Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/10/1987APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, .IR. SERGE DOYEN, .IR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ;~OAD- STATE RnAD 25 SnUTHE}LD, L.I., N.Y. 31971 TELEPHONE (516) 765 1809 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1987 A Regular Meeting was held by the Southold Town Board of Appeals on TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1987 commencing at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town HalI~ 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr., Member Serge Doyen, Jr., Member Robert J. Douglass, Member Joseph H. Sawicki, Member Linda F. Kowalski, Board Secretary. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded with the first items on the agenda, as follows: PUBLIC HEARINGS were held on the following matters. Verbatim transcripts of the statements made during the public hearing are prepared under separate cover (attached for reference purposes): 7:35 p.m. 7:45 p.m. 7:50 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 8:05 p.m. 8:10 p.m~ 8:27 p.m. 8:33 p.m. 9:05 p.m. 9:17 p.m. 10:08 -11 Appl. No. 3677 - ROBERT MOHR Appl. No. 3675 RICHARD MULLEN, JR. (Variance) Appl. No. 3676 RICHARD MULLEN, JR. (Spec. Exception) Appl. No. 3684 - WILLIAM AND VERA MOLCHAN Appl. No. 3514 - GEORGE P. SCHADE Appl. No. 3680 - LEONARDUS AND MARIE VANOUDENALLEN Appl. No. 3673 - NICK MIHALIOS Appl. No. 3683 - GEORGE L. PENNY, INC. (Variance) Appl. No. 3682 - GEORGE L. PENNY, INC. (Spec. Excep.) Appl. No. 3678 - DAVID LaFRENIERE Appl. No. 3671 ~ ANDRE AND THOMAS CYBULSKI Appl. No. 3679 ~ ROBERT & DOLORES SCHISSEL Appl. No. 3564 - JOEN DEMPSEY/ROBIN RAEBURN. :05 p.m. Appl. No. 3672 - ANTHONY GAMBINO. $outhold Town Board of Appeals -2- November 10, 1987 Regular Meeting ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations as noted on the following pages hereof, 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: A. TYPE II ACTIONS: 1. Appl. No. 3677 2. Appl. No. 3675 3. Appl. No. 3684 4. Appl. No. 3514 5. Appl. No. 3673 6. Appl. No. 3680 7. Appl. No. 3678 8. Appl. No. 3679 9. Appl. No. 3564 10. Appl. No. 3672 - Robert Mohr - Richard Mullen, Jr. - William and Vera Molchan - George P. Schade - Nick Mihalios - Leonard & Marie VanOudenallen - David LaFreniere - Robert and Dolores Schissel - John Dempsey/Robin Raeburn - Anthony Gambino. B. UNLISTED ACTIONS: 1. Appl. No. 3674 - RICHARD MULLEN, JR. 2. Appl. No. 3683 - GEORGE L. PENNY, INC. 3. Appl. No. 3682 - GEORGE L. PENNY/JERRY SHULMAN 4. Appl. No. 3671 - ANDREW AND THOMAS CYBULSKI. (Continued on the next 14 pages) .Qouthold Town Board of Appeals -3- Nov. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3677 PROJECT NAME: ROBERT M'OHR 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 r~asons 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 similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: (a' ~] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: ~roposed- deck additions width insufficient rear and front yard setbacks, and (b) accessory garage structure 16- cated partly in the side yard LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of, Suffolk, more particularly kngwn as: W~basso Street, Southold, NY 1000-78-3-34.2 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 ehvironment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is Section 617.13, 6 NY~RR, SEQRA a setback variance as regulated by Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- Nov. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3675 PROJECT NAME: RICHARD MULLEN, JR. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse_effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Insufficient frontyard setback from the neath ±~ne of the propped showroom addition LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of. suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: Corner of Main Road Dnd Cottage Place, Southold, NY 1000-62-3-19 and 20 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 a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- Nov. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLA~ATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3684 PROJECT NAME: WILLIAM AND VERA MOLCHAN 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 dcclaration should not 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:Locate adcessory pool, decks and fence enclosure in the front yard (in excess of 300 ft. of the front property line LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of. Suffolk, more particularly known as: Ruth Road, Mattituck, NY 1000-106-1-3 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) Construction proposed is landward of existing structures Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- Nov. 10, 1987 Regular ~eeting Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3514 PROJECT NAME: GEORGE P. SCHADE This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse~effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination'made for any othcr department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [XJ Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approvat of the propped insufficient lot area and width of two parcels in this pending set-off division of land LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: Cedar Lane, Southold, NY 1000-78-7-42 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETE~%~INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short fcrm 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 con- struction as regulated by Section 617.13 for a lot-line or area variance. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- Nov. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3673 PROJECT NAME: NICK MIHALIOS This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse_effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Permission to locate inground s~immingpool decks and fence enclosure with an insufficient setback from the top of bluff along Long Island Sound LOCATION OF PROJECT. Town of Southold, County~of, Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: The Strand, East M~rion, N~ 1000-30-2-74 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 a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- Nov. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3680 PROJECT NAME: LEONARDUS AND MARIE VANOUDEN~LEN This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse_effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similhr project. TYPE OF ACTION: · [XJ Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Permiss~ion to construct addition to dwell- ing with an insufficient setback from the closest point of arc along the front property line LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of. Suffolk, more particularly known as: N/s Sailors Lane, Cutchog~e, NY 1000-111-14-7 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 imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- Nov. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRON~[ENTAL DECLAP~%TION Notice of Determinstion of Non-Significance APPEAL NO,: 3678 PROJECT NAME: DAVID LaFRENIERE This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of thc 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 r--~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration sh©u]d not 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: ~rmission to construct addition to existing building with an insufficient setback from the side (westerly) property· line. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of. Suffolk, more particularly known as: Corner of Main Road~and Peconic Lane, Peconic, NY 1000-75-5-10 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; (~) The relief requested is a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA Southold Town Board of Appeals -]0- Nov. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3679 PROJECT NAME: ROBERT AND DOLORES SCHISSEL This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse_effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a 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: Permission to construct open deck addition with an insufficient setback from nearest wetlands. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of, Suffolk, particularly knQwn as: 710 West Shore Drive, Southold, NY. 1003-80-1-46 more REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETE~4INATION: (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 a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA Southold Town Board of Appeals -]]- Nov. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3564 PROJECT NAME: JOHN DE~PSEY/ROBINRAEBURN 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 similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ J Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: (a) for~final 280-A approval over existing traveled ROW and (b) permission to locate proposed dwelling with a~ insufficient setback from top of bluff along L.I. Sound LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of. Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: ROW off th~ N/s Bridge Lane. Extension and Qregon Road, Cutchogue, NY 1000-73-2-3.6 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) Information has been submitted by applicant or his agent in- dicating that the project will not involve the disturbance of wetlands grasses or areas subject to flooding which may be considered wetlands. Southold Town Board of Appeals -]2- ~ov. 10, 1987 Regular ~,~eeting Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determinstion of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3672 PROJECT NA~: ANTHONYGAMBINO This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Articla 8 of the N.Y.So Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservati~n Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within prcject not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environr~eut for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice tl~at thi~ 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 similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [XJ Type Ii [ ] ~nlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approva~ of the construction of new dwell- ing with an insufficient setback from nearest tidal wetlands LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, particularly known as: Lupton Point Road, Mattituck, NY 1000-115-11-20 more REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETE~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) Information has been submitted by applicant or his agent in- dicating that the project will not involve the disturbance of wetlands grasses or areas subject t~ flooding which may be considered wetlands (3) The relief requested is a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA Southold Town Board of Appeals -]3- Nov. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3674 SE PROJECT NA~E: RICHARD MULLEN, JR. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse_effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a 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: Construct showroom addition incidental to the existing car-sales business. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, particularly known as: Corner of Main Road-and Cottage PlaCe, Southold, NY 1000-62-3-19 and 2Q 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 property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. Southold Town Board of Appeals -]4- Nov. 10, ]987 Regular Meeting Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAIL%TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3683 PROJECT NAME: GEORGE L. PENNY, INC. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4'of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse_effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for thc same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: . [ ] Type II [ ~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Permission to erect fence in the front- yard area at a height not to exceed'6½ feet LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, particularly knQwn as: N/s of Sound Ave. and the S/s of C.R. 48, Mattituck,.NY 1000-141-3-38.1 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETE[~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 thi:~ project be implu- mented as planned; (2) The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area Southold Town Board of Appeals -]5- Nov. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLA~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3682 : PROJECT NAME: GEORGE L. PENNY,/INC. JERRY SHULMAN 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 rc~sons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should n~t be considered a determination'made for any other de~artment or agency %~hich may also have an application pending for thc same or similar project. TYPE ~OF ACTION: [ j Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Permission to use existing storage building for warehousing and storage of lumber and building materials and supplies, in conjunction with the existing lumberyard opposite S~und Ave. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of. Suffolk, more particularly known as: S/s Sound Ave., Mattituck, ~Y 1000-141-3-41 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 ~ew construction. Southold Town Board of Appeals -]6- Nov. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3671 PROJECT NAM_E: ANDRE AND THOMAS CYBULSKI This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse_effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a 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 [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Permission to utilize premises for book publishing operations, wholesale book storage, and updated 280-A approval over existing private ROW for such use. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County.of. suffolk, more particularly known as: Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY 1000-96-5-1.2 and part of 1.1 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effccts 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_~o new construction $outhold Town Board of Appeals -17- November 10, 1987 Regular Meeting Vote of the Board: AYES: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigoni$, Douglass and Goehringer. This resolution was duly adopted. At 11:25 p.m., the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned, and a Special Meeting of the Board was agreed to be calendared for Wednesday, November 18, 1987 to continue with this evening's agenda items concernings deliberations, actions, and other transactions. Respectfully submitted, Southold Town Board of Appeals Ap~oved - Gerard P~ Goehri~er Southold Town Board of Appeals APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARO P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. .JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI WAIVER OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL ~LEETING WE, the undersigned, being Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, do hereby severally waive notice of the time, place and purpose of the M~eting of the Board of Appeals to be held at the $oUthold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on Wednesday, November ]8, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. , and do hereby consent that the same be held on said date ~or the transaction of any business which may properly come before said meeting. DATED: November 10, ]987. ~~~/~~~/~ Southold, New York./~~~~inairman Serge~J. Doyen, Jr. ,~l~ember R6~r~ J. D~glass, Memb~ J~ph ~ Sawick~, Member TRANSCRIPT.OF HEARING ~,uinuLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS R"EGULAR MEETING OF TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1987 Appl,'No,, 3677 Applicant(s): Robert Mohr Location of Property: West Side of Wabasso Street, Southold .County Tax_ Map ID No. lO00- 78 ~ ~3 - 34.2 Board-Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Sawicki, and Doyen Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard(Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately 20 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a qopy of survey, most recent date of September 4, i~87Zindicating a o~.half story framed home on the south part of the lot with the most closest setback to Wabasso Street on the front yard is 28.8 feet; the rearyard at its closest point 22 feet 6 inches, and an uncompleted3~attached garage to a one and half story framed building which looks like a barn, it is a barn, and is approximately 12 by 2.1. It.~.'s~approximately a 6 foot set- back from the re~r~property~l±ne~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? MR. MOHR. Not at .t~is point. CHAIRt~AN GOEHRINGER: You are Mr. Mohr. MR. MOHR. Ye~.~ CNAIRMAN GOEH~INGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? . Questions from Board members? The letter that Mr. Moh'r had mentioned~[~i~h~n the application I'll read. It says; Dear sirs: I'm writing th~S'~'ietter as an addendum to the application and I am also submitt£ng it as a result of the Building Department's issuance of a stop work order on a building permit of 15697 prior to the build- ing of the present house on July 6f~.~1986. i met with Mr. Lessard to seek the information on complying with a building permit. He advised Page 2 - November 10, 1987 ~_?ubt~c Hearing - Robert Mohr Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~(con~inued) me~f the procedure. I indicated the plans of such that the front and rear decks are out of the building envelope. He indicated that when the plans were submitted, i~ar~a~iance~w~s in:'!!orde~, they would be rejected. And then I would have to go to the Z.B.A. for a variance. However, on February 18, 1987, a building permit was is- sued without a variance. Construction begani~ion March of 1987. And in July of 1987, I went back to request what the procedure was for the extension of the rear deck. jI spoke to Mr. Fish who advised me that I should submit a plan showing the requested change of which I did. Once again, the extension to the deck was approved. The deck was under construction when, on September 1, 1987, Mr. Lessard and Mr. Horton were inspecting~the house behind my property and they ob- served my deck. They indicated that it appeared too large and in- fringed on the backya~d, sideyard concept. They said I needed a second survey which they requested and I allegedly never gave the Building Department. I indicated that it was never requested. La- ter they agreed that it Was not requested but ~hat~it was needed now. I complied with their~request. The survey showed the rear and front decks as indicated initially, that they,%extend a~t Of~he primar~[~building envelope~ The decks are 90% complete and I com- plied, by seDding notices to my neighbors. They all say un&nimously, they have no complaint. I respectfully submit the variance~to be granted based upon the above information contained in this letter. In!good faith I followed the protoc61 in applying for the building permit in May ~howing the facts and it was approved only to have a stop work order issued to me after the construction. Signed by Mr. Mohr. Is the~e anything you'd like to add to this particular letter? MR. MOHR: No I don't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only question that I have is that I have looked at the proPerty. Was the:front deck also applied for and ap- proved? MR. MOHR: Yes. It was all. Thecoh~y addition was the size of the rear deck that was put in secondarily. The primary decks around the house were unchanged. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And you cOntend that these decks are a focal point to the hoUse and therefore, .... MR. MOHR: Well, I have pictures if ~ou would like to see them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: add sir? Sure. Is there anything else you'd like to MR. MOHR: No I don't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only other question I have and should have asked you before you sat down which you can answer from your seat. These are h~tk~ to remain open? MR. MOHR: Yes. ~age 3 - November 10, 1987 ~btic Hearing - Robert Mohr .Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: And not roofed in any way, manner or for~? MR. MOHR: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you. AreCthere any questions from anyone? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. MR. MOHR: May I ask one question? ' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. MOHR: Are you notified by mail? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. The decision is mailed to you. MR. MOHR: And what is the approximate time lapse? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We!l, we're workin~ on last month's decisions tonight after this meeting. So we'.re approximately one month be- hind. I have no idea how late this.:~eting wild go or how late we will be. So I can't tell you"st thi~ particular time. We have a rather large agenda tonight. I don't know if we'll get to it. We will probably have a special meeting within the next couple weeks and we'll finish up what we didn't finish up with tonight and then go on to the new ones. MR. MOHR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: and we'll tell you. You can give us a call in a couple of weeks TRANSCRIPT, OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS R'EGULAR'MEETING OF TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1'0,. 1987 'Appl.-N0.,3674 & ~3675 Applicant(s): Richard Mullen, Jr. Location of Property: Corner of Main Road and E. Side of Cottage Place .County Tax..Map ID No. 1000-62 ' 3 - 19~nd 20 Southold. Board- Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehrin§er, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also Present Were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.). Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately 20 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; I have before me a site plan dated 6/15/87 submitted by a~icensed architec~ndicating the new addition and the planting area to be attached or affixed to the front of the Mullen Motors building. It appears to be approximately a six-sided addition. And we'll ask the contractor about it. And I have a copy of the Suffolk county Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there Hnytking you'd like to add to this application? JOHN BERT'ANT: No. It'~ just as I stated in the application', they are building within one or two feet of the Main Road across direct- ly from the sidewa.lk on either side of Mullens. This would definitely, I think enhance the building. The Planning Board has gone over it. They've asked for a few. things ~%(we told them there would be no prob- lem) which is creating the planting in the front and doing 'away with that parking i..n the front of the building and block off the access across the fro:t there to the other garag.e 'doors that he has now in the front and which we will comply with.by putting curbs and putting things in the'front. CHAIRMAN GOEH'~tN~E.R: How big is the actual addition? I see that it's 29 feet wzd'e'. What is the actual depth of it? MR. BERTANI: I think it is 18 or 19. I'd have to look. I think it's about 250 or 300 square feet maximum is the whole addition.: It's an octagon shape. 'ZI think we'd be able to fit two more small cars in the fron~. So we'll have a total of three cars we'll be able to ge~ in the showroom. Right now he's limited to one car~ and I think that's a problem 'for him. He can't show the cars properly out there. ~ -Page 2.~November 10, 1987 ~.~Public Hearing - Richard Mullen, Jr. Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wh~!~?about the,'it's a one-story structure? MR. BERTANI~ Yes. One-story. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And what type of roof does it have? MR. BERTANI:~ Flat roof. Almost what is there now. with a little para,foot wall around the front. A flat roof CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And it will approximately be as high as the front part of the building? So it's going to conform to the front of the building. MR. c BERTAN I:~ Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGE~: Do you have any idea what the distance is to the front property line if this was built? Maybe you can get it to us. That's what I was looking for. MR. BERTANI: I think it's 27 feet or 26 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Exactly 27 feet? Alright. So we'll subtract that. Is there anything else you'd like to add to the application? MR. BERTANI: No, nothing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGERi: Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against it? You have to raise your hand ~ast. We keep this thing going. 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 R'EGULAR'MEETING OF TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1987 'Appl.-N0.,.3684 App]icant('S~): William and Vera Malchan Location of Property: North Side of Ruth Road, Mattituck .County Tax. Map ID No. 1000~ t06- 1 - 3 Board-Members present were: Chairman S0ehringer P. G0ehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Sawicki, and poyen Absent was: (None) Also Present were; Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, ~Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 20 persons in the audience. /he Chairman opened the hearing at 7:45 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRING'ER: I have a qopy of a survey dated May 7, 1975 indicating an ~proximate one-st~r~y house in excess, almost 600 feet from the road which is Ruth Road.. And I have a copy with a pencilled in area of which the swimming pool is proposed which is in front of the house just to the south of the-circular driveway approximately equally centered in the middle of the lot. 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. Molchan? Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application?.. Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? The usual questions that we ask are; is ~any time, the swimming pool going to be enclosed with a permanent roof? MR. MOLCHAN: None at all. CHAIR~,~N GOEH~INGER: And how large .is the pool? MR. MOLCHAN: It's .2I by 41. CHAIRMAN .GOEHR.,IN~ER: the pool? -~, And how large is the deck approximately around MR. MOLCHAN: It's about 4 to 6 feet around. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGERi: And the fence will be how far around the pool? MR. MOLCHAN: We~l, it's completely all the way around. About 10 feet around the pool. .~Page 2 - November 10, 1987 ~ublic Hearing - William and Vera Molchan Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you give us some indication on how far... I see 350 feet plus or minus. Is that approximately wh~re the pool is~going to start? MR. MOLCHAN: Within a few feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So if we~ere to~say no closer than 350 feet to Ruth Road, you would be happy wi~h that? MR. MOLCHAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. We thank you very much. Are there any qnestions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I will make a motion closihg the hearing, reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll try and give you a decision as quickly as possible. You probably want to start it this year. Thank you very much. TRANSCRIPT. OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS .J R'EGULAR'MEETING OF TUESDAY, NOVEMBER i0, 1987 'Appl.-N0..3~14 ~ : ~.~ Applicant(s): George P. Schade Location of Property: West Side of Cedar Lane, Southold .County Tax_.Map ID No. ]000~ 78 ~ 7 - 42 Board' Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Sawicki and ~oyen Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 20 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRING~R: I have a qopy of a map the most recent date from~]~th~surv~rlis~May 1.~t986'~ndi~atingi~the~!vacant~t~t.~tb. be set off from approximately lot number one of 26,492 square feet and the house lot (again) is also a set of (which is lot number two) which is 26,492 square feet. Both'lots are approximately 100 by 265 variable. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding prQperties in the area. Mr. Raynor would you like to be heard? MR. RAYNOR: Yes. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. 'He'~ry '~E. Raynor~ Jr. I'm agent for Mr. George Schade and the premises in question ms 335. Cedar Avenue, SoU~hold. This proposed setoff meets all the ~s~ffolk county Department of Health Services status with regard to wa~er. .As well as the_s0il standards. The property has received approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Board of Review. I believe, f~l~d-c~h~-yo~rBoard are~'~he sample test wel'-I data,~ the~:S~ffolk County. Department of Health Ser- vices Board of Review approval letter, ~a copy of the approved map, a copy of the'covenants and restrictions as requested of our ser- vices~ An up~dat.e..d title report was given for change of title as well as the fitin~0 date. This property was initiated for a setoff I; ' · '~ before the Planning Board June 1986. The Planing Board, at least in one of the versions of the Master Plan proposed, designates the area as one acre. It's the intent of the applican~ to provide a]... building lot ~o'>ely for that of his grandson. And as stated in the application, the lot size that is proposed, would be similiar to those in the sur~rounding neighborhood. The propoerty, as it exists today, is ~wice the size of those in his neighborhood. The approval of this variance would be in keeping with the character of the area. Page 2 - November 10, 1987 'Public Hearing - George Po Schade Southold Z.B.A. MR. RAYNOR (continued): His hardship presently continues as the applican~;~i~Mr. Schade who is elderly, was building the home for his grandson adjacent to his property to aide his appropriate care in the futn~e. I hope the Board will give it its utmost consideration~ ~[[~hank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the ap- plication? I'm not going to say it's a short evening. Because every time I do... I'm not saying that. Hearing noffurther questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving de- cision until later. Thank you sir. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT, OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS R'EGULAR 'MEETING OF TUESDA~,-'NOVE~BER t6, 1987 Appl.-No.. 3673 App_licant(s): Nick Mihalios Location of Property: North Side of the Strand, Pebble Beach Farms, .County Tax_ Map ID No. 1000~ 30 ' 2 - 74 East Marion. Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehrin§er, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Sawicki, and.Doyen. Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately 20 persons mn the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:00 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRING'ER: I have a copy of a survey, the most recent date is May 2,'~1987 indicating a~ot number 24 of 25,917 square feet indicating, a masonary two-story structure which is a house and car port and pencilled in is a proposed (appears to be close to a free-flow) swimming pool~appr~ximately~.. .The deck area is approximately 75 feet from the average line of the bluff and the pool~'itself is approximately' 80 feet from the average line of the bluff. And there is shown on the survey, a rear setback line of which the applicant indicates that he is encroaching approximately 12 feet into. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I'll ask you the same question that we asked the last gentleman with a swimming pool. Do you at any time, have any intention of ever enclosing this swimmin~ pool? MR. MIHALIOS: ~ No sir~ CH'AIRMAN GOEH.RINGER.: We really couldn'.t ask this question of the other Person because he didn't have any neighbors. But are you planning .on a~ny ~verhead lighting that would cause a problem to your neighbor~? ~.' I. know you don't have any neighbors at this time. Also however, the're's a great possibility that you may in the fu- ture. Are you planning anything that would be obtrusive? MR. MIHALIOS: When you sa~ overhead lighting, would you explain what you mean? CHAIRMAN GOEHRIN~ER: Well, lights on the house that would, be- cause the house is at least ~ 2.~ story house, shine down on the pool thatmuy cause a problem to a neighbor. _Pege 2 - November 10, 1987 Public Hearing - Nick Mihalios Southold 'ZoB.A. MR. MIHALIOS: The only lights' fo~ the pool would~be to the rear in case of emergencies and things like that but nothing that would bother the neighbors. We have some lights in the back of the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There are no lights from.the~eaves,'-~2% stories up, shining down? MR. MIHALIOS: No. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER:i How close is the pool to the actual property line on the west side? MR. MIHALIOS: To my neighbor? 7½ feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 7½ feet. And how close is the deck? MR. MIHALIOS: The deck is about 4 feet from'~he pool. be about 3½ feet away from the adjoining property. So it should CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When ~ou refer to encroaching into the rear setback;line, are you-referring to covenants and restrictions of the subdivision of which they have requested you stay forward of? Who established this rear setback line? MR. MIHALIOS: } have no idea. I guess it would have to be the Town of Southold. I have no idea who established this° That's the way I found it and I' respect it and that's why I'm asking a request for re- lief. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything that you would like to ad- dress in reference to the letter from Soil and Water Conservation here? Is there anything you can't abide by? MR. MIHALIOS: Yes. I would make sure that all the water would not run down the ~bluff but into a dry well. I would have dry wells there to hold the water. At the same time, I would make sure that no water off my rearyard would go into my neighbor's property. I would make sure that water from ~y. p~opler~y Would ~o into~a~'~d~y~well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? I should really pause there. I apologize. Any questions from Board members. Hearing no further: questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving deci- sion until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT,OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR'MEETING OF TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1987 'Appl,-No,, 3680 AppJicant(s): Leonardus and Marie Vanoudenallen Location of Property: N/s Sailors Lane (private road) Nassau Point, ~C0unty Tax. Map ID No. 1000~ lll ~ 1:4 - 7 Cutchogue. Board Members present were: Chairman G0ehrin§er P. G0ehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately 20 persons in the audience. /he Chairman opened the hearing at ~:00 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRING~R: I have a cQpy of a map amended September 16, 1986 indicati~the proposed add~t~_on which is now an actual addi- tion to the west side of the property approximately and at it's closest point to Sailor's Lane and we have 3202 feet and to the .... arc of the culede-sac we have 28.9 feet. And I.ha~e a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like-to be..hear.d Mr. Horton? MR. HORTON: Yes. My name is Jerry Horton. And unfortunate.ly, my brother is off to dinner with his son tonight and he asked me to come down. I really would answer any questions you would have. When we did this (Gerry) %he existing porch, as you can see on that survey, was out where this one 'mow is. Unfortunate for my brother but it came out with a..platform and then went down three steps, came out with another platform and then proceeded down. Aid what- they did with~the architect's plan, he had this large platform and came down the s%me number of steps but to. a' larger platform° But in essence, t~e po~ch isn't out any fur%her than it was before ex- cept we have a larger platform. And really, I would ~.ust answer any questions.0th~t you have. CHAIRMAN GOEHR~NG~R: Well, it's alre'ady built. And to be perfectly honest ~ith you, I don't think the cul-de-sac is as large as it ap- pears to be. MR. HORTON: No. The house looks beautiful. It appears far back from the road. ~ut evidently, town property does go way up on his law and everything else. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I personal'ly have no objection to it but we ~ill see wha5 develop~]through the hearing. I thank you. Page 2 - November 10, 1987 'P~blic Hea~ing - Le0nardUs and Marie VanoUdenallen Southold ZoB.A. MR. HORTON: Ok. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would~ like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the ap- plication? Any questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, i'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving deci- sion until later. Thank you very much. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR ~EETING OF TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1987 Appl. No. 3683 Applicant(s) George L. Penn~ Inc. Locationcof Property: N/s Sound Avenue, Mattituck. County Tax Map ID No. 1000-]4]- 3 - 38.] Board Members present were: Chairman ~oehringer~P~ Goehringer, Members: Gringonis, Douglass~ Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) also present were: Victor Lessard, Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 20 persons in the audience. .~H%The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:05 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey, the most recent date is March 17, 1982 indicating in red, the proposed area of the fence which does not go all the way to Middle Road or County Road 48 but does run to Sound Avenue and surrounds most of all~.~he buildings except for the existing.storage building Which is pre-. sently there. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Cuddy, would you like to be heard. MR. CUDDY: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My name is Charles Cuddy. I represent George L. Penny, Inc. I would hand up to the Board and I would bring it up in just a moment, the return receipts for the mailing notice. This property, I think most of you are fa- miliar with, unfortunately presents, to those who are either mal- contents or who~are not happy with their lot, an opportunity to take things because the property fronts on North Road or Sound Avenue. A number of materials and bricks and lumber, odds and ends are stored right at the road front and on the rest of the property too. Without a fence, it's very very difficult to stop anybody from~taking something. And without a fence~that's over six feet, makes it difficult. The ordinance (of course) calls for a four foot fence. We're asking that in the frontyard as in the rest of the property, we have a 6½ foot fence erected. I don't think that will change the character of the ar~a~or~do anything adverse to the surrounding properties whatsoever. I ask that the Board approve the~application as it is submitted. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mylonly question is that there Will, be no barbed wire on this fence in any way? The spikes will mainly be up just as a stop... ~age 2 - November 10, 1987 Public Hea~ing .... George L. Penny, Inc. Southold Z~B.A~ MRna. CUDDY: It's not proposed to have barbed wire. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like%to speak in favor of the application? Anybody[[_like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? H~aring no further questions, I'll 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 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1987 Appl. No. 3682 Applicant(s) George L. Penny,Jerry Schulman Locationcof Property: S/s Sound Avenue, Mattituck County Tax Map ID No. 1000-141- 3 -41'.- Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer~P%~ Goehringer, Members: Gringonis~ Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) also present were: Victor Lessard, Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 20 persons in the audience. ~3~.~T~e Chairman opened the hearing at 8:10 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~ I have a copy of a survey prepared by'~Young and Young° The most recent date is April 17, 1986 indicating a framed building with several small additions and a small framed building toward the road side which does not appear to be connected to the garage/potato house building. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you again, like to be heard Mr. Cuddy? MR. CUDDY: This is ~roperty that's directly across from the existing George L. Penny Lumber Yard in Mattituck. The property is approximately 10,000 squ~re feet. It contains a building that has been used in the past, for the storage and warehousing of po- taros and other crops. The building that is the'i~.most westerly unit of this complex is now used by ~n~'~ ~$u]at~0n company. This whole complex has a history before the Zoning Board starting in 1965. The Board approved the use of the property at that time and extended the complex that was there from small buildings and. really the large buildings that now exist. In 1986, this par- ticular parcel was also before this Board as well as the Planning Board, and granted an a~proval for the westerly building to be used as an office and InSulation now in operation. The Planning Board at the present time, has granted us an exemption, a waiver as far as our application. Our application is simply to convert the use~.of the building from potato storage into the warehousing of lumber and equipment that's pertinent to the lumber operation which is currently conducted by Penny Lumber across the street. So we'd like to~store our lumber and building materials in this particular building. There have been C~Oo'S issued for the par- ticular property in question in 1975. There was a c.o. issued for the potato storage and the grading operation that was conducted there. The property is owned by ~r. and Mrs. $ hulman. There's Page 2 - November 10, 1987 .' Public Hea~ing - George L. Penny/Jerry Schulman Southold ZoB.A. MR. CUDDY (continued): a consent in your particular file from Mr. and Mrs. S hulman. Mr. Penny, who is here tonight on behalf of George L. Penny, Inc., is in the process of pnrchasing that' property. The purchase, as I in- dicated in the application, is subject to your approval for the special exception use. In going through the ordinance, I don't believe that the special exception use will have any adverse ef- fect or any different impact on the neighborhood or the area with- in the operation that was presently conducted there a long time which is potato storage. Certainly, the operation that's proposed, will be in conjunction with the existing lumber yard. Essentially, what he wants to do is bring trucks in, store lumber there. The employees would essentially be employees that would be employed for the most part, On the other side of the road. I don't believe there will be a parking problem because the parkingiis ample, aqain with the existing lumber yard which is acros~ the~street~ M~.. R~n~y is here to answer any questions. I'm here to answer questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The ohly question was that; the thought of the Board was that when the specific building was used for potato storage, large 40 foot trailers were used and they were backed in to the east side of the building which then obstructed (to some de- gree) the ingress and egress down Sound Avenue. My question basical- ly is, would a situation like that reoccur? MR. CUDDY: There'~ill be trucks that will go there. I?.mean that is part of the operation. I~don~t think that it's intended that truck after truck go there. I don't think that it's intended that trucks go out at Sound Avenue. There are two possibilities as far as Unloading at that spot. One is; at the end of the triangle, the easterly end, there are two garage type doors which will allow access to the building. If those doors are used, 9e~re~not sure exactly how good they are at this point. But if'they're used, the trucks will essentially be off the road. If the middle door is used and there is a door about half way~dow~this~nti~e co~p~e~-.goi~ down North Road, the truck will probably stick somewhat out into the road. That happens presently when the _~nsu lation peopt~ are load- ing and unloading. This would be simply a temporary thing. It would not be a permanent regular occurrence. It wO~ld be maybe once or twice during the course of the day. I.idon't antidipate it being more than that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And will you be keeping the ~nsu lation compa- ny on the west side of building? MR. CUDDY: Yes. I also have the cards to hand up, receipts. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes. MR. PENNY: I just wanted to clarify the delivery and the type of trucking that we deal with on a regular basis. And I'm fully aware because when Jerry S hulman was there, he blocked it. You would have to pull half way into our yard t© back his tractor trailers. And I have pictures here if you want to see exactly what we're talking about here because people haven't seen it. But the nature Page 3 - November 10, 1987 Public Hearing - George L. Penny/Jerry Schulman Southold Z.B.A. MR. PENNY>- (continued): of the trucking that we deal with nowadays is a lot shorter. We are dealing more with the van type trucking. When a tractor trail- er does come in, that would probably be on a very occasional basis. Maybe once or twice a month. The trucks that Mr. Cuddy has mentioned earlier, aur trucks have 16 foot bodies and are prob&bly 26 or may- be 30 feet long and the~'..van type trucks that are normal for the de- livery routes in our area to our industry, are n~t the tractor trailer type. So we're going to be using a lot shorter trucks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think by nature of the~operation that existed prior, for some strange reason, that's where the potato trucks al- ways ended up. Always at that end of the building and that's the reason why most people recall that fact because the tractor trailers were out there all the time. MR. PENNY: Would you like these pictures? Would they be helpful? 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 further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserv- ing the decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF TUESDAY~ NOVEMBER 10, 1987 Appl. NO. 3678 Applicant(s) David Lafreniere Locationcof Property: Corner Main Road & W/S Peconic Lane, Peconic County Tax Map ID No. 1000- 75-5 - ]0 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer3P2 'Goehringer, Members: Gringonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) also present were: Victor Lessard, Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 20 persons in the audience° -.~-k~T~e Chairman opened the hearing at 8:15 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a plan dated 7/23/87 indi- cating in dark blue ink the addition to the property which leaves approximately 18 foot 6 inches, actually it's the frontyard area, but we'll say to the west property line. 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 ~r. McLaughlin? MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Thank yQu Mr. Chairman. My name is Kevin McLaughlin. I'm here this evening representing David Lafreniere. He has pur- chased' the former Pace Gas~'~Station at the corner of Peconic Lane and Main Road. And the application before you this evening is for an area variance to allow him to put up an addition that will ba- sically square off this building. The addition is proposed to con- tain a paint booth. Mr. Lafreniere's:b~siness~is~'.~uto,J~od~'~e~a. ir and that's what the intention is for the use of this building. This will leave, on the westerly boundary, approximately 18.6 feet to the property line. The addition being approximately 16 feet by 40 feet. I think anyone ~ho has been by this building, have looked at it. Recently it's seemed, in a run down condition what it is, and we have plans before the Planning Board right now relative to this proposed addition and I think that as opposed to be any kind of detriment to the neighborhood, Mr. Lafreniere's plans will ac- tually be a great benefit to the area. The neighborhood is basical- ly a commercial neighborhood. The property is bounded by land that is~owned by the Town of Southold on the west and by lands of Czarteczweski. I believe you have in your file a letter from Mr. Czarteczweski indicating that he has no opposition to the appli- cation. And in fact, has requested that the 'Board rule favorably upon it. "Page 2 -November 10, 1987 Public Hea~ing - David Lafreniere Southold ZoBoA. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGERi~ You said that Mro Lafreniere has purchased the building. He ~s not a contract vendee and w~i!~ei~i~nOt under a specific time limit to grant this application? It's a run on question. Does he want to start the addition this year? MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Yes. Definitely. Ks far as it relates to this hearing, we were caUght up in a very difficult situation in the purchase of this property in that there were underground gas tanks that had a prior history of leaking. We have taken out all those gas tanks. They are no longer there. We have no plans to sell petroleum products on the site. But what in fact has happened, is Mr.[[L~freniere is rapidly running out of a lease for the building that he's in now. And due to the delays that were occasioned on the purchase of this property, it's very ~ important that we get a decision as quickly as the Board is capable of doing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did the Building Inspector require you to go back and have site plan approval from the Planning Board con- cerning ah~ parking schedule on this parcel? MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We are before the Planning Board ~ith a site ~lan at the present time. I believe that input has been requested from the Planning Board. To the best of my knowledge, the last time I checked with Linda, nothing had been received. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. ~I thank you very much. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN~GOEHRINGER: Is there.'anybody who~would like to speak also in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no fur- ther~questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. All=in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF TUESDAY~ NOVEMBER 10, 1987 Appl. No. 3671 Applicant(s) Andre and Thomas Cybulski Locationcof Property: West 5~ Depot ka!~e~ Cutch0gue County Tax Map ID No. 1000- 96 -5 - ].2 and part of ].] Board Members present were: Chairman ~oehringer~P~. Goehringer, Members: Gringonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) also presen~ were: Victor Lessard, Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 20 persons in the audience. _..~The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:30 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIPd%AN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey dated March 11, 1987 indicating this parcel with the barns mentioned in tbs appii- cation, the total area of about 5.4867 acres; and the most closest b~rm to the property line is approximately (which is the northerly barn) 5 feet.. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map in- dicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Wou~ you like to be heard Mrs. Wickham. MRS.~ WICKHAM: Thank you. As I had previously tb~d~he~=DoKrd, we had some real estate testimony. The man who was going to come was unavailable tonight because of a death in his family. And we would like to present the remainder of our hearing and ask that his testi- mony be admitted afterwards. If that's acceptable to the Board. I know you don't like to do that but there was extenuating circum- stances. I'd ~lso like to invite the Board on behalf of Mr. Clauss and Parsons to visit their premises in Mattituck which houses the operation that would be conducted on this property. They are lo- cated on Wickham Avenue. Perhaps if the Board would like to make arrmngements to see exactly what we're talking about, it would be helpful. I'd also like to address, as I did in the application, the uses surrounding this property. There is a natural buffer of trees along the~w~st side of this property that will protect any intrusion into that woodland as well as about a 200 foot differen- ti&l between the west properZy line and the westerly most building. The railroad tracks and industrial zoning are~boundaries to the north and there's a mixed commercial residential usage on the east. As>to the residential, one of those parcels is owned by the appli- cant,s parents. Another, Gro'hoski which is just north of that, also has business to the north of %hem and business across the street and the large barn is directly behind them to the west°which housed an agricultural operation which will be described shortly. ~age 2 - November 10, 1987 Public Hearing - Andre and Thomas Cybulski Southold Z.B.A. MRS. WICKHAM~ (continued) On the south,~:the .two lots that did border on the south, have houses up by the road with mostly vacant property behind it and beyond that a planted vineyard with no building nearby. So just from a geographical point of view, I don't believe there will be an impact. The alternative that we have to this use variance was of course, a change of zone. And we felt that the more extensive uses that would be permitted by a change of zone as well as the virtual absence of conditions that could be imposed by the Board in doing that, made this a more useful type of appeal in terms of the ultimate use of this property. As you will see andi~..have seen from your inspection, the awkwardness of these buildings makes a suitable use hard to find which is not an objectionable use. It is actually a perfect place to house ~his business which is quiet. It's environmentally unobjectionable. Owned by a local family and does provide a .... I would think that the neighbors would be fortunate. Mr. Cybulski would like to address to you the hardship that he has in terms of the types of use ~hey had con- ducted in this building. And if you would let him speak for a few minutes, I'd appreciate it. MR. CYBULSKI: I'm one of the owners with my brother, Buddy. We had ~been farming together for about 20 years and I believe it goes back a little further. It was a family operation with our dad. And because of the economics of farming, a combination of rising Costs and prices not keeping up with it, as many other farmers, had ~ hard times and we were forced to make a decision to get out of farming. So this does leave us with the barns. And they were constructed specifically for farming, for potato farming. They're specialized. There is an air delivery system for the proper storage of potatoso And the one building to the north has three loading docks where a tractor trailer can back into and these barns are located on approximately five acres, There's only about one acre left; ~h~t would actually be suitable for any kind of farming. So it kind ~of makes them unusable to sell it as a farm. It's more of a central location. The farming in the area is sod farming and vineyard'as was addressed. And the barns, as mentioned, are lo- cated off the road. So they're not suitable for a retail or a high traffic type thing. Let's see. The property has been avail- able since March of '86 when we shut down our potato operation and there hasn't been an awful lot of interest, not at least on agri- cultural, or commercial trucking, various storage and of course this book storage and printing operation has made an inquiry. While we were in operation, we did have over 200 tractor trailers a year in the yamd, Mostly concentrated in the Fall to the Spring- time. Various farm and agricultural vehicles and everything down from a converted school bus brought in the crew to grade potatos and package. I think many other topics have been mentioned; con- sideration that our parents are living in the residence to the east. I wouldn't like to see any great traffic coming through there. This type of operation would seem to address itself to that. I don't know of there's anything you'd like to add. Page 3 - November 10, 1987 Public Hearing - Andre and Thomas Cybulski Southold Z.B.A. MR. B. CYBULSKI: My brother stole most of my thunder. But one other problem we do have; as we built these barns, we had an agri- cultural exemption on the taxes. So we didn't pay full taxes. Now that that it is running out, one of the other considerations that we have in the selling is the taxes are going to be high very soon. I think that's about all~ Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. WICKHAM: I'd also like to ask Mr. Clauss to briefly address you because I'm sure you might have some questions of him about this proposal. MR. CLAUSS: I'm one of the owners of Emery Ltd. Emery Ltd. is Suffolk County's only trade publishing company and we are basical- ly reprint book printers° We publish books. We sell them by mail. We sell them by mail only. We have one van which the company owns. It goes to the Post Office. It comes back every day. We reprint books in hard cover. We sell them to libraries, schools and col- leges all over the United' States. There are several of our books that are text books in major universities. Currently, we have about five to six employees. We have been hamstrung for several years in our present location because we require a great deal of long term dead storage. We have been totally unable to find any thing that is economically viable to the point of even considering leaving the area at one time, When this situation came up that had the amount of storage that we need. We currently hold about a half milliOn, books in hard cover. Everything from the nobel prize winner of Clovatis and Jules Vernon up to books like Star Trek and so on and so forth. As far as vehicles are concerned,~we get a trailer truck every six to eight weeks if we're lucky. If we're unlucky, it's 12 to 14 weeks but that's usually from a subcontractor in New Jersey. The only storage required in our business is a minimum of 75%. Our inventory will range between 400 and 900 thousand books. That's a lot of weight and allot of volume. There aren't that many buildings out here that hold that. As far as any potential fire hazard, I guess our fire hazard is less than the local public library. All .~he materials that we use are OSHA ap- proved and have health hazard~ ratings on them as well as flamma- bility ~nd what have you. The current state of the amount of our business has been going to water based products and less and less petroleum based products which is fortunate for everybody. I would say the home kitchen is more dangerous than our business and pos- sibly more noisy for most of us. I ask the Board to visit any time they want. We .may be able to sell you a book. In the meantime, we don't sell retail. We don't want any retail customers. We strictly deal with institutions. The fire hazard. We have tried on occasion, especially to fire insurance underwriters, to make them aware of the facts, that unless you reach a degree of 451 degrees, you're not going to get a book to burn. As far as our skids of paper are concerned, we had the fire underwriter from Firemen's Fund in New Jersey come out. We took a blow torch and we could not sustain a fire. Our real hazard is water gentlemen, not fire. We would rather not have a fire because firemen come in with a lot of water and that's where we have tremendous damage. P~ge 4 - November 10, 1987 Public HeaLing - Andre and Thomas Cybulski Southold Z.BoA. MR. CLAUSS (continued): Also, our products are, each one of them are encased in What they call "clysard". It's shrink back material made by Dupont which helps prevent that water damage. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: a run of so many. When you reprint a specific book, you'll do MR. CLAUSS: 350 to be exact. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: at a certain time. And thehi~You'll store those and ship them MR. CLAUSS: Wie'll ship them via Post Office as per orders from institutions. As matter of fact,... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So that's~the~stor~ge you're reffering to? MR. CLAUSS: Yes. I brought a catalog for your perusal. Maybe you like books. And that is how we sell. We mail about a hundred thousand of those around the United States to various schools, colleges, institutuion, public and private libraries and federal institutions. We are currently engaged in a lot of work for the Federal Government and the Department of Interior and the Depart- ment of Parks where we supply them with materials they requested of a~% historically and scholarly nature. And again, it's all done by mail, quiet, and peaceful and we'd like to be left alone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you Mr. Clauss. MRS~iiWICKHAM: If I could just briefly ask the Board. First of all, I,d like to submit a copy of the zoning map showing this property. I was also asked by the attorney for the neighboring property to the west to submit a letter,to the Board that I wrote to Mr. Fuchs in response to his letter to you. I didn't bring an extra copy but I'd like to submit it to you if I may. i Just in summary, I believe the Cybulskis have indicated the property ba- sically is unsuitable for the zOning uses in agricultural for which it is zoned. And even in that agricultural zone, it did genera~ a lot of traffic which we wouldn't see here and we think that the use is certainly amendable to the surrounding properties that are higher zoning. Thank yo~. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. My onlY question is, are you asking for a recess or are you going to submit an affidavit? MRS. WICKHAM: Whichever the Board would prefer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I personally, would rather recess the hearing. Not because we don't have a large agenda for the December meeting. ~ut3[I>.think there may be questions Of the Board of this particular real estate consultant. So I think that would be a better way of dealing with this. We'll see what the Board feels. Is there any- body else who would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes Ms. McCaffrey. Page 5 - November 10, 1987 Public Hearing - A~dre and Thomas Cybulski Southold Z.B.A. MS. MCCAFFREY: I am one of the neighbors of the people involved. I fully understand the problem that Tom and Buddy Cybulski have. I know that it was a very sad day for them and their neighbors when they had to give up farming. But I still have my concerns. And because of my concerns, I can not support this at the pre- sent time. I have... Actually my concerns did not concern fire. It did not concern noise. It did not concern those things that you~'brought up. They were new ideas really in my mind. Mine are more personal. I'm concerned about my land value. Where it's going to go. I'm concerned about my privacy. I only have a third of an acre. I do not have any buffer from the area that is going to be involved. I do not know how many people are going to be employed. They just told me 6 to 10. But I don'~ really know how expanded this operation~is going to get. Ii'don't even know if this operation is going to remain there or whether another operation will come in and be a different type and effect me. And I know lots of times, once you get a variance change and you change it, anything can haPpen and I'm really concerned about where it will go in the future. My house was built by my father and it has a special meaning to me just like Bud and Tom's operation. I want to live there the rest of my life and I don't want to be forced out because of the action in my backyard. I still understand your concerns but I have my own personal concerns. I'm also con- cerned about security. The sad fact that once the Cybulskis brothers left the operation, there have been wandering people at night in the area. Whether they'~ i~te~e.s~edi~n~-~hat ~q~td pOs- sibly be in their building, I don't think so but it's possible. But it is a sad fact and I'm concerned about that. I'm wondering what these people are going to wonder what is in those buildings, what's available to them. I know from previous experience that the neighborhood and my neighbors (Cybulskis included) are very concerned about the business operations in the neighborhood. Blue Top has historically been there before my house was built. The land across the street is now zoned business which my neigh- bors fought. I was at the time, not even realizing what was go- lng on. I know in their hearts they don't want to do this but they feel they have to but I don't have to agree with it. I'm concerned too because both boys do not live in the area. I know as long as they were operating that farm, they totally respected my rights and my home and my privacy and what I believed. But I am concerned about what will happen with new owners and owners I have no idea of who they are and what they believe in. I'm really concerned about that. I'm concerned too because our Mas- ter Plan has designated areas for business and there are some right in Cutchogue. They're not developed yet but they are there. And the Master Plan put these business areas clustered for cer- tain reasons. Some of them for pollution, water. The concern of our waner table. And~.they put them together in certain places. They were very concerned and they were easier to watch clustered. And just horth of 48, there's a place where industrial develop- ment, business development is supposed to be. And yet now, there are thoughts of putting it in my backyard and in my neigh- bor's backyard and we're concerned. Really, I'm just interested in my quality of life. I'm interested in my life as a citizen, as a taxpayer and I just want to be able to live there (hopefully) until a year 100. I thank you. Page 6 - November 10, 1987 ~Public Hearing - Andre and Thomas Cybulski Southold ~Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the applidation? Yes. MRS. ship ~: I don't necessarily want to speak against it. I just want to ask a question. How do these people propose to get back to their barns? MRS. WICKHAM: I could answer that. There is' currently a license arrangement or they would use the existing driveway. There is a possibility that the existing right-of-way that was also available for the use of farm trucks cOuld be used. MRS. ship : Where is that existing right-of-way? MRS. WICKHAM: To the north side of the Cybulski residence. And that was available in the past for the 200 tractor trailer trucks. MRS. ship _ : What happens though if they decide to sell. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have to address the question to the table because we're taking it down. You can read it in the paper next week. MRS. snip : But what happens if they decide to get rid of their house. These people who have these barns, this business and they have no way to get back there. Then wha~ happens? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: right-of-way? Are you talking about extinguishing the MRS. ~ip _: I just want to know what are they going to do? I mean hopefully, these people will live a long time and they can use their driveway which is their driveway to their house right now. But what happens if they decide to sell this house. I'm sure whoever buys this house is not going to say; this is great. You can bring the trucks through here. We don't mind. What do they do then? How are they going to get back there? The only other way is through my parents driveway. And this is what they are concerned about and rightfully so. They don't want people zooming underneath their windows either. That's just my one lit- tle question and thought. Thank you. CHAIRMAN(~GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anything else Mrs. Wickham that you would like to address tonight? MRS. WICKHAM: I know it's running late. I just want to answer that. There would be a deed right-of-way that would be of course, not over the _ ~ohoski~pr6perty. It couldn't be by law. As far as Mrs. McCaffrey's concerns, the use variance does limit the use and the main operation is away from her property. Probably se- curity will be improved with occupancy. Right now the barns are vacant and I can u~derstand her concerns about the new owners but I'd like to know if she is familiar with the Clauss's existing business operation. If she could answer that question-'for the Board. Bage 7 - November 10, 1987 ~Public Hea~ing - Andre and Thomas Cybulski Southold Z.B.A. M'S . MCCAFFREY: I have heard several different stories. MAj. WICKHAM: I'd like to know if she's personally familiar. Mis . MCCAFFREY: I'm not personally familiar with them. MR~S. WICKHAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only thing I'd like to address at the reconvening of this meeting, Mrs. Wickham, is any type of buffer area that might exist in the future if the Board so granted this use variance. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting~ Which we think it's going to be December 3rd or December 2nd. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF TUESDAYv NOVEMBER 10, 1987 Appl. No. 3679 Applicant(s) Robert and Dolores Schissel Locationcof Property: 710 W. Shore Drive, Reydon Shores, Southold County Tax Map ID No. 1000-80 -] - 46 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer~P~ Goehringer, Members: Gringonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) also present were: Victor Lessard, Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 20 persons in the audience. T~e Chairman opened the hearing at 9:05 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey dated September 17, 1987 which is the most recent amended date, indicating a 1½ story framed home approximately 68 feet from the bulkhead; a pro- posed addition approximately 15 feet in depth by 26 feet 6 inches. 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 again? Again, the same question we ask people with decks. Will it remain open? JOHN BERTANI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No l±gh~ing.that would cause any hazard to any of the surrounding properties owners? MR. BERTA~ I: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's really small down there? MR. BERTANI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. MR. BERTAN I: of this. The house to the west of this is totally in front CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members. Hear- ing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hear- ing, reserving decision until later. Thank you very much for coming in. All in f~vor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1987 Ap~t. No. 3564 Applicant(s) John Dempsey/Robin Raeburn Locationof Property: N/s Bridge Lane Extension & Oregon Rd. Cutchogue. County Tax Map ID No. 1000- 73- 2 -~ 3~.~6 Board Members present were: Chairman~oehringer?Po Goehringer, Members: Gringonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) also present were: Victor Lessard, Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 20 persons in the audience. ~The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:20 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of survey produced by Anthony Lewansowski, the most recent date is July 14th, 1986 indiated ap- proximately a 50 foot Setback from the right-of-way or the edge of a right-of-way and 28 feet from the top of the bluff. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surround- ing properties in the area. I assume, Mrs. Moore, you are here representing Mr. Bruer. P~ MOORE, ESQ.:Yes. I have a packet of information which I'll present to the Board, for your convenience, which will include all the ex- hibits I'll discuss. As ~he application discusses, we are here for 280-A approval and tO build residences within 100 feet of the Sound. To give you a brief history of this property; on November 29th of '79, the Planning Board approved this subdivision of Robin Raeburn and Mary Elizabeth but gubject to certain conditions imposed by Suffolk CoUnty Planning Commission and the Planning Board. These condditions Were never officially placed on the subdivision map as they wer6 required tO do and the properties were then sold and con- veyed ~etween Raeburn, Murphy and Lencester. When these conditions wet6 not finalized ahd we came to this Board for 280-A approval, we fCr~nd that your Town Planner and your Town Attorney at the time, Robert Te~ker, had stated that the final subdivision had not been approved until th6~e conditions could be satisfied. At which time, from February 9th, 1987 through October 2nd when we finally re- Ceived Planning Board approval which is a period of nine months, we dealt with %?~e Planning Board and got final subdivision ~pproval which is exhibit one of the packet I gave you. It shows a subdi- vision that was created in '79. Let me make sure of that. Yes, in ~79. And exhibit two is a subdivision which was ultimately approved by the Planning Board on October 2nd of '87. So far as as we're concerned, the subdivision has been finalized and we are here before you for 280-A access where we started with you when Page 2 - November 10, 1987 Public Hearing - John Dempsey/Robin Raeburn Southold Z.B.A. MRS. MOORE (continued): this whole thing blew up. We do have legal access. There is no q~estion about that; Ks far as the title company is concerned and as far as the contract~vendee, Mr. Dempsey and the sellor. We have a recorded deed reflecting the right-of-way. Exhibit three in your packet is an October 1, '64 survey which was the property conveyed from Harold Reeve to Elizabeth Murphy. That recorded at Liber 56-48 page 177, set forth the original right- of-way. September 13, '72, Elizabeth Murphy conveyed to her- self and Robin Raeburn at~!Liber 7259 page 381 was the continued right-of-way which was p&ssed on through the title. Additional property was purchased which created the entire parcel which was then subdivided. June 14th, '74, it conveyed from Baxter proper-- ties to Mary Elizabeth Murphy and Robin Raeburn. That deed is reflected in Liber 7658 page 202. And again, it recites the deeds as they were passed on from the original conveyance. So as far as we are concerned,~we have legal access to that lot. There is no question about it. There is really no other way of proving it to you because we have all the exhibits there. We have a title company. We have legal access. When we w~nt to look at the property to see the condition of the right-of-way, it appeared that part of the condition of obtaining a c.o. for Ms. Johnson who is to the east of Murphy, part of the condition of receiving a c.o. was to improve the right-of-way. She is in the process of doing that. It appears that several months ago, six weeks ago, she cut a 15 foot wide right-of-way and was ready to improve it. However, because of the construction on the'~'~ property, she chosen% to wait until the construction was near an ~ end before coming in and finalizing the right-of-way to town standards. So this right-of-way will be improved. At this point we would r~quest~%ha~Q~q~ant the 280-A since it is satisified. It appears on an approved subdivision plan. That subdivision plan ~om October 2nd. Ms. Johnson is improving this right-of-way and we anticipate that by the time we see~f~<3~ a~'~building permit, this road will be imp~©ved. We have legal access. The frontage is 15 feet wide which will be a sufficient width to allow ingress/egress of emergency vehicles. If you have any questions regarding the right-of-way before I continue ~h~th~.~setback from the bluff, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.~ CHAIRM~N GOEHRINGER: My only question is that if the barn doors are open, will the right-of-way be obstructed? MRS. MOORE: No, I don't believe so. I'm trying to recall from the view. The barn doors, I thought, were facing the road. So if you~>~ere to open... No. They face the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~~ The barn doors face on the right-of-way. MRS. MOORE: That is something if it came down to emergency ve- hicles coming down, I'm sure the barn doors could be closed to allow~access. We really have no... They can not obstruct the right-of-way legally. Bokina can't obstruct the right-of-way. And if the doors are left open, we close them to get through. P~ge 3 -November i0, 1987 ~Public Hearing - John Dempsey/Robin Raeburn Southold Z.B.A. MRS. MOORE~ (continued): · ~&t'~ about all I can say. We have a legal access and I don't believe MR. Bokina would be willing to grant a right-of-way out- side this deeded portion without a substantial cost to everyone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you sharing, in any way, the cost of the right-of-way with Mrs. Johnson. MRS. MOORE: No. At this time, there have been ho discussions about ~hat. T~ we're asked to do so, we'll deal with the sub- ject when it comes. I don't think anybody has volunteered any money at this p6ist. And the improvements, I don't know wh~re the money is coming from, if it's from her own pocket, the title company. I don't know where that money is coming from. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: WS3~are again, only interested (and it's beeln my understanding) the right-of-way which runs north and south. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE: T~ 16 foot right-of-way. of-way wk~ch we do not have access to. · hsre is a 2O~7~foot right- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: else? thank you. You want to now address what MRS. MOORE: The appeal~ant really had hero-practical difficulty is in a~.deeded 100 foot setback from the bluff. The property is only 145 feet deep in the area that is buildable. But that area is al- so subject to a 20 foot right-of-way for the purpose of adjacent property and it would appear that Ms. Murphy does need that~3~igh~- of-way and that it will be improved for the benefit of Ms. Murphy receiving access to her property. Therefore, no matter where we were to build, there is only 125 feet of buildable area when you exclude the 20 foot right-of-way and account for the location of the bluff to the road. Therefore, we necessitate a variance. The first question you'll consider is how substantial the vari- ance is in relation to the requirements. We have proposed by the survey, a 28 foot setback. Merely because we took what is existing now. We took Mr. Lencester's setback which is approxi- mately 30 feet, 35 feet when you,~go~and pace it and you look at the old surveys from the Building Department's files and the Murphy~h~use which is 20 feet from the bluff. So the taking of the average of the two came out to ~i~28 foot setback. I ha~e a survey which is labelled 8, I believe, which shows a change in the proposed located. Very honestly, we are flexible in the location of the~house. We~have considered various options and we ~eave it open to discussion tonight. The location of the house being perpendicular to the contour of the~!~Ot and the road and it forms an angle if you~notice the survey. If you set back 50 f~et from the road and 30 feet from the right-of- way, create thatffront line and then 30 feet from the bluff, creates a building envelope which is sufficient to place a house. We have considered moving back to 35 feet ~f~hat is a preference of the Board. The two' conditions that are very important to the client are the size of the house~h~h the actual construction of the foundation would be a 35 foot wide Pa~e 4 - November iQ, 1987 Public Hearing - John Dempsey/Robin Raeburn Southold Z.B.A. ~MRS. MOORE (continued): house plusca~.ten foot wide deck. So in total, 45 feet. That is really wh~t is important to the client keeping the size of a house which would allow a nice buildable area and a reasonable sized house. Also, the setback from the road is important because here you have a right-of-way (a 20 foot right-of-way) whick~ill de- crease the amount of frontage and that again, has to be considered. So when you're discussing the location of the house between the members, please consider that we do feel important the size of the footprint as well as the setback from the road. O~tside of that, we~are very flexible. And as youccan see, in green, I've outlined changing the facing of the house on an angle versus being straight. These are considerations that we are willing to discuss with you. W~c~will address the issue of construction along the bluff which is a technical issue and we have here Steve Tsontakis who is an engineer who will give you'i?~is qualifications as well as discuss the construction of the house. At this time, you can raise ques- tions about construction and he will give his recommendations on construction. When we started, we are contract vendees and this contract is subject to getting approval. Now, we have been seek- ing approvals for almost a year and the sellors have almost reached the end of their patience with us in getting these approvals and we are at the point where ~ou are the last Board~we have to seek approval from. So I'll introduce Mr. Tsontakis and ask that you address your~questions to him. MR. TS©NTAKIS: I'm a consulting engineer and I practice out of Riverhe~d. I'm licensed by the State of New York, State of Florida and I have carmitty throughout~%he United States. I do a lot of work in the area of structures, both shoreline and inshore struc- tures. My basic foretay is structural engineering. I do a lot of site plan work. I did an analysis on this particular problem and I did a little drawing to illustrate the~ituation we have here. If you'll indulge me, I'll hand it out~.~to you. This drawing shows a profile of the subject land starting from the left at the shore- line and ending on the right wi~h the~oad front. The little dots you see along the slopes are plots of the top~graphical line which were taken off the survey done by A.W. Lewandowski about a year agol I drew a line representing the general angle of repose of the slope at the present time. Incidentally, to backtrack a little bit, about a-"'year ago, I did a visual study,-~inspection of study of the subject property. And ~y report at that time, was made and written and you have a copy of it there. The angle of repose shown here on this particular property is about 30 degrees. When I made inspection of the property about a year ago, I found that the slope is generally stable. There was some lack of ~egetation at the to~ which indi- cated occasional scarring. And I noticed from my report a letter written by Alan S. Connell of the Conservation Department. He also alludes to this. I don't know if yuu~have a copy of this although you probably do because it was addressed to Stanley H. Houser, the District Manager of Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation Dis- trict. He alludes to the fact that the toe- of the slope must be stabilized and I have to agree with that because there~is possi- bility that during an intense storm, to get a scar which would erode some of the slope. The upper part of the slope however, is Page 5 - November 10, 1987 Public Hea~ing - John Dempsey/RObin Raeburn SoUthold ~Z.B.A. RM. TSONTAKIS (continued): severely vegetated and it seems to be holding up very nicely. The flat portion at the top, I say essentially flat because it does slope back from the toe southerly toward the road. This condition allows any rainwater to run off toward the road. Thereby no endangering the edge of the bluff. ~So we don't .......... have an er6sion problem from[~he standpoint of rainfall because flow would be t~ward the road and not saturate the top of the bluff. Now, the soil.~conditions here are that of a sandy, grave]. with traces of clay. The test holes are not too deep. However, as far as they were dug, that's what we found.-~.And from the knowledge of the general make-up geology of the slopes which is primarily sand with traces of clay, I think that's what we'll find all the down even below sea level. Withi~.'this type of soil, usuallyi,~the stable angle of repose is 45 degrees and I've indi- cated such an angle from the profile of~.~the.house shown on the drawing. And you'can see that that angle falls well within the existing soil. So we have approximately down at sea level, 100 feet of buffer if the house were to be placed some 30 'feet from the edge of the bluff. That seems to me, to be sufficient a buffer to withstand any number of storms. Tf.,~.~a bulkhead is erected at the base to protect the slope from scar, then there is virtually no chance of undermining that slope as long as the vegetation remains. I do recommend that some sort of buffer be placed at the bottom, whether it be a rock vehemant or a wood bulkhead. And there should be an active program of soil erosion control through plantings because the slope is shallow enough-~to take Ca~e 0f~it~i ~I'~hin~ plantings Q~in~g~no~s~.grasses, beach plums$~ russiona~ olives and something that will live in this en ........ vironment will do a fine job here. I see no problem in placing this dwelling 30 feet from?~he.~edge of the slope. I think that certain precauti6ns shou~ld be taken during construction..not to disturb the slope for at least 20 feet back from the edge of the bluff because these plantings take a long time to take hold. ~h~n~.they~a~e%~'there, I~!~d like to keep them there. Of course, as mentioned by Ms. Moore, we don't have too much room to work with. There's only about 140 feet of north/south space at the top and with the right-of-way in place and assuming a 50 foot setback. We have about ~5 feet of working space for the d~elling if we were to maintain the 30 feet. That's not too much space. But however, it is sufficient. I think with the protection of the to'e, this construc%i~n~_~will not pose any danger to the bluff. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. MRS. MOORE: Very briefly, it appea~s that according to Mr. Tsontakis'?'testimony, that the location of the~house at 35 feet, is not the critical factor. The critical factor would be to place a bulkhead at the foot of the toe. I spoke to Mr. Dempsey about this. We had spoken earlier. Mr. Tsontakis and i had spoken earlier and he is willing to, or he would agree to a con- ditional variance which~'would require this bulkhead to be in place. He is as anxious as everyone else is to keep a house there for a very long time. So he is very willing to do what ever is required to maintain that area in the state that it is in today which is stable. The second question which you~ll have to address if the variance is allowed, is the!increased .Page 6 - November 10, 1987 Public Hearing - John Dempsey/Rob~n Raeburn Southold Z.B.A. MRS. MOORE'~(continued): population density and increased governmental facilities. That is really not a concern in this case because it is a one lot of two which are vacant at this p6int and it's a single-family home. So that is not criti~a~..~ The third question is whether a sub- stantial3~ch~nge ~ill be produced in the character of the neigh- borhood or a substantial detriment to adjoining properties. The adjacent property, Lencester, is at 35 feet from the bluff. I don't believe he has any bulkheading or any type of protective measures and he is~at 35 feet. The Murphy property, again, I'm not sure if she has... Pardon me. ~Murphy property is vacant. Johnson property is 20 feet from~he bluff. And again, I don't believe ther e~is any kind of structure there preventing erosion there. Although I've heard from Mr. Lencester, that she is in the process of planting some ~egetation to insure that her house is going to remain there but this I heard from Mr. Lencester and can't swear to it at this point. Fourth question is whether this difficulty can be obviated by some method feasible for the appli- cant to pursue other than a variance. There is no other way for building on this property without a variance since the area of construction is narrow and this 100 foot setback necessitates this variance. Ii,raised the issue before and I would request that you please consider this application as soon as possible. Preferrably in the first week of December because we do have to close in this year. If we do not close in this year by the end of December, we will loose, it is very likely that we will loose this contract and it has been a very long process for Mr. Dempsey. They are time~consuming and costly for everyone involved and it would be a substantial hardship if we were to loose this contract because we were not able to reach a conclusion t~ this whole ap- plication process and we receive a decision from you. At this time I will address any questions if you have any. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The questions I had were answered, by Mr. Tsontakis and we'll go back down to the property and look at these specific areas that he was referring to at the base of the cliff or base of the bluff and we'll re-evaluate it to the best of our~ability. MRS. MOORE: If you ~could just verify what I said, I'm sure Mr. Lencester would not mind if you saw his house there and the dis- tance from the bluff as w~ll as Ms. Johnson who has a house there and has been on that property and you probably recall where the house is from the construction site. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you willing to covenant that there will be no further protrusions of movement toward the bluff at what- ever distance we intend to place this house? MRS. MOORE; Yes. OUr concern is to put a house and a deck. And as long as you. allow for that area, w~ have no problem wi~h main- taining, for the most part, in its natural state. It would be grass. Not very much grows up there. And natural plantings to prevent erosion. So there shouldn't be any problem about that. ~Page 7 - No~ember 10, 1987 Public Hearing - John Dempsey/Robin Raeburn Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: or a ground deck? MRS. MOORE: Elevated. Are youi~referring ko an elevated deck CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that within the 35 feet? MRS. MOORE: No. That is 35 feet for tke house which is the foundation and that is the concern when you're dealing with the bluff. And Mr. Tsontakis would verify my statement but the deck would be on stakes or .... MR. TSONTAKIS: The deck would probably be placed on posts but I think that we shoutd insist that there be no construction of any kind (at least) toward the south of the bluff edge because any kind of work in there would trample over the existing vege- tation which might endanger the bluff. MRS. MOORE: We would have absolutely no problem with that. understand that. We CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. We'll take a look at it again and we'll then make our decision. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? MR. WAGNER: I'm an attorney with Esseks, Hefter and Angel in Riverhead. I'm here this evening on behalf of Mary Elizabeth Murphy who is the property owner just to the east of the sub- ject parcel. I'm here n~ither in support or against the ap- ~ ....... plication. I would just like to state our interest in this particular application because our client's parcel is bur- -- dened by similiar constraints. We also have a bluff on the property and we also have a right-of-way problem that exists for the applicant. We're going to have to make, ourselves, similiar application for similiar relief. So we are, natural- ly, very interested in the outcome of this particular appli- cation. It's essential to our client that she have a reasona- ble building area upon her property and this Board's willing- ness to grant relief requested tonight will substantially ef- fect that building area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. would like to speak? Is there anybody else who MR. CARDINALE: Good evening. I think as you know, I represent the Bokinas who are an adjoining landowner. I'm not totally clear on the status of this application, i know that there was a problem with the '79 conditions not being met. Would it be a fair statement to say that the application has been approved by the Planning Board subject to the 280-A approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals? · Page 8 - November 10, 1987 Public Hearing - John Dempsey/Robin Raeburn Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's according to the attorney. I haven't received anything but I haven't reviewed the file in the last few days. So we might have received something from the Planning Board. MR. CARDINALE: I'm trying to clarify whether these lots in fact exist yet or whether the Planning Board's signing of the map is conditioned upon the Zoning Board of iAppeals granting the 280-A access. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Our assistant just indicated to us that we did receive a letter from the Planning Board saying that these plots do exist. MR. CARDINALE: Regardless of the... The exist as lots, regard- less of the action tonight? In regard to the 280-A access which is one concern I wanted to address, I think there's a reference in the file to a late letter, September letter to Diana at Ray Bruer's office asking for a final copy of the survey certifying the entire access route, legal widths and constructions. Is that exhibit one or exhibit two? MRS. MOORE: I can give him my copy. subdivision approved October 2nd. Exhibit two represents the MR. CARDINALE: That's what I'm looking at. The reason I wanted to look at this was just to make sure that the Board is very clear on the situation with the right-of-way. As you probably know, we, in litigation, resolved the access problem for Johnson, Becky Johnson by deeded to her a 15 foot right-of-way which commences where the 20 foot right-of-way stops. There was a reference, and I'm concerned about the 280-A access which is what I'm trying to address now. There's a reference to a document which is 1154366 which apparently gives to the applicant an access over that 20 foot right-of-way to the point indicated on the survey. I'm not. so sure it does. There's an indication that the title company verifies that access to the point shown on the map. That par- ticular document is a 1925 document. It's 1155366. I'm not sure what it says. So I Would suggest to the Board that you have in your file prior to determination of the matter, some sort of a certification from a title company as to where (in fact pursu- ant to that document) the 20 foot right-of-way ends. The 20 foot right-of-way, presuming it does end where the map shows it to end, brings me to the next problem which is probably a greater problem with the next application you're going to have before you With Raeburn than it is with Murphy. No. It's going to be greater with Murphy, the next application, than it is with the present, Raeburn. The two problems that the Bokinas perceive as continuing here are that when you come down the north/south right-of-way, the 16 foot right-of-way, and take that hard right at a hard angle into the 20 foot right-of-way, it just isn't going to happen that way. The vehicles are going to be all over their property. Fur- ther, although Murphy can come in because they have that access of a few feet before the sharp left, certainly Raeburn is not going to do that. And I think it's probably physically impossi- ble to do that. So if you approve 280-A access on the roadway as set forth here, the 16 foot, the hard turn at the corner whsre the continuing problem of (I guess) sepsis I guess you call it. And then you continue on, this problem is going to continue. The · Page 9 - November 10, 1987 Public Hearing - John Dempsey/Robin Raeburn Southold Z.B.A. MR. CARDINALE (continued): suggestion that the Bokina family has made and no one has ap- proached us, is that we reach an accomodation because we're not interested in pursuing this for another 20 years, with Johnson with absolutely no access that anybody could ascer- tain. Assuming the 20 foot access reaches the point where it does and I'm not certain it does, we stand ready, the Bokina stands ready to reach some sort of agreement if we were approached which we have not been, to either allow that right-of-way (that 20 foot right-of-way) which then narrows to 15 to Johnson to continue which would be realistic. Be- cause vehicles are not going to make that kind of hard left there. Furthermore, on the corner of the property with a 16 and a 20 feet as a joint as the 16 foot right-of-way comes down to the north, obviously an increase in that area from the existing Bokina property unencumbered by the easement, is practically necessary. It seems to me that if we're go- ing to set up a 280-A access which is adequate for emergency vehicles and adequate for the purposes you're concerned with and is adequate to avoid a continuing problem over there of trespassing over on to the Bokina property and-interferring with their farm operation, now is the time to do it. If you let this one go without resolving that issue, you're cer- tainly going to have an even greater problem when the Raeburn application comes before youl Because there, it is absolutely essential that they make that hard left. It is also impossible to do it certainly in a car. So that issue, the right angle turning to the 20 foot right-of-way and the hard left at the right-of-way cut are two things that concern us. And we wanted to go on record to state that we are willing to talk to our neighbors but no one has talked to us as of this moment. We have worked out the problem with Johnson. I'd also like to point out to the Board that in addition to the ~agaries of the-~- language on 1154-366 which is the 20 foot right-of-way, there is no reference to utilities. And at the moment, I'm not cer- tain where the utility wires are in here although my clients fear that they are on their property. If we're going to start putting up houses here, at least two more houses, that is an issue that should be addressed, although not tangential-to your concern right now because you're worried about access only for 280-A. It's a problem that exists and I wanted the Board to be aware that it does exist. I don't know where the wires are ser- vicing the present house. Secondly, I don't know where the wires are going to be servicing the proposed house is because as far as I know, there are no utility agents of record. I think that is all I wanted to say in regards to the 280-A issue. As to the second issue before you which is the setback issue, there is, as Steve said, there is no real erosion problem for them because the water drains toward the road which is another way of saying there is an erosion problem for the Bokinas. As it drains back from the cliff, it has caused a real severe problem over a span of about an acre and a half on the other side of the right-of-way here. The 20 foot right-of-way. In fact, this past year, Mr. Bokina has indicated that they spent several thousand dollars in having to dig up an area of land because of the drainage problem. In fact, they've been getting a lot of water and turn it over so that it could be utilized for farming. So whatever: .... ~Page 10 - November 10, 1987 · ~Public Hearing- John'Dempsey/Robin Raeburn Southold Z.B.A. MR. CARDINALE (continued): tf your inclination is to approve the 280-A access, we ask you to ........ consider the problems and seize this opportunity to suggest that this right-of-way situation be straightened finally and as a straight right-of-way rather than the impractical and unrealistic right- of-way proposed. Secondly, that the utility easement situation be addressed at this point. As to the erosion problem as it in- fluences the setback decision, I don't know how you fix this. I do know that as they position the house, that may make a difference. The drainage off the slope, in order that the Slope not get dis- turbed. I think that's all I've got to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you leave Phil, I just wanted to mention to you that the 280-A that we're dealing with is only to this small lot. So the extension of that which certainly makes a tremendous amount of sense to me of the many hours that we've labored on this particular subject, is really a question that has to be posed to Mr. Wagner over there because he is representing Mrs. Murphy. So I don't know if that situation really effects this particular application. However, the situ- ation of the right hand turn does to a certain degree. Because what you are saying, certainly makes a tremendous amount of sense. Having been down there, I had noticed that monument which is at the end is really right in the middle of the road because these people who go down there and make~~ a right turn, they just cut the corner quite severely. I have no idea what to suggest to you concerning that situation. MR. CARDINALE: I think it's impossible not to cut the corner as you described, i just want to note that we are certainly willing to speak to this applicant and certainly I'll speak to Mr. Wagner on behalf of the subsequent applicant about possibly straightening that right-of-way and solving the problems now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. MOORE: I'd like to respond to some of the comments that were made. Mr. Cardinale, euphamistically used~the word speak to our client while in fact, Mr. Bokina is trying to sell to our client a straight right-of-way. Our client does not need this straight right-of-way. It may be inconvenient to make a sharp turn but this is something that can be dealt with if we are talking several thousands of dollars or whatever amount would be agreed to with the parties. We have not spoken of it with Mr. Cardinale and Mr. Bokina because we are not interested in purchasing from Mr. Bokina any property since we do have legal access to this lot by way of all the deeds that were made a part of your file and the title company is willing to insure the description which I have as exhibit 7 which I did not men- tion initially. So that description is going to be in our title report and in our deed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that right-of-way runs to the center of that lot. Is that correct? Page 11 - November 10, 1987 'Public Hearing - John Dempsey/Robin Raeburn Southold Z.B.A. ~RS. MOORE: It runs 52.30 or a little bit beyond that portion. You can see it on the survey that the area; 52.30~nd a little bit to the east is where the right-of-way more or less ends. That is unclear because the descriptions are relatively vague. However, even 52 feet is sufficient area for our client to get to their property and a 50 foot wide drive-way. We would never have a 50 foot wide drive-way. So we do have access and emergency vehicle would have access. As far as a Utility easement; that ms not an issue, Tbefore the Board and it is not one of the issues to be addressed before the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Except that you have to excavate the road to put the utility easement in. MRS. MOORE: Unless the utility for Lencester is already up there and we have to deal with the Lencesters to get access to the elec- trical. As far as the drainage problem, I think Mr. Tsontakis wo~ld be willing to state for you but I will state initially, 145 feet of area will not saturate the Bokina property to the exten~ that Mr. Cardinale describes. In addition to that, if there is a problem in drainage from the house, a single-family house, it can be eliminated by way of a dry well and that is about the simplest solution. As far as our lot is concerned... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While we have M~. Tsontakis here, what about the possibility of a small berm at the end of the road~prior to moving onto the right-of-way area? MR. TSONTAKIS: That certainly is possible. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A low berm. MR. TSONTAKIS: You're talking about some kind of swell at the edge of the road, at the edge of the pavement if it is paved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before the pavement actually. ingress and egress for a car or a truck. Just to allow MR. TSONTAKIS: Which could also contain a dry well so that~the water falling into a swell can be leeched into the ground. Just by way of~re-enforcing what Mrs. Moore said about the saturation of property; we're talking about a quarter acre, 'half acre of'land saturating some two or thirds acre down to the sough. That's not very possible because this soil has a very high perculation rate. The edge of the bluff~is at about 75 feet. The edge of the road is at about 70 feet according to the survey. By the time the water runs down along there, there's a certain amount of absorbtion by the ground by perculation. So very little of that, possibly half the amount of water that falls on the land will end up at the road. It can be very easily be contained (if necessary) in a dry well. Page 12 - November 10, 1987 Public Hearing - John Dempsey/Robin Raeburn Southold Z.B.A. MRS. MOORE: To address the issue of a swell or a small berm, that would probably not create a problem for the client. That is more of a landscaping technique but' it goes back to the is- sue of how much buildable area we have and the setback from that right-of-way. Keep in mind that that 97.7 is where the 20 foot right-of-way begins and ends which gives access to Ms. Murphy. So if you were to put some kind of swell there, that also lessens the~amount of distance from the swell to the con- struction. So all these things, please keep in mind when you propose the location of the house. That every time you add some- thing to it, it reduces the amount of area for building ability. Thank you. MR. CARDINALE: Just one comment and that is this; succinctly put, the real objection, my real concern with the 280-A; I think if you look at the proposal, that at the right hand turn into the 20 foot right-of-way. If you approve this 280-A as it's proposed, it is physically impossible for an emergency to utilize that right-of- way to the residence without trespassing on Bokina property. It simply can not be done. So it seems to me, and you'll do what you wish to do in your discretion and all, but i~'~seems ~to me in fairness, that at this point, y6u ought %o insist that the appli- cant make an application which would be physically possible for a vehicle to utilize without trespassing on neighboring property. That, in a nutshell, was what I think I was trying to say. MRS. MOORE: As far as his concern is access and your concern in thelemergency vehicles, if it comes to a fire, an emergency ve- hicle having to get on the prOperty, I believe that an emergency vehicle would be permitted to trespass to get to that property if it can't make a sharp turn. So for the number of times, (hope- fully never) that an emergency vehicle will have to get access to that property, we hope that they will,~ if they have to cross half way through the property, they'll do it to preserve and protect whatever people or property is being damaged. CHAIR~LAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Thank you all for coming in and for your courtesy. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULA'R MEETING OF TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10,' 1987 Appl. No. 3672 Applicant(s) Anthony Gambino Location of Property: East End of Lupton Point Road, Mat~ituck County Tax Map ID N. 1000 - ]]5 - ]] - ]0 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Sawicki and Doyen. Absent was: (None) also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.BoA. Secretary and approximately 20 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 10:10 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 December 22,. 1981 and updated on October 22, 1987 indicating this foundation which is in a little excess of 10 feet to the west property line; at its closest point 35 feet and 35.43 from the right-of-way and approximately 60 feet from the high water mark of Deep Hole Creek. AndI have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to speak? Mr. Bressler. MR. BRESSLER:~ Eric.~Bressler, Wickham, Wickham and Bresser, P.C. Main Road, Mattituck, New York for the ~applicant, Anthony Gambino. We are here tonight before the Board somewhat out of sequence and I'm sure the Board is aware. We are here tonight out of sequence to discuss the hardship that whch has befallen Mr. Gambino in con-- nection which his construction on[~the property. Briefly, as I'm sure the Board is aware, I will relate the history of Mr. Gambino's attempts to build on this property. Mr. Gambino retained expertsf The Land Use Company to obtain the necessary permits to consturct on this lot on Lupton's Point. The Board is aware. It is the last lot on the south side. A very nice and scenic location on the end of Lupton's Point. He went out, and as the Board can see from the exhibits, he got the Department of Environmental Conservation ap- proval to construct within 60 feet of the wetlands of Deep Hole Creek. He went and got Health Department approval for his water and sanitary systems. He went to the Town Trustees and he got proval to put his house within 60 feet of Deep Hole Creek. And then, through the Land Use Company, he went to the Building Depart- ment and said; I've got everything don't I and they said yes you do. Here is your building permit. They gave him his building permit and he commenced work. He excavated, He poured footings. He set forms and he poured a foundation all before revocation of his building permit. It's come to our attention and we are before the ~ge 2 - November 10, 1987 Public Hearing - Anthony Gambino Southold Z.B.A. MR. BRESSLER (continued): Board because of Section 119.2B which imposes on the applicant the requirement to come to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance because he's within 75 feet of Deep Hole Creek. Essentially the same application that we made to the Trustees to building within 75 feet of the wetlands. And here we are. Mr. Gambino purchased the property some number of years ago and then he embarked upon getting his permits. He then expended substantial sums of money performing work pursuant to the permits which he had been granted. And you will hear later from Mr. Gambino, concerning the magnitude of the sums~which he expended to improve his property before the error was~discovered by the Building Department. They came down, issued their notices and now we're before the Board asking for re- lief. Now, with respect to the property itself, the Board will note from review of the survey that Mr. Gambino's house is tucked. up nice and close into the corner of the property° He has main- tained minimum sideyard setbacks and he's maintained setback from the right-of-way in accordance with the zoning code. The sanitary systems pursuant to the Health Department requirements, have to be set up there tucked between the house and the right-of-way. That's the only pl&ce they can be consistent with the Board of Health re- quirements for the well placement there to the south of the proper- ty which you can see on your survey. So what we are faced with here is a situation where Mr. Gambino's house is where it is and that's the only place that this house can be.~ Were Mr. Gambino to attempt to mo~e ~.i% westward~, he would be faced.~-~ith--a variance-of the zoning ordinance to be too close to the sideyard and we certain- ly don[t want to do that. Were he to attempt to move his house north toward the right-of-way, he would run into a Board of Health problem of building over his cesspools. He certainly couldn't move the property to-~the east because then he would be closer to the Creek. And to move it south, wouldn't afford him any relief either because he'd still have the distance problem. If he.~were to attempt to shrink his house down by 15 feet in order to comply strictly with the zoning ordinance, he'd be left With a house with virtually no width. In short, what he's stuck with, is this location as has already been approved by all the other Boards and there's basically no place else for it. So what we're asking for is the 60 feet which he has been granted and which he commenced construction in connection with the house. Now, with respect to the uniqueness of this hardship, I think a review of the survey and the tax map show- ing the surrounding properties, demonstrates the unique problems that Mr. Gambino has encountered in connection with this particular parcel. He does have water to the south and to the east, thereby, creating a serious problem for him in locating his house. Clearly, putting a house there is going to be.consistent with the character of the neighborhood. I'm sure the Board is aware that it is resi- dential in nature. There are houses on virtually every other lot.~ Many of which are closer to the water. And certainly, putting his house here would not do violence to the character of the neighbor- hood. Now, there is one other problem that I'm going to address because I know that the Board is concerned about this. And that is the exact sequence of events that took place surrounding the issuance of the Building Department's permits, purported stop works, etc. Now, as I previously stated to the Board, Mr. Gambino obtained ~Page 3 - November 10, 1987 Public Hearing - Anthony Gambino Southold Z.B.A. MR. BRESSLER (continued): a building permit from the town and he went out and he excavated and he poured his footings and the forms were up and ~he~'!rea~-mix truck was there going around and around and the special pump was there, the troughs for the concrete were in place and a representa- tive from the Building Department showed up and said you've got to stop. Mr. Gambino said; what are you talking about? Here are all my permits. Well, we made a mistake. He said, what am I going to do about the concrete truck? What am I going to do about my forms? And as you'll hear from him momentarily, i~ ~o~ld have cost him a whole lot of money to tear down those forms, take the special pump away, bring the forms back and pour at some later date. If that were even possible this season. Now, I would di- rect the Board's attention to the process issued by the Building Department in connection with this matter. I don't know whether the Board has before it the purported stop work issued by the Building Deparment. CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: copy, we'll take it. The Board' has that. If you have a clearer MR. BRESSLER: I have the red copy. It doesn't show up too well on the xerox but I will hand it up .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll give it back to you. MR. BRESSLER: ...so that the Board can determine what exactly happened in connection with this case. Well, there it is. I would invite the Board's attention to Section 100-143 of the zoning ordinance. That section of the zoning ordinance requires that a stop order shall be in writing and shall state the condi- tions under which the work may be~resUmed~ I/thihk it ~s sel~evi- dent from review of that document, that it fails completely to comply with Section 100-143. It does not state the conditions under which the work may be resumed. It states nothing concern- ing what this applicant had to do or under what conditions he could resume the work. Under those circumstances, I do-not be- lieve the Building Department was correct in revoking his build- ing permit on the grounds that he violated a stop work order. I think it is clearly not sufficient in light of the zoning ordinance. And I think in light of the financial hardship that you're going to hear from Mr. Gambino, he was entirely justified in doing what he did. He did not violate the stop work order and he did what he had to do to protect his investment. I would ask the Board to take into account that Mr. Gambino did just about everything that a reasonable person could do. He didn't try t6 do this him- self. He hired experts. They went out and they got the permits. He got all his permits. As we all know, a building permit is the last one in line. And when you get that, away you go and that's what he did. That's why I started the presentation by saying we have come to you out of sequence. Here we are. ~he man is stopped. And I might add, that since the building permit was revoked and we have gone in and talked to the Building Deparment and told them there would be no further work even prior to revocation. He has Page 4 .... November 10, 1988 ~Bublic Hearing - Anthony Gambino Southo!d Z.B.A. MR. BRESSLER (continued): not been able to backfill. With the frost coming on, he's going to be in big difficulty if he doesn't get backfilled and then get his construction going during the winter° And now, I will ask Mr. Gambino to step up and tell you a little about the finances regard- ing this parcel. Mr. Gambino, perhaps you can tell the Board what you p~d for the property and what you put into the property so far and what it represents. MR.~GAMBINO: I purchased the property in 1983 in October and I paid 40 thousand dollars for it. And as or,now between legal fees, I've spent 29 thousand 400 and 66 dollars between going through and getting all my proper permits and applications. MR. BRESSLER: And how much of that represents expenditures after the issuance of the building permit prior to the issuance of the revocation? MR. GAMBINO: As of August ll~when the building permit was then issued to me, the figure stands at 22 thousand, 350 dollars. That is between surveys, permits, excavation, architect fees.~ MR. BRESSLER: This is the amount you expended in connection with. the permit and thereafter. Is that right? MR. GAMBINO: That's right. MR.~ BRESSLER: Now, you were told at the time the concrete man was there that it was going to cost you some money for you to stop at that point. Would you describe to the Board what that was please. MR. GAMBINO: The concrete man had his forms already set, they were already up, the steel was in, all the jams were in, the hooks were in and I had a pump there which cost 800 dollars a day because I ordered the pump. I didn't want to knock any trees down alongside the house. I couldn't swing the truck around. MR. BRESSLER: And it was the purpose of this pump to permit the truck to remain at a distance and pump the concrete in so you would not destroy the lot. MR. GAMBINO: That's right. And he said to me that if he had to remove everything and come back again, it would cost 6,400 d611ars out of my pocket in excess of all of the other expenses that I have. MR. BRESSLER: And were you able to afford that additional expense? MR. GAMBINO: Well, at this point, I would say no. .P~ge 5 - November 10, 1987 Public Hearing - Anthony Gambino Southold Z.~B.A. MR. BRESSLER: Thank you Mro Gambino. I would urge the court, the Zoning Board, in the strongest possible peramus, to grant this man's application. It's obvious what happened to him. He pursued his permit applications deligently. He started his work that he believed to be entirely legally and he ran into this problem. And I feel that he's entitled to this variance and I would ask you to give it your consideration please. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Would the gentleman come forward who would like to speak against the application. MR. LONGO: My name is Marco A. Longo, Jr. W~ are the attorney for the Honorable Joseph A. Escrow,.~Jr. and Susan F. Escrow who a~e the neighbors immediately abutting the property on the west. I have an affidavit by the Escrows and I have an affirmation which I would like to give to the Board at this point. As stated in the affidavit by the Honorable Joseph Escrow and Susan Escrow, among the purposes of the zoning law which is set forth in 100-10 which is exhibit (1) finding the affidavit in our position. The gradual elimination of non-conforming uses is listed in Section 100-10F. On August 9, 1983, Section 100-31 which is exhibit (2) of the-af- fidavit, of the zoning laws, was amended. More particularly, as pertaining to this application in Section 100-31A which now permits single family dwellings on lots with an area of less than 40,000 square feet; provided (of course) certain requirements are met. The lot which this variance is sought..is less than 40,000 square feet. In fact, the lot is approximately 20,000~ square feet. Con- ceeding that this zoning regulation was eroded by law, it was none- theless eroded~by this amendment of August 9, 1983. The applicant~ here is taking advantage (of course) of this particular erosion. Now the application asksathe'Board to further erode the zoning regu- lations by requesting a variation of Section t00-119.2B which is exhibit (3) in the affidavit. And this is to permit the erection of his dwelling with a setback of 60 feet which is 20% less than the required 75 feet. The applicant himself has already explained to the Board that he did in fact pour the foundation walls after the stop order was issued. If you look at the application or the work that was done which is depicted in the two photographs attached to the affidavit, you can see that the longest exterior wall is the wall that actually encroaches on the 75 foot setback require- ment. There's been no attempt to even flip over the building so that the encroachment can be diminished at least in the pockets shown on the application. And this entire exterior wall extends the 15 feet into the setback requirement. The applicant has stated that he, in fact, had a wetland permit. And of course, he retained professionals to get this wetland permit for him. What we ask the Board to do is examine Section 661-10 of the Department of Environ- mental Conservation laws which is attached as exhibit (3) and see how or if it were possible that this applicant (in fact) met the burden of proof put upon him under this section of the Environ- mental Conservation Law. The requirements are extremely stringent and how he could have possibly met those requirements, escapes (at least) your speaker here tonight. And ink,conclusion as far as the affidavit is concerned, for the reasons that are set forth in the affidavit, Susan F. Escrow and the Honorable Joseph A. Page 6 - November 10, 1987 · Publ~ic Hearing - Anthony Gambino Southold Z.BoA. MR. LONGO (continued): Escrow, Jr. respectfully request that this application for a vari- ance be denied. The affirmation that was put before you was my personal affirmation. I've already stated who I am and of course, you know I'm here in opposition on behalf of the Escrows to the granting of this variance. And examining the documents and what has transpired here in the past, I ask the Board to possibly con- sider the questions set forth in my affirmation. And that is; the applicant has stated here tonight that he ~ook~. title to the property in 1983. We ask the Board to determine when did he first get an option to take title to this? Secondly, why was the date or how did the date get kind of deluted on the deed, a copy of which is attached to my affirmation. Another thing, how come the deed was filed more than a year later if he (in fact) took title in October of 1.9837 Why was it filed in 19847 What was his re- lationship to this property? Was it possible that he had an op- tion and he was sitting and waiting for favorable rulings on the zoning regulations. And if that is so, is he a proper party that the legislatures had in mind when they enacted the section of the zoning ordinace which permitted an individual person to build on a building lot of less than 40,000 square feet? Is he such a per- son? We ask the Board to consider this. In addition to that, at- tached to my affirmation are copies of two letters from the attorney for the applicant. I ask the Board to read those letters and to ascertain for themselves what was intended by the applicant by such letters. And again, I would request that this Board deny the application for a variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes sir. I was just reading the last two letters° I have nothing at this particular point. Than you sir. MR. BRESSLER: Yes Mro Goehringer. I would certainly like the courtesy of being mady privy to what has been submitted on behalf of the objectants and certainly be given a reasonable opportunity in writing to read it and respond to it. CHAIRMAN GOERINGER: I was going to suggest that we recess this hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting in an attempt to have our attorney look at the document also. If the Board so desires or whatever the situation is and whatever questions we might have that may require either of you or of Judge Escrow. MR. BRESSLER: Not having seen the affidavit and affirmation, I am unclear as to what additional oral testimony could enlighten the Board with respect to the arguments raised. What I've heard is absolutely nothing, quite honestly. I've heard a question raised concerning the date of transfer° I think that's completely irrelevant. Whenever he got it, he got it. He duly applied for his permits. I don't see that that's an issue at all. With re- spect to the issue that was raised with respect to the long wall, it seems so evident that I even hesitate to take the Board's time. But it seems obvious that this long wall shown by the surveyor, is roughly 60 feet along its entire length. And were Mr. Gambino to twist and turn his dwelling, no matter where that corner fell, he would still be 60 feet. In'fact, I'm sure the Board has in its possession, an earlier survey demonstrating that a twist of P~qe 7 - November 10~ 1987 ~Public Hearing - Anthony Gambino Southold Z.B.A. MR. BRESSLER: the proposed house, 45 or 60 degrees counter clock- wise, wout~d.-inot make the slightest bit of difference. We still have the 60 foot problem. Is there anything to the Board's know- ledge, contained in this affidavit or affirmation which can't be answered in-lwriting? If that's the case, I would certainly agree with you that the hearing should be recessed. If there's nothing.~ that can't be addressed in writing, then I would respectfully re-. quest that I be given an opportunity to answer it in writing and have the matter submitted. I'm just not sure what further testi- mony is going to do here. I haven't heard anything in opposition other than the fact that they don't want this particular relief granted. I would say in that regard, that the Trustees' approval that I furnished you with reflects the fact that there is no ob- jection a~ the Trustees' hearing'. So you can take that for what it's worth. ATTORNEY BRESSLER (at this time) REVIEWED THE AFFIDAVIT AND AFFIR- MATION AS SUBMITTED BY ATTORNEY LONGO PREVIOUSLY. MR. BRESSLER: I'm prepared to respond to this at this time and have you close the hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Go ahead. MR. BRESSLER: I'd like to address the affidavit in opposition first. Certainly I have no dispute with the copies of the zoning ordinance which are annexed to the affidavit in opposition. They are what'~'~they are. I think it's clear that'~we]have the one remaining loto (There may be one other.) on Lupton's POint and this is what we got and the Board is aware of What~the size of the lots on[lLupton's Point are. I think it's somewhat tongue and cheek for the objectants to come in and say; well, gee, this lot is undersized. Every lot on Lupton's Point is undersized and we all know that. That's the character of the neighborhood. The applicant has acted in bad faith. Concrete footings were installed, the forms for the foundation were all over the place. Yes, we did it. We had a valid building permit at the time and that's beyond dispute~as ~we,ve explained. The excavation waS done and the footings were done and it's beyond argument that those were done in reliance on the building permit. I think you've got hardship right there without looking any further. An attempt to minimize the encroachment, we've been to every Board Save this one and it wasn't ou~ fault and we're here now. We have permits from the D.E.C. We have permits from the Trustees. We've got per- mits from the Health Department. We put it where we felt we had to put it and it's not a castle as you can see from the survey. tt'sl a~house well in'keeping with the size of other dwellings on Lupton's Point. Finally, the point in the affidavit that we must seek a permit not only for the Building Department but for the D.E~C., we have it. We met their requirements. If the objectants think there is a problem with D.E.C., they have their remedies. We have supplied you with a copy of the permit and I think that's the end of that argument-~before this Board. Turning now to the affirmation Page 8 - November 10, 1987 ~Public Hearing - Anthony Gambino Southold Z.B.A. MR. BRESSLER~ (continued): in opposition, options to purchase, ~dates of deeds; completely irrelevant and a complete smoke screen. The applicant bought the' property. He ~old you what he paid and he told you the money he spent on it. Options are absolutely irrelevant° Now, with respect to the letters, gentlemen, the letters of August 4th and November 2nd which are attached to this affirmation. Let me say in closing, that it pains me greatly that the objec- tant has chosen to bring this ugly and sordid matter before the Board. And out of respect to the people involved and this Board, you will note (most significantly) that the applicant did not bring these matters up and drag anybody through the mud and it wasn't our intention to do that. And I have several comments with respect to letters that the objectant has placed before this Board. First of all, I think they are totally irrelevant to this proceeding. Secondly, I think~ the Board can see from the comments contained in Mr. Wickham's letter of August 4th and November 2nd, that there has been an ongoing dispute between these people. Although it pains me greatly to do it, I'm going to have to bring to the Board's attention the nature of the dis- pute that's been going on between these people. There 'seems to be, based upon the record and based upon the appearance here to- night, a concerted effort that this man not get his relief and build his house there. I would._Suggest to the Board that the letters which were sent and attached to this affirmation which was commissioned by our client, Mr. Gambino and was sent by Mr. Wickham at the behest of Mr. Gambino because of the problems that he is having' with the objectant. And if the Board requires further details concerning the personal animosity between these parties, I'll put Mr. Gambino up here for two minutes and you'll hear all about it~be~ause~it has been raised by the objectant. I had no intention to do that~tonight. But if the Board requires allucidation on the meaning of these letters and the Board con- siders it significant, I'd ask for two minutes to have Mr. Gam- bino tell his story. If the Board tells me 6h the record now, that it deems that irrelevant and it doesn't want to get into personalities, then so be it and that portion will be stricken from the record. Gentlemen, what's your pleasure? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ties sir. We never want to get involved in personali- MR. BRESSLER: That's fine. Then I'll take that to mean that as far as that's concerned, that's not a legal argument before this Board and I would prefer not to put testimony before the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not determining if it's legal, or not legal at this particular time because I'm not in the particular position to do so. I would say that personalities will not play a factor. Page 9 - November 10, 1987 .'Public Hearing - Anthoi~y Gambino Southo!d Z.B.A. MR. BRESSLER: In light of your ruling, I ask for two minutes then for Mr. Gambino to explain 'the nature of the letter and that will conclude my proof. Dgain, I state it is with great hesitation and pain that I do this. Mr. Gambino. The objectants; Joseph and Susan [squir0~ have put into evidence the letters of August 4th and November 2nd as written by William Wickham to the Judge and Mrs. Esquir01 and con- cerning the problems you've~]had. Have you had a personal problem with these two people? MR. GAMBINO: Yes I have. To start off with, I can't help that my name is Gambino. Judge Esquir0]said to me a number of times that I was either connected or I was related. And I also have witnesses, three of them in fact that they heard slanders against me. I even went to the?Police Department (I believe) on April 17th when Ray Nine~ (that was the last incident) was clearing up the property with me and he went up to him (Ray Nine)"I was the one that fire- bombed his house and threatened his kids." I went right to the Po- lice Department and reported it and I went to Mr. Wickham. In, fact, I had a letter. MR. BRESSLER: Was it true? MR. GAMBINO: MR. BRESSLER: MR. GAMBINO: Definitely it was true. Was the accusations he made concerning YoU, trne? No. They're not true. MR. BRESSLER: Alright. enough on that. I think the Board haskheard absolutely MR. GAMBINO: to me... And I have t~u other witnesses. What Mr. Wickham said MR. BRESSLER: Well, let's not get into that. That's just a little bit of the flavor and I don't intend to spread the rest of it in front of the Board. But the objectants has raised this and they put these letters into evidence and they've raised the question as to what this is all about. Now you've heard what it's all about and I have nothing more to say on that issue. MR. LONGO: Just a brief comment in rebuttal. If protecting one's legal rights~ is a harassment, then our entire s~cial system fails. And if good faith is not part of any application or any remedyl'~ of law or otherwise, then again, our system fails. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment, I'll aski2~he!~.Board if they have anything they'd like to say. MR~[LESSARD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask through the chair if I could ask Mr. Gambino a couple of questions? P~ge 10 - November 10, 1987 ~'Public Hearing - Anthony Gambino Southold Z~B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Only if Mr. Gambino is willing to answer the question. Are you willing to answer any questions from the Build- ing Department? MR. GAMBINO: I feel very aggravated and I feel very upset. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand. MR. GAMBINO: tonight. I think we've gone further then I thought we would MR. BRESSLER: Perhaps if we hear the nature of the questions, I might be able to discuss it with Mr. Gambino. MR.kLESSARD: I~would ask Mr. Gambino, through the chair, if after he got the stop order, that he came into my office and we discussed it before he poured the foundation. I'd ask him if he did that? MR. BRESSLER: I think that on behalf of Mr. Gambino, Mr. Chairman, I think we have satisfactorily set forth the sequence of events con- cerning this matter. The excavation, the pouring of the footings and the nature of the purported stop work that"was issued. And I don't think that any further testimony or questions on this matter would be helpful. I think under the circumstances, Mr. Gambino haS had just about enough. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. MR. LESSARD: Then I'll make a statement from the floor. We've heard a lot about the Building Department tonight and it certainly wasn't in a rosy atmosphere. When Mr. Gambino was given his stop order~be- fore his foundation was poured, his daughter and he came into my of- fice. We discussed it. I explained it to him and he said fine. He went and poured the foundation and he realized it would cost money and so did I but he was willing to go that route. Now, when he went back to the site on the advice of his attorney on some technicality, he poured that foundation. Now, he mentioned that since he's had his permit, it's cost him 29 thousand whatever. I would like the Board to find out exactly how much of that money was spent after on the legal advice he was given to ignore the stop order. And I think you'll find that a majority of that 29 thousand lies there after his attorney felt he knew more than the town on law. And that's the way the proper sequence. And if we look into further on the submission and what was actually put down, you may find it two different ani- mals also. MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Chairman, before the witness steps down, .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know if he'll answer a question. You ca~ address the Board with a question. I have no idea. Just the way he addressed the situation. Go ahead. Address the Board. MR. BRESSLER: First of all .... ~P~age 11 - November 10, 1987 ~P~bl~ Hearing - Anthony Gambino Southold Z.B.A. ~' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~i. I can not voluntarily force anybody to answer a question Mr. Bressler. MR. BRESSLER: First of all, I would like this card introduced into evidence. And secondly, I think the question from the Board to this witness ought to be; does this comply with Section 100-143 of the zoning ordinance. That's the question. The argument has been made. I think it's clear from the reading of the statute that this pur- ported stop work is not a valid stop work order. And what Mr. Gam- bino did and what advice he was given and the conclusions that this witness has drawn based upon no personal knowledge whatsoever, are a matter for this Board to consider. And I would offer this~up in evidence and respectfully direct the Board's attention to Section. 100-143 and have the Board put the question to Mr. Lessard as to where in this purported stop work it states the conditions under which the work may be resumed as required by the ordinance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I apologize. Are you Mr. Longo. MR. LONGO: Yes. Before the Board considers posing the question to~the~pZior witness, I am surprised at council. He is asking the Board to illicit a legal opinion from a Building Department member. And of course, he knows it's an improper question and it should not be put. MR. BRESSLER: I would just like to point out to the Board in deter- mining whether or not to put this question to the Chief Enforcement Officer of the zoning ordinance. A man'who is charged with knowing the code and enforcing the code. Whether that's ~proper'!~or improper, is totally up to you. To determine something is a mere technicality when it works against you, is something I think ill befits anyone, either in a town position or as a l~wyer. The law is the law and it's applied even handedly. And if you don't comply, you doh:'t com- ply. If you comply with the ordinance, you comply with the ordinance. We're here tonight asking for a variance. I've put the evidence in. I live it up to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Longo, you had something else to say. MR. LONGO: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. It's a propos- terous situation. Council knows for every writing, there are at least 15 ~olumes of cases explain!ng2the legal significance of the writing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr~ Lessard, I thank you for your testimony. I~thank everybody for their courtesy. I have never asked a town official to illicit any response that hei~or she did not want to illicit. Therefore, at this particular point I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. Y ' . FILED BY · RECEIVED AND Town Clez-k, Town of S°utho!d