Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4559APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning 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 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 23, 1998 Appl. No. 4559 - CHRISTOPHER PLIACONIS PARCEL 1000-35-6-7 STREET & LOCALITY: 345 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: April 16, 1998 and May 14, 1998 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS/ DESCRIPTION: The above -identified property is located on the southeast side of Snug Harbor Road, Greenport and contains a total area of 12,780 sq. ft. The survey map submitted under this application shows that the subject premises is improved with a single-family residence with deck addition, and the subject "as built" pool located in rear yard at approximately four feet from the rear property line and at least 10 feet from the side property lines. A letter dated 6/11/98 from Charles W. Kuehn, Architect, confirms the lot coverage for the dwelling at 2,193 sq. ft., the present wooden deck addition at 360 sq. ft. for a total of 2,553 sq. ft., which is under the 2556 sq. ft. code limitation. The pool consists of 576 sq. ft. as built. An 8 ft. by 10 ft. deck adjoining the pool is proposed. BASIS OF APPEAL: Building Inspector's January 30, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a building permit for a proposed accessory swimmingpool structure in the rear yard area, for the following reasons: "Under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 of the Bulk and Parking Schedule in the R-40 Zone: Proposed construction will exceed the allowable 20% lot coverage. the lot area is 12,780+- sq. ft.; at 20% the allowable area would be 2,556 square feet. Present coverage with dwelling and deck is 2,553 sq. ft. Swimming pool, as proposed, is 568 sq. ft., bringing total lot coverage at 3,121 sq. ft. or approximately 24.4+- percent." AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED BY APPLICANT: Applicant requests approval of an "as built" inground swimmingpool and attached 8' by 10 ft. deck, which together total 656 square feet. Lot coverage was exactly 20% prior to construction of the pool, and applicant requests a variance to add 656 square feet for a total coverage of 25.10. 4 Page 2 - June 23, 1998 ZBA Meeting Appl. #4559: 1000-35-677 (Pliaconis) Southold Town Board of Appeals REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW: Applicant has constructed a 16 x 36 ft. in -ground swimming pool for which no building permit was obtained. Applicant intends to place an 8' by 10' deck next to the pool. Prior to the construction of the pool, lot coverage was exactly 20%, including a wood deck of 360 sq. ft. attached to the rear of the house. Applicant requests a variance allowing an additional 656 sq. ft. of coverage for the pool and its associated deck, resulting in total lot coverage of 25.1%. On the basis of testimony presented and personal inspection, the Board makes the following findings: (1) There is no feasible way for applicant to enjoy the benefit of a pool other than through grant of a variance allowing lot coverage greater than 20%. (2) A variance allowing 25.1% lot coverage, where the Zoning Code allows 20%, would be substantial, and that degree of lot coverage would be detrimental to the neighborhood character. (3) Applicant's difficulty is self-created. The Board concludes that the following actions are the minimum necessary and adequate to enable applicant to have the benefit of a swimming pool while at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Collins, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED to GRANT a variance authorizing the pool as built, subject to the following CONDITIONS: (1) The existing wooden deck attached to the rear of the house shall be removed. (2) Any surfacing installed around the pool, other than the 8 x 10 ft. deck applied for, shall be flush with the ground and not elevated in any way. (3) Based on the certified data submitted by applicant, after removal of the existing deck (360 square feet) and including the pool and 8 x 10 ft. deck (total of 656 sq. ft.), lot coverage will be 2849 square feet or 22.3%. No further increase in lot coverage shall be permitted on this property. (4) Applicant shall plant a screening line of trees along his easterly property line. In accordance with the landscape drawing submitted at the Board Hearing on May 14, 1998, such trees shall include at least 16 arborvitae of five to six feet in height along the easterly side of the pool and Eastern Red Cedars of 10 to 12 feet in height at the northeast corner (at least three trees) and the southeast corner (at least eight Page 3 - June 23, 1998 ZBA Meeting Appl. #4559: 1000-35-6-7 (Pliaconis) Southold Town Board of Appeals trees). Such trees shall be continuously maintained, including replacement if necessary. (5) The Board reserves the right, at a time no less than three (3) months and no more than six (6) months from the date hereof, to inspect the property and to reopen the hearing in the event of noncompliance with these conditions. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS GOEHRINGER, DINIZIO, TORTORA, COLLINS, AND HORNING. his/,Resoin�iion �s/duly ADOPTED (5-0). )/ 35-6-7 for Filing 6/24/ RECEIVED AND FILED BY t.:S SOUThOLD TOW14 CLERK DATE HOUR .3:.30 em - Clerk, Town of South -old LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 1998 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town 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, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 1998; at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter as possible): 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4559 - CHRISTOPHER PLIACONIS. Location of Property: 345 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport; 1000-35-6-7. This is a variance request based upon the Building Inspector's January 30, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a building permit for a proposed accessory swimmngnool structure in the rear yard area, for the following reasons: "...Under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 of the Bulk and Parking Schedule in the R-40 Zone: Proposed" construction will exceed the allowable 20% lot coverage. the lot area is 12,780+- sq. ft.; at 20% the allowable area would be 2,556 square feet. Present coverage with dwelling and deck is 2,553 sq. ft. Swimming pool, as proposed, is 568 sq. ft., bringing total lot coverage at 3,121 sq. ft. or approximately 24.4+- percent...." 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 end of each hearing. The hearing will not start earlier than designated. The file is available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call 765-1809. Dated: March 30, 1998. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman Examined ................. 19... Approved ... ...` ..... 19 ... ...... . Disapproved a/c ..��1. . ................................ (Building Inspector) . APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT g Date ... /..:........., 19 (. % INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streete or areas, and giving.a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli- cation. c. The work covered by; this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permh shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancg shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances of Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations,,or for removal or demolition, as herein described The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and, regulations, and tc admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. ......� •...... .......................... i at of applicant, or name, if a corporation) Z - (Mailing address of applicant) 1l %YJ State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. ..........QW nC................................................:................................. Name of owner of premises .1 �.r.`Si�I(f,?r...i.'.ctCgql;T............................................. (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. .............................................. (Name and title of corporate officer) ALL CONTRACTOR'S MUST BE SUFFOLK COUNTY LICENSED Bu'ilder's License No. Plumber's License No . ........................ Electrician's license No . ..................... . Other Trade's License No . .................... . 1. --Location of land on which proposed work will be done. ............................................ House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section . D.S. QU........ Block ..O. 6.00.0........ Lot o. 7g�Z©......... Subdivision ..................................... Filed Map No. .............. Lot ............... (Name) 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: (' 4}M}t4!1j'd'JH.A3+ T4MHO a. Existing use and occupancy ... `a p�I^ .......... �Wu,'TO . 9 V*um enro. ......... BOARD OF HEALTH ...... 3 SETS OF PLANS ....... FORM NO.1 SURVEY .......... TOWN OFSOUTHOLD CHECK .......... BUILDING DEPARTMENT SEPTIC FORM .............: TOWN BALL NOTIFY SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 765-1802 CALL ................ MAIL TO - Approved ... ...` ..... 19 ... ...... . Disapproved a/c ..��1. . ................................ (Building Inspector) . APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT g Date ... /..:........., 19 (. % INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streete or areas, and giving.a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli- cation. c. The work covered by; this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permh shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancg shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances of Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations,,or for removal or demolition, as herein described The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and, regulations, and tc admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. ......� •...... .......................... i at of applicant, or name, if a corporation) Z - (Mailing address of applicant) 1l %YJ State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. ..........QW nC................................................:................................. Name of owner of premises .1 �.r.`Si�I(f,?r...i.'.ctCgql;T............................................. (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. .............................................. (Name and title of corporate officer) ALL CONTRACTOR'S MUST BE SUFFOLK COUNTY LICENSED Bu'ilder's License No. Plumber's License No . ........................ Electrician's license No . ..................... . Other Trade's License No . .................... . 1. --Location of land on which proposed work will be done. ............................................ House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section . D.S. QU........ Block ..O. 6.00.0........ Lot o. 7g�Z©......... Subdivision ..................................... Filed Map No. .............. Lot ............... (Name) 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: (' 4}M}t4!1j'd'JH.A3+ T4MHO a. Existing use and occupancy ... `a p�I^ .......... �Wu,'TO . 9 V*um enro. ......... Nature of workcheck which appiicab \ v work(check le}; New Building .....�..... Addition ":'�, '. Adreratron - - Repair .............. Removal .............. Demolition ...... .. Other }Fork " ) (DescriVl�n) Estimated Cost .................................. Fee ....(. n) O (to belpai Son filing this application),' � l If dwelling, number of dwelling units ............... Number of dwelling units on each floor If garage, number of cars ..... i^ "`t `— =�7 .. .............. ..... If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use ..... .............. . Dimensions of existing structures; if any: Front ...... • ...:.... Rear .............. Depth ............... Height : ............... Number of Stories........................................................ Dimensions of #ye structure with alterations or additions: Front .. .... . Rear .................. elr ... Height D th ..... ............ . ..... ... A. Height .Number of Stones .....� _d :,, ..:..... . Dimensions of entire new construction: Front ..!?�,x4 ,2ear ...............Depth Height ....... Number of Stones .. .. ........ . Size of lot Front . if Rear %o.. ..... De th J q ................. Date of Purchase .... f% ..q .................. Name of Former Owner ... i ."`? 1-: �.e ........... Zone or use district in which premises are situated ................... .. t ..... ... . Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: Will lot be regraded Will excess fill be removed from premises: es No Name of Owner ofpremises�!?3.. P�{o a1S:..... Address a9.Ga^t�{ 4 ?: d��4^s?°a. Phone No: . !.o' . . Narne;of Architect ........................... Address ................... Phone No............... . Narne of Contractor .......................... Address ....:.............. Phone No...... . Is this property located within 300 feetofa tidal wetland? *Yes ..... No ?G'. *If des, Southold Town Trustees Permit L8T e required. qui ed. Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicate all set -back dimensions from pertylines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether :rior or corner lot. TE OW YO S.S JNTY F . .. . .............. being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (N e of individual signing contract) +e named. s the (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) aid owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this ication; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the k will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. rn/ o before me this ............. day of ary Public, Y IiUNAWW Y44 AUND Nat01NU50531,81 Qoatifred in New Yd* em'", 19 '..? County l// irr REGI loos if.t�6 v3X . MAR _1 7 ,:,�a TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK j0Wfl4eaISWWW DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. 75 �% DATE.............................. TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y, �? Scott J Salimardo, Esq for 41 i a 1 (We) Christopher Phagonis a{ 19,9„ East MainStreet ... ... ........ .......................................... Nameof Appellant Street' and Number Smithtown ,,,,,HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ...... .:.. ......:.. ....... DATED .... octoaer.?9r.1 Q7.................. WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO CHRISTOPHER F1L1ACONIS ......... ......... Name of Applicant for permit of 30 Bann Ct New York Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY (x) PERMIT TO BUILD SWIMMING POOL* 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..:3..5. r. 11 t Marson.. 1p 40 ......... ... on Zoning Map District 1000 Section 35 Block 6 Lot 7 Christopher Pliaconis ....... ...........:.....................Current Owner Map No. Lot No. 38 prior Owner. _ Ltlk�nown 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article IIIA Section 100-30 A 3 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) (x ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map r ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (hos) (has not) been made with respect to this decision. of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No.................................Dated................................................. REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (x) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that Construction of the pool will not meet low coverage requirements. MOWS' WRCUA soy wev,kr.°mc-'AlydS s 100 Form 231 a^ SSC{3J4a81 -X (Continue on other side) a�e3t�tS .^s's l'�;?ii6xta"i -, , r� REASON FOR APPEAL Continued I., STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because Applicant would be denied the same use of his property as has been afforded many of the parcels located within his neighborhood. Additionally, applicant would encounter a practical difficulty in that the pool structure is already in the ground and would create an unnecessary hardship if it had to be removed. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties olike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because Dwellings along the Dawn Lagoon vicinity abut the water and are unable to have pools erected'dii'e to the land contour. As stated previously, other dwellings in the immediate vicinity exceed the lot doverage requirement. 3. The Varipnce would, abserye. the,,spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because There are,other residences located near the subject property that are improved with various structures that cause them to oxceed the lot coverage requirements. STATE OF NEW YORK ) 's (� ss v ....:.:.. .....R :.. ""` ......:........ COUNTY OF )t9� ) gnature Sworn to this) ............... ( ...................... day of...... jAkk; (iK.............................. 19 -YV\, AUDREM BLOOM ``..�.. Nafery Pubtie. State of Nowrf(wlt Nota ublic No. 028L600212.6 COQualified in Suffolk fmMssionE)pires=:. Tll TOWN 00 SOUTHOLD PROPER. RECORD CARD NER E _ C : I STREET (. �..1 — _.-- VILLAGE DIST. SUB. I% LOT/.'/,.. 0/5 �r�riw(���'1 r,•.r i /� j=i',' ! ; !'. ,' l (1 :i� FORMER OWNER N =----- _ ✓� I ..( F £ ACR. C J4 rl mal., PG� iJ C 4 � cc r'/ hoc S. W TYPE OF BUILDING =— =— ;r'�'•� ,ES.SEAS. a./0 VL. FARM _ COMM. CB. MISC, Ivllct. Value LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS 7 // vr2 C - rJtl f — a 6 9 z 101§2 293- F zITL / Gy p� �'0 fj -1 nno s� v----�-- �-- l� r'I 1p; Ahs raj �/s Nuc, Z6 oo 00 2aa aPir u /ooa 7300 S`3�7� f� jUE3 Ga ,. BUI CON ITIONJ /d ;NEW-- _ WORM41 g -a� L _ 'FARM Acre Value Per V lue ' Acre 'Illable 1 _ — 'illa6le 2 illable 3 /oodland wompland FRONTAGE ON WATER rushland FRONTAGE ON ROAD i r —1 r r r 7 louse Plot DEPTH BULKHEAD od` DOCK d f !tl j11 F f a t i r�� ;i � �, It;� ` �_ LLQ � I1 ■ � r 1.� � 1 k' i��`arw�+�Yi�94tH� 4slItu�a�re•�i.�j � ■ � k Both•Floors Interior Finish •c f f 7 SURVE'r OF LCAT 58 o MAP OF 5EGTION TV CO N GLEAVE5 POINT �q AT FAST MARION TONN OF 5OUTHOL.D x =Q � s, e 5UFFOL< GC7UNT)-`,W-r. o b 19, cgNc' hsr po SUFFOLK .COUNTY 'TAX MAP NUMBER 3,"2 4 1000-03500-0600-007000 co" 0 " g�) M coNc SURVEYED APRIL 4, 1997 t(,( Asper' MAy� r .tie GUARANTEED T0: O$o Aly CHRISTOPHER PLIACONIS ¢*� H CJ BNY MORTGAGE COMPANY INC. � COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY TITLE NUMBER RH970392 V pco gQ �r Q NOTES: • = MONUMENT FOUND lh. LOT 44 AREA 12562KS. FET C1 M Q/ (t]]CC C{{]] /'V Nf:]u RJC7 40 „ W V se e7en�(;Mnyei ll�tarot 7lyat�0�6noyr i�MtivCy>r'abeesi fe e NibilYoik Bteti WC�IIt] 4 wP-dSrS1 R of the 144.17' - N �91n1Y boplea frbY thi MtYinel bf tole survey. �r e4 vlih M r OfM11 at ((MM sn0 surrayyto e " ro Reel Ghali !» boneltlsro� to be Yalltl true bbP so *oartifeay ��otl o ppnn yy oeatPiP Sedt4sted 01iNMIMCR M1CA,yith�h..t this b) n C23 nyRytthi rPoo/eriilunal �( �OT� Wuas n LMb &1nV Sona RhslYn only to the 1R PreyPaYr,b tyai atlldPhiNb~ii e1 a ipl Mututianioa GRAPHIC SCALE' 1"=30'.Y,S. Lm. No. 50202 V YOR. 0 30 60 90 a6�-sae MND 5 eae� i f Junk�23-9_S y03:44P AN �\V (\�\� `/ WILWM WICKHAM ERIC J. ®Resea_cest ASYCA16 A. WICKMAId LYNNE M, goggow JANET GEASA MUDERT P. 6ULNVAN I 11%.a kitr4-AILW-Wra I V VIA FACSIMILE 765-9064 1^W OFFIC91 WICKHAM. WICKHAM & BRESSLER. P.C. 10313 MAIN AOAO, P.C. IBOX 142A MATTITUCK, LONG ISLANO NEW YORK 11052 Di* -298-83S31 Tr6LEPAX NO. $14"99-6569 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application o C. Pliaconis Gentlemen/Ladies: P. OIL 4*C(4U11 P-01 MEt.VIWLE OFr9CE Alt BROAD HOLLOW ROAD SUITE IIt MELVILLt . NEW YORK 117x7 $ I G 4420-5421 O TCLCIPPAR NO. 5 f 6 -24* -0404 June 23, 1996 My clients have asked me to respond to the relevant points of the applicants attorneys letter dated May 1s, 1998. We are simultaneously forwarding a copy to tha applicant s attorney. 1. The $7.500 figure is in error. The actual figures are in the record. 2. It is not clear that the lot coverage computations have been verified in the field by a licensed professional, or certified by the architect from drawings. Accordingly, applicant has failed to provide the Board with appropriate documentation as to the amount of the variance. 3. There is no clear information on the proposed patio to replace the deck, a diving board or location of the filter equipment. Thank you for your consideration. VeAgail s 7 Wickham AAW:'m 30/andtnboa cc Mr. and Mrs. Ronald G. Hellman Scott J. Salimando, Esq. (via facsimile) 447-1740 TOTAL P.©1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE July 9, 1998 JUL 1 4 1 . STEPHEN M. JONES, A.I.C.P. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the following application(s) submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is/are considered to be a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county -wide or inter -community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or a disapproval. Applicant(s) Municipal File Number(s) Riverhead Building Supply 4547 tXiaconis, Christopher 4559 Shank, Robert and Ann* 4560 Segrete, Dominick 4568 Frazzitta, Joseph* 4570 Millis, Walter 4571 Chatpar, Prem** 4574 Gaston, Frank 4575 Snyder, Charles 4576 Ratti, Albert and Janice 4580 *Alternative relief appears warranted *With the understanding that the garage will not be used for sleeping quarters. GGN:cc C:N l lCCV-ONINGVONING\WORKINGILDSUUL%SH4547.JUL LOCATION H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR ■ 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY Very truly yours, Stephen M. Jones Director of Planning S/s Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner MAILING ADDRESS P. O. BOX 6100 ■ (5 1 6) 853-5190 HAUPPAUGE, NY 1 1 786-0099 TELECOPIER (51 6) 953-4044 Y:1 sA (1-516) 765-1809 tel. OFFICE OF BOARD OF APPEALS 53095 Main Road. Southold, NY 11971 (1-516) 765-1823 fax Pu=uant to Article XIV of the Suffolk County Acni.nistiative Code, The Board of AWealz of the Town of Scutl old, New York, heresy refers the following to -the Suffolk County Planning C a=i cairn: _X Variance from the Zoning Code, Article IIIA Section 100-30'A.3 Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector Special Exception, Article , Section Special Permit Appeal No: 4559 Applicant: Christopher Pliaconis Location of Affected Land: 345 Snug Harbor Rd., Greenport, NY County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- 35-6-7 Within 500 feet of: Town or Village Boundary Line x 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 Within One Mile of a Vuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of an Airport Comments: Applicant is requesting permission, to construct proposed` swimmin0000l structure in the rear yard ar a - will exceed the allowable 20% lot coverage _ Copies or Town rile ana related documents enclosed for your review. Dated: (o%C/�� / (.516) 765-1809 ZBA tel. 76.5-90 74 fax 0 yT-fC-' O-' BOARD OFAPPEALS Southold Town Hall 5.,Y095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 i***e1**;O�**.r*,;0**.***************************************#*****************#*** June 29, 1998 , 4,/ 30 C, Scott Solimando, Esq. 199 East Main Street Smithtown, NY 11787 Re: Variance Determination (Pliaconis) Dear Mr. Solimando: Enclosed please find a copy of the Appeals Board's determination, with conditions, rendered at our June 23, 1998 Meeting (at which you were present). Before pool or deck construction may be commenced, issuance of a building permit is required. Please contact the Building Department directly at 765-1802 regarding the pending building permit application status. A copy of this variance determination has today been transmitted to the Building Department for their file and update. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Encl. CHAIRMAN cc w/encl: Building Department Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. (Hellman) Original filed with Town Clerk's Office V It APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning %,qfFO1 /-c 0 COD = BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 12, 1998 FAX TRANSMISSION and REGULAR MAIL Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. Wickham Wickham & Bressler, P. C. 10315 Main Road, Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Application of C. Pliaconis Dear Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 The attached certified figures were received yesterday which za-- in essence the same figures, previously forwarded to you, which were uncertified. Enclosures (2 ) Very truly yours, ERARD P .. GOEHRING CHAIRMAN CHARLES W. KUEHN A R C H I T E C T June 11, 1998 Southhold Zoning Board Dear Sirs: Re: Proposed New Lot Coverage Calculations Christopher Pliaconis - Application #4559 35 Crooked Hill Road Suite 270 Commack, New York 11725 Tel: (516) 493-0534 Fax: (516) 493-0574 The homeowner, Mr. Pliaconis, would, if the Zoning Board deems it necessary, consent to remove the wood deck presently attached to his home (see attached survey). Present lot area = 12,780 S.F. R-40 Lot coverage x 20% Lot coverage permitted = 2,556 S.F. Present dwelling size = 34.2' x 64.2' = 2,193 S.F. Present deck (wooden) attached to house= 360 S.F. Present lot coverage 2,553 S.F. New Proposed Lot Coverage: Present dwelling size = 34.2 x 64.2= 2,193 S.F. Proposed swimming pool (current)= (16' x 36) + (8 x 10) 656 S.F. Proposed new lot coverage 2,849 S.F. Proposed new lot coverage= 2,849 S.F. Lot coverage permitted= 2.556 S.F. Square footage overage= 293 S.F. Proposed new lot coverage percentage= 22.29% R-40 lot coverage permitted= 20.00% Proposed increase in lot coverage= 2.29% I hope that this will help clarify the situation. If you should have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call this office. Sincerely, Charles W. Kue/h,A ITvNO Hp, 021190 Z—OF N WILLIAM WICKHAM ERIC J. BRESSLER ABIGAIL WICKHAM LYNNE M. GORDON JANET GEASA HUBERT F. SULLIVAN VIA FACSIMILE 765-9064 LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.C. 10315 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND NEW YORK 11952 516-298-8353 TELEFAX NO. 516-298-8565 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of C. Pliaconis Gentlemen/Ladies: MELVILLE OFFICE 275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD SUITE Ill MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 516-249-9480 TELEFAX NO. 516-249-9484 June 11, 1998 In response to the applicant's submission dated May 18, 1998 from Brunswick Landscaping of Centerport, which we recently received, we feel that the proposal for screening with 6-8 foot arborvitae in a 3 -foot strip backing up to a fence will be a temporary and partial, and therefore ineffective, attempt to address the problem. We have just planted 6 -foot arborvitaes at our office, and they already have a diameter of more than three feet. We suspect that the proposed trees will quickly outgrow the space, overhang the pool and grow into the fence, creating the likelihood that they will be removed. It is odd that the applicant proposes to spend $15,000.00 on landscape but is unwilling to agree to any reasonable proposal for screening my client's property, including placing the trees on the other side of the property line. We also note that applicant's contention that he is an innocent victim of his pool company's error is controverted by the fact that he himself made the application for the building permit. In response to the Board's inquiry as to the distance from the Hellman's residence to the Pliaconis line, my client has measured the distance at approximately 40 feet. My clients also dispute the lot coverage computations supplied by the applicant, particularly as to the actual size of the improvements. We note that no certified survey has been supplied showing the dimensions. Therefore, the applicant's record should be deemed incomplete. Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 - June 11, 1998 Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, � Ab i it A. Wickham AAW:jm 30/shdtnboa cc Mr. and Mrs. Ronald G. Hellman Scott J. Salimando, Esq. (via facsimile and regular mail) 265-2832 F a o o,. V-. c- I- 2.0 4 3 o �i -row. _ cl e FRl�P1 LHl• I �i� f _ I l i ;t tai . �.1 r r � _ Tun. E14 I.4498 04 :._,3PH P2 5� a 1 COTSWOLD DRIVE CENTER PORT, NEW YORK 11721 Phone (5 16) 754-8395 TO.- SOU7HOLD ZONING BOARD ARD QE APPEALS FROM, Cli-I.RTSTOPHER BRUNSWICK DATE: MAY 17, 1998 SUBJECT: 345 SNUG HARBOR ROAD EAST MARION, NY Please be advised that Bruns -wick Landscaping has surveyed the above property and provided a detailed landscape buffer plan, for the surrounding pool area. The area of approximately three feet is more than ample space to plant a six foot to eight foot row of arborvitae between the pool and the fence These evergreen trees willgive privacy to both the Pliaconises as well as his surrounding neighuors. The Pliaconises will also have automatic irrigation to provide the water these trees need to survive. If there is any way we can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact ane at the above number. 9�A FPG:1 : LHI, OFF!(_Ec-. Scott J. Sal mando Attorney at taw 1 99 East Main Street Smithtown, New York 117$7 Fax (516) 265—_832 i ,nANv o Jur.. 0-1 1998— 04 : 33Pf'1 PI Li r\j u C, � awe#�i�i�, A- L -!s 0 1 [ T-- -� t ��- 4��l�cy�ns Page 12 - Hearing Transcripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:09 P.M. - PELIACONIS reconvened. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'd like to reopen the Peliaconis hearing. Sir, we're ready for you. Could you just state your name for the record, again Sir. MR. SALIMANDO: Yes, Good evening Mr. Chairman and the Board. My name is Scott Salimando, 199 East Main Street, Smithtown, N.Y. Good evening, sorry, I apologize again for my tardiness. This was a continuation of our last occasion, part of what the Board wanted to see was a plan with regard to the swimming pool, specifically with regards to its landscaping and due to some objections that came in with regards to that. What I've prepared for the Board tonight is I have a diagram of what the homeowners, the Pliaconises propose with regards to the area. If I may. (Handing out diagram to the Board.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What does this entail Mr. Salimando? What kind of plantings are these? MR. SALIMANDO : The plantings are going to be as stated in the plan. We have everything from trees to red cedars in the corners which are 10-12 foot high, pink azaleas, we have 16 nigra arbovitaes which are approximately 6 foot high. In the far right hand corner we again have the 10 to 12 foot red cedars, then there are various other plants, spirea, this is again for landscaping purposes. In the immediate backyard area, specifically where the Hellman's property is laid, because Mr. & Mrs. Hellman had placed an objection with regards to the esthetic quality and the ability to see the pool. We felt that this plan would negate that particular situation. The property would still be fenced and the shrubberies around the pool, would negate them being able to see the pool, it would also negate any possibility of noise coming from the pool area. As indicated before, the homeowners are husband and wife, they have a small child. This is for their use and enjoyment. It is not a public facility certainly. It's not a facility where they're going to have parties that will disturb the neighborhood area here and that is why they want to take this into account. There was a letter submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Hellman which had asked for plantings. I think the Board may have that letter. The plantings were to be on their property area and from what I understand the total amount of money initially for that they've estimated $6,000. I've had a conference with their attorney and they've indicated that now that would be paired down to almost $3,000. My clients have made an offer to them, and the offer was basically to give them $500 in lieu of that. In other words they would still do the plan on their side of the property and give the Hellmans a monetary amount that they so desire to put plantings on their own side. But, unfortunately they're not in a financial position to be prepared to spend an additional $2,500 to plant the necessary plants that the Hellmans would like on their property. They do want to be good neighbors, they do want to take it into account. We feel that the issue is the site of the pool and this particular plan speaks to that and would insure the integrity of the neighborhood, would insure the esthetic Page 13 - Hearing T scripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals quality of the neighborhood and goes to the very heart of what the objections were with regards to seeing the pool and hearing the noise. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so let's see what develops from their attorney and there would be two restrictions on my part in dealing with this, and that was, that the bushes would be continuously maintained, either through a drip water system or, you know, watering them among themselves, I don't care. And, I know there was one other one and I can't think of it at the moment. Oh, that there be no further reductions of excess lot coverage, or meaning increases of excess lot coverage. MR. SALIMANDO: Yes and parenthetically Mr. Chairman, my clients are very aware of that and they will be done and if this Board graciously approves the variance they can be assured of that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, thank you. Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody against? Ms. Wickham how are you tonight? MS. WICKHAM: Good evening, fine thank you. Gail Wickham of Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y. I'm here representing the Hellmans whose as you know whose rear yard adjoins that of the applicant. It's an area of small lots and the area's do back up right to each other and privacy is a very key concern. The applicant chose to put their pool directly against the rear line of the property, not in the middle of their lot, but, right up as far back as they could and I think the Hellmans were very shocked and surprised by that because they do value their privacy and they were very disappointed by the turn of events that led us to this. The pool was put in as I understand it illegally with knowledge that it was a violation and the applicants initial offer to adequately screen the Hellmans property has apparently been withdraw and I'll address that a little bit further later on. My clients are most concerned because Mr. Hellman is in the world of Academia. In fact, in the environmental field which is rather ironic and he does spend a full six months, weather permitting in his backyard where he spends a lot of time reading, writing and working on his academic pursuit. So, this is really something that will in fact impact upon him and a blanket statement to the Board that there's going to be a little child in the pool and no parties is really not something that the Board has any measure of being able to rely on it as a protection to our client. I'd like to just briefly address the merits of the application that the Board is being asked to consider. First of all, the applicants are coming in after the fact and they did have an alternative. They could of put in a smaller pool that did comply and it could of been further back from the neighbor's property. So they're basically asking that you reward them for their flavor of violation of the code and I think the Board should take that into account in respect to any decision that it makes on this matter. We're also very concerned, that there seems to be quite a question about the actual size of the structure and the actual lot coverage. The Building Department figure of 24.4% is actually less than the applicant's' Page 14 - Hearing 'LLcxiseripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals estimate and does not seem to cover the full area that the pool appears to cover in the applicant's paperwork and my client has measured and indicates that the actual size of the pool is even bigger than that which is shown on paperwork. In fact, it appears that it's over 25% of lot coverage. It's a big question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just reflect on that. Two quick questions. How far is your client's house from the rear of his property line? Do you have any idea? MS. WICKHAM: I don't have that information. Yes, I could get that for you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You could get that for us? MS. WICKHAM: But the point is, that he uses his backyard outside of the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm aware of that, sure. The other issue was and you didn't have the luxury of this because you weren't at the last hearing because you weren't hired until this particular point so therefore no way am I trying to say anything about that. I'm just trying to say, that my question is, and my statement is, that in any pool situation, there has to be a way of getting into the pool without taking all the grass clippings, all the dirt and everything or else you're constantly vacuuming the pool. And, in a liner pool it's even more severe and further exacerbates the situation because those little stones and pebbles put holes in the liner. So, my statement was, what kind of water is going to go around the pool which again further increases lot coverage and unless it is of exact zero, zero, ground level as you know. So, the purpose of going back in a symmetrical fashion of saying that as long as what we have existing now, does not change. That if it is 20.4 or if it's 25. 1, that's the max that I would be willing to go, but, we have to work out this privacy factor situation that exists between the two neighbors and that is definitely a concern of the Boards because of the size of these particular pieces of property. We know these pieces of property are small. The variety of the variances that we have always go back to these particular pieces of property in the Dawn Estates. MS. WICKHAM: My point is, that the Board doesn't even know how big a variance (tape inaudible) because, I don't think you have accurate information and that's, that's what I was trying to a, but, I understand your point as well. I believe and again I was not here that there was some discussion at the last hearing and certainly in the applicant's paperwork that there are other lots in the neighborhood that are similarly situated and that this should not be anything out of the ordinary. There appear to be 67 lots in the neighborhood based on the tax map. In 20 years only two of them have sought variances so, there will be a precedence set here that the Board has to be cognizant of and I think that should also be considered in any conditions that they might impose should they grant a variance. One of those applications was Duke and which Page 15 - Hearing Trcuiscripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals was only a couple of years ago and that did discuss a lot coverage variance. However, that was a deck attached to the house. It was 45 feet back from the harbor and that was the only impact. It was not backed up against the neighbor's yard or any similar situation. There was no alternative location and there was no objection and the Board imposed a 15 foot wide buffer planting area in that variance. The second application was Farber which was over 20 years ago, where the Board did grant about a 22% lot coverage variance in the same neighborhood. However, that was based on just the building area alone. The house again, was not a structure that was backed up against the neighbor's property. So, I think both of those are distinguishable and there's been no proof that I'm aware of, of any other pools or other properties in the neighborhood that have actually been given a specific lot coverage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, we have a variety of variances, but, we don't have a variety of lot coverages. That's what you're referring to? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, because I have a whole page of variances from Cleaves Point. MS. WICKHAM: I'm sure. On the screening of a, that's really the key here, is the screening. We're concerned because there is only 2-1/2 or so feet between the edge of the pool and the fence. So first of all, how are you going to get an adequate tree coverage in that small area which will be dumping its leaves and everything else in the pool in the first place is a concern that we have. So, I don't know how well it will be able to be maintained. We would have no control over its maintenance and as my client said when he was sitting here, I guess I get the black vinyl on my side. So, he's going to be looking at a very ugly black vinyl fence, even if the applicant beautifies their yard. So, that was why we had proposed screening because we do have room in our yard on our side of the fence of a arbovitae, of an arbovitaes screen. Originally they did get an estimate from a landscaper. It was very high and they did have him scale it back considerable and bring it down to just 24 plantings along the back of the fence of a 7 or 8 foot height that would fully screen the area. We made that proposal and although they had originally said they would offer adequate screening they are not willing to do that, so I ask the Board if they would consider something in that nature so that both noise and the view of the fence and pool could be addressed properly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you know how far apart those were to be planted Ms. Wickham? MS. WICKHAM: They were 24 to be staggered so they would not be in a line. They would be staggered on a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Like a foot plot? Page 16 - Hearing Z _ __ scripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: 60 foot span. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. MEMBER TORTORA: This is on your client's property? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, there's really no room inside the fence, that's the problem and they're willing to provide that area to do it. MEMBER HORNING: A very, very poor system. MS. WICKHAM: Well, it's just really the only effective way to screen it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you, that I, it's a unique way. We're not use to that screening on somebody else's property. Certainly you would not - MS. WICKHAM: I understand that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Certainly you know - MS. WICKHAM: We were hoping that they would agree to that because it doesn't seem frankly that screening on the inside of the fence is going to be at all effective and that's why it was proposed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. You're going to get back to me on the distance of your client's house. MS. WICKHAM: About 35 or 40 (changing of tape) . MEMBER TORTORA: Conditions can be related to the application to the property. I don't know any instance that doesn't mean that it hasn't existed. But, if you know one, where the Board would have the authority to impose conditions relating to a another parcel. I'm just not familiar with anything like that. MS. WICKHAM: With the owner's consent. With our consent? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, but I'm not - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's the reason why I wanted to talk to the Town Attorney. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm simply not familiar with ability to force to do that. MS. WICKHAM: My point is, and I understand that, my point is, that we did make what, you know, what we were trying to do to ameliorate a situation that was just ( ) , in a way that's really unfair to us to the town and it's unfortunate that it was not resolved in that manner. But, we do have objections and I think they're very valid to the variance. Page 17 - Hearing T—.scripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: I think your objections are valid and you know, if the applicant is willing to do that, that would be fine. If he's not willing to do it, perhaps the Board will entertain approving the ( ) , I don't know. But to impose that as a condition on someone else's property I (inaudible) MS. WICKHAM: I understand that completely. I was doing that more as an explanation to the Board as to what we were willing to accept from the applicant. I don't have anything further unless you were looking for conditions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. No, I think what we will do we'll confer with the Town Attorney on this issue. We may close as to verbatim and close it as a matter of process by the next regularly scheduled meeting. The question is that we may be writing to both you and the client or in one particular matter we also may have to reopen it to verbatim and we'll see what happens. MEMBER TORTORA: Have we definitely asked the applicant to (inaudible) he's not willing to do this? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He just said he wasn't. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, or he may have a rebuttable. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll get back to you in one second Mr. Salimando. Pardon me, Ms. Wickham. MS. WICKHAM: They originally agreed to provide adequate screening and now they don't feel that that's what they want to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we thank you, we'll get back to you. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Has Ms. Wickham and her client received a copy of this thing which was submitted 'tonight? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, yes, yes, it was just given to them. MEMBER COLLINS: Alright, I just wanted to make sure. MS. WICKHAM: Yes, I just got it now. My comment on that, was the I mean it's lovely but, I don't see how practically you can get arborvitae to grow in that - MEMBER COLLINS: Alright, I just wanted to make sure that - MS. WICKHAM: It's just that wide. Page 18 - Hearing T .scripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: I just wanted to be sure, that the left hand and the right were in touch. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Salimando. This pool ranks with a tennis court that we did for Mr. Jack Whitney in Fishers Island several years ago. Steven Ham from Southampton, was the attorney and this went several hearings unfortunately. But, I don't mean that for your clients, I just mean it unfortunately because there was a lot of time involved. But, what would you like to tell us? MR. SALIMANDO: I appreciate the time that the Board is taking of this and again, we apologize for inconvenience. Just as a way, not a rebuttal, because again, we're not trying to do this in an adversary roll or although it seems it meets that way at times. A little history of this property is in order. This property never had any fences where the fence is now. The property was vacant for seven years. The Hellmans were able to use essentially the back yard of my client's property all that time. My clients come into the property, they look to develop it, they do develop their house, they place a fence. A black fence there, alright. Black slates vinyl, it's an iron fence so people can see through and that also enables you to see the vegetation and doesn't decrease from the beauty of the property. I don't know if that's the ( ) ending of itself is that finally some other homeowner had to come on to the scene and start using the property. We have never told the Hellmans that we didn't want to be good neighbors by put something on the property that would be esthetically pleasing. We never told the Hellmans that we would put it on their property which is what the Hellmans have wanted. We said that we would put up these esthetically trees and plants and we presented a plan, and presented it in a way, that I think is very logically and that would be very good for not only property values in the area, but also for the surrounding community as well. So to say, that we weren't willing to do, is not the case. To say, that we weren't willing to anything is not the case because we did offer $500 towards whatever the Hellmans would like to do where the fence is. You know the ironic thing is, my client has a right to put up the fence. If this pool is bulldozed in or wherever that fence is going to remain, will the Hellmans be back here to talk about a black ugly fence because they don't like to see that? I don't know, but, originally the thought was, from what I understood, that the pool and the site of the pool was the issue. No,,,v, , it's the black ugly fence. We could go on and on and as you know, a famous show will say tonight, yatta yatta is what where going to get into over here and that's not what we want. We want a little closure here. My clients had to put the pool where it was Mr. Chairman and people of the Board, because there's cesspools in the backyard. To place it in the middle of the yard which is where they would like to put it, would have meant to collapse the cesspools. It was unfortunate, but, that is where it was. It wasn't put there to be a gnat on the side of the neighbors, it was put there out of necessity and unfortunately that's exactly where it is. As far as their contention that they can't see how we can do this, well we had professional landscapers come in and they assured us that they can do it. There's a 3-1/2 foot area between where the Page 19 - Hearing Tl ,scripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals pool ends and where the fence begins. Not 2-1/2 feet as the Hellmans' attorney contends. That is plenty of space in order to put the arborvitaes there and to attain the esthetic pleasure and also the barrier that everybody so much desires. As far as the precedence being said, well again, that's what the Board is here to do and the Board is to take into account not only the town's desires, but, also that of the individual homeowners. The homeowner cannot do this in any other way. Obviously the detriment to the homeowner will be substantial at this point of time. To say that the homeowner did this illegally and with knowledge of that, I think is stretching the point. As we indicated to you on the last occasion, the homeowner hired somebody to do this. They were assured they'd get the permit for it and then when the permit wasn't forthcoming, this person put the pool in anyway and figured they'd get the permit later on and they didn't check out the local coverage lots, et cetera. It is a totally terrible situation, one in which, my clients are trying to rectify. They are trying to be good community people. They're trying to go with the wants and desires of this particular organization and that of the surrounding town. They didn't put up their legal pool and never applied for anything. They did so, out of good faith and that's why they are here tonight to continue to do this no matter how many times it's necessary. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just offer one issue here. Let's assume at this juncture, that we recess without a date and we allow the landscaper to go in and do his job and then we reevaluate after the landscaper has completed his job. Now, the only threat of that would be, if we didn't have three votes on the Board to grant the lot coverage variance. That is the only thing I can think of at this point. I can't think of anything else at this juncture. MEMBER HORNING: Why would that be a threat Jerry? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well because, then they might have to relocate the pool into another location. MEMBER HORNING: But, that wouldn't affect the backyard landscaping? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it wouldn't affect the backyard landscaping, but they would have to decrease the size of the pool. MR. PLIACONIS: Excuse me, but, the lot coverage would be the same. Relocating the pool, the lot coverage would be the same. MR. SALIMANDO : This is Mr. Pliaconis . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we met him the last time. MR. PLIACONIS: What will you grant me?, because I could chop the deck off the house. MEMBER COLLINS: I've been thinking seriously about that. Page 20 - Hearing T --scripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. SALIMANDO : Well, if the issue is the 25.1, if the issue is 25.1 and the Board likes a lower number, then perhaps the deck can be an issue here. So again, I think the issue is whether or not the Board does grant lot coverage variances. It has been done, it's been done for specific reasons. I don't think this is going to setup a so called flood gate approach, and that you're going to be inundated with proposals and pools. This Board does not have a, as you pointed out before, there is no admonition to do something like that. It's just that you may not get that many applications. I don't think this is going to be the bell ringer to say come running to go put up pools in the Town of Southold as what the Hellmans' attorney has suggested now. And as far as leaves in the pool. Again, these are evergreens, they are arborvitaes. They're not leave producing types of you know coverage here, which again, we're either gasping at straws here, I think it's a very cogent plan. I think in keeping with the guidelines and all that it will benefit the community, there will be no detriment to it, it will not harm any property owners, nor will it harm the value of the property. And again, I've asked the Board, that it you know, consider this and we'll go by whatever instructions the Board so desires. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you give us a certify figure on what the true lot coverage is and see if there's any offers from Mr. Pliaconis in reference to eliminating the deck which he had just overstated. MEMBER TORTORA: We're also concerned about the screening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're concerned about two things. We're concerned about the screening and the lot coverage. Those are the two issues. That's where we are at this point. MR. SALIMANDO : What screening? Do they want putting the screening in, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Town Attorney too. else would the Board like with regard to us to proceed to the risk of taking the a, so that the Board can review that? I think I have to discuss that with the MR. SALIMANDO : And with regards to the certification of the lot coverage. They would like that prior to the next meeting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, right. And any reductions of that would be greatly appreciated. MR. SALIMANDO: (inaudible) to the lot coverage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. (Mr. Pliaconis having a discussion with his attorney.) Page 21 - Hearing 'I rajuscripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand that Mr. Pliaconis, but, there's been a statement made by the attorney on the other side who states that, they don't think the figures are correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, there's two different sets of figures. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I know. There's one at 24.4 MEMBER TORTORA: We discussed this at the initial hearing and I think you conceded that the proposed lot coverage is in the percent of 25%. MR. SALIMANDO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but the question is, what in excess of 25%. MR. SALIMANDO: 25.1. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 25.1. MEMBER TORTORA: 25.1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, are there any concessions in reference to the deck itself? MR. SOLIMANDO : No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. How big is the deck? MEMBER COLLINS: 360 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 360 sq. ft. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: He didn't understand your question, Jerry. MR. SALIMANDO: Mr. Plianconis is now saying, that there would be a concession to his deck. We're talking about the deck attached to his house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. SALIMANDO: Alright, which I believe is 386 - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 360. MEMBER TORTORA: 360 sq. ft. MR. SALIMANDO: 360 sq. ft. He indicated that if necessary, and again, this is so that his family can also benefit from the enjoyment of the pool, he'd be willing to take the deck off his house, if the ( ) were back to reduce the lot coverage size. They would preferably - Page 22 - Hearing Z ranscripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you like to tell us how that affects the lot coverage size? MR. SALIMANDO: Probably could if I would imagine and I haven't done the computations which would be 43. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Send it to us. MR. SALIMANDO: What's that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Send it to us, that's all. MR. SALIMANDO: Does the Board decide to hear from anybody else? Either Mr. Pliaconis or Mrs. Pliaconis with regard to this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we really would like to hear from the landscaper. That's who we'd like to hear from. MEMBER TORTORA: The thing that I'm a little confused at. You'd be willing to forego the existing deck, but, you're not willing to provide landscaping on the neighbor's property. MR. SALIMANDO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, you can build a ground level deck is what I assume you're going to do. A cement slab sought of speak, or flagstone or whatever. MR. PLIACONIS: Right. MR. SALIMANDO: And Mrs. Tortora, as you so scrutiny pointed out before. To set the precedence, is to say that my client must maintain screening on their side of the property. Originally they wanted them to maintain it for two years. If that's something you people would do, then I guess, it's something that you'd require my client to do. But, I've never heard of that, nor do I think this Board would want to set the precedence for that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're talking about on the neighbor's property? MR. SALIMANDO: Yes, on the neighbor's property. That's why we'd be willing to do on his property what I think any normal person would do and say, I'll sacrifice something to get something I desire for me and my family. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know, we'll have to talk to the Town Attorney. Yes, ma'am would you state your name for the record. MRS. ROYALS: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Joan Royals. I'm Mrs. Pliaconis' mother. I've heard some allegations made that perhaps my daughter and son-in-law plan on some wild parties. Page 23 - Hearing Z ranscripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals Well, listen to me, I've known these people, know my daughter all her life, and I've known my son-in-law for 12 years. I've never known them to have a wild party. OK, we've never had wild parties at our home with the children growing up and Mr. Pliaconis' family didn't either. My son-in-law, has worked, 14 to 16 hours, a day, six and seven days a week, since he was 14 or 15 years old. He's a hard working family loving young man who I have the greatest respect for and he and my daughter are not at fault here. I've been a realtor for 18 years and obviously there is a problem. But, it's not with them being ( ) or bad neighbors. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think there was a specific point. I think and that might of been a counterproductive statement. I think the point is - MS. WICKHAM: I'm sorry. What I meant was that the pools are noisy, it's not wild parties, the pools are noisy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just wait - one second. I think the point is, how do we adequately screen the pool and how do we minimize the impact of the lot coverage? Those are really the two issues as it stands before us. MRS. ROYALS: OK, I'd be happy to bring in photographs of the pool that we had at our home in Huntington, which was set into a hill and in the back of it, was no more than 3-3-1/2 feet and I had it planned to put birches, roses and over 45 perennials. I had a green vinyl plan rather than the black vinyl plan. I understand with the black that you don't see it, even as much as you do the green. But, I can assure you that you didn't see that fence during the summertime and I'll be happy to bring in those photographs and I think that may be what the children had in mind since my daughter did grow up with it and I'll be happy to show you photographs of that pool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MRS. ROYALS: Thank you for time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Sir, state your name please. MR. DONAHUE: My name is Peter Donahue. I'm currently moving here to Southold to Greenport. But, I have been a neighbor of Christy Pliaconis for 32 years and to Vickie and Christy for probably five years or whatever the period is that they are married. Vickie and Christy lived right across the street from us for the last three years where they were homeowners in the Centerport area and I can attest to all of their friends because I've known almost everyone of them since those kids were born. Many of Christy's friends and Vicky's for that matter or my daughter, they were also the kids that have grown up in the neighborhood because there's an area that much like the Southold community where everybody likes to continue to stay. There has never once been one Page 24 - Hearing T ranscripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals episode in 32 years with the Pliaconises, with Chris, his brothers, David and Dean in which there was a loud and boisterous party, they lived within 400 feet of my home, which I grew about, developed my family, they're not that kind of people, they're good people. I'd ask you to go take a look at their house in Huntington. I can attest to all of the things that they have done to improve that house in a very professional way. It is the envy of the neighborhood. They put the landscaping in the way which they keep it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask Mr. Pliaconis a question ? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Pliaconis one of the members would like to ask you a question, could you come up for a second. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just trying to figure out a way to resolve what as someone just described as a very bad situation. The neighbor wants privacy, you want to enjoy your pool, was built in error, through rightfully no fault of your own, but the builder's fault. Have you thought about a stockade fence? MR. PLIACONIS: The reason I didn't put the stockade fence was because the plan was, the landscaping plan would be trees along the edge of the pool so the three neighbors could enjoy them. Because there's two neighbors that adjoin my backyard. So, I figured all three of us could enjoy that with the black vinyl coated chain-link four foot fence. MEMBER TORTORA: Enjoy the landscaping planting? MR. PLIACONIS: Yes, because you're going to see it right through the fence and the black fence is going to fade into the landscaping. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm talking about just on the back of the property line. MR. PLIACONIS: That's what I'm talking about. If I put a stockade fence then everyone is going to look at a wooden fence rather than all of the landscaping. MEMBER TORTORA: It would just be the neighbors? These neighbors would see - MR. PLIACONIS: The two, the Hellmans and the other neighbor that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I have to see where it is. He's saying that it's truncating to two property lines. That's what he's saying. MR. PLIACONIS: There's three backyards that adjoin each other. Page 25 - Hearing Z ranscripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. PLIACONIS: Mr. Hellmans, my other neighbor. I don't know their name and myself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: Is there any way to do it so that it would satisfy the Hellmans? MR. PLIACONIS: If it satisfies them, yes, but I don't see the reasoning because now that all the trees are going to be blocked. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm trying to you know. MR. PLIACONIS: It makes no difference to me. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm trying to resolve the problem. MR. PLIACONIS: I'll do whatever you want me to do. I just don't want to plant trees on his yard. That he requested me, 33 trees at $6,000 and today it was 24 trees at $3,000, OK. That's insulting me and I'd like to say one other thing. My friends, my pool is on the edge of the yard. So are his lounge chairs on the edge of my yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What we're trying to say, is we're not sure we can do that either within the power of this Board. So, that's why I said we have to discuss it with the Town Attorney. MRS. PLIACONIS: The reason why, if I may speak, I'm Victoria Pliaconis. The reason why we did put the vinyl coated fence is exactly what Chris said, is so everybody could enjoy the naturalness of Southold Town. We came out here, I came to look at the North Fork because it is a very beautiful town and it is quite unique and you won't find this on the South Fork. We did not do anything, we hired somebody to take care of this for us. Unfortunately the situation is what it is. However, we are trying to rectify the situation by putting these plantings up so everybody may enjoy these plantings. The stockade fence is going to be an ugly wooden fence. I mean that's the bottom line. But, if the Hellmans would like a wooden fence they're more than welcome to have a wooden fence back there. But that's not, to us, that's not natural. It's not what we intended. But, if we have to concede to that we will. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ms. Wickham anything else. MS. WICKHAM: Well, I'm no fan of Seinfeld, but I know people are, so I'll be brief. All that I want to say, is, that the pool is the issue and I just want the Board to be aware that the 20% lot coverage permitted under the code on this lot is, 2,556 feet. The existing coverage without the pool is 2,553 feet. So, all but 3 sq. ft. of this pool is totally illegal. It's not like shaving off a corner of it and so I think that that just needs to be put in perspective in terms of this application and as Mr. Hellman said, I Page 26 - Hearing Z ranscripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals appreciate your suggestion, Mrs. Tortora. I think both parties are striving towards natural coverage. But, I appreciate the suggestion. It's certainly worth a shot. Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: Hope you guys work it out then. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I guess I'll recess this, I won't recess it, I'll close it as to verbatim. We'll discuss it with the Town Attorney and close it as a matter of fact at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Sir? MR. SALIMANDO : Anything the Board would like in the meantime? Do they need us to submit certified figures? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Certified figures and give us whatever you have in reference to the professional landscaper that you can give us. Thank you. MR. PLIACONIS: Mr. Chair Person, you said something about completing the landscaping in the back? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, no, I said, from the landscaper. Anything that you had from the landscaper that would give us, you know, you have a landscaping plan, you must have a landscaper in mind. Tell him to tell us that they can be built there, that they meaning planted there, that they can act as a screening at, you know, barrier and so on and so forth. We'd appreciate that. MR. SALIMANDO : We'll submit that to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To the Board in writing. MR. SALIMANDO: In writing as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And if we have any particular problems with whence we receive everything and forward the stuff to Ms. Wickham, you know, we may be forced to reopen, we would rather not. But, we are extremely busy. Actually, we are inundated and but that's the best I can do at this juncture. MR. SALIMANDO : We would rather that as well and I would like to thank the Board for its consideration on behalf of the Pliaconis. Hope you have a good night. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Good night. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing as to verbatim and closing as a matter of fact at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 0 V 0 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard R Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 5, 1998 Mr. and Mrs. Ronald G. Hellman P.O. Box 373 190 Marine Place East Marion, NY 11939 Re: Appl . No. 4559 - C. Pliaconis / Lot Coverage Variance Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hellman: Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 This is sent as a reminder that the Board recessed the hearing for you as requested to the May 14, 1998 meeting. The hearing will reconvene at 6:40 p.m. at the Town Hall, Assembly Room, 53095 Main -Road, Southold, NY. If you have any questions, please contact us. cc: Scott Solimando, Esq. C fy )CA),, `1-b I/1/7-J7V(-) 45-/ Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski RONALD G. HELLMAN 190 Marine Place/P.O.Box 373 East Marion, NY 11939 Tel:516/4774011 Greenport, April 14, 1998 Mr. Gerald P. Goehringer, Chaiman Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 530 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 6 RE: Notice of Hearing for Variance for a Proposed Swimming Pool/April 16, 1998 Premises: 345 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport NY. Dear Mr. Goehringer, I am in receipt of the Notice of Hearing in reference. The swimmingpo6l structure in question has seriously impacted our privacy. We respectfully request that the Southold Wown Board of Appeals reschedule the Hearing in order for me to consult counsel and have adequate time to review documents and matters related to this case. Respeq,fully yours, G.Hel m RH/nc VIA FACSIMILE TO: 516/765 90-64 S ee- fdA r 1 %0+0S t� i -..� �. LUZt -�yt `f/,3/q e It 4 rj V, N m4A)s hu3� y1,31j9' r I•� A. FFF 1 t � I j .J '40 'Y I jr 4 Spot .--93 V,, Q w r4 P) i, A CL -/,V) � k 0 ,I N D til 3/s 5� 4 i 1, A�A lotlk ........... "A w�� b7 RONALD G.HELLMAN P.O.Box 373/190 Marine Place East Marion, NY 11939 Tel:516-477 4011 Greenport April 14, 1998 Mr. Scott J. Salimando Attorney at Law 199 East Main Street Smithtown, NY 11787 VIA FACSIMILE TO:516/265 2832 RE: Notice of Hearing for Variance for a Proposed Swimming Pool/April 16, 1998 Premises: 345 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport NY Dear Mr. Salimando, I am in receipt of your letter dated April 13, 1998. The existing swimmingpool in question has seriously impacted our privacy. Taking in consideration the good neighbor policy, we are prepared to accept from Mr. & Mrs. Pliaconis a written agreement stating that on or before May 15, 1998, they will plant and maintain for the next two years on our side of a new six foot high fence, a continuous and contiguous row, all along the new fence bordering our mutual properties, of eight foot high TREES of any or a combination of the following species, at their choice: cedars, arbavitis, or blue spruces, in order to provide total coverage. We are not prepared to accept shrubs and decorative bushes. In this way we feel our privacy will be protected and our property value will not be diminished. Sincerely, 9�iinald G. RH/nc 1fi4-hC, �7-4 F yl - j Ea5! ode / AFH -ib -y6 WEU 6;b( ( ANSS/NecSM FAX NO. 5164774011 P101 RONALD G.HELLMAN P.O.Box 373/190 Marine Place East Marion, NY 11939 Te1:516-477 4011 APR 1 51998 Greenport April 14, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE TO:516/265 2832 Mr. Scott J. Salimando Attorney at Law 199 East Main Street Smithtown, NY 11781 ��z(;mtiiS RE: Notice of Hearing for ar ICce for a Proposed Swimming Pool April 16, 1998 Premises: 345 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport NY Dear Mr. Salimando, I am in receipt of your letter dated April 13, 1998. The existing swimmingpool in question has seriously impacted our privacy. Taking in consideration the good neighbor policy, we are prepared to accept from Mr. & Mrs. Pliaconis a written agreement stating that on or before May 15, 1998, they will plant and maintain for the next two years on our side of a new six foot high fence, a continuous and contiguous row, all along the new fence bordering our mutual properties, of eight foot high TREES of any or a combination of the following species, at their choice: cedars, arbavitis, or blue spruces, in order to provide total coverage. We are not prepared to accept shrubs and decorative bushes. In this way we feel our privacy will be protected and our property value will not be diminished. Sincerely, 7 /ona- G. Helmam RH/nc A,� 7r LQ rEe ) , HrK-14-yo 1 UL W Uc Hr.)o/ recd) VHA NU, bIb4 f 14U11 RONALD G. HELLMAN 190 Marine Place/P.O.Box 373 East Marion, NY 11939 Tel:516/4774011 Greenport, April 14, 1990 Mr. Gerald P. Goebringer, Chaiman Southold Town Hoard of Appeals Southold. Town Hall 530 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 r, U; APR 02 RE: Notice of Hearing for Variance for a P-roposed Swimming Pool/April 16, 1998 Promises: 345 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport NY. Dear Mr. Goehringer, I am in receipt of the Notice of Hearing in reference. The swimmingpod�l strixcture in question has seriously Impacted our privacy. we respectfully request that the Southold Wown 'Board of Appeals reschedule the Hearing in order for me to consult counsel and have adequate time to review documents and T atters related to this case. Respegq fully yours, i ......_....... ;�7 1 G. Hellman RH/nc VIA FACSIMILE TO: 516/765 90-64 0 L �T ccs-zZQv S PQ,05�, Lo-,-- �'`� Loi cweo — cTr = Pester- Lo -r C,,,,, I a, 78o -(D, -F�-- o� 9U P2C�P� i w►✓U,o, PC ass asst �P� � a09 Ca c `TIC-- ao-o C� P�� i Pj Lir Page 38 - Hearing Transcripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals 8:12 P.M.- Appl. No. 4559 - CHRISTOPHER PLIACONIS Location of Property: 345 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport; 1000-35-6-7. This is a variance request based upon the Building Inspector's January 30, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a building permit for a proposed accessory swimming pool structure in the rear yard area, for the following reasons: "... Under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 of the Bulk and Parking Schedule in the R-40 Zone: Proposed construction will exceed the allowable 20% lot coverage. The lot area is 12,780 sq. ft.; at 20% the allowable area would be 2,556 sq. ft. Present coverage with dwelling and deck is 2,553 sq. ft. Swimming pool, as proposed, is 568 sq. ft., bringing total lot coverage at 3,121 sq. ft. or approximately 24.4+ percent... " CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey which has no specific date but, shows the approximate placement of the swimming pool at approximately 4 feet from the rear property line and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Could you state your name for the record Sir. MR. SALIMONDO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Scott Salimondo, 199 East Main Street, Smithtown, N.Y., for Christopher Pliaconis who is in court tonight which is fine and able to appear. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Great, what would you like to tell us? MR. SALIMONDO: Yes, as already indicated on the application with regards to what we are proposing we must admit, that the proposal is actually in effect, the swimming pool has already been erected and it was erected due to the builder or the pool builder had submitted an application I believe for a permit sometime in October. He had assumed that the application was going through. Starting in December, he started to put the pool in without actually having gotten in the building permit. Thence forth, the building inspector came down and I believe it was then known that the pool had exceeded the lot coverage. Since that time we've put in this application in attempt to rectify the situation and come to you in order to get this building permit and also to get a variance with regards to the zoning requirement. As already indicated in this particular area there are other buildings that have been granted lot coverages increases by this particular Board. There's a home across the street which is at 350 Snug Harbor Road, which I believe had before this Board asked for lot coverage increase and has received one. In fact, the home owner who had that done, was Mr. Joseph Duggan who is in court today and that was for a deck right across from Dawn Lagoon Drive. In the area itself, there are other residences that do have homes with pools and decks in them at 350 Dawn Drive and also at 1245 Wiggins Lane, which is within the immediate vicinity, next to the house in question. I believe by the way that was 330 Snug Harbor Road. That is the home of Mr. Joseph Duggan. Not 350 as previously stated. The increase would be for approximately 5.1% over the 20% permitted R-40 lot coverage Page 39 - Hearing Transcripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals which is per statute as has been indicated by the home owner. Landscaping is going to be done in conformity with the zoning requirements and also in conformity with the way the neighborhood is being used and in very clear consideration of the neighbors that are surrounding this particular property. We've taken great pains to talk with the neighbors and we tried to rectify any misapprehensions they may have with regards to it. The .Pliaconis are a married couple. They have one small child. This is not being used in attempt to have parties or things of that nature. They have had a swimming pool in the back yard which is in conformity with other requirements as far as lot coverage and also as far as where it is in relation to the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you do the calculations, the ones that are handwritten? Are you familiar with that? MR. SALIMONDO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I noticed that you did bring it up to 5.1. In looking at the approximate three-quarters away down the page, we're talking of proposed lot coverage present of 2,553 in reference to the swimming pool. The 656, is that a deck? MR. SALIMONDO: That would be the pool itself which is the earlier calculation, 16 x 36 and 8 x 10 deck which I believe is also preexisting at this point it would bring it up to 656 or 3,209 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The question I have is that there literally is no deck around the swimming pool at this juncture except for what you are just mentioning. MR. SALIMONDO: That's right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They're not anticipating anything else at this point? MR. SALIMONDO: No, they're not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's never any attempt to enclosed this pool in any way or anything of that nature. Any wire or anything of that nature? It'll remain open to the sky? MR. SALIMONDO: Not at all. There won't be any attempt to do this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning, any questions of this attorney? MEMBER HORNING: I would like to know how it is, that they managed to build the pool without a building permit? MR. SALIMONDO: Again, this is from the person who constructed the pool, the organization. Apparently they submitted a permit to the Planning Department, the Building Department, in October. Page 40 - Heap , Lxg Transcripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals They did not hear from the Planning or Building Department and this is again coming from the builder because the ground was getting hard and they needed to put the pool in after waiting four to six weeks. In December they put the pool in. They dug the hole and naturally put the pool in at that time. It was anticipated that they were getting approval for it and apparently the person who built the pool did not know at that time that it had exceeded the lot coverage requirements. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright? MEMBER HORNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: With the deck addition, you would be over 25% of the said lot coverage, is that correct? MR. SALIMONDO: Excuse me? MEMBER TORTORA: With the deck addition that has not been built, that you would like to build, you would be over 25% lot coverage is that correct? MR. SALIMONDO: No, in other words that's, the 8 x 10 deck that it shows I believe is the deck that's already preexisting with the house right now and I don't know if that was actually added in when the 2553 figure present coverage was actually inserted. The pool itself is 576. The 8 x 10 deck is 80 feet and I believe that has already been preapproved, but, I didn't know if that was included in the 2553 figure. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't think so. You're asking for total square footage of 3209, right? Is that right? MR. SALIMONDO: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: That's your calculation, is that right? Just based on what the Building Department had, which was about 31, that would have brought it up to almost 25. That's correct, it would be over 25. MR. SALIMONDO: If the calculations let's say before was 25.1. MEMBER TORTORA: We have several letters in the file of two neighbors who are objecting to this pool. One of them has asked us to reconvene this hearing or postpone it so that they could seek legal counsel because they were not able to be here tonight. Many times in the past we have honored these types of requests to allow a neighbor an opportunity to be heard and I would like to allow the neighbors an opportunity to be heard. That's my personal feelings. It doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the Board agree with me. Page 41 - Hea. ...g Transcripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : I was waiting for this. We were basically going to go through the Board first and I was going to bring this up. I had at least one conversation with this contiguous property owner on the phone the other night. I assume the purpose of his notice is to do exactly what Mrs. Tortora is saying and we normally do grant one request. MR. SALIMONDO: If I may speak Mr. Chairman? As far as the Hellmans I've been in contact with them over the last several days. Their comments basically are surrounding whether or not a fence would be put up so that they could not see the pool and whether or not there would be evergreens there. We gave a letter and assurance as to that Mr. Chairman and indicated to them that of course would be done and it would be done tastefully in compliance with the surrounding area. They indicated that sounded good, they wanted it in writing, which is what we put in. This is the first time I'm hearing other then my conversation early this afternoon they were going to ask for an adjournment. We certainly ( change of tape. ) That we want to comply with the good neighbor policy and we will comply with what their requests are so long as everything is going to be final. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Well, I'll repeat Mr. Horning's question which is why are we looking at a pool that is illegal that was built illegally? I personally am very distressed. I think it reflects an attitude on the part of your pool contractor. Things are slow at Southold Town Hall, forget about it. And, I'm a very troubled by this pool. I think 25% lot coverage is very much beyond what we as a Zoning Board have considered a reasonable variance. Mr. Salimondo you stated, oh well the neighborhood has many cases of lot coverage, you implied, up to 25 or more. But, we certainly haven't seen any evidence of that. Not that I think the evidence would make a big difference to me if it reflected long existing things. Had you come in for this variance, I surely would not have let you have it, absolutely. I guess I don't have questions, I just wanted to get on the record with that. MR. SALIMONDO : Ms. Collins I appreciate that and I understand your concern and we certainly, the home owner certainly is distressed at the fact as to how it happened. We know how home owners feel. If they contracted somebody and the contractor said, we'll take care of it and that's what they go about doing. This home owner himself, he and his wife, are very distressed that they come here in this exact situation. They didn't want to be in this situation. They wanted their pool, and they wanted their permit and they wanted no problems from neighbors and here they have it. So, now they're looking for a way to do that. To be good neighbors, to satisfy the requirements that were put in the community. I don't think it's an unreasonable request. Yes, I'm concerned how the pool builder did it. I cannot speak to what he was thinking his mind said. However, the situation is now a course of ( ) and the whole question is, what will be done by this Board Page 42 - Heap tiag Transcripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals and what is the relief? Is the relief that we seek totally out of line with what this Board can grant? As I indicated across the street at 330 Snug Harbor Road, this Board granted 27.1% variance on a lot coverage. That to my calculation is at least 2% over what we have. And, that's directly across the street: It is done, it has been done, and I would assume that where appropriate this Board will continue to do. I don't think what the Pliaconises are trying to obtain here is totally out of line with the character of the neighborhood, no-one will create any harm, there is a practical difficulty certainly involved with this, one, which you might say is of their own making, but again, I would say that the detriment should not go against the homeowner. Practical difficulty would be now that this pool is built, they will lose a great deal of money if that pool has to be now plowed in and plowed over and of course it is a consideration and it's something that we just want to bring up to the Board's knowledge. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman while I have the floor, I just, this is just an arithmetical point. There was given some give and take between you and Mrs. Tortora about deck. The way I read all of this, there is of course a little deck on the back of the house. That's the 360 sq. ft., in addition to the dwelling size. The pool itself is 16 x 36. As I read the plans, there is an intent to put some kind of an 8 x 10 deck type structure next to the pool. I certainly didn't see it when I was out there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was the purpose of my question Ms. Collins. The point is, that anybody who owns a pool, as I had clearly stated on the, I believe application over by the high school, that the ground has to be completely flat. If it is not, and I don't where that is quite honestly, this happens to be a relatively flat rear yard, but, OK. In some way, in some area, you are going to exceed lot coverage in the installation of something that you're going to put around this pool. Either adjacent to it, or ingress and egress or around it. So, what I was actually doing in a very nice way, was warning the attorney, that I know you're going to increase lot coverage more than what you have at this particular point. MS. COLLINS: It may even be beyond what these calculations show. OK. I mean it's just more of a an already bad situation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We haven't gotten to that issue yet. The issue still is, what kind of greens are we going to plant? Meaning, evergreens, in order to satisfy the rear property. I realize there's a letter here from Mr. Hellman to you, dated April 14th. What size fence are we going to use? Which way is the fence going to be turned, and to what degree are we going to complete the pool process within the fenced area? And, those are all the questions that I basically have for you. I'm not trying to take the wind out of anybody else's sails or anything of that nature at this juncture. But, you know, you can either address them now, or, we can go to Mr. DINIZIO and let him - • Page 43 - Heap -.,.g Transcripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. SALIMONDO: Whatever Mr. Chairman you would like and it's always your pleasure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Go ahead Jim. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I would just like to say to you, that I mean I don't need to know what pool contractor it was, but, certainly I myself personally have been the, at the butt end of that joke before, and you know, I know how it feels to have to come beg now for mercy so to speak. I also, know how it feels, when someone tells you basically that you know, what you've done is wrong and you had no control over it. So, I think that more or less, you know you may be restricted as to what you con put around that pool, as far as a deck is concerned. Perhaps maybe some patio block, or something like that, so when you get out you don't get grass clippings all over it. Expanding it anymore is probably going to be real big. I mean going anymore than 26% if that's how you want to look at this, is going to be probably a problem. But, certainly on a small lot, you know, the houses, you know a nice house, and I see you've got a nice deck there. And, certainly you have a concrete driveway that by all rights, is no different than a swimming pool. You can just take and pace your whole front yard and not ever have to come here and have cover your lot that way. You chose to put a pool in. I think you relied probably upon the contractor that he would do the right thing. And, I mean if you can supply any of his paperwork, that would be kind of a good indication. Also, who was the contractor, was he local? MR. SALIMONDO: No, my understanding it's T. Abraham & Associates, located in Huntington. MEMBER DINIZIO: So they were aware. Did they have a contract with the pool company themselves to build a pool? MR. SALIMONDO: I believe they did. At this time I'll see if the homeowner has that and we can supply a copy of that to you. MEMBER DINIZIO: That may be helpful in finding out just who was responsible to get the building permit. MR. SALIMONDO: Very good. We can supply that too. As a matter of fact, I have the proposal here that was sent if you would like that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. It looks like a fax. MR. SALIMONDO: And it's a fax. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so in addressing the other issues, are you done Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, because we're going to talk about stockade fence. We're going ( ) . Page 44 - Heai-,�Lg Transcripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you going to come back with these issues resolved after - MR. SALIMONDO : If this court is going to adjourn as they indicated and we'll address these issues, we certainly can do it at that time and have a fuller proposal of the landscaping and fencing in order to show that to all of you and then we can address the issue at that time, if you so compel us. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, and you will then transmit that issue to the Hellmans and to the other property owners? MR. SALIMONDO : Yes. I will do that. I believe that the other property owner that sent in a message is an absentee property owner. I believe his concern was noise issues which is interesting because I don't believe his property is actually improved. But, in any event 1 will ask this Board, the Pliaconises are here along with their across the street neighbor, Mr. Duggan, who did apply to this Board for a lot coverage and he did get it. And also, if you would like to hear from him at this time, and if we can then perhaps on the next date, I would come and report the final proposal to this tribunal rather than have them come in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's entirely up to them. MR. SALIMONDO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hi, can you state your name for the record? MR. PLIACONIS: Chris Pliaconis . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR. PLIACONIS: Good, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. PLIACONIS: Well I'd like to say that the surroundings around the pool we don't plan on putting a deck. And, I do plan on doing plantings all around trees and doing a little walkway around the pool area and put the diving pool off the steps. If I have to, I will shorten the deck, the existing deck that was there with the house and I'm also going to redo the deck as well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you may be removing the deck is what you're saying? MR. PLIACONIS: If you would like me to shorten it, I will. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we haven't gotten to that point. MR. PLIACONIS: Right, I mean, if it's a problem that I want to add around the pool area is a patio I'll shorten the deck. Page 45 - Heai Transcripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Only if it's above, you know, mean grade. MR. PLIACONIS: No, it's going to be even with the ground. I did redo the whole front of the yard, so if it's a problem with what kind of landscaping I'm going to do, you can see the job I did in the front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think what you have to do is, you have to pass whatever you intend to do around the pool, to the Building Inspector, to see if he's going to calculate that to be lot coverage or not, so that we have a total composite of lot coverage that we know what we're dealing with. And, that's what I'm concerned about. MR. PLIACONIS: As far as a fence, there already is a fence surrounding the pool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're talking about the privacy fence for the neighbor in the back that a - MR. PLIACONIS: Well I was going to plant arborvitaes all over the back, L shape, so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Whatever you plan on doing, we'd like you to communicate that to the neighbor. In particular Mr. Hellman, and of course the other neighbor too. MR. PLIACONIS: The other neighbor has an unoccupied lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know, but, just send him the same letter with the same proposal so that in any case if they would like to comment between now and the next hearing, you know, that they would be able to comment. Any questions of this applicant? MEMBER DINIZIO: Other than just say that the neighbor that lives in Florida, the one that owns the empty lot - MR. PLIACONIS: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, my opinion, doesn't have much of a case in that she's mostly objecting to the noise coming from the pool in which if you had a ten acre lot, it didn't exceed lot coverage, would have absolutely nothing to do with this application. So, I mean, yes, write to her and tell her what you're going to do. You know, it's real nice to do that. Treat your neighbors nice, but, I think that she, that person needs to know that you know, you're entitled to have a pool. You're problem is not that pool. It's the fact that it's so large. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else? MR. SALIMONDO : Yes, there is one other person here. I don't know if you would like him to speak this evening because ( ) Page 46 - HeaL.Liag Transcripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. We need your affidavit of posting. Good evening sir, how are you? MR. DUGGAN : Fine . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Please state your name for the record. MR. DUGGAN: My name is Joe Duggan. I live at 330 Snug Harbor Road and I've been there since about 1986. Previously Mrs. Fitzmaurice owned the house that the Plianconises own now and Mrs. Fitzmaurice passed away I think probably 1991 and the house has been vacant since then. What happened was her sons and daughters took care of the house and you know, they kept it up pretty much, but, it was really in a deteriorated condition. Mr. Plianconis came in and bought the house and he's done a terrific job landscaping it and put whole new siding on the house and it's really attribute to the neighborhood that he's done this. I'm a contractor myself. I'm an electrical contractor and people rely on me to get a permit before I start working, and I can see how he got tied up in this. I don't think that his attitude was one of disrespect. I think that he just a, he's a business man, he's very much involved in his own business and he relied on somebody else to get the permits. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Thank you for coming in. Mr. Salimondo, you have something else you want to bring up? MR. SALIMONDO: No, that was - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was it, alright, so that's what you're going to do, right? MR. SALIMONDO: Yes we'll do that and bring this before the next Board date. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we're going to set a hearing date. We're not sure if we have an opening on May 14th at this juncture. How does it look? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I would say we do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We do, alright, we are going to put it on. MR. SALIMONDO: That would be May 14th? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we don't know exactly what time but, we'll let you know. MR. SALIMONDO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Anybody else that may not be here at the next hearing? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion recessing the hearing to May 14th. Page 47 - Hea--__g Transcripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. BOARD OF APPEALS : TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -----------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of CAAtsqW PLAA-r-W1S (Name of Applicants) ------------------------------------x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING AND POSTING I, _-C, a) -ii Sr)zA g\jUr.residing at l UA-St+tN6-) PLACP_�) 04-5�t, &�—'- c f77? New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: 1) On the 7— day of 14K l L- , 199,?-, I personally mailed, ' by certified mail, 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 mailed at the United States Post Office to each name below certified mail, return receipt requested attach post office receipts here): Name of Surrounding Property Owner Mailing Address Phco�(C_ e;W 6 tot yP and, 2) On the Q ' day of subject pro erty identified as Dis Block Lot , 1 ten (10) t, or clos r, from ti facing the right-of-way, and ti poster has remained in place for hearing date, which is 'f / 1 x-199 d� I personally posted the rict 1000, Section 3 S , y placing the Town's official poster e property line facing the street or at I have checked to be sure the seven full days prior to the subject Sworn to before me this ( tignature-) of f �ir 199 WNW !o WyPuMle. Ste of Now V%04 N Public No.02BL6002126 M SuHoMt u **Please return to the office of the Board of Appeals (Town Hall hours are 8 - 4 p.m.) Thank you. when completed. § 58-1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING § 58-1 Chapter 58 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING § 58-1. Providing notice of public hearings. (HISTORY: Adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Southold 12-27-1995 as L.L. No. 25-1995. Amendments noted where applicable.] § 58-1. Providing notice of public hearings. Whenever the Code calls for a public hearing, this section shall apply. Upon determining that an application is complete, the board or commission reviewing the same shall fix a time and place for a public hearing thereon. The board or commission reviewing an application shall provide for the giving of notice: A. By causing a notice giving the time, date, place and nature of the hearing to be published in the official newspaper within the period prescribed by law. B. By requiring the applicant to erect the sign provided by the town, which shall be prominently displayed on the premises facing each public or private street which the property involved in the application abuts, giving notice of the application, the nature of the approval sought thereby and the time and place of the public hearing thereon. The sign shall be set back not more than ten (10) feet from the property line. The sign shall be displayed for a period of not less than seven (7) days immediately preceding the date of the public hearing. The applicant or his/her agent shall file an affidavit that s/he has complied with this provision. C. By requiring the applicant to send notice to the owners of record of every property which abuts and every property which is across from any public or private street § 58-1 SOUTHOLD CODE 458-1 from the property included in the application. Such notice shall be made by certified mail, return receipt requested, posted at least seven (7) days prior to the date ;QMM�4 '' hring on the application and the addresses listed for them The applicant or agentshall ruPW/he has complied with this NAMON�r•• sR0IMOiMiw1N1� ro OFFICE OF BOARD OF APPEALS 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 (1-516) 765-1809 tel. (1-516) 765-9064 fax. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- March 27, 1998 Re: ZBA Application Hearing Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 Dear Sir or Madam: For your records, please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice which will be published by our office in the next weekly issue of the L. 1. Traveler newspaper. Under the requirements of Chapter 58 of Town Law, we are requesting that you send a copy of this Notice with a copy of a sketch or map showing the area involved, at this time by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the all surrounding property owners. Please include your name and telephone number with the mailings. The mailings must be postmarked by 4/2 if possible, and be forwarded to all owners, as listed on the Town Assessment records, of vacant or improved lands across streets and along all boundaries of the subject lot. Please also post the enclosed Poster in the location described by Ch. 58 of the Code (that is, within ten (10) feet of the front property line facing the street, for a period of not less than seven days) . The sign may not be posted later than 4 / 9. If the sign is torn or removed due to adverse weather conditions, let us know and we will provide another. The Affidavit of Mailing and Posting, with certified mail receipts (postmarked by the post office) attached should be returned not later than the hearing date. The return receipt green cards should also be returned at the hearing. Page 2 - Instruction L �r Meeting of April 16, 1998 Southold Town Board of Appeals If you have questions, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Enclosures AS400/1nag.98/app1.1n p.ttl. Appl, 1V0, b�bi BOARD OF APPEALS the regi ns pertaining'osuch MATTITUCK PRE (TE:OLK �THURSDAY, buildin Action is requested , RIAN CHURCH. L on o ,RIL 16,1998 for an 7 xetation to,cRfuan Property: 12605 Main ttpad,.r.)RK ss: TILE IS HEREBY that a variance is not requ"A&r Mattituck, NY; Count3&Parcel' GIV Napplicants proposed recon 41000-14,14-32.1. Zone Dis- of the Town Law and the Code struction of an accessory strut- trict: HB Hamlet Business: This being duly sworn, says that of the Town of Southold, the fol- ture. In -the alteznative, a Variance is a request for a Variance based lowing a applications is requesteduriderSection100- nCoordinator, ofthe TRAV- p 242B(1) based upon the Build- u'v1aI m13;B 998iNotice of Diss for public hearings 6y thea public newspaper printed SOUT'HOLD TOWN BOARD ing Inspectpr's November 26, approval, disa provi.n a build OF APPES at the Southo 1997 Notice of Disapproval and pp g alk County; and that the no - existing nonconforin setback ing permit application i�or an ad - Town N,'— 3095 Main Road, location. g. dition'toexistingchurch, .for the annexed is a printed Copy, -Southold, New York 11971, on , 7:10 m. Appl. followinggreasons: "...Under Ar- in said Traveler Watchman THURSDAY APRIL 16 "1998 P pp • No. 4555- title XXIV, Section 100-243, a At e-tune"note ow or as DONALD H. McALLISTER. ( non -conforming building with a r soon thereafter as ossible Location o "Pr( rty: Private p ) • right-of-way ofl the north side of 4on-conforming use cannot be pi p.m.— verHeanrig: East End Road Fishers Island, enlarged, reconstructed orstruc..................••„•.........•••. weeks Appl;; No: ,455Q- RUTH NY; County Parcelhers Island, turally' altered. Note: the non - MILLER. Location of Property: conforming” use pertains to the 640T Lndian'Neck Road, 1• This is a request. for"a Vari-lencing on the .................... ante on t based u he' Buildin � Zone where churches are not Peconic. 1000-86-7=22. p g permitted• the non -conforming '6:35 p:m; App1._No. 4539- Inspectors August 27, 1997 No- building pertains to the existing 19 ....... FRANK LICARI. Location of lice of Disapproval, disapprov- front yard setback to Rt. 25 Property: Lot #30, Map of Ce- ing an application for a permit which is less than the required dar Beach Park, 485 Orchard to alter an existing cottage on the 15 feet.." ..... ••••• Lane, Southold.This is a request following grounds: "...In ani R- - 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4544- for a Waiver -under Article lI, 120 District, a non -conforming MARTIN ROSEN, Contract Section 100-26, based upon the building with a non -conforming- Vendee. (Owner:_ 0. Booker & Building Inspector's September use shall not be enlarged; recon- ano:): Location= -df Property:, e this ........................... day Of 22, 1997 Notice of Disapproval strutted or structurally altered 11780 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, which states: ...... under Article ll, unless the use of such building . . NY County: Parcel # 1000-1.41- ` ................................... ,19....... Section 100-25A,SCTM' Lot is changed to a conforming'use, 344. This is.a request for Vari '#1000-89-2-7 and Lot 89-2-6 Article XXIV Section 100- 243A..." ances,ba$ed upon the Building $ave merged since the noncon- Inspector's February 18, di o forming lots have"been, held in 7:25 l�.m. Appl. No.: 4558- Notice of Disapproval, disa - Q commonownersh at some time JOSEPHL'•ENDOWSKI. Loca- lip •.. .............................. P.. cation to building permit appli- after7uly 1, 1983... under Sec- ttonofProperty;.3060>?arkAv-. cation to Construct a tower, for tary Public tion' 100-25E, no building permit enue, Mattitucjc, NY; County . telecommunications use, for the can be issued by the Town until Parcel #1000-123-8-19. This is following reasons; BARA A. SCHNEIDER this section, has been complied a request, for a Variance based 1) the proposed"telecommu PUBLIC, State of New York with upon the: Building Inspector's nications tower being located on No. 4806846 6:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4554- D. February.27, 1998 Notice of a non -conforming lot in an LI lified in Suffolk C*71//?f LAVEGLIA. Location of Prop- Disapproval, disapproving",..an District isnot permitted accord- mission Expires erty: 3000 Soundview Road, application for a permit to con ing to S,ectian 100-1658; 2) the Mattituck; Parcel .1000-94-2-3. struct a rear deck addition to ' ' proospd tower being the prin- front yard setback 646 -fight ---11 This is a request for a Variance existing singld-ip�iily dwelling cipal use on the lot"is required to of -way. Right_-ofway not, based upon the .following_two on the followinggrotlnds un have have a rear yard setback of 70 use at this time... Building Inspector's Notices of der Article XXIII, S; cri!d �.(t4= feet pursuant to Art. X1V, 100- .-(Note: Pending building per - der regarding an appli-' 239.4B, proposed construetioaat 142; ;3 ,tbe:prep"osed tov�ter.isre _ mit #24629Z issued.Febmary 3, ' Cation for a permit to add eck 49+- feet will be within 7A ,feet quiz x9""ba located at least one- 1998 for a new, 2-stor�r-stngle- and railing on'an accessory of an existing bulkhead ', hundrodtl00)feetfrointhenear family dwelling with rear cov- building: 7:30 p.m. Appl. Na. 45"59- est dwelling unit pursuant to Ar ere porckasapplied for.)- -- - (a) disapproved February 24, CHRISTOPHER PLIACONIS title: XVI; Section 1..00- 8:45 p.m. RESOLUTION: To 1998 under Article III, Section Location of Property: 345 Snug 16?G.3 :!' close remaining (written) portion 100-33A because "`...accessory Harbor Road,,Greenport, L00G;.p;m, Apph . -� z.. of record in the Matter of Appl. building will exceei hiaxinrum 35.6-7. This isi �Vai?ar} qj� T„� ROBERT KASS E No. 4068- ELEANOR allowable height of 18 feet_..;” quest based o Pro SIEVERNICH. Loca^tion and W1AP t` & Y l& I 145 Teep Pro e 3200 CozNeckRoad, f , Inspector's J ,�J9. N _ Southold,- IA00-87-2-32; Fjiis P• rtY (b) dis�pproved'J+.� ph 6, tice of Disappr ,`�iis pp oQ�-''`l a request for a Variance b Matteia; 1000-113-8-5. 1998 under Article'IIT,"Section ing a building pe_muf-,f , pf6- upon -the:Building Inspec_ The Board ofAppealswill atsaid ' 100-33B:3 because ". Scce'ssory posed accessoryswim�m' 01 Nlar�ji .1.7 "1998; Notice of I�ig=�+ �e and place hear any an all per - building 'oii'lots-'containin be- ' structure in the rear �� ' sons or resentatives desiring to gg Y , a, foz, :appraual, disapproyttrg a butler reP g tween39,99979 9990 sq:: 3,.re-: the,.follow}i x p !, ' der in permit appltgation for"a'1 be heard in the aboveapplicationor quire such:huilding be setback :Article III�Q,$ectionQ ='OA.3 10x16' shed for the folIowmg`1 deSgtomitwnttettsiatements no less than 10-feet.from any lot of the Bulk and Parking Sated- reason- proposed accessory. shc& before the end ofeachhearing The Line: Staircaseof3 ft:+ -will now ole in therR.W �etf.Proposed being located onanori-confQr 3 heanngwillnotstartearlierthandes- be within 9+: feet of the rear lot : - construction -will exceed~thc-al- - ing lot in an R40 Zone JS req ignated The file is available for re- 44Y e- - lowable. 20°� lot coverage. The to be located in the rear yard 'view during Towm Hall business 6:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4556- lot area is "12,780+= sq: ft.; at IIIA; Section.100-30A.4 furthe : = *: hours (8-4 p.m.). Ifyou have ques- THOMAS KEAN. Location of 20% the allowable area would be referred to Art. Ill', 100-33 ? ;3 tions, please do not hesitate to call Property: East End Road, Fish- 2,556 s9riare feet. Present cov- 8:20 p.m.: Appl.. No.: 4540, 765-1809. ers Island, NY; County Parcel ID erage with dwelling and deck is MELISSA SPIRO AND OTH, ,_ Dated: March 30,1998.*.' 0,1998: . 10004-3-10. This is arequest for 2,553 sq. ft. Swimming pool, as ERS. Location ofPro e 34641BY ORDEROFTHE a Variance basedu on the Build- Proposed, is 568 sq, ft., bringing Property: SOUTHOLD TOWN ing Inspector's November 10, total lot coverage at 3,121 sq;.ft: Glenwood Road and 295 East BOARD OF APPEALS- or approximately 24.4+ -,,per- Road, Cutchogue; 1000-110-6-5 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, p 1997 Notice of Disapproval, - and 11.2 Continuation ofHear- Chairman _. which states: "...application for Ce 7.35 p.m. Appl. No. 4560- ing held Febl ar ' J998. This By: Linda Kowalski a permit to construct addition to ROBERT AND ANN SHANK. is a Waiver request under the 1X-4/2/98(89) an .existing non -conforming merger law, Article II, Section -"- -� ---`� guest cottageds disappproved on Location of -Property: 820 100-25 for 1000-110-6-51 which ' thefollowin outil:Anexist- Fisherman's Beach Road g $r consists of approx. one-half. . ing building with anon-confoml- Cutchogue.f1000-111-1-19.1... acre. ing use shall not be enlarged, ` al- This is a request fora Variance tired, extended, reconstructed based upon` the Building ` `8.25 p m. Appl. No. 4563- Ins ector's March 10 1998 No NANCY REEVE. Location of X restored.... pursuant to Article P Property: 2055 Cam ; Mineola; " XXIV, Section 100-241A..." lice of Disapproval, disapprotr- pp 6:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4557- ing a building permit for an ad- Road, Mattituck;_1..00 123 6-1`' DOROTHY THOET. Location moon to existing dwelling for the This is a request to continue con following -reasons: "...1)Thepro, structioxJ6 the "as"built" loca Property: 380 Peconic Bay pow construction being 1 t? ata foundation. for a hew' '' Boulevard, Laurel, NY; County g. located st le=famil ' dwelling Parcel #1000-145-2-3. This is a on,a non -conforming lot ;of' g under a rox. 5,000 :sq. ft. (land above Bur ding Permit 24629Z issuedft. request for an Interpretation un- ordinary ighwater mark) in an 2/3%98, and Variance based uporup, der Article XXIV, Section 100- R-40 Zone will, the 20% BuiJdingg'Inspector'sMarch 17 242A which reads as'follows: - 199$ ;Notice of _Disapproval "Nothing in this Article shall be, " Pp approx. 700 sqle lot c ft eE stiny M which,denied' an application to Seemed to prevent the remodel- square foota e of 1287 with ad .. construct a new single family ink„ reconstruction or enlarge- dt ion:=" 19 ,g ft_.PursuantSo_ ;dwellitig'for the following rea meritofanonconfoimin build- Art. XXIV 10 -244B. 2 5ons-Under Article XXIV; 100- ing containing aconformiing use, ) PAO,, h 244B, for�non-conformin lots, . irovided that such action does Posed construction encroaches' ` tot Create any new nonconfor- on the allowable front yard.set- the existing foundation at 33 feet •9 inches does not meet the mini. back of 35' pursuant to Art.. MUM requirement of 40 feet for UQt�anCE - LoT�DUI�A,AGE P�reenlrpGF i NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held b the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall 530 y • 95 Main Road, Southold, New York, concerning this property. OWNER(S) OF RECORD: CRzjsToP#&e pklacufiS DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: urs. ;ajk I4 1"7 7:30 P� If you 'Rave an interest in thisro'ect you are invited - p 1 � Y ted to view the Town file(s) which are available for inspection prior to the day of the hearing durin normal BOARD OF APPEALS •TOWN OF SOUTHOLD e (516) 765-1809 A f) - . n. 11 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk DATED: March 17, 1998 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 4559 - Christopher Pliaconis Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 4559 - CHRISTOPHER PLIACONIS for a variance. Also included is: Notice of Disapproval, dated January 30, 1998; lot coverage calculations by applicant; letter of authorization; ZBA Questionnaire; Transactional Disclosure Form; and survey. REASONS FOR Do [tot use t exception." AREA VARIANCE ese standards (Also attach ONLY(to be completed by applicant): for "use variance" or "special sheets if necessary, with signatures.) 1. An undesirable change will NOT be produced .in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if granted BECAUSE: Dwellings in the immediate vicinity have accessories which exceed the required lot coverage requirements. The pool will be properly fenced to Town Code and aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance BECAUSE: The dwelling has an existing deck which puts the dwelling near the lot coverage saturation limit. The placement of the pool, which is now existing, can only exceed the lot limit. 3. 'rhe amount of relief requested is riot substantial BECAUSE Other dwellings in the area have accessories which cause them to exceed the lot saturation. t on the 4. The variance will N�T have an conditionsinadverse effect theneighborhoodcor district physical BECAUSE The pool will be properly fenced to Town Code, professionally constructed and maintained, and aesthetically pleasing. The pool will not damage the enviornment in any respect. 5. Lias the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( x) Yes. ( ) No. 6. This is the minimum that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. The health, safety, welfare and character of the Community will be maintained. S'PA'TE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Sworn to before me this (ApN icant Y Agent must attach written consent from owner. (3 day of Notar Public AUDREY BLOOM Nowy Public, State of New York t:ctlk/ form.var/temp No.02BL6002125 salified in Suffolko a Commission Expires FEB 18 '98 0954 SOUTH( i TOWN ACCOU�NTI�NG, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 10[.D, N_Y_ Post it° Fax Note 7671 Dawes jjp�f' pages► YorS. eL F1O1" 'JCG d CoJOW. Go. Z Phone N Phone p Fax it a /_ —7 . Fax p 5- _ ' a to Dt$AFFROVAL ................ Huntington, New York 11743 DATE: ..January 30, J99f--- October 29 PLEASE TALC£ NOTICE that your application dated _.___ ..... 19: .._ for permit to build accy._I/G swia..pool.in.rear yard of_single fam; dwelling . ac .. ... .. .. .. .. Location of. Property ...fit?... _ S9ug.VfT09r,R9ad ... Gregnport,,,, House No. Street Hamlet County' Tax Map No. 1000 - Sectiao ..M ...... xLOCK ... 6.. - - - - LOT .... 7..... - -'i Subdivision piled Map No. ... ,....Lot No. ..... Ii is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds .Under ........ .e. IIIA' Section 100-30A.3 .of the Bulk and Parkin Schedule in the .R-40 Zone: ..Proposed construction will exceed the allowable 20Z lot coverage. The lot area is 12.7801 ........ ........... -----•..........................................---...�... square feet; at 2OZ the allowable area would be .2,556 square. feet_ Present cove age with dwelling and deck is 2,553 square feet. Swi®ing pool, as presented, is .............................. ............. ................. 568 ,square feet, bringing. total, lot. coverage to. 3,121 square feet, or, approximate y . .Z4 A - X t�.................................................... ..................��... Action required by Zoning Board of Appeals. .........................................................�...................1;.... ................................................................................ ... ................ .................................... ............................. ... f ............................................................. ........ a�. BUILDING INSPECTO II RV 1/80 C 1 f co f*Z kAi' +4'�,r+• •, ..x. ,I "n�tlti h'�;',tl.:•�,•'%r �, j1:.�0 ,,f�1.-"'.. iN�.�. Vit:`.<i�,:�. y. .� t.. .i.'. '•l' '•�:; ;;.' +''`'��•ift'' S �:�;�?`'�y;+�!dr?..; It ,..�_ ,.� , rpt ', .` O «r.> j'' :� ,�;. • •,. ,rte", ��'E .!{�¢i •i .+!ir: +.V -" ��, .'!• � :!,' fp .:h'f!�,�{t�'►��i? , - ', 011 �44 g2 Q CJ d• •�! -' it (gip �..'�q'� ' /�7 c� 11 104 44 4, vk . o � o 00 N Lit-J)C UQ el) C m Zy -D~ � 7 Ln kAi' +4'�,r+• •, ..x. ,I "n�tlti h'�;',tl.:•�,•'%r �, j1:.�0 ,,f�1.-"'.. iN�.�. Vit:`.<i�,:�. y. .� t.. .i.'. '•l' '•�:; ;;.' +''`'��•ift'' S �:�;�?`'�y;+�!dr?..; It ,..�_ ,.� , rpt ', .` O «r.> j'' :� ,�;. • •,. ,rte", ��'E .!{�¢i •i .+!ir: +.V -" ��, .'!• � :!,' fp .:h'f!�,�{t�'►��i? , - ', 011 �44 g2 Q CJ d• •�! -' it (gip �..'�q'� ' /�7 c� 11 104 44 4, u,,, .�Y i' '/V'y�+r9d` 1 F.;t: ',i , •i:'r.. .tS••' t. ,. S:'t •l,• •„ °i ' 4 �' <1t,'' i!F.S� P. 1 a• t,Y j''w.`` f'..t' . -,, , t'.' �!; ,:s tom•,'.'• -. E'j:., .:):. •'i(; ,/ •i Jib`t.S%t:'.r�i�O�.>�•.'e1�i.kGifR4��jfS`�tL�'�4��.� w ?�'f. iifYAO�'l�':t%: I' : �I; . _GRAPHIC_SCAU vk u,,, .�Y i' '/V'y�+r9d` 1 F.;t: ',i , •i:'r.. .tS••' t. ,. S:'t •l,• •„ °i ' 4 �' <1t,'' i!F.S� P. 1 a• t,Y j''w.`` f'..t' . -,, , t'.' �!; ,:s tom•,'.'• -. E'j:., .:):. •'i(; ,/ •i Jib`t.S%t:'.r�i�O�.>�•.'e1�i.kGifR4��jfS`�tL�'�4��.� w ?�'f. iifYAO�'l�':t%: I' : �I; . _GRAPHIC_SCAU �' Ott • C � :11 March 11, 1998 To Whom It May Concern: I Christopher Pliaconis, authorize Scott J. Solimando to represent me at the Zoning Board of Appeals of Southhold, New York. Sincerely, Christopher Pliaconis QUESTT_CNITAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION A. Please disclose the names of Ithe owner(s) and any other individuals (and entities) having a financial interest in the subject premises and a description of their interests: (Separate sheet may be attached.) CHRISTOPHER PLIACONIS OKNER B. Is the subject premises listed on the' real estate market nor = saleor being shown to prospective buyers? { } Yes {X } No. (1f Yes, nl attach copy of "conditions" of sale.) C. Are there any 7roposals to change yr alter lznd ccutcuzs? { } Yes (XI No D. 1. Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? NO 2. Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted with this application? N/A 3. Is the property bulkh ae ea d between the wetlands area and the upland building area? _UZ 4. If your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have You contacted the Office of the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? N/A E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? Mn (If not applicable, state "N.A.") F. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences which exist and are not shown an the survey map that you are submitting? NO If none exist,please state "none." G. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? yam- If yes, please submit.a copy Of your building permit and map as approved by the Buildi:g Department. If none, please state. NONE H. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? �_ If yes, please explain where or submit copies of deeds. I. Please list present use or operations conduced at this parcel Back Yard of Home and proposed use S� �tk t�PDate 3/87. tnlan,,_ § 97-13 WETLANDS _ § 97-13 TOWN —. The Town of Southold. ' TRUSTEES — The Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. (Added 6-b-84 by L.L. No. 6-19841 c l YDS (Amended 8-26-76 by L.L. No. 2-1976: 3-25- 85 by L -L Na 6-1985k A. i LDAL WETLANDS: (1) All lands generally covered or intermittently cov- ered with, or which border on. tidal waters, or lands lying beneath tidal waters. which at mean low tide are covered by tidal waters to a maximum depth of five (5) feet, including but not limited to banks. bogs. salt marsh. swamps. meadows, flats or other low lying lands subject to tidal action: (2) all banks. bogs. meadows. flats and tidal marsh subject to such tides and upon which grows or may grow some or any of the following_ salt hay. black grass, saltworts. sea lavender, tall cordgram high bush. cattails, groundsel. marshmallow and low march cordzmss;=WDr (3) All Land immediately adjacent to a tidal wetland as defined in Subsection A(2) and lying within seven- ty-five (75) feet landward of the most landward edge of such a tidal wetland. B. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: (1) "Freshwater wetlands" as defined in Article 24- Ti- tle 1. § 2.3-0107. Subdivisions 1(a) to 1(d) inclusive. of the Environmental Conservation Law of the State of New York: and (2) All land immediately adjacent to a "freshwater wet- land " as defined in Subsection 8(1) and lying with- in seventy-five (75) feet landward of the most land- ward edge of a "freshwater wetland." APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM he Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts nterest on the part of town officers and employees. The urpose of this form is to provide information which can lent the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow t to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOUR NAME: PT.TArONTS C IRISTOPHER (Last name, first name, middle initial, unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person's or company's name.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Variance x Change of zone Approval of plat Exemption from plat or official map Other (If "Other," name the activity.) Do you personally (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "nusiness interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares.. YES NO X If you answered "YES," complete the balance of this Eorm and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a noncorporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director, partner, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONS111P Submitted this _day of M-4099 S i g n a t u r4V E P r i n t n a me S06LT9- Sftu 0119cu ES G*(y �Clf}CcoV I S (3)Fountetn Gress • 4" HIGH 81_ACK VINYL CHAR LINK FENrE TO GODS 5C ALE 1'-10'-0•