Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/10/1987Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. ]]9?3 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWtCKI MINUTES REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER lC, 1 987 A Regular Meeting and Public Hearings of the Southold Town Board of Appeals were held on THURSDAY, DECEMBER lC, 1987 commenc- ing at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge Doyen; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Robert J. Douglass, and Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting all five members of the Board of Appeals. Also present were: Victor Lessard, Building-Department Administrator; Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately 20 persons at the beginning of the meeting (in the audience). Chairman Goehringer opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. arid proceeded with the following public hearings. All transcripts cf the hearings have been prepared verbatim under separate cover and filed simultaneously with the Town Clerk's Office with these Minutes for reference.) 7:3:3-7:48 p.m. Public Hearing was held-and concluded in the Matter of THEODOSE TRATAROS and ERAKLIS APODIACOS. Variance for approval of insufficient lot area of Proposed Parcel #1, South Side of Main Road and East Side of Wiggins Lane, Green- port. 1000-35-5-3. 7:48-7:52 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appl. No. 3694 - THERESA CZECH. Open-deck construction with insufficient rearyard. 150 Goldin Lane, Southold. Immediately following the hearing, the Board proceeded with the findings and determinations, as follows: Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- December 10, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION: Application of THERESA CZECH. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of the con- struction of open deck with an insufficient rearyard setback from the east property line at premises known as 150 Goldin Lane, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District lO00, Section 135, Block 2, Lot 19. The Board deliberated and took the following action: WHEREAS, a public he6ring was held and concluded on Decem- ber 10, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of THERESA CZECH under Appl. No. 3694; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; 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, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located in the '~A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and contains a total area of 8500± sq. ft. with lO0.O ft. frontage along the east side of Goldin Lane, Southold. 2. The subject premises is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 135, Block 2, Lot 19, and is improved with one, single-family, one-story frame dwelling with setbacks from the front property line at 11½+ feet, rearyard (without the subject deck) at 32½ ft. at its closest point, and sideyards at 19 and 44 feet. No permanent accessory structures exist at this time. 3. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from the Provision of Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, of the Zoning Code for approval of an open wood deck construction at the rear of the dwelling of a size 11.6 ft. by 16 feet, which exists with an insufficient rearyard setback at 21½± feet (at its closest point). Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- December 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3694 - CZECH decision, continued:) 4. Article III, Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule, of the Zoning Code permits the proposed construction with a setback of not less than 35 feet from the rear property line. 5. The percentage of relief requested from the require- ment is 13.5 feet. 6. It is the consensus of the Board Members that the deck construction is not adverse to neighboring properties and is not out of character with the immediate area. 7. It is also the opinion of the Board Members that: (a) the percentage of relief requested is substantial in relation to the requirements; (b) the circumstances of the property are unique, due to substandard size and dimensions; (c) there will not be a detrimental change in the character of the neighborhood; (d) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (e) the grant of this variance will not affect governmental facilities; (f) justice will noted below. in view of the above factors, be served by granting relief, the interests of as conditionally Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested under Appl. No. 3694 in the Matter of the Application of THERESA CZECH for the existing open-deck construction with setbacks as shown by survey prepared by William R. Simmons, Jr. dated September 28, 1987, from the rear property line at 21½+ feet (at its closest point), and FURTHER PROVIDED THE DECK REMAIN OPEN AND UNROOFED AT ALL TIMES. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- December 10, 1987 Regular Meeting Public Hearings (continued:) 7:52-7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3695 Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of HENRY J. SMITH & SON for a Special Exception to construct truck-storage building in this "C-Light Industrial" Zone. 2740 Peconic Lane, Peconic. 7:55-8:02 p.m. Appl. No. 3689 - PETER AND DIANE LUHRS. Special Exception to construct addition for repair station in conjunc- tion with Sp. Exc. #3161 rendered 10/11/83. Public Hearing held and concluded. Location of Property: 45845 North Road, Sld. 8:02-8:20 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appl. No. 3691 HOSNY SELIM for a Variance to locate proposed in§round pool with decks and fence enclosure within 100 ft. of the Long Island Sound and landward of existing dwelling in the front yard. 855 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. 8:20-8:22 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appl. No. 3696 RICHARD NASS for proposed open wooden deck construction with setback at less than 75 feet from existing bulkhead. 50 Willow Point Road, Southold. 8:22 p.m. Public Hearing was opened in the Matter of Appl. No. 3676 ANTHONY ROBUSTELLI and recessed, as requested by the applicant, until THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1988. (No oral statements were statements from persons in the audience at this time.) 8:23-8:58 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appl. No. 3671 - ANDREW AND THOMAS CYBULSKI (Recessed from November 10, 1987 as requested). Variance for proposed book-publishing operations, wholesale book storage, and updated 280-A approval over existing right-of-way. "A" Zone District. W/s Depot Lane, Cutchogue. 8:58 p.m. Public Hearing was reconvened in the Matter of PETER AND BARBARA HERZ for a proposed dwelling with insufficient setbacks from existing bulkhead and highwater areas along Midway Inlet and Hog Neck Bay. 70 Cedar Point Drive, Southold. (Recessed from June 18, 1987). On motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to recess the hearing in the Matter as requested. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. (No recessed date was given at this time by the Board.) 8:58-9:08 p.m. Public Hearing was opened and concluded in the Matter of Appl. No. 3561 DOROTHY L. ROBERTSON as to insufficient area of two proposed parcels. S/s North View Drive, E/s Private Road, N/s South View Drive, Orient. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- December 10, 1987 Regular Meeting Public Hearings (continued): 9:08-9:12 p.m. Public Hearing was opened and concluded in the Matter of Appl. No. 3686 - FREDERICK AND DIANE RAYMES. Proposed dwelling with setback at less than 75 feet from existing bulkhead and with an insufficient frontyard setback. 704 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations in accordance with the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of THEODOSE TRATAROS AND THERESA CZECH HOSNY SELIM; DOROTHY L. ROBERTSON RICHARD NASS Section 617, 6 NYCRR, Southold: II Actions/Category: Appl. No. 3566 Appl. No. 3694 Appl. No. 3691 Appl. No. 3571 Appl. No. 3696 - Type (a (b (c (d (e (f ERAKLIS APODIACOS Appl. No. 3686 FREDERICK AND DIANE RAYMES. Unlisted Actions/Category: (a) Appl. No. 3695 HENRY J. SMITH & SON (b) Appl. No. 3689 - PETER AND DIANE LUHRS. (continued on pages 6 through 13) .Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- Dec. 10 , 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3566 PROJECT NA~: THEODOSETRATAROS ANDERAKLIS APODIACOS 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 riot be considered a determination'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: Varian¢~ for insufficient lot area of proposed Lot ~1 in this pending set-off division LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of. Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: ~s Main Rd. and E/s Wiggins Lane, Greenport, 1000-35-5,3 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETER~IINATION: (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 imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction as regulated by Section-617.13 for a lot-line or area variance. (3) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction. NY Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- Dec. lu , ±~¥! Regular Meeting (Environmenta'l Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3694 PROJECT NAME: THERESA CZECH 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_~ffect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. 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 sa!ne or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: ' [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: For approval of open deck construction as exists LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, particularly known as: 150 Goldin Lane, Sguthold, NY 1000-135-2-19 more 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 imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is ~ setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6. NYCRR, SEQRA (3) Information has been submitted by applicant or his agent indicating that the project will not involve the disturbance of wet- land grasses or areas subject to.flooding which may be cDnsidered wetlands. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- Dec. 10 , 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3691 PROJECT NAME: HOSNY SELIM 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_gffect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a d~termination 'made for any other de~artment or agency which may also have an application pending for thc same or s~mi]~' project. TYPE OF ACTION: ~] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: For propDsed ing~ound pool with decks and fence enclosure within 100 ft. of Long Island Sound and landward of existing dwelling in front yard LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: 855 Soundview Ave~,.MattitDck, NY 1000-94-1-7 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 i~plu:- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR,SEQRA · (3) Constructidn proposed is landward of existing structures. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- u~. ~u , ~o, ~<egu±ar ~eetlng (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3561 PROJECT NA~: DOROTHY L. ROBERTSON 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 I,ocal 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 n~t be considered a determination 'made for any other departm(3nt or agency which may also have an application pending for the sa~.i~e or siml]ar project. TYPE OF ACTION: DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: proposed parcels Approval LOCATION OF PROJECT: particularly knQwn as: South View Dr., Orient, . [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] of insufficient area of two County.of. Suffolk, more $/s North View Dry,. E/S P~ivate Rd. and N/s NY Town of Southold, REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (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 mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is.not directly related to new con- struction as regulated by Section 617.13 for a lot-line or area variance. (3) Information has ~een submitted by applicant or his agent in- dicating that the project will not involve the disturbance of wetland grasses or areas subject to flooding which may be considered wetlands Southold Town Board of Appeals -[U- ~=~. ~u , ~o, ~<egu±ar ~'~eer. lng (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) $.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance_ APPEAL NO.: 3696 PROJECT NAME: ~ICHARD NAgS 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_gffect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. 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 or silnk]~r project. .. TYPE OF ACTION: · ~ Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: propsed, open deck with setback at less than 75 feet from existing bulkhead LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, particularly knQwn as: 50 Willo~ Point R~ad, 1000-56-5-25 ~ County of. Suffolk, Sout~old, NY more REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the ehvironment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Construction ~roposed is landward of existing structures (3) The relief~requested is a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- ~. xu , ±~0z Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3686 PROJECT NAME: FREDERICK AND DIANE RAYMES This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementinq 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_~ffect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should n<>t be considered a determination'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or simiJ~r project. . TYPE OF ACTION: - ~ j Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Proposed dwelling with a setback of less than 75 feet from existing bulkhead and with an insufficient frontyard. setback LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, more ~articularly knQwn as: 704 Wiggins Lane,! Greenpo~t, NY 1000-35-4-19 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 mented as planned; (2% Construction proposed is landward of existing structures (3) The relief requested is ~ setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCkR, S~QRA Sout~ol~ Town Doar~ o~ AppeaLs -~- ~=~. ~u , l~ Hegular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3695 PROJECT NA~: HENRY J. SMITH & SON 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 La~ and Local Law ~44-4'of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signiii- cant adverse_effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination 'made for any other department or aqency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. . TYPE OF ACTION: ~ [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special'Exception to construct truck- storage building in this "C-Light Industrial"Zone LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, particularly known as: 2740 Peconic Lane, ~econic,.NY 1000-74-2-19.1 more 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 imple- mented as planned; (2) This is an application concerning use of premises and is not directly related to new construction' Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- Dec. 10 , 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAI~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: PROJECT NAME: 3689 PETER AND DIANE LUHRS 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_~ffect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should n¢>t considered a determination'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for thc same or silni]~r project. .~ TYPE OF ACTION: . [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special Exception to construct addition for repair station in conjunction with Sp. Exc. #3161 rendered 10/11/83' LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: 45845 North Road, ~outhold~ NU 1000-55-2-17 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETER~INATION: (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 imple- mented as planned; (2) This is an application concerning use of premises and is not directly related to new constructfon. (3) Informatio~ has been submitted by applicant or his agent indicating that the project will not involve the disturbance of wet- land grasses or areas subject to flooding which may be considerd wetlands Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- December 10, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3672: Application of ANTHONY GAMBINO. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for approval of the construction of new dwelling with an insufficient setback from nearest wetlands and/or ordinary highwater mark along Deep Hole Creek. Location of Property: East End of Lupton Point Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-115-11-10~ The Board deliberated and took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on November 10, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of ANTHONY GAMBINO under Appl. No. 3672~ and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; 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, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 115, Block ll, Lot 10. 2. The subject premises contains a total area of 19,200 sq. ft. with 120 ft. frontage along the south side of a private road known as "Lupton Point Road," and fronting along Deep Hole Creek. 3. The subject premises is improved with a concrete founda- tion as shown on the December 22, 1981 survey, amended October 22, 1987, prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. depicting the following setbacks: (a) 35 feet from the front property line, (b) 10.2 feet from the westerly (side) property line, (c) 93± feet from the ordinary highwater line at the most southerly end, (d) 60 feet from its nearest point along the easterly ordinary highwater mark. Southol(~ Town Board of Appeals -15- December 10, (Appl. No. 3672 - GAMBINO decision, continued:) 1987 Regular Meeting 4. Appellant by this application requests a Variance from the Provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for approval of an insufficient setback from the ordinary high- water mark at 65 feet from the southeast corner and at 60 feet from the northeast corner of a concrete dwelling founda- tion, as more particularly shown on the October 22, 1987 Amended Survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. 5. Article XI, Section lO0-119.2(B) requires all buildings and structures located on lots adjacent to tidal water bodies other than 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 (75) feet from the landward edge of the tidal wetland, whichever is the greater distance. 6. The following additional information is noted for the record: (a) On May ll, 1987, a Wetland Permit under the Provisions of Chapter 97 was issued by the Southold Town Trustees with conditions; (b) On or about June 18, 1987, a Determination was rendered by the Suffolk County Board of Review under the rules pertaining to the Suffolk County Health Department; (c) On or about July 13, 1987 the Southold Town Constable issued a Stop Work Notice concerning the Town Trustees Wetland Permit; Bay (d) On or about July 21, 1987, the Suffolk County Department of Health signed the survey confirming approval(s) under their jurisdiction; (e) On or about August 18, 1987, an application was submitted to the Building Department for a Building Permit, and a Building Permit was issued by the Building Department under No. 16340Z for the construction of a new single-family dwelling structure as shown by survey amended lastly May 29, 1984 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. and separate construction plans submitted therewith; (f) On September 3, 1987, this Board was notified Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- December lO, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3672 - GAMBINO decision, continued:) and requested to review the subject Building Permit and necessity of a variance under the Provisions of Article Section 100-119.2 of the Zoning Code [see letter dated September 3, 1987] from the owners abutting the subject premises along the west side; XI, (g) On September 4, 1987, this office delivered a memorandum to the Building Department urging their immediate inspection and other reviews or actions necessary concerning this pending building permit and the zoning code; (h) On September 4, 1987, a Stop Work Order Notice (referred to as "red tag") was delivered to the co-owner of the premises, Mr. Gambino, which read as follows: ...NOTICE - Stop Work. There appears to exist a violation of zoning, Chapt. 100 on these premises, Article XIV, Section 100-143. Please contact Building Inspector By AT ONCE regarding this matter. Architects, builders and owners are each responsible under law. Building Inspector's Office Town of Southold .... (i) On September 4, 1987, the applicant obtained the necessary variance forms; (j) The Building Department file indicates that forms for the foundation were in place but concrete was not poured; (k) On or about September ll, 1987 a second Stop Work Order was issued and the foundation had been poured; (1) On September 14, 1987, a written Order to Remedy Violation was issued; (m) On September 16, 1987, this variance application was filed with this office. 7. At the November 10, 1987 public hearing, an Affidavit and an Affirmation in Opposition were filed questioning 5outhold Town Board of Appeals -17- December 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3672 GAMBINO decision, continued:) the following areas: (a) Section lO0-10 of the Zoning Code pertaining to nonconforming uses. Upon information and belief, this premises is to be utilized as a single-family dwelling. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use in this Zone District. If evidence is found to the contrary, a separate application should be filed in order to evaluate this position as required by law, after public hearing, et cetera. This application pertains to setbacks under Section 100-119.2. (b) Section lO0-31(A) of the Zoning Code pertain- ing to lot size. Upon information and belief, this premises is a substandard lot containing 19,200± sq. ft. in area, which does not conform with today's lot size requirement of 80,000 sq. ft. Town records show that the neighboring premises to the west (now of Esquirol) was conveyed by Deed at Liber 6925 cp 354 on April 6, 1971 and that the subject premises (Gambino) was conveyed by Deed at Liber 6388 cp 08 on July 23, 1968 to Burton and Anne Mason; that on May 19, 1974 Burton E. Mason had died testate, and that on October 16, 1984, the Gambinos acquired same from Anne Mason. Since both parcels were separated prior to the enactment of the minimum 40,000 sq. ft. requirement (November 1971), and during the period of the 12,500 minimum sq. ft. requirement, this Board cannot acknowledge improprieties without sufficient evidence. (c) With reference to the statements concerning the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, or other agencies requiring Wetland Permits, this Board is without authority thereunder. 8. This is an application for an area variance where the standard is whether strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in "practical difficulties." Although the Courts have not defined the term "practical dificulties," in the Case of Wachsberger v. Michaelis, 19 Misc. 2d 909, the Court said that the following matters should be considered: (1) how substantial the variance is in relation to the requirement; (2) the effect, if 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- December 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3672 - GAMBINO dec~sion, continued:) the variance is allowed, of the increased population density thus produced on governmental facilities; (3) whether a substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or substantial detriment to adjoining properties; (4) whether the difficulty can be obviated by some method, feasible for the appellant to pursue, other than a variance; (5) whether in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of the above factors, the inter- ests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. 9. In applying the above considerations to the facts in this case, the Board finds: (a) that the variance requested is not substantial in relation to the require- ment, being a variance of approximately 20 percent, or 15 feet; (b) that there will not be an increase in popu- lation density by this variance and accordingly there will be no undue burden on available governmental facilities; (c) that the grant of this variance will not produce a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or create a substantial detriment to adjoining properties; (d) the alternative available to appellant to this variance would be to remove the structure which exists, reduce the size of the dwelling structure, and apply for a building permit with setbacks in compliance with the zoning regulations--it is true that the difficulties are self-created~ however, it it also true that the Stop Work Order(s), as issued, did not comply with the procedures stipulated under Article XIV, Section 100-143 of the Zoning Code; (e) in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose and in consideration of all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. Additionally, it is noted that (1) the circumstances of the property are unique~ (2) the relief requested is not out of character with the immediate area since there are similarly established setbacks from the ordinary highwater mark~ (3) significant economic injury would result if the variance is not allowed, particularly due to the manner of these events. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance from the Provisions of Section 100-119.2--~-(~ of the Zoning Code, in the Matter of the Application of ANTHONY GAMBINO under Appl. No. 3672 for a reduction of the setbacks from the ordinary highwater mark as shown on the Survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. lastly dated October 22, 1987, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. There be no disturbance of land within 55 feet of the ordinary highwater mark (during or after construc- tion), except as may be required by other enforcing Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- December 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3672 GAMBINO decision, conitnued:) agencies to remedy any pending violation; 2. There be no surface water runoff into the creek areas; all water runoff (including runoff from gutters, etc.) shall be contained in storm drains or similar basins where necessary (and more specifically the east and south sides); 3. If it is determined by the Building Inspector that construction does not comply with Chapter 46-Flood Plain Management Law of the Town of Southold, the property owner will be required to comply before further construc- tion takes place; 4. Proper application and issuance pursuant to law of a Building Permit for the structure as considered herein (which appears to be different from the survey/plans sub- mitted under Building Permit #16340Z); 5. No further protrusion/reduction into the side or rearyard areas to include all ground or below-ground level construction; 6. No further reduction toward the ordinary high- water mark which would be seaward of the house and within 75 feet thereof (which will necessitate further reviews by this Board). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. adopted. Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, This resolution was duly Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- December 10, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3677: Application of ROBERT MOHR for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of decks attached to dwelling with insufficient rear and front yard setbacks, and Article III, Section 100-32 for approval of accessory garage structure located partly in the sideyard area. Location of Property: West Side of Wabasso Street, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-78-3-34.2. The Board deliberated and took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on November 1987 in the Matter of the Application of ROBERT MOHR under Appl. No. 3677; and 10, WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application~ 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, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question contains a total area of 202625+ sq. ft~ with 187.50± ft. frontage along the west side of Wabasso Street, Southold, NY and is known and referred to as Lot #1, of Minor Subdivision approved by the Southold Town Planning Board November 8, 1982, subject to Board of Appeals approval. Conditional approval was rendered by the Board of Appeals under Appl. No. 2996 on December 22, 1982. 2. On February 23, 1987, Building Permit #15697 was issued by the Southold Town Building Department for the con- struction of a single-family dwelling structure and accessory building. On June 18, 1987 the Permit was amended to include expanded and added decks. 3. The subject premises is improved with two structures: Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- December 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3677 MOHR decision, continued:) (a) single-family dwelling structure with attached decks and (b) accessory 1½-story framed storage/garage building located at the most northwesterly corner. 4. The existing dwelling structure is shown to be set back 36.7 feet from the front property line (without deck areas), and the existing open-deck areas attached to the front of the dwelling structure are shown to be set back 28.8 feet at its closest point and at 34.7 feet, from the front property line and as more particularly shown on survey prepared by Raymond W. Donack, Sr, dated September 4, 1987. The rear open-deck construction is shown to be set back at 22.6 feet at its closest point from the westerly (rear) property line as constructed. 5. The existing accessory storage/garage building is shown to be set back 77.5 feet from the front property line, 5.7 feet from the northerly (side) property line, 6 feet from the westerly (rear) property line and 117 feet from the southerly property line. 6. By this applications relief is requested as follows: (a) insufficient frontyard setback of deck, as exists, at 28.8 feet from the easterly front property line, (b) insufficient rearyard setback of deck, as exists, at 22.6 feet from the westerly rear property line, (c) approval of construction of accessory building which is partly located in the sideyard area due to the construction of the dwelling's new deck construction which reduced the rearyard area. 7. For the record it is noted that prior to the issuance of an Order to Remedy Violation dated September l, 1987, 1st and 2nd foundation inspections were made, and a second survey was requested. The second survey was issued September 4, 1987 and the Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector was issued September 11, 1987. On September 25, 1987, this variance application was filed. 8. In making this determination, it shall be understood that an approval of the decks in the frontyard area as noted below shall not be used when calculating an "average of established" setbacks of principal dwellings in the area Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- December 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3677 MOHR decision, continued:) as provided by Section 100-33 of the Zoning Code. The principal building setback shall remain at not less than 35 feet (presently shown at 36.7 feet), and all dwellings proposed on all vacant lots in the immediate area shall be required to meet the setbacks of new principal buildings (i.e. 35 ft. front, 35 ft. rear, etc.) without reduction [except as may be permitted by this Board after formal applications]. 9. In making this determination, the Board also finds and determines as follows: (a) the amount of relief requested as to the front and rear decks are substantial in relation to the requirements, being variances at 37±% in the rearyard, and at more than 15% in the frontyard; (b) the circumstances of the property are unique in that it is a substandard parcel~ (c) the relief requested is not the minimal necessary, except that the construction under question does exist~ (d) the amendment of the building permit allowing and extension of deck areas as issued is not valid or proper since assumptions were made as to setbacks, and the construction of the deck areas in accordance there- with, when confirmed in writing, violated the zoning setbacks; (e) the ~'practical difficulties" test has not been satisfied as required by law to permit the entire relief requested by this application; (f) in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose and in view of all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the following alternative relief. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -23~ecember 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3677 MOHR decision, continued:) RESOLVED, to DENY THE RELIEF FOR THE FRONT AND REAR YARD REDUCTIONS AS REQUESTED, TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE LOCATION OF THE ACCESSORY BUILDING AS EXISTS PARTLY IN THE SIDEYARD, AND TO GRANT THE FOLLOWING ALTERNATIVE RELIEF, in the Matter of the Application of ROBERT MOHR under Appl. No. 3677: 1. That a four-ft, deck extension shall be permitted to remain along the front areas leaving frontyard setbacks at 31.8 feet at the closest "V" point and at 34.7 feet. The areas which are not violative of the 35-ft. frontyard setback are not within this Board's jurisdiction and accord- ingly may remain; 2. That a reduced open-deck extension shall be permitted to remain at setbacks not closer than 28 feet from the rear property line (present deck should be cut back where necessary, approximately 5'6~' to meet this requirement). The areas which are not violative of the 35-ft. frontyard setback rule are not within this Board's jurisdiction and accordingly may remain; 3. The deck construction shall remain open, unroofed, never to be temporarily or permanently enclosed~ 4. The deck construction shall be considered a walk- way and not liveable floor area (or principal construction) when calculating the "average established" setbacks rule provided under Section 100-33 of the Zoning Code~ 5. The accessory building shall remain and be limited to garage and storage uses incidental and accessory to the principal residential use of this property, not to be operated for office use or gainful purposes; 6. No expansion shall be permitted of the deck areas or accessory building except by formal application to this Board; 7. All structures shall not exceed 20% of the total lot coverage (4,125 sq. ft.) as restricted by Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- December 10, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3514: Application of GEORGE P. SCHADE for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of the proposed insufficient lot area and width of two parcels in this pending set-off division of land located along the west side of Cedar Lane (west of Summit Road), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-78-7-42. The Board deliberated and took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on November 10, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of GEORGE P. SCHADE under Appl. No.~3514; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; 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, the Board made the following Findings of Fact: 1. The premises in question is locate~ in the Zoning District and is a parcel of land containing a total area of 52,984 sq. ft. and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 78, Block 7, Lot 42. 2. The subject premises is improved with a single-family, 1½-story. frame dwelling containing a liveable floor area of 1,040± sq. ft. and having setbacks: (a) from the front property line at 128 feet, (b) from the southerly side line at 35± feet, (c) from the westerly rear line at 86± feet, (d) from the northerly side line at more than 125 feet. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25.- December 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3514 - SCHADE decision, continued:) 3. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from the Provisions of Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, of the Zoning Code, for approval of the proposed insufficient area and width of two lots in this proposed set-off division of land, as follows: (a) insufficient lot area of 26,492, and (b) insufficient width (frontage) of 100.0 feet, for each Parcel #1 and #2. 4. After research and investigation, the following facts have been confirmed: (a) the parcel adjoining the subject premises at the south side consists of an area of 30,228 sq. ft. [formerly Fritz] and was the subject of a denial by this Board under Appl. No. 3657 rendered November 18, 1987 for similar relief; (b) the parcel adjoining the subject premises on the south (southwest) side [now or formerly Stigliani] consists of an area of one acre and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as Section 78, Block 7, Lot 43. There is an appeal pending at this time for variances to approve the proposed insufficient area of this one-acre parcel into two substandard lots. No action has been taken by this Board as of the date of rendering this decision; (c) the parcel to the north (1000-78-7-41) of the subject premises contains an area of 26,500± sq. ft.; (d) the second parcel to the north (1000-78-7-40) of the subject premises contains an area of 30,475± sq. ft. in area; (e) the third parcel to the north (1000-78-7-39) of the subject premises consists of an area of 39,750 sq. ft. [Lots 38 and 39 merged under common ownership during 1974]; (f) the lot under question which contains a total area of 1.126± (or 52,984 sq. ft.) meets only 66% of today's minimum lot-size requirement of 80,000 sq. ft. (g) the relief requested under this variance to Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- December 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3514 - SCHADE decision, continued:) further reduce the size of this property to 17,182 sq. ft. or 13,046 sq. ft. is substantial, and meets 22% or less of today's minimum lot-size requirement for each proposed lot. (h) As noted above, the lots proposed herein are substantially smaller than those existing and legally established in the immediate area. 5. Article III, Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code requires a minimum lot width of 175 feet, and minimum lot area of 80,000 sq. ft. 6. It is the opinion of the Board: (a) that the amount of relief requested as to lot area and lot width are substantial in relation to the requirements; (b) that the evidence submitted is not sufficient to warrant a granting of the variances requested and the criteria set by the Courts for this area variance has not been properly met; (c) the difficulties claimed are self-created; (d) the lot area requirements have been in effect for a minimum of 80,000 sq. ft. since May 1983, and for a minimum of 40,000 sQ. ft. since November 1971, for a total of over i6 years, and prior to the conveyance in title of this property to this owner/applicant; (e) the percentages of relief requested are substantial in relation to the requirements [as noted oreviously], (f) the variances, if granted, will in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the town; (g) the circumstances of the property are not unique and the variance, if granted, will set a precedent since there are similar circumstances in the immeaiate area; (h) in uiew of the manner ~n which the difficulties South¢,ld Town Board of. Appeals-27- n~c~mb._~.~. ~,~ lO, 1187 Regular' Meeting (Appl. No. 3514 - SCHADE decision, continued:) arose, and in consideration of all the above factors, the inter- ests of justice will be served by denying the variances applied. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to DENY the relief requested under Appl. No. 3514 in the Matter of the Application of GEORGE P. SCHADE. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen, and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:45 p.m. and the Board indicated that a Special Meeting would be held withinithe next ~wo weeks. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals kECEiVED AND FILED BY TbLE SOOTHOLD TOWN CI.¢.RK DaTE /-/;~.gF aOUa ] !: ] g~ a TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10' 1987 Appl. NO. 3566 Applicant(s): THEODOSE TRATAROS AND ERAKLIS APODIACOS Location of Property: S/s Main Road and E/s Wiggins Lane, Gr~enport County Tax Map ID No.: 1000.35 - 5 - 3 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer ~ Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None). Al~so present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:33 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and applicati~n~fQr'~the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have several copies of a survey. I noticed it was produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. on September 10th, updated on November 3rd, 1987~ indicating parcel number'l at 62,104 square feet which encompasses a rather large home and parcel number 2 of 80,000 square feet which has a proposed dwel- ling pencilled in on it. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Ok. Would you state your name for the record? MS. ONGIONI: I'm an attorney representing the owners. My ad- dress is 218 ~ront Street, Greenport. On behalf of the owners, I'd like to urge the Board to approve this subdivision. At- though one of the lots is substandard in that there is approxi- masely a 20% variance from the code requirement, I'd like to point out to the Board that the vast majority, in fact, all of the lo~s in this area except for a few, are significantly smaller than the proposed lots. In fact, the neighboring lots in the immediate vicinity of this lot are between 15,000 and 35,000 square feet which are significantly less than the 80,000 square foot current requirement. Those variances range from approxi- masely 50% to 80% from the code requirements. My clients are seeking a 20% variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you why you're up there; why did you not divide the property equally? In other words, taking the 62 and the 80 and adding it and dividing it by two? MS. ONGIONI: ~ believe the reason for that was to avoid having to request two variances, a variance for each lot. And this way, one of the lots complies with the code and only one requires the variance Page 2 - December 10, 1987 RU~LIC WEARING - Theodose Trataros and Eraklis Apodiacos Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. MS. ONGIONI: Any other questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the nasure of the right-of-way that it's trunkating or transversing parcel number 2 and actually di- viding it? MS. ONGIONI: Well, it's a 50 foot right-of-way who's purpose is to connect Wiggins Lane so that there is a thoroughfare for egress and access to the property. That will be the access road for the property on the south, parcel number 2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any idea what's going to happen with the northerly portion of parcel number 2? I mean, it's ac- tually separated from the... MS. ONGIONI: Yes it is. I would imagine that it would be used for landscaping purposes. Although I have not discussed that with my client. I will add that the right-of-way was created at the request of the Planning Board. This survey was first amended on September 10th and you'll see that it was amended a second time on November 3rd and that was at the suggestion of the Planning Board who has since approved this. They recommended that this subdivision be approved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just don't understand why they didn't sug- gest that lot number 2 be smaller and then bring the line all the way down to the edge because it doesn't appear that the value of the property on the northerly part of parcel number 2 is really going to have any value with it divided between the right~Q~-way. MS. ONGIONI: Well, if that would be a critical point to the Board, I would take it up with my clients to see if they would be amendable to changing the line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we'll see how the Board feels. MS. ONGIONI: I'd like to address a few of the concerns that were voiced in a letter of opposition that is part of the public record. The later is dated September 1st, 1987 and it's in the file. It was submitted by Howard Stipiletti who is a neighbor in this area. He voices several concerns. One, is that he questions the source of the water supply. I'd like to advise the Board that the water will be supplied by the Greenport system and that a well will not be necessary. As far as the concern about the septic system ex- expressed in the second item, if you look at the survey, you will see that the proposed location for the pools is quite a distance from the canal and it shouldn't pose and wouldn't pose any hazard with respect to and from the canal. The third objection is that one of the corporate owners was allegedlY not notified of this public hearing;. I believe that according to your files, a cer- tified notice was indeed mailed to that corporate property owner. Page 3 - December 10, 1987 PUbLIC'HEARING - Thoedose Trataros and Eraklis Apodiacos Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. ONGIONI (continued): And finally in the last paragraph, the opponent indicate that a hardship needs to be shown for the granting of this variance in that "any pro3ect violating that zoning requirement without hardship reason should be carefully weighed and not rubber stamped". Well, the law is that an applicant need not demon- strate hardship. An applicant is required to demonstrate prac- tical difficulty in complying with a zoning ordinance~ And practical difficulty has been defined (actually) in the context of the relationship of the proposed variance to the character of the area and whether or not the proposed lots will be contrary to the area and consistent with neighboring lots. And I would like to point out to the Board that in fact, these two lots will be (in many instances) doubled and in other instances even triple the size of neighboring lots. So that is not a concern in this application in that the character of the neighborhood will not be changed. I believe that you mentioned (Mr. Chairman) that you have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map for this location. I have some copies with me. I will submit them to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think it's particulary necessary. MS. ONGIONI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else? Are you speaking before or against sir? MR. GARBE: Well, I have a question. I'm president of the East Point Property Owners Association which is adjacent to this property on the southeast side. This notice in the newspaper is the first as far as I know, that I'm aware of this property change. The only question I have regarding Wiggins Lane; on the map we show two Wiggins Lane. One which is the community property which is private and presently ends on the property line and there is one to the west which is also Wiggins Lane. Is that the access to the property? Is that considered the access? Because if they're considering the use of the east Wiggins Lane, I don't think that would be feasible. We'd like to keep that private and not as a through street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see on the map, to answer you question, and I can show you a copy of it that it indicates no right-of- way over lot number 1. So that would answer your question but I will let you look at the survey. The house lot is the nor-- therly lot. You're welcome to look at it. If there is anybody else in the audience that may have a particular question about this, we can either take a couple minutes recess. If you don't mind, I'll ask a question of the Town Planner while you gentle- men are looking at it. Valerie, it was brought to my attention Page 4 - December 10, 1987 ~ P~U~LIC ~EARING -Theodose Trataros and Eraklis Apodiacos Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHARINGER (continued): that the right-of-way in question which basically divides this property, is going to be brought up to some sort of town's speci- fications. Is that correct? TOWN PLANNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would that then... How would that effect the private part as this gentleman so mentioned? TOWN PLANNER: was that Well, the only opinion of the Town Planning Board CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The west side of it. MR. GARBE: The east side is not public. It's marked here on map as private. That's the east side. This is public. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had it just reversed. TOWN PLANNER: The Planning Board was under the impression that both sides were public., So we're asking for the continuation. In any event, even if the east side is private; by requiring a 50 foot dedication, the Planning Board may consider not requiring that it be paved at this time. But they would like the 50 foot dedication in the event that in the future, 20 years from now, the residents of the east side of Wiggins Lane should ever want to dedicate that road to the town, they would have the option of doing so in connecting it. So it just provides for a future eventuality. MR. GARBE: So there's nothing mandatory about our providing access to our road at this point? TowN PLANNER: In other words, the applicant..° I'll mention that the Town Planning Board, at the time, that they refuse this map if the Zoning Board should decide to grant the variance. If some accomodation can be worked out whereby the dedication of land can be made but not necessarily approge a cut through until such time that private portions decide to change it. CHAIRMAN-GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you Mr. Garbe, is there any part of Point subdivision that is public? Is Maple Lane public? MR. GARBE: No it isn't these are all private roads. Page 5 - December 10, 1987 ~UBLIC ~EARING - Theodose Trataros and Eraklis Apodiacos So6thold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you sir. Is there anyb~dyc~se who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes, Mr. Costello. MR. COSTELLO: I'm not against it. I have a co~pte of questions. My name is John Costello and I'm one of the adjoining property owners and I happen to be one of the property owners who do~s not have a small lot. I have a two acre lot. If this road, this right-of-way, is dedicated, does that make the backside parcel; a variance necessary on that. Because if there's a right-of-way dedicated through there, you're going to take out approximately 87,000 square feet of that lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think it's exclusive of that ~ir. I really don't think it actually lessens the actual square foot- age of it even though it's over the property. The property is still deeded to the lot. MR. COSTELLO: the lot? So the right-of-way is included in the deed of CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. COSTELLO: Ok. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ~OEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? Anything in rebuttal Ms. Ongioni? MS. ONGIONI: No, nothing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT,OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS R-EGULA.~' MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1987 Appl.-No,. 3694 App_licant(s): THERESA CZECH Location of Property: 150 Goldin Lane, ..sOuthold County Tax_ Map ID No. 1000= 135~ 2 - 19 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also preseKt were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:48 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: z have'a.copy of a survey indicating this par- ticular'piece ~f property. The ~t~rvey done on September 28th, 1987' by William R. Simmons of Jamesport. It indicates a one-story framed dwelling approximately 11½ feet from the front property line and no indication of how far the deck is from the rear property line. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and sur- rounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Which one is Mrs. Czech? How do you do? Do you have any idea how far the deck is from the rear property line? MRS. CZECH: I thought it was on the survey. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Well, we'll measure it. When I was over last Saturday, I happen to forget my 20-foot ruler and that's the reason I didn't bother you and didn't knock'on the door and that nature but I did observe the deck. -It's also a little difficult to pick up the back monuments. I noticed that it's kind of grown over in ~the back there toward the rear property line. But we'll scale it out. I thank you. Is there anybody else who would like %o speak in favor of this.application? Anybody line to speak against the appli- cation? You k,~nd.of ha~e to raise your hands fast here. I run it right all the way' through here. There's no commas. Are you plan- ning on enclosing this in any way Mrs. Czech? MRS. CZECH: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRIN~ER: Not hearing any further testimony, I make a motion closing the hearing re. serving decision until later. ..Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 'S©UTHOLD~ TOWN B©ARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1987 Appl. NO. 3695 Applicant(s): HENRY J. SMITH & SON Location of Property: 2740 Peconic Lane, Peconic County Tax Map ID No. 1000- 74- 2 - 19.1 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Do6glass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:48 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is on behalf of Henry J. Smith and Son. I have a copy of a survey done by Samuels & Steelman dated 8/24/87 indicating a proposed one-story garage of 27,000 square feet, approximately 36 by 75 feet variable, placed approximately. 190 feet from Peconic Lane. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard Mr. Smith? MR. SMITH: I'm just present if the Board has any questions that I will be able to answer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: little on this. I understand the parking area was changed a MR. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there going to he any ingress~and eg~esscout to~'Carol Avenue at all? MR. SMITH: Not at the present time I don't have any plans on that. That egress to Carol Avenue is mainly for that lot of Hubbard's so he had a right-of-way other than going through the fuel depot to get access to the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only other question that I have is that this is basically a one-story building? MR. SMITH: Yes. It's a morton building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No specific storage over the trucks itself? MR. SMITH: Possibly warehouse storage, plumbing supplies and things of that nature. pa~e 2 - December 10~ 1987 PUBLIC HEARING - HENRY J. SMITH & SON ~ou~hold'Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No office space or anything? MR. SMITH: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, I thank you very much. Is there any- body else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Any- body like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1987 Appl. No. 3689 Applicant(s): PETER AND DIANE LUHRS Location of Property: 45845 North Road, Southold County Tax Map ID No. 1000- -55- 2 - 17 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalsk±, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:55 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. mapped on October 9, 1987 indicating; a proposed morton bUilding of approximately 30 by 60 to be placed or affixed to the east side of the existing repair~building on County Road 48 in Southold. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and sur- rounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard Mr. Luhr? MR. LUHR: I just received a letter today from the Planning Board about the problem with s6d buffering on the east'side ~nd the doors. I thought perhaps... I need storage and I was thinking of eliminating the first door. That would be the southern door and that would bring the grass forward more up to the second door. And as far as buffering, I was hoping that the Board would consider the 15 foot right-of-way that's existing on the other property because I already moved the building ten feet over when I first applied three years ago. And another thought I had was I had birch trees listed there. Maybe I could put arborvities four feet apart. They create a pretty good screen. That door is really not necessary because I need storage. I have so much equipment now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are these doors mainly for the repair business or are they mainly for storage? MR. LUHR. Repair. CHAIRMAN G©EHRINGER: So you would have then four doors on this side. MR. LUHR: Four doors, yes. Page 2 - December 10, 1987 PUBLIC ~$ARIN~ - Peter and Diane'Luhrs So~%hOld Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How large are ~he doors? MR. LUHR: I believe they,re ten by ten just as they are on the west side. There's only two on the west side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: storage of vehicles? main the same. Now, we had no specific change in reference The storage of the vehiCles will primari~y3~.~re- MR. LUHR: They will remain in the rear, I know that there is a car or two parked on the side of the building, on the vacant side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There will not be any ingress and egress to that Suffolk County right,of-way? MR. LUHR: No. There will be a fence to encircle that whole area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And what about the situation of conformity of one building to the other? Is it going to look fairly the same'? MR. LUHR: Isn't there a rendering? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I may have missed it. MR. LUHR: I know I gave the Planning Board... ~e. I don't hawe one with CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Maybe you could bring us down one. going to make a decision now. we're not MR. LUHR: I know the Planning Board has one. It's a morton building. CHAIRMAN GOEHR!NGER: And you presently have a cement block building. IS that correct? MR. LUHR: Yes. Perhaps in place of~that door, I can put windows on the side going around. On the westerly side, I put a low berm. Ii tried to landscape it some to dress it up a bit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Let's see what Mrs. Scopaz has. TOWN PLANNER: I would just like to address and present two q~estions to the applicant. One is; cars parking and vehicles in the frontyard, is that employee parking or is that strictly service? MR. LUHR: It's just daily parking, customers parking. They come and go. There's really nothing that is there for any period of time. Ii try to keep everything behind the building as best I can · CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What was the other question? Page 3 - December 10, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING - Peter and Diane Luhrs Southold Town Board of Appeals TOWN PLANNER: The other question was; with the proposed additional parking area that he would be adding to the back of the building af- ter he put the addition on, be sufficien~ to handle your employee parking and your .... ? MR.' LUHR. I only have one employee now and I hope to hire one more. That's three cars. TOWN PLANNER: That' s all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of th:is application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hear- ing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, re- serving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1987 Appl. No. 3691 Applicant(s): HOSNY SELIM Location of Property: 855 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck County Tax Map ID No. 1000- 94- 1 - 7 Board Members Present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:02 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Donack Associates, ~he most recent date is October 1, 1983 with a penned in area to the rear of the house which is basically the frontyard of the house with a swimming pool approximately 20 by 40 with a fence surrounding the pool and it appears to be attached to the house. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard on behalf o f this application? MR. SELIM: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you the applican~ sir? MR. SELtM: We~re proposing putting berm on the eastern side of the property for the storm water rain off flow. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you the applicant? MR. SELIM: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just a couple of questions regarding the swim- ming pool itself. Are you ever intending to enclose the swimming pool in any way with a roof? MR. SELIM: Just with a fence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The swimming pool is about how far from the front property line? 125 feet? Or is that to the house? Pkge 2 - December 10, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING - Hosny Selim Southold ~Town B6ard of Appeals MR. SELIM: It's 125 feet from the fence to the front of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: pool? Now will there be a deck around~'.the swimming MR. SELIM: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How large is the deck approximately? Will it be that little area in there? MR. SELIM: It would be five foot from each side here, ten from here and there is trees and house. And here also is measurements of the sort of minimum distances to the bluff from the corner. 95 foot here and 83. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just didn't understand that on the deck it's going to be ten feet on these two sides. MR. SELIM: It's about five feet here and here and ten on that side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And ten here. What about over here? MR. SELIM: That would be the area between here and the house and this is to that corner of the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you're going to make that all deck? MR. SELIM: No. fence here. It would be landscaping here and we would have a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you. you want to look at this plan sir? the record. We'll see what else develops. Did Would you just state your name for MR. ROSSINI: I'm the adjacent property owner on the west side. I believe I have a sim±liar sketch. I can proceed Mr. Cha±rman. I have two basic objections to the proposals. One of them is based on engineering grounds. I'm going to address it based upon my capacity as a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York. We have a condition that has been created in this area which is going to create a number of problems with these two lots. Pirst, let me explain that my property and the applicant's property are approxi- mately 96 feet above the beach and the cliff line that we have that is common to both of us, is on the brink of being extremely unstable. I've been watching the flow of water. I've been watching the flow of soil. We have, my property is back from the cliff edge about 30 or 40 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: From your house? - ~Page 3 ~December 10~ 1987 ~BLI'C HEARING - Hosny Selim Southold TowTaLBoard of Appeals MR. ROSSINI: The deck is about 30 or 40 feet and the structural part of the house is back about another 15 or 18 feet. And I've watched this aliff eroding for roughly a yard or yard and a half since I've been there for the past two.years. Mr. Hosny's property next door, the cliff (over the years) started to descend so that the house that he originally had when he moved in was on the down slope side of the hill~ And much of this house that he had was on the down slope~ It was over the edge of the bluff. Now, the other factors to be considered are as follows: I had a concrete wall which separates the two properties and this concrete wall is in the nature of a retaining wall. It's helping to hold this whole ~thing together. He is proposing to build,this pool approximately - 28 feet from my house. I~m sorry, ~8~-~fe~t~a~Approximat~ey 20 feet from my property line which would be the concrete wall. So we have this massive piece of concrete which is really on the high point of the cliff. His pool is going to be very much at the high point. Further to the north~cas_~you~start going downhill, you~.have the house. Now, my house is a massive piece of concrete. My wall is another massive piece of concrete. ~ere!s a house with a newly poured foundation is an entirely rebuilt house on this downhill side of the bluff and now h~ has this pool structure. Another~ emmense massive piece of concrete all in this clustered area. Al- though we have two acres between us, all of these structures are in one very very small and constr~cted space. Once this pool is built, in my opinion having seen the flow of water, the flow of land,~that this pool ~s going to float, There~is not going to be enough drainage in the area. The water from his land is going to head toward the cliff and it's going'to erode the cliff and it's going to weaken the support on my side. Ok. Items heavily wooded. The only house that doesn't have wood is directly, to the west and he does~have a lot of trees in his yard. .He does' have grass in his yard but he does have a lot of treeS. And certainly for the time being until other houses may come in, it was our intention to leave the property as much natural as possible. It's. my in- tent that that should be a quiet, either retirement home or quiet recreational use home and a wooded lot is certainly more 'advanta~ gous than wide open spaces. And it was our intent to leave it as wooded as possible. The only displace being for actual construc- tion. I'm concerned for that and I think it's a great idea. What happens when it's sold to someone else 'who~ doesn't think it's such a good idea and decides to take the trees down and have pure grass or wants to put in a tennis court or something? Does the Board have the authority to specify in its variance ~that a certain amount be left natural and that would carry over into any future purchases of the land? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very interesting question Mr. Dalton. What we have ~done in at least the past I~would say maybe two meetings ~ago, was proper screening. We h&d not specifically dealt with the issue of proper ground cover. But we have however, dealt with. the of proper water runoff-whichwould of course lead back. Page 4 - December 10, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING - Hosny Selim Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ROSSINI : My experience as an engineer since 1956. The condition of so called hardship was one that was created by the applicant himself. Pursuant to an application filed by him,. not the original application. I'm talking about a prior application. His prior application asked the town to ~pprove an extension of 20 feet oh the south side of his house. What happened with this extension is I observed it personally, was that the house was jacked up; an entire new foundation was built underneath. This included the foundation which was common to the 20 foot extension and the existing house. Instead of putting the old house back down on the foundation, the house was carried away and an entirely new structure was built. Right now, to me, this pattern of be= havior indicates a desire and an attempt to deceive the Board and the Building Department. He has created a condition which makes it logical or appears to make it logical to create this pool where he says he would like to put it. But if he had observed the rules in the first place, the house would have been back from the bluff the required 100 feet and he could have provided for his pool on the north side or in his backyard. So he's created a condition whereby he doesn't have a backyard and he's created in a manner that I consider to be of his own making and in a manner of which I'm suggesting in violation of proper principals, proper considera- tion and it's deceptive. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against this application? MRo SELIM: What I have to say is comments really. The first com- ment about the erosion of the bluff isn't that. My house has been there for over 30 years and there hasn't been any erosion in the area. I watch my neighbor speaking about erosion on their si~e of bluff, I think it's because they don't have any bulkheading down near the beach. In front of my property there is bulkheading and I haven't seen any erosion. I've been there for over 3 years now. He has moved there only last summer and I don't think he's had the time to watch and see what is happening in the area there. The proposed pool is 24 foot from his property line which I don't think is illegal. There is a minimum distance. The concrete wall he is speaking about is a wall which holds a driveway, a concrete drive- way which runs all the way from the street down to the house. So I don't think that will have any sort of implication on the actual mechanical structure of his property or his house. And as far as the house, my alterations which were made on my house, I had an ex- tension not of 20 foot but only 8½ foot to the south Side. The house was jacked and a new foundation was poured and that was done by prior permits from the town and the health inspector came on several occasions and the final approval and inspection was done and cleared. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not to get coQ. nter-productive here but do you have anything to say in rebuttal sir? Do you have any recom- mendations you would like to make concerning this thing? Page 5 - December 10, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING - Hosny Selim Sou~hOid~ Town Board of Appeals MR. ROSSINI: ~ The position of, the requested Position of the pool is not structural consistent and I don't want it there and I don't want it there and I don't think it's erosion. AS far as mov- ing it farther toward Soundview Avenue, I think it will clearly change the general overall appearance of Soundview Avenue. Nobody has that kind of structure on Soundview Avenue. There are a lot of very very old houses. I would... You could solve the engineer- ing problem by moving the pool farther south but now you're creating a motel type of appearance. It would make it visible to Soundview Avenue and I don't think the neighborhood really deserves this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to ask you a question. What would be the difference between a swimming pool and a tennis court? I'm aware of the weight~ differences. But I'm saying to you in reference to the aesthetic overall pleasing view of what you're referring to and the closeness to the proximity of Soundview Avenue. MR. ROSSINI: Well I would personally, find a tennis court more ap- pealling than a pool from an aesthetic point of view. From the point of View of drainage, of course, a tennis court will accept drainage. A swimming pool would not. If you-don't get drainage, the pool is simply going to float. It's going to come up out of the ground. I also forgot to mention that my cesspool is 20 feet from my property line in that area. So when you combine the cesspool, all of this conrete, the interference with drainage is going to be such that this is simply ~ot going to work. It's simply not going to work. CHAIRMAN GOEHRI5 was the fact tha swimming pool rs thetic greenery, easier than you suggesting the ~ that I think tha that ~ould be rs possibly it coul GER: What I was really alluding to (Mr. RosSini) t a tennis court requires a ten foot fence where a quires a four foot fence. I think with proper aes- that you can hide a swimming pool a beck of a lot could hide a tennis court. And although I'm not an build a tennis court, I'm only trying to say t with the proper bushes and so on and so ~forth, quired landscaping in question here, I think that d be fairly well hidden so that not as to cause a disruption to you and your family'. MR. ROSSINI: My wife has asked that I point out our bedroom is on the second storM facing the pool. My objection is from the point of drainage and from the point of view of what it's going to do to that land and what it's going to~do to his house bgcause his house is more vulnerable than~mine. I reject his commen~s concerning the bulkheading and how long it's been there as absolutely inCor- rect. What I'm doing with the cliff is something that perhaps hs doesn't understood but I do understand what he's doing on his property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further comments, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - ~YE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1987 Appl. No. 3696 Applicant(s); RICHARD NASS Location of Property: 50 Willow Point Road, Southold County Tax Map ID No. 1000-56 - 5 -25 Board Members Present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members:; Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:20 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a sketch of a survey indicating the deck to be placed approximately 65 feet from the bulkhead, approxi- mately 12½ feet by 15 feet. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. The figure of 65 feet is incorrect. That is from the house, not from the new wood deck, the proposed wood deck. Is there somebody Who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? This is the Nass ap- plication. Is Mr. Bertani here? We're going to have. to send a let- ter to Mr. Bertani asking him how far the deck is from the bulkhead since this is not a natural plan drawn to sketch. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor or against this application? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1987 Appl. NO. 3676 Applicant(s): ANTHONY ROBUSTELLI Location of Property: 5 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue. County Tax Map ID No. 1000-111- 1 - 19 BOar_d Members Present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary', and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the heari~g~ at 8:22 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there anybody here who~,~would like to speak in this particular appeal.~ Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. I believe that's January 14th. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT.-OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOW~ BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAYs DECEMBER 10, 1987 Appl. No. 3671 Applicant(s): ANDRE AND THOMAS CYBULSKI Location of Property: ROW off West Side of Depot Lane, Cutchogue .County Tax_ Map ID No. 1000- 96 z 5 _1.2 Board Members ~resent sere: Chairman Goehringer P Goehrin~r Members Serge uoyen, J .; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; R~bert J.~u~lass and' Joseph H. Sawicki (constituting all five Members). Absent was: N/A Also present were Linda Kowalski, ZBA Secretary, Victor Lessard, Building Department Administrator, and approximately 30 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:23 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This hear-ing had been recessed from the last regularly scheduled meeting. I'll ask Miss Wickham if she would like to begi n. ~ ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ.: Thank you. I'd like to ask Andrew Stype of Val Stype and Sons to address the Board on the question of this applica- tion. ANDY STYPE: Andy Stype and I own, actually Stype Brothers Real Estate that is in Mattituck. I've been'a licensed broker since 1980, and a licensed salesperson since 1971, and have been doing real-estate appraisals since 1975. I had a listing on this property back on March 3, 1986. I advertised the property for two months. I adver- tised in Newsday. I advertised in New York Times~ I advertised also in local papers, and I had a respouse of' under six people, and I had only one offer and that offer came to $180,000. And it was not acceptable. The only offer I had was actually from a wholesale Book dealer from Up~tate New York. I also had an offer on the house of $180,000, but the house hadn't been on the market at the time, .and they hadn't been interested in selling the house; but we had an offer on the house (adjoining), too. I also contacted various landscapers, and other landowners~:and]loc~l, lfarme~s~ and asked them if they would have any interest in the property. And they did not. They didn't even have any interest to offer on the property at all. And their own reasons was it basically was a lot of barns on an awfully small piece of property, and there isn't any exposure at all to a highway for a~y~kind of operation of greenhouses, or even grapegrowers. As far as the current values are concerned, if I had put a value on this property and it has a limited business use, I could appraise this property in the neighborhood of $235,000. If I was going to apprai-se the property as it is in this Agricultural state, I would Page 2. Tra, nscript of Hearing M6tter of ANDRE & THOMAS CYBULSKI Appl. No. 3671 Public Hearing held December 10, 1987 MR. STYPE (continued): have to place a figure of about $165,000, and I have to doubt that at that price they would have any chance of a sale, too. And I do not feel it would have any adverse effect on any actual market values of any homes in the area. If there are any homes in the area on the market which are shown by any local real estate agents, they would-have to point out that bar and grill Ld that you have up the road--you' ~ have to point out-the other, com- mercial properties in the area. So I have to doubt if this is also changed to limited business~ it wouldn't have any affect. The~most important thing for any homeowners, he has to maintain his property~ If he does that, then he is going to be getting a good market value for his house. I have also inspected Jed Clauss' operation. It is out in Mattituck, and I have found it to be a orderly operation very well run~ I also found it to be a lot less p~ople and a lot less automobiles and trucks than if you have potato grading. I also feel that if this deal is not consummated, and if these buildings were going to lapse just into idleness, then I would have to point out that it's going to become an eyesore and he would lose additional value on it as well. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not right at the moment. Let's see what develops throughout the hearing. Thank you very much. MR~ STYPE: Just to point out also one other thing--the current values of getting back to the limited business appraisal, it would have an overall market value $235,000 broken down this way-~ The land would have a value of $175,000. The buildings approximately $60,000~ If I was to appaise it for agricultural use as it is now, it would have a total market value of approxi- mately $175,000~ and of that the land value $125,000. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MS. WICKHAM: Just very briefly, I have a couple of things for the Board. Two things I would like to submit--one is my letter in response to Mr. Fuchs' letter to you which I had indicated Pa,ge 3 '- Transcript of Hearing Matter df ANDRE & THOMAS CYBULSKI Public Hearing held December 10, 1987 MS. WICKHAM~(continued): to him and his attorney I would submit for the record. a Notice of Disclosure. And also CHAIRMAN GOEHRtNGER: Thank you very much. MS. WICKHAM: Just following up on what Andy said on terms of value, Mr. Cybulski has done.some numbers and the terms of the actual costs of those buildings. He came up ~.,'mmediately~with hard costs in excess of $75,000 and probably upwards of $100,000~ So if he is limited to his agricultural usage for which the property would be available under current zoning, and based on the figures Mr. Stype gave, he cannot possibly sustain any kind of reasonable return on his investment. The other thing the Board asked us to address was that of proposed screening. And I have a few photo- graphs that do show--these were taken I believe in late Summer '86 but they do show -- the first photograph I'd like to submit looking eastward behind the BlueTop and it shows a pretty heavy line of natural screening right now. The second photograph is also towards the east--looking towards the east from behind the big barn. And it shows on the other side a fair amount of screening looking towards the west--the third photograph shows there's quite a row of trees, and Mr. Cybulski tells me the trees along that west line come a fair ways, 10 or 20 feet into the property, so that will remain as a natural buffer. And also a fourth photograph looking towards the southeast that shows one of the other barns. And I'd like to submit them and then tell you what we would do with that. (Four photo- graphs submitted for the record.) Along the north side of the property along the railroad track, on the opposite side of the railroad tracks is Industrial property now, and we really don't see any point in putting in a lot of screening there, of course, if the Board has suggestions, we would be glad to follow it. It just didn't seem feasible given the nature of that property up there and the fact that there's nobody up there to disturb. Along the west side as I mentioned is a heavy row of full- grown trees and undergrowth, and also the building's a considerable distance from there and we had no proposed any screening. On the south side, there is some open land and no houses and Page 4 ~ T~anscript of Hearing Matter of ANDRE & THOMAS CYBULSKI Public Hearing heJld December 10, 1987 MS. WICKHAM (continued): it doesn't look like there would be any houses along there because of the vineyard, so we hadn't proposed any there. The main area of concern, of course, is on the east side where you do have the residential properties. As I mentioned, behind the Blue Top which is also business, we didn't see a need for screening, but if you had a suggestion~ we would be .glad to consider it~ The southerly part of the east line ts the part probably where you're most concerned, and there we .propose natKral screening--we thought it would in the long run be the best and least offensive anybody, and propose planting a row of trees along the driveway south along that property--some sort of everygreens that would grow up and be fairly hardy--natural cedars or something of that nature. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. May I ask Mr. Clauss a question, if he wouldn't mind? Mr. Clauss, what is the loudest machine that you have in your operation--let me re-phrase the question if you don't mind. Can you speak on the telephone at the time this machine is operating? JED CLAUSS: I do, and sometimes it's difficult. If one machine were operating, I could talk without much difficulty. When two of them are operating, I usually move five or ten feet away and then I don't have a problem. I also happen to be mostly deaf in my left ear, so I have one of those phones that tones up the noise. Now as far as the screening is concerned, I would like to add one point. My wife reminded me the other night that the cost of Christmas trees was going through the roof, and she proposes to plant several hundred trees on the property to hedge our own costs down the road and members of our family as well~ Where we will definitely put them I'm not sure. It's a lot easier than mowing the lawn,too. CHAIRMAN: While .you're up, I want to admit to you that I have seen your operation over the years--not when it was operating, but when you were closed~-having walked into the building looking for Mr. DiVello at one time, and before the routing was done with the hall- ways, and so on and so forth. You walked right into your area. But I will make every attempt to come down and see the operation during the week, or when you're operating. MR. CLAUSS- That's all right. to give notice. Just walk in. You don't even have Pa'ge 5 ~ Tra~nscript of Hearing Matter of ANDRE & THOMAS CYBULSKI Public Hearing Held December 10, 1987 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Is there anything else you would like to say, Mst Wickham, before we get into-- MS. WICKHAM': No. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Ms. McCaffery? MRS. McCAFFERY: I~m still against it. That's all ]~m going to say~ Everything goes the same as I said before~ ~._ CHAIRMAN: Ok. Any questions from any Board Members? (None) Yes, Valer~ie. VALERIE SCOPAZ, TOWN PLANNER: I would just like to bring certain points up to the Zoning Board, and I want to preface my remarks by saying that I happen to know what is involved in this--there is nothing personal in this--I am g~ving strictly a sp6cial opinion, (Partly inaudible) CHAIRMAN: Could you use the mike, if you would. MS. SCOPAZ, TOWN PLANNER: I would like to make the following points. One is that the applicant is asking to use the property in question for a use that is not permitted in the A-Residential and Agricultural Zoning. And the Town Code, Section 100-22 specifically states, and I'm referring to Subsection A, that ...no building shall be erected~ moved, altered, rebuilt, or enlarged, nor shall any land or building be used designed or arranged to be used, for any purpose or in any manner except in conformity with all the regulations required and restrictions specified in this Chapter for the District in which such build- ing or land is located ..... Clearly, the proposed use does not fit in with this zoning, and that is why the applicant is asking for a use variance. And t want to point out that the applicant is asking for a use that is permitted in another district, to wit: 'C-Light Industry Zone° And there is considerable vacant land available in that District. If the applicant wishes to pursue this request, the proper forum is Pa'ge 6 ~ T'ranscript of Hearing Matter of ANDRE & THOMAS CYBULSKI Public Hearing Held December 10s 1987 MS. SCOPAZ, TOWN PLANNER; (continued): before the Town Board with a petition for a change of zone. Now, if the Zoning Board of Appeals decides to entertain the granting of a use variance in this instance, it should consider in addition to all of the requirements that an applicant request- ing a use variance must comply with the standard requirements as set forth in Anderson Law of Zoning. It should consider that it may be faced with a similar appeal on every potato barn that has become vacant in the forthcoming year. The precedent that will be set here will~?be the creation of business uses throughout the town in agricultural and residential zones. Given the poten- tial scope of the changes of use, I feel that the matter should be brought before the Town Board where a townwide policy could be set and a change made to the Zoning Code if so determined by that Board. You have to consider that I quite emphathetic to the situation presented to you~ however, I feel that the Zoning Board of Appeals should be extremely careful about putting itself in a position where it needs to rule on every single--as I said before--potential agricultural building that may be coming before you~ We have a lot of agricultural buildings in town. We have a lot of farmers who are either selling, or toning down their businesses. This problem is not an isolated problem, and it's something that I feel may not be of magnitude now, but it has the potential to be down the road within the next few years. And I think it's some- thing that should be addressed by the Town Board. Thank you. And I~ll hand to each of you a copy of my memo. (Memorandum dated December 10, 1987 from the Town Planner submitted for the record reiterating some of her statements.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ms. Wickham. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I can appreciate that concern. I would just like to make a short response to it. As to a change of zone, we certainly would want to ask for a change of zone because that would open up a whole range of uses and I ask that the C-1 Zoning be incorporated into this record, which would give you an indica- tion of some pretty horendous uses that would be available even a business zone would expand the use tremendously, and the advantage of a use variance from that point of view is that.-~you,~can put' conditions on it and limit it very carefully. P~ge 7 ~ TYa~nscript of Hearing Matter of ANDRE & THOMAS CYBULSKI Public Hearing held December 10, 1987 MS. WICKHAM (continued): The other point that was made is.a good one that there are other agricultural-type buildings that might have problems. The difference that we have here is they usually do not have this tremendously limited acreage that goes with these barns--it's only a total of five acres altogether. Most of those types of properties would be on a highway and/or have a house and a barn together with them, so there would be more versatile. We also have here three very large barns altogether which creates an additional problem and they were specialized for potato grading rather than just potatoes. So if you could just consider those we would appreciate it. MS. SCOPAZ, PLANNER: Can I again add? Again, I appreciate Mrs. Wickham's comments and I'm not oblivious to the circumstances involved. But again~ consider that you're being asked to draw a line somewhere, and you oonJt have any guidelines. When do you make a determination that a proposed use, in this case it happens to be a book-publishing company, and it is true that the use may be relatively innocuous compared to other uses, but when can you draw the line when someone should come in with another type of use. You're being put in the position where you're being asked to draw a line that you don't have any standards to work by. The same thing with regard to the size of the property. Where do you draw the line, is a five-acre piece of property a piece of property you can work with, or is a ten-acre piece of property the cut off point, or a six-acre? There is no policy there. There's nothing in the Code, and you have to keep in mind that there may other situations coming up and t really think the Board should think carefully about this. I think this is something that should be taken up to the Town Board. CHAIRMAN: Ms.McCaffery? MRS. McCAFFERY: I'm Virginia McCaffery, and I am a neighbor of this group, and I think a point has to be made. When these buildings were built--potato farming was somewhat successful, but anybody looking down the road would know there was going to be a change taking place with the developments goin§ on, and so when they built these buildings--they must have been very aware of the possibility of problems within the potato farming would be P~ge 8~ T~ra~nscript of Hearing Matter of ANDRE & THOMAS CYBULSKI Public Hearing held December lO, 1987 MRS. McCAFFERY (continued)~: there, and they built these buildings with these conditions already established with only access through their own yard to three buildings in a land-locked piece of land. And it was already there, and so when you're asking for a change, this was the only way that they could possibly even go that many years ago, and I just~ you know, you have a good point. Other people are going to be in the same boat. And th'ey are going to have land that they may have locked UP in the ~arm development program and cannot be used in any other way~, but they will have buildings that nobody is going to be able to use~-unless it's a business~ And as I said before, there is a Master Plan, as as soon as you start deviating from that Master Plan and allowing certain things here, and certain things there, why spend all that money for a Master Plan. There is a problem, and the problem grows with each individual change, and I think you made a very good point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you~ Mr. Clauss, could I ask you one other questi.on? You chose to'use the largest barn on the property~ Which of course is also the largest structure that's closest to residential property--dwelling property. Housing~ Is there any particular reason why you chose that building? MR. CLAUSS: Quite a few. One, is there's an interior loading platform, which the other buildings do not have. Books can be ruined by rain. A lot easier than a fire. And I choose not to jump between raindrops with 2,000 lbs. of books. Twos is the electric service that's currently available to the property--it goes into that building, and that's where the main box is. Three, the water of the three buildings--that's the only building I know of that has water. Four, there's an additional outside loading platforms which the other properties do not have. And five, I believe that the floor there may be better than the other two buildings. It is older. It will have settled more. I have not found any evidence of major faults in the concrete where the other buildings are newer. Books are heavy generally. They are very heavy~ And I am currently operating in a building that's ~n excess of 100 years old with wooden floors, and all the other problems, and I'm trying to avoid those by moving them. And that's why I chose the building. CHAIRMAN: add? Miss Wickham~ do you have anything you would like to Page 9 ~ Transcript of Hearing Matter of ANDRE & THOMAS CYBULSKI Public Hearing held December 10, 1987 MS. WICKHAM: Given the immediate hardship, I'd hate to see the Cybulski's have to wait for the Town to decide what they can do about these problems. I think given the hardships they do have, I can't think of a better use for the property considering the surroundings~ Than~ you~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you~ Anybody else? Hearing nobody else, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. CHAIRMAN: Thank you all very much for coming in and have a Happy Holiday Season. Pp o 1 -9 · inda Kowalskf TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTH©LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1987 Appl. No.: 3561 Applicant(s): DOROTHY L. ROBERTSON Location of Property: S/s North View Drive, E/s Private Road and N/s South View Drive, Orient. County Tax Map ID No. 1000- 13- 1 - 10 Board Members Present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also Present: ~ictor Lessard (Building Dept.), Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary~ and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:58 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated most recent date, August 18, 1986 indicating the two lots as mentioned of 40,032 square feet which is lot number one, just a vacant piece of 16,211 square feet which is the improved parcel. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard Ms. Moore? MS. MOORE: The application for the most part, speaks for itself. Mrs. Robertson is here tonight if you have any questions of her~ She's been patiently, as you can see from the date of the applica- tion, pursuing this application with provocation for a subdivision. We finally received approval to subdivide from the Health Depart- ment on November 5, 1987. That was the delay. We are now before the Board to receive relief from the bulk ~a~d parking schedule. The town created the setoffs for the purpose of providing alter- natives for such situations as is presented to you here today. Mrs. Robertson had been living on a fixed income for many years and now f~nds that she must sacrifice some of the land in-order to live in her home. When the town upzoned the property, o~.ers like Mrs. Robertson found practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship inthat their property was no longer divisible. Mrs. Robertson's property is unique inthat it is 2.6 acres whereas most of the properties in the community are less than an acre. In fact, the proposed Master Plan, as the application states, has designated this area as a one acre area. The character of the district will remain residential and be in conformity with the other lots in the community. Brownsville Subdivision is 'a close knit community which has supported Mrs. Robertson through, out her efforts to subdivide. In fact, I have two letters which I will present to the Board. One from Helen B. Haas, an adjacent property owner and Edna Jole, another adjacent property owner who have provided letters in support of her appeal. M~. Robertson ~Page 2 - December 10, 1987 ~PUBLIC HEARING - Dorothy L. Robertson Southo~d TowD~i Board of Appeals MS. MOORE (continued): has received contact from several neighbors in the area who are very interested in the property if she ever subdivides it. So there is a potential for receiving this money in order to continue to live~in:~ their home. She does have a list of people who are interested. And hopefully with your approval and theffinal approval of the Planning Board, she will be able to achieve her goal. :I have the two letters and I will submit them to the Board. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. From Helen Haas and Edna. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My only question is; is there a specific reason, I understand the rather irregular boundaries of this property. Bu~ is there any reason why you did not choose to make the two lots a little more equal in square footage? ~- MS. MOORE: Other than for the purposes of maintaining the house with a larger parcel.~:'~Since-~i~?~is:a~ery:~large house, it would be dispro- portionate if you had a smaller lot. MRS. ROBERTSON: I have two driveways clogged and in the wintertime, one driveway, has such sharp turns getting around a great big rock, that it's very difficult to get up. And I also find that at my age, I'd like to unload my groceries by comihg up the straight- er driveway which I' call my summer driveway to be level of my house. And I asked the surveyor if he would ~ry to work out a plan so I could still keep that driveway for my own convenience. And therefore, he had to put that funny tail down to~the south driveway. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It doesn~.t indicate (Mrs. Robertson) where the driveway, is on the South ~iew Drive. MRS. ROBERTSON: I don't think it quite touches. MS. MOORE: My surveys don't show. Maybe on inspection or if you noticed when you went to inspect you:noticed the location of the driveways. MRS. ROBERTSON: Both driveways come in from the north. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: From the~north. They both come in from North View Drive? MRS. ROBERTSON: Yes. gether. The entrance of them is-~reallyi~.-quite close to- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So there is no entrance from Sound View. MRS. ROBERTSON: No. That"s a very steep slope Page 3 - December 10, 1098 PUBLIC ~EA~I~G - Dorothy L. Robertson Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I actually did not go down South View Drive. I went down North View Drive when I looked at the house. Ok. I thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any questions from Board members? I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decisions until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1987 Appl. No. 3686 Applicant(s): FREDERICK AND DIANE RAYMES Location of Property: 704 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. .County Tax Map ID.No. 1000-3~ 4 - 19 Board Members Present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also present: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:08 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of-hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey from Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. The most recent date is November 10, 1987 indicating a proposed house of approximately 35 feet from Wiggins Lane Exten- sion and the actual setback of the house from the bulkhead. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there someone who would like to be heard? MR. RAYMES: I'm here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you Mr. Raymes? MR. RAYMES: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you tell me exactly what the setback is of the dwelling from deck to the bulkhead? It's not really mentioned on the plan. You can call us if you don't have it with you right now-. But rather than scale it, I would rather have you .... MR. RAYMES: The updated survey you have shows a lot depth of 105 feet. If we set the front of the house back 35 feet from the right-of-way, that leaves 70 feet of depth. The house is proposed to be 35 feet deep with a deck of 8 feet which leaves a distance from the bulkhead of 27 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 27 feet, ok. MR. RAYMES: However, if you were to grant a setback from the road of 30 feet instead of 35, we could then move the house back then, ob- viously, another five feet. -'t~ag~ 2'-~December 10, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING - Frederick and Diane Raymes S~uthoid Tow~ Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: to say? Very good. Is there anything else you'd like MR. RAYMES: I'd just like to add that when we bought the house, the lot was not bulkheaded. The survey then showed a lot depth of 119 feet on the average. When we requested a bulkhead permit and through the various actions of the D.E.C., they insisted we move the bulkhead as far back as possible. So we lost, in effect, another four feet that aggravated the current condition. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any questions from Board members? Hearing no fur- ther questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving de- cisi6n until later. Ail in favor - AYE. RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE' $OU'i~':O~.~D ~w~ ~ ............ z own o~ Southold