Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4836 I /1)07--/ /15, ,EticL-Es • /De 41,5 5-omen rl1�E J Mw%iiJck �' 104 5 'tAs Ago/CT " .'4ith 6725.&y FXceE>S d_ gia p,70.7• 44A- i//fhl ,Vss �ou.c/s C'4C's Yom.¢ /4. /06 675".0'3 !G//ffsT /i97?/TLGcfe V7 Pao"1" �C� _Ln/STieacTio-V - 24-to � n63G - t4 74re" 45€x74 tc eF,7, PCB. ei l- c97/O7l� - 7'4c/71_14V/An/ f_93 4 /: 4/ 7/t/mo „LNTEritAt ',r:4Tie.J of Aknec ,rJ,s9"sesvi}1S ,c 7-446- A.3990--- .%Asee-ec E .moo k/ ..vis Bio/� I '''_N ..ii� APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS I "''"'FOtt OG>; Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman r = '* 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. y Z P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora Pr, Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins N.%� �c? ,d ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 George Horning : / 4i ,#' Telephone (631) 765-1809 'ea-, .s~ BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 2000 Appl. No. 4836 -VIVIAN KOCH STREET & LOCATION: 675 Summit Drive, Mattituck 1000-106-1-47 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: July 6, 2000 Findings of Fact PROPERTY FACTS: Appellants Karl and Vivian Koch own the property immediately to the west of the subject property, which is owned by C. & J. Meskouris ("Meskouris"). The Meskouris property is a vacant parcel of 24,808.8 sq. ft., measuring 102 feet on Summit Drive on the south, 100 feet along the northerly property line, 236.7 feet on the west side and 252 feet on the east. The easterly property line lies on the midline of a 15-foot right-of- way, and a 25-foot right-of-way lies across the northerly part of the property, entirely within the northerly property line. BASIS OF APPEAL: Appellants are appealing a Notice of Disapproval, dated June 9, 2000, issued by the Building Inspector to Meskouris, denying a building permit for a proposed house on the subject property as follows: "Proposed construction on nonconforming lot not permitted pursuant to Article XXIV Section 100-244B which requires a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, subject lot has a right of way across property on easterly boundary creating front yard on that frontage. Setback on that frontage proposed at +/- 12 1/2 (twelve and one half) feet from boundary of right of way, 20 (twenty)feet from property line." RELIEF REQUESTED: The appeal claims that the Building Inspector failed to fully identify the proposed project's noncompliance with the Code's setback requirements. The appeal: (1) Claims that the northerly yard is not a front yard, and asks this Board to interpret the Code section 100-13 definition of "Yard, Front." (2) Claims that the Building Inspector incorrectly applied Code section 100-230A to authorize the proposed northerly setback, and asks this Board to interpret Code section 100-230A. (3) Claims that the northerly setback should be measured from the right-of-way line, and asks this Board to interpret the Code section 100-13 definition of "Right-of-Way Lines." MATTERS NOT ADDRESSED (1) The appeal asks that the Building Inspector require elevations of the proposed project, in order to determine compliance with Code restrictions on building height, and asks this Board to interpret the Code section 100-13 definition of "Height of Building." The Page 2 -August 10, 2000 ZBA Appl. No. 4836-V. Koch Parcel 1000-106-1-47 Meskouris Meskouris' building permit application specified only a building footprint, and the Building Inspector was willing to act on that application. The question of building height cannot be addressed until full plans are submitted to the Building Department. (2) The appeal suggests that the Building Inspector, in reviewing the proposed project, relied on an exception recently added to the Code definition of "Yard, Front" and asks this Board to interpret that exception. No evidence of such reliance was introduced and there is no need for this Board to interpret the exception. (3) The appeal claims that a reasonable house can be built on the subject property without the need for variances. This claim is not a proper one for this appeal. It was properly made by appellants at the hearings before this Board on the easterly setback variance requested by Meskouris (Appeal No. 4818). RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CODE The provisions of the Zoning Code relevant to this appeal are set forth below. Definitions found in Section 100-13: "Right-of-Wav Lines" — The boundary lines of land used or intended for use as streets, as shown on deeds, plats or the Master Plan, and from which yard and other requirements shall be measured. "Yard, Front" — An unoccupied ground area open to the sky between the street line, or between the street line established by the Official Map of the town or an approved subdivision plat, and a line drawn parallel thereto. Except, if the owner of the lot does not have the right to use or travel over a bordering street, right-of-way or street line, the side of the lot bordering that particular street, right-of-way or street line shall not be considered to be a front yard, and any accessory structure placed in such yard shall comply with the applicable side yard setbacks for the zoning district within which it is located. "Street" — A street, improved to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, which is one of the following: 1. An existing town, county or state highway or street. 2. A street shown on an approved subdivision final plat. 3. A street shown on a map filed with the County Clerk (in accordance with section 280-a of the Town Law) prior to Planning Board authorization to review subdivisions. 4. A street shown on the Town Official Map. "Street Line" —The dividing line between a lot and a street. Page 3 -August 10, 2000 ZBA Appl. No. 4836- V. Koch Parcel 1000-106-1-47 Meskouris Section 100-230. Exceptions and Modifications. A. Established front yard setback. Where property in the vicinity is improved with principal buildings with front yards of less than that required by the provisions of this chapter, the front yard setback shall be the average setback of the existing buildings within 300 feet of the proposed building on the same side of the street within the same use district. REASONS FOR BOARD RESOLUTION SET FORTH BELOW: On the basis of testimony presented and materials submitted, the Board makes the following findings: (1) The Notice of Disapproval, and the testimony of the Head of the Building Department at the hearing on July 6, 2000, indicate that the Building Department considers the easterly and northerly yards on the subject property to be front yards because each faces a right-of-way. The Board disagrees. The Code definition of "Yard, Front," set forth above, makes no reference to a right-of-way. It defines a front yard in terms of a "street," and the Code definition of "Street," set forth above, makes no reference to a right-of-way. The rights-of-way on the subject property do not meet the Code definition of "Street." Thus, the easterly and northerly yards are not front yards. (2) The Head of the Building Department testified at the hearing on July 6, 2000 that the northerly setback of the house immediately west of the subject property is 51.2 feet from the property line and 26.2 feet from a right-of-way across that property shown on a survey by Young & Young dated October 7, 1983. The Building Inspector concluded that under Code Section 100-230A, the setback of that house could be used to determine the required northerly setback on the subject property, with the result that the proposed setback was found in compliance with the Code. The Board disagrees. The setback exception in Code section 100-230A, set forth above, requires more than one neighboring building: it refers to the presence of "principal buildings with front yards of less than that required" by the Code. Section 100-230A cannot be applied to determine the setback of a proposed building when there is only one improved property "within 300 feet ... on the same side of the street." Moreover, as stated above, this Board has determined that the northerly yard of the subject property is not a front yard. Therefore, Code Section 100-230A would not apply in any event, because it is expressly limited to front yard setbacks. (3) The Head of the Building Department stated in a memo of June 9, 2000 to this Board that "the Department has, as past practice, been measuring the yard requirements from right of ways by using the property boundary as a point of reference. It has been determined that pursuant to the definition of "right-of-way lines" in Section 100-13 of Southold Town [Code], that this measurement must be taken from the boundary of the right of way." The Board agrees with this conclusion. The definition of "Right-of-Way Lines," set forth above, clearly requires that yards be measured from rights-of-way, where they exist. Page 4 - August 10, 2000 ZBA Appl. No. 4836-V. Koch Parcel 1000-106-1-47 Meskouris RESOLUTION: On motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Collins, it was RESOLVED: (1) That the presence of a right-of-way across or bordering a property does not result in the facing yard being a front yard unless the right-of-way satisfies the Code definition of "Street." (2) That Code Section 100-230A may not be applied to determine the required front yard setback of a proposed structure when there is only one principal building within 300 feet on the same side of the street in the same use district. (3) That in accordance with the Code definition of "Right-of-Way Lines," a setback is to be measured from a right-of-way, where one exists. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS TORTORA, COLLINS AND HORNING. (Member Dinizio was absent due to illness.) NAY: EMBER GOEHRINGER (CHAIRMAN). THIS RESOLUTION WAS DULY ADOPTED . ariee, / pproved for Filing RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SO THOLD TOWN CLERK De3rjedaveitea Ton.n (= rk -cuthold NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2000 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Cha•ter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold,the following application will be held for public hearth. by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hail, 53095 Main Road, Southold, N=w York 11971, on THURSDAY, MAY 4 2000 at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter is possi. e): 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4814 - CHRIS AND JAMES MESKOURIS. Applicants r=•uest a Variance appealing the decision of the Building Inspector in an April 5, 2000 Notice of Disapp •val (as re-worded); which states: (1) proposed construction on non-conforming lot is not permitt-• under Article XXIV,>;Section 100-244B which requires a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, s •jest lot has right-of-way across property on easterly boundary creating front yard on that frontage, • oposed setback on that frontage is less than forty foot minimum required by Code. Setback on that rontage proposed at twenty (20)feet; and (2) pursuant to Article IIIA, Section 100-30A accessory us:(s) shall be located in required rear yard; proposed accessory swimming pool located in front and on northeastern side of proposed dwelling. Location of Property 675 Summit Dr, Mattituck, N ; Parcel No, 1000-106-1-47. The Bgard of Appeals will at the above time and place hear all persons or their r-presentative desiring to be heard or to submit written statements (before the hearing is concluded). The h=aring will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regular Town Halt busine.s hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 785-1809. Dated: April 21,2000. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY,JULY 6, 2000 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of.the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following application will be held for public hearing by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY,JULY 6, 2000 at the time noted below(or as soon thereafter is possible): 7:40 p.m. AppI. No. 4836 - VIVIAN-KOCH. This is a request,for an Interpretation of the Zoning Code, Section 100-13, regarding the setback(s) referred to in the Building Department's May 9, 2000 Notice of Disapproval, amended June 9, 2000, The June 9, 2000 Amended Notice of Disapproval reads as follows: Proposed (dwelling) construction on non-conforming lot not permitted pursuant to Article XXIV, Section 100-2446 which, requires a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, subject lot has right-of-way across property on easterly boundary creating front yard on that frontage. Location of Property 675 Summit Drive, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-106-1-47. The Board of Appeals will at the above time and place hear all persons or their representative desiring to be heard or to submit written statements (before this hearing is concluded). The hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated:—June-9-5y2080. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, N.Y. AMENDED - NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE; June 9, 2000 TO Christine Rivera A/C Meskouris 250 Sound Beach Dr Mattituck NY 11952 Please take notice that your application dated March 24, 2000 For permit for one family dwelling at Location of property 675 Summit Drive Mattituck . County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 106 Block 1 Lot 47 Subdivision Filed Map # Lot# Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds proposed construction on non conforming lot not permitted pursuant to Article XXIV Section 100- 244B which requires a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, subject lot has right of way across property on easterly boundary creating front yard on that frontage, Setback on that frontage proposed at+/- 12 1/2 (twelve and one half)feet from boundary of right of wav, 20 (twenty) feet from property line. —Authorized g ature sd S , Y s ^ a -_ 'P .1 • MAY II 9 ep ../1 4: i1. o-@;y._ ,r Gtr=r ""I Pi nr- r, Vs., TOWN OF SOl1TIIOLD, NEWT. YORK > a 4 f+t*E,\L (ROM's DECISION OF D:UIL[?tNG INSPECTOR 3APPEAL NO. ,3 yG a DATE . ,�Sre Fs .. { t) t ,ro)""t+ftY ONrSr-".;O®IRD .or APPEALS, TOWN Of; SOUTNOID N Y - yr e ,I,(We) a 'y ` +ivian:`Kohh SCR7.hXY. i r s44''‘&142,t441.2. torr ofAppellant Street and Number 14attrtur ra i ' 4" . i 'a v �r HEREBY APPE!}i TO a 'h' unicipality Stora 5a P{� _, -„,;1'UE ZOfi�lING. BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE' "BUILDING INSPECFOR ON x * t APPLICATIOl,t FOR PERMIT' NO. DATED pi! r # ISI tJr � �v r «,. , e `t) ,IxLD�tfi6 INSPECTOR DENII" T) to k ,� "Y Y • , Y , Chris and James Meskouris I' i , r $ �a �'/ ti'2 .4. t4. a....M i i i,, "'�'y ` Nome of Applicant for permit I.- ."n" j �. aF ASO S�..9Tan ch,•.. Mat tl tuck ' « r� e !; ;.,4-11.4la , ”` r St' et and Number Municipality . State j 5 u p T dOf3OCCUPANCY 5, tlx:^ 7"Krs r,a"�' . '£ 675 Summit Drive Mattrtucl; ! ', , i ' '' � RTY,;, NY (R 40) i rf' i + Street /IIam'le 'Se District' on Zoning Map I: ntct 1000 Sec.tto� lo€Slackl Lot 47 i, kir RYtTMi�i`-.c bi'^ '" M 't''''''' >. Current Owner Toe akouris pp !'` •Lot No ) ',14,11-(1,,tkr � ,y J ,� �.��� I � €., Prior Ortaer. � — ? U t a a 3IEI'2ONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section; Sub- �VI X' tpn.atldmrJrPr>5 a.9r l,e Zoning Ordinance f,y.number. Do not quote the Ordinance. .�'.'s °� � ax� ibkt 100-24,4B and 100-13 defenitions. of set backs _ , 1 Y yyu `: r'g 3 TYT' .F��AL Appeal Is mods herewith tor (please check appropriate betx) ' x' a 43 rt ,: 4,744A«,VARIANCEwhe;Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map j , '� 3 . �' �`�� ai e t =lack of access (State of Y^iew�York Town Law Chap. 62 tons; Laws `l ,4 t r� i lib e ® ' .'Subsect ion.3 t a.,-, y,S z z ' rs l' il'', * ?G' +"' , -.f,:defenit ons • 3 t, ,i `�a . " I s t llek t 1'' �4,y.�Rrth ms. appeal (hos) S23N1C7[3[iC) been mode with respect to this decision "`t :� =IF' j {}.e�Building I'nspgc t or'.with respect lo this property, : aI � • yo- , } , ! i.npoi 4 7 $4es1 for a special permit y • t , 7. "fit vl s 'x' r 1°� 1772'4 nest for a variance Notice of disapproval dated.April Sr 2000 and May 9,20,;. i d .p�1d,wwas.mndd e i "Appeale hlo. Doted d: !":+ ,�," 1 `EASCY•lliAR9APPEAL asla; a r =r { , AV arryt?o�n'ce tv Section 230A Subsection 3 'izit' -rn i t ''` ;r't" „, 9E�r^+ 4"�. ditTR'e"Zoning Ordinon<e 'It ,$ s ��;_ ) Y .f;#drag proval inadequate: I. The survey submitted by owner incorrectly :::'..,;,1';' ;,:-% �' 'r .r*s' � =� $ 1,3FIfi�apnd app 1'cable variances ,� ry ,, ' �`" �i a ° a4ct bed from the northerly..right-of-wag and easterly right-of^ways lith r''.'11,'4i cr.r bit 'fn50 feet standard se far to northerly right-of-way Ir -�� ;,14, ulred. and standards ,1.. �,��� �� � :�� for varainee not met. o- "�' ti, :` '�`„ on is required to deperm'-ne ifcla height.variance will. be required and r� ,, s 01 C�+ .7i _ sad e the (Crn,e nt of othr.r sloe) AY 2 r ' < rade. : The property contains fill and the grade oP.the property ,c1,11,2:11.,r PJ s r• air 4,T:'4S'�" k - • i. uke= for the placement the house. p 4 �P=b..,1"1.i. r' 3 � Yr t�"s� W. ter", v' 41 P ssl ,,.. a MOWN OF. SOIUTIIOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL PROM DECISION OF BUILDING. INSPECTOR AP ) � liJ� F I( r , D � ...4Ytq J4 PO f 1 lE ZONA IG BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y, I, I 1,0 Vivian Koch 1, (We) of ... �� Sumi DC Yq .� Name of Appellant Street and Number Mattituck NY T HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State TI IE 7.ONIhNG BOARD or APPEALS FROM Tl IE DECISION OF TME BUILDING IhISPEC'i'OR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO, DATED WHEREBY Ti IE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Chris and James Meskouris Name of Applicant for permit of 250 Sound Beach, Mattituck NY Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY y ( x) Building Permit PrepnCetre J/ideD I LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY 675 Summit Drive'' Mattituck NY (R-40) Street /I(aiidet / Use District on Zoning Map District 1000 Section IO6Blockl Lot 47 Current owner Meskouris Mop No. Lot No. Prior Owner 2. PROVISION (5) OF TI-IE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article XX1V Section 100-244B and 100-13 defenitions of set backs Article XXIII Section 100-230 'Yard, Front""Ri ht of-way""Hei ht of Buildings g n a: TYPE OF APPEAL Appealis made herewith for (please check approprtare box) (X ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 (_X) Interpretation of defenitions and Southold Town Code 100-230 and Application of 100-244 B 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (hos) (14MKXlttt) 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.. • 'mune. 9, 20Qo, ( X) request for a variance Notice of. disapproval .dated last amended and was mode in Appeal No. Dated Y REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) Notice of disapproval inadequate I. The survey submitted by owner incorrectly tt torn carca-i6ri rWe 4(:8 -PknoPnd applicable variances. necessary from Northerly property line: Article XXIII Section 100-230 has been incorrectly applied to the subject property Article XXIV Section 100-244 B. setback must be applied to Northerly property line Article I Section 100-13 interpretation of definitions � � �k:TLE NO' 8308 -087809 it 1 \ Lot // t : I N.52°00'0 'E. /OO.QO .a IIo.5 EL•lo2.o 2j Right of Way 1I -- - -- w. _F. - - - - -- - -- - - -- a 0) I N. d.l \'e, 11 ` N \ I, io3.4, I'• 55.o ,q 1 Ca 9,3_ ,O• B , „o �O C G 8 C Lot /2 Lot /I'7 s6 ct N9 404 Sro G4..4... Ib_8 94.9 12:5' S€ ��'Y <.. 9 ecs Q (••• III/ •0' \b 24,5` _ • CI a8 '' y N. ,O 5,T. ( 910,4, 90 7 &9.S 0 ArE' b = 21,q27 .ft. co / c,p, // niW 0 90,1 pato bo.-6 .O O • CO / 81.5 79 6 78,6 S, •000 O ao . �P ooh Sky ��T •ADS6 p/• per-• 300E •'12.0 \�, - a\Y • ss1396 o w $e*" ' 3z • L=17890 4SC '71,I oVete 8,, 69' DR/ E R=150. • SUFFOLK COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT SURVEY FOR 2_�p, GEORGE DEMETROULES OCT. 7 f963 411P12-6-498-4--- H= REE' PART OF LOT NO. // , CAPTAIN K/DD ESTATES avR. /a, /9es DATE AT,444 in • DATE, FEB. 23, /983 The 3 been TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCALE: / " = 30' fac^ry a found SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK NO. 83 - 89 . J n-? I' jjF° � ff ��'� 6(a/,'�II F%I MAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS GUARANTEED TO LC Iba .. ' - (J�L/.HL ,,,5\ 07.4:,,,_...4: -A NEW A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE n Sn08Pln1 NEW YORK STATE'EWCAT90N LAW -.. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO.. C:110t' UY (i9-I` ' 1 "�' N COPIES OF THIS SURVEY NOT BEARING THE LAND 'SOUTHOLD SAVINGS BANK c rviCe9 SURVEYOR'S INKED SEAL OR EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY KGUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO - S''(E OF Nf(y HEALTH DEPARTMENT-DATA FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT THE.PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED 5 yo. AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY,GOVERN-- QLD I1; .p K NEAREST WATER MAIN MI.! *SOURCE OF WATER: PRIMITE_PUBLIC Z,. MENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED .j1 Oce '(' N SUFF CO. TAX MAP DIST IOoOSECTION 1o[ BLOCK nI LOT 42.2 HEREON,AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING .zO )• NTHERE ARE NO DWELLINGS WITHIN 100 FEET`OF THIS PROPERTY INSTITUTION.GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE Ki OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON. TO ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUBSEQUENT ' I .I?h.. 4T N THE WATER SUPPLY AM SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM FOR THIS RESIDENCE OWNERS ff Nit A "di' KDI STANCES.:T:UC HEREOARE FOR PROPERTY CLINES '-.c 'Gi .,I j' 'S' ,n ; 2 WILL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT TO E%13TING STRUCTURES ARE FOR A3PECI FIC I r OF HEALTH SERVICES. PURPOSE AND ARE NOT TO DE USED TO ESTABLISH ' APPLICANT, PROPERTY LINES OR FOR THE ERECTION OF FENCES C, y0 21893 et ADDRESS y r TEL YOUNG & YO � 1 G (,w I �.�x°5s< ; R AVENUE , ' AVE A;"NEW YORK NOTE: ■ = MONUMENT 11919 SUBDIVISION MAP FILED INTHEOFF/CE OF THE CLERK OF ALDEN W.YOUNG,PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER�5 ! .. I,ILj SUFFOLK COUNTY ON✓AN./9, 1949 AS FILE NO. /672 AND LAND SURVEYOR N.Y.S.UCENSE NO.104 d _Ili._ ...,i...w dBG/1 x� *THE LOCATKINOF WELL(WI;SEPTIC TANK(ST)Q CESSPOOLS(CP)SHOWN HEREON NVs-LID NSYOUNG, 6893 SURVEjOr(�F , { �J 1tI:.I'} •�.I• }`j �// J ARE FROM FIELD OBSEMATIONS MID OR DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHERS N.Y.S.I.ICENSE N0.4'5893 i..-..0 BRAND'S & SONS. INC. 1618 - •r ..,.vmr;-.-.-a..n..... .;.urr..- .4-.,..f .',Pic.r, Y 9m°.....».ry e',w�m"i,.3FM'?i`r tw .« .' .... r'M1 x 'u, >,, a -!'''''.,..., ,..v_w'''me'''''';i-r.-+-t,.. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS --„ ••,o�Og�FFO(,� G f~ Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ; . ed.: 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. y '.' _ P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. y . • P.OPrf��? Southold,New York 11971 Lora S. Collins '!' p! �•" ZBA Fax(631) 765-9064 George Horning = 1 4.. Telephone(631) 765-1809 - - BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 16, 2000 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appl. Nos. 483 (Koch nd 4818 (Meskouris) Dear Mrs. Moore: Enclosed please find the Board's determination rendered August 10, 2000 under Appeal No. 4836, filed by Vivian Koch. Also enclosed is a copy of the determination under Appl. No. 4818, filed by C. Meskouris and also rendered August 10, 2000. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN Enclosure Copies of Decisions to: Building Department Decisions filed 8/16 s, , cA,e# ��G2�J0/1/E j'- \----1\ PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ti HOBART ROAD/PO Box 616 SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 PHONE 631—765-2954 FAX 631—614-3516 „IJ _. \\,,,1 @,4 6k Date: June 19, 2000 Reference: Koch ‘4% Patricia C. Moore 51020 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Dear Pat, I reviewed the files of the Southold ZBA and noted a letter from an engineer, Mr. Steven L. Maresca dated May 5, 2000. This letter is attached for your files. The letter is a result of a request of Meskouris for the engineer to site the proposed house on the property. It is the opinion of Mr. Maresca that the house should be situated as close to the top of the slope as possible. His reasoning is that the lower the house is on the property the more rainfall runoff will flow against the foundation. One of the requests that we have made to the applicant was to provide a grading plan. Proper grading can mitigate any runoff from rainfall that subjects the foundation to water. The location of the house on this site is not as important as the proper analysis of the elevations of the first floor,the basement and the location of the driveway, if any. An analysis of the placement of these items and their elevations will be more critical to the proper flow of rainfall runoff as it effects the home,than the general location of the home at the top of the slope. I would hope that the applicant does at least a preliminary grading plan so that any problems with rainfall runoff as it effects the home are addressed early. � -ry truly yours, Jo..0 Fischetti, PE i ° d ,. _,..,, ,.,r vy,iti 5 Aeck (i...) 1"'" — • • ? b 2 irt Yostf ... e . i ..,... ,-- ‘4f:co,„.-.4°,...--. I:. \ . . 4• 1 •r9i. 0,..., 065 •\•-,d • ' 4 . i404'; \ ri''.1:ke. .,I\ N• �QQ 1% \ W 4 • . 83,a Q moo�� 0 0 97.0‘4.',. 04,‘, "�-O 1 �z ,,.y°""' ��� .11 001 kijfj. II •11 L Alitill d I .F`A 101.3. ...Soo�� •, —, \ \ \ I ' y 4? 1 7 7 S> --,. \ \ \ \\ -::.:\'..„,. 14‘•\ / O OCP• •d 102 s //I �� �:,� . O •o e\,n ,v:- 47,3,,..: L-, .-ito- -- - / bk ., _JP < =--- .-::.-,-• fr: ---4c 21-::•:::;.\3' 4,, .?. • ii„, �ii,‘ -h ' 0 ' 111-51iO3,q =_ yII • F • Wid \ik ,. A0/ gT• • 40N / \ / .: x,__ I 1 I I...:•../.7-,.---12/ � -: s= 92.3 I I0�` / . ]tt • @j 0 / -, ;,„_.:.:_,,..-:::...;..... .i..5.1____..._. xl 1 I \ \ ,,. .d 6 r o _ _ -_ 4 11 egal d • �7 / - - _ 'L. . . i ' . -_-o0/ x 93.3 / / / / I N o 4.9 • �,,!'�i / / 4x 1 < `°a/ r Oi /y`'\ / / / I 1 b • • , • / may\ / / / I 1 ,\.`, � / / / / Imo.\�db • ,d -' 4 882x / ./ I I -� moi" 'C°, / 82.1 I ' /� S `dam 'p2' ✓ `' / /;x87 7 f 16�0� ....---- e / / I / - . co pcn / / / / / // / / \. a �/ 9$ 6� / CO / / / / / / / /4,2x/ 9 9a� / � h.4S3 fib/ / / / / / / / / i / / / / / / / 92 / �b // / // / / / x / ..9°/ / Dry / / x7� / / / / / % / / // / / x 71 . BB" �/ / x Lis 7 / / / 78.1 / / / / / / / x / / /, ab' ��/ / / / / jfl��/ i � •> / . . '1,2' -- / `Z@,t / 'tic '5Q / c 'ly • (Ail. / ••• •b .i'..d y 410try / 70.a •doh • • 1 :„ . W-rC •• c • • tJ.1tkk\Y 0 • • • yry..w..w. ..w......... ..u.. ....f,..;,•arN*rd,.v°.>p�HN>P'.•..,.� •,•n.,.,,,.a+w�H�q�lM'a'.,�vr;n�t•,,...�•... .-. 5. ....,.. .,.Mu ..w.................. S A ��`V c› PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel: (516)765-4330 { I v i50 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary JUN iakii June 15, 2000 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re : Koch v. Meskouris Dear Chairman and Board members : I am in receipt of the June 9th amended notice of disapproval . The setback has been corrected to be measured from the right of way on the easterly side of the property, however, the building inspector has not directed the owner to provide the proper setback from the northerly side of the property. The building inspector is relying on 100-230 (A) "establishment of front yard setback" for an "average" setback. We request to amend our application to appeal the June 9th notice of disapproval as well as the building inspector' s application of the following Southold Town Code Sections to the subject property: I . Article XXIV Section 100-244 (B) Setbacks II . Article XXIII Section 100-230 Supplementary Regulations- (A) Exceptions and Modifications III . Article I Section 100-13 Definitions "Front Yard" , "Right-of-way" , "Height of Buildings" We thank the building inspector for acknowledging that the setbacks are to be measured from the boundary line of a right-of-way, however the northerly setback remains unresolved and we respectfully disagree with his interpretation and application of the Southold Town Code . Ve my yours, atricia C. Moore cc : Mr. And Mrs . Koch Christine Rivera, agent MAY 09 '00 15:44 SOUTHOLD TOWN ZBA °° P.1i1 •P 'F + - ' . �• ,moi FORM NO. 3 IEVE,p \"D . ' .I r TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I ` BUILDING DEPARTMENT 9 VM `[•' • • SOUTHOLD, N.Y. I ti l • AMENDED i . I 1 . • NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL " i . 1;:I - • •! DATE; May 9. 2000 !•; TO ' : Christine Rivera A/C,Meskauris • • • • 250 Sound Beach Dr - I ' • Mattittck NY ]1952 I Please take notice that your application dated March 24, 2000 *" . I : ' • i For permit for one family 4v;ellin_ • at • Location of property 675 Si immit Drive Mattituck County Tax Map No. 1000-.Section 106 Block 1 Lot 47 � • . SubdivisionFiled Map# Lot# . i • :• Is returned herewith and disk pproved on the following grounds f • Li proposed construction on iocanformina lot not permitted pursuant to Article XXIV Section 100- 24413'which requires a minimum front : d s- back of 40 fe. su••ect 1. ha ri_ht of wa across i prgperty on easterly bound, reatin;. front and on that fron a e . Setb:ck on that front.:e •ro.•sed i ' at 20(twenty) feet. • • i : • • Author" ignature . . . ' + •I'i" 1 • Reason for Appeal Continued Zoning Board of Appeals re : APPEAL NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATED June 9th, 2000 Pursuant to Town Law Section 267-a the jurisdiction of the board of appeals shall be appellate only and shall be limited to hearing and deciding appeals from and reviewing any order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or determination made by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance or local law adopted pursuant to this article . As the adjacent property owner, wie are aggrieved by the decision of the building inspector. We believe the building inspector has failed to identify necessary var dances and failed to issue a notice of disapproval of a building permit for noncompliance with all set backs from a right-of-way. I. Article I Section 100-13 Definitions "Yard Front", "Right-of-way", "Height of Buildings" "Yard Front"- Southold Town Code Section 100-13 (definitions) an unoccupied ground area open to the sky between the street line, or between the street line established by the Official Map of the Town or an approved subdivision plat, and a line drawn parallel thereto. Except, if the owner of the lot does not have the right to use or travel over a bordering steet, right of way or street line, the side of the lot bordering that particular street, right of way or street line shall not be considered to be a front yard and any accessory structure placed in such yard shall comply with the applicable sideyard setbacks for the zoning district within which it is located. The exception was added this year to give relief to accessory structures such as swimming pools . This provision does not apply to principal structures, i .e . , a dwelling. Moreover, the right - of-way is not "bordering" the property it is on the property and there is no question that the owner has rights to use their property, subject to the rights of others to cross their property within the right-of-way. The following is a drawing of the situation that the code definition describes: 12)6 lir V F J )I 4- .r AC The following is a drawing of the situation on the subject property: 1 This code language has been applied too broadly and we believe incorrectly. We ask the Zoning Board to interpret this language so that it makes sense. Summit Drive is the official Town Road on the Official Map of the Town. The Front yard setback of 40 feet should be measured from Summit Drive . Summit Drive is the "Front Yard" and the northerly property line is the rear yard. The proposed building envelope requires a variance from the 50 feet required for a rear yard setback for the dwelling from the northerly property line as measured from the right-of-way. "Right-of-way" - Southold Town Code Section 100-13 (definitions) RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES -- "The boundary lines of land used or intended for use as streets, as shown on deeds, plats or the Master Plan, and from which yard and other requirements shall be measured". This definition was added in the 1989, the Town Board included this definition to clarify that setbacks should be measured from the boundary line of the right-of-way. Prior to the 1989 zoning code setbacks were measured from the property line. Southold Town Code Definition: "STREET" - A street, improved to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, which is one (1) of the following: (1) An existing town, county or state highway or street. (2) A street shown on an approved subdivision final plat. (3) A street shown on a map filed with the County Clerk (in accordance with § 280-a of the Town Law) prior to Planning Board (4) A street shown on the Town Official Map. "Height of Building" The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the existing natural grade adjacent to the building, before any alteration or fill, to the highest point of the roof for flat and mansard roofs and to the mean height between eaves and ridge for other type roofs. Due to the fill on the property, the natural grade could be altered during construction. The natural grade from which the height is measured is extremely important to the adjacent property owner because we suspect that the house will be built in such a way as to look over the house to the East . This property contains fill from the right of way improvements- the existing natural grade is @ 88 feet- there exists 10 ' of stockpiled earth. We would request that the owner Provide the first floor elevations in order to assure that the height of the building will be in compliance with the height limitations . The, information requested by Joseph Fischetti, PE on May 4th has not been provided. We recommend that the applicant provide the information requested by our Engineer in order to assess the issues and determine whether any additional variances may be necessary. II. Article XXIII Section 100-230 Supplementary Regulations Exceptions and Modifications (A) Establishment front yard setback. Where property in the vicinity- is improved with principal buildings with front yards of less than that required by the provisions of this chapter, the front yard setback shall be the average setback of the existing buildings within 300 feet of the proposed This section is not applicable to the subject property. The setback from the northerly property line is not a "front yard" as the term is defined in 100-13 . Applying Webster' s dictionary of "average" - "the numerical result obtained by dividing the sum of two or more quantities by the number of quantities" . An average setback would be determined by taking two or more improved properties within 300 feet . This code provision is applicable in an old subdivision where pre-existing setbacks have been established and a new home is required to comply with up-zoned setbacks . If this provision applied to rear and side yards the building department would be issuing variances and the Zoning Board would have fewer applications . Meskouris and the building inspector point to the Koch property for the development of Meskouris' s property. The Koch' s house was setback from the property line not the right-of-way in 1984 when the house was constructed, there was no requirement that a setback be measured from the boundary of the right-of-way in 1984 . The guidance on measuring from a right-of-way was first considered in drafts of code language in September 1986 . The 1989 comprehensive zoning code adopted this language. Furthermore, the right-of-way at that time was shown on the survey provided access to only one house and was merely an unimproved paper right-of-way. Consequently the use of the right-of-way would be limited to driveway access for the Katos property. In August 1999 the right- of-way was formally extinguished. One can not use the setback of . the Koch property as the rule to be applied to the Meskouris property. We wish to emphasize that development of the property where proposed is extremely dangerous due to the heavy use of the right- of-way. Four parcels obtain access from the right-of-way. The placement of the house and a future pool or any accessory structure (which has been withdrawn from the present application but which the applicant' s agent has admitted will be submitted at a later date) will have significant impact on the safe use of the right-of-way. The structures, as proposed, will obstruct visibility and exacerbate an already dangerous condition. The Zoning Board observed that the right-of-way is presently inadequate for Emergency vehicles . The Zoning Board should not condone this segmented application process, the applicant should disclose the future placement of the pool . If the house is permitted to be placed where it has been proposed accessory structures such as a pool or tennis court would need to be placed along Summit Drive with variances . III. Article XXIV Section 100-244 provides for the applicable setbacks. We agree that this section is applicable to nonconforming lots, however, as we have discussed previously, we disagree that the setbacks have been applied to the property correctly. Wherefore, we ask that the building inspector be directed to instruct the owner to correctly measure and locate the building envelope. Once the building envelope is correctly identified, the applicant should be directed to apply for a variance if the proposed location does not comply with 50 foot rear yard setbacks . III. NO VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED The owner is requesting substantial variances when no variances are necessary. The owner can construct a reasonable house without any variances. Wherefore, the applicant requests that the notice of disapproval be reissued with all applicable variances . YU ��y��zl�✓�y(�i MONETC.PUTKOMO Pdik.State of New Yak No.4982528 OMNI a Suffolk County, 61111110411.11.111* _at on/ • PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel: (516)765-4330 Fax: (516)765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary May 19, 2000 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals RECEIVED Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Hall MAY 19 2000 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Southhold Town Clerk Re: Appeal of Meskouris application Dear Chairman and Board members : Enclosed please find my clients check in the amount of $400 . 00 and our appeal of the notice of disapprovals dated April 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 issued to Chris and James Meskouris, and request to interpret the definitions as applied to the proposed building envelope. Enclosed is a copy of the most recent survey. We would respectfully request that original documents be referred to from the Meskouris file. Very truly yours, 7/ Patricia C. Moore FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, N.Y. AMENDED NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE; June 9, 2000 TO Christine Rivera A/C Meskouris 250 Sound Beach Dr Mattituck NY 11952 Please take notice that your application dated March 24, 2000 For permit for one family dwelling at • Location of property 675 Summit Drive Mattituck County Tax Map No. 1000- Section 106 - Block 1 Lot 47 Subdivision Filed Map # Lot# Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds proposed construction on non conforming lot not permitted pursuant to Article XXIV Section 100- 244B which requires a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, subject lot has right of way across property on easterly boundary creating front yard on that frontage, . Setback on that frontage proposed at+/- 12 1/2(twelve and one half) feet from boundary of right of way, 20 (twenty) feet from property line. Authorized ature MAY 09 '00 15:44 SOUTHOLD TOWN ZBA °° P.1/1 ' We +y' FORM NO. 3 '_ TEVIBVM \\7°: . ! i TOWN OF SOUTHOLD `1 BUILDING DEPARTMENTAL 9 I i` • SOUTHOLD,N.Y. AMENDED i�' 1 • • NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL i . ',;� DATE; May 9. 2000 • • ! • 1 • • • TO ' Christine Rivera A/C,Meskouris 250 Sound Beach 111.r Hi Mattituck NY 11952 . • • Please take notice that your application dated March 24. 2000 f, 1. For permit for one family 4u;ell— inC f. at'• : . • ` i. Location of property 675 Si:immit Dri.Mattituck . County Tax Map No. 1000-.Section 106 Block 1 Lot 47 • Subdivision Filed Map# Lot# • i Is returned herewith and dis<.pproved on the following grounds . proposed construction on no a conforming lot n• •e itte. '.ur ant o • i le XXIV S-ctio 100.4 . 24413which requires a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet su ,sect lot has right of way across I , property on easterly bounceeryeati front yard on that frontage, Setback on that frontage promd i , at 20(twenty) feet. j . . AuthoPriza ;T . . ' i r • i � ii . E, i' :I ' . f ; i_' ' .1 I 1' 1i APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Ge"raid P. Goehringer, Chairman ►��� ;., r y1: 53095j-Main Road j y z ; P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins . 1 ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 George Horning Cl ��.lei Telephone (631) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 13, 2000 By Fax and Regular Mail Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appeal of Notice of Disapproval by V. Koch (Meskouris Property) Dear Mrs. Moore: As an update to Mrs. Koch's application appealing the May 4, 2000 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, please find enclosed the Building Department's June 9, 2000 amended Disapproval. Please note that the Disapproval states that the reason for the disapproval is "...subject lot has right of way across property on easterly boundary creating front yard on that frontage, and setback on that frontage is proposed at 12-1/2+-ft. from the boundary of right-of-way, 20 feet from property line" instead of the 40 feet. Please confirm whether or not you wish to proceed with the Koch appeal based on the new Notice of Disapproval issued to the Meskourises, or whether the Koch application will be withdrawn. If possible, please reply by Monday, June 19, 2000, the date when procedural steps for notices and publication will take place for the Board's July 6, 2000 hearing calendar. Thank you. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN Enclosure r ®� moi ' ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE �� �� , #.1kTown Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK co t P.O.Box 1179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS , Southold, New York 11971 qW MARRIAGE OFFICER �� �'+ •��® Fax(631) 765-6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER ••• 1__7049 �1� Telephone (631) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER ��1) OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville DATED: May 23, 2000 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 4836 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 4836—Virginia Koch for property of Chris & John Meskouris -Zoning Board of Appeals application for variance. Also included is a cover letter from Patricia Moore, a reason for appeal, an applicant transactional disclosure form, a copy of the Board of Appeals Notice of Public Hearing, a copy of the Building Department Notice of Disapproval, a copy of the property survey, and a copy of the original ZBA appeal application. . APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DiSCLOSIIRR FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of town officers and employees. The purpose of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. Vivian Koch YOUR NAME: (Last name, first name, middle initial, unless you are applying in the name oC someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person ' s or company 's name. ) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Cliecic 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_ "Business 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 form 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. DESCRrPTION Or RELATIONSIITI' Submittedthis I�rday of/41/0 )91— / 3,000 Signa I.n rc2Q�(�r�J ! �'- — Print name ( / j 6/ i • Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 05/19/00 Receipt#: 19 Transaction(s): Subtotal 1 Application Fees $400.00 Check#: 19 Total Paid: $400.00 Name: Meskouris, Chris &James 250 Sound Beach Mattituck, NY 11952 Clerk ID: LYNDAB Internal ID: 10955 „ ,iii APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ,���,S�fFOj,�- COG Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer,=Chairman ��a �1 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. t y , . `.- _ P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A.Tortora • � Southold,New York 11971 Lora S. Collins 4 - ZBA,.' ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 George Horning \..01 N•11. Telephone (631)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 13, 2000 By Fax and Regular Mail Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appeal of Notice of Disapproval by V. Koch (Meskouris Property) Dear Mrs. Moore: As an update to Mrs. Koch's application appealing the May 4, 2000 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, please find enclosed the Building Department's June 9, 2000 amended Disapproval. Please note that the Disapproval states that the reason for the disapproval is "...subject lot has right of way across property on easterly boundary creating front yard on that frontage, and setback on that frontage is proposed at 12-1/2+-ft. from the boundary of right-of-way, 20 feet from property line” instead of the 40 feet. Please confirm whether or not you wish to proceed with the Koch appeal based on the new Notice of Disapproval issued to the Meskourises, or whether the Koch application will be withdrawn. If possible, please reply by Monday, June 19, 2000, the date when procedural steps for notices and publication will take place for the Board's July 6, 2000 hearing calendar. Thank you. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN Enclosure Reason for Appeal Continued Zoning Board of Appeals re : APPEAL NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATED APRIL 5, 2000 AND MAY 9, 2000 Pursuant to Town Law Section 267-a the jurisdiction of the board of appeals shall be appellate only and shall be limited to hearing and deciding appeals from and reviewing any order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or determination made by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance or local law adopted pursuant to this article . As the adjacent property owner, we are aggrieved by the decision of the building inspector. We believe the building inspector has failed to identify necessary variances and failed to issue a notice of disapproval of a building permit for noncompliance with all set backs from a right-of-way. I. The survey prepared by Joe Ingegno dated April 10, 2000 has incorrectly identified set backs from the property line. A building envelope incorrectly places the house at 52 feet from the rear property line and 20 feet from the side property line . (1) THE MEASUREMENT IS REQUIRED FROM RIGHT-OF-WAY NOT PROPERTY LINE Southold Town Code Section 100-13 (definitions) RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES -- "The boundary lines of land used or intended for use as streets, as shown on deeds, plats or the Master Plan, and from which yard and other requirements shall be measured". The building inspector must direct the applicant to correctly measure and locate the building envelope. Once the building envelope is correctly identified, the applicant should be directed to apply for a variance if proposed location does not comply with 50 foot rear yard setbacks . II. The applicant has been representing to the building department that the setback from the northerly right-of-way is a "front" yard setback of 40 feet. We would appeal this position, and would submit that the variance required is for a rear yard setback of 50 feet. The applicant has not identified the location of the driveway for access to the road. t (2) SUMMIT DRIVE IS AN OFFICIAL TOWN ROAD WHICH DETERMINES THE "FRONT"YARD Summit Drive is the "Front Yard" and the right-of-way is the "rear yard" ; Summit Drive is an Official Town Road- therefore a 40 foot front yard is required from the Summit Drive. Southold Town Code Definition: STREET- A street, improved to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, which is one (1) of the following: (1) An existing town, county or state highway or street. (2) A street shown on an approved subdivision final plat. (3) A street shown on a map filed with the County Clerk (in accordance with § 280-a of the Town Law) prior to Planning Board (4) A street shown on the Town Official Map. Development of the property where proposed is extremely dangerous due to the heavy use of the right-of-way. Four parcels obtain access from the right-of-way; placement of the house and the pool which has been withdrawn from the present application but which we know will be submitted at a later date. The structures, as proposed, will obstruct visibility and exacerbate an already dangerous condition. The Zoning Board should not condone this segmented application process, the applicant should disclose the future placement of the pool . The applicant is relying on the Zoning Board accommodating a good faith purchasers and granting a variance for a pool at a later date. We ask that the Zoning Board enforce the rear yard setback. III . NO VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED The owner is requesting substantial variances when no variances are necessary. The owner can construct a reasonable house without any variances . The house can be placed on the property without variances . The previously proposed location of the pool 2 feet from the right-of-way on this lot is not a reasonable request . IV. The applicant must provide the first floor and basement floor elevations to determine whether a height variance should be sought. We want to be sure that the applicant and building department properly identify the average elevation of the existing natural grade adjacent to the building. The height of this building is of • significant impact on the appellant, the grade for measuring the height of the building would be in dispute due to the amount of fill which has been placed on the property. Town Code section 100-13 (defenitions) HEIGHT OF BUILDING -- The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the existing natural grade adjacent to the building, before any alteration or fill , to the highest point of the roof for flat and mansard roofs and to the mean height between eaves and ridge for other type roofs. This property contains fill from the right of way improvements- the existing natural grade is @ 88 feet- there exists 10 ' of stockpiled earth. We would request that the owner Provide the first floor elevations in order to assure that the height of the building will be in compliance with the height limitations . We recommend that the applicant provide the information requested by our Engineer, Joseph Fischetti, PE in order to assess the issues and determine whether any additional variances may be necessary. Wherefore, the applicant requests that the notice of disapproval be reissued with all applicable variances . signature State of New York ) ss County of Suffolk ) Sworn to this day Notary Public --- -- ----- - - $(E SEC NO °99P SEF SEC No.099 C Wi 121E C.NO o9O ________\ , h ./� `EMI \/ __WATCH —� LME MEM ` I/L_ / (/ ` NO 099-0<-°27 LSP ^.�s�lavx a s S RI rs ; 5"MAO OF g FOR PARCEL 1 _ (ll 5's a oz IIIIIIII c) +121 QQMEM ,a c dil o. I ,y1 S __ 199Atc1 �\V 2.,:, dd d MOM1. �Jri)Q�� `��` �Ft R �,,, lose7.. yp.e. m)F . 1�./n aillt440AJm M• EM EAST '�®r^ v�11 .m i I 10 — q'`' a °. p�,2• ,°' 4 m� „1.2It_ yosis �, (61 „ II �m +{:MEM •,S N w, 0 qO eO �, o �Valle nq 4 B I�N��12o•1 M• IN l50'1ti 142'ier 9 NAtn I MEM 0 .2p Z e.7zr AL DR. MOM1=1 V . Itp \OM Ze s a > �� 0'1 ®� wm 7i. 121 q II 2jj a I—_IIIIIIM J DR• 77 u it 9 1 C ,°9 2j Y,! 5J� Ae 5N �j NM lig a`O L r, �' d 4.c.,1�A31„� DR. 5}gFyo..{�2V° a 4 >..°4 - .`t t 6 Nam '� O• '� .p 9 .:5$611013131k. ®�� � S WP s,6'e 25,9.I?, m NMI 10 I v NMIIIIIIII G C. °.0 seitilla t)1 t° 0;112. 11 - S+ 9 • ) 3‘238341c1 MIN liR //,, /k/ 4\:c). S,u*•1♦6S =d 44..-8 \.°' Q � � ilt �A❑t MEI moom . 9�►�(( . �... 41011111111 MEM 'c,MEM V'` 13 .��%°bRq^5. (i6 . 6161160 -_ s t, .o oa —MOM ♦ tb M1k�° -� 112 J1 50' _--7J , A q5 tm MEI 4.6 a q9„. 1 00 R e A /I �' 1n `16 i 11^].1 /.3044.$ 16 't� P i 6 �Np J i •� f� j7 . 'n 111 ! 77 QqPr" 1 • M1l'l , '' I f♦'' d j9 n C. M12! b "Ill'. SS° F♦° $ /�/�` SpP A IA 7 u .� _ 2 },! *X., ® •1:�q m'6 ( ` Ai 29.]Alrl - SO m ini ... 4 °° b,'f9 % �nPj 2” \ � R 0 q.,w ie r= j1^ J ♦ \ ® M1e n / 7.M ,111S1 ' ® Ch ♦y! •:0 l 1' T�"9 'A �r 1„r 91.,. L. 10,.1 S ” ,S 71 t O j l"1 3 N ° u. ® ♦M1 Q.O• 101:., 5',1 1 f 6.1R� m . I W ` °<l` +` q 1 mos 2q!` . 3WO �� 1 IinN ,‘,... .� O , 2::::e: 1 11: ., ''rO MN - L.J 1611 1 Is <t�i y — ° , 12 2,1µc1 ,121° '.::!:/..... . , 10 Z.°,'4, � 1.1 ' lBAlc1 ,.11 /0a � �rt;% ,. mosL e ieinlai [ IBAW • _ "/„../.., . i R J /`. MIMIIIIIIIIII ei 1♦*p4'1 d °! , , ! AB n. Rillall 37P1e1me IO2 ,�'� c'�•de . MEM 4 , a xT.2 S I.11rcl 2 % .... IMO 8 Nar t tun ONO'2 xLtt zA 7 �?i�d.. M. FOR PARCEL xo., ♦" ' n F jgc) y2:N1 %Pei1 •' SEE SEC NO O. 6! A 51 9 ' W. ale MS-01-00]I .1 ` 1.2P1c1 i MOM 2 ZOAIG 19A1c1 ]0 C < lJ W �IuR�'A��• 6MUM I444NEMMO Z� g d' 11114 m• oo LL S '�.. EOR PARCEL 1N J.AIc1 mow p EMI _ 0T---Z---LINE LIAIn Min MO d. 4 M• N NSEE LME . .r to SEE SEC N0.IlJ lO1C R.uO � COUNTY OF SUFFOLK — _x-- �ESe.iiw+Am ixilxERi¢w.io.wii p6210CT6 NOTICE ©Real Property Tax Service Agency _ — --sa+— x,d v,Ikl�_ Nm - NAMmuxcF,NOTICEM•SASE°A Niverhead,N Y 11901 1: 111 u — Nn 9bA W. WOJ: ".. d _N—= sow. o61R8N10E Of Axl'FONirox a T. County Center me.wm 1..b O n.°nm,u. —xs1— rNE _ t lin 9aE°u cwxrr TAX Nev s rNvl�lt6o 94...•n•t. 1211 me i. woe U. --•-- Nn.eem.k.11. " - ... HIUY— ix W.COMM TEy65.1,5.iia SCALE N FUN mvnn 9,T —�— •..,......./e.••• e _ , -- -- A.nA�n 0.Vt`4. AmA...i TOW MCI AN02fnti'TAX SENILE AEFACY .,n,,,.,.,.�u. ..,-._. ..e..°..«m -- 20 . 121 no or 1214' l.. � �--- "� hk m `n. --, y>..... 12.1 MO )�6 Page 54: Transcripts of Hearings U\/ 4 Board of Appeals 8:53 P.M. - Appli. No. 4836 -VIVIAN KOCH,;. This is a request for an interpretation of,,the Zoning Code, Section 100-13, ".s5, regarding the setback(s) referred to iii the Building Department's May 9, 2000 Notice of Disapproval, amended Jutl'e 9, 2000. The June 9, 2000 Amended Notice of Disapproval reads as follows: Proposed (dwelling) construction on non-conforming lot not permitted pursuant to Article XXIV, Section 100-244B which requires a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, subject lot has right-of- way across property on easterly boundary creating front yard on that frontage. Setback on that frontage proposed at 12-1/2+- feet from boundary of right-of- way, 20 feet from property line. Location of Property: 675 Summit Drive, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-106-1-47. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Moore, I just want to tell you, that we, that Mr. Horning will be leaving in approximately 10 minutes to get the ferry, OK, so we'll take a short recess at that point, just to allow him to get his stuff together. MRS. MOORE: Alright. Linda, don't let me forget to give you the cards. I'll get started right away. The reason why we are here before this Board is that really it comes down to the properties, first property and the proposed development of Meskouris' property and how the Building Department has interpreted the Code, its application to this property and the placement of the house. It all arrives from there. If you would refer Mr. Horning because I'm sure you won't be able to hear the whole presentation, my written dissertation that is attached to application, I tried to make it as simple and as clear as possible because there are several issues that I wish to address, and I identified each article as a separate issue, and how we get through this application, and why we believe that the location of the house should be placed at the appropriate setback from the edge of the right-of-way, not where it has been proposed. So, if you be so kind as to read :r that, and if you have any questions, you can certainly ask them of me, or present them to the Board, and I'll respond accordingly. To begin with, we start with Article 1, Section 113, it defines Yard Front Right-of-Way and Height of Building. I start with that section, the definition section because right from the beginning we look at what is a front yard, and as you know there has been some legislative change to that definition which was trying to address and give relief for accessory structures. At the time that the legislation was being considered I know Mr. Forrester can attest to this, there were several applications that were before this Board, including one of mine, that I frecall was Grattan was the name of the applicant. It was on Kenny Road and it was a single family house that was built with a right-of-way, that gave access to strictly to a rear property, that was developed like a flag lot. But it was based, it was with a right-of-way. And this particular property had right-of-ways that went along the one side and to the rear of the property. And the Grattans merely wanted to put a pool in their • Page 55 - July 6, ; 0 •,_ Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals backyard, and that seemed to be the simplest type of application, and the Board had several of them and the Building Department was being confronted on almost on a daily basis with those type of applications. So it was at that prompting, that the Townt Board legislated that additional language in the Code which says that, it defines where a street line is, and what a frontyard is. And it says, "Except, if the owner of the lot does not have the right to use or travel over a bordering street, right-of-way or street line, the side of the line bordering that particular street, " and it's bordering and is the first distinguishing mark on this property. This property has a right-of-way, that it falls on the property. It's not border on the property. Going on, "shall not be considered to be a front yard, and any accessory structure," again, it's addressing accessory structure, "placed in such yard shall comply with the applicable side yard setbacks for the zoning district within which it is located." It was trying to address the limited • case of accessory structures being placed in a rear yard where that property was faced with right-of-ways, that they had no use of, no control of, or just because of the way the definition of right-of-ways. The definition of the front yard as it's placed in the code. I included in the application a little drawing because to explain it I'm very visual and I, excuse my scratch marks but I tried to draw the distinction. We have the first piece of property that is what I described as the Grattan example. An application that you heard a year ago which has a property it has a right-of-way, that gives access to their properties, versus the Meskoris property,which has a piece of property. It has a right-of-way that falls on to the property and is not bordering on the property but is on the property. There is no doubt that Meskoris have a right to use this right-of-way at least to the extent that it is on their property. You can't prevent someone from using their own property. They're taxed on it, they use it, they are subject to the rights-of-others to cross' it but it is their property to use. So I think right off the bat, the application of that front yard setback of the street, the front yard is misapplied hee;and the reason we're here is because the Building Inspector did determine • that yes, the measurement of a right-of-way, the right-of-way sets forth in the definition of right-of-way, and I set that forth at the second part of this argument, says that the lines, the yard setbacks and'other requirement shall be measured from that right-of-way. The Building Inspector did agree that as to the easterly side they would measure the appropriate setback. And yes, they do need a variance because they encroach onto what would be their side yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's not over saturate that at this point. Let's hold up right.there, OK. We're going to Iet,Mr. Horning go, and then we're going to ask some questions on what you're saying at that point. MRS. MOORE: OK, on that issue, OK. Page 56 - July 6, 2:, .) - Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you George. We'll see you on August 9th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 10th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we're going to Fishers Island on August 9th. So we'll see you then George. MEMBER HORNING: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just briefly tell me what you were saying at the end of your conversation. MRS. MOORE: Oh, as far as the use of the right-of-way? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As far as the distinction that you were making between Map #1, and Map # (inaudible). MRS. MOORE: OK, alright. Map #1, if you were dealing even just with a, the way I read the code is - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're saying is, - MRS. MOORE: It's only as to accessory structures that you have that exception. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MRS. MOORE: That's my reading of the language of this code. But more so, it doesn't as far as the use not having, if the owner of the lot does not have a right to use or travel over bordering street, that paragraph, the first design provides an example of that, which is someone who has a right-of-way that gives access to that piece versus the second example, which has a right-of-way, that falls on the property. The underlining owner, owns every bit of that property. It's just made subject to the rights of others. So he could improve it. He could do what he wants with the land providing he doesn't interfere with the rights of bothers to cross it. So I don't believe that the Meskouris case fits either one,as a :^ right-of-way that borders and is not of use to the Meskouris and secondly that paragraph doesn't deal with the Meskouris example which is a principal residence. It's not an accessory that gives that exception to the rule. So the rule of a front yard setback still applies. You still have a front yard where you Page 57 - July 6, 2.._J Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals have right-of-ways and the measurement of the right-of-way still is made from the line of the right-of-way. That's the first argument. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But wasn't the original application, the setback actually for a deck which is an accessory structure? MRS. MOORE: When it's attached to the principal structure, it's not accessory. The pool is. The pool of it is not attached to the principal structure. It's an accessory structure. The deck is attached to the principal structure and usually decks are. So that the deck ends up, most applications that you have before you, when you have a deck addition, it requires a variance because you got to provide for the setbacks of a principal structure. Otherwise you have decks that go to three feet off thel property line. You know, accessory structures are permitted to be three, five feet, depending on the size of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have a question? MEMBER COLLINS: Well, I'm having it hard. I hate to interrupt counsel. I think that's difficult. MRS. MOORE: It's OK, it's going to be interactive use. MEMBER COLLINS: But I want to keep us from being in for an even longer night than we are. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, well, he asked about decks. So, the first application dealt with a deck but it was attached to the house, so it's all a principal structure. MEMBER COLLINS: What's;before us are the denials that you are appealing. ; You are appealing what the Building Department did and you are saying - MRS. MOORE: I'm saying that there are more denials than what have been issued and that I still have not seen the survey, and the most recent decision but I believe the Building Department did direct the applicant to show a setback from the right-of-way on the easterly side. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, well we have, I mean, you have certainly seen the • latest thing I've seen which is the denial and amended denial, dated June 9. '?r MRS. MOORE: The June 9th one, yes. Page 58 - July 6, 20v0' Transcripts of Hearings ;r • Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: And it relates to the setback on the easterly side of the property and it recites two setbacks. One from the right-of-way, perimeter and one from the property line. And the complaint - MRS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I don't know that, that (changed tape) MEMBER COLLINS: Is that the trivial aspect of this. The point is that in this denial the Building Inspector stated you require a 40 foot setback on a front yard. It goes without saying, in effect in this denial, that the right-of-way creates a front yard and the denial recites that there are two setbacks depending on which line you measured from. One is 12-1/2 feet , one is 20 feet and clearly neither one of them is 40 and that's the basis of the denial. MRS. MOORE: Correct, so there's a need for a variance. MEMBER COLLINS: We agreed on that. MRS. MOORE: We do agree that there's a need for a variance, MEMBER COLLINS: And your argument is, that it should be measured from the right-of-way and you're telling - MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, OK. Now, - MRS. MOORE: And - • MEMBER COLLINS: : No, ho, no,•'and you wish to appeal the fact, that the • Building Department did not apply this rule on the northerly side where you feel it applies as well. MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: We won't get into the fact, that you're trying to say, that the northerly side is a rear yard and not a front yard, because that's whole another can of beans. But you are stating, that they should have applied this. Where do a,, you measure from rule and found that the northerly setback was also inadequate? MRS. MOORE: Correct. Page 59 - July 6, __ ) Transcripts of Hearings a: PITO Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Before we spend a lot more time on the meaning of that exception written into the definition of front yard a few months ago, I would like to say, that I don't think it's relevant. I haven't heard anyone say here in any of this 4 • testimony ' :Y that, that exception was applied by the Building Department - t7,1 somehow to bless any of these setbacks. MRS. MOORE: During the course of the hearings, they've been several arguments that have been posed by the applicant as to the reason why it doesn't apply. The Building Inspector can be asked on the record what his reasoning is as to why that northerly right-of-way does not apply. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. So you believe that it may be a factor? That, that exception may be,a,factor on the northerly side. MRS. M MOORE: I was trying to guess as to what reasoning they used for not requiring a variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I please be aware of one thing. Make everybody aware. That this is a presentation by counsel. This does not have anything specifically related to the hearing that is coming up next. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is her interpretation, her time to refer to this issue, and it's not - MRS. MOORE: I would respectfully disagree on that point. MEMBER COLLINS: She's appealing a specific deniaWr. Chairman, not an abstractor. MRS. MOORE: No, I disagree both because I don't know what reasoning - the Building Inspector when he gives an applicant a Notice of Disapproval, explains why they're being rejected. As the neighbor, I have to guess as to why they're not rejecting it. And I have to think, and I listened to the presentations that Christine Rivera presented and some of the arguments have been made, well we've Used this section of the code, well we've used this section of the code, - and I've looked at all of those,sections and said, it doesn't make sense. That's not the, way its been applied. That's incorrect. So not only have I actually appealed the Notice of Disapproval applicable to the Meskouris piece, or otherwise I wouldn't have a right to argue those points but I'm also asking the Board to look at the definition sections, the sections that have been addressed and give the Building Department some guidance that now and in the future, this Page 60 - July 6, ,_-� � J` Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals is the way you're suppose to look at things. So I do have, I have two roads on this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know you know my opinion in reference to the actual closing of the next hearing, and of course I well versed that at the last hearing, there's no question about it. But in the normal interpretation hearing, we don't get involved in specific situations that are somewhat abstract. MRS. MOORE: See, I disagree because the only time that you get interpretations are where applicants have something or the Building Department has an issue that is applicable to a case because honestly zoning use as you know, very difficult. Zoning cannot be read in a book and abstract the envision. In every single law that is created on the books can be applied in a different way, depending on whose reading it, and that's why you get the number of variance you get because it may have been designed or written in such a way but then it gets applied a different way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, lets continue. MRS. MOORE: OK. The issue we talked briefly about the right-of-way, the definition of the right-of-way, which does very clearly identify where the right-of- way shall be measured. When I was, when one of the arguments that was made by Meskouris property owner is, that well we use Koch as an example, and I went and I did some research on when that right-of-way, that measurement of a right-of-way was adopted and it first came in and I wrote it down here, it first came in to the code by way of some discussion in 84. However, it was adopted in the September of 86, Comprehensive Zoning Code. So when are, 89, did I - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You said 86. .x rG . MRS. MOORE: Oh, I'm sorry. In 89, excuse me. No, I'm sorry, 84 is when the house is built. In 84 the cottage house was built by the prior owners. The right- of-way legislation and drafts of code language started in September of 86 and there was ultimately adopted as legislation in 1989. So you cannot use Koch as well. They did it. The law was different then and the reason and they were trying to preserve setbacks where you have roadways just as you have front yard setbacks today, front roadways, why you don't build berms and why you have fencing restrictions. It's for visibility and iappropriate setbacks. So the logic is there, and it made sense at the time. We have very unique properties in the Town of Southold and some are developed in ways that require variances. I know you don't want to get into the issue of what is a street but I do want to point out and put on the record, that Summit Drive is a street shown on the Town Official Map. It is considered to be front yard and every effort that the owner has Page 61 - July 6, 2 , . I Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals used to push the house forward, has been to start with a rear yard setback calling it front yard of 40 feet, rather than what it is, which is I believe a rear yard. So, for the record we know our position. As to the height of the building we had I know you don't generally get it unless theEBuilding Department feels that there's a height variance issue. But we are very suspecting that I used the wrong word, that we, but we are concerned that the construction of this house is going to be in such a way, that it's going to artificially raise the grade and artificially bring the house to a height that ordinarily would require a variance. If you were dealing with a flat farm piece, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But this is the part that I discussed with you, that I didn't discuss with you but I discussed with my counsel - MRS. MOORE- OK, your counsel. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And it's anticipatory. We're not to that point yet. MRS. MOORE: Correct, however - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, but, but, germane subjects. MRS. MOORE: I understand. No, but I know this from the Hirsch case. That was a horrible case. And if I had only known what I know today then, I would have known that they could have built higher just by budging the grade and that's what most of the houses out here that are waterfront, that try to get views do, and that's something that gets done at the Building Department, particularly on a property that has some slope to it because you end up with moving grades around and making the highest grade, not the average natural grade, which the codedefines. They quickly moved dirt around which in this particular case, we had moved it around already. So that was something we wanted to disclose at this point and we're concerned about it. I also have a letter from Joe Fischetti who responded to Consulting Engineer Mareska's letter that states that there are important points that have to be addressed and that the Miskouris' application has now provided certain grading plans certain information that is basic and would have been needed to analysis the placement of the house and why they're claiming it has to be placed where it is. The engineer's letter said, well we need to place the house here because of rain run-off and concerns about flooding and so on. We're countering that letter and saying, baloney. The :ro Fischetti letter is addressing the May 5th letter that was submitted to the Board and received by the Board on May 8th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Who wrote that letter? Page 62 - July 6, 2:2.-:,1) Transcripts of Hearings . Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Pardon me. That was Steven Mareska P.E. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And that was on the other appeal number? MRS. MOORE: Yes, it was on the other appeal number. If you would be so kind as to put that same Fischetti letter in both files. Thank you. Now, as to my final issue, the reason, another reason that was given, and all of this is in your record, that the an average setback was created here and this is why they have established the setbacks or the Building Department has authorized the setbacks that have been proposed. And again I refer you to the language of the Code, you know, the supplemental regulations that deals with the Establishment of Front Yard Setbacks and says; "Where property in the vicinity is improved with principal buildings with front yards of Tess;;than that required by the .r provisions of this chapter, the front yard setback shall be the average setback of the existing buildings within 300 feet of the proposed" I looked at front yard. Looked at the definition of front yard. I looked at average. I took the definition from Webster's Dictionary because there's no definition in the Zoning Code. And again, it is not applicable to this case, to the Meskouris case. So, that justification just does not hold water. I don't want to, please read what I've submitted to you. I know that it's late and I don't want to just read what I've already written. We also want to emphasize what we've emphasized all along, which is that this right-of-way has heavy use on it. We know that those who have done the inspection, there have been cars that got stuck. There's visibility problems on this right-of-way. This right-of-way is very steep. So it has all the things going for it that an appropriate front yard setback would require. The appropriate front yard, or rear yard, whichever we choose to apply. There's a reason for it. The Code tried to address the visibility and the use of a right-of- way. This right-of-way gets extensive use and it would make sense to apply the code the waw its been written, in particular because of the use of this right-of- way and the activity on this right-of-way. I would also finally, this point I would like to well, I'll leave the last point for the Meskouris application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're giving us green cards? MRS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's it? MRS. MOORE: That's it for me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I need to ask Ed a question. Mr. Forrester we appreciate at this late hour and as busy as your department is to come in here. Page 63 - July 6, �.:J Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. FORRESTER: I see that all the time. Good evening Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. ':CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you Sir? Normally if you lwere not an employee'of the Town of Southold, I would swear you in but I'm not going to do that, OK. My conversation has been with you always pragmatic when I speak to you on the phone. My question to you is, and this is not a setup please. Have ever tried in any of the conversations that I ever had with you, on things that we talk about, the concern, have I ever tried to have you change a front yard to a rear yard, or a side yard to a front yard or any of these combinations? MR. FORRESTER: No, Sir, you've handle them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I find that the uniqueness of Southold and the uniqueness of these properties are something that we live with. Certainly Fishers Island is an example of that when Mr. Horning left us tonight where you have a substantial amount of private roads in the Fishers Island Development Corporation and we see those once a year when we go over there. But so unique are these parcels that are before us, and these nice neighbors that are sitting here, and I'm just telling you a philosophy and I'm using this to basically state one issue, and that is that when your office, being you, or any of your Building Inspectors modify change, or just immediately come out with a Notice of Disapproval? Unless we find in the office that there is something innately wrong with the disapproval which we very rarely do but you know, we'll talk about it if there is. We go with those disapprovals. If you call one thing a front yard we go with that front yard. If you call one thing a rear yard, we go with that also. We know that also when you have three front yards as in this particular generic statement that we're using tonight, that one of them could possibly be a rear yard but we're not even questioning that aspect. What we're very simply saying is, that I'm saying is that I accept your second Notice of Disapproval and - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You mean the June 9th one? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The June 9th one, and at this particular point, that's the one that stands, and we go from there. MR. FORRESTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, is there anything you'd like to say? MR. FORRESTER: That was the purpose of the question? Page 64 - July 6, 2::,uJ Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, because the Board Members I'm sure may have some questions. a + t MR. FORRESTER: OK. Well, and I believe I have'addressed thrsTithe last time was before you but I think this Notice of Disapproval has been amended several times. The application or the configuration of the footprint of this house has been altered. As a result of me writing one Notice of Disapproval, in an effort maybe to minimize its a, it was changed and unchanged from disapproval accordingly. My last amendment to it, was because I have realized and it was brought that I had been measuring from the wrong spot. So, the Code directed me to measure from the end of the right-of-way, realizing that and the past practice from predecessors have not been doing that, I immediately changed the policy of the department, amended the disapproval to the edge of the right-of- way, rather than the property line. With regard to the yard in question, that's why there seems to be so many amendments on this but I have amended disapprovals for many applicants in the past as they have changed their projects in an effort maybe to minimize the impact or to whatever to please themselves. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Without getting to in-depth in this particular conversation we'll let it open to the Board if you don't mind, and just so we can move everything along here. We would really like to keep as generic as possible Mr. Dinizio, and it's a, -what? MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's not a sarcastic statement I assure you. Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: It may be a question for Mr. Forrester. I just want to make a comment or two. I took the time to go back through the records of the Board in the 2-1/2 years I've been on it, and looked for all the cases that appeared to involve setbacks that might have involved right-of-ways, and took a look at them. And this case is unusual because in this case, the right-of-way is on the property rather than abutting the property. Almost all of the ones that we see, the right- of-way, is clearly drawn - MR. FORRESTER: Beyond the lot line. MEMBER COLLINS: Clearly drawn on the survey as being beyond the lot line and so there is no question. The lot line and the right-of-way line are the same line. MR. FORRESTER: That's my point. Page 65 - July 6, <<�A Transcripts of Hearings :: ..: a Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: We did have one however recently. I just want to mention this to the; Board. It was Edson Kirsch whose property down on Corey Creek, and it was; likethis one, the:rtight-of-way, was right on the property, and in fact, the Building Department did in that case, measure the setback for the house from the right-of-way, and not from the property line. So, you know, it was - MR. FORRESTER: They have been inconsistent. MEMBER:COLLINS: It was done that way, that one time, and I just thought I'd kind of mention it. I also wanted just to say, while I'm commenting on the testimony, that I thought Ms. Moore's comment about how the language regarding, and the right-of-way line is=the thing to use for measuring yards: How that came to be in the Code she mentioned that it came in 1989, and the Board revision of the Code, and its very difficult to do statutory research around here, because there's so little legislature history but I suspect that, that's correct, and I think that's pretty convincing to me that they did mean, because if you read;the Code without that language, the Code clearly says, you measure from the street, the lot - MR. FORRESTER: The lot line. MEMBER COLLINS: And so I do think, that when they put that in the Code, they did mean to say to measure from the right-of-way line. I just want to say those things sought to help clear my own head. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Moore, representing her client as she told us, is claiming, is asserting, that she feels that the Building Department did not do something it ought to have done, which was to have denied the, made a denial on the basis of the northerly setback. Are we .going tO;discuss that with Mr. Forrester? I'd like to. • . 3 V MEMBER TORTORA: Why not? MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I just want to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for the privilege, no seriously, thank you, might as well. 4MEMBER COLLINS: I mean, you know, we had; way back, way back when this first started out, the original, original, denial said, that there's a right-of-way on the northerly side of the property, there's a right-of-way on the easterly side of the property, these are both front yards - MR. FORRESTER: And a road on the southerly side. Page 66 - July 6, '2 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, and a road on the southerly side. So you've got three front yards. And a later on the issue of the setback on the northerly side disappeared from the denial, and its still out as a denial. And I think, if Ms. Moore was addressing you directly, she would say something like, well, if the denial we're working from, which is the one from June 9, measures the setback on the east from the right-of-way, why haven't you revisited the northerly setback? Why is that one not subject to denial? I guess that's the question. MR. FORRESTER: OK. I was prepared to answer that question whether we do it at this hearing or the next hearing. = MEMBER COLLINS: Well I think this is probably the one. MR. FORRESTER: I'm prepared. The subject property has three front yards. Because of the presence of right-of-ways or streets, the mere presents of them along the boundaries or within the boundaries or outside the boundaries, creates front yards from which setbacks need to be measured whether from the edge of the right-of-way or not. Lots Regulations began to directing on it, on what is going to be required, 40 foot. A 40 foot, what is it a 40 foot front yard? MEMBER COLLINS: H'm, h'm. MR. FORRESTER: In this zone is a required front yard. There are supplementaries. OK, fact number 1, we've got a front yard, and there is no doubt in my mind, we've got a front yard issue on the north side, the east side, and the south side, because it appears to be an issue on the south side at this point. Where I was measuring from on these boundaries. I'll start with the northerly boundary, that was the question. In supplementary, it is a front yard. Supplementary Regulations 100-230A. "Established front yard setback. Where property in the vicinity is improved with principal buildings with front yards of less than that required by the provisions of this chapter, the front yard setback shall be the average setback of the existing building within 300 feet". Property immediately to the west is improved with a setback of actually one foot greater than it was proposed here. The regulations regarding setbacks when that house was built, they may have been built predating this but it's there. It's an existing established front yard setback. In Greenport when some of these houses were built 1905 feet from the street'and you want to develop one today, and/or, the 4- one on that side is 5 feet, that one is 5 feet, you can put yours 5 feet, why? Because they weren't subject to the same rules but because this exists. I use this because a lot of my determination is not everyone agrees with me, and I've prepared those very sensitive. I've prepared them a long time ago. But that is my determination regarding the north side of this property. When I first wrote it, Page 67 - July 6, ., Transcripts of Hearings Y: °; . Board of Appeals that exception did not occur to me. That's why you don't see it in any subsequent disapprovals. Again, it's a, there was a pool involved. It was, the applicant removed it from the project. That was dropped from the disapproval. So the metamorphosis of this to the one we've got today, and it brings us to - where we;are today, so I'm now measuring from the edge of the property line. I said 12-1/2 feet. You had a problem with that number. I was just basically, had the survey of giving me 20 feet, not being a surveyor. There's a 15 foot right-of-way, the line appears to be down the center of it. I took 7-1/2 feet out, ended up;, with 12-1/2 but plus or minus is what we're looking for 12-1/2 foot setback on the easterly side of the variance. MEMBER COLLINS: May I just finish this thought? Ed, I think the question of the footage on the east side is just an arithmetic. I mean I get 17-1/2, not 12/1/2 but that's,just reading the survey. I mean the principals aren't altered by the particular: number. Thank you very much for that testimony on the northerly setback. '' I mean I think that clarifies a great deal of what the Building Department's thinking was. I think that Ms. Moore being in a position of representing a client who wants to contest the Building Department's decision now has a clear statement that of why you did it, and that is sought of what she needed. She was discussing Section 230 without being sure that it was in fact relevant, and you've now made it clear that it was entirely germane and that's very helpful to all of us, and I'll stop right there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: A - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You'll reserve, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: I will. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much Sir. MR. FORRESTER: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Mrs. Moore, you're going to ask him questions, then? MRS. MOORE: Well, I'm going to ask the Board, and you can, he may want to respond. His use of 100-230 and I question why he would choose to use it on the northerly right-of-way, and not us it on the easterly right-of-way? It's inconsistent. One, I believe it's not applicable, and it's because I think that's why it's very important that we have to choose which is a front yard because this Y , Page 68 - July 6, +c:j Transcripts of Hearings : - Board of Appeals section does not even apply if it's not the front yard, alright. So that's why it's most importantly but front yard. The average setback, and again, it's the definition of how you take an average is by taking two or more improved properties within 300 feet. That does not exist herex, Why not take the property on the water side, the sound side, and the property on the other side of Summit Road? And look at those two properties and say, oh, well the average setback there of a front yard is, X, and then apply it on the side yard, or apply it on the north. It just, that rule does not apply on a property that has this many front yards. I would agree, that if you're on a standard subdivision, a Greenport fully developed subdivision. Even where I live I can see up and down the street that the houses were built in the seventies and most of them have setbacks that are anywhere from 30 feet to 40 feet. Then you look at it and whether the Building Department applies that rule, or, the Zoning Board looks at:it, and/or the relief that's requested. That's when you look at it. It's not, it should not be applied the way it's being applied today with a piece of property that has admittedly 3 road frontages or two right-of-ways and a road frontage. You come up with all kinds of crazy contortions to try to give this applicant something that they don't deserve, and that's where I get so upset because the example that was given, Kirsch, that was my client, and it was very frustrating to try and build a house on a piece of property, that had wetlands surrounded from all over the place, and try to create proper setbacks. So you have to come to the Zoning Board. You have to present your case. You have to prove why you're entitled to the variances and that's the second appeal. That second appeal has not been proven but lets not take the job out of your hands and make the Building Department suddenly the arbitrator of what is an average setback on piece, that we can't even decide on if it's a front yard or a rear yard. So I think that that section is just totally misapplied here, and I love Ed, he and I could sit down and have a drink together, this is not a, we can disagree professionally, and there'll be times when we're on the same side, and so much - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As you know, you and I disagree most of the time. MRS. MOORE: That's alright. So that's my point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mrs. Tortora, has a final question for you Mr. Forrester and then we're going to wrap this up assuming the other side has not too much to say. I don't mean sarcastically either. MEMBER TORTORA: You said that you had done a ( ) the setback on the north side based on the single, the setback of a single house on the west side. MR. FORRESTER: Correct. Page 69 - July 6, 2:;cc Transcriptsof Hearings ;11-`.x::. = ,3 Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: One house. How did you determine that an average could be obtained by one quantitative measurement? =r4 MR. FORRESTER: My interpretation of this section of the code, determination: regarding, using my interpretation of the section code. It directs me to take the setback of buildings on the same side of the street. Then you go down that side, that's the only one. I think your question you're posing, is how do I get an average of one house? Rhetorically. I'm on an island. I'm the only one on it. I'm 6 feet tall. What's the average height of the people on this island? Six feet. MEMBER!TORTORA: I beg to differ. • MR. FORRESTER: You beg to differ? MEMBER TORTORA: Right. Only on one reason. The word "average" is no • different than the determination of square footage, or radius, or any other. It's formula math. It's mathematical theorem that has been established for almost a 1500 years, and laws of averages, and determination of mathematical averages, there over 2000 years old, so it's not an arbitrary thing. You could go back 300 years in history, and I'd go back into math and look at the word average, it's not going to change. You could go back to 4th grade math. It doesn't change. it's a ( ). It's a mathematical theorem that has been established for more than 2000 years and there is no, it is physically impossible to take an average of one quantitative. So that's why I ask. MR. FORRESTER: In this case, exception of modifications which I already have a copy of 230A, there's several of them. They were written and entered into the code to provide some relief in some cases, and they say, property within 300 feet. They didn't say properties. You've got singulars. You've got plurals. MEMBER TORTORA: I think this code says buildings, Ed. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment on that? I think that in all honesty, the people who wrote this law, had no idea about mathematics. What they were looking'for is esthetics. They don't want one house jutting out from another house, ;;and that's what we're talking about average here. You know, Mr. Forrestor used his common sense. I believe that the law has very much common sense' in it, and you stand at the property, and read the law, and then you try to apply it. And how do you apply it? You look at the house next door, and say OK, don't go any further than that, and that's what the law is saying. That's what this law is always saying. It's always said that to me. I believe that's saying that to Mr. Forrester, and I think that you know, 1500 years of mathematics have never entered into the thought when the legislatures put this Page 70 - July 6, Transcripts of Hearings is Board of Appeals down in writing. So, you know, it's late, I don't think we need to waste time on that. I think Mr. Forrester's argument is at least a valid argument. ',CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you Sir. Ms MR. FORRESTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. (Pa�r 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY,JJLY-6,2000 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following application will be held for public hearing by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2000 at the time noted below(or as soon thereafter is possible): 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4836 - VIVIAN KOCH. This is a request for an Interpretation of the Zoning Code, Section 100-13, regarding the setback(s) referred to in the Building Department's May 9, 2000 Notice of Disapproval, amended June 9, 2000. The June 9, 2000 Amended Notice of Disapproval reads as follows: Proposed (dwelling) construction on non-conforming lot not permitted pursuant to Article XXIV, Section 100-244B which requires a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, subject lot has right-of-way across property on easterly boundary creating front yard on that frontage. Setback on that frontage proposed at 12-1/2+- feet from boundary of right-of-way, 20 feet from property line. Location of Property: 675 Summit Drive, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-106-1-47. The Board of Appeals will at the above time and place hear all persons or their representative desiring to be heard or to submit written statements (before this hearing is concluded). The hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: June 15, 2000. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 PATRICIA C. MOORE 2 Attorney at Law L5 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel:(631)765-4330 JUN 2 8 a Fax::(631)765-4643 June 26, 2000 Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE :RE : Mrs . Vivian Koch Premises : 675 Summit Drive, Mattituck, NY SCTM 1000-106-1-47 Dear Chairman: Enclosed please find Affidavit of Posting for the above referenced matter. Very truly yours, PATRICIA C. MOORE PCM/kk Encls . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK x In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDAVIT OF Vivan Koch POSTING (Names of Applicants) Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as 1000- 106-1-47 x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, Patricia C. Moore residing at 370 Terry Lane, Southold,New York,being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the 26th day of June ,2000 , I personally placed the Town's official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of my application, in a secure position upon the property, located ten(10) feet or closer from the street or right-of-way- facing the street or facing each street or right of way abutting this property:* and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the subject hearing date,which hearing date was shown to be July 6,2000. (Signature) Patricia C. Moore Sworn to before me this &1 day of June , 2000. �' `�' !•` '� —" MARGARET C.RUTKOWSKI otary Public) Nay Rhea,State of New Yak No.4882528 Wild In Suffolk � a�°I *near the entrance or driveway entrance of the property, as the area most visible to passerby. ,' X7:35,r.m.A•._,�•ricrarn\uof.23r'.525 :�:�$i.; ';.,;. ._w P oP,l.'No.4813--4,& . _ .-•. . . . . , . oi �� t I S SOUTH �=OILS CORP.7E:M:T, . I Ib INC.:(C red from-liner hearing calendars.), Proposed-canopy with NOTICE OF I request for,variance on front yard , PUBLIC HEARINGS I setback and-addition to building with SOUTHOLDTOWN , y STATE OF NEWYORK) aI insuffieiehiArear,. aieseth k'at BOARD OF APPEALS 4961O'•Mainl-Rd.'(and Bayview Rd.),, , )SS: ' THURSDAY,JULY 6;2000 ' 1 „Southold;1000-70-7-4: ":' ' C UNTY OF SUFFOLK) NOTICE IS HEREBY.GIVEN -7 40',•p.m:,Appl. No.•4836 pursuant,to Section:267 of the Town' VIVIAN KOCH.TIiis`is a request for (d a n F. (N Law'and Chapter 100 (Zoning); ; rp talion of:the Zoning / of Mattituck, in said an Inte re Code of the Town of Southold, the''; Code„Section:100-13,:regarding:the county,being duly sworn,says that he/she is Principal following applications'will be held*' setback(s)referred to in the Building clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, for - public hearings by' the Department's May 9,2000 Notice`of ' published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF ; Disapproval,amended June 9,2000. APPEALS at the Town Hall,53095 The June 9,2000 Amended Notice of County of Suffolk and State of New York,and that the I:,Main'Road; Southold;�New,;.York Disapproval„ ;.reads as follows: Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has ? 11971, on 'THURSDAY, JULY.6; Proposed(dwelling)construction on x.2000 at the times noted below or as • n"on-conforming lot- not permitted been regularly pu} fished in said Newspaper once (- ursuant to Article XXIV, Section each week for thereafter as possible): P Weeks successively, 6:30'p.m.Appl.Na.4829—„DR.. 190-244B which requires a minimum' dd ANTHONY PELUSO. •Proposed ,' front yard setback of'40 feet,'subject comm9encing On the ��n day • garage addition with insufficient side 'lot •has right-of-way across property, Of c/(i('-� 20 i2(� yard•setback at, 185 ,Inlet Drive;>'._on_easterly:boundary creating frost- , Greenport. _ yard'on that frentage: Setback pn ' , n 1 6:35"p.m."Appl:=No. 4835`=-• : that frontage„proposed at -12'Tl2±_ . �( ( �� � WILLIAM' 'F:” and' GLORIA'',=-;feet-from;boundary of right-of-,Way, ik ,_BERTODATTL Contract Vendees-' 20 feet from property?line,'Location rincipal Clerk (Limpet Corp.),This is a request for a-_''-'-''-of 'Property: 675 Sdminit Drive, Variance under- Article - XXIV, - Mattituck;Parce1,1000-106-1-47. . ` Sworn to before me this �Zn d ,-,Section; 100-244B,;based on •the. 7:50'p.m. Appl. No:4818 = C:` day Of �(,t-r-Z Building Department's May-12,-2000;',•MESICOURIS,•.This is a'reQuest for• a: 20� Notice ',of Disapproval. The reason _ ',Variance`based,;on'a Jyne 9, 2000• that'the application for a building : :Amended Notice; ofpisapprRval_ permit fora one-family dwelling was which reads as follows: Proposed (dwelling) construction on non-con- CHRISTINAT.WEBER disapproved is, that the proposed. structure is locatedforming,lot not permitted pursuant -at 20 feet with a-_ NotaryPubac,b'feiBdNewYtxlt I:cantilever and 18 feet in the rear'and to Article,XXIV, Section'100-244B tlified YYEt1Q866b4 the Code-irequires a'nuriimum rear, .which requires a minimum front yard ' h ole yard of 3Sfeet.on this•11,1071 sq.ft. setback of 40 fegt,_subject lot"has Commission Explre3 DOMINI 3,,�D1 lot.Location of Property:1510 East . -right_of-way,acro'ssproperty on east tbillette,Driv.,`tr,�Eastr Msriao;lP..arcelc;,r-,b _ur creati r4At..yAt'Il-03-. (jr 1?C.�J � �t�� 1000-38-3-25. ' - •r.,.r-,-vrk•. - c:�— - --•- - - _ 6:-340 •cr ';r" ;;c • ,- Ithat, frontage,;Setback on that p•m.�7Appl. No. 4838 frontage-proposed;'at.12'-1/2± feet. • EDWARD SIDOR.This is a'reghest ;`from-boundary' Of,right-of-way,;20 • I for'a Variance under'Article'-III, ,_feet from!property-line::Location of Section 100-33,based on'the Building;'-Property:'• 675 -: m Sumit' Drive, , Department's June 9,2000 Notice of 1, Mattituck;Parcel 1000-106-1-47. -1 Disapproval.The reason that appli- !-- The Board of Appeals,will at the cants_request-for a building permit ! _above time and place hear all persons, •was`disapproved is that the subject !'Or their-representative desiring to be 1o_t has two front yards,arid the pro= heard or_to submit;written state- i posed accessory structure is located : meats (before,this hearing is con- within 4he_front:yard on the eastern ' eluded)`. The haringg .will:not start side of.the lot_:Location of Property: earlier than-designated. Files..are `200 Conklin Road, Mattituck,'NY; available for review during regular Parcel 1000-139-4-12.2.' •Town'Hall business hours(8-4'p.m.)., 6:50- p.m. .Appl. No. 4837 — •If you have questions,please do not HARRY.'CASITY and MARIA hesitate to,call(631)785-1809. - MISTHOS.This is a:•request for a Dated:June'16;20004 . Variance'Article XXIII;Section 100-- • •' SOUTHOLD'TOWN 239.4(1) based on I the Building•. I BOARD OF APPEALS Department''s May 2,2000 Notice of ; -Town Hall, -Disapproval:;'.The reason stated for - 53095 Main Road the disapproval is that the accessory 1 - ' ' ' ' Southold,NY 11971 in-ground swimming pool and hot 1367-1TJu22 _ .tub are proposed;atiless`than 100 feet from the,top'of.the bluff or bank of '• the Long Island'Sound..Loeation of Property: - 1900 •Hyatt . Road, Southold;Parcel 1000-50-1-3. " `, 7:00 p.m.Appl.No.4833—JOHN' aad HELEN,BERI?INI(A.This is a If"�request for'a Variance=b'ased'on the ir,Building Department's.March 28, 17_2000 Notice of:Disapproval.The rea- l-son stated for the disapproval is that " !"under,Article':.II-A;,Sgectiph'-100-: .:,30A.4,the'Bulk;�Schedule requires a ''minimum lot'sizeiof 40,000 sq.ft:in this R-40 Residential,Zone District ; 'and that the proposed lot line change , creates a lot with-a greater degree of , non-conformity`;- Location of .'P'roperty:'•1260--j and 1330 Factory I Avenue,Mattituck;Parcel Nos.1000- . 142-1-7&8. ,`;_,, _ • Il 7:10 p.m.' Appl: Na.' 4828 •ROBERT D'URSO and RICHARD I , OVERHULS ,' (Owners),`, and 'MICHAEL DELUCA. (Contract i • Vendee).Thi'is.-a request for, Lot ,I <;Waiver;as provided under Article II, •'Section-10072,to unmerge Lot 1000- -106-6-35'from 1000-106-6-34. On May 8,2000 a Notice of Disapproval was issued stating that Lot 34 merged with adjacent lot 35 pursuant 'to Section 100-25A of the Zoning Code. -Locatiori'of:Property:1645 Bayview - Avenue,'Partof Lots H & Ion the Map of Shores Acres,Mattituck;NY. I '7:30•p.m. -Appl. No. 4826 ;— WILLIAMI PENNY'III.(Continued fromiJune 8,2000,heariag calendar.) , Pr`oposed'building greater than 60 ft. wide along C.R.48,Southold;Parcel 3• 1000-55:S27 PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel:(631)765-4330 Fax::(631)765-4643 June 26, 2000 Southold Town Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE : RE: Mrs . Vivian Koch Premises : 675 Summit Drive, Mattituck, NY SCTM 1000-106-1-47 Dear Chairman: Enclosed please find Affidavit of Mailing with Certified Mail Receipts for the above referenced matter. Very truly yours, (------ -PATRICIA C. MOORE PCM/kk Encls . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK x In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDAVIT OF Vivian Koch MAILINGS (Names of Applicants) Parcel ID#1000- 106-1-47 x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, Karen Klimecko residing at Brigantine Dr Southold, New York,being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the 22 day of June , 2000 , I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in Southold, New York,by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the (x)Assessors, or() County Real Property Office Southold NY, for every property which abuts and is across a public or private street, or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the applicant's property. / (Signature) Karen Klimecko Sworn to before me this a a''"-1)day of June , 2000. (Notaryublic) ( YAReuerc.Rurxowsi0 Nevi Itc, ,6�528 New Yet PLEASE list, on the back of this Affidavit or+on a sheet o paper, the lot numbers next to the owner names and addresses for which notices were mailed Thank you. + r PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel:(631)765-4330 FILE copy Fax:(631)765-4643 June 21, 2000 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Neighbors RE: Mrs . Vivian Koch Premises : 675 Summit Drive, Mattituck, NY SCTM 1000-106-1-47 Dear Neighbor: I represent Vivian Koch regarding her property at 675 Summit Drive, Mattituck, NY She is requesting an Interpretation of the Zoning Code, Section 100-13 , regarding the setback. We have submitted the required application. They have scheduled the hearing on this matter for Thursday, July 6, 2000 at 7 : 50 p.m. at Southold Town Hall . Enclosed is the notice of public hearing and my letter to the Zoning Board describing our position. If you have any questions, or you wish to support this application, please do not hesitate to contact me . Very truly yours, /. RICIA C . MOORE PCM/kk End. Ic a SENDER: I also wish to receive the follow- N ❑Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services Ing services(for an extra fee). `- w Complete items 3,4a,and 4b I v 0 Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this l y card to you 1 ❑Addressees Address g I iD ❑Attach this form to the front of the maiipiece,or on the back if space does not > i w permit 2. 0 Restricted Delivery a`, I _ 18 ! i L ❑Write"Return Receipt Requested°on the mailpiece below the article number N U) t-'1 0 c:,'—' 1,..j. O -. W ❑The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date a O J O O 0 delivered O I aa, 3 Article Addressed to 4a.Article Number � Kver itThri 6A) c , _ ;eT ACK S NUTIL; 0 IA IN �i NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, concerning this property. OWNER(S) OF RECORD : C € S ( OUiei5 kOC - APPELLANT K DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING : -i-� • Trurs Y 76.51,0C1 If you have an interest in this project, you are invited to view the Town file(s) which are available for inspection prior to the day of the hearing during normal business days between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. BOARD OF APPEi4LS. • TOWN OF SOUTHOLD • (516) 765-1809 475 5LAM,i t' 7- \ r� -d-d'� LI OFFICE OF / ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ')' 53095 Main Road 1-d--- Southold, NY 11971 /; / (631)765-1809 Fax765-1823 (or 765-9064) 1 , ucicia Q `'�' ) -�`c �-k(/ / June 16,2000 sy 4-24. Re:Chapter 58—Public Notice Requirement-July 6,2000( ) Dear Applicant: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Suffolk Times. Pursuant to Chapter 58 of the Southold Town Code(copy enclosed),formal notice of your application and hearingdate must now be mailed with a map or property sketch showing the new location of the area being considered. By Friday,June 23rd,please send the enclosed Notice CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED,as soon as possible,with a copy of the project map to all owners of land(vacant or improved) surrounding yours,including land across anystreet or right-of-way that borders your property. Use the current addresses listed on the current assessment records in the Town Assessors'Office(765-1937)or the County Real Property Office in Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor,you may want to send the notice to that address as well. By Friday,June 30th, please complete your Affidavit of Mailing(copy enclosed)with parcel numbers noted for each,and return it to us with the white receipts postmarked by the post office. Later,when the green signature cards are returned to you by the Post Office,please mail or deliver them to us. If any signature card is not returned,please advise the Board at the hearing. A sign is also necessary for posting at the property by you not later than Wednesday,6/28/00,and therefore must be picked up by you or your representative some time,between now and June 28th,between the hours of 8 and 4 p.m. The sign must be located on the property no more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. (If you border more than one street or roadway,an extra sign is enclosed for the front yard facing each.) Thesign(s)must remain in place for at least seven(7)days,and if possible,remaining until the day of the hearing. After the signs have been in place for seven(7)days,please submit your Affidavit of Posting to us(copy enclosed)for our permanent file. When convenient,please also return the sign to us. If you do not meet the deadlines stated in this letter,please contact us promptly. It may be nec- essary to cancel your hearing if the required steps are not followed. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, ZBA Office Enclosures FL/i� to/a/�D, f'/itt - -- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY,JULY 6, 2000 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following application will be held for public hearing by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2000 at the time noted below(or as soon thereafter is possible): 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4836 - VIVIAN KOCH. This is a request for an Interpretation of the Zoning Code, Section 100-13, regarding the setback(s) referred to in the Building Department's May 9, 2000 Notice of Disapproval, amended June 9, 2000. The June 9, 2000 Amended Notice of Disapproval reads as follows: Proposed (dwelling) construction on non-conforming lot not permitted pursuant to Article XXIV, Section 100-244B which requires a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, subject lot has right-of-way across property on easterly boundary creating front yard on that frontage. Setback on that frontage proposed at 12-1/2+- feet from boundary of right-of-way, 20 feet from property line. Location of Property: 675 Summit Drive, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-106-1-47. The Board of Appeals will at the above time and place hear all persons or their representative desiring to be heard or to submit written statements (before this hearing is concluded). The hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: June 15, 2000. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT (JUN 19 '00 08:42AM) SOL LD TOWN HALL 516 765 1823 (AUTO) DATE START REMOTE TERMINAL TIME RE- MODE TOTAL PERSONAL LABEL FILE TIME IDENTIFICATION SULTS PAGES NO. JUN 19 08:40AM 631 765 4643 00'59" OK ES 02 017 E)ECM >)REDUCTION S)STANDARD MEMORY C)CONFIDENTIAL #)BATCH D)DETAIL $)TRANSFER F)FINE P)POLLING V . KOCH 1000- 106 - 1 -47 (Meskouris) INTERPRETATION REQUEST SETBACKS FOR DWELLING on C . MESKOURIS PARCEL JULY 6TH - 7 : 50P .M.