The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3510Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD. L.I.. N.Y. llg'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 35]0 Application Dated May ]4, ]986 TO: Mr. and Mrs. Richard Z~id]er P.O. Box 165 Laurel, NY 11948 [Appellant (s) ] At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on July 3], ]986, the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property New York Town Law, Section 280-a [ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section [×] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article X! , Section ]00-]]9.2 [ ] Request for Application of RICHARD AND RUTH ZEIDLER for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to locate proposed pool, deck and fencing within 75' of bulkhead or tidal water. Location of Property: 100 McDonald's Crossing off the South Side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; Edgemere Park.Lots 12, 13 and 14; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-145-4-15. WHEREAS, public hearings were held on'June 19, 1986 and July 1986, in the Matter of the Application of RICHARD AND RUTH ZEIDLER, under Appeal No. 3510; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard, and their testimony was recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located in located in the Residential~.and Agricultural Zoning District, ~ith frontage along Brushes Creek and Peconic Bay, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 145, Block 4, Lot 15. 2. The subject premises consists of a total area of approximately 28,355 sq. ft. as shown by survey dated April 17, 1979, and is improved with a single-family, one-story frame house with attached garage and deck areas, and gazebo. 3. By Notice of Disapproval dated May 14, 1986, applicant was denied a building permit application for a swimmingpool addition under the provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2 of the Zoning Code, which requires all buildings and structures located on lots adjacent to tidal water bodies other than the 17, (CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO) DATED: August 5, 1986. Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) CHAIRM3kN, SOUTHOLD TOW/~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Page 2 Appeal No. 3510 Matter of RICHARD AND RUTH Decision Rendered July 31, ZEIDLER 1986 the Long Island Sound to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary highwater mark of such tidal water body, or not less than seventy-five feet from the landward edge of the tidal wetland, whichever is greater. 4. In personally viewing the premises in question, it has been found that the existing wood deck areas are not flush with the average grade level, and it has been noted by the building inspector that an up-to-date survey showing all above-ground structures was not submitted at the time of the filing of the building-permit application, and therefore he was not able to determine compliance or noncompliance of the lot-coverage restriction. It appears after inspections by the board members and the building department that the existing deck areas must be calculated in determining the percentage of lot coverage. Inasmuch as a lot-coverage variance was not applied for, this board is without authority to act concerning same, except to require further review by the Building Inspector and possibly a subsequent variance application. It is therefore the sugges- tion of this board that an accurate up-to-date survey prepared by a surveyor showing and calculating the percentage of lot coverage for all structures, above ground level, be submitted to the Building Inspector before the issuance of a building permit, and that a second Notice of Disapproval be issued indicating the basis of his determination, in the event that an alternative has not been accepted by the Building Inspector and the applicants, for amended construction. 5. It is the opinon of the board that the applicants do not have any other method feasible for them to pursue in this wetlands-setback application other than another variance; and in considering the character of this property and the immediate area, the most feasible location will be in this westerly yard area, as amended, having setbacks of no closer than 50 feet to the front property line and no closer than 30 feet to the water along the westerly property line, without any encroachment into the westerly view easement, and as further conditionally noted below. In considering this appeal, the board finds and deter- mines that by locating the proposed pool, decks and fence enclosure as specifically noted below: (a) the variance will be the minimum necessary; (b) the circumstances of the property are unique; (c) the practical difficulties are sufficient to warrant a granting of this variance; (d) there will be no substantial change in the character of the district; (e) the relief as granted is not substantial, being a variance of 40+ percent of the existing setback, or 20± feet; (f) the circumstances are not shared by other properties generally existing in the neighborhood; (g) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of all the above factors, the interests of justice will best be served by allowing the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that permission to locate an inground swim- mingpool, decks and fence enclosure, within 75' of tidal P~ge 3 - Appeal No. 3510 Matter of RICHARD AND RUTH ZEIDLER Decision Rendered July 31, 1986 water body, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED in the Matter of the Application of RICHARD AND RUTH ZIEDLER, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No building construction closer than 50 feet to the front property line and no closer than 30 feet to the water along the westerly side; 2. No encroachment into view easement along westerly side; 3. Screening along the westerly side (bushes, etc.) shall be maintained,(except for area within view easement). 4. Lighting shall be of a mushroom-type which not adversely glare into neighboring properties; 5. Screening shall be placed and maintained at the northwest corner along yard area adjacent the view easement; 6. Inasmuch as this application has not been determined by the Building Department as to compliance or noncompliance of the lot-coverage limitations, before issuance of a building permit, a certified up-to-date survey must be submitted to the Building Department for such determination, as well as any and all other Bulk Schedule regulations of the Zoning Code; 7. In the event it is found that the lot coverage is excessive for all structures above ground level, applicant will then be required to reapply or comply as otherwise authorized by the Building Inspector. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen. (Members Douglass and Grigonis were absent.) tion was duly adopted. Sawicki and This resolu- lk I ECEIVED AND FILED BY THI~ SOUTHOLD TOWN CI.~.P.K NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold', NY at a Regular Meeting of the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Roads Southo.ld, NY on THURSDAY~ JUNE 19, 1986 and as follows: ~:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3489 PAUL LEARY for a Reversal of Decision of the Building Inspector for Nullification of Actions to issue a Modified Permit and Demolition Permit, and that the property owners be left to regular procedures of law, to be .allowed only after review by the Board of Appeals and in accord- ance with all provisions of law. Name of Owners/Location of Property: FRANK E. AND MARY BROPHY, 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-10-20.7. (Recessed from 5/1/86) 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3499 DANIEL AND LISA JEROME for a Special Exception of the Zoning Ordinance.'for approval of an accessory apartment pursuant to Article III, Section lO0-30(B). Location of Property: 45125 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-75-02-3.1. 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3502 - GREGORY FOLLARI for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for per- mission to locate new dwelling with an insufficient setback from L6ng'~Island ~ound bluff. Location of Property: North Side of Sound Drive, Greenport; i'~Map of Section Four-Eastern Shores" Lot #117, Map No. 4586; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-33-1-15. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3508 - DAVID MOORE for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to locate new pool, deck and fence ar~as with an insufficient ~et- back from Long Island Sound bluff. Location of Property: North Side of Soundview Avenue, Sou.thold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-51-4-17. 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 351~ - HOWARD REINHART and CHARLES HYDELL for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section lO0-118(B) and Article III, Section lO0-30(A) fo~ permission to use existing buildin, g for woodworking shop and sales in this "A-40" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District. Location of Property: 43305 Main Page 2 - Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting June 19, 1986 Road, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-75-0~-16. 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3516 - ALBERT J. BODENSTEIN for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition with an insufficient setback from the closest northerly p'roperty line as shown by sketched survey dated April 22, 1986. Location of Property: 6135 Indian Neck Road, Pecon~c, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-86-6-19. 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3424 ELEANOR LEONARD for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of two contiguous parcels, having insufficient area, width and depth. Location of Property: Along Right-of-Way off the east side of Bay Home Road (and along the end Qf Willow Point Road), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-56-5-39, 40, and 41. 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3518 - MARJORIE D. PETRAS for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for insufficient setback of proposed additions from bulkhead along Corey Creek, at 700 Koke Drive, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87-5-006. 8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3505 - RALPH AND LUCILLE STOCKER for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to locate proposed new dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback. Location of Property: 1080 Maple Lane (a/k/a 55 Snug Harbor Road), Greenport, NY; Cleaves Point, Section 3, Map No. 4650, Lot 59; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-5-28o 8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3513 - STEPHEN SHILOWITZ for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti.cle XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to construct condominium complexes within 75' of bulkhead or tidal water~ Location of Property: West Side of Sixth Street, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 49-01-25.1. Zoning District: ."M-Light-Multiple." ~ 8:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3510 - RICHARD AND RUTH ZEIDLER for / a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, A~ticle XI, Section 100-119.2(B _<for permission to locate proposed pool, deck and fencing within j 75' of bulkhea or tidal water. Location of Property: 100 McDonald s ~ Crossing off the South Side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; ~l Edgemer6 Park LOts 12, 13, and 14; County Tax Map Parcel' No. 1000- }~ Page 3 - Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting - June 19, 1986 ~145-4-15. ~ 8:40 p.m. Appeal ~o. 3524 - PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to locate marine fuel-storage tank structures in this "C-Light" Industrial Zoning District with an insufficient setback from landward edge of tidal wetland and from ordinary highwater mark, at 6230 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-56-6-4, 6, 6~1. 8:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3525 - PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B) for permission to install/relocate marine fuel-storage tanks in this "C-Light" Industrial Zoning Districts at 6230 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-56-6-4, 6, 6.1. 8:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3512 SAMUEL BAILS for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, SectionilOOZ31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct deck addition and roof over cellar stairs which exceeds the maximum-permitted 20% lot coverage and roof overhang will reduced sideyard setback to less than that permitted. Location of Property: 1980 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-144-01-015. The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the above hearings. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing in question. For more informa- tion, please call 765-1809 (alt. 1802). Dated: ~une 9, 1986. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN ATTENTION NEWSPAPERS: Please publish Thursday, June 12, 1986 and forward two affidavits of publication On or before June 17th to: Board of Appeals, Main Road, Southold, NY 1197t. lk NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY at a Regular Meeting commencing at 7:30 p.m. on THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1986 and as follows: 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. '3529 ~ 'PAUL KELSCH. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance~ Article Ilia-Section lO0-31 for permis- sion to construct deck addition to existing dwel~i-ng with an insufficient rearyard setback~ at 405 Wendy Drive, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 27~08-19. 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3526 BRU~E.AND' SHIRLE~ SIEVERMAN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct deck addition to existing dwelling and attaching an existing swimmingpool, leaving an insufficient setback from the southerly (side) ~' property line on this-corner lot. Location of Property: 50 Aquaview Avenue andkRocky Point Road, East Marion, NY; County Tax Mac Parcel No. 1000~21-3-1. 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3528 - RICHARD AND ALICE McMANUS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance: Article III, ~Section 100~31 and Section 100-13(2)[B_ for approval of the construction of an open porch in excess of 30 ~sq. ft.~ in area~ hav~ng an insufficient setback from.-the front property l~ne at- 710 Cedar Lane, East Marion~ NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-3t-6-5.1. 7:50 p.m. Appeal ~o~ 3531 ALBERT J. BRENEISEN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance~ Article. XI, Section 1~0-119~2(B) for permission to construct pool, deck and fence enclosure within 75 feet of mean high water along Dawn Lagoon, 715 Dawn Drive, East Marion~ NY~ County Tax Map Parcel No~ 1000-35~5~t61 Cleaves Point Section III, Lot #71~ - 7:55 p.m. Appeal No~ 3521 z ANDREW AND WILLIAM GOODALE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100'31 for permission to reduce, living area in-preexisting, noncon- forming dwelling unit in this ~'B-I" General Business Zoning District, to less than 850 sq~ ft~ Location of Property: Page 2- Notice of He'arings Southold Town Board of Appeals July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting Z~5 ~fm~ Ro,'e,d~%.~:e~].~ NY~ County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 122-6-30.1 (or 3~. 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3523 - STEVE KALAIJIAN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,-Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk and Parking Schedule~ for approYal of insufficient lot area of proposed Parcel No. 2 in this two-lot division/set-off located on the north side of a private right-of-way extending off the north side of Bergen Avenue, Mattituck~ 'N~ County-Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-1-~2~01-18. 8:~g p.m~ Appeal No~ 3517 - ROSALIE GOWE~. Variance to reconsider the rel-ief requested-under Appeal No. 3450 for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance~ Article III~ Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of: (1) insufficient lot area, (2) insufficient lot width~ (3) insufficient lot depth, of two parcels as proposed in this pend%ng set-off/redi~isi-on of ~and located at the corners of Zena Road, Cpt~idd Dr~e and Central Drive, Mattituck~ NY; Cpt. Kidd's Estates Filed Map #1672, Lots 134, 153, 154;-~ County Tax Map Parcel No-. 1000=106-02~32 and 8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3522 - NORTH FORK BANCORP.- Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-7.0(C)[2] for permission to install: (1) large onepr~mises~identification s~gn in excess of the maximum height and width requirements, and (2) second on-premises identification/directory sign, at premises known as 9025 Main Road, Mattituck, NY~ County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-6-020. zoning District: "B-Light Business. 8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3527 z ROBERT AND CHARLOTTE WISSMAN. Variances to,the]ZoningS]Ordinance: (a) Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedul6r~ for location of new single-family dwelling with reduced sideyards,, frontyard, and.?ea~y~rd,i - setbacks; and. (b} Arti~le. XI~iSectiSn~l~OO~lg.2(B)- for location of new dwelqing w~th reduced setback from highwater mark at,iFordham Canal. Location Lane, Greenport,. NY;- County Tax (referred to as Lot '~C" in prior of Property: 715 Gull Pond Map~ No~ 1000=35-04-00~.6 subdivision records). 8:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3428 ~ BERTHA KURCZEWSKI. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lOOz31, Bulk and Parking Schedule, for approval of insufficient area and frontage (lot width) of two parcels in this pending set-off division of land, located at the east side of Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY; 43. Page 3 - Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals July 17~ 1986 Regular Meeting County Tax Map Parcel's No. 1000-102-02-003 and 025. 8:40 p,m~ Appeal No. 3513 - STEPHEN SHILOWITZ. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to construct condominium complexes within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water~ at the west side of Sixth Street, Greenport, NY~ County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-49-01=25.1. Zoning District: "M-Light Multiple." (Recessed from June 19, 1 98.6 ) //~V 9:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3510 RICHARD AND RUTH 'ZEIDLER. ~ ariance to locate pool, deck and fencing within 75 feet of < bulkhead and tidal water, at 100 McDonald's Crossing~, Laurel~ (Recessed from June 19, 1986) 9:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3489 - PAUL LEARY for Reveral of Building Inspector~s Decision concer:~n§ property of FRANK'E~ AND MARY BROPHY~ 75 Second Street, New-Suffolk. (Recessed from June 19, q986). The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the above hearings. Written comments ~ay also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. For more information, please call 765-1809. Dated: July 2, ~986. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD ?~ GoEH~INGER~ CHAIRMAN ATTENTION NEWSPAPERS: Please ~u.blisN THURSDAY, ~ULY 10, 1986 and forward two affidavits of publication on or before 7/15 to: Board of ~peals~ ~ain Road, Southotd, NY 11971. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL File No ................................ .~.'.~ & ~. . ~.o.~. !~.~ ........................ ......... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated ..... ~ . .C~., ! .~ ......... 19 2 .~.. for permit to construct... ~O ~.. q. ~ .................................. ax ~cationofPro~rty ~. ~.--~..~...~~ ...... County T~ Map No. 1000 Section ..... ~ ~ ..... Block ... ~.~ ....... Lot .. ~[~ ...... Subdi~on ~. ~. Filed Map No .... ~ .¢.~ ...... Let No..t ~7.j. ~. r/.~ .... is returned herewith and d~approved on the foliow~g ~ounds. ~ ~ ~.. ~. (~'~.c [/~' ~ ~..~~~..~'~.~...~.7.:~.~)~,..~.~ _ BulldOg ~spector RV 1/80 ., FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD' ~'~. BUILDING DEPARTMENT ' ' ' TOWN HALL ~OUTHOLD, N;Y. 11971 TEL.: 7.65-180~ Approved .~Perm~t No. Disapproved a/c . .'~.-~..%~.k~..~. · ~: , ~ -l I c~. ~ Received ............ 19.. (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS Date .~.../.3 ...... 19d a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, witt sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public stre~ or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this apl- cation. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such perr shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupan shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE re the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to ~ Building Zone Ordinance of the Town Of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws. Ordinances Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or f~w-a'e~oval or demolifion, as herein describe The applicant agrees t6 comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, b'~g ¢o~de,,t~ousing code, and regulations, and admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necess../~'I~,,./:~:. ~,~ L.,~~ame//d .a.c.o.r.p.o:~t.i:: )... ............ (raa±l±ng ad ess of app.l±c.ant:)b d:uilSe State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumner or (as on tl~ tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of Corporate officer) Builder's License No ......................... Plumber's License No ........................ Electrician's License No ...................... Other Trade's License No ...................... Locafion of land on which proposed work will be done..~~...~ ......... ...... ............ County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ./. ~'5.~. ........... Block ~. ~. .............. Lot.. O../. &'7 ......... Subdivision .~.~~(~qa.~~ ............ Filed Map No...7..~ ....... Lot /.~l, ~ [~. "./. ~.... State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: b. Intended use and occupancy ................................... .o. 3. Nature of work (check which applicable}: New Building .......... Addition ....... Alterati/o)n ........... Repair .............. Removal .............. Demolition .............. Other Work .~. ~J~'. ...... a ~ (Description) 4. Estimated Cost .... / l~ee (to be paid on CUing this application) 5. If dwelling, number o f dwelling units ............... Number o f dwelling units on each floor ................ If garage, number of cars ........................................................................ 6. if buslness, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use ..................... · x ~ * ' De h 7. Dimensmns of e .isfing structures, ~f any: Front/d.a.~-~ear .............. pt ............... Height ............. ~?. Number of Stories ............... / ........................................ Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ................. Rear .................. Depth ...................... Hei~.t ...................... Number of Stories ...................... 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front /~,.<,~d...,~.d~_~.... Rear ............... Depth ............... Height ............... Number of Stories ........................................................ 9. Si_z~oflot: Front ...................... Rear ...................... Depth ...................... 10. Da~e of Purchase d-~.~../D..--./. ~. ? Y. .......... Name of Former Owner ...... ~-_a~. _~_.j~- ............ 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated ...................................... o. .............. I2. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: .............................. ! 3. Will lot be regraded .. ,.~..94~ ................... Will ex_cess fill be removed from premises: Yes (.No 14. Name oT Owner of premise~ ./~.~ff~.~.~Y.~Y~T~( ~?~,,Address//~e.~,~ ./~ ~o,~.. Phone NI~.,=~-:Z ~r. Name of Architect ..... ~ ................... Address ...... ~.. ~-, Phone No ................ Name of Contractor , ~-/-~.. ................... Adaress .............. .5~.... Phone No ...... ; ......... 15. Is this property' located within 1100 feet of a tidal wetland? * Yes ..~.. No · If yes~ Southold To,,m Trustees Permit may be required. PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly mhd distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and, indicate all set-back dimensions from property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate Whether interior or corner tot. STATE OF NEW YORK, S.S COUNTY OF ................. ~;.e ................................................ being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant Num~ of individual signing contract) above named. He is the ......................................................................................... (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file tbJs application; that ail statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the mm~ner set forth in the application filed there,a/th. Sworn to before me this mm va .- ........ ,<-. . .. · . /~r~ ~us[~c s,~e of ~ Ym ~ ...... ;2: ............... ', - , ' fi/ (Signature of apphcant) FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . - BUILDING DEPARTMENT ' ' ' TOWN HALL ~OUTHOLD, N.Y, 11071 y . . TEL.; 76~1802 Approved .-7. :?d.~q'~'.., .... P-Z,~'".. Pe~it No ............ Disapproved a/c .~.X).-°2..~..~,~.~.~.'.~..~ .... l.C.°. 7//.? ?.":- ...... Received ........... ,19. (Buliding Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS Date .~. ~. 3 .... a. TbJs application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, w/ti sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public strer or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drown on the diagram which is part of this apl; cation. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such perr~ shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole' or in part for any purpose whatever until g Certificate of Occupan shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to t Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southotd, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or~r~ct)qoval or demolition, as hereto describ~ The applicant agrees td comply wi~ all applicable laws, ordinances, b 'pcl'd~ng ¢O'de,~ousi~g code, and regulations, and admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necess . ./~,~111'z~'. pe~:. ~~. ......... (mailing ad~ess of. appiic~ant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumuer or builde Nmne of owner of premises .~,fft. o.,c~.' .~. ~...~" : .' ............................ · (as on t~est deed) If applicant is a corporation, mgnature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer~ BuJder s License No .......................... Plumber's License No ......................... Electrician's License No ....................... Other Trade's License No ...................... Locaflonofland on whichprop9sed workwillbe done..&~..~z~ ..................... · ./. ': ...... ...... M. .................. County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ./. ~. ~.'-. ........... Block ~. ~. .............. Lot.. O...Z ~'7 ......... Subdivision .~.(,~,C~_..~....~2-~.. ............ Filed Map No.. 7' ~ ....... Lot /.~- '- tt~. './. ~.-.- ~ (Name) State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: .~. ........ ~~ ~. ~..~-~ l~ .~. ~. a. Existing use and occupancy ..~ O...~,~_. ~.. _~ ........ b. Intended use and occupancy ................................................................... 3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Bu~/ding .... Ad0i~ .~n o · .. ~,,, Alteratlg~i . .~ ....... Rep~Jr .............. Removal .............. Demolz~x ........... i.. Other Work ./~-~-~'. ...... ~ ~ (Description) 4. Estimated Cost .... ~../~J.. ,~/.~: ..................... Fee ...................................... (to be paid on f'ding this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units ............... Number o f dwelling units on each floor ................ If garage, number of cars ........................................................................ 6. If business, commerciai or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use ..................... 7. Dimensions of existing stvacmres, if any: Front/&,~.-~ear .............. Depth ............... Hei~2 ...... Number of Stories .............. I ......... Dmaens:,ons of same structur~ with alterations or additions: Front ................. Rear .................. Depth ...................... :e~ght ............ ~ ......... Number of Stories ...... 8. D~mensions of entire new construction: Front ./~$d.../~_~.... Rear ............... Height ............... Number of Stories ........................................................ 9. Size of lot: Front ...................... Rear .................. Depth ......... i 0. Date ot Pur~has~ ~ ~.~./.7..-.. Y. 7 7. .......... Name of Former Owner ...... ~ ........... ~ I. Zone or use district in which premises are situated ...................................... o. .............. 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: ................................ 13. W£il lot be regraded .. ,.~4/-x~ ................... Will excess fill be removed from premises: Yes (N~ Name of Architect ......................... Address ...... ~~,. Phone No ................ Name of Contrac[or ~J~.f~ ................... Address ................... Phone No ................ 15, Is this property located withinl.00 feet of a tidal wetland? * Yes .d.~.. No ..... ~ If yes, Southold To~m Trustees Permit may be required. PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and d~stinctly all buildings, whether existkng or Proposed, and, indicate all set-back dimensions from property 15nos. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether interior or coruer lot. STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ................. 8.$ >~' ................................................ being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named. He is the ......................................................................................... (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to Perform or have performed the said work and to make and f'de this applkafion; that all statements contained in th~s application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work w~ be performed in the manner set forth in the applkation filed therewith. Sworn to before me this Y~3. 47~7~78, ~u~0T~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. APPEAL NO. DATE ...... ........ // THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ...~...Z...~,....Z.'..~...~..~.. ..... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ............ Name Of Applicant~for permit ......... Street and Number ~' Municipality St'ate of ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY Street Use District on Zoning Map Curre.t Ow.er /~, Mop No. ,-]z/Z~ Lot 2. F~ROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Z~ning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (V,~'/'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 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appealS(has not) been mode with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such ~ppeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( b)/~quest fora variance ~, ~L¢-~ ~ ~ . - /?cf/ and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (~""A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is requested for the reason that //v~ ~ Form ZB1 (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Con tinued I. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- vicinity of this property and in this use district because The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared Dy all properties alike in the mmediate 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because STATE OF NEW YORK ) ~ ~j~ COUNTY OF ~]q,/"m~z_,t ) ~'~ of ....... .>t?..~ .................... 19~ Sworn to this .......... /....4( ............................... day ........................ · ~' Notary Public UNDA d. COOP~'R ~ N?, ary Public, b~ate of New York~j/ su. k c0 i// Term Expires December 31~, ~ ~ oWNER STREET SOUTHOLD VI LLAGE FORMER OWNER v. N W VL FARM COMM. CB. MISC. Mkt. Value ACR. I ' TYPE OF BUILDING [.AND IMP. TOTAL DATE ' AGE NEW FARM Tillable 1 NORMAL Tilk~ble : TiJJable 3 Woodland : SwampJand BUILDING CONDITION BELOW ABOVE Value per Value Acre FRONTAGE ON WATER I Brushland House Plot ;~FRONTAGE ON ROAD DEPTH BULKHEAD M. Bldg. Extension Extension Extension Garage Oo B, Total Foundation ~. ? ~ Bath ~Ext, Wails Interior Finish Fire Place Type Roof Recreation Dormer Driveway Heat Rooms ]st Floor Rooms 2nd Floor Dinette NOTE: m .- MONUMENT O~FI C~ O~ TH~ CLffRK OF SUFFOLK SUFF. CO. TAX MaP DIST. I000 S~CK 145 B~.04 LOT 01~ ~. 19, 1985 ~LDEN ~ ~UN~ HOWARD ~ YOUN~ MAY 9,1986 P~OF~IONAL ~N~lN~ ~0 LAND ~UHV~OR ~VC~ FOR SOU FNOL D _ I · ~FF. CO TAX ~P ~/~T. /00~ ~EC~ /~ ~.0~ ~OT O/5 ~ ~EWMO~ YOUNG APR. ~4,1~79 ~00 O~D~R AV~NU~ ~umo~ ~ ~ ~ AUG, / 9~ 5 ~LD~N ~ YOUN~ ~ ~"~'~ ~¥~'~ ~ ~ ~ ' RICHAR~ ZEID~ER ~ RUTH ~F~ CO, N. ~ s~, I"= 40' ~r6aP~. Southold Town Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York - 11971 P. O. Box 1169 Peconic Bay Boulevard Mattituck, NewYork - 11952 February 15, 1990 Dear Ladies & Gentlemen of the Board: First, I must apologize for the length of this letter. I wish it did not have to be so. Indeed, I wish the letter was not necessary. But it is and thus the length. When my husband and I were invited to meet with the Town Board on August 1, 1989, to discuss the difficulties we have been encountering with our neighbor, Richard Zeidler, and the various Town agencies, we were advised that the matter certainly merited in- vestigation and we would be apprised of the results. At that meeting Mr. Geohringer said he could not cor~nent since he had not inspected the premises, but would. Mr. Kujawski claimed the Trustees would follow up and their part. (They did. Mr. Bredemeyer, particularly, has been very fair). Mr. Horton claimed he gave the Zeidler's a Certificate of Occupancy at Mr. Schonde- bare's insistance - in Mr. Lessard's absence - despite outstanding violations. We, there upon, requested that the C.O. be rescinded until everyone was satisfied that the mandates imposed by the various agencies were implemented. We made that same re- quest in a letter to Mr. Lessard on 8/4/89. To date, we have heard nothing from you. The Z.B.A.'s variance originally stipulated - a) That the pool be built no closer than 30 feet from the creek. No farther Page 2 than 26 feet from the house. No closer than 50 feet from the road. b) Verification of the lot coverage or no building permit. c) No intrusion into the deeded eye-view easement. The Trustees, the Z.B.A. and Building Dept. originally approved a 32' x 16' pool with 6' x 4' decking around same, as drawn and applied for. We all know he ignored every parameter and condition imposed. The dimensions were blatantly violated and the end product bore little resemblance to the drawing presented with the permit applications. There were infractions of the Z.B.A.'s ruling, the Building Dept. permit, the Trustees mandates and our easement. After many letters and hearings, we finally got that part of the structure that ex- tended into our eyeview easement removed. But that was really not the question nor the offense, but an incidental result. He still was way in excess of his filed and permitted specifications. This was wrong -- and no one seemed to want to check into ,begn the issues we ve protesting. The Zeidler's were first given waivers, (precluding our right of advisement and public protest), then parameters, (when we did protest), and then expanded parameters, (when we protested the violations of those parameters), .... and they are still in violation! The Z.B.A. ruled that nothing was to be done until the ground coverage was verified. Mr. Zeidler submitted a survey calculated by Young and Young, stating that only 18% of the lot was covered. Even a layman can see that this is incorrect. I went to see Mr. Abruzzi, at Young & Young, and he checked thefigures and their file. He found that the calculation did not include the decking, walkways or brickwork around the pool. We had it professionally calculated and the figure is 31.38% lot coverage -- way in excess of the 20% allowed -- and submitted this figure to the Z.B.A. and Build- ing Dept. This automatically invalidates not only the C.O., but the building permit! Page 3 At the Z.B.A. hearing of 7/31/86, Mr Zeidler was finally allowed to construct this pool and patio, (with revised measurements), in his sideyard and in front of our house, against our strenuous requests that it be built in the very ample backyard, as the Code dictates. It was permitted on the technicality of making the pool an attachment to the house and considering it part thereof, with the stipulation that it must be calcu- lated as lot coverage. At that same hearing, Mr. Lessard insisted the Zeidler's must locate the cesspools on a survey, before being allowed to proceed, since there was concern that when he doubled the size of his house in 1982, he built over them. That was never presented to Mr. Lessard, to the best of my knowledge, and has never been clarified. The pool and surrounding brickwor~were elevated 3' tO 4' and extended 42' toward the road and 17' from the creek. It has since been decreased in size enough to be removed from our eyeview easement, but not to where it adhere's to the original building per- mit. The gas tank was buried next to the pool, when he was told to bring it to the roadside. AND ... Since when does the Town Attorney usurp the Chief Building Inspector's auth- ority and order a C.O. be granted? Particularly in this case, with so many outstand- ing infractions. The Zeidler's recently put their house up for sale and we are left to live with the results of all these compromises. Their house is large, with 4 or 5 bedrooms. The logical purchaser will be someone with a large family. Between the location of the pool and the prevailing southerly simmer breezes, any activity at that pool will be carried by creek and breeze directly toward us. It will seem as if that pool was in the middle of our living room. A fact we tried to make clear at the hearings. We do not begrudge anyone the pleasure of a pool, but we all know it begets much noise. This is why the building code protects neighbors, (except us), by having Page 4 them built in back yards. There have been other incidents too numerous to mention here. You are all aware of most of them. We certainly supplied all agencies with a wealth of pictures and letters: the junk pile, the fill trucked in, the bulldozing into the creek, etc. To add insult to injury, he is now trying to cut a boat slip directly in front of our living room and completely within our deeded eyeview easement -- even though he is moving to the South Fork! Surely, this gives you further evidence of what we have been dealing withfor the past several years. We have been continually harassed by this man and the Town has been a willing part- ner. We really feel we deserve some consideration. Are his political affiliations so strong that people like us don't count? I reiterate my requests of 8/1/89 and 8/4/89 that the certificate of occupancy which was issued by Mr. Horton, at Mr. Schondebare's insistance, and in Mr. Lessard's ab- sence, be rescinded until the many violations have been addressed and resolved -- particularly, the excessive lot coverage. Everyone kno~his "modus operandi" is 'take what you want and let them try to take it away'. This philosophy seems to have served him well. But, don't you think it's time to tell Mr. Zeidler that this is Southold not Brookhaven? Make him abide by the rules. Concern yourselves with justice and duty, not politics. He's wrong: You know it! We know it! He knows it! He has been given tremendous concessions by each agency and still has defied the conditions that accompanied them. Quite frankly, we feel the pool should be removed, since he has deliberately violated all the conditions under which he was permitted to Page 5 build it. I know your first thought will be, "That would be a financial hardship". But, if he had any concern about the monetary aspect, he would never have jeopardized his invest- ment by going beyond the law. He would have adhered to the specifications submitted and approved. If he isn't concerned about cost, there's no reason for you to be. What about peace of mind or quiet enjoyment? He's robbed us of both. He's absorbed every spare moment of our lives for several years. How does one calculate that value? By contrast, we have been denied a C.O. on our cottage. It was built prior to 1954, (we have dated surveys), and renovated in 1980. It has been proclaimed non-conforming and pre-existing by the Z.B.A., and is on the "Exception List". We have a written deposition that itwas living quarters since its construction, by a reputable local plumber, and concurring sworn testimony before the Z.B.A. by a long-term resident. Still, the Z.B.A. denied validity, preferring to believe recorded, perjured testimony before Judge Tedeschi, by a disgruntled neighbor, (deceased), and Mr. Hinderman, (re- tired from the Bldg. Dept.), and apparently orchestrated by Mr. Zeidler,who told us at a neighborhood meeting that he would show us what a bad neighbor he could be. He certainly has! We feel this matter should be removed from the Z.B.A.'s pervue and re-submitted to the Building Department. We've dealt with snmmons' for a playhouse, a storage shed, a multiple dwelling, a paper road and a flag pole. We've been in court in Bay Shore, Riverhead and Southold. After living without incident in Cold Spring Harbor for 30 years, we moved to our "Utopia" in Laurel, only to become Public Enemy No. 1! We are fed up: We have written more letters, since we moved here, than most people write in a lifetime. We have been forced to spend large sums on legal fees. We have been embarrassed and badgered. We have both developed high blood pressure. Our life- Page 6 style has become a nightmare: It is unbelievable that one man can cause such havoc and it's unfair, if not illegal, that the Town has allowed him to do so. From a legal standpoint, I think that it would be hard to deny abuse of power or prejudicial treat- ment. We realize the structure of the Town Board has changed since we met with you in August, but surely the spirit is the same -- that of equal consideration of the rights and wel- fare of EACH resident. My husband and I look forward to hearing from you. Yo3~vs.~v~ry truly, ~ margery M. Walker (Mrs. Bertram W. Walker) CC: Town Attorney, Mr. Mark Kiernan ~ Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. G. Goehringer Board of Trustees, Mr. J. Bredemeyer Building Department, Mr. V. Lessard C.A.C., Mr. John Holzapfel $ th ldTow B d £APP Is O~ 0 R oar o ~a MAIN ROAD ' STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, ~.1., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE {516) 76~1809 FAX NO. {516) 765-1823 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Supervisor Francis Murphy Chairman Board of Appeals, Gerard Goehringer December 11, 1989 Richard Ziedler, Complainant In the opinion of the Board of Appeals, comment requested by 1.1-28-89, the Board feels that a portion of the deck is above lot coverage around the swimming pool, Decision calls for 30 ft to the water along the westerly side, in actuality it is only 24' 2". ENB--NOVEMBER 28, 1990 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..Richard Zeidler Peconic Bay Blvd. Laurel, NY 11948 Joffrey Hollmon One Astor Ave. Brookhaven, NY '1 The applicant proposes to construct 63 feet of new bulkhead and fill a 25 fi. by 5 ft. area of shoals and mudflats with 125 cu. yds. of clean upland soil. The project is located on Brushs Creek off of McDonald Road, Laurel Town of Southold, Suffolk County. SCTM ,1000-145-4-5 SHPA--2 Permit: Water Quality Cedification, Tidal Wetlands and Excavation and Fill in Navigable Waters DEC--t-4738-00058/00001-0 CONTACT: Karen A. Munze The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling, with associated septic system, driveway and swimming pool with surrounding deck. The project is located adjacent to Howell's Creek off the right of way from South Howell's Point Road, Bellport, Brookhaven, Suffolk County. SHPA--2 Permit: Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands UPA--'10-89-,1638 CONTAct: John Wieland La~ ~ PAGE 4 :: 12/13/90 t 3B LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING REGION t--The Petitioner, Town of Brookhaven (H. Acampora, Supervisor), 3233 Route 112. Medford, New York t,1763, has requested that the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation authorize continued operation of the Brookhaven Landfill. The Landfill is located on the south side of Horseblock Road (County Road '16], west of Yaphank Avenue [County Road 2,1], north of Sunrise Highway and east of Station Road and Sundial Road in Brookhaven hamlet, Suffolk County, New York. On November 19, ,1990, the Department of Environmental Conservation conditionally approved continued operation of the Brookhaven Landfill in an area of the landfill known as "Cell 4" or the "Ski Bowl" which is within the area of the landfill previously used for waste disposal. The area of proposed operation is being constructed with landffil finers, leachate contrail landfill gas monitoring and control and groundwater monitoring. The Petition is being granted to allow for disposal of solid waste generated by the Towns of Brookhaven, RIverhead and Southold dudring the Implementation of resource recovery and recycling systems by the Towns. The Petition of the Town of Brookhaven was filed pursuant to the Long Island Landfill Law, Environmental Conservation Law Section 27*0704 [Land Burial and Disposal in the Counties of Nassau and Suffolk; Special Provisions). The legislative hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of the ECL 27-0704.5 which provides that the Commissioner, after conducting a public hearing may approve an extension of authority to dispose of solid waste outside of the deep flow recharge area, if certain standards are met. Findings of the Commissioner regarding achievement of these standards are set forth in the letter of November ,19, t990, based upon submissions made by the Town of Brookhaven in the Petition dated May 9, 1990 and a letter dated October 3, 1990. The Commissioner's approval was conditioned upon compliance with conditions set forth in the letter of November 19, 1990. PLEASE BE ADVISED that the Department will now provide an opportunity to the public to present statements of position or other documents in making a final decision in this mofter by conducting a legislative public hearing at the following time and location: December '13, '1990 at 3:00 p.m. at the Braokhaven Town Hall Complex, Building No. 4 Auditorium, 3233 Route '1 t2, Medford, New York, '1 '1763. ENVIRONMENTALJ~IEW,.S.. BU! ! r Date Recievedi~: ~ ~ I TOWN ATTORNEY'S C -,,~ Sent to Zoning on: Sent to Planning on: Sent to Trustees on: NOVEMBER 28, 1990 ISSUE No. 48 ENVIRONMENTAL'NOTICE BULLETIN (USPS 37t-670) published weekly by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Waif Road, Albany, NY 12233-4500 $t2 annually, Second-class postage paid at Albany, NY POSTMASTER: Send address changes to DEC, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233-4500, Room 509 Second Class Postage Paid at Albany, New York $o~t~o~ FRANCIS J, MURPHY SUPERVISOR TELEPHONE (516) 765-1800 (516) 765-1939 OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAIN ROAD Jerry, Please comment by 11-28-89 Thank you. VICTOR LESSARD PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR (516) 765-1802 FAX (516) 765-1823 Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 13, TO: Supervisor Francis Murphy ~ FROM: Principal Inspector, Victor Lessard SUBJECT: Richard Ziedler, Complainant 1989 An inspection was made last Thursday, November 9, 1989, by Thomas Fisher and myself, and'the following was observed. e Black pine trees 15'-0 to 20'-0 high are planted, and possibly are an enchroachment on the eye-view easement. I believe this would be a civil matter. Z.B.A. called for screening and this was complied with. Records show that Certified engineer issued letter for lot coverage and indicated coverage was below required 20%. Again Z.B.A. may not agree and should personally verify. Indications show that some sort of "bulkheading", see photos, is involved on west end of property, where I'm told, all the sand washed into channel. This would be a trustee responsibility. The whereabouts of their septic system location, are the responsibility of the Health Department. I don't know if town sanitation officer has the authority to call for ~these locations but I did, without receiving any re- sponse. This has no bearing on construction or lot cov- erage. As per town attorney instructions, Building Department was told to issue Certificate of Occupancy when receiv- ing an "All requirements required are complete" letter from trustees and this was done. VGL:hkd j I t I ?19811 NOTE: LOT NUME~R$ REFER TO MAP OF OFF/CE OF rile CLERKOF$OFFOLK COUNI'Y ON JUL Y 2,/95/RS/NAP /VO. 742. SUFF. CO. TAX MAP DIS~ I000 ~CT 1~5 B~,O~ ~OT 0/5 APR. ,~4, 1979 AUG /9, /985 MAY 9,1986 JUNE 2~, 1987 OCr 7,1987 MAY/5, YOUNG 400 O$~'RANDER AVENUE, ~LDEN ~. YOUN9 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND L~D SURVEYOR, N. ~ S. L lC ~ 1~8~ YOUNG RIVERREAD , HOV/ARO ~ YOUNG LAND SURYEYOR N. KS. SURVEY FOR ~ICHARD ZEIDLER a RUTH ZEIDLER . · ~ HENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. PHII. LIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOAI~D OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, $3095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York [ 1971 TELEPItONE (516) 765-1892 Mr. Glenn Just Land Use Company Route 25 A Box 2521 Wading River, New York 11792 Re: Richard Zeidler - Application No. 571 Dear Mr. Just: The following action was taken by the Board of 7own Trustees during their regular meeting held on November 24, 1987 regarding the above matter. Moved by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Krupski it Was RESOLVED that The Land Use Company on behalf of Richard Zeidler be and hereby are granted permission to construct a swimming pool with associated decking on. property located at 100 McDonalds Crossing, Edgemere Park, Laurel. It is noted that the public hearing concerning this application was held on October 29, 1987. Approval is subject to the following cohditions: 1. The view easement will have to be completely restored to it's original elevation, including the removal of fill. The area is to be replanted with natural beach grass to preserve minimal slope to the creek. This is as close, as practical, to the original waiver previqusl3~; granted. The 'propane tank will have to be relocated back by the roadway to prevent any disturbance of vegetation when the tank is being filled. The brick deck and fence on the west side of the property will have to be removed to a distance of 29'0" from the house seaward and running along the entire length of the pool. The pool filtration system will have to be located landward of that line and the brick barbecue. (The barbecue is somewhat seaward of the 29'0" line.) 4o There is a 1¼" pipe running from the pool area seaward. This matter will have to be clarified prior to the actual issuance of a permit. The Trustees are to be notified after the work is complete for a final inspection. This approval is subject to any other Agency or Department's approval that may be required for this project. Board of Trustees - Page 2. 'Land Use Company on behalf of Richard Zeidler Please return to the Building Dept. for a determination on the need of any other permits or approvals or modifications that may be necessary. Please remit a $10.00 Wetland Inspection fee for this permit. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hestitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, Board of Town Trustees HPS:ip cc: Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling, D.E.C., Albany Robert A. Greene, D.E.C., Stony Brook Stephen Mars, Army Corps of Engineers Thomas Hart, Coastal Management John Holzapfel, Chairman, Southold Town C.A.C. Victor Lessard, Admin., Building Dept. Planning Board Board of Appeals Mr. & Mrs. Richard Zeidler file TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING MATTER OF RICHARD AND RUTH ZIEDLER APPEAL Z.B.A. JULY 17, 1986 #3510 10:30 p.m. Public Hearing was recon'vened in the Matter of RICHARD AND RUTH ZIEDLER, Appeal #3510 (recessed from our ~'June 19, 1986 Regular Meeting). The Chairman opened the recessed hearing at 10:30 p:m. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll open this hearing and ask Mr. Ziedler if he could furnish us with the survey that we asked for. (Survey given to Chairman). Thank you very much. RICHARD ZIEDLER: Should I try to explain the different colors and what it's all about? CHAIRMAN: Ok, but before you do that let me give the Walkers a copy of this. MR. ZIEDLER: I'll give them a copy. (Mr. Ziedler gave the Walkers a print of the survey.) CHAIRMAN: Ok, thank you. MR. ZIEDLER: The red are brick patios, brick fireplace, and a walk in front of our house. The gray is a wood deck and a walk to the side of the house to the east of the octagon- shaped patio, and on that patio is the gazebo. The green indicates the trees and the shrubs. The blue, I'd hope, is the water in the pool. The gray is the wood patio to be built around the pool. You have asked last time that you would feel happier if I moved the pool further to the south, which we have done--we've moved it as far as we can to the south. If you'll notice, you'll see the old drawing of the pool that we went over. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. ZIEDLER: The pool holds about 12,000 gallons of water Page 2 Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 MR. ZIEDLER (continued:) and the water will be tanked in by tanker-truck. In other words, a liner pool must have the water immediately, and they bring the water in and they pay for it. The pool evaporates approximately six to eight gallons a day. Are there any questions? (None) And the pool is between 80 and 90 feet from the Walkers' house. CHAIRMAN: When you say that's as far as you can go with it, how did you arrive at that determination? MR. ZiEDLER: Well, if you'll notice, it's going to be south "~-of the pool--there is a tremendously big tree and I remember I said that I would not like to destroy it. There's a picture -- and here's another picture of a tree-- CHAIRMAN: Cedar tree. MR. ZIEDLER: Cedar tree, yes. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. ZIEDLER: There's a picture of the gazebo. These are the things that the Walkers talked about last time. That's why I took pictures of them. There's a picture of my flagpole, and I'd like whoever stole my flag last year after they had a beach party, I would appreciate it, because i ~uess the police would I notify them. And this is the garden wh~re the pool will end up. In other words, it will totally be enclosed pretty near the shrubbery. The only thing I couldn't bring you--I don't have a flash for my camera--or I would have brought you a picture of my spa that is inside of my house, which I had a pernlit for. CHAIRMAN: Is that adjacent to the pool at all or-- MR. ZIEDLER: No, it's right inside the house itselt. If you look at the brick patio, right inside there there is a room that's about 10 by 10, 12 by 12, there is a jaccuzi room in there. CHAIRMAN: Ok. I thank you very much for these, Mr. Ziedler. Mrs. Walker, would you like to address this? MRS. MARGERY WALKER: Yes. I would like to cover a couple of things that certainly ( ) than before on the side, however, we still contend that in the backyard, it would be better wher~ it can conform. There still has been no reason given why th~se cannot conform. And be in the back yard. Now in the zoning book, it says Page 3 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 MRS. WALKER (continued): a variance can only be applied for, if--and I have it here to code-- CHAIRMAN: Take your time. MRS. WALKER: I'm reading ~rom a copy of .the Zoning Book. Variances - where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary "-~. hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of these regulations, the Board shall have the power to vary or modify as long as it-goes on and on--that there shall be observed the public safety, welfare, and substantial justice be done. I meaa, as far as I can see, it has not yet been indicated why it cannot adhere to the Code and be in the back yard, and if I read this correctly, he can't apply for a variance unless you can prove that you can't conform. I mean, the question--moving it back is certainly better than it was but it still doesn't show the fencing, and it still is in line with the prevailing breeze, where it will be right as if we were sitting around the edge of the pool. I have a letter from the Doctor if you need it stating what my husband's condition is, and I can give it to you if you so choose. CUAIRMAN: Thank you. (Received copy of Doctor's letter concerning Mr. Walker's health.) MRS. WALKER: That is our only concern. Certainly Mrs. Ziedler should have a pool if she wishes and if it will help her, and i understand that it certainly is help for a bad back, and we do not begrudge the pool. It is again, as we said last month, the placement of the pool because it's our concern--let her be comfortable certainly, but my major concern is my husband's health and our enjoyment of the deck which is right there. CHAIRMAN: I tried to address the issue--I don't know how well did the last time concerning my particular feeling and not the particular feeling of the Board. MR. ZIEDLER: Can I interrupt one moment. I might be abl[~ to she<~ something. CHAIRMAN: Surely. I~R. ZIEDLER: Because I said I would bring an area photo. Page 4 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 MR. ZIEDLER: I only have one, so you can pass it around. My house is here. CHAIRMAN: What don't you come up here so you can see where he ts pointing. MR. ZIEDLER: Here's where the pool would be right in here. There's the Walker house here. I measured it--it's about 80 feet from where the pool would be. Over here unfortunately '~,with this house it's built right on the property line. If I put a pool in the front here, I'd be a lot closer to these people here than I will the Walkers. I can fence this--and incidentally, that shows the fence around the pool, and .it also shows that I'm behind the easement view that you have, by putting it in here. This is where it will go. And I'm sorry to interrupt you, but. CHAIRMAN: I thank you. MRS. WALKER: Why do you still have that there? If you envision a pool just off that decking, you can see where h~'s got ever so much more room in the front than in the side. Now the people next door have only been there twice so far this summer. We are there all the time, and it still is the fact that that's the backyard and that's where the Code says the pool should go. And it is adjacent to all the inner facilities of the house that would accommodate a pool better than the side. MR. ZIEDLER: Well, this is my garden, and I'm going to give up my garden if this Board will allow me to put a pool here. My feelings are if I'm 18 or 20 feet from this person's home, and I'm 80 feet away from your home, I don't think I've ever bothered you in anything that I have done-- MRS. WALKER: It has nothing to do with you. It is the breeze. While I'm here, let me just point out that if the pool werE? indeed in here, you have a full lot which is 50 feet, plus whatever is there--granted there are only eight feet from that house. There isn't that much. But there is a full lot plus the rest of the space, is about--I don't know--I drew a pool, and you asked me to do that, and I qLetc:h(~d' [~ue in and gav(~ m~]asurements. If you went that way, you'd have 90 feet from the proposed sides of the pool. If: you do il: th~ other way, y()u have 70 some odd feet. You have more from the si(lc this way than that way. And you have an adeguate amount Page 5 Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 MRS. WALKER (continued): And again they may be closer, the breeze goes this way, the noise goes this way. It does not go that way. And we live there all year. CHAIRMAN: The prevailing winds are on shore? MRS. WALKER: Right. CHAIRMAN: Ok. I just wanted to address this one question that Mrs. Walker had and say what I was attempting to say to you-- MR. ZIEDLER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN: ...in the last hearing was that we can, and I had to organize my thoughts--in fact I did them on the way home, and between 12 and 12:30 after that last hearing. What I was trying to say to you was, we can't tell them where to put the pool. They chose to put it in a specific spot. All we can do is deny the application, and if they so choose to come back with another application in another area, then we will have to address that application. And I did that by saying to you in my opinion i would rather see it in this side yard, ok, and what I was in effect trying to say is just what I said, all right. We can't tell them to put it in the rear of their house. MRS. WALKER: But if it says in the book that you must prove that you cannot put it where you should put it, don't they have to do that before they apply to do other work. And with this full view, you are way in excess of 20% use of the property, and doesn't that require another variance? CHAIRMAN: Well that's one area that I am not sure that you are ready to address tonight was the 20% lot coverage was it, Mr. 2iedler? ' MR. ZIEDLER: I don't even know what she's talking about. CHAIRMAN: And I'll explain that in one second. MRS. WALKER: And I'm sorry, but I do not see a fence around this. I see the decking. MR. ZIEDLER: Do you see the water? The line around the outside Page 6 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 MR. ZIEDLER (continued): of that decking is a fence. It shows that it's 6' on this side and shows it's lO ft. on this side and l0 ft. on this side. MRS. WALKER: That's the decking. MR. ZIEDLER: Yes. MRS. WALKER: But there's no fence on there. MR. ZIEDLER: Well, I do know that you've got to have a fence to put a pool, and I certainly will put a fence and when you dis- cussed it last time, I said that I would put up a 4 ft. chainlink fence and the fence would not be in your easement view. I have tried to respect your easement view, but I have tried to respect everything you folks have wanted. I have to live with it the same way you do. But I don't think it's going to harm anybody-- two old people splashing around in the pool. MRS. WALKER: But you still haven't stated why you cannot conform to the Code and put it in the backyard with so much more space-- CHAIRMAN: Let me answer that question, ok? Before we went back and discussed that this was an accessory structure or if this was attached to the building. Did we not say that the walkway will be adjacent to the house even though it's not specifically attached to the building. It will be for all intensive pur- poses, the building, meaning the house, the deck and the pool. So in effect it's not an accessory structure. It's an attachment to the house, so therefore it does not necessarily mean that it has to go into the rearyard area. What he in effect is doing is adding an extension onto his house. MRS. WALKER: But a hosue is four walls and a roof and living area. CHAIRMAN: The lot coverage situation is something that still has to be addressed, but tonight you have seen--if you were here early enough, the second hearing we had--I believe the name was Sieverman-- that's exactly the situation that was addressed here. I can show you the pictures of it. MRS. WALKER: Did they have room to put it in the back? Page 7 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 CHAIRMAN: I don't know that situation. They had two sideyards. It was a corner lot. But what I am saying to you, it was not an accessory structure. We are not dealing with an accessory structure. We're dealing with an addition basically to the house. And the reason why these people were turned down Mrs. Walker because you could step from one deck to the other just as he could if we gave him permission to build, step from their house to the deck to the pool. Even though it may not be attached with bolts or may not be cemented together, it was as ~"~-though it was an addition to the house. MRS. WALKER: That's not what it says in the zoning book. MR. ZIEDLER: I can add one more thing to about where it is suppos-- about where I would like to have it. Three years ago we had a bad storm. Then two years you'll remember I brought a backhoe in and I took the sand that was blowing out of the front of that bulkhead and I took it out of the creek and put it back there. If you're at Chism's ( ) which is right next door, you'll find that there is 2½ ft. of sand missing from behind his bulkhead that was blown away. I couldn't possibly put a pool in the front there and never keep it clean with a sandy beach. Because the sand would blow it like no tomorrow. MRS. WALKER: You weren't there for that storm. We were there for that storm. More water came in the side than came in the front. MR. ZIEDLER: It took the sand away from the front of my yard. MRS. WALKER: It's immaterial. As far as we're concerned, we would be happier with it in the back where we didn't have the prevailing breezes bringing it down, and where it conformed to the building code. I know nothing about it being an attached to the house. There's nothing in the zoning book that says a]~ything other than a pool being in the back yard. CHAIRMAN: That's why we have a building inspector here. Do you want to address that issue. Was I correct on what I was saying? VICTOR LESSARD, BLDG-DEPT. ADMINISTRATOR: If it's an attachment it's a part of the house. If it's part of the house, then it's properly drawn. Page 8 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 MR. ZIEDLER: That was discussed the last time had told the Walkers that what we talked about to be attached to the house. I was here. You was it was going MRS. WALKER: Just one more question. now is considerably smaller-- The pool that you draw MR. ZIEDLER: No, it is not. "~MRS. WALKER: Then the size that was on the other. MR. ZIEDLER: It's still 16 by 32. MRS. WALKER: And it's still going to be this far back? MR. ZIEDLER: Like it shows right there. CHAIRMAN: The only other thing that we had not--we stretched the rules a little bit in this particularly hearing, and that is that the addressing should be to the Board and not a discourse between the two--we're trying to keep it as downplayed as possible here. The only thing we had not addressed was the issue of lot coverage, and that is, how much of your total lot will you or would you have covered. Ok? Now you don't have to address this issue tonight--it's quarter of 11. We have another hearing. If you just very simply sit down within the next couple of days-- just give us an approximation of what you've covered, that's all we are basically interested in. Just so we know, because the Walkers have some concern about the 20% lot coverage. MR. ZIEDLER: In other words if --only if my lot was built on-- I have three lots. I hav 12, 13 and 14. CHAIRMAN: Let me just make it easy for you. Let's assume you have a 20,000 sq. ft. lot. Twenty percent of that is 4,000 sq. ft. You can cover 20% of that legally in the Town of Southold (without a variance). 4,200 sq. ft. would be over that and it would require an additional variance. MR. LESSARD: Is this one lot or two? CHAIRMAN: Pardon me? MR. LESSARD: Have you addressed this as on(~ lot or t~o lots? MEMBER GRIGONIS: Three lots. Page 9 Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 CHAIRMAN: Secondly, anything that is flush with the ground is not considered lot coverage. Ok? We are talking about some- thing that is usually elevated more than 6"--more than one cement block above the ground. MR. ZIEDLER: The only thing is my house. CHAIRMAN: Well, give us the square footage of it and we'll be happy. And the gazebo and any decks that you might have. '-.~,Is there anything else you might like (to Mrs. Walker)~ (Nothing). MRS. WALKER: Thank you. MR. LESSARD: Jerry, either he has one lot or two lots, ~nd he should seriously consider this when he is figuring his computa- tions. CHAIRMAN: Are you talking about the Exceptions List? MR. LESSARD: No. I'm talking about even though the subdivision shows three lots, he has encompassed two of them with the house. That is no longer two lots--it becomes one. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. LESSARD: Now he can address it all as one lot to give more room in his computations or he can address it as two separate lots. If he hooks the pool onto it the way it is drawn, then they will now become one lot. Follow me? him MR. ZIEDLER: Yes. MR. LESSARD: And you should consider that when computating. MR. ZIEDLER: Ok. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. The hearing was concluded at th~s time. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass, Page l0 Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 Doyen and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of, Appeals Page ]- June 19~ 1986 Public Hearing - Richard and Ruth Ziedler PUBLIC HEARING: Matter of RICHARD AND RUTH ZIEDLER. The Chairman opened the hearing at ]0:25 p.m. and read the notice of hearing and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN: I have a map dated April 17~1979 indicating a one-story frame house and garage~ and indicating as penned-in~ a proposed swimmingpool on the west side of the house approximately 30 feet to its nearest point to the bulkhead~ which is on the south side~ and 40 feet to the opposite side. And it appears that there's a six-foot deck around the pool. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicatin9 this and surrounding properties. Mr. Ziedler~ would you like to be heard? RICHARD ZIEDLER: Iwould like to give you a eopy of a Doctor's letter~ and I also have an approved from your Town Trustees. And apparently because the bulkhead was here in 1977~ the D.E.C. has indicated that they have no jurisdiction. CHAIRIVlAN: You don't have anything for us--that's just a statement you' re making~ ok. lViR. ZIEDLER: Yes. When we left here fast year~ my wife was taken out of the bedroom through a window~ in an ambulance to a hospital-she was there for nine days. And I went to Florida where I built apool~ ahd when I came back~ I had an application for a pool. I started with the Building Department. He turned it down and told us how to 9° about it~ and we've been doing it ever since. We[[~ anything you can do to let us build a pool~ we' 1l appreciate it. CHAIRMAN: When I was down to inspect the property~ just quickly~ you told me you were 9oin9 to make the depth of the pool how deep? MR. ZIEDLER: Six and one-half feet. CHAIRlVIAN: Six and a half. Do you have any specific objection to the normal condi- tions that we place on things of this nature~ and that is no overhead lighting to be obstrusive to the neighbors? Page 2_ June 19~ 1986 Public Hearing - Richard and Ruth Ziedler IVlR. ZIEDLER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN: That the pool not be' roofed or enclosed. IVlR. ZEIDLER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN: And that the fencing be the normal --what type of fence~ a four-foot chainlike? MR. ZIEDLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: All right. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against? Yes~ Sir. Mr. Walker. BERT WALKER: The' name is Bert Walker~ and I would like to voice objections not to the pool~ but to its placement. But first we want to 9° on record as not havin9 received notification of the application for a variance. And according to the code book of the Town of Southold~ adjacent owners must be notified by mai[ of the intent to appeal. And we are adjacent owners. And we were notified when Mr. Ziedler applied for a variance in [981 and we were wondering why we weren't this time. It's awkward to oppose a neighbor~ right or wrong~ you come out lookin9 like'a bad guy. There is nothing personal here. All our points are va[id~ and there are a few issues on the proposed pool w~ would like to point out. And I would like my wife to read them to you. CHAIRiViAN: Can I just mention a question to you? In reference to your notification~ you are on the other side of the street~ although it is a private road? lvlR. WALKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: That may be the reason why you were not notified~ ok. Normally the notification is within that particular block~ not particularly separating it by a street. I believe he would only be required to notify everybody contiguous to~ and he's not specifically contiguous because of that street. Let me .just check the tax map here. IVlR. WALKER: It's a 15' private road. CHAIRMAN: I think that's the reason why~ just to answer your question there. IVlEMBER GRICONIS: It has to be adjacent to. CHAIRMAN: The street runs all the way down to thecreel% even though it's not~ you know~ paved all the way down to the creek. I think that was the reason why. IVlR. WALKER: That was what I was wondering. Because we did 9et notification last time and not this time. CHAIRMAN: Right. That's the only reason I can give you. Page 3- June 19, 1986 Public Hearing - Ziedler MR.W ~LKER: I'd like my wife- she's got a few things, Marg? MARGERY WALKER: I'd like to 9° down the application if you would-- CHAIRMAN: Just turn that (mike) a [itt[e). MRS. WALKER: You have an application in front of you (inaudible). SECRETARY: You'll have to speak a little closer into the mike, please. We' re not picking you up. MRS. WALKER: Now? SECRETARY: That' s better. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: No, we only have one application. The board members have read itt and I have all three copies of the application of tVlr. Zied[er. MRS. WALKER: Well you will know what I am referring to. One thing we wanted to mention is that the application is incomplete. The survey submitted does not show 70 feet of deckin9 or a 16' octagonal gazebo in the rear of the house. It also doesn't list the coverage of the lot which I understand is required and which appears to exceed the 20% allowed by the town code. And it' s my understandin9 that you require a current survey showin9 everythin9 on the property when you apply for a permit or an appeal~ and the one that cam e with this certainly does not show what is currently on the property. Now on Page l, #2, seeks relief from Article XI, Section #--that applies to setbacks from water bodies and wetlands. There' s no request to place the pool with the side and front quite large (partly inaudible). Now isn't that necessary because after all your code requires that the pool be put in the rear yard, so if you can't do it or won't do it, you should have relief than have a filet no? CHAIRIVlAN: Let me answer them as you go down the line. We never really 9et involved in determining what the rear or side yard is . In this particular case, since you have that unnamed street that runs down, they really have -- oh, I see what you' re saying~ ok. Is it runnin9 down to one side.. lviRS. WALKER: Yes. It's the front. Mr. and Mrs. Ziedler front on that road. CHAIRMAN: He was not turned down for that, or they were not turned down for that, ok. MRS. WALKER: Shouldn't they have been? After all, that was--irregularity. CHAIRMAN: The buildin9 inspector is 9oin9 to have to answer that. VICTOR LESSARD, BUILDING DEPT. ADIVIINISTRATOR: It's considered an attachment to the main buildin9. Page 4- June 19~ 1986 Public Hearing - Ziedler CHAIR1VIAN: Ok. So it' s an attachment to the main building so therefore it' s not within the sideyard area. lvlR. LESSARD: No. lViRS. WALKER: Then how can they do that when there' s a distance between the wails and the pool. It is not attached. There' s a walkway between the house and-- but~ be that as it may. On Page l, #4, the reason for the appeal requests a 16' by 3 ' pool~ deck and fence. The survey shows a 16' by 35' pool and deck drawn to scale. Not 32. Which is it? And there' s no fence shown on that survey submitted. By the time you add a fence to the perimeter already described~ you could--they could well infringe upon our deeded eyeview easement~ which does not permit fencing or anything else which obscures our view in that prescribed area. On Page 2, #1~ it asks what hardship prevents adherences to the ordinance. And there are no hardships listed. It does say, "wife needs pool for therapy and D.E.C. recommended it and it's more suitable bein9 right by the house." Well, we certainly sympathize with Nlrs. Ziedler's bad back problem and a pool would probably be .helpful; however~ we would like to see the D.E.C. letter' s of recommendation. We don't think it' s within their purview to recommend where a pool is placed but to act upon a request. Do you have a letter from the D.E.C. suggesting that the pool be put there? CHAIRIVlAN: When I went down to inspect the property~ Mr. Ziedler informed me that he was waiting for the letter at this particular time. To be perfectly honest with you~ Mrs. Walker~ if the bulkhead is within that specific area--or~ excuse if the age of the bulkhead is what it is~ and we know that the D.E.C. is goin§ to waive jurisdiction on the project~ to be perfectly honest with you~ we would rather see the pool in this particular area which you will refer to as the side yard~ rather than in the front of the house. It enters into more serious problems with breakaway walls~ with hi§h tides and so on and so forth. Basica[ly~ that is the situation, so I have no idea. He'll have to answer that question. MRS. WALKER: It would seem to be more suitably placed in the back yard where there is considerably more room where it could conform to the town code and would be adjacent to the spa already installed in the house to help Mrs . Ziedler' s back. It has a sunken whir[pool~ tile floor, shower~ dressin9 room~ bath~ and slidin9 9lass doors openin9 to the 70' deck already installed. A pool could be built adjacent to these facilities~ can be much more convenient than placed on the side and actually partially in the front of their home. CHAIRIVlAN: I just want to say in no way would we ever allow anything to infringe upon this view easement of yours~ so don't worry about that. I have no idea how the board feels about this application, and I just want you to be aware of it. MRS. WALKER: There is more to it than our view easement. Page 5- June 19, 1986 Public Hearing - Zied[er CHAIRMAN: Ok. MRS. WALKER: On Page 2, #2~ we want the pool on Brushes Creek side so as not to annoy our neighbor and it is the more logical place. By his own. words, Mr. Ziedler states that the pool would be an annoyance to his neighbor, and we are his~ neighbor. Our house is less than 14 feet from the drive between us-- our deck anti-:all but one of our rooms fronts on this roadway between us. With the prevailing breeze coming from the south, all summer, and with the creek conducting every sound with it, it would be like having that pool in our living room rather than in front of our house. IV~rs. Ziedler has a back problem that needs therapy, but my husband has a heart condition that needs peace and rest. We built the deck in the front of our house and hope to create a secluded a quiet spot from which to enjoy the tranquility of the bay~ and there' s no way we' II have this peace with the pool in the front of us. The Ziedlers do a!tot of entertaining, they frequently have large groups of people in their yard. We all know how boisterous people are around a pool. This is obviously why the Town Code dictates that they be put in one' s back yard and have a buffer for the neighbors. As for' the logical placement, I' ve already stated why the rear of the house next to the existing spa is more suitable but it' s also more logical. On Page 2~ #3 it's quoting~ "it does not adjoin anything but Brushes Creek." But since we share a common road~ it adjoins our property and has a great effect, a detri- mental one, on the enjoyment and the value of our home. Mr. Ziedler likes and has a lot of outdoor lighting, a lighting he would obviously have around a pool in front of our house would be very disconcerting, particularly where our upstairs bedroom looks right down upon the proposed pool site. He already has considerable lighting out on the decking in the rear of the yard that could accommodate this pool very nicely. Their backyard is perfectly set up for a pool and there' s no logical reason for it not being there. Have you any reasons submitted why it should not be in the rear of the yard as the Code dictates ? C HA IRIVlAN: I' ll ask the gentleman the question, but in my opinion there is ~a substantial amount of decking that would have to be torn up~ ground cover, trees and soo~ and so forth. MRS. WALKER: He didn't have to tear up decking to get a machine down there to hoist a huge light pole, so certainly he could get down and they could get down to it from across the neighbor's yard the way the bulldozer did last year, They could get up and over. CHAIRMAN: I-- Page 6 June 19, 1986 Public Hearing Ziedler Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. WALKER: look what has to be torn down to put a pool where it's going? CHAIRMAN: It's only a flower bed to my knowledge. I think this is becoming-- MRS. WALKER (interrupting) - This is protruding beyond the front of the house. It is a pool being asked to be put in the front as well as the sideyard. CHAIRMAN: I think this is becoming counterproductive, Mrs. Walker. I think what we will do at this particular point, since I don't have a copy--I will allow you to continue, but I think I will ask the Ziedlers to come back with a survey indicating all the decking area that is existing, which they will do between I hope, between now and the next meeting, and they will show us all the decking area, and then I will ask you to point to the area where you think the pool should be placed. MRS. WALKER: I feel it should be in the backyard. CHAIRMAN: Ok. But then you can show us where. Because in this particular place, pointing out into a white area doesn't give us indication exactly where you feel it should be placed. MRS. WALKER: I could not presume to place a pool. That's for other people to do as long as itis conforming to the code and placed in the rearyard, as long as there is room for it. That's what the code dictates. Now another thing is we have noticed that they've already received clearance from the Board of Trustees, which is surprising. First of all, most people have to wait a long time for that. Secondly, since the criteria f~r permitting a building within 75 feet of the waterway is with bulkheading, the bulkheading in this particular area is terrible. It's com- pletely standing free and clear. All the fill is gone from behind it. I have a picture. Whereas the bulkheading supporting the backyard is new and substantial, and can certainly support the pressure who Would assert. Not only that it's placing it somewhere in their backyard, would probably not even require a permit because they have more than adequate footage--all directions. We've never deprive Mrs. Ziedler a pool, as long as it conforms to the Town Code, did not interfere with my husband's health, and the peaceful enjoyment of our home and the good of the neighborhood. When you take 20,000 gallons to fill this pool, or more, if it's 35 feet instead of 32, from a common water supply that we have out Page 7 June 19, 1986 Public Hearing Ziedler Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. WALKER (continued): on Peconic Bay Boulevard, will that present a problem. On August 2nd of 1982, you received a letter, Mr. Goehringer, from Mr. Gerald Newman from Suffolk County mentioning the water supply limitations of our particular locale. Do you feel they're better now than they were then? CHAIRMAN: I can't assess them. I wouldn't know what they are now. MRS. WALKER: Would you feel that drawing 20,000 gallons would create the threat of salt-water intrusion and ~ossibly jeopardize our community water supply? We have all ten points out there, very close to precious point on Peconic Bay Boulgvard. As there is nothing personal in this-- if they would like a pool, I think that's their perogative. However, if the convenience and the inconvenience go along, if there's room in that backyard, that's where it should be, and it shouldn't be that they can enjoy the pleasure and we have the inconveniences of it. You are duly appointed arm of the government, and you have been vested with the obligation to protect the citizens from undue license with the building codes, and use of a resident's rights, and 6s property owners, taxpayers, and fulltime residents, we look to you for the same protectiog. CHAIRMAN: Before you sit down, can I just ask a question of Mr. Lessard. I know you have more to say. We are specifically stating that this is not the sideyard now where this pool is being placed? VICTOR LESSARD: It doesn't make any difference. It's attached to the house. CHAIRMAN: It's a part of the dwelling. MR. LESSARD: If it's not attached'to the house, then it's in the side yard. If it's attached as I was lead to believe by Mr. Ziedler, that's it is attached to the house, it's all considered part of the house and must meet the setback requirements allowed in the Code. CHAIRMAN: All right. Continue please. Excuse me. I had to get this in mind correctly. MRS. WALKER: No, no. I don't understand that either. If they come out onto a wooden walkway, and the pool is going to be beyond %hat, attached or not, that's not attached to the house. That'.s attached to the walkway. Page 8 June 19, 1986 Public Hearing Ziedler Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. WALKER: I mean, it's my understanding that you come before the Town Board and ask for a variance if you cannot conform. You're supposed to prove that you cannot conform. CHAIRMAN: Right. MRS. WALKER: Now there's more than enough space. There's no reason why they cannot conform and enjoy the pool. But have it where everyone else isn't being-- CHAIRMAN: You're referring to the rearyard now? MRS. WALKER: The rear yard. I understand that it is not even legitimate to come before you if you can conform. You come in when there is nothing else that you can possibly do. CHAIRMAN: Well, they would probably still need a 75' even on that side because they wouldn't be 75 feet. MRS. WALKER: Well, I really think they could get. But it wouldn't matter, if they've already gotten a clearance from the Board of Trustees. If %hey chose to put it in the yard where the bulkhead- ing is stronger, certainly the Trustees would be happy with that than where it was. But I think that we deserve some consideration. If there are no other places to put that pool, certainly he would object to it. If there is another place to put it, then that's where it should go. CHAIRMAN: As I said to you, we are not specifically happy with placing these pools as close to the Bay as we are in a situation like this. And I'm not propogating this application. I have no idea how these gentlemen feel about it. I don't know if you were hear during the conversations that we had tonight with the gentleman on the Sound. There are certain conditions that we ask when pools are built anywhere on the water, and we're talking about retaining walls and so on and so forth being placed in proper areas so as not to leech this type of water into the Bay. Be it in the creek, Brushes Creek this ca~e, or into the Bay in general. Ok? I personally think, and this is just an opinion on my part, nobody has influenced me to say this, I would rather-- I'm not sure if the placement on this part of the house is a proper--I think it could be brought a little bit farther to the south, but I think it is the best place for the pool. I feel also that taking your concerns into consideration, that proper screening, and I'm talking about 6' black pines, along the part that you would have view into the pool, would be the proper way of dealing with this particular application. Page 9 June 19, 1986 Public Hearing - Z~edler Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. WALKER: I don't think there's room. If you look at the survey where the pool goes up to the eyeview easement, it doesn't appear that there could be screening around it, and still not infringe upon our eyeview easement. CHAIRMAN: Just abutting it--not into it. it shaved so it would be-- Abutting it and then keeping MRS. WALKER: But the vision of it is not nearly the problem of the noise level. You know that the breeze is from the South all Summer. CHAIRMAN: That's why, in my idea, would be to move it a little bit farther toward the south. MRS. WALKER: I have pictures showing just how much space there is between the back yard and the beach which I will submit to you. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MRS. WALKER: There is certainly tremendously more space there than there is on the side. CHAIRMAN: What we will do is we will recess this hearing and ask the Ziedlers, as I told you before,..~o come back with the deck areas shown on the rear of their house and the other things you were mentioning, and we will then go back and re-measure the area and we'll continue this hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting. We will put you on first in line as we stack in reverse,, that is, the people that came before you will be the last, ok, and you will be before them. We'll address the issue at that particular point once we have everything there. Would you please ask the surveyor to be as detailed as he possibly could with the decking and the spas Mrs. Walker had mentioned, and the trees and so on and so forth, so that we can draw a better opinion of what's going on here. The height of the ground cover and so on and so forth. That'll give us a better idea. That's what I viewed when I was down there. Do you have anything else to say, --you're-just going to submit pictures to us, right? MRS. WALKER: If you would lik~. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please~ (Mrs. Walker submitted pictures for the record of Mr. Ziedler's property.) Page l0 June 19, 1986 Public Hearing - Ziedler Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. WALKER: The way you're referring to that survey doesn't sound as if you have the one that I took from the town. (Chairman and Mrs. Walker compared survey copies and they were the same.) MRS. WALKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: You see, what I'm talking about is moving it down here a little bit, then this gets you away from the easement. MRS. WALKER: It would fit right in there. It's about 80 feet up to the edge. It's 70 feet over.. It's about 60 feet here. There's already existing bulkhead that would accommodate it, and then it would be conforming to the Code. CHAIRMAN: It's just an opinion on my part--I don't like to something as close to the open water as that. see MRS. WALKER: Well, I mean, it'~s so much closer here than it is here. CHAIRMAN: I understand that, but we can protect this over here by a retaining wall. MRS. WALKER: What protection does that offer? CHAIRMAN: I'm not interested in this protection here. MRS. WALKER: That's where the pool-- CHAIRMAN: I'm telling you that if we were to grant this here, this gentleman would be required to put a cement block wall in here to retain this pool with piers every six feet, that you couldn't drive a bulldozer through--and I'm being facticious now. MRS. WALKER: But as I said, it's the noise and the discomfort to US. CHAIRMAN: I understand that. We're taking that into consideration-- MRS. WALKER (Interrupting) This is going {o be on the line, the front line. This is actually asking to put a pool not in the sides but in the front. Page ll June 19, 1986 Public Hearing - Ziedler Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: No I understand what you're saying. That's why I thought maybe pushing it a little bit farther would maybe rectify the situation. It would be away from your easement area and then put proper screening in, so as to--in this particular case, another 16 feet away from the corner of the house. That's my opinion. I have not voiced~that opinion from anybody else on the board. Ok? MR. LESSARD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say for the record that §ince both parties are here, that I'm sure I have spoken to Mr. Ziedler about this, -!~if this is attached and part of the dwelling, if it is not attached then it becomes accessory and you would have to come back for a variance. And that's why you and I discussed attaching it. Ok. And when the Building Department sees the design, then we will make that determination. So rest assured, whatever the law requires, that's the way ~t~ll-go, .If it's a side walk thing and then the pool, it's not attached. And I'm sure Mr. Ziedler under- stands this and I want you people to understand this. If it's attached, it's in the proper position as far as the law is concerned. Except that it's the Board of Appeals to do what they want from there out. As far as the Building Department is concerned, if it's attached, it's legal. If it's not attached, it's accessory and it's in the side yard and would require a further variance. So that you both understand and I'm sure you are both aware of it. MR. ZIEDLER: I'm sure there's a little more history to it than what everybody is talking about~ and I think the Board should khow what we're talking about. The roadway that you see there-- I and another neighbor spent over $6,000 in lawyer's fees and brought it to the Supreme Court to get that as a roadway that belonged to all the people that live--those nine families that originally opposed the Walkers. I know that the Walkers built a little patio in front of their house and they have parties also, just like we do, and it's noisy, so I put up a six-foot fence. I didn't know you couldn't put up a six-foot fence up. I put it up on Saturday. The Building Department was there on Monday, and I left it there for some time and I thought, ~'Now how do I take and get a little peace and quiet in my yard." So I went out and I spent $2,300 and I bought a 35-foot blue spruce and I planted it in front of where the pool is going to be, so you will not see the pool. I will also in your permit if I get one tell you that I will not put any other lights other than a light in the pool, that will not affect anybody. I will fence it so that it will not be in their view easement. I don't know what more I can tell you. Page 12 June 19, 1986 Public Hearing Ziedler Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Will you get us-- MR. ZIEDLER: This is a running something, and I thought it was put to bed. Let me say this to you, I would have sent the notification to you had I been told that I had to, except there is a road in between and it was not necessary. But when you went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, I didn't get a copy of it either, and I didn't do it intentionally. CHAIRMAN: Will you get us that survey? We will recess this until the next regularly scheduled meeting, indicating the details of the ground cover that you have there. I'm talking know about the deck in the rear yard, the other things that you have. MR. ZIEDLER: I have an aerial survey. I'll bring an aerial photo, which shows everything. All right? CHAIRMAN: Could you possibly have the survey show it, if we so choose to move the pool a little to the south--we know how far we can go if we so choose to do that. We may end up turning it around and going the opposite way which would precipitate another application of 75 feet from the opposite direction. With the aerial photograph and with that, it'll give us a better view of what we can deal with. Thank you very much. Is there anything else you wanted to say before we recess the hearing, Mrs. Walker, Mr. Walker? MRS. WALKER.indiCated she would wait until the next hearing. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you. Hearing no further comments, I'll recess the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. The resolution to recess the hearing until July 17, 1986, was unanimously adopted. ~~ HENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF NO-SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT DATE: September 25, I987 APPLICATION NO.: 571 NAME: LAND USE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD ZEIDLER This notice is issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.I0 and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Trustees, as lead agency for the action described below has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same er similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: Unlisted DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To construct a swimming pool with associated decking as per supplied plan. This determination is conditioned on the provision that ~he material in the eye view easement will be removed. LOCATION: 100 McDonalds Crossing, Edgemere Park, Laurel REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: 1. An environmental assessment form has been submitted which indicated that there would be no adverse effect to the environment should the project be implemented as planned. 2. Because there has been no response in the allotted time from the Southold Town Building Dept. and the New York State D.E.C. it is assumed that there are no objections nor comments from those agencies. 3. Conservation Advisory Council recommended approval. Board of Trustees Page 2. For further information regarding this application please contact: Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Call: (516) 765-1892 cc: Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling, D.E.C., Albany Robert A. Greene, D.E.C., Stony Brook Stephen Mars, Army Corps of Engineers Thomas Hart, Coastal Management John Holzapfel, Chairman, Southold Town C.A.C. Victor Lessard, Admin., Building Dept. Planning Board Board of Appeals Town Clerk's Bulletin Board file Land Use Company on behalf of Richard Zeidler Francis J. Yakaboski, Esq. 456 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, New York - ;;90; P. O. Box 1169 Peconic Bay Boulevard Mattituck, New York - 11952 Dear Mr. Yakaboski:' Enclosed, for your information and your file, are copies of two letters sent on July 6 and 7, 1987 to the Z.B.A. of Southold and the D.E.C. Yeu will note in my letter to Mr. Goerinqer of the Z.B.A., mention of the intolerable situation Mr. Zeidler has created by piling all sorts of debris in his front yard, within our eyeview easement, and in front of our living room and deck. Our easement is worded, ".... reserving to the seller, her heirs and assigns an unrestricted view .... in order that the seller may maintain and "ENJOY" the view from her dwelling .... ". Certainly, there's little enjoyment looking out at the mess he's cruated. Since the Zoning Code outlaws a junkyard and this is "junk" placed is a "yard", Mr. Zeidler has, in effect, created a private "junkyard" which is illegal. With a "StopWork Order" imposed, and not knowing when this situation will be resolved, we feel that the construction site, or at least that part of it in our view easement, should be cleaned up. We were patient about it while the work was going on, but see no reason why we should spend the summer looking at this unsightly mess because of Mr. Zeidler's flagrant abuse of the law. We are, therefore, asking you to enjoin Mr. Zeidler to remove the debris im- mediately, if not from his property, at least from our view. My husband and I are pleased that our letters have drawn response fr~n the Town and that our neighbor's infractions are being investigated and ho~fully corrected. We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to a response to my letter of June 10th. Respectfully yours, Margery M. Walker, (Mrs. B. W.) Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York - 11971 P. O Box 1169 Peconic Bay Boulevard Mattituck, N.Y.-il952 June 10, 1987 Attention: Gerard P. Goeringer, Chairman Gentlemen: We are writing to aqsk for an on-site inspection by the Zoning Board of the construction of the Zeidler's pool and patio along Brush's Creek in Edgemere Park, Laurel. You will recall that we were before the Z.B.A. several times protesting the placement of this pool for many valid reasons; all of which we presume are properly recorded and need not be reiterated here. Though most of our con- cerns did not seem to be very consequential to the Z.B.A. and Mr. Zeidler was permitted to proceed with the construction of a swimmina Pool on the disputed site, we were assured that our deeded eye-view easement would be honored and their would be no infringement of it. There were several other conditions im- posed, as well. At no time during the hearings, nor in the applications was there any mention of changing the grade of the proposed site. However, the earth from the ex- cavation plus several truckloads of fill have been spread from the pool, ac- ross the eye-view easement, toward Brush's Creek, cover ing the existing sea grass and raising the ground level by two th three feet. When this area is eventually planted with sea grass, (as mandated by the Trustees), our view willl definitely be diminished. Not only the grade but the dimensions of the proposed construction have been changed and now intrude upon this easement. One of our greatest pleasures is enjoying the beautiful panarama of the bay while sitting in our living room or den. This lovely view and the fact that it is protected in perpetuity by a recorded deed, is what decided us to pur- chase our home more than ten years ago. Certainly, much of its aesthetic value and most of its real value hinges on this attribute. We bought our home be- cause of the eye-view easement: the Zeidler's bought theirs in spite of it, and ~e have been hard pressed to protect it ever since. We find it very distressing that we must continually exhort the Town for equit- able consideration. There have been many decisions made in favor of our neigh- bor that seem very biased and we are exasperated and concerned bv this preju- dicial treatment. As taxpaying and community minded citizens of Southold, we feel we deserve the same protection through the Town agencies as our neighbor. The Board of Trustees also chose to grant them permission, waiving the necessity of a permit, saying that the placement of a pool along the creek. (despite regu- lations to the contrary), would have no impact. However, it never mentioned changing the grade. Surely, doing so will effect something - drainage, creek overflow, ecology, etc. We are, therefore, contacting them as well and includ- a copy of this letter. Southold Town Board of Appeals ................................... June 10, 1987 We feel that your decision to allow the Zeidler's to put a swiping pool in the location requested was arbitrary, prejudicial and political. However, the condi- tions accompanying this decision were very explicit and Mr. Zeidler has chosen to ignore them. We look to you to see that they are honored: 1 - That the ground be restored to its natural level in the eye-view easement. 2 - That part of the construction that extends into the easement be removed far enough back to allow retaining wall and fencing and anything else required to be installed without infringing upon this easement. 3 - There be no construction closer than 50' to the front nor 30' to the creek. Looking forward to a quick response, we remain - Yours very ~ruly, / A/~ Bertram W. ~a~er/~ and - garger¥ ~. ~alker cc: Southould Town Board of Trustees V. Lessard, Building Department M. Fiscina, D .E.C. C. Hamilton, D.E.C. F. Murphy, Supervisor Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. llC~?l TELEPHONE (516) /65 1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR ROBERT J, DOUGLASS JOSEPH B. SAWICKI July 9, 1987 Mrs. Margery M. Walker P.O. Box 1169 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Premises of Richard Zeidler at Edgemere Park, Laurel Dear Mrs. Walker: I am in receipt of your letter dated June 6th, received today, concerning the above premises and your previous letter received June 16, 1987. Immediately upon receipt of your letter on June 16th, we corresponded with Francis J. Yakaboski, Esq., Special Town Attorney, and were made aware that you have had conferences with his office on these concerns and is being handled through his office. (A copy of our June 16th letter to Mr. Yakaboski is enclosed.) We are aware that the Bay Constable has taken steps under the applicable provisions of Chapter 97, Article III, of the Wetlands Law of the Town of Southold. Although I am familiar with your concerns and have been down to view Mr. Zeidler's premises, we are not permitted by law to determine violations or institute legal proceedings of this nature. The Board of Appeals is a non-judicial, administrative body which reviews decisions made by the Building Inspector (the enforcing officer) under Chapter lO0-Zoning. Please be assured that this is a legal matter which we understand is being handled by the Building Department under the Provisions of Article XIV of the Zoning Code. Any and all questions concerning the legal steps and enforcement of Page 2 - July 9, 1987 To: Mrs. Margery M. Walker Re: Premises of Richard Zeidler at Laurel these activities our Town Counsel. should be directed through the Office Yours very truly, of lk Enclosure GERARD P. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2.5 SOUTHOLD, L.I,, N,Y. llg'71 APPEALS BOABD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. F'OBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI June 16, 19~i7 Francis J. Yakaboski, 456 Griffing Avenue P.O. Box 599 Riverhead, NY 11901 Esq. Re: Matter of Richard Zeidler - Appeal No. 3510 Building Permit #15528Z Issued 11/86 Letter of Complaint from Mr. and Mrs. Der'tram Walker Dear Frank: Transmitted herewith for your review are communications from Mr. and Mrs. Bertram Walker requesting an on-site inspection by this Board of premises of Mr. and Mrs. Richard Zeidler at Edgemere Park, Laurel. It is our understanding that to date, the Building Department has only received a verbal complaint. Inasmuch as we have been advised in the past by [own Counsel that enforcement of our decisions, conditions, actions, etc. is not our authority, and since we are without a formal application pending at this time concerning this matter, we may not legally be in a position to proceed as requested by the Walkers. We are attaching copies of the July 31, 1986 ZBA Decision indicating the construction allowed, as limited, under Appeal No. 3510, for your conveoience. Copies of the Building Department permit file should recently been forwarded to you. have We believe that since Mrs. Walker has had an opportunity to meet with you about the above, no actions should be commenced by our Department unless further advised. Page 2 - Appeal June 16, 1987 No. 3510 R. Zeidler Please don t hesitate to call if we may be of assistance concerning the particulars of our file or additional copies. Thank you for your help in this matter. Yours very truly, lk Enclosures GERARD P. CHAIRMAN GOEttRINGER P. O. Box 1169 Peconic Bay Boulevard Mattituck, New York - 11952 July 6, 1987 mr. Gerard Goeringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York - 11971 Dear Mr. Goeringer: You will recall I telephoned you Monday, June 29, 1987 to see if you had re- ceived ,our letter of June 10th regarding the construction of the Zeidler's swim- ming pool next door. Since we had sent copies to you and each other member of the Z.B.A., we were surprised to have had no respo9nse from any of you. Our letter to the Trustees was followed up the next day with an on-site inspec- tion by all five members; a letter to Mr. Lessard with copy to us; and a "stop work" order delivered by the BaY Constable. You assured me over the telephone that you had gone down to look at the construc- tion site and that the apparent violations would be followed up by the building Department. However, the Building Department has not received any type of com- munication f~myou or anyone else on the Zoning Board. We feel that the Z.B.A. should write to the Building Department, as the Trustees did, confirming your concerns rather than deferring to the Trustees decision to stop work. These are separate agencies, separate violations and require separate action by each concerned department of Southold Town. As I mentioned to you on the telephone, last Saturday Mr. Zeidter had two work- men take all of the junk that he has collected in his easterly side yard for the past few years and pile it in his front yard, (within the prescribed eye-view easement), directly opposite our front deck. While we realize this is a spiteful and immature act on his part, it is nonetheless extremely unsightly and irritating and we would like it eliminated. There is a junkyard ordinance in the Zoning Code that must preclude placing this material in one's front yard. Since it is "junk" and it is in his yard, he has created ~n. illegal junkyard. We are appreciative of anything the Z.~.k. can do to relieve us of the continued harrassment we have been subj~ected to since Mr. Zeidler threatened to show us "what a b~d neighbor he can be" at a neighborhood meeting a few years ago. Thank you for your i~ediate attention to this matter. Your very truly, Margery ~. cc: Francis J. Yakaboski, Esq. V. Lessard, Building Dept. All Members of Z.B.A. Board of Trustees Walker (Mrs. B.W.) Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall. Main Road Southold, New York - 11971 P. O Box 1169 Peconic Bay Boulevard Mattituck, N.Y.-il952 June 10, 1987 Attention: Gerard P. Geeringer, Chairman Gentlemen: We are writing to aqsk for an on-site inspection by the Zoning Board of the construction of the Zeidler's pool and patio along Brush's Creek in Edgemere Park, Laurel. You will recall that we were before the Z.B.A. several times protesting the placement of this pool for many valid reasons; all of which we presume are properly recorded and need not be reiterated here. Though most of our con- cerns did not seem to be very consequential to the Z.B.A. and Mr. Zeidler was permitted to proceed with the construction of a swimmina Pool on the disputed site, we were assured that our deeded eye-view easement would be honored and their would be no infringement of it. There were several other conditions im- posed, as well. At no time during the hearings, nor in the applications was there any mention of changing the grade of the proposed site. However, the earth from the ex- cavation plus several truckloads of fill have been spread from the pool, ac- ross the eye-view easement, toward Brush's Creek, cover ing the existing sea grass and raising the ground level by two th three feet. When this area is eventually planted with sea grass, (as mandated by the Trustees), our view willl definitely be diminished. Not only the grade but the dimensions of the proposed construction have been changed and now intrude upon this easement. One of our greatest pleasures is enjoying the beautiful panarama of the bay while sitting in our living room or den. This lovely view and the fact that it is protected in perpetuity by a recorded deed, is what decided us to pur- chase our home more than ten years ago. Certainly, much of its aesthetic value and most of its real value hinges on this attribute. We bought our home be- cause of the eye-view easement; the Zeidler's bought theirs in spite of it, and We have been hard pressed to protect it ever since. We find it very distressing that we must continually exhort the Town for equit- able consideration. There have been many decisions made in favor of our neigh- bor that seem very biased and we are exasperated and concerned by this preju- dicial treatment. As taxpaying and community minded citizens of Southold, we feel we deserve the same protection through the Town agencies as our neighbor. The Board of Trustees also chose to grant them permission, waiving the necessity of a permit, saying that the placement of a pool along the creek. (despite regu- lations to the contrary), would have no impact. However, it never mentioned changing the grade. Surely, doing so will effect something - drainage, creek overflow, ecology, etc. We are, therefore, contacting them as well and includ- a copy of this letter. ' ° ~cSold Town Board of Appe~s ................................... June 10, 1987 We feel that your decision to allow the Zeidler's to put a swimming pool in the location requested was arbitrary, prejudicial and political. However, the condi- tions accompanying this decision were very explicit and Mr. Zeidler has chosen to ignore them. We look to you to see that they are honored: 1 - That t'he ground be restored to its natural level in the eye-view easement. 2 - That part of the construction that extends into the easement be removed far enough back to allow retaining wall and fencing and anything else required to be installed without infringing upon this easement. 3 - There be no construction closer than 50' to the front nor 30' to the creek. Looking forward to a quick response, we remain - Yours very~ruly, ~ ij_ ,', , /~, Bertram W. ~alk~rx- and - Margery M. Walker cc: Southould Town Board of Trustees V. Lessard, Building Department M. Fiscina, D .E.C. C. Hamilton, D.E.C. F. Murphy, Supervisor P. O. Box 1169 Peconic Bay Boulevard Mattituck, New York - 11952 July 6, 1987 mr. Gerard Goeringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York - 11971 Dear Mr. Goeringer: You will recall I telephoned you Monday, June 29, 1987 to see if you had re- ceived our letter of June 10th regarding the construction of the Zeidler's swim- ming pool next door. Since we had sent copies to you and each other member of the Z.B.A., we were surprised to have had no respo9nse from any of you. Our letter to the Trustees was followed up the next day with an on-site inspec- tion by all five members: a letter to Mr. Lessard with copy to us: and a "stop work" order delivered by the BaY Constable. You assured me over the telephone that you had gone down to look at the construc- tion site and that the apparent violations would be followed up by the building Department. However, the Building Department has not received any type of com- munication f~myou or anyone else on the Zoning Board. We feel that the Z.B.A. should write to the Building Department, as the Trustees did, confirming your concerns rather than deferring to the Trustees decision to stop work. These are separate agencies, separate violations and require separate action by each concerned department of Southold Town. As I mentioned to you on the telephone, last Saturday Mr. Zeidler had two work- men take all of the junk that he has collected in his easterly side yard for the past few years and pile it in his front yard, (within the prescribed eye-view easement), directly opposite our front deck. While we realize this is a spiteful and immature act on his part, it is nonetheless extremely unsightly and irritating and we would like it eliminated. There is a junkyard ordinance in the zoning Code that must preclude placing this material in one's front yard. Since it is "junk" and it is in his yard, he has created ~n~ illegal junkyard. We are appreciative of anything the Z.~.A. can do to relieve us of the continued harrassment we have been subj~ected to since Mr. Zeidler threatened to show us "what a ba~ neighbor he can be" at a neighborhood meeting a few years ago. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Your very truly, CC: Francis J. Yakaboski, Esq. ¥. Lessard, Building Dept. All Members of Z.B.A. Board of Trustees Walker (Mrs. B.W.) INTERNAL MEDICINE EMILE E. SYLVESTRE, M. D. MICHAEL W. DEMPSEY. M. D. " ~(eO ~ .00 ' ,~PR. P4~ 197`9 AUG 1`9~ /955 MAY .9,1986 YOUNG RIVKRH~AD ~ N, Y, HOW~RO ~. YOUNa LAND SUHV~YOR I"-' 40 ' Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD. L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS June'25, 1986 GERARD P~i GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN// CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. /.- S. E. Q. R. A. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ,/ NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION ROBERT J. DOUGLASS / JOSEPH H. SAWICKI ,/ ~ Notice of. pete~mination of Non-Si~nificanc~ APPEAL NO.:. 3510 PROJECT NAME: R~chard and Ruth Zei~ler This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a etermlnatlon made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: ['~ Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Permission to locate p~oposed pool. deck and fencing w~thin 75" of bulkhead or tidal water LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as:100 McDonald's Crossing off.the South side of' Peconic Bay Blvd. Laurel, NY 1000-145-4-15 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be impleJ mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowalski, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- -~TATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N,Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI July 9, 1986 Mr. and Mrs. Richard P.O. Box 165 Edgemere Park Laurel, NY 11948 Zeidler Re: Appeal No. 3510 (Variance) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Zeidler: Attached is a copy of the recently published Notice of Hearings which indicates that your hearing will be reconvened at or after 9:00 p.m. We would also like to remind you that an updated survey showing all ground cover, including decking, walkways, gazebo is needed at this hearing. Should additional time be required by your surveyor or engineer, please let us know as early as possible. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. CHAIRMAN lk Enclosure June 17, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that I have been treating Mrs, Ruth Zeidler since 1979 for a chronic recurrent low back syndrome with a probable herniated nucleus pulposus L 4 - L 5. It is my recommendation that Mrs. Zeidler undergo progressive physio- therapy. This can best be accomplished with in-water exercises and I have reconm~ended that she install a pool for this purpose. Sin~ly, ~ Frank Calabro MD HENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSK[, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 June 4, 1986 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 Mrs. Ruth Zeidler Edgemere Park Laurel, New York 11948 Re: Pool Construction Dear Mrs. Zeidler: Pursuant to your request for a waiver of the Wekland Ordinance, please be advised that the following action was taken by tile Board of Trustees on May 29, 1986. Moved by Trustee Krupski seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the documentation submitted concerning this request; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this request, appellant requests a Waiver of the Wetland Ordinance, Chapter 97, Article II, Section 97-22 for the construction of an inground 16' x 32' pool and a 6' deck around same. 2. The property in question is located at 100 McDonalds Crossing, Laurel, New York and more particularly known on the Suffolk County Tax Map as 1000, Section 145, Block 04, Lot 015. In considering this request the Board finds and determines: 1. That the project will not adversely affect the wetlands of the Town. 2. That the project will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town, NO%~, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Ruth Zeidler be and hereby is granted a WAIVER of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold for the construction of a 16' x 32' inground pool and 6' deck around same with the following provisions: 1. During construction the fill must be contained so that it does not wash into the creek. Placement of hay bales would be recommended during construction. -2- Ail discharge from the pool is to be piped away from the creek and bay. Immediately following construction all areas of exposed soil should be suitably vegetated.. Very truly yours~ HPS:ip cc: Bldg. Dept. Board of Appeals C.A.C. Trustees file ~enry P. Smith, President Board of Town'Trustees Ilene Pfifferling Clerk to Board ~ ,00 NO~'£: D~I I000 SEC/ 145 OU04 LO~ 015 R£Vl$1Obl$ 4PR. P4, 1979 AUC, /9, 1985 MA)' 9,1986 YOUNG 400 OSP'NANO6R AVENUe, VZ PROFeSSIONaL ~N~/N~R AND sMRVE ~OR, ~ K S. L lC. ~ YOUNG RIVLCRH~AD~ N. NOOY&RD LAND I~. ~. ~. t l C. bfO. ~, O~ $ Town Law snd~ C~the ~, 8:15 p.r~ppea] No .qn~o Town of 8oUthOld~,~4.he f~tn~ ! NOR~ ~ public he~n~ *ill ~'~]d by ~ , V~ce ~ the the 8OUTHO]M) TOWN naace, Article VII, Section /00- BOARD OF'APPEAL~ at the i 70(C)[21 for permh,.~o, t~ install: Southold Town Hall MaL~ Road, t (1) large on-premises identifica. Seuthold, NYataRegularMeat. tion sign in excess of the ing commencing at 7:30 p.m.'on 1 maximum height and width re- THURSDAY, JULY 17 1986 quisemonts, and (2) second on- and as fo ows: p?mises identification/directory 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3529 - ' sign, at premises known as 9025 PAUL RELSCH. Variance to Main Road, Mattituck, NY; the Zoning Ordinance, Article County Tax Map Parcel No. 111, Section 100-31 for permission :, 1000-122-6-020. Zoning District: to construct deck addition ' to "B-Light Business." existingdwellingwithanirmuffi. 8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3527 - cient rearyard setback, at 405 ROBERT AND CHARLOttE Wendy Drive, Laurel, NY; WISSMAN. Variances to the County Tax Map Parcel .No.. Zoning Ordinance: (a) Article lIl, 1000-127-08-19. Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 35~'~fo~r. Jocation of new Single-family BRUCE AND SHIRL~Jt' '~ ."~l~elling with reduced sideyards, SIEVERMAN. Variance to the frontyard, and rearyard set- Zoning OrdinanCe, ~rtiele HI, backs; and (b) Article XI, Section Section 100-31 for permi~ina to 100-119.2(B) for location of new construct deck addition to eaiab dwelling with reduced setback lng dwelling and attaching ant from highwater mark at For- existing swimming pool leaving! dham Canal. Location of Prop- an insufficient setback from the, erty: 715 Gull Pond Lane, Green- southerly (side) property line bn pert, NY; County Tax Map No. this corner lot. Location of Pro~ 1000-35-04-007.6 (referred to as erty: 50 Aquaview Avenue and Lot "C" in prior subdivision re- Rocky Point Road, East Marion, cords). NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 8:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3428 - 1000-21-3-1. BERTHA KURCZEWSKI. 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3528- : Variance to the Zoning Ordi- RICHARD AND 'AL/CE .. nenee, Article III, Section 100- McMANUS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Section 100- 13(2)[B] for approyal of the cOn. strucUon'ol an open, perch in ex, cess of 30 sq. ~. in area having an nsufficlent setback from the front property line at 710 Cedar Lane, East Marion, NY; County i Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-6- 5.1. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3531 . Al.BERT J. _ Variance to th~ ~ O~di- , mace, Article KI, ~:tion~100- ' 119.2(B) for permise~on to c~- ~truct pool, deck and fence enclo- sure within 75 feet of mean high ~vater along Dawn Lagoon, Dawn Drive, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No.' 1000-35-5-16; Cleaves Point Sec- tion III, Lot #71. 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3521 -. ANDREW AND WILLIAM GOODALE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Artfcle III,. Section 100-31 for permission to reduce living area in preexisting, nonconforming dwelling unit in this "B-1" Generul Buainea~ Zon- ing District, to lese than 850 ft. Location of Property: 7655 Main Road, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-g- 30.1 (or 30). 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3523 - STEVE KALAIJIAN. Vari- ance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk and Parking Schedule, for ap- proval of insufficient lot area of proposed Parcel No. 2 in this two- lot division/~et-offloeatad on the north side of a private right-of- way extending off the north aide of Bergen Avanea, Mattituckl NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-112-01-18. 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3517 - ROSALIE GOWEN. Variance to reconsider the rehefrequested under Appeal No. 3450 for Vari- ancse to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of: (1) in- sufficient lot area, (2) insuffi- cient lot width, (3) insufficient lot depth, of two parcels as propesed in this pending set-off/radivision of land located at the ¢oruers of ZonaRoad, Cpt. Kidd Drive and Central Drive, Mattituck, NY; Cpt. Kidd's Estates Filed Map #1672, Lots 13;1, 153, County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-106-02-32 and 43. 31, Bulk and Parking Schedule, for approval of insufficient area and frontage (lot width) of two In~rcela in this pending set-off di- vision of land, located at the east side of Depot Lane, Cutchogue, · NY; County Tax Map Parcels NO. 1000-102-02-003 a~d 025. 8:40 p.m. Appeal No~ 3513 . ~FEPHEN SHILOWITZ. Vari- anCe to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to 'construct con- dominium complexes within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water, at the west side of Sixth Street, Groenpert, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-49-01-25.1. Zon- ing District: "M-Light Multiple.'! See Legals, next pager STATE OF NEW YORK ) ! SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) MAcy Ellen w~ I .. of Greenport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published st Greenport, in the Town of Southold. County of Suffolk and State of New York, end that the Notice of which the annexed ia a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for weeks successively, commencing on the dsyof July 19 86 ~":"'~) '- ~ ~ NOTARY PUBLIC. ~ Of New Yo~ ,/~ Suffolk COa~ I~ ~9860~ ~ ~worn t~efore me this /~ 3¢rm ~~19~ day of ~.~/~ Legal Notices tr Continued from previous page ecessed from June 19, 19~6). 9:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3510 - CHARD AND RUTH ZEI- ER. Variance to local pool, ck and fencing within 75 feet./ bulkhead and t, idal water, at~. McDonald s Crossing~,~ urel. (Recessed from June 19, 1986. ~ 9:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3489 PAUL LEARY for Reversal of Building Inspector's Decision concerning property of FRANK E. AND MARY BROPHY, 75 · cessed from June 19, 1986) The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the above hear- ings. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. For more information, please call 765-1809. Dated: July 2, 1986. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN lTJy10-5301 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHnLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, .IR. SERGE DOYEN, .JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time and date of the public hearing concerning your recent application is a copy of the Legal Notice as published in the L.I. Traveler- Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Weekly Times, Inc. Someone should appear in your behalf during the public hearing in the event there are questions from board members or persons in the audience. Please be assured that your public hearing will not start before the time allotted in the Legal Notice. If you have any questions, please feel free to call our office, 765-1809. Yours_ very~u..~/~ l G'ERARD P. GOEHR~NGER ~ CHAIRMAN Linda .Kowalski Secretary and Clerk Board Enclosure I RECEIVED ~,~AY 1,.~ 1986 APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR Tow~ Clerk S0uth01d APPEAL NO. '~'~-/~--') // D^TE ...... ........ TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1, (We)/~J~,~..e...~....~~... ......... / ~ame of App~ont Street and Numar / ........ ...................................... .......... of ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ....~...~.&,~....~.. ,../.i..~......Z..~..(..~~. WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ....... ............ Name of Applicant~or_ permit , ~ __ 5treet and Number Municipality SYote / 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTYZ~/.-..~. ~ ../.~ ~h.'~//~'~,_, /~...~f~ Street Use District on Zoning Mop ~Current ..............................................................................Map No. '7 ~'ff,~ Lot No./~-/3 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zo?ng Ordinance by number, Do not quote the Ordi.nonce,) 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is mode herewith {or (~ A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop ( ) A VARIANCE due to lock of access (State of New York Town Law Chop. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (ha(~has not) been mode with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ~'~quest fOr a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Doted ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (~'~ A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is requested for the reason that ~ ~ Form ZBI (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued sary HARDSHIP because 9 STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- vicinity of this property and in this use district because The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because ~..~ ~' ~J --~z_~.~q ~_.~-C~.~_.~ STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF ~f'~'~ ~_,t ) ~ of ....... ~'g~. ..................................... 19~ Sworn to this .......... /....+r. ............................... day ... ' Page 4 - Notice MailingpList Regular Meeting of~arings June 19, 1986 Copies to the following June 10, 1986 by mail, except as noted: Suffolk Times (personal delivery 6/10) LI Traveler-Watchman (" " 6/10) Town Clerk Bulletin Board posted 6/10 ZBA Office Bulletin Board posted 6/10 Howard E. Pachman, Esq., 366 Veterans Memorial Highway, Box 273, Commack, NY 11725 as Attorney for Brophy Frederick M. Reuss, Jr., Esq., Reuss Ruchala & Handler, Esqs., Attorney for Leary, Suite 103, 230 Hilton Avenue, Hempstead, NY 11550-8116 Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Attn: Mrs. P. Moore, Main Road, Southold 11971 Attorney for Brophy Mr. Samuel Bail, 1920 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck, NY 11952 Mr. Clarence W. Powell, as agent for Gregory Follari 380 Robinson Road, Greenport, NY l194q Mr. Gregory Follari, 33 Fairview Avenue, Park Ridge, Nd 07656 Mr. Christopher Schwarting, Southold Pools, as Agent for Dave Moore ~ P.O. Box 539, Southold, NY 11971 Mr. David Moore, 301 East 47th Street, New York, NY Apt. #3M Mr. Howard Reinhart, 107 Lone Beach Road, St. James, NY 11780 Mr. Charles Hydell, 36570 Main Road, Peconic, NY 11958~ (Peconic Wood Design) Mr. and Mrs. Albert J. Bodenstein, 6135 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic 11958 Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Attn: Mrs. P. Moore, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 as Attorney for Mrs. Marjorie Petras Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue 11935, as Attorney for Mrs. Leonard Leonard Mr. Garrett A. Strang, as Agent for Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Stocker, 54655 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Stephen R. Angel, Esq., as Attorney for Stephen Shilowitz, Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy and Angel, 108 East Main St., Uox 279, Riverhead, NY 1190) Mr. Stephen Shilowitz, 330 East 33rd St, New York, NY 10016 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Zeidler, Box 165, Edg(~mer~ Park, Laur~l, NY 119~8 Mr. Merlon Wiggin as Agent for Port of Egypt, (~)x 672, GreenporL 11944 JUDITtt T TERRY TOWN CLI'RK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICEOFTHETOWN CLERK TOWN OFSOUTHOLD May 14, 1986 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 To: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals From: Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 3510 application of Richard and Rith Zeidler. Also included is Notice to Adjacent Property Owners; Short Environmental Assessment Form;! letter relative to N.Y.S. Tidal Wetlands Land-Use; survey; and application to and Notice of Dis- approval from the Building Department. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Regular Meeting July 17, ~986 Copies of the Notice of Hearings on or about 7/9/86 to: Howard E. Pachman, Esq. for Brophy Frederick M. Reuss, Jr.~ Esq. for LearS, 11550-8116 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Zeidler, P.O. Box 165, Laurel, Mr. and Mrs. Bertram Walker, Edgemere Park, Laurel, Mr. and Mrs. Richard McManus, 96 Webster St, 230 Hilton Ave, Hempstead, NY 11948 NY 1~948 Westbury, NY 11590 Mr. Albert J. Breneisen, 715 Dawn Drive, East Marion, NY 11939 ~ostello Marine Contracting as agent, P.O. Box AK, Greenport 11944 Mr. an~ Mrs. Bruce Sieverman, 50 Aquaview Ave, East Marion 11939 Andrew Gooda~e, Esq., Box 146, New Suffolk 11956 Mr. and Mrs. Paul Ke~sch, Box 4~1, Laurel, NY 11948 Mr. Steve Kalaijian, 25-56 222nd St, Bayside, NY 11361 Benro Survey Ltd., Attn: Christopher Henn, 121 Eddy Dr, Dix Hills as agent for Mr. Kalaijian NY t1746 Stephen R. A~gel, Esq. for Mr. Shilowitz, Box 108, East Main Street, Riverhead, NY 11901 Mr. and Mrs. Robert W. Strong, 1067 Roselle Pl., Woodmere, NY 11598 opposin~ Shilowitz application Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C., Attn: Ellen Urbanski Main Road, Box 1424, Mattituck, NY 11952 for Mrs. Kurczewski Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Attn: Pat Moore, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 for Mr. and Mrs. Wissman Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C. for North Fork Bancorp. and R. Gowen Main Road, Box 1424, Mattituck, NY 11952 Posted on Town Clerk and ZBA Bulletin Boards 7/10/86 Copies to ZBA Members, Town Board and Planning Board Copies to Building Department BOARD OF APPEALS. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Petition of : to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold : TO: NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1 That [Lis the ntent on of the unders gned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold torequest (~Variance) (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) [circle choice] ). 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is I.ocated adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: ../~ ..... ~'~; ~ ~-~-~-~¥~_ /,3 o )74~- ~ ~ ~_~.2--z~' C.~'/~,-~..~ 3. That the pro~.erty which is the subiect of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: .,,.~ $. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signedare Article XI Sectic~j /~o -//g- gL, [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access ove~' right(s)-of-wa.y. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you ma), then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 765-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituc~Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such ~/~t yo~or your representative have the Na right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: ~z~,~/ /0- /.J?a~'~' . Po ~.~O, ffice Address (Te'l. NAME PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICF ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS ADDRESS STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ~'d~'e~ ~rm ~'~- ,[',~ ~a~r~, ~' , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the _J_~_..~. day of - ~ ~ ,19g~, , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, tiirected to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roil of the Town of Southold; that said Notices/w~re mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at ~3ou-~x~/d ,~/~ ; that said No~es/~ve~ mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered) i~ail. ~_~/~.~ ! ~ ~- - Sworn to before me this / ~/ day of ./~/ , 19 a~Q, , ~tary Publ~ UNOAa. O001q!R j (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining property owners.) NOTICE OF HEAR1NGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD' TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall,. Main Road, Southold~ NY at a Regular Meeting commencing at 7:30 p.m. on THURSDAY, JU.£~Y 17, 1986 and as follows: 7:35 p:m. Appeal No. 3529- PAUL KELSCH. Variance to ~the Zoning Ordina~ ~ti~la' sion to construct deck ~dition to'existing dwellin~g with an ia- sufficient rearyard setback, at 405 Wendy Drive, Laurel~ NY: County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-12%08-19. 7}40 p.m. Appeal No. 3526- BRUCE AND SHIRLEY SIEVERMAN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article llI, Section 100-3'1 roi' permission to construct deck addition to ex- isting dwelling and attaching an existing swimming pool, leaving an ifisufficient setback from the southerly (side) property line on this corner LoL Location of Property: 50 A~uaview Avenue and Rocky Point Road, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000:21-3-1. 7:45 p.m. Appeai No. 3528= RICHARD AND ALICE McMANUS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Section 100-13(2)[B] for appro'vai of the, construction 'bf an open porch' in excess of 30 sq.~ Ct. in area; having an insufflLden~ 'setback: from the fr~/t property line at 710 Cedm'4~tne, 'EaSt Mario~, NY; County lhx Map Parcel No. 1000-31-~-5.1. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3531- ALBERT J. BRENEISEN. Variance to the ZOning Or- dinance, Article ~)!Sectinn 100-119.2 (B) for permission to construct pool, deck, and fence enclosure within 75 feet of mean' high water along Dawn Lagoon~ 715 Dawn Drive, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 100~-35-5-16; Cleaves Point Sec-. tion 111, Lot No. 71. 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3521-, ANDREW AND WILLIAM. GOODALE. Variance to the. Zoning Ordinance, Article lit, Section 100-31 for permission to reduce living area in preexisting~ nonconforming dwelling unit in. this "B-I" General Business Zoning District, to less than 850 sq. ft. Location of Property: 7655 Main Road, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-6-30.1 (or 30). 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3523: STEVE KALAIJIAN. Variance to the Zoning Or: dinance, Article III, ;Section. 100-31, Bulk and Parking~ Schedule, for approval of insuf- ficient lot area of proposed Parcel No. 2 in this two-lot divi, sion/set-off located on the north side of a private right-of-way ex- tending off the north side of- Bergen Avenue, Mattituck, County Tax Map Parcel No: 1000-112-0!-18. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK SS: Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman once each week for ........................... weeks successively, commencing on the /='~ day o,g-~:..-:~.. 7/,~..~..? ..... , ..... //'---, .7.- ..... P.. Sworn to before me this ........... ~ ..... 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 351% ROSALIE GOWEN, Var~nce to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cle 111, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of: (1) in- sufficient lot area, (2) insuffi-. cient lot width, (3) insufficient lot depth, of two parcels as pro-t posed in this pending set-~ off/redivision of land located at the corners of Zena Road, Capt: Kidd Drive and Central Drive,- Mattituck, NY; Capt. Kidd's Estates Filed Map No. 1672, Lots 134, 153, 154; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000.106-02-32 and 43. 8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3522-NORTH FORK BANCORP. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70(C)[2] for permis- sion to install: (1) large on- premises identification sign in excess of the maximum height and width requirements, and (2) second on-premises identifica- tion/directory sign, at premises known as 9025 Main Road; Mattituck, NY: County TaX Map Parcel No. 1000-122-6-020. Zoning District: "B-Light Business." 8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 352% ROBERT AND CHARLOTTE WISSMAN. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance: (a) Article Ill, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule for location of new single-family dwelling with reduced sideyards,frontyard, and rearyard setbacks; and (b) Arti- cle XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for location of new dwelling with reduced setback from highwale£ mark at Fordham Canal. Loca- tion of Property: 715 Gull Pond Lane. Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-04-007.6 (referred to as Lot "C" in prior subdivision records). Notary Public BARBARA FORBES. Notary Public, State of New York Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires ~'~'~7 ~/ 19 £ dav of 8:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3428- BERTHA KU ROZ.EWSKI. Variance to the Zoning Or- dinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk and Parking Schedule, for approval of insuf- ficient area and frontage (lot width) of two parcels in this pen- ding set-off division of land, located at the east side of Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcels. No, 1000-102-02-003 and 025. 8:40 p.m. Appeal No 3513- STEPHEN SH1LOWITZ:. Variance to the Zoning Or; dinance, Article XI, Sectiori 100-119.2(B) for permission to: construct condominium com~ plexes within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water, at the west side of Sixth Street, Grcen- port, NY; County Tax Map Pardi No. 1000-4~.01-25J, lng District: ,'M-Light Multi- pled' (Recessed from JUne 19,- ~86). LICHARD AND RUTI' ',EIDLER. Variance to Iocat~ ,ool, deck, and fencing withil 5 feet of bulkhead and rids tater, at 100 McDonald'SC~o~s ing, Laurel. (Recessed from Jun U1986). :15 p.m. Appeal No 348~J L LEARY for Reversal of Building Inspector's Decisiofl concerning property of FRANK · E. AND MARY BROPHY, 75 Second Street, New Suffoll~, (Recessed from June 19, 1986}.. The Board of Appeals will- hear at said time and place alt- persons or representafiws d~sit, lng to be heard in each of th~: above hearings. Written com. ments may also be submitted- prior to the conclusion of th~ subject hearing. For mo~ infor marion, please call Dated: July 2, 1986 BY ORDER OF THI~ SOUTHOLD TOWN. BOARD OF APPF.,AI~; GERARD P. GOEHI~ANGER; CHAIRMAN IT-7/10/86(11} APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, l.l., N.Y. 11c::J7] 1E LEPHONE (516; TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time and date of the public hearing concerning your recent application is a copy of the Legal Notice as published in the L.I. '[raveler- Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Weekly Times, Inc. Someone should appear in your behalf during tile public hearing in !:he event there are questions frOhq board members or persons in the audience. Please be assured that your public hearing will not start before the time allotted in the Legal Notice: If you have any questions, please feel Free to Call our office, 765-1809. Yours very t~$1~v~ ~ G1~RARD P. GOEHR~NGER ~/ CHAIRMAN Enclosure Linda Kowalski Secretary and Board Clerk NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the qown Law and the Code of the l'own of Seuthold, the following public hearings will be held by SOUTHOLD TOWN .'IOARD OF APPEAL~ at the ~;omhold Town Hall, Main Road, ~;outhold. NY at a Regular Meet- :ng id' the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARH OF APPEALS at the %mthold Town Hall, Main Road, :'.mt{mid. NY on THURSDAY, tUNI': 19, 1086 and as folhlws: 7:30 p m Appeal No 3489.- PAUl. I.EARY for a Reversal of /Yom the closest northerly prop- , District: "M-Light-Multiple" ,r0 err line as s~vn by sketched /~' 8;30 pm Appeal No. survey de.el 22, 198e. ~- fRICtIARD ~ND RU FH cation of Pretty: 6135 Indian [ DLER fi~r a ~ ariance ~ the Zm Neck ~ad, P~onic, NY Cowry ~ mg Ordinance. Article X1, Sec- Tax Map Parcel No. 10()0-86~fi- ~ tion 100-119.2;B~ for pcrmis~;ion 19. ~ loca~ proposed pool, deck and fencing within 75' of bulkhead o 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3424 - ELEANOR LEONARD for a/ Variance to the Zoning Ordi-- nance, Article III, Section 100- 31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of two continuous parcels, having tidal ware 100 McDonald's Crossing off the South Side of Peconie Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; Edge- mere Park Lots I2, 13, and ld; County Tax Map Parcel No insufficient area, width anff~ depth. Location of Property: 1000-145-4-15. Aah Ri bier-Wa offtheeaatt 840 m. Appeal No. 3525 s,de of Bay ltome Road (and[ PO.R,~ ()l, E(,YPT EN along the end of Willow Point~ PRISES for a Variance to the Road), Southold, NY; Countyx'~ Zoning Ordimmce, Article Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-56-5- 39, 40, and 41. 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3518 - MARJORIE D. PETRA8 lbra Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article XI, Section 100- 119.2 for insullicient setback of proposed additions from bul khead along Corey Creek, at 700 Koke Drive, Southoi~., ~¥: 1000-87-5-006 8:15 pm. Appeal No 3505 RALPH AND LUCILLE STOCKER fin' a Vm'iance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article Iii, Section 100-31 tbr permissimt to locate proposed new dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback. Location of l'roperty: 1080 Maple Lane la'k/a 55 Snug Harbor Roadl, Greenport, NY; Cleaves Point, Section 3, Map No. 4650, Lot 59; County Tax S*~ction 100-119.2dl) filr permis- sion to locate marine fuel-storage tank structures m thi~ "C-IAght" Industrial Zoning District with an insutlScmnt setback from IOOARI) OF AI'I'EALS of Groonport, in duly sworn, says that ho/she ia if THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly )liehod at Greonport, in tho Town unty of Suffolk and State of New ho Notice of which tho annexed is has been regularly published in ~r once each week for mark, at 6230 Mare lload. South: 'I~ ....... 19 ? ~j PORT OF EGYPT ENTEIt- pRISES for a Sp~.cial Exceptmn SAM UEI. IIAI LS fi.- a V;trikln( e NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY at a Regular Meeting of the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY on THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1986 and as follows: 7:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3489: PAUL LEARY,for a Reversal of Decision of the}Building Inspec- tor for Nullification of Actions to issue a Modified Permit and Demolition Permit, and that the property owners be left to. regular procedures of law, to be allowed only after review by the Board .o f Appeals and in accor- dance with all provisions of law. Name of Owners/Location of Property: FRANK E. AND MARY BROPHY, 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY; Coun- ty Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-10-20.7. (Recessed from 5/1/86). 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3499- DANIEL AND LISA JEROME for a Special Exception of the Zoning Ordinance for approval of an accessory apartment pur- suant to Article Ill, Section 100-30(B). Location of Proper- ty: 413125 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-75-02-3.1. 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3502- GREGORY FOLLARI for a Variauce to the Zoning Or- dinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for perntission to locate new dwelling with an in- sufficient setback from Long island Sound bluff. Location of Property: North Side of Sound Drive, Greenport; "Map of Sec- tion Four-Eastern Shores" Lot No. 117, Map No. 4586; Coun- ty Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-33-1-15. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3508- DAVID MOORE for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cl~ )~1, Se~:tion 100-119.2 for per- and fence areas with an insuffi- cient setbacktfrom Long Island Sound bluff, Location of Pro- perty: North side of Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-51-4.17. 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3515~ HOWARD REINHART AND CHARLES HYDELL for a Variance to the Zoning Or- dinance, Article Xl, Section 100-118(B) and A~r ticle III, Sec- tion 100-30{A) for permission to use existing building for wood. working shop and sales in this "A-40" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District'. Location of Property: 43305 Main Road, Peconic, NY; Court-' ty Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-75-01-16. )UNTY OF SUFFOLK CT^T= C~c ~,mu, YORK 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3515. ALBERT J. BODENSTEIN fm a Variance to the Zoning dinanee, Article ~ ltl, S~'ti~q 100-31 for permission to con= struct addition with an insuffi- cient setback from the closest northerly property line as shown by sketched survey dated April 22, 1986. Location of Property: ss: eing duly sworn, says that she is the IG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; )f which the annexed is a printed copy, in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman 6135 Indian Neck Road, Peconic, NY; Connty Tax Map .......................... ._~eeks Parcel No. 1000-86-649. ' 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 342~- ~cing on the ...... ELEANOR LEONARD for a .......... Variance to the Zoning Or- dinance, Article 11[, Section ~..~-.~%.. .... 19 ..... 100-31, BUlkof Schedule, for ap- proval two contiguous parcels, having insufficient area; .... . ............. width and depth, location pt -'- - Property: Along Right-of-Wa'y off the east side of Bay Home Road (and along the end pt Willow Point Road), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-56-5-39, 40, and 41. 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3518- MARJORIE D. PETRAS fora Variance to the Zoning Or- dinance, Article XI, Sectior 100-119.2 for insufficient setbacl, of proposed additions frorc bulkhead along CoreyCreek, al 700 Koke Drive, Southold, NY, County Tax Map Parcel 1000-87-5-006. 8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3050- RALPH AND LUCILLE STOCKER for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 111, Section 100-31 for permis- sion to locate proposed new dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback. Location of Property: 1680 Maple Lane (a/k/a 55 Snug Harbor Road), Greenport, NY; Cleaves Point, Section 3, Map No. 4650, Lot 59; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-5-28. STEPHEN sHI-LOWITZ for a Variance to the Zonifig Or- dinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 (B) for permission to construct condominium cpm- pie. xes within 75' of bulkhead or tidal water. Location of Proper- ty: West Side of Sixth Street; Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 10004.9-01-25.1. Zoning District: "M-Light- Multiple:' /~' 8:30 p.m. App6al No. 3510- RICHARD AND RUTH ZEI~)LER for a Variance to the 7x)ning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permis- sion to locate proposed pool, deck and fencngw hn 75' of bulkhead or tidal water. Loca- t on of Property: 100 McDonald's Crossing off the South Side of Peconic Bay B6ulevard, Laurel, NY: Edgemere Park Lots 12, 13, and 14; County Tax Map Parcel No. ~.._ 1000-145-4-15. · 8:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3524- PORT OF EGYPT ENTER- PRISES for a Variance the Zon- ing Ordinance, Article XI, Sec- tion 100-119.2(B) for permission to locate marine fuel-storage tank structures in this "C. Light" Industrial Zoning District with an ins3ffficient set- back from landward edge of tidal wetlaud and from ordinary highwater mark, at 6230 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-56-6-4, 6, 61. Notary Public BARBARA FORBF. S Notary Public, State of New York · Commission Expires ~.~/,~/ 19 8:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3525- FORT OF EGYPT ENTER- PRISES for a Special.Exception cie VIII, Seclion I(~)-80(B) for "C-Light" Industrial Zoning District, at 6230 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-56-6-4, 6, 6.1. 8:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3512 - SAMUEL BALLS for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cle Ill, Section 10{)-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to con- struct deck addition and roof over cellar stairs which exceeds the maximum-permitted 20 per- overhang will reduce sideyard Sigsbee Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-144-01-015. DATED: June 9, 1986. hear at said time and place all lng m be heard in each of thc information, please 765-1809 (alt. 1802). Dated: June 9, 1986 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRtNGER, CHAIRMAN IT-6/12/86~61 FORM NO, 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL File No ................................ To .']~.'..c.~...o/~..c~...~...& .~../.t:<~... ........... .~o.~ !~.~ ............ . .dj..~....,~.... ~...~ :. ?.'.~.~ .... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated ..... for pe~,t to construct...~~..~.~ .................................. at Lo~a,iono~e,o~rt, ..L~ %~6 House NO. County Tax Map No. 1000 Section .... ~ .~ ~ .... Block ... ~.~ ....... Lot .. ~/.~ ...... Subdivision ~d~. ~. Filed Map No .... ~.q.~ ...... Lot No..t ~7.1. ~. ~/.~ .... is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds. ~~~ .~. ~ ~ ~..~.~ .~ ~~., .~.~. ~.~a. ~.. ~~ .~..~.~~...~~..~..~ .~..~~ Building Inspector RV 1/80 The H.Y.S~ ~nvlronmencdl Quality ,~t:~w Ac[ requires suit- mission of s~ form, and an envtronme t1 review will be made by thi oaro before any action i ,aken, ' (a) ~n order ~o answer the question~ tn thi~ mhort EAF i~ I a , ' ~_~ . (b). ~ any question ha~ been answered Yes tho nro~oct ... ~. ....... ~'~ (c) If all questlonu have been answered No i: i~ likely t~mt thl~ project __ nlgnlflcant. . , (d) ~vironmentaZ 1. W~I project r,~t lma large phy~lcal to the project 91to or physically alter moro t~n 10 acre~ of land? . . . . ' ' · · . Ye~ ~...~ 2. Will there be a .major change to any ~lqu~ or unusual land fo~ fo~d on th~ site? . · · .. 3. W~i pro3ect alter or bmvs a larg~ effect on an existing body of watur? . . ' ' · ' ' ... Ye~ A. W~I project h~vo a potentially largo ~ on ~o,~wate~ quality? ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Yes ~, W~i proJec~ si~lflcantly'effect drainage ~ 6, Will project affec~ any threatensd or endangered plant or an~v~i opecl~s? . . ' ' ' ' ' · _ ~es 7. W~i project re~t in a major a~vors, affect on 8. W~I project hav, a raJor effmc~ on visual kno~ ~o be ~portant %o %h~ co~.munAty? · · . ~ Yes 9. Wlll project adv~r=oly ~pact any ~ito or ute of historic. PrO-hi,retie. or pal6on~ologicul enviro~en~l area by a local agency? · ' . You ---- NO 10. W~i project have a major effect on oxlot~g or 11. Will project result In mnJor traffic problems or 12. Will project reg~arl7 cauae obJectlonabl8 Will project have any impact on public health or Ye~ 1L. Will project Affect %he exl~tlng community bx d~rec%ly cau~inc a grCwth In ~ermanent pop%~a- ...... c~e~ o~ the ~mu~%y tr nel~h~.orhocd~.. ' Ye~ ~ NO (Today's Date] TO: Southo!d Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Locatzon of Property: c~L~.~ Dear Sirs: In reference to the New York State Tidal Wetlands Land-use Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Part 661, and Article 25 of the Hew York State ~ ~ ~ En;-.onm~nt~l Conservation Law, please be ad'/ised that th~ subject property iQ the wi'- . ~h~n appeal application: [ /~ M.]'I be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lyin([ edge of this property is a bulkhead in very good conditicn and at least 100 feet in length. [ ] Ma~ b~ located within 300 ~=~t of '' - ~- t_~a_ wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lyinc edge of this prcDerty is a bulkhead in (major) repairs, and approximately feet in length. - [ ] -[ ] not appear to May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead less than 100 feet in length. May be located ,, '~ ' · ;m=h~n 300 feet of tida'i wetlands; and there is no bulkhead or cch on the premises. - Is not located within 300 feut of tidal wetlands to the best of iny knowledge.* [!]tarred items (~) indicate your property does fall within the jurisdiction of the ~.~.y.~. D.E.C.] Since r~ 1]f yours, P ]~ ' D.E.C. jurisdiction, approval must be received an~! Submitted to our office before your application can be scheduled fo£ a public ~ -~, June 10, 1986 Notice of disclaimer to anyone interested in this file: Please be advised that Celic Realtors is currently holding my Real Estate License. At the time of filing this application and the period of time that it takes to hold a public hearing and reach a decision, I have no interest in this application. I further state, that I have -no- knowledge of an existing active listing with the above Real Estate office. This statement is signed with the complete understanding of information stated above ..... ~ Gerard P. Goehringer the TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I wish to disclose the following statement in the event the property in question should be pending a real estate activity with Celic Estate Agents, Inc., who holds my conditional salesperson's license: I have no interest whatsoever in the sale of this property and am not a part of any other pending real estate activity of a business or professional nature which might be a conflict with my secretarial duties as Stenographer/Secretary of the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold. Linda Kowal ski Page ]- June 19, [986 Public Hearing - Richard and Ruth Zied[er PUBLIC HEARING: ?,latter of RICHARD AND RUTH ZIEDLER. The Chairman opened the hearing at ]0:25 p.m. and read the notice o£hearing and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN: I have a map dated April 17,1979 indicating a one-story frame house and 9arage~ and indicatin9 as penned-in~ a proposed swimmingpool on the west side of the house approximately 30 feet to its nearest point to the bulkhead~ which is on the south side~ and 40 feet to the opposite side. And it appears that there's a six-foot deck around the pool. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Nlap indicatin9 this and surroundin9 properties. Mr. Ziedler~ would you like to be heard? RICHARD ZIEDLER: Iwou[d like to give you a sopy of a Doctor' s letter~ and I also have an approved from your Town Trustees. And apparently because the bulkhead was here in 1977~ the D.E.C. has indicated that they have no jurisdiction. CHAIRIvlAN: You don't have anything for us--that's just a statement you' re making~ ok. IVlR. ZIEDLER: Yes. When we left here last year, my wife was taken out of the bedroom through a window, in an ambulance to a hospital-she was there for nine days. And I went to Florida where I built apoo[, ahd when I came back~ I had an application for a pool. I started with the Building Department. He turned it down and told us how to 9© about it, and we' ve been doing it ever since. Well~ anything you can do to let us build a poo[~ we' l1 appreciate it. CHAIRMAN: When I was down to inspect the property, just quickly~ you told me you were going to make the depth of the pool how deep? MR. ZIEDLER: Six and one-half feet. CHAIRMAN: Six and a half. Do you have any specific objection to the normal condi- tions that we place on things of this nature~ and that is no overhead lighting to be obstrusive to the neighbors? Page 2_ June 19, 1986 Public Hearin9 - Richard and Ruth Ziedler MR. ZIEDLER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN: That the pool not be' roofed or enclosed. MR. ZEIDLER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN: And that the fencing be the normal --what type of fence, a four-foot chainlike? MR. ZIEDLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: All right. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against? Yes~ Sir. Mr. Walker. BERT WALKER: The name is Bert Walker, and I would like to voice objections not to the pool, but to its placement. But first we want to go on record as not having received notification of the application for a variance. And according to the code book of the Town of Southold, adjacent owners must be notified by mail of the intent to appeal. And we are adjacent owners. And we were notified when Mr. Ziedler applied for a variance in 1981 and we were wondering why we weren't this time. It's awkward to oppose a neighbor~ right or wrong~ you come out looking like'a bad guy. There is nothing personal here. All our points are valid, and thex-e are a few issues on the proposed pool w~ would like to point out. And I would like my wife to read them to you. CHAIRi~AN: Can I just mention a question to you? In reference to your notification: you are on the other side of the street, although it is a private road? l~lR. WALKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: That may be the reason why you were not notified, ok. Normally the notification is within that particular block, not particularly separating it by a street. I believe he would only be required to notify everybody contiguous to, and he's not specifically contiguous because of that street. Let me just check the tax map here. l~lR. WALKER: It's a 15' private road. CHAIRMAN: I think that's the reason why, just to answer your question there. NIEMgER GRICONIS: It has to be adjacent to. CHAIRMAN: The street runs all the way down to thecree~ even though it's not, you know, paved all the way down to the creek. I think that was the reason why. MR. WALKER: That was what I was wondering. Because we did get notification last time and not this time. CHAIRMAN: Right. That's the only reason I can give you. Page 3- 3une 19, 1986 Public Hearing - Ziedler i~R.W/~LKER: I'd like my wife- she's got a few things~ lVlar9? MARGERY WALKER: I'd like to 9o down the application if you would-- CHAIRMAN: Just turn that (mike) a little). NIRS. WALKER: You have an application in front of you (inaudible). SECRETARY: You'll have to speak a little closer into the mike, please. not picking you up. MRS. WALKER: Now? We're SECRETARY: That~ s better. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: No~ we only have one application. The board members have read it~ and I have all three copies of the application of Nit. Ziedler. MRS. WALKER: Well you will know what I am referring to. One thing we wanted to mention is that the application is incomplete. The survey submitted does not show 70 feet of decking or a 16' octagonal gazebo in the rear of the house. It also doesn't list the coverage of the lot which I understand is required and which appears to exceed the 20% allowed by the town code. And it' s my understandin9 that you require a current survey showing everything on the property when you apply for a permit or an appeal~ and the one that cam e with this certainly does not show what is currently on the property. Now on Page 1~ #2~ seeks relief from Article XI, Section #--that applies to setbacks from water bodies and wetlands. There's no request to place the pool with the side and front quite large (partly inaudible). Now isn't that necessary because after all your code requires that the pool be put in the rear yard~ so if you can't do it or won't do it, you should have relief than have a file~ no? CHAIRMAN: Let me answer them as you go down the line. We never really get involved in determining what the rear or side yard is. In this particular case~ since you have that unnamed street that runs down, they really have-- oh, I see what you' re saying, ok. Is it running down to one side.. NiRS. WALKER: Yes. It's the front, iVlr. and Mrs. Ziedler front on that road. CHAIRMAN: He was not turned down for that, or they were not turned down for that, ok. MRS. WALKER: Shouldn't they have been? After all, that was--irregularity. CHAIRMAN: The building inspector is going to have to answer that. VICTOR LESSARD, BUILDING DEPT. ADMINISTRATOR: It's considered an attachment to the main building. Page 4- June 19, 1986 Public Hearing - Ziedler CHAIRMAN: Ok. So it's an attachment to the main buildin9 so therefore it's not within the sideyard area. iVlR. LESSARD: No. MRS. WALKER: Then how can they do that when there's a distance between the walls and the pool. It is not attached. There' s a walkway between the house and-- but~ be that as it may. On Pa9e l~ ~4~ the reason for the appeal requests a 16' by 3 ' pool~ deck and fence. The survey shows a 16' by 35' pool and deck drawn to scale. Not 32. Which is it? And there's no fence shown on that survey submitted. By the time you add a fence to the perimeter already described~ you could--they could well infringe upon our deeded eyeview easement~ which does not permit fencin9 or anythin9 else which obscures our view in that prescribed area. On Pa9e 2~ #l~ it asks what hardship prevents adherences to the ordinance. And there are no hardships listed. It does say~ "wife needs pool for therapy and D.E.C. recommended it and it's more suitable bein9 right by the house." Well~ we certainly sympathize with Mrs. Ziedler's bad back problem and a pool would probably be .helpful; however~ we would like to see the D.E.C. letter's of recommendation. We don't think it's within their purview to recommend where a pool is placed but to act upon a request. Do you have a letter from the D.E.C. suggesting that the pool be put there? CHAIRMAN: When I went down to inspect the property~ Mr. Ziedler informed me that he was waitin9 for the letter at this particular time. To be perfectly honest with you~ Mrs. Walker~ if the bulkhead is within that specific area- or~ excuse if the a9e of the bulkhead is what it is: and we know that the D.E.C. is 9oin9 to waive jurisdiction on the project: to be perfectly honest with you~ we would rather see the pool in this particular area which you will refer to as the side yard~ rather than in the front of the house. It enters into more serious problems with breakaway walls~ with high tides and so on and so forth. BasicaIly~ that is the situation~ so have no idea. He'll have to answer that question. MRS. WALKER: It would seem to be more suitably placed in the back yard where there is considerably more room where it could conform to the town code and would be adjacent to the spa already installed in the house to help Mrs. Zied[er's back. It has a sunken whirlpool~ tile floor~ shower: dressin9 room, bath~ and sliding glass doors opening to the 70' deck already installed. A pool could be built adjacent to these facilities~ can be much more convenient than placed on the side and actually partially in the front of their home. CHAIRMAN: I just want to say in no way would we ever allow anything to infringe upon this view easement of yours~ so don't worry about that. I have no idea how the board feels about this application~ and I just want you to be aware of it. MRS. WALKER: There is more to it than our view easement. Page 5- June 19:[986 Public Hearing - Zied[er CHAIRiVIAN: Ok. Iv~RS. WALKER: On Page 2~ ~2~ we want the pool on Brushes Creek side so aa not to annoy our neighbor and it is the more logical place. By his own worda~ IVlr. Ziedler states that the pool would be an annoyance to his neighbor~ and we are his neighbor. Our house is less than 14 feet from the drive between us-- our deck and all but one of our rooms fronts on this roadway between us. With the prevailing breeze coming from the south~ all summer~ and with the creek conducting every sound with it~ it would be like having that pool in our living room rather than in front of our house. I~rs. Ziedler has a back problem that needs therapy~ but my husband has a heart condition that needs peace and rest. We built the deck in the front of our house and hope to create a secluded a quiet spot from which to enjoy the tranquility of the bay~ and there ~ no way we' l[ have this peace with the pool in the fronl of us. The Zied[ers do a:~ot of entertaining~ they frequently have large groups of people in their yard. We all know how boisterous people are around a pool. This is obviously wby the Town Code dictates that they be put in one's back yard and have a buffer for the neighbors. As for'the logical placement~ I've already stated why the rear of the house next to the existing spa is more suitable but it's also more logical. On Page 2~ #3 it's quoting~ "it does not adjoin anything but Brushes Creek." But since we share a common road~ it adjoins our property and has a great effect~ a detri- mental one~ on the enjoyment and the value of our home. l~lr. Ziedler [ikea and has a lot of outdoor lighting~ a lighting he would obviously have around a pool in front of our house would be very disconcerting~ particularly where our upstairs bedroom looks right down upon the proposed pool site. He already has considerable lighting out on the decking in the rear of the yard that could accommodate this pool very nicely. Their backyard is perfectly set up for a pool and there' s no logical reason for it not being there. Have you any reasons submitted why it should not be in the rear of the yard as the Code dictates? C}~A!RiV~AN: I'll ask the gentleman the question~ but in my opinion there is a substantial amount of decking that would have to be torn up~ ground cover~ trees and so on and so forth. MRS. WALKER: He didn't have to tear up decking to get a machine down there to hoist a huge light pole, so certainly he could get down and they could get down to it from across the neighbor's yard the way the bulldozer did last year, They could get up and over. CHAIRMAN: I-- Page 6 June 19, 1986 Public Hearing Ziedler Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. WALKER: look what has to be torn down to put a pool where it's going? CHAIRMAN: It's only a flower bed to my knowledge. I think this is becoming-- MRS. WALKER (interrupting) This is protruding beyond the front of the house. It is a pool being asked to be put in the front as well as the sideyard. CHAIRMAN: ! think this is becoming counterproductive, Mrs. Walker. I think what we will do at this particular point, since I don~t have a copy--I will allow you to continue, but I think I will ask the Ziedlers to come back with a survey indicating all the decking area that is existing~ which they will do between I hope, between now and the next meeting, and they will show us all the decking area, and then I will ask you to point to the area where you think the pool should be placed. MRS. WALKER: I feel it should be in the backyard. CHAIRMAN: particular indication Ok. But then you can show us where. Because in this place, pointing out into a white area doesn't give us exactly where you feel it should be placed. MRS. WALKER: I could not presume to place a pool. That's for other people to do as long as it's conforming to the code and placed in the rearyard, as long as there is room for it. That's what the code dictates. Now another thing is we have noticed that they've already received clearance from the Board of Trustees, which is surprising. First of all, most people have to wait a long time for that. Secondly, since the criteria for permitting a building within 75 feet of the waterway is with bulkheading, the bulkheading in this particular area is terrible. It's com- pletely standing free and clear. All the fill is gone from behind it. I have a picture. Whereas the bulkheading supporting the backyard is new and substantial, and can certainly support the pressure who Would assert. Not only that it's placing it somewhere in their backyard, would probably not even require a permit because they have more than adequate footage--all directions. We've never deprive Mrs. Ziedler a pool, as long as it conforms to the Town Code, did not interfere with my husband's health, and the peaceful enjoyment of our home and the good of the neighborhood. When you take 20,000 gallons to fill this pool, or more, if it's 35 feet instead of 32, from a common water supply that we have out Page 7 June 19, 1986 Public Hearing Ziedler Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. WALKER (continued): on Peconic Bay Boulevard, will that present a problem. On August 2nd of 1982, you received a letter, Mr. Goehringer, from Mr. Gerald Newman from Suffolk County mentioning the water supply limitations of our particular locale. Do you feel they're better now than they were then? CHAIRMAN: I can't assess them · I wouldn't know what they are now. MRS. WALKER: Would you feel that drawing 20,000 gallons would create the threat of salt-water intrusion and possibly jeopardize our community water supply? We have all ten points out there, very close to precious point on Peconic Bay Boulevard. As there is nothing personal in this-- if they would like a pool, I think that's their perogative. However, if the convenience and the inconvenience go along, if there's room in that backyard, that's where it should be, and it shouldn't be that they can enjoy the pleasure and we have the inconveniences of it. You are duly appointed arm of the government, and you have been vested with the obligation to protect the citizens from undue license with the building codes, and use of a resident's rights, and As property owners, taxpayers, and fulltime residents, we look to you for the same protection. CHAIRMAN: Before you sit down, can I just ask a question of Mr. Lessard. I know you have more to say· We are specifically stating that this is not the sideyard now where this pool is being placed? VICTOR LESSARD: It doesn't make any difference. the house. It's attached to CHAIRMAN: It's a part of the dwelling. MR. LESSARD: If it's not attached to the house, then it's in the side yard. If it's attached as I was lead to believe by Mr. Ziedler, that's it is attached to the house, it's all considered part of the · house and must meet the setback requirements allowed in the Code. CHAIRMAN: All right. Excuse me. I had to get this in mind correctly. Continue please. MRS. WALKER: No, no. I don't understand that either. If they come out onto a wooden walkway, and the pool is going to be beyond that, attached or not, that's not attached to the house. That's attached to the walkway. Page 8 June 19, 1986 Public Hearing Ziedler Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. WALKER: I mean, it's my understanding that you come before the Town Board and ask for a variance if you cannot conform. You're supposed to prove that you cannot conform. CHAIRMAN: Right. MRS. WALKER: Now there's more than enough space. There's no reason why they cannot conform and enjoy the pool. But have it where everyone else isn't being-- CHAIRMAN: You're referring to the rearyard now? MRS. WALKER: The rear yard. I understand that it is not even legitimate to come before you if you can conform. You come in when there is nothing else that you can possibly do. CHAIRMAN: Well, they would probably still need a 75~ even on that side because they wouldn't be 75 feet. MRS. WALKER: Well, ! really think they could get. But it wouldn't matter, if they've already gotten a clearance from the Board of Trustees. If they chose to put it in the yard where the bulkhead- ing is stronger, certainly the Trustees would be happy with that than where it was. But I think that we deserve some consideration. If there are no other places to put that pool, certainly he would object to it. If there is another place to put it, then that's where it should go. CHAIRMAN: As I said to you, we are not specifically happy with placing these pools as close to the Bay as we are in a situation like this. And I'm not propogating this application. I have no idea how these gentlemen feel about it. I don't know if you were hear during the conversations that we had tonight with the gentleman on the Sound. There are certain conditions that we ask when pools are built anywhere on the water, and we're talking about retaining walls and so on and so forth being placed in proper areas so as not to leech this type of water into the Bay. Be it in the creek, Brushes Creek this case, or into the Bay in general. Ok? I personally think, and this is just an opinion on my part, nobody has influenced me to say this, I would rather-- I'm not sure if the placement on this part of the house is a proper--I think it could be brought a little bit farther to the south, but I think it is the best place for the pool. I feel also that taking your concerns into consideration, that proper screening, and I'm talking about 6' black pines, along the part that you would have view into the pool, would be the proper way of dealing with this particular application. Page 9 June 19, 1986 Public Hearing Ziedler Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. WALKER: I don't think there's room. If you look at the survey where the pool goes up to the eyeview easement, it doesn't appear that there could be screening around it, and still not infringe upon our eyeview easement. CHAIRMAN: Just abutting it--not into it. Abutting it and then keeping it shaved so it would be-- MRS. WALKER: But the vision of it is not nearly the problem of the noise level. You know that the breeze is from the South all Summer. CHAIRMAN: That's why, in my idea, would be to move it a little bit farther toward the south. MRS. WALKER: I have pictures showing just how much space there is between the back yard and the beach which I will submit to you. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MRS. WALKER: There is certainly tremendously more space there than there is on the side. CHAIRMAN: What we will do is we will recess this hearing and ask the Ziedlers, as I told you before, to come back with the deck areas shown on the rear of their house and the other things you were mentioning, and we will then go back and re-measure the area and we'll continue this hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting. We will put you on first in line as we stack in reverse, that is, the people that came before you will be the last, ok, and you will be before them. We'll address the issue at that particular point once we have everything there. Would you please ask the surveyor to be as detailed as he possibly could with the decking and the spas Mrs. Walker had mentioned, and the trees and so on and so forth, so that we can draw a better opinion of what's going on here. The height of the ground cover and so on and so forth. That'll give us a better idea. That's what I viewed when I was down there. Do you have anything else to say, --you're just going to submit pictures to us, right? MRS. WALKER: If you would like. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please (Mrs. Walker submitted pictures for the record of Mr. Ziedler's property.) Page l0 - June 19, 1986 Public Hearing Ziedler Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. WALKER: The way you're referring to that survey doesn't sound as if you have the one that I took from the town. (Chairman and Mrs. Walker compared survey copies and they were the same.) MRS. WALKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: You see, what I'm talking about is moving it down here a little bit, then this gets you away from the easement. MRS. WALKER: It would fit right in there. It's about 80 feet up to the edge. It's 70 feet over. It's about 60 feet here. There's already existing bulkhead that would accommodate it, and then it would be conforming to the Code. CHAIRMAN: It's just an opinion on my part--I don't like to see something as close to the open water as that. MRS. WALKER: Well, I mean, it's so much closer here than it is here. CHAIRMAN: I understand that, but we can protect this over here by a retaining wall. MRS. WALKER: What protection does that offer? CHAIRMAN: I'm not interested in this protection here. MRS. WALKER: That's where the pool-~ CHAIRMAN: I'm telling you that if we were to grant this here, this gentleman would be required to put a cement block wall in here to retain this pool with piers every six feet, that you couldn't drive a bulldozer through--and I'm being facticious now. MRS. WALKER: But as I said, it's the noise and the discomfort to US. CHAIRMAN: I understand that~ We're taking that into consideration-- MRS. WALKER (Interrupting) This is going to be on the line, the front line. This is actually asking to put a pool not in the sides but in the front. Page ll - June 19, 1986 Public Hearing Ziedler Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: No I understand what you're saying. That's why I thought maybe pushing it a little bit farther would maybe rectify the situation. It would be away from your easement area and then put proper screening in, so as to--in this particular case, another 16 feet away from the corner of the house. That's my opinion. I have not voiced'that opinion from anybody else on the board. Ok? MR. LESSARD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say for the record that Since both parties are here, that I'm sure I have spoken to Mr. Ziedler about this, -i if this is attached and part of the dwelling, if it is not attached then it becomes accessory and you would have to come back for a variance. And that's why you and I discussed attaching it. Ok. And when the Building Department sees the design, then we will make that determination. So rest assured, whatever the law requires~ that's the way it'll-go. ~If it's a side walk thing and then the pool, it's not attached. And I'm sure Mr. Ziedler under- stands this and I want you people to understand this. If it's attached, it's in the proper position as far as the law is concerned. Except that it's the Board of Appeals to do what they want from there out. As far as the Building Department is concerned, if it's attached, it's legal. If it's not attached, it's accessory and it's in the side yard and would require a further variance. So that you both understand and I'm sure you are both aware of it. MR. ZIEDLER: I'm sure there's a little more history to it than what everybody is talking about, and I think the Board should know what we're talking about. The roadway that you see there-- I and another neighbor spent over $6,000 in lawyer's fees and brought it to the Supreme Court to get that as a roadway that belonged to all the people that live--those nine families that originally opposed the Walkers. I know that the Walkers built a little patio in front of their house and they have parties also~ just like we do, and it's noisy, so I put up a six-foot fence. I didn't know you couldn't put up a six-foot fence up- I put it up on Saturday. The Building Department was there on Monday, and I left it there for some time and I thought, "Now how do I take and get a little peace and quiet in my yard." So I went out and I spent $2,300 and I bought a 35-foot blue spruce and I planted it in front of where the pool is going to be, so you will not see the pool. I will also in your permit if I get one tell you that I will not put any other lights other than a light in the pool, that will not affect anybody. I will fence it so that it will not be in their view easement. I don't know what more I can tell you. Page 12 June 19, 1986 Public Hearing Ziedler Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Will you get us-- MR. ZIEDLER: This is a running something, and I thought it was put to bed. Let me say this to you, I would have sent the notification to you had I been told that I had to, except there is a road in between and it was not necessary. But when you went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, I didn't get a copy of it either, and I didn't do it intentionally. CHAIRMAN: Will you get us that survey? We will recess this until the next regularly scheduled meeting, indicating the details of the ground cover that you have there. I'm talking know about the deck in the rear yard, the other things that you have. MR, ZIEDLER: I have an aerial survey. I'll bring an aerial photo, which shows everything, All right? CHAIRMAN: Could you possibly have the survey show it, if we so choose to move the pool a little to the south--we know how far we can go if we so choose to do that. We may end up turning it around and going the opposite way which would precipitate another application of 75 feet from the opposite direction. With the aerial photograph and with that, it'll give us a better view of what we can deal with, Thank you very much. Is there anything else you wanted to say before we recess the hearing, Mrs. Walker, Mr. Walker? MRS. WALKER indiaated she would wait until the next hearing. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you. Hearing no further comments, I'll recess the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. The resolution to recess the hearing until July 17, 1986~ was unanimously adopted.