posted at the subject property within
ten (10) feet from the front property line for a period of seven {7)
days, or longer at your choice.
Please return the following to us, together with the completed
Affidavits of N!ailing and Posting:
a) postmarked receipts from the post office showing the
date you mailed the notices by certified mail;
b)
green signature cards once they have been received (you
may return these later if you do not receive them all by
the hearing date).
If you have questions, please feel free to call.
Enclosures
lnag. 97 / appl. new
Very truly yours,
MaryAan Cybulski (PT)
Lucia Farrell (PT)
Page t of ~- Legall~tice
Southuld Towu Bt)ard of Appeals
Regular Meeting of Septembor 11,
1997
NOTICE
Law and the
will be held
AI>PI,;AI,S, at
York 11971, on TItURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11,
below (or as soon thereafter as possible):
6:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4356 - MARTIN KOSMYNKA.
for a Variance, based upon the
Disapproval which states that under
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11~ 1997
IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town
Code of the Town of Southold, the following applications
for public hearings by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF
tbe Soutbold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New
1997 at the times noted
This is an application
Building Inspector's Action of
Article III.A, Section 100-30A.4
(ref: Article XXIV, Section 100-244B), proposed accessory garage will
have insufficient front yard setback. Code requirements: 35 ft.
minimum front setback and three foot setback from side property lines
than 20,000 sq. ft. in area. Location of
Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue, NY; Parcel
applications regarding property
Parcel ~1000-123-6-12.5.
for lots having less
Property: 1985
#1000-98-1-11.2.
6:55 p.m. Two
Mineola Road, Mattitnck;
known as 3460 Camp
A) Al)pl. No. 1504 - ELEANOR CORWIN. This is a request for a
Waiver under Ar*icle II. Section 100-26 based upon the July- 10, 1997
Notice of Disapproval by the Building Inspector issued on the following
grotmds: "Section 100-24A(I) ~he 14,113 sq. ft. lot created by cleed on
August 21. 1978 does no~ conform to the minimum lot size set forth in
Page c~ of ~- Legal~[~tice
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting of September ll, 1997
Bulk Schedule AA as of tile date of lot creation, the required lot size is
40,000 sq. ft. for lots created after December 2, 1971. Under Article
XXIV, Section 100-2.14B the required lot line set back reqairements are a
minimum of 35 ft. froat yard, 35 ft. rear yard, side yard at 10 ft. with
both sides equal to 25 ft. Survey shows the proposed dwelling does not
have the required front yard and rear yard lot lines setbacks."
B) Appl. No. 4505 - JOYCE GRATTAN. This is a request for
Variances under Article XXiV, Section 100-244B, for a proposed new
dwelling with reduced froat yard and rear yard setbacks (vel: July 10,
1997 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector.
7:00 p.m. Appl. No. ,1503 - HAY HARBOR CLUB INC. An application
for a Special Exception has been filed under Article III, Section
100-3lB(7) for approval of new golf club house and related employee
bousiug itl this R-120 Zoue District, located at Oriental Avenue, Fishers
Island, NY; Parcel #1000-9-12-8.1.
7:15 p.m. Variance application for ELEANOR SIEVERNICH. (Continued
hearing from 8/14/97). 3200 Cox Neck Road (a/k/a Mill Road),
Mattituck; Parcel #1000-113-8-5.
The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all
persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above
applications. The above hearings will not start before the time
designated. Each file is available for review during reg~dar business
hours (8-4 p.m.), and written comments may
hearing is coucluded. If you trove questions,
call 765-1809.
be submitted before that
please do uot hesitate to
Dated:
Augxmt 19, 1997.
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman
By Liada Kowalski
x
Page d of ~-
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting ef September Il, 1997
Bulk Schedule AA as of the date of lot creation, the required lot size is
40,000 sq. ft. for lots created after December 2, 1971. Under Article
XXIV, Section 100-244B the required lot line set back requirements are a
minimum of 35 ft. front yard, 35 ft. rear yard, side yard at 10 ft. with
both sides equal to 25 ft. Survey shows the proposed dwelling does not
have the required front yard and rear yard lot lines setbacks."
B) Appl. No. 4505 JOYCE GRATTAN. This is a request for
Variances under Article XXiV, Section 100-244B, for a proposed new
dwelling with redaced front yard and rear yard setbacks (ref: July 10,
1997 Action of Disapproval hy the Building Inspector.
7:00 p.m. Appl. No. 1503 HAY HARBOR CLUB INC. An application
for a Special Exeeptiou has been filed under Article III, Section
100-3lB(7) for approval of new golf dub house and related e~nployee
heusing iu this I{.-120 Zoae District, located at Oriental Avenue, Fishers
Island, NY; Parcel #1000-9-12-8.1.
7:15 p.m. Variance applicatiou for ELEANOR SIEVERN1CH. (Continued
hearing from 8/14/97). 3200 Cox Neck Road (a/k/a Mill Road),
Mattituck; Parcel .I-1000-113-8-5.
The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all
persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above
applications. The above hearings will not start before the time
designated. Each file is available for review during reg~dar business
hours (8-4 p.m.), and written comments may be submitted before that
hearing is concluded. If you bare questions, please do not hesitate to
call 765-1809.
Dated:
August 19, 1997.
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman
By Linda Kowalski
X
Page ] of ~- Legal .~t. ice
Sotlthold Town B(~ard of Appeals
Regular Meeting of September 11, 1997
NOTICE
Law and the
will be held
APPEALS, at
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY~ SEPTEMBER 11, 1997
IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town
Code of tile Town of Southold, the following applications
for public hearings by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF
the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New
York 11971, on THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER ll~ 1997 at the times noted
below (or as soon thereafter as possible):
6:45 l).m. Appl. No. 4356 - MARTIN KOSMYNKA. This is an application
for a Variance, based upon the Building Inspector's Action of
Disapproval which states that under Article III.A, Section 100--30A.4
(ref: Article XXIV, Section 100-244B), proposed accessory garage will
ft.
proper~y lines
Location of
NY; Parcel
have insufficient front yard setback. Code reqnirements: 35
minimum front setback and three foot setback from side
for lots having less than 20,000 sq. ft. in area.
Property: 1985 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue,
#1000-98-1-11.2.
6:55 p.m. Two applications regarding property
Mineola Road, Mattituck; Parcel #1000-123-6-12.5.
kaowu as
Waiver
Notice of
~rollllds:
A~gust
3460 Camp
A) Appl. No. 1504 - ELEANOR CORWlN. This is a request for a
nnder Article II. Section 100-26 based upon the July- 10, 1997
Disapproval by the Building Inspector issued on the following
"Section 100-24A(1) tile 1.1,113 sq. ft. lot (~reated by deed on
21, 1978 dees aot conform to the minimum Io~. size set forth in
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR 0t' VITAL STATISTICS
TO:
FROM:
DATEE.
RE:
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
August 1,1997
Zoning Appeal No. ~,503 - Hay Harbor Club, Inc.
Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. ~503 - HAY HARBOR
CLUB, INC. by Patricia Moore for a Special Exception. Also
included is: Letter of Transmittal from Patricia Moore, dated July
30, 1997; Notice of Disapproval, dated July 22, 1997; Short
Environmental Assessment Form; ZBA Questionnaire; disclosure
statement; and letter of authorization.
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Atton~y at Law
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattitu~k, New York 11952
Tel: (516) 298-5629
Fax: (516) 298-5664
July 30, 1997
BY HAND
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Application for Special Exception
For Hay Harbor Club, Inc.
Dear Ladies/Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find the following for the above referenced
matter:
1 Notice of Disapproval
2 Application
3 Z.B.A. Questionnaire
4 Disclosure Statement
5 Filing fee check of $400.00
6 Authorization letter
7 Short Environmental Assessment Form
8 Six copies of site~ plan with elevations & internal
diagram ~L ~'~ ~-'~ ~
Please place this matter on your hearing calendar. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
PCM/mr
Encls.
Patricia C. Moore
HAY HARBOR CLUB, Inc.
Fishers Island, New York 06390
July 27, 1997
To Whom it May Concern:
This is to officially authorize Patricia Moore to act on behalf of the Hay Harbor Club
in expediting the procurement of the necessary permits for our construction project at the
Hay Harbor Golf Clubhouse. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 212-427-1831 if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Sandy (Jeanne H. ) Esser
Vice President, Facilities
Of ~$ ~o~, and an envi.-unmen=:l rav=ew wLll ~e miae-~ submission
(b} I= ~y ~es~on has be~ ~ ~es ~ proje~ may
(cF If ~i ~es~ons have be~ ~erad No i: i3 Likely
(d) Env~.-~nmental Assessm~n~
1. Will proj ec~
~ ~e ~roje~
~ 10 a~es
4. Will 9roj~
3. Wi~ proje~
10. wi~ proje~
WAll ~je~
· , State ~vimnment~l QusJ]~ Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
F~r UN~ A~ONS Only
PA~T I--~O~E~T INFORMA~ON ~o ~e cam01ete~ ~y A0~lic~ or Pmj~
Hay Harbor Cl-h: Tn~ · Golf club & access housing
~m~=om To~ of Southold, Fishers Island Suffolk~
SEQR
Hay Harbor Golf Club
Fishers Island, NY
~._ ~ ....... ~= ~ ~;;;~;~.~.~. Reconstruction
Reconstruct Golf Club & Accessory Pro. Housing
7. ~MOU.T~;~'~ (existing club 37 ac)
~ NO If N~ ~e nnef~
Special Pe~it
r~sidential/ Golf Club
Planning Board£ site plan
existing club
Patricia C. Moore
the action is in the C=astaI Area. and you are a state agenc'f, c.-,m~iete trna
C=astai Assessment Form before ~roceedin~ with ttlis asses:~ment
(Continued on reverse s~de)
DISCLOSURE
I, William D. Moore hereby state pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 809 and
Soutbold Town Code Article 10 the following:
1. An application has been submitted by Patricia C. Moore to the Southold Town
Zoning Board of Appeals on behalf of the Hay Harbor Club, Inc..
2. Patricia C. Moore is an attorney duly licensed in the State of New York practicing
as a sole practinioner with her own clients. She is not affiliated with my law practice.
3. Patricia C. Moore is my wife.
4. I am a member of the Southold Town Board.
5. I do not directly or indirectly review, discuss or participate to any exlent in the
matter oftbe Hay Harbor Club, Inc. before the Southold Town Zoning Board.
6. Patricia C. Moore is compensated for her legal services, at an hourly rate,
regardless of the outcome of the case, and her fee is not contingent on the results obtained.
Dated: July 30, 1997
~d~am D. Moore
EOM FTLrI:G w!-~n' 'fOUR S.3.A. AP-~L-~ZAT!CM
s~jec~ gr~es ~d ~ de~cription of ~e~
Yes {x } No except as show~ on site plan
you ccn~ct~ ~e Office of ~e To~ Tm~es far ius
deta~ ~a~cn c~ j~c~cn~ n/a
Are ~here a~? patios, c=nc~eta bar~_iers,
~t~nq? n/a If none ~s~, please
see site plan
parcel? n/a If yes, please e.~pl,~i-~ w~ere cr sukmi~ ccUies
of deeds.
parcel molf course & club house
prcg~se~ u~e ~m~
~t?~.',cr ~- S aha g=ca
Patricia C. Mbore
2/37, lO/FOlk
and
:his
FOR OFFICIAL USE BY STAFF AND MEMBERS AS, UPDAT]ZS TO FILE
/97
/97
/97
/97
/97
/97
/97
/97
/97
/97
/97
JUDI;iTERRY, TOWN CLERK
Town o! Southold
Southold, New York 11971
Phone: 516-765-1800
RECEIVED OF: L -- ' ~
DATE ~-.~. ~.
64370
I 19 f~-7
CASH
SEEpAG'[ PIT
t~dr
DISTRIBUTION BOX (N.T.S.)
/ /
PEOPO~ED C/.L/B HO~E
TEST HOLE DATA- R. Strouse,PE
o'L 8" TOPSOIL
8% 16" SANDY SUBSOIL
16"-17' SAND
no woter
LOCATION hdAP
~ DESIGN FLOWS:
/ EXISTING GOLF COURSE AREA APARTMENTS AT 225 GAL/DAY = 450 GALS.
~ '~ ROOMS AT 75 GALS./DAY = 300 GALS.
1500 SQ. FT. COUNTRY CLUB AT 0.3 GAL./DAY/S.F,
DESIGN FLOW TOTALS = 1200 GALS./DAY
PERC. RATE = 1"/5 MIN.
APPLICATION RATE = 1 GAL./DAY/S.F,
REQUIRED LEACHING AREA = 1200 S,F,
USE 2500 GAL. 2 COMP, SEPTIC TANK
USE 6 - 8' DIAM. X 8' HIGH SEEPAGE PITS
PROVIDES 1206 S.F. OF LEACHING AREA
= 450 GALS,
NOTES:
1. TOTAL LOT AREA: 37.3+ ACRES.
2. TAX MAP REFERENCE: DISTRICT 1000, SECTION 009,
BLOCK 12, LOT 8.1.
3. BASE FOR LEVELS: N.G,V,D, 1929.
4. COORDINATE DISTANCES ARE MEASURED FROM U.S. COAST
& GEODETIC SURVEY TRIANGULATION STATION "PROS".
SITE PLAN
PREPARED FOR
HARBOR CLUB
GRAPHIC SCALE ~N F£Ei
FEB2 6 :,%:
HEATHUILE AVENUE
- FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK
REVISIONS
CATE ,. I , DESORIPTIO, N
0B/o,,,,:,
GP. SEPTIC..~S~STEM
DATE: IAUGUSI' 87, 1e96
SCALE; 1' =
SHEE.'T' ! OF
C
PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM
OUT ~NLET AND
OULET DpEN~NG$
CAST
CONCRETE
1/8'
OUTLET
DISTRIBUTION BOX (N.T.S.)
NOT TO SCALE
DIA, KNOCKOUTS
~arse sand or
gravel
SEEPAGE PIT
NOT TO SCALE
/ /
d
PJ~ A"FH U lL-~
Iocatio5
water service
TEST
PROVIDE
TEST HOLE DATA- R. Strouse,RE,'
0"8" TOPSOIL
8"- 16" SAN~ SUBSOIL
16"-17' SAND
EXISTING GOLF COURSE AREA
REVISIONS
DATE DESCRIPTION
· OR. SEPTIC SYSTEM
DATE! AUGUST B7, 1996
SCALE: 1' = BO'
SHEET 1 OF 1
LOCATION FlAp
DESIGN FLOWS:
2 APARTMENTS AT 22.5 GAL./DAY = 450 GALS,
4 ROOMS AT 75 GALS,/DAY = 300 GALS,
1500 SQ. FT, COUNTRY CLUB AT 0,3 GAL./DAY/S,F. = 450
DES[ON FLOW TOTALS = 1200 GALS,/DAY
PERC. RATE = 1"/5 MIN.
APPLICATION RATE = 1 GAL./DAY/S.F.
REQUIRED LEACHING AREA ~ 1200 S.F,
USE 2500 GAL. '2 COMP. SEPTIC TANK
USE 6 - 8' elAM, X 8' HIGH SEEPAGE PITS
PROVIDES 1206 S.F. OF LEACHING AREA
GALS,
NOTES:
1. TOTAL LOT AREA: 37,3J: ACRES.
2. TAX MAP REFERENCE: DISTRICT 1000, SECTION 009,
BLOCK 12, LOT B.1.
3. BASE FOR LEVELS: N.G.V.D. 1929.
COORDINATE DISTANCES ARE MEASURED FROM U.S, COAST
&: GEODETICL'~'~/.~S~RVEY O~'~xTRIANGULATI~N,~- (~ 3STATION ,"P~.,~ '.; ~" ~'~%:1'")~1'11 '0'~
J
/
SITE PLAN
PREPARED FOR
H HARBOR
CLUB
UI'E A ..UE
FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK
PROPO D SEPTIC SYSTEM
LOC, ATI ON h4AP
'
¢.¢' CA.. ,4-"~ . ~"
/
/
NOT~5:
I. t~AS~ FOR. J,.~=-vErs. N.~.V.I2. 1~,2~,
~OAST AN~2 ,5120~=T1~, 51JR.Mb--'~ "f~IAN~U/ATION
STATION "PR05" .
H=ATHQIL=
REVISIONS
DATE DESCRIPTION
DATE: AUGUST 27, 1996
SCALE: 1' = 20'
SHEET 1 OF 1
m
T, 4/%
CAST
SONCRET£
1/2'
SUTLET
DISTRIBUTION BOX (N.T.S.)
SEEPAGE PIT
sand or
/ /
EXISTING
PARKING
AREA
EXISTING
CLUB HOUSE
I--IP~ A'TH U I b~ ~pprox. IoaatlO~
TEST HOLE DATA- R, Strouse,P[.
O'L8" TOPSO!L
8% rG" SANDY SUBSOIL
16"-I?' SAND
no water
GOLF COURSE
REVISIONS
DATE DESCRJPTIO,N
,09/09/~7 P~,OP, SEPTIc SYSTEM
DATE: AUGUST 87, 1,996
SCALE', l' =
SHEET 1 OF
2 APARTMENTS AT,,225 GAL/DAY
4 ROOMS AT 75 GALS,/OA~ ~. ~i ."'
15o0 SQ. ~, COUNTRY CLOG AT ,0.3
DESIGN FLOW TOTALS =
PERC. RATE -~ 1"/5 MIN.
APPLICATION RATE 1 GAL./DAY/S,F.
REQUIRED LEACHING AREA = I,;200 S.F. ,','
USE 2500 GAL. 2 COMP. SEPT!D'TAN,K
USE 6 - 8' DIAM. X 8' HIGH SEEP4.GE, PI'~S '
PROVIDES 1206 S,F, OF LEAcCltN,G AI~EA
1. TOTAL LOT ARC. A: 57,3~ AORES. ", ,'
2. TAX MAP RFFERENC'E: D~STR~¢,f 1000
BLOOK 12, LOT ~!1. '
3. BASE FOR LEVELS: N.G.V.D; '~9~.9.'
4. CO0,BDtNATE
&
SITE -PLAN,
PREPARED FOE
HAY
HARBOR
HEATHUILE AVENUE
FISHER'S
PROPOSED.
/
I
//
i
1
The'Hay Harbor GOlf'
M.. B'URKE~VIGE,LAND, AiA
ClubhoUse
~muil Av
Fishers 2 NY 06390
T.ECT
ARCH
.H. erl
~ Amhltectura~ D~s4¢~
?~23 B(~adWa¢,' ','
F~l GS2~O7~ ,,,,_,, ,,,,
I I
-4
The Hay Harbor Golf
Clubhouse
Heathuile Avenue
Fishers Island, NY 06390
M. BURKE-VIGELAND, AIA
ARCHITECT
11 ThompsonS! Tuckahoe NY10?07 Tel-Fax 914-779~3760
Herrera
Arohltectural Design
7523 Broadway
North Be~en NJ 07047
P201884 7781
F 201 562 8972
ur'
SA,
k ~'~ /
The Hay Harbor Golf
Clubhouse
Heathuile Avenue
Fishers Island, NY 06390
M. BURKE-VIGELAND, AIA
ARCHITECT
11 Thompson St Tuckahoe NY 10707 Tel-Fax 914~779-3760
Herrera
Architectural Design
7523 Broadway
P 201 854 7781
F 201 682 8972
AmhCecVDes~gner p~or commencement of work. Dimensions govern over scaled drawings',
pROJECT nAME: ' THE NAY HARBOR GOLF CLUBHOUSE
Heathulle Avenue
Fishers island, NY 06390
~A~: o '~ ,LC-
NI cIr~wlng~ ang written mateltal appearing heroin constilute on¢lnal and unpubliahed Y,~rk
CUE#T
The Hay Harbor Golf
Clubhouse
Heathuile Avenue
Fishers Island, NY 06390
ARCH~ECT
M. BURKE-VIGELAND, AIA
ARCHITECT
11 ThompsonSt Tuckahoe NY10707 Tel-Fax 914-779-3760
Herrera
Architectural Design
7523 Broadway
North Bergen NJ 07047
P 201 854 7781
F 201 662 8972
Fishers Island, NY 0839o
.&il dmw~n ~ge and wfilten mateflal appearing herein constitute onglneJ and unpublished wark
~ent of the AmhiteoYD--slgne~
The Hay Harbor Golf
Clubhouse
Heathuile Avenue
Fishers Island, NY 06390
M. BURKE-VIGELAND, AIA
ARCHITECT
11 Thompson St, Tuckahoe NY 10707 Tel Fax 91a 779-3760
Herrera
Architectural Design
7523 Broadway
Nodh Bergen NJ 07047
P 201 854 7781
F 201 662 8972
2
The Hay Harbor Golf
Clubhouse
L
DESIGN
Heathuile Avenue
Fishers Island, NY 06390
M. BURKE-VIGELAND, AIA
ARCHITECT
11 Thompson St Tuckahoe NY 10707 Tel-Fax 9t4-779-3760
Herrera
ArchiteoturaJ Design
0
d~
./
f
DETAIL SCALE:
1"=20'
LEGEND
-~-~10 FOOT CONTOUR
2 FOOT CONTOUR
TREE LINE
/
(
swD ~
WETLANDS
LEACH POOL
ABANDON LEACH POOL
ARL OLD SAMPLE POINT
DIAGNO5[IC S;AMPLING LOCATION
FISHERS
ISLAND SOUND
HAY HARBOR
WATERS EDGE
/ ,r t
AT STREA~ CROS%LNO)
)ESIGNED
,qRAWN
:'~11 t 'l,,I
~YSTEM
MAIN
BUILDINC
/
k
\ RCStO£NC~
\ \
PIT
'X
x.
N
HANDBALL
HA,.,..OCK POND
PLAN OF THE DIAGNOSTIC
r' ','. h ORk
AR ASSOCIATES,
VERNON
AND VICINITY
SAMPLING PROGRAM
FOR THE
HAY HARBOR CLUE
LOMBARDI
INC.
L 4',P
C~ ,,,.,LC RCLJT