Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZBA-09/10/1987
Southold Town Board of Appeals MAiN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCK[ M I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1987 A Regular Meeting and Publi~ Hearings of the Southold Town Board of Appeals were held on THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1987 commencing at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting four of the five members of the Board. Absent was: Charles Grigonis, Jr. Also present were: Victor Lessard, Building- Department Administrator; Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner, Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately 20 persons in the audience at the beginning of the meeting. Chairman Goehringer opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. The Board proceeded with the public hearings on bhe agenda, and the verbatim transcripts of all hearings have been prepared under separate cover and filed simultaneously with the Town Clerk's Office with these Minutes for reference: 7:37 p.m.- 8:03 p.m. Public Hearing held in the Matter of DEAN KAMEN under Appl. No. 3651. (a) Variance for excessive height of generating tower, and (b) Variance as to insufficient setback from ordinary highwater mark. North Dumpling Island. Mr. Kamen and Mr. Maher (Architect) were present and spoke in behalf of the application~ Questions arose concerning the position of the Coast Guard and to date no written information has been received Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings 8:03 p.m.- 8:10 p.m. 8:10 p.m.- 8:15 p.m. 8:15 p.m.- 8:22 p.m. , continued:) in behalf of the Coast Guard. Member Douglass confirmed his discussions with Chief Price and it was agreed to recess the hearing pending further clarification and additional input expected in behalf of the Fishers Island Conservancy and possibly others (as requested). [See verbatim transcript for additional informa- tion.] On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to recess the public hearing in the Matter of DEAN KAMEN until October 8, 1987 at approximately 7:30 p.m. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Gb6~ringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) Public Hearing held in the Matter of THOMAS AND FRANCES SMITH under Appeal No. 3662. (a) Variance as to insufficient sideyard setback of garage, when attached to principal dwelling structure with raised open-deck, (b) insuffi- cient setback from existing seawall landward of wetland area for deck addition, (c) variance for approval of garage as an accessory in the sideyard area as an alternative to attaching same to dwelling. 200 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue. Mr. and Mrs. Smith were present, and Mr. Smith spoke in behalf of his application. (No public opposition was submitted during the hearing.) Mr. Ferdenzi spoke in favor of the application. Following testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and duly carried, to close (conclude) the hearing. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. PAUL AND CORRINE FERDENZI. Public Hearing was held. The applicants were present. (No public opposition was submitted during the hearing.) [See verbatim transcript for detailed statements.] Following testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and duly carried, to conclude (close) the hearing. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of LEHESK BUILDING CORP. under Appl. No. 3665. Mr. Skryzpecki, President spoke in behalf of the application. No public opposition was submitted and following testimony, the following'action was taken: Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appeal No. 3665 LEHESK BUILDING CORP. Application of LEHESK BUILDING CORP. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of construction of open deck with an insufficient rearyard setback, at 360 Sebastian's Cove Road, Sebastion Cove Lot No. 5, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-100-03-11.8. The Board began deliberations. Following deliberations, the Board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 10, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of LEHESK BUILDING CORP. under Appeal No. 3665; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findigns of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the east side of Sebastian's Cove Road, at Mattituck, and contains a total area of 1.02 acres. 2. The subject premises is more partiuclarly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 100, Block 3, Lot 11.8, and on the Sebastian's Cove Subdivision Map as Lot No. 5. The subject premises is improved with a single-family, two-story frame house with attached garage constructed under Building Permit #15440 October 29, 1985 and Building Permit #15440Z October 29, 1986. 3. By this application, appellant requests approval of Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3665 LEHESK BUILDING CORP~ decision, continued:) the construction of an open-deck addition to dwelling with a setback of not less than 39 feet and as more particularly depicted on survey prepared July 2, 1987 by Young & Young. The setback of the deck at the southeast corner scales out at 55 feet from the easterly (rear) property line. 4. Article Schedule requires structures. III, Section lO0-31, Column "A-40" of the Bulk a minimum setback of 50 feet for all principal 5. The percentage of relief requested is 22%, or ll feet, which is not substantial in relation to the requirements. 6. It is the opinion of this Board that: (a) appellant's request is not unreasonable; safety, town; (b) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the health, welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the (c) the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirements; (d) there is no other method feasible under the circumstances other than a variance; (e) there will be no detriment to adjoining properties; (f) in view of all the above factors~ the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested under Appeal No. 3665 for open-deck construction as shown on survey updated July 2, 1987, prepared by Young & Young, for LEHESK BUILDING CORP., SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: - 1. Deck addition shall remain unroofed and open (as exists and requested herein); 2. No additional rearyard setback reductions except by formal variance application and consideration therefore. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARINGS, continued: 8:30 p.m.- 8:52 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matters of Appl. Nos. 3593 and 3659 - QUIET MAN INN. William Moore, Esq. spoke in behalf of the applicant. ~r. Moore agreed to furnish the Board with the Affidavit mentioned about the 38 seats and diagonal parking plan for consideration. (No public opposition was submitted during the hearing.) [See verbatim transcript for detailed statements.] Following testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and duly carried, to RECESS the hearing until our OCTOBER 8, 1987 REGULAR MEETING, pending receipt of the requested information. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. 8:52 p.m.- 9:27 9:27 p.m.- lO:17 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of GEORGE AND JANE KAYTIS under Appl. No. 3628. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. of Edson and Bruer spoke in behafl of the applicants. Mrs. Mabel Alexander, Dr. Rosenblum, Robert Hennessy, spoke against the application. Mrs. Kaytis was also present and spoke concerning her application. [See verbatim transcript for detailed statements.] Following testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goehrin§er, seconded by Mr. Doug- lass, and duly carried, to conclude/close the hearing, pending deliberations at a later date. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. (Ms. Scopaz, Town Planner, departed at 9:27 p.m.) Public Hearing was held in the Matter of WILLIAM MOORE, ESQ. AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG, ESQ. under Appl. No. 3654. Both applicants were present and Mr. Herzweig spoke in behalf of the application. Residents of the Mattituck Estates area spoke against the application (including Rober~ Costanga, John Debrowski, Chester Bowman). Also speaking in §eb~lf of the application was Frederick Wood Associates, Inc. (as a consultant). [See verbatim transcript for detailed statements.] Following testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and duly carried, to conclude/close the hearing, pending deliberations at a later date. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings, continued: lO:17 p.m.- lO:18 p.m. Public Hearing reconvened in the Matter of NORTH ROAD ASSOCIATES under Appl. No. 3653. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. was present and requested a recess, pending review and additional comments of the Road Report prepared by Member Douglass. (No other testimony was submitted at this time.) Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and duly carried, to RECESS the hearing of NORTH ROAD ASSOCIATES until our October 8, 1987 Meeting, as requested. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS~ On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations in accordance with the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Section 617, 6 NYCRR, and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold: (a) Appl (b) Appl (c) Appl (d) Appl (e) Appl (f) Appl (g) Appl (h) Appl l~') Appl No. 3662 No. 3622 No. 3665 No. 3593 No. 3628 No. 3654 No. 3658 No. 3659 · No. 3651 - THOMAS AND FRANCES SMITH; - CHRISTIAN B. SALMINEN; - LEHESK BUILDING CORP.; - QUIET MAN INN; - GEORGE AND JANE KAYTIS; - WILLIAM MOORE AND B. HERZWEIG; - PAUL AND CORRINE FERDENZI; - QUIET MAN INN; - DEAN KAMEN. [continued on pages 7 15 ] Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- Sept. 10, 1987 Regular ~1eeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) (a) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3662 PROJECT NAME: THOMAS AND FRANCES SMITH 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: (a) Insufficient sideyard of garage (if attached) (b) Setback from seawall for deck (c) Garage as accessory structure in sideyard as an alternative LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold~ County of, Suffolk, more particularly known as: 200 Hay~aters Drive, Cutchogue, NY 1000-104-5-19 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Information has been submitted by appliCant or his agent in- caring that the project will not involve the disturbance of wetlands grasses or areas subject to flooding which amy be considered wetlands. (3) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- Sept. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) (b) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAI~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3622 PROJECT NAME: CHRISTIAN B. SALMINEN 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 deck addition to dwelling and accessory stairs, both with an insufficient setback from edge of Marion Lake LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, more particularly known as: 240 Lakeview Terrace, East-Marion, NY 1000-31-9-15 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be 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. (3) The relief requested is a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- Sept. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) (c) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIO~ Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3665 PROJECT NAME: LEHESK BUILDING CORP. 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 similnr project. TYPE OF ACTION: ~ [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approvat of an open deck wtih insufficient rear yard LOCATION OF PROJECT: particularly known as: 360 1000-100-3-11.8 Town of Southold~ County of. Suffolk, more Sebastian's Cove Road, ~attituck, NY 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 subDitted by appli6ant or his agent in- dicating that the project will not involve the disturbance of wetlands grasses or areas subject t.o 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 -10- September 10, 987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (d) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Appeal No. 3593 Project Name: QUIET MAN INN County Tax Map No. 1000-62-3-7 Location of Project: Corner of S/s Main Road and W/s Hobart Road, Hamlet of Southold, Town of $outhold. Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Insufficient front yard setback for proposed addition. 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 $outhold. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned, and: {X} this Board's area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances is limited under Section 617.13 of the S.E.Q.R.A. Regulations. This does not, however, restrict any other involved agency to this same determination (617.2jj). { } this Board does not wish to be Lead Agency since the area of jurisdiction is minimal and not directly related to new construction being a use variance or use permit; { } this Board wishes to furnish the following concerns, recommendations or comments: { } this Board wishes to assume Lead Agency status and urges coordinated written comments by your agency to be submitted with the next 20 days. Southold Town Board of Appeals -]]- Sept. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) (e) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3628 PROJECT NAME: GEORGE AND JANE KAYTIS 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 deI?artment or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ~ Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variances: (a) insufficient area of Lot ~1 of 40,000 sq. ft. (b) insufficient area of Lot #2 of 1.44s acres, (c) insufficinet frontage of ~ot #2 alonq Robinson Rd., Southold LOCATION OF PROJECT. Town of ~outhold; County of. Suffolk, more particularly known as: Robinson Road, Southold, NY 1000-81-3-15.4 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.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 -12- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmehtal Declarations, continued:) (f) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Appeal No. 3654 Project Name: WILLIAM MOORE AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG County Tax Map No. 1000- Location of Project: West Side of Meadow Lane, Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold. Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Insufficient yard setbacks for a new dwelling structure. 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. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned, and: {X} this Board's area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances is limited under Section 617.13 of the S.E.Q.R.A. Regulations. This does not, however, restrict any other involved agency to this same determination (617.2jj). { } this Board does not wish to be Lead Agency since the area of jurisdiction is minimal and not directly related to new construction being a use variance or use permit; { } this Board wishes to furnish the following concerns, recommendations or comments: { } this Board wishes to assume Lead Agency status urges coordinated written comments by your agency to be submitted with the next 20 days. and Southold Town Board of Appeals -]3- Sept. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) (g) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIO~ Notice of Determinz~tion of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: PROJECT NAME: 3658 PAUL ANDCORRINE FERDENZI 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 To%~n 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 locate accessory building in frontyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold~ County of. Suffolk, more particularly known as: 470 Haywaters Drive, Cutc~ogue, NY 1000-104-5-21 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 propsed is .landward of existing structures. (3) Information has been submitted by applicant or his agent in- cating 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 -]4- Sept. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATI©~ Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3659 PROJECT NAME: QUIET MAN INN 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: · [ ] Type II ~] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approval' of insufficient number of park- ing spaces of this preexisting business use (with proposed addition and without increase in %egal occu~pancy] ~ LOCATION OF PROJECT. Town or Soutno~ County of. Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: Co~ner of Main Road and Hobart Avenue, Southold, NY 1000-62-3-7 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imp]e- mented as planned; (2) Information has been submitted by applicant or his agent in- cating that the project will not involve the disturbance of wetlands grasses or areas subject ~D flooding which may be considered wetlands. (3) The relief requested is not directly related to new con- struction. Southold Town Board of Appeals -]5- Sept. 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3651 PROJECT NAME: DEAN KAMEN 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 aqency which may also have an application pending for thc same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: · [ ] Type II IX] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variances: (a) as to excessive height of proposed wind-turbine generating tower, (b) as to insufficient setback. from ordinary highwater mark LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southotdl County of. Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: North Dumpling Island, NY- 1000-130-t-4 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) Construction proposed is.landward of 10 ft. elevation contour; no disturbance of land seaward of the l0 ft. contour will occur. (3) ~formation 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 Vote of the Board: Ayes:' Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. * * * Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- September lO, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3661 - ERNEST TARMIN. Application of ERNEST TARMIN for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct accessory stairs and platform along bluff along the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: Right-of-way off the north side of Main Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-14-2-1.1. The Board began deliberations. Following deliberations, the Board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on August 20, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of ERNEST TARMIN under Appeal No. 3661; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the north side of a private right-of-way which extends off the north side of the Main Road at Orient, New York, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 14, Block 2, Lot 1.10. 2. The subject premises contains a total area of 5.755 acres and is improved with one single-family dwelling and acces- sory building. The dwelling is shown on site plan prepared August 23, 1984 by Keller-Sandgren Associates, A.I.A. to be set back 116± feet from the top of the bluff area at the 36.2 ft. elevation contour line. The subject premises is located in the "A-80" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District. 3. By this application, appellant requests permission to locate a proposed stairway extending from from an 8' by 8' square Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3661 - ERNEST TARMIN, decision, continued:) deck/platform at the top of bluff seaward a length of 48 feet, having a setback of not less than 37 feet to the ordinary high water mark of the Long Island Sound. 4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, subparagraph A[1] requires all buildings proposed on lots adjacent to the Long Island Sound to be set back not less than one-hundred (100) feet from the top of the bluff, or 36.2 elevation contour line in this project. 5. It is noted for the record that this property was the subject of a prior variance under Appl. No. 3624 which conditionally granted a gazebo structure and denying the proposed stairs construction due to lack of construction information. 6. For the record, structures located in the bluff. it is noted that there are similar immediate area alon§ the Sound 7. It is the position of this Board that there is no alternative feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance to gain safe access to the areas below the bluff. 8. It is also the position of this Board that the owner should investi§ate the feasibility of constructing a "self-sustaining" stairway, suspended on cables, rather than in-ground post construction as a first alternative. 9. For the record, it is also noted that the following permits have been furnished for the record: (a) Town Trustees Wetland Permit #391 with an expiration date of March 26, 1988, (b) N.Y.S. D.E.C. Permit #10-87-0058 with an expiration date of May 31, 1989. 10. In considerin§ this appeal, the Board also finds and determines: (a) the relief requested is substantial in relation to the requirements; (b) the placement of the stairs for access to the beach areas is not unreasonable and will not be detri- mental to adjoining properties or change the character of the district since same is proposed to be constructed in Southold Town Board of Appeals ~8- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3661 TARMIN decision, continued:) a safe fashion and in such a way to prevent increased erosion; (c) the circumstances of the properties are unique; (d) the practical difficulties are self-imposed; (e) the difficulty cannot be obviated by some method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (f) the interests of justice will be served by granting a conditional approval, as noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance under the Provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for the construction of stairs and landing as requested in the Application of ERNEST TARMIN under Appeal No. 3661, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW- ING CONDITIONS: 1. The stairs be built in a manner as not to cause additional erosion, and if possible preventing further erosion; 2. If feasible, the stairs be self-sustaining and suspended on cables rather than in-ground post construction. If self-sustaining stairs are not feasible, 4 by 4 upright post construction with proper ground cover and foliage to minimize erosion [See Soil and Water Conservation District and N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation recommenda- tions and conditions.] 3. Stairs and landing not be connected to any other structures (such as a gazebo, fencing, dwelling, etc.) as applied. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -19-September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: 3655: ELLEN HOPE DeMARIA: Application of ELLEN HOPE DeMARIA. Variance from Condition No. rendered July 8, 1965 under Appeal No. 785, and Article III, Section 100-32 for approval of the construction of accessory storage shed in frontyard area as shown on survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. April 9, 1984. Location of Property: West Side oi~ Private Road (West View Drive), Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-13- 3-3. The Board began deliberations. Following deliberations, the Board took the foll6wing action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on August 20, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of ELLEN HOPE DeMARIA under Appeal No. 3655; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from the Provisions of Article III, Section 100-32, and Article XIV, Section lO0-141(C) for approval of the construction of an accessory storage shed of a size 20' by 12' and as more parti- cularly shown on survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated April 9, 1984. 2. The premises in question is a described parcel of land containin9 a total area of one acre with frontage of 155.52 feet along the west side of "Private Road'~ located off the westerly end of South View Drive, Orient. 3. The subject premises is improved with one single-family dwelling house with a setback of 94± feet from the front property Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting line (along Private Road) and the subject accessory storage shed, all as shown by the April 9, 1984 VanTuyl survey. 4. The subject premises is located in the "A-40" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District. 5. For the record it is noted that under Appeal No. 785 rendered July 8, 1965, a conditional variance was rendered for the placement of the subject accessory building in the frontyard area as applied therein with a setback of 30 feet from the front property line. 6. Certificate of Occupancy #Z4778 1972 for a "private one-family dwelling" the subject accessory building. was issued August 30, without reference to 7. By building-permit application of recent date, it was noted that the accessory building was located was a setback of less than that required by the 1965 variance, requiring this additional variance application. 8. The accessory building as exists is used and will continue to be used for residential storage purposes incidental to the existing residence and not to be operated for gain, and shall not exceed the present height of II feet (which exists at the present time). 9. It is the opinion of this Board that: (a) circumstances difficulties; appellant's request of the past history is not unreasonable and the in this matter lends to the safety, town~ (b) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the health, welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the (c) the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirements; (d) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (e) there will be no detriment to adjoining properties; Southold Town Board of Appeals-21- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3655 DeMaria, decision, continued:) (f) in view of all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance as applied. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested under Appeal No. 3655 in the Matter of the Application of ELLEN HOPE DeMARIA for the placement of an accessory storage building with a setback of 20+ feet from the front property line, as exists and more particularly shown on survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated April 9, 1984, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No expansion or increase in height without prior Z.B.A. approvals; 2. Accessory building shall be for storage use incidental to the existing dwelling only; 3. Accessory building shall contain no habitable facilities; 4. Accessory building is approved with a setback as applied with limitations on the setbacks and size. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appeal No. 3646: Application of ROBERT AND NANCY MUIR. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, ~ulk Schedule, for permission to construct additions to dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback and insufficient frontyard setback. Location of Property: Corner of Gillette Drive and Cleaves Point Road, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-38-2-29. The Board began deliberations. Following deliberations, the Board took the following action: Southold Town Board of Appeals-22- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3646 MUIR decision, continued:) WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on August 20, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of ROBERT AND NANCY MUIR under Appeal No. 3646; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findigns of fact: 1. The premises in question is a corner parcel located at the northerly side of Cleaves Point Road and westerly side of Gillette Drive, Marion Manor Lot #6, at East Marion, con- taining a total lot area of approximately 10,500 sq. ft. 2. The subject premises is improved with an existing single-family, one-story dwelling with deck area, with setbacks of 35 feet from both front property lines, qO+ feet from the westerly (rear) property line, and 18 feet from the northerly (side) property line. 3. By this application, appellant requests permission to construct additions to expand the liveable floor area and deck as more particularly shown on sketched plot plan under con- sideration, with setbacks at 17 feet for the proposed deck and 20 feet for the proposed addition from the westerly property line. The setback from the front property line along Cleaves Point Road would be reduced from 35 feet to 32 feet. 4. It is the opinion of this Board that the circumstances of this property due to its nonconforming size, dual front yards, limited building area, lend to the difficulties. 5. It is also the opinion of this Board that: (a) appellants' request is not unreasonable under Southold Town Board of Appeals-23- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3646 - MUIR decision, continued:) the circumstances; (b) precedents have been set in the immediate area for similar construction and setbacks; safety, town; (c) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the health, welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the (d) the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirements; (e) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (f) there will be no detriment to adjoining properties; (g) in view of all the above factors, the interests justice will be served by granting the variances, as applied as noted below. of Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested under Appeal No. 3646 in the Matter of the Application of MR. AND MRS. ROBERT MUIR for the construction of additions to dwelling with insufficient setbacks at 17 feet for the deck area and at 20 feet for the dwelling addition (liveable floor area) from the westerly (rear) property lines as shown on sketched plot plan submitted with this application, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the deck area remain open and unroofed (as proposed 2. That the setbacks not be further reduced without prior approval by this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrso Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals-24- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3643: Application of EUGENE PERINO for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to locate proposed dwelling with or without deck addition within 75 feet of nearest wetlands along the shoreline of Marion Lake. Location of Property: West Side of private right-of-way known as "Truman's Path," East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-12-16. The Board members began deliberations. Following deliberations, the Board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on August 20, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of MR. AND MRS. EUGENE PERINO under Appl. No. 3643; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is a described parcel of land containing a total lot area of approximately 20,300 sq. ft., frontage (lot width) of 75.36 feet, and is presently vacant. 2. The subject premises has a frontage along Marion Lake of 75.36 feet, the shoreline of which is set back at varied distances of 23 feet on the southwesterly corner and up to 43 feet on the southeasterly corner. 3. By this application, appellants request permission to locate a proposed new dwelling with a setback of 63'10" from the nearest wetland grass and with the proposed deck addition to dwelling a setback of not less than 55 feet from the nearest wetland grass, as shown by the sketch submitted under this application. 4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, requires all buildings Southold Town Board of Appeals-25- September lO, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3643 PERINO decision, continued:) and structures to feet from a tidal wetland. be set back not less than seventy-five (75) water body, tidal wetland edge, or freshwater 5. The Courts have held that the area setback variances must meet the "practical difficulties" standard, considering at least the following: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirement; (b) that the project as proposed is not out of character with the neigh- borhood; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique and are not personal in nature; (d) that the variance will net in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (e) that the variance requested is the minimal necessary; (f) that there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance. 6. It is the position of this Board as follows: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirements, being a variance of approximately 26% of the reuqired 75-ft. setback requirement; (b) the project as proposed is not out of the character of the neighborhood since the improvements on parcels in the immediate area similarly exist; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique, due to the nonconforming size, width, and general nature of the site; (d) the relief if granted will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (e) the relief requested is not the minimal necessary since there is ample land available to meet all yard setback requirements; (f) there is another method feasible for appellant to pursue [without a variance]; (g) the relief requested is not unreasonable. Southold Town Board of Appeals -26-September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3643 PERINO decision, continued:) 7. It is noted for the record that Building Permit #16131Z was issued June 24, 1987 for the placement of a new dwelling at or more than 75 feet from the nearest wetlands; however, to date, no construction has taken place. 8. It should be understood that applicants are aware of the restrictions of this variance as conditioned below and agrees by acceptance of this conditional variance to no further reductions to less than the requested 55 feet from nearest wetland grasses in the future. 9. It is further noted for the record that (a) a Wetlands Permit is pending at this time before the Southold Town Trustees in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 97 of the Town Code, and (b) Permit No. 10-87-0054 was issued May 7, 1987 by the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, with conditions, as noted therein. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT relief under the Provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2 in the Matter of the Applica- tion of MR. AND MRS. EUGENE PERINO under Appl. No. 3643 for permission to locate new dwelling with deck addition at a setback of not less than 55 feet from nearest wetland grass (or shoreline, whichever is closer), AS APPLIED AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. There be no disturbance of land within 50 feet of the lake's shoreline; 2. There be no further setback reductions for structures to less than 55 feet from nearest wetland grasses, or lake's shoreline, whichever is closer; 3. The proposed deck addition remain open, unroofed and never be enclosed; 4. The deck addition be placed not closer than 55 feet to the nearest wetland grasses, or lake shoreline, whichever is closer, with the exception of entrance/exit steps. 5. The foundation of the proposed dwelling and dwelling Southold Town Board of Appeals-2?- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3643 - PERINO decision, continued:) structure be located not closer than 64 feet from the nearest wetland grass, or lake's shoreline, whichever is closer; 6. Executed covenants and restrictions as to Conditions No. 1 and No. 2, supra, shall be filed with the Suffolk County Clerk's Office, copies of which shall be furnished to the Southold Town Board of Appeals for permanent recordkeeping. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution~ was duly adopted. DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3648: Application of FERUCIO FRANKOLA for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XT, Section 100-119.2 for permission to con- struct swimmingpool, deck and fence enclosure within 75 feet of wetland area along West Creek. Location of Property: 1900 Glenn Road, Southold, NY; West Creek Estates Lot No. 19; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-78-03-36. The Board members began deliberations. Following deliberations, the Board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on August 20, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of FERUCIO FRANKOLA under Appl. No. 3648; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is shown on the 1963 Subdivision Map of West Creek Estates as Lot No. 19, containing a total area Southold Town Board of Appeals ~8- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3648wFRANKOLA decision, continued:) of 27,000+ sq. ft. with frontage of 100 feet along the south side of Glenn Road and along West Creek. 2. The subject premises is improved with a single-family dwelling built under Permit #3507Z during 1968, and is located in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District. 3. By this application, appellant requests permission to locate an inground swimmingpool, with decks and fence enclosure, as more particularly shown on sketched survey submitted with this application. The actual pool construction is proposed at 60 feet from the bulkhead at the west side and 75 feet from the ordinary high-water mark along West Creek. The fence enclosure is shown to be not less than 69 feet from the ordinary high-water mark along West Creek and 55 feet from the west property line. 4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, subparagraph (B) requires all buildings and structures located on lots adjacent to tidal water bodies other than the Long Island Sound to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary highwater mark of such tidal water body, or not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the landward edge of the tidal wetland, whichever is the greater distance. 5. The Courts have held that the area setback variance must meet the "practical difficulties" standard, considering as follows: (a) the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirement; (b) the project as proposed is not out of character with the neighborhood; (c) the circum- stances of the property are unique and are not personal in nature; (d) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (e) the variance requested is the minimal necessary; (f) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance. 6. It is the opinion of this Board that: (a) the relief requested is the minimal necessary under the circumstances~ (b) the project as proposed is not out of character with the neighborhood; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique and are not personal in nature, particularly due to the nonconforming size, lot width, limited buildable area, etc.; (d) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, comfort, convenience, or order of the town; (e) the variance is not unreasonable and the project will comply with Southold Town Board of Appeals-29- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3648 - FRANKOLA decision, continued:) all other zoning setback restrictions of the Code as proposed; (f) the percentage of relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirement; (g) that in view of all the above, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as applied and further noted below. 7. It is noted for the record that: (a) at a Regular Meeting held June 25, 1987, the Southold Town Board of Trustees granted a waiver from the requirement for a Wetland Permit as noted therein, and (b) the applicant has indicated that he has an application for a wetland permit pending at this time before the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation concerning this project. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance from the Provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to locate swimming- pool fence enclosure (inclusive of decks and pool) with a setback at its closest point from the ordinary highwater mark along West Creek at not less than 69 feet, and from the inner edge of timber bulkhead at the west side at not less than 55 feet, AS APPLIED, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. That the pool remain open and unroofed [except by subsequent application and consideration therefore]. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Douglass and Sawicki. (Member resolution was duly adopted. Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis was absent.) This DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3662: Application of THOMAS AND FRANCES SMITH for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Articles: (a) III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, as to an insufficient sideyard setback of garage, when attached to principal dwelling structure with raised open-deck construction, (b) XI, Section 100-119.2 for an insufficient setback from existing seawall landward of wetland area for proposed deck addition, (c) III, Section 100-32, for approval of garage as an accessory structure in sideyard area as an alternative to attaching same to dwelling structure. Location of Property: 200 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-104-5-19. The Board began deliberations. Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3662 THOMAS AND FRANCES SMITH decision, continued:) Following deliberations, the Board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September 1987 in the Matter of the Application of THOMAS AND FRANCES SMITH under Appl. No. 3662; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is a described parcel of land located along the west side of Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, con- taining a total lot area of 18,500± sq. ft. and lot width (frontage) of 83.81 feet. 2. The subject premises is located in the "A'~ Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and is improved with the follow- ing structures: (a) single-family dwelling with a frontyard setback at its closest point at 49 feet, westerly sideyard setback at nine feet, and westerly setback at 18+ feet at the northeast corner; (b) accessory 18' by 22' garage shown to be located partly in the sideyard and rearyard areas with a setback at its closest point at 6'9" and at its farthest point 13 feet, all as shown on survey dated August 3, 1987 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. 3, By this application, appellants request either of the following: (a) construction of an open deck addition at the rear of the existing dwelling with a setback at not closer than 64 feet to the existing seawall, and attachment of the proposed deck construction to the existing garage which would create an insufficient sideyard setback and total sideyards as a "principal" structure; or (b) construction of an open deck addition at the rear of the existin§ dwelling with a setback at not closer than 64 feet to the existing seawall, without an attachment to the existing accessory garage, which would place accessory garage totally in the sideyard area. 10, Southold Town Board of Appeals -31-September 10, (Appl. No. 3662 - SMITH decision, continued:) 1987 Regular Meeting 4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, subparagraph (B) requires all buildings and structures located on lots adjacent to tidal water bodies other than the Long Island Sound to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary highwater mark of such tidal water body, or not less than seventy (75) feet from the landward edge of the tidal wetland, whichever is the greater distance. 5. Article III, Section lO0-31 of the Zoning Code requires minimum sideyard setbacks at not less than 15 feet and 10 feet for a principal structure, and Section 100-32 requires accessory structures to be located only in the rear- yard area. 6. It is the positionlof this Board that the accessory structure remain accessory as applied under (b) in paragraph (3), supra, rather than reducing the sideyard of the principal structure with additions to a sideyard setback at six feet. 7. The Courts have held that the area setback variance must meet the "practical difficulties" standard, considering as follows: (a) the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirements; (b) the project as proposed is not out of character with the neighborhood; (c) the circum- stances of the property are unique and are not personal in nature; (d) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, comfort, convenience or order of the town~ (e) the variance requested is the minimal necessary; (f) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance. 8. It is the opinion of this Board that: (a) the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirements, being a variance of 15% as to the setback from wetlands; (b) the project as proposed is not out of the character with the neighborhood; (d) the circumstances of the property are unique and not personal in nature, particularly due to the nonconforming lot size, lot width, limited buildable area, etc.; (e) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (f) there will not be an increase in density created by this variance; (g) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (h) that in view Southold Town Board of Appeals-32- September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3662 SMITH decision, continued:) of all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance requested for the open deck construction without attachment to existing accessory building, as further noted below. 9. It is noted for the record that an application has been filed with the Southold Town Board of Trustees concern- ing a waiver, which is scheduled for September 24, 1987. 10. It is further ntoed for the record that a Building Permit under No. 13042Z was issued April 16, 1984, and Building Permit under No. 16032Z was issued May 5, 1987 for the construction of the existing 26+ ft. by 36+ ft. addition at the rear of dwelling (which is shown to be setback at 75 feet or more from nearest wetland grasses and seawall structure). NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance from the Provision of Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to locate attached open-deck construction at rear of dwelling with a setback of 64 feet or more from the existing seawall structure, or wetland grass, whichever is closer, as applied in the Matter of the Application of THOMAS J. and FRANCES SMITH under Appl. No. 3662, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the deck addition to dwelling remain open (unenclosed), as applied; 2. That the northerly sideyard area remain open and unobstructed at all times at full widths of 9 feet at the northeasterly portion of the dwelling and 11½ feet at the northwesterly portion of the dwelling addition and deck construction, as applied and shown by survey dated August 1987; 3. That the setbacks as exist on the northerly and southerly sideyard areas not be reduced in the future; 4. That the existing garage not be increased in size and remain as an accessory structure, not to be attached to the deck or dwelling, as applied. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -33-September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3660-SE: Application of PUDGE CORPORATION for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B) for permission to construct "one-story mini-storage" buildings in this "C-Light Indus- trial" Zoning District at a maximum total height of 15 feet, at variance from Condition No. 8 of the Board's June 30, 1987 deter- mination, rendered under Appl. No. 3625, and with minimum setbacks (as scaled) on corrected Map dated August 5, 1987, prepared by John A. Grammas and Associates. Location: E/s Horton Lane, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-63-01-10. The Board began deliberations. Following deliberations, the Board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on August 20, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of PUDGE CORPORATION under Appl. No. 3660; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located in the "C-Light Industrial" Zoning District having a frontage of 351.93 feet along the east side of Horton Lane, Southold, and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 63, Block 1, Lot 10, containing a total area of 6.89 acres (300,128 sq. ft.). 2. The subject 6.89-acre parcel is being improved with two buildings as approved under Building Permit #14932Z on June 3, 1986, and Special Exception No. 3447 rendered May l, 1986. 3. By this application, applicant requests a modification Southold Town Board of Appeals-34-September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3660-SE - PUDGE CORP. decision, continued:) to Special Exception No. 3625 rendered June 30, 1987 as permitted under the Provisions of Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B) for the construction of six one-story buildings for "mini" storage as shown by Site Plan (Corrected August 5, 1987) and Floor Plan Drawing No. A1 dated June 18, 1987, prepared by John A. Grammas & Associates, described as follows: (a) Building A [at the most southerly section] of a size not to exceed 50' by 300' with setbacks shown on the Site Plan to be 55 feet from the westerly property line, 50 feet from the southerly property line, 50 feet from the easterly property line; (b) Building B [at the easterly section] of a size not to exceed 50' by 432' with setbacks shown on the Site Plan to be 49 feet [not to scale] from the northerly property line and 50 feet from the easterly property line; (c) Building C of a size not to exceed 50' by 220' with setbacks shown to be not less than 50 feet [not to scale] from the closest westerly property line and 160± feet from the southerly property line along the Long Island Railroad; (d) Building D of a size not to exceed 50' by 140' with setbacks shown to be 280± feet from the southerly property line along the Long Island Railroad, 248± feet from the westerly property line along Horton Lane, 157+ feet from the easterly property line, 272± feet from the northerly property line [not drawn exactly to scale]; (e) Building E [northerly center building] of a size not to exceed 50' by 120' shown to be setback a minimum of 75± feet, when measured to the given scale, from the northerly property line, 253+ feet from the westerly property line along Horton Lane, 154+ feet from the easterly property line. 4. For the record it is noted that the premises abutting the subject premises on the: (a) north is zoned '~A'~ Residential and Agricultural; (b) east is zoned "C-Light Industrial," (c) south/southwest is residentally used although in the "C-Light Industrial" Zoning District. 5. In this proposal, the applicant has requested relief from Condition No. 8 of this Board's June 30, 1987 determination rendered under Appl. No. 3625 to permit the total height 'of the Southold Town Board of Appeals-35~eptember 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3660-SE PUDGE CORP. decision, continued:) proposed buildings to be varied from 12 feet to a maximum of 15 feet, as more particularly shown on the June 18, 1987 Floor Plan prepared by John A. Grammas and Associates (#5571, Dwg. No. Al). 6. It is the understanding that there are no other changes and that the following proposals again are considered in making this determination: (a) ground lighting; (b) no parking of trailers, trucks, etc.; (c) no storage of chemicals, gasoline, flammable oils, fuels, etc.; (d) no occupancy by persons of buildings Monday through Saturday, before 8:00 a.m. and not after 5:00 p.m., and in no event on Sundays; (e) no electricity, no workshop areas, no toilet facilities, no repairs or related work activity to be conducted; (f) maximum floor area of 30' by 50' (1500 sq. ft.) to be permitted for each rental unit; (g) no side walks or side drives around the perimeter of the premises; (h) six-foot high chainlink fence encompassing perimeter of all six buildings; (i) all elements shall be as regulated by Articles XI and XIII of the Zoning Code. 7. In making this determination, it shall be understood that this project shall not be in direct violation of any building or zoning code regulations; and in the event a question arises as to any possible conflicts with or imposition of a different requirement from this Special Exception, the provi- sion or requirement which is more restrictive or which estab- lishes the higher standard shall govern. 8. In considering this application, the Board also finds and determines: (a) that the use requested will not prevent Southold Town Board of Appeals-36-September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3660-SE - PUDGE CORP. decision, continued:) the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (b) the use will not adversely affect the safety, welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the town; (c) the use is in harmony with and promotes the general purposes and intent of zoning. The Board has also considered subsections [a] through [1] of Article XII, Section 100-121(C)[2] of the Zoning Code in making this determination. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception with modification of Condition No. 8 from a maximum height of 12 feet to 15 feet (one-story) as applied and proposed, TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS [reiterated from the prior June 30, 1987 decision of this Board under Appl. No. 3625]: 1. Proposed six-foot high chainlink fencing to be slatted and placed near or along all property lines which abut resi- dentially-used properties, as well as the fencing proposed between the existing buildings, and Buildings E and D. [The areas which do not require slatting will be along the east and southerly property lines.] 2. Hours of operation shall be limited as requested from 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday~ 3. No storage of toxic chemicals, fuels, oils, or other flammable materials; 4. No storage of vehicles, trucks or major equipment, boats, etc.; 5. No trailers or tractor trailers; 6. No storage of fuel tanks; no outside storage of any materials; 7. All lighting must be shielded to the property (mushroom- type) and shall not be adverse to neighboring properties; 8. Maximum height shall be at 15 feet (one-story) as applied herein; 9. Minimum setbacks: (a) at not less than 50 feet from Southold Town Board of Appeals-37~eptember 10, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3600-SE - PUDGE CORP. decision, continued:) buildings C and A to the closest westerly property line; and (b) not less than that proposed in all other yard areas as shown on the corrected Site Plan of August 5, 1987 of John A. Grammas. Inasmuch as there appears to be some discrepancies between the given setback and the scaled setback figures, the setbacks shall be not less than the figures when measured "to scale."} 10. Any change of use or additional activities not applied for hereunder must be considered by separate application before such occupancy or activity shall be conducted; 11. No elimination of fencing or plantings. {Also note paragraph 7, page 3, supra, if additional screening is required by the Town Planning Board.} Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. SET-UPS FOR NEXT HEARINGS CALENDAR: On motion by Member Douglass, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to set the following matters for public hearings to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Southotd, NY commencing at 7:30 p.m. during the October 8, 1987 Regular Meeting calendar, subject to receiving information needed to complete the file prior to the advertising deadline of September 21st: Appl. Appl. Appl. Appl Appl Appl Appl Appl Appl Appl. No. 3651 No. 3592 No. 3668 No. 3657 No. 3663 No. 3653 No. 3593 No. 3664 No. 3670 No. 3669 - Dean Kamen - Bente Snellenburg - Gerard C. Keegan - Clyde Fritz - Mario Castelli - North Road Associates and 3659 - Quiet Mann Inn -Ana G. Stillo - Robert H. Frey - Michael and Elizabeth Lademann Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals~38~eptember 10, 1987 Regular Meeting OTHER UPDATES/REVIEWS: A. Appl. No. 3564 - JOH~ DEMPSEY/ROBIN RAEBUR~. Variances for location of proposed dwelling with insufficient setbacks from bluff and for approval under Town Law, Section 280-a. Right-of-way extends over lands now or formerly of Bokina extending from the north side of Oregon Road, Cutchogue. Await accurate survey showing structure(s) and any other obstructions within perimeter of right-of-way boundaries, flagging of right-of-way boundaries or proposed routes, proof of rights to use rights-of-way, and copy of written authorization from current owner of this parcel to proceed with the requested Z.B.A. actions (or copy of Contract of Sale between the parties). B. Appl. No. 3666 - TRATARAS AND APODIAKOS. Area variances at 217 Main Road, Greenport. Await Planning Board coordination and copy of Pre C.O. or C.O. of record (prior to advertising). C. Appl. No. 3636 and 3633 - TARTAN OIL CORP. Await Planning Board input before advertising. D. The Board Members received copies of the pending list of applications which are active but which are temporarily incomplete pending submission by applicants of additional information prior to advertising for hearings. RECOMMENDATION FOR "CLERK OF THE BOARD": The Board Members discussed the possibility of designating Board Assistant Linda Kowalski with a supplemental title, "Clerk of the Board" which is common in other townships. The August 13, 1987 letter from Alan Schneider, Personnel Office of the Suffolk County Executive's Office, Department of Civil Service, approving the same was distributed. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to urge and recommend to the Town Board the appointment of Linda Kowalski under a title of "Clerk of the Board" as pre-approved by the Department of Civil Service and reco~,m,ended by (Special) Town Attorney Francis J. Yakaboski. It was the opinion of the Town Attorney that the title of Stenographer was not sufficient for the legal and general duties required of the only full-time person in the Department of the Board of Appeals. Southold Town Board of Appeals-39~September 10, 1987 Regular Meeting PLANNING COORDINATION/REPORTS: The Board Members discussed coordination from the Planning Board and agreed that the Planning Board include the following areas of concerns in their reports: 1. historical data on previous and concerns on pending divisions of land by the Planning Board; 2. historical data on previous and concerns on pending site-plan actions, conditions, etc. by the Planning Board; 3. effects, if any, of the proposed project on Planning Board actions taken previously (para. #1 and #2 above), 4. prior recommendations concerning change-of-zone application or other actions (by the Town Board) concerning this property. It was also noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals will continue with its fact-finding and extensive research with the Offices of: the Assessors, the Building Department, County and State agencies, and that the Planning Board's report should reflect the above items, and effects on the proposed "Master Plan" amendments. The Z.B.A.'s findings are always supported by substantial evidence disclosed in the records, and could not and will not rely upon assumptions without facts or true basis for any recommendations. The consensus of the Board Members at this time was to ask the Town Planner and the Planning Board to disclose those facts which are substantiated by documentation or information in their files. There being no other business properly coming before the Board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, ~d~ -~KKowa~~tary Southold Town Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPT-OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDA~,~-SEPT~MBER 10, 1987 Appl,-No. 3651 App_licant(s): DEAN KAMEN Location of Property: NorthzuID~pli 41 lan f Southold .County Tax Map ID No. 1000~130 _~ s d, Town o Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Serge Doyen, Jr., Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Charles Grigonis, Jr. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:37 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced January 18, 1980 by Bernard Stone Associates, an architect's rendition o~ the Island and copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Kamen would you like to be heard or would you like your architect to present the case? Ok. DEAN KAMEN (at mike). CHAIRMAN: We're talking about a wind-generating tower that is approximately how high above the normal cement structure? MR. KAMEN: Above the ground it will be about--well above the top of the lighthouse it would be about 20 feet. From the ground between 60 and 80 feet. CHAIRMAN: Ok. And on top of that is a 22-ft. motor? MR. KAMEN: It's 11 ft.-each blade. CHAIRMAN: Itis 22 ft. in diameter? MR. KAMEN: Right. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Is there any particular reason why you chose the spot you have chosen for the placement of this? Page 2 }qamen Hearing Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR. KAMEN: I guess two reasons. One is it is where the Coast Guard already had a tower exactly that height some 40 years before it was taken down, and I think I had sent in some photo- if not, I can get you a photo of what the old tower looked like. And the second is I guess the same reason they put it there, itLs the highest part of the Island. CHAIRMAN: Is there any specific reason why you chose to go 80 feet plus 22 for this? MR. KAMEN: Because I was told that the units will make the least noise, the most efficient power if they are in uniform air, and to be in uniform air you want them to be as high over any obstacle that you can get~ Apparently the only noise you ever get off these things is a whirring noise if they're flapping. And the only reason they flap is if one part of the blade in its cycle is in littlean noise, wind. So together with that, they make very CHAIRMAN: Ok. I understand that you had contacted the Coast Guard in Boston. What did they tell you? MR. KAMEN: Well, we've contacted them a number of times, parti- cularly--not to be funny about it--but about August 13th the power went out on the Island, and we called them in somewhat of an emergency situation and having had quite a few conversations with them since then because they had to send a boat up from New Jersey which runs along and finds the undersea cable that comes from Fishers Island and then another boat that finds ways to splice it if it's bad, et cetera, and then a practical matter, for ten days there was no power on the Island. And besides having no electric power in the house, the house also only gets water from the desalinization plant which runs on electricity. So there was no water in the house. We had a generator that we're running out there to s~lve those problems which also runs the lighthouse, which we did as a service for the Coast Guard, and we will continue to run their light in hopes that they will continue to figure out how to fix my power, and also each time we talked to them, we told them that if we got our lighthouse up, that they had no problems with that. That they would be happy to tie their lighthouse, or their light into our storage system with the rest of the place. And each time we spoke to somebody, I would say more than of no concern, they were quite positive--in fact, they thought it would be a nice idea, that we had auxiliary power and that would help to keep the light running. We never did let the light go out~ We went through ~'Page 3 - Kamen Hearing Z.B.Z. - 9/10/87 MR. KAMEN (continued): more than 1200 gal. of propane, because it took them 10 days to return my electric power. CHAIRMAN: So thsy,~o/~Qur knowledge, in speaking to the Coast G~ard in Boston, they have no objection to the wind towe~3 in the proposed spot that you want to build it? MR. KAMEN: That's correct. And they had a tower exactly in that spot for I think, more than 40 years from the mid-1930's, when the last lighthouse keeper lived in the house moved out and the ~Coast Guard~got control of the light, they moved it off of the house and put it on top of the tower that they built there that was 80 feet tall. It stayed there until Mr. Levitt, the former owner, in the early 1980's, bought the~!island and refurbished the house. When he did, he asked if he could have the lighthouse and the light moved back onto the Original house thatl he refurbished where it had been for over 100 years. And they said yes. So he had gotten special permission from them to take the ~tower down and move the light to the house and I guess they really didn't seem to mind that and they have always felt concerned to me about putting the tower back up. CHAIRMAN: Now, the light is in this area above the house. It's fixed to the house. MR. KAMEN: The light is now back. It's a number 5 lens .as it Was originally in 1844 to 1847 when they built the house and it's back in the same spot. CHAIRMAN: And how high above is that now? MR. KAMEN: I think 55 feet above. The light; I think, sits 55 feet above mean high tide and this ~hing will sit about 20'feet above that. But this thing is quite a distance from it and it's on a tower of two inch pipe so it's not going to effect it one way or another. CHAIRMAN: The next problem we have is that We independantly spoke"~ to the Coast Guard. Not myself in question. But Mr. Douglass, who is on the Board and is an avid yachtsman, did speak to the Coast Guard, in.i at least in two instances, actually more than two and he finally illecited a response from them. And of course, it's somewhat different than what you say but that's nothing different than the beuracracy as it stands. So maybe he'll tell us what he found. Would you tell us BOb what you found? MR. DOUGLASS: What I received from them was that their desire was, and their opinion is that that can not be in line with any of the' navigable waters between the navigable waters O~ the light. They said they had no objection to it being over on the other side by the rock pile where the rock pile runs down ko Fisher's Island Sound there. But that they do not, and if it was not to their satisfaction, you would have to remove itoifl, you. put it up. They want it over there so that when you come from Stonington down, you have a clear view of the light. When you come down the SOund.tOwards Noyak and Stonington, you have a clear view of the light with nothing in between. They feel that it can create some problems with their light.and I have that from two 'Page 4 - Kamen Hearing Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR. DOUGLASS (continued): different departments in the Coast Guard, the ones that command all that area and also the heads of the Buoy Department. They said that if you would take it around and go over by the rock pile runs right on down between Fisher's and Noyack, they could see no problem. But they do see a problem with it being set up in an area where it could take and distort the view of a small boat. MR. KAMEN: I asked my father, who is an artist, to draw the island. Would you mind if I come up? MR. DOUGLASS: To come way over to that side somewheres. Way over here.~ .What they described to me was, they don'~ want anYthing in view this way and the light and this way in the light. You have yonr rock pile over here, the reefs that go right down here. So they have no objeCtion over in here somewheres. They~don't want it where a boat coming by here can be distorted on this light. CHAIRMAN[' Why don,t we do this. Why don't we recess the hearing and let you go back and see where you think it would be an appropri- ate spot over here and then adjust the height that you made need as the minimum height. MR. KAMEN: I was just going to say. As long as I can add enough tower to make up the difference in height, I would have, off hand, I have no problem. But I also think that Lieutenant Brook and the guys from the Department of Aids and Navigation, I think when they see what we want to do, they'll have no problem either but obviously, as you say, they do. We can get a written answer from them one way or the other. CHAIRMAN: Well wh~don,t yo~ call them too. MR. KAMEN: I will. CHAIRMAN: In the interim and we'll reconvene this hearing on Octo- ber 8th and then we'll go from there. MR. KAMEN: I guess I have only one concern with that. I know every- body probably tells you time is a problem but this is really a genuine card carrying island. And if I don't get the thing up before the water gets bad and before, I know there are only two guys with barges 'that say they will bring the thing out and after October, they won't bring it. out. I need power in the wintertime. And if I~loose my power be- fore the winter, I'm going to be in big trouble out there. CHAIRMAN: I understand. Well, we could give you a decision as expe- ditiously after that October 8th meeting as quickly as possibly so that you could order what you have to order so that you could get it over. MR. KAMEN: If I could prevail upon the Coast Guard to give me a writ- ten answer sooner than that and I will go there tomorrow and find who- ever it is and ask them to effect something to you that says they have no problem with it here, can we at least make sure we've covered any- thing else that might be a problem so that we can get going. .~ '~age 5 - Kamen Hearing .Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN: Yes. Then you have to tell us height too. MR. KAMEN: Ok. I would say that if they want it here and that"s the only place they can do it, the only issue to me is that I've got to buy more tower. And if the guy... CHAIRMAN: And you have to tell us distance too of what we are. Be- cause as you know, this played a big havoc on us and the Building In- spector and that's the reason why we~iwere not in also for just 119-2b which?~,was just for the height variance which was a violation of 100-32 but for 119-2b because it was within... ' MR. KAMEN: Of water. Right. But we got a letter from somebody say- ing they waived the business about being coastal. CHAIRMAN: That was from the troll. MR. KAMEN: Is there any other thing? MR. : That's what I was just going to bring up to Gerry° Do we have to go back to the Trustees or the Di.E.C. now if he puts it over here because of setbacks? CHAIRMAN: I don't think he went to the D.EoC. MR. : That was for here. CHAIRMAN: Well, he's 25 feet in height up here. MR. KAMEN: Twenty-five feet from the ocean to the spot, it's higher than twenty-five feet. CHAIRMAN: D~E.C. As long as you exceed ten, I tt~ink you're alright with MR. : Is that ten there? I think it's pretty low. a question of whether it's ten feet above sea level. This is MR. DOUGLASS: Well, it's pretty close to it. it's fifteen. You've got ten way down here. objection over here. The fact, up in here, They said they had no MR. Then you've got ~o get the word of the Trustees. MR. KAMEN: This little house has all our switch gear, electrical cable, our input. We have to be able to switch from our power to... You see, whoever put the original undersea cable in here, it runs in, there's ~2,300 volt transformer and all the switch gear and all that stuff there. ~nd that's where, and see if we come right into there with the battery, it wasn't just the height. Their tower used to feed all the stuff in here as well. I guess... MR. : Is the light on the tower then? MR. KAMEN: It was on the tower. 'Page 6 - Kamen Hearing .Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR. DOUGLASS: After this one was done away with. MR. KAMEN: In 1844, they put a light here. Then around the turn of... No. In 1932 when the last caretaker left, the COast Guard built a tower and put the light on the tower, i'd be happy to put the light back on the tower for them if that solves the problem. MR. : That might solve the problemo MR. DOUGLASS: It won't solve the problem. MR. KAMEN: Why not. It was there originally. CHAIRMAN: We can't have two t.ights. MR. : I mean if he takes this one and puts it on the tower. MR. DOUGLASS: go by. This tower would not maintain a light that they would MR. KAMEN: Iti~was there from .... CHAIRMAN: That's what I said. We're jumping theilgun here. BetWeen no~ and then, if you intend to change the position of this based upon the requirements, you're going to have to..'..~ ' MR. KAMEN: Maybe we can convince them because I don't think they really have a problem once they know it's an open structure. Because the guys that actually came out off these boats that came up to try to fix ~the problem, we told them each about it and none of them had a problem. MR. DOUGLASS: Welli,~ those fellows do'~i~,.~have any authority anyway. MR. KAMEN: Can you give us the name of the people you think have a problem with this so we can call upo MR. DOUGLASS: Well', you can get any information you need from Chief Price in New London. MR. : I thought you spoke to people in Boston° MR. DOUGLASS: I did. MR. KAMEN: We called New York and they closed whatever is the old... A couple of months ago they closed the whole Coast Guard Station and everything that's under this area now, moved to Boston and we spoke to Boston. MR. DOUGLASS: Anything no~,~you can?~t get later than 4 o'cloek in the afternoon~because they work an eight hour day now and the boss is Chief Price. ~age 7 - Kamen Hearing iZ.B.A. - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN: Now the next problem is so that you're aware of the situ- ation, if you intend to change the area of thi~, you're going to have to go ba~k to the Trustees. MR. KAMEN: Maybe we don't want to do that anyway because my switch gear is up there. CHAIRMAN: It's not a problem. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, you can run from there over to there. You can go from here over %o here with your power line. CHAIRMAN: Just come back with another drawing. MR. KAMEN: If we did get more than 75 feet away from mean high tide and our tower ten feet and not on a sand dune, bluff, et, cetera, we don't have to go back to the Trustees. CHAIRMAN: I would say not. Is that true Vic? MR. : You're absolutely right° MR. KAMEN: What about the D.E.C.? MR. : The D,E.C., if you write them a letter saying that the present position that you're interested in is above ten feet. MR. DOUGLASS: As long as you're above ten foot. MR. KAMEN: So one option is to move it here, make sure it's above ten feet and we don't have to worry about being 75 feet from the water? MR. DOUGLASS: No. You shouldn't. MR. KAMEN: But I'm saying that's version two. Version o~e is if we get a letter for you guys from the Coast Guard that says they have no problem with the tower, I just want to make sure that we don't do them all in series. I'd like to get all the problems settled. CHAIRMAN: To be honest with you,~that's a good idea though if you want to take the light and put it above. MR. KAMEN: I have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN: Because I think it would make it easier for you also. MR. KAMEN: It would make i~ easier for them alsO. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Good. MR. KAMEN: IS it safe then to say; A, if we can get them to fed° 'ex. a letter to you that says they have no problem with my tower...~ ~Page 8 - Kamen Hearing ,~ Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR. : What would the height of thetight be? MR. KAMEN: I'll assume that I'll give them their choice. Whatever their letter says. If they say they want it moved,.?I'll send you a letter that says we'll move it. MR. : Well[~ that will above the blades of the .... ~.~ ..... MR. KAMEN: Yes. It all sits on top. There's already been .... MR. : Would he then have a problem with the height variance as he's asked for 85? MR. KAMEN: There's a place already on the generat0r part of these things for lights. I guess they put them on there for a reason. CHAIRMAN: That's where the problem is Mr. Kamen. The problem is that if we get over here, we may requirei~you to have a light and then that conflicts with this light and we run into a problem. So there- fore, it would be much better ~o~keep the light on top of the wind generating tower in the proposed area that you'd like to have ito If there is a possibility of doing that. MR. KAMEN: I guess what I want to know is, if we get them.out there, we'll bring them out ~t~il find and who makes this decision, who has the authority. If we get them to send you a letter that says they have no problem with us~putting that there, whichever way they want the light, then can I assume that there's'nothing? CHAIRMAN: Then we'll close the hearing. MR. KAMEN: Then we're all set. CHAIRMAN: We'll just dlose the hearing. We have~ no problems. You don't have to come back. Just send us a letter with all the informa- tion. You don't have to come back. Then we'll close the hearing and we'll make a decision the same night on October 8th if we can. MR. KAMEN: So closing the hearing means that you make a decision? MRo DOUGLASS: Make sure when you get stuff from them, I think he wrote it down. Well, the other guy I can't remember. I've got it home but I can't remember what it is. Chief Price can tell you any- way. He's at New London and'he's the one that put me in touch with the other people. Make sure that you tell them what you're discussing in height as well as everything else in reference to the light. MR. KAMEN: I'll just tell them I'd like them to sign off an exact copy of what we're doing and send it to you. MR. DOUGLASS: YouJsee, I run tho~se waters quite constantly and I know what the hangup can mean to some of these weekend sailors. ~Page 9 - Kamen Hearing .ZoB.A. - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN: Now, before you leave because~you may not come back and just submit all the information... MR. KAMEN: Well, iS Zhe~e any other issue open? CHAIRMAN: The only other issue is; do you have any idea what this tower will withstand in reference to wind? MR. KAMEN: One hundred fifty miles per hour guaranteed mimimal. CHAIRMAN: So there's no reason for tiebacks. MR. KAMEN: That's why we went with this kind of'tower. This is the strongest tower he makes and he builds these towers and sells'them to the government to power-remote sonic booms. And he's put them in known hurricane areas in the Southern Islands and he's had them for years. He says it will come with a professional engineer's seal on it. MR. DOUGLASS: Do you know the one on Block Island? Have you seen the one on Block Island? I was just wondering if the t~wer was the same like that one over thereo There's a big one on Block Island that they want to now take down.because it even breaks crystal. CHAIRMAN: We thank you for your feelings on this and we hope that we don't prolOng the situation any more than what it has to be and we hope you have a safe trip back. We don't have too many people come from Fisher's Island. Sometimes we have to lend this gentleman here who usually does a relatively great job but we really appreciate it. I hope we can take care of this as expeditiously as possible, as you want us to. MR. KAMEN: I really don't want to be a pain about it. It's just that without that power we could be in trouble.~ ~nd if we wait much after October and I'm not sure what we can do in October° As I said there's two guys that have agreed to do it. There's one guy that I haven't been able to contact all summer up there. But they tell me that once the water goes bad, they will not take it out. MR. DOUGLASS: Where are they coming out of? MR. KAMEN: One is coming from Pane's River Marine and one of them is Mr. Leland and the other one is Sandy something° MR. DOUGLASS: They've got equipment that can handle anything° CHAIRMAN: We're going to do the best we can for him. MR. KAMEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you and a safe trip back. Is ther~anybody else who would like to speak either pro or con concerning this hearing? Seeing no hands, I will ask for a recess until the next regularly scheduled meeting° Ail in favor - AYE° TRANSCRIPT, OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY,-~SEPTEMBER 10, 1987 Appl~-No, 3662 Applicant(s): THOMAS AND FRANCES SMITH Location of Property: 200 Haywaters Drive, ~Cutchogue .County Tax Map ID No. ]000- 104 z 05- 19 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Serge Doyen, Jr., Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Charles Grigonis, Jr. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:03 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 August 3~1987 indicating the~proposed one-story dwelli~gt~'showing the addition and the deck added to the rear of the addition and encompassing a portion of the garage. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indi- cating this and surrounding properties in the area° Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Either Mr. or Mrs. Smith? Mr. Smith, how big is the deck? MRo SMITH: dition. The deck would be extending 12 feet out from the ream ad- CHAIRMAN: How big is the addition? MR. SMITH: The overall additiOn? CHAIRMAN: The whole addition, approximately. MRi~.~ SMITH:~ About 800 square feet. CHAIRMAN: And in reference to size of that, is 20 by 40? MR. SMITH: It would be 20 by 30. CHAIRMAN: So then, the deck is a little bit longer than 30 to go back to the garage. Is that correct? MR.~ SMITH: Right. It's going to extend out and wrap around the ga-' rage. It will be less than that. It will be just about 30 because it's not going to go all the way over to the other side of the 'step~. ~Page 2 - Smith Hearing '~Z.~B.A. - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN: Then it would be offset. MR. SMITH: It would be leSs than that. CHAIRMAN: What would you have in the sideyard on the Moon side with the Moon as your neighbor which would really... I see 11½ feet. Is that what you will have left, approximately, on the side- yardlif you were to put the deck on? MR. SMITH: No. It would be more than that. Because if you're going down past there, it's 11½ feet as it is now even with the foundation. CHAIRMAN: I think that's what the arrow points and that's the rea- son I asked the question. It was a little unclear. MR. SMITH: ten feet. The deck won't go out, i~ will be an additionally (maybe) CHAIRMAN: And the deck itself is a service deck. closed and so on. It will not be eh- MR. SMITH: No. Just a deck. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any objection to a covenant indicating that theme be no further additions into that sideyard area on Mr.~nd Mrs. Moon's side of the house. Again, which is basically northwest to a certain degree. So that you can get to your rear yard if you have any problem with it. 'iYou don't have any objection to that? MR. SMITH: No. CHAIRMAN: Now, what has happened here, you have built the addition here and you have stopped construction at this particular time? MR. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Pending decision from this Board. 'And the deck has not been constructed at all to mY knowledge when I had looked at it. And what is the addition going to be? MR. SMITH: It's going to be a den, a master bedroom, a bathroom. CHAIRMAN: One-story? MR. SMITH: One-story, yes. CHAIRMAN: And I suppose, lthat you're quite timely on this thing and you want to get it going before the winter also. Alright. We thank you very much° Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? KindlY state your name for the record. ~ ~Ps~ge 3 - Smith Hearing Z, oB.A. - 9/10/87 MR. PAUL KRADEMSY: I live two houses away at 470 Haywaters Drive. I've lived there since April of last year.and have seen what's go- ing on and I have no objections. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 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? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a'~motion reserving a decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRI PT~'OF HEARING SOUTHOLD 'TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR'MEETING OF THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1987 Appl.-No,.3622 Applicant(s): CHRISTIAN Bo SALMINEN Location of Pr0perty:240 Lakeview Terrace, East Marion County Tax_.Map ID No, lO00- 31 - 9 - ~' Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Serge Doyen~ Jr., Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member ~harles Grigonis, Jr. The 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 sketch of the survey. The last date was September 29, 1986 by Roderick VanTuy~, P.C. indicating a pro- posed deck to be added to the existing one-story framed bungalow and steps within the natural.bluff or contour areas down to the lake. 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. SALMINEN: I would answer any questions that you have at-all. CHAIRMAN: How big is the deck in reference to size? MR. SALMINEN: 16 by 2'0o Twenty foot is the width of the house and it's ~ongest point it's about 16 feeto~-' The westerly side and the easterly side would come out approximately 12 feet. CHAIRMAN: What about distance to the actual shoreline? What would that put you from the shoreline? Have you ever measured it? MR. SALMINEN: It would be difficult to measure. approximately 45 feet. It would have to be CHAIRMAN: out? And the deck itself would be a raised deck or it would come MR. SALMINEN: It would be the same. About 12 inches above. CHAIRMAN:TLiTwelve inches above and it shall remain open and unroofed. I think the only question the Board (sir) is that we were concerned with the step area and the ability to get around them in case~]~you have to get in with some heavy equipment to the rearyard of your house and possibly the steps could be moved over a little bit closer to the Pa~e 2 - Salminen Hearing Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN (continued): south property line so as to be able to maneuver around if you had to get in there. I guess you could take them down (solto speak) if you had to. MR. SALMINEN: On the site plan, shows a horizontal view of the steps. It shows the steps will actually start at the edge of the bluff. CHAIRMAN: So there's no problem. MR. SALMINEN: I can!t fomesee any problem with bringing any equip- ment in the back of the house. We still have the original distance from the house to the steps and the steps would actually~hen go down the bank down to the lake. CHAIRMAN: And how long are these steps? How long do you think the actual stairs will be? Do you have any idea? MR. SALMINEN: Well, in distance, I would estimate probably 30 feet on a horizontal plane. CHAIRMAN: Are you planning on putting any dock or asking for any dock from the Trustees or anything of that nature? MR. SALMINEN: No. CHAIRMAN: You just want to be able to get down to the water area. MR. SALMINEN: Yes. When I was a kid, I grew up two houses away from that~als a'~youngster. I should provide access for my children to the lake for boating and fishing. CHAIRMAN: Would there be any lighting on either the deck or the steps that would be offensive to either neighbor on either Side? MR. SALMINEN: No there's none currently planned. CHAIRMAN: Alright. I know this application has been before us and we'll do the best we can to expedite it for you..' We thank you very much for coming in. 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? Hearing no further ques- tions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision un~il latero Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1987 Appl.-No. 3658 Apo]icant(s): PAUL AND CORRINE FERDENZI Location of Property: 470 Haywaters Drive, Cut~hogue County Tax Map ID No. ]000-104 - 5 - 21 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Serge Doyen, Jr., Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Charles Grigonis, Jr. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:15 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMA~ GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey produced by Roderick VanTuyl. The most recent date is November 20, 1984, indicated a two- story framed house as indicated in the application of approximately 150 feet from Haywaters Drive and approximately 78 feet from a wet- land area and on this is a pencilled in sketch of a~a.access~y~.hUild- ing in the sideyward approximately five feet from the north prope~.ty line, 60 feet from the road, and at ~'s farthest point; 50 feet from the road at it's nearest point of 16 by 26° And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Woutd~-you like to be heard sir? We always have questions. What happens to your garage as it exists now when and after you con- struct,{this building? MR. FERDENZI: It's still a garage. CHAIRMAN: How are you going to get in and out of it. It's on the... MR. FERDENZI: Using the driveway° CHAIRMAN: But ~his].iscactually is placed almost on the existing drive- way, is it not? MR. FERDENZI: No%~ It's along Side of it. CHAIRMAN: the side? Is the garage entered from the front or the rear or from MR o FERDENZI: The new garage? CHAIRMAN: The existing garage. MRo FERDENZI: From the side° ~ < Pag~ 2 - Ferdenzi Hearing Z.B,A. - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN: From the side. So you're going to go in and go around it to a certain degree and get in it. MR. FERDENZI: The existing garage, you drive down the driveway and you make a sharp turn to the left and you go into the garage. That area is not going to change. ~i This garage, if allowed, will be for- ward of that area with the doors facing %he water side of the house. CHAIRMAN: I see° Ok. And what is the proposed use of the garage? MR. FERDENZI: It's to keep a truck in. CHAIRMAN: Is it to be used for any specific business or anything of that nature? MR. FERDENZI: The garage? Noo Just to keep a truck in. is used for business if that's what you~mean. The truck CHAIRMAN: But you're not using the, you're not placing construction materials in it or using it for a business or anything of that nature? MR. FERDENZI: No. CHAI~4AN: Will there be any plumbing or any electrical in ~he garage? MR. FERDENZI: There will be no plumbing in the garage. There will be some electrical° Electrical to the extent of an overhead garage door and some general lighting. That's about it. CHAIRMAN: feet? When you say 17 feet high, you're talking to the roof 17 MR. FERDENZI: Yes. CHAIRMAN: ~What would be the actual height of the sidewall? feet? Eight MR. FERDENZI: No. The one side would be straight up to Cdnform with the lines of the house. So you would h&~esal~os% sevent~entfo6t~br~k wall down this way towards the driveway. The driveway would be eight fset or seven and a half feet off the ground° T~t~ how the front of the honsei, is built n~. If you turn the house around it would be the same e~aCt configuration. That's why I designed it ~hat way. CHAIRMAN: What would the second story area be used for? Storage? MR. FERDENZI: It would be a small ten foot by maybe fourteen foo~ platform that maybe would have five foot of clearance, ~trictly for storage. CHAIRMAN: So the actual sweep of the angle is going to be towards the house. Not towards the next ~oor neighbor's property or into the drive- way. MR. FERDENZI: The driveway area as it exists now~.in front of the new building or alongside the existing garage, is not going to change. There,s not five feet there now before the existing garage doors and the neighbor,s property~line. Page 3 - Ferdenzi Hearing Z oB.A. - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN: Wha~ I was saying that this angle here that you're refer- ring to, the water runoff will be toward your driveway. MR. FERDENZI: One hundred percent. CHAIRMAN: The only other problem ~e~have is with seventeen feet in height on the other side. Are you going to be able to put a ladder against this building and still be on your property? MR. FERDENZI: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Within five f~et of the ~ property line? MR. FERDENZI: Absolutely° No problem. CHAIRMAN: OK. MR. FERDENZI: I have a letter from Mrs. if you'd like to see it~which not only says we couldn't do, she kind of encouraged it as long as you have no problem with it. I don't think you have a copy of it. This is the o~ly copy I have but if you want to take a look at it. Her house is probably 100 feet away from what we're talking about° CHAIRMAN: Can we keep this and return it to you? MR. FERDENZI- Sure. CHAIRMAN: 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? We assume that it will be a conventional cement block construction and then a cement floor so on and so forth similiar to a normal garage type of construction? MR. FERDENZI: Yes. The side will be the same as the house; square cedar with anderson windows all conforming to what is there now. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT-OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1987 Appl,-No, 3665 App]icant(s): LEHESK BUmLDING CORP. Location of Property: 360 Sebastian's Cove Road, Mattituck. County Tax_.Map ID No. 1000- 100 3 - 11.8 Board-Members' present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Serge Doyen, ~r., Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Charles Grigonis, Jr. The Chairman opened the hearing at ~22 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey created by Young and Young with a most recent date of July 2, 1987; indicating a two-story framed house and garage. The closest distanmee approximately to the property line is 55 feet and we're adding to that; a sixteen foot deck, sixteen feet two inches encroaching into that rear property. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surround- ing properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? MR. SCKYRPECKI: In all actuality, the only portion of the deck that would be against the setbacks would be the northeaster~yt~emtion of that deck. It's somewhat of an oblong triangle running 20 foot by 9 feet. It's only that portion of the deck which would be against the setbacks. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Could I just ask you, one of the members couldn't hear you. Could you just restate that a little bit louder for him. MR. SCKYRPECKI: That's the northeast particular portion of this deck which is the northeasterly section of it that's basically a triangular around 20 foot by 9 feet. And as it goes down it increases. This deck was actually already built for a new-construction. Qriginally, that sectionsthere was s~pposed to have a patio surface and I joined .... I changed it to a wooden deck in that I joined the other portion of the deck which was ok. The deck was not done intentionally because it's financially it's a loss just waiting for it. I'm basically waiting for the decision. CHAIRMAN: Rat is your opinion in ~sference to the actual distance between that edge of the deck and the property line? Have you actual- ly measured it? Page 2 - Sckyrpecki Hearing '~Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR. S~KYRPE~KI: I basically measured it as far as permanent. CHAIRMAN: Monumented it at that particular point where it bisects the property line. MR. SCKYR~E~KI: I basically took it off the survey prepared by Young and Young. CHAIRMAN: So what you're saying is 55 feet minus approximately 16. MR. SCK~R~E~KI: Y'No. Actually I would be... It's 55 feet minus ap- proximately 9. The outside, the northeast corner, would be between 39 and 40 feet away and it would decrease as it went over going south. CHAIRMAN: Now, there is no plan of roofing this deck? main as open deck. It will re- MR. S~KYR~ECKI: the ground. It will remain as an open deck. It's two~feet off CHAIRMAN: line. It'~s approximately 39 to 40 feet away from the property MR. SCKYRPECKI: Actually, as it goes south, it decreases and it ex- tends and it goes up to that point going from 20 feet it goes from 39 to 40 up to 50. CHAIRMAN: What you're saying, Victor, that~it's actually 44 as op~ posed to 39° MR. : No. It~would be 39 but it's an il foot encroachment. CHAIRMAN: Well, What is the actual rearyard setback. acre lot? This is a one MR. : One acre. It has to be 50. CHAIRMAN: So you're saying 11 is approximate~yi[~39. MR. SCKYRPECKI: One other thing, I contacted, besides the certified letters; I talked to the owners and none of them had given them any bad response. CHAIRMAN: I was up there the other night. It's a very beautiful house and you did a very nice job protecting the overall pr0ifery of the property and placed it very very nicely. Thank y~u very much. Very nice. Do you gentlemen have any objection to voting on this tonight? Anybody have any objection to it? The only condition I would place on it is that there be no further rearyard encroachment and that the deck remain unroofed and remain as an open,~I really say accessory because it's added to, deck. I'll make that as a form of a motion. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT,OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS R~GULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1987 Appl.-No. 3628 App_licant(s): GEORGE AND JANE KAYTIS Location of ProP.erty: Robinson Road, Southold County Tax_ Map ID No. 1000-81 = 3 - 15.4 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members : Serge Doyen, Jr., Robert J. Douglass~and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent Was: Member, Charles Grigonis, Jr. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:52 o~clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a ~opy of a survey with a date of August 8, t986 prod6~ed by Roderi~k Va~Tuyl, P.C. indicating the existing lot number 1 to be set off of 40¥000 square feet and lot number 2, which is (as drawn) a proposed house on it approximately 50 feet from the right-of-way of l~43~acres which is also the nature of this application. 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? MRS° MOORE: I'd like to sta~, the application for the most part speaks for itself bu~ I would like to emphasize that this is a family compound. From the tax lot numbers is the easiest way to describe this. Tax lots 11, 15.4, 15.3, 15.2~and 15 are all family-owned par- cels. I believe that you may know the Neethus Family who is the grand- father, who owns a larger parcel and then the daughters and son-in-laws, (excuse me) son, daughter own_~theL~ther parcels° And the one that is left over, is the one that is being set.off today which would create t~o lots.~One for each son. So it is_ maintaining the family compound style there and that is the purpose of the set off. I'd like to empha- size that the lots to the north which are the long parcels described as 15.7~ 15.6, ~:~.~3..and 14.3 which all abutt the Southo!d Bay, are actually quarter acre lots. Which because of buffers, are now 2.3 acre parcels. But there are actually covenants on these parcel~ which would not allow any construction in'~his area. So the fact that we are creating one acre lots,.~is~n~conform~y"-wi~h the~'quarter~_a~re, lo~s ~i~ht acrOss~o thei~horth which would be on Robinson Road. In addition to those quar- ter acre lots, you continue on Robinson Road and there are additional quarter acre lots. So we are in conformity with the rest"~of_~the neigh- borhood if you look to the north. Obviously, if you look to the south, you have ~o5 and 2 acre parcels. So it varies. This ~/~] ~rea is very developed and you take it one piece at a time out there. This road, ?,age 2 - George and Jane Kaytis Hearing Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MRS4~[ ~MOORE (continued): the set off parcel does have access by way of North Bayview Road and Paradise Point Road as well as the other side which is the Other side of the parcel which goes directly on to Robinson Road. So this lot has two access points without creating any further right-of-ways or additional access. To the northwest is a parcel which is no~ proposed one acre. So we're talking about a difference between the proposed~lone acre zoning and a proposed two acre zoning by way of this road and it's difficult to break one piece from the other just by way of a road. The community still remains (essential- ly) one ac~e. CHAIRMAN: Are you referring to the road as 15.17 mean by... that what you MRS. MOORE: No. Robinson Road. Robinson Road is the division line between the propOsed one acre and the two acre. The water in!~this area is the determining factor. We believe that the water will be good. We have not received any negative responses from the Health Department and we are still proceeding with the Health Department. But that should be the ultimate factor on whether or not this setoff should occur, is whether the Health Department finds good water. The application is before you and ~request that you allow the setoff. CHAIRMAN: Can I just ask a question? Is 15.1, is that added into the square footage of the lots or is that a .... ? I understand it is in the same name. It's the right-of-way to the north. MRS. MOORE: Would that be Paradise Point Road? Theze is a flag lot. CHAIRMAN: I was referring to this here. That and that are the same. And my question was; isithis square footage added into this or is this exclusive of that? MRS. MOORE: To be honest with you, I don't know. I would presume it is included but I don't know for sure. If it's part of their deed, it would depend on what their deed says and I don't know off hand what the deed says. I can check that. MRS. KAYTIS : Are you talking about this right-of-way? CHAIRMAN: YeS, that right-of-way. MRS. KAYTIS : No~~ This is our 50 foot right-of-way. cluded in this part. That's not in- CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you very much. MRS. MOORE: Are there any other questions? CHAIRMAN: Not right at the moment. Thank you. MRS, MOORE: I will double check that. ~age 3 - George and Jane Kaytis Hearing Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN: You might also find out who has a right-of-way over that right-of-way. You all do. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? Do you want to start. MS. ALEXANDER: I'm the adjoining property owner. I ~eh~mently ob- ject to having two houses on less than 2½ acres because I feel that Southold has spent a great deal of money on the Master Plan for two acre zoning and Iffe~l that this just laughs at the whole thing; if you allow these people to break this up for whatever reason and put two houses on less than 2½ acres° The whole area, the area that we ti~e in, is not part of that ~aradise POint community. This is out- side of that Paradise Point Community. It's a wooded area. It's a beautiful quiet area. -~I~'s full of wildlife. There are deeH, there is turkey, racoons. T~ere is all sorts of wildlife there. N6w, if he wants to put one house there, fine. But I just really object to having two houses on 2% acres. CHAIRMAn: Thank you very much Mrs. Alexander. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? Yes sir. Could I ask you to state your name for the record. DR. ROSEN: I own a house very close to that. My property is 27-21. I'm one of the people who have a right-of-way. CHAIRMAN: Over that 15.1 that goes in. DR. ROSEN: One of the primary reasons the is that this entire property belongs to Neethus and he's dividing up into pieces of land for his children and his grandchildren. I'd like to ask the Board when the two acre zoning came in? CHAIRMAN: April of '83, sir. DR. ROSEN: AndYwhen was this land given to Mr. Kaytis? CHAIRMAN: I have no idea. DR. ROSE~: Well, I think he believes, ~et~.he~s'aysf~by~n oversight, he did not allow this new zone to effect without his opposing it because~ it's private property and it's part of group housing (so to speak) for his family. Then he &pplied it and went~to a new zoning. CHAIRMAN: I do see on th~ map that it says 4/1/76. DRo ROSEN Tha~ Kaytis had it? CHAIRMAN: It just says 4/1/76. I don't know if that's the time was receipted to him or no%. ~R. ROSEN: Did he own it in 4/1/767 CHAIRMAN: It's in Kaytis now doctor. Page 4 - George and Jane Kaytis Hearing Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 DR. ROSEN: That I do know. I also did know that Neethus at one time, was trying to sell that land to other people. So that he was trying to sell someone else's land in some other zone before he sold. The Neethus grandmother has many more than these 2.1 acres or whatever is in which there can be many more than two acres to each child or grandchild that is existing in the family. Now, Mr. and Mrs. Neethus live on the land before it was And with that, they acquired (I'm not sure) how many acres, 10 acres or 12 acres. A piece of which is what Mr. and Mrs. Kaytis live on at this time next door to... I don'~t believe~I know the names but they do live on land which is within Paradise Point. It's next to people by the Hame of TBoyd. You can't tell that to them. W~ built that house 7 years ago and I've been living there ever since. Now, so that if the real reason is no~ to break down the one acre/two acre zoning to one acre because they'd like to make more money, but to live within the property of the Neethus compound. Then there is lot of land they can do that. Actually they can build a house on this land that they,re talking about now that they would like to make intto two pieces on that lando Nobody would object to them putting a house on that land because it conforms to the area. It conforms to the zoning° The people who are in the area have bought and built there because of the fact that it is economic land. It's been said, there is wildlife. It's wooded, it's completely ~ooded. It's lovely land and people want to keep it as two acre lovely land. CHAIR[~XN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against? Kindly state your name for the record sir. MR. HENNESSEY: I ~o~n the property next to Mabel's~in[~fact~i-. CHAIRMAN: Lot number 14, tax map numbero MRo HENNESSEY: I don't recall when but i"~ must have been speaking before this night when John Nichols proposed a two acre zoning and I was for the two acre zoning. Now, I don't know of all the family com- pound things. But all I know is that we have one parcel is 2.6' acres, the nex~ parcel 3.4 acres, this parcel is 2.9 acres. It isn't because of'.Zhe right-of-way; 2. 9 acres, 2.0 acres, 3.4 acres, 2.2 acres. This isn't¥.. I don't know how many feet it is and I~>.~hink that's a require- ment from when you~'re going to try to do one acre zoning. We do~ot~-~.~' have, as a council, quarter acres in our area. z~nd I strongly urge that the John Nichols proposal, two acre zoning which I spoke here two years ago and I speak here again~be~kept in. I don't know about family com- pounds. All I ~an' look at is this map and this map does not say that grandfather and grandson and whatever it is. I~tha~shohtdlha~e..~been been subdivided, i~tshould have been subdivided prior to that. Ih fact' I spoke to Mabel prior to that and Mabel is the one most effected. Mabel Alexander is directly acrosso I said, you know Mabel, you have a chance because John is trying to push the two acre zoning. She said, I don't want that. I want two acres and she's got a lovely little cot- tage right across the street. Right across the right-of-way and I think you'd be doing a tremendous dis-service. And I don"~.t know why that if it's a family compound; then ~there are other alternatives. And as we all know, there are two alternatives. I would like to thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir. something. In rebuttal, I think this lady wants to say ~-P~ge 5 - George and Jane Kaytis Hearing ~.B.A. - 9/10/87 MRS. KAYTIS: I really don't know what to say. As far as the right- of-ways go, I don't think that comes into it at all. It strictly id just to divide the property up so that we can have our children have an equal amount of property and that's it. We're not interest~dc~ in selling. We do not want to change the environment or the woods ~nd the squirrels and all that stuff. W~ just want to be able to keep it the way it is and be~-able to have an acre for each of our children. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anything else Pat? MRS. MOORE: No. I'd just like to emphasiz~ that this whole area is not uniformed. So that, it's hard to distinguish between one acre versus another acre. CHAIEMAN: Ok. Again, Mrs. Alexander you have something? MRS. ALEXANDER: May I ask how are we assured, if this is broken up to that acre, how we are assured this will come into the hands or will remain in the hands of said child? MRS. KAYTIS: I don't legally know how w~ could do.that. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Kaytis, you have to... We're taking this down elec- tronically. You have to approach the Board with a question I ~ ' . t~.canL~ be bounced back and forth in the audience. MRS° KAYTIS: To answer her question, I don't know legalty~.hbw it could be done but that is our only intention, is to divide it among our chil- dren. CHAIRMAN: Yes, doetOr. DR'; ROSEN: I wan~ a~ain, to ask if there isn't enough land in the Neethus compound so that other land can be divided So he conforms to our zoning. I would also like to inform Mrs. Kaytis. The conversa- tion I had with Mr. Neethus, Jimmy Neethus, Mrs. Neethus a few years ago. We were discussing buying sdme land adjaeent to the Neethus' and to me. And we found some land thati'Mr. Neethus .... He and I had talked about it .... CHAIRMAN: Doctor, you're going to have to use the mike. but we can't hear it. I apologize DR. ROSEN: During conversation with Mr. Neethus, (Perry Neethus), Mrs° Neethus, Jimmy Neethus. We pointed out some land that we thought was very desireable that Jimmy could probably build a house on.and Jimmy took one loOk. I don't want to live in Levittown, that's an acre. I am not going to live in Levittown. If you want to live in Levittown, that's fine. But I'~hink the Kaytis'~and the Neethus' at~eady know. I don't want to live in Levittown either. And if this~w~s their at- titude, then I can't see how it could have possibly changed their mind. MR. KAYTIS: [ May I respectfully say that the property that ~r. Rosen is speaking of is not in any way shape or form, connected with the property that we want to divide. He's talking about waterfront property that was adjacent to Mr. Neethus' property, my father's in between Neethus and Rosen. I f-.h~d nothing whatsoever to do with the ~ ~Age 6 - George and Jane Kaytis Hearing Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR. KAYTIS (continued): property that we are discussing tonight. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, doctor. DR. ROSEN: I'd like to point out that again that that's all I'm talking about. I'm talking about one acre zoning compared to two acre zoning. The Board has rightfully decided that two acre zon- ing is what this town had had. There's no real reason,~except really great personal needs or illnesses or something like that for that to be broken down. I remember also, a couple of years ago the property called the North BayView Road, a large piece of property on North Bayview Road and Jacobs Lane. That was knocked down to one acre zoningo Unfortunately, there's to file a map before the January 1st of the year Which the two acre zoning ~ent into effect. The Board denied them the right to con- tinue to sell that land as one acre zoning. They were forced to sell it as two acre zoning. They get to court and lost in court. That was not very far from where we are certainly. I~'~ccidehtally thought of this. The reason behind that is applicant to this ap- plication. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hearing no further comments~ I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later, we_thank you very much for all your input~ Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT~ OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY~ sEPTEMBER 10,, 1987 Appl.-No,_ 3593 and 3659 App_licant(s): QUIET MAN INN Location of Property- Hobart Avenue, Southold .County Tax_.Map ID No. 1000- 62 - 3 - 7 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members~ Serge Doyen, Jr., Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawi~ki. Absent was: Member Charles %Grigonis, Jr. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:30 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a recessed hearing from,~.it wasn't the last meeting, a while ago. We'll leave it at that particular point. I guess we'll open both of them at the same time. The next one is also for the Quiet Man Inn and we'll read the leg~t notice of that one and that's 36590 The legal notice reads as follows; upon appli- cation, the applicant (Quiet Man I~h~ variances zoning, Article XI, Section 1GQ-112 and Article III Section 100-31 for improvements for sufficient number of parking spaces in this pre-existing business use location of the propery on the corner of Main Road and Hobart Avenue, Sou~hold. And I have a copy of th~Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be hearing Mr. Moore? MR. MOORE: I'm here on behalf of the ~ilbert's, the owners and opera- tors of the Quiet Man Inn. As you know, we were here some time ago with respect to the variance hKving to do with the corner lot status and an equal frontyard variance because the property is on a corner lot. And I think at that time, I went through and explained 'that we could. There's an adequate justification for thatvvariance. In par- ticular, the unique entrance being a one-way road. The concern for which the corner lot, two fronty~rd setbacks are established doesn~]t really apply in this case.l)e~The, s%ra~fia]3i~f[~ot a problem there in terms of visibility. The problem of traffic does not head north on Hobart Avenue. It heads south. So that concernathere is not faced with this partic~%ar piece of]property. I think it's ratherfunique in the town, being a one-way street. The difficult situation Whe~-e-gwe're here for~ a parking variance tonigh~ comes from the Planning Board. In that, alterations, ~e~odelting, e~tensions, additions, changes of use and things of that nature all require site plan approval and the Board has taken the position to try to get as many property owners in com- pliance with the present Town Code, to require them that you meet up with today's parking requirements, setback requirements or any other Pa?~e 2 - Quiet Man Inn Hearing ~.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR. MOORE (continued): requirements that are set forth in the Town Code. And that's an applaudable goal. ~ilIn practice, it's an impossible goal for many if~not most of the existing businesses. Particularly, if the Board takes the role that even a change of use would require a site plan approval, you're going to have lots of applicants in that are going to want to do any kind of remodelling, extensions, additions, amendments, change of use or whatever else coming to the Planning Board for the necessary site plan approval. And if the Board is consistent in this application and interpretation, would then Say but you folks must now go to'.~the Zoning Board and get what ever variances that are necessary. Such as that why their goal~is reaching ultimate conformity to a Town Code~i~thi~ Board is here for the very purpose of granting the relief and providing the mechanism by which the strict applications of these rules, while well intended, can create the hardship. Here we are tonight. One of the things that the applicant had been willing to do all along and would hope that would be sufficient to justify the site plan approval with it~ willingness to limit its seating capacity as it presently exists. I guess it,s very very important. When I'm talking about expanding the business to create more business and big- ger business, the seating capacity would not be changed. I am not sure and I may have to request an a~journment tonight, but I agree with the comments set forth in the memorandum received this evening as comments from the Chairman of the Planning Board, ~ copy of which the Chairman of this Board provided me just a few moments ago. And that is, that the expansion as proposed or this addition of the en- closed porch will eliminate the four to five parking spaces. I think a site plan was presented to them originally. A copy of which I be- lieve is in your file but I will certainly give to YoU, showing how even with the existing or proposed addition of this enclosed porch, four off-street parking spaces will be retained~and I'll give you that as (in the second hearing) exhibit "~"o I think you might have that already. That was given to the Planning Board at one point. There are three along here and the~.~fourth there, ii[It's my understand- ing that for planning purposes and majestics, it was suggested that parallel parking be done along the street and that was a suggestion done by the Planning Board. A~ I understand it, that was done in a revised site plan by the architect dated March 11 and I wo~ld give it to you as exhibit "B" and it shows parallel parking places provid- ing plantings and the proposed extension. This was a suggestion by the Planning Board as a means to provide parking and perhaps a better layout, in that with that one-way street, you would not have cars back- ing out as they presently do. on to HObart. But by parallel parking, they could pull.down and continue in a southerly direction with the flow of traffic and ! give that to you as exhibit "B". I believe you have that also. But to see that distinction there. I believe that was a recommendation by the Planning Board~ CHAIRMAN: At what point, Mr. Moore,~did they discuss diagonal parking or when was it discussed? MR. MOORE: As opposed to the parallel there? I'm not familiar with any discussion on diagonal Parking. Certainly we'd be willing to en- tertain that as well.~ Ra~e 3 - Quiet Man,Inn Hearing Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN: First of all, have we reduced? I've heard 9, 6, 4, 3,, 2, 1; the number of spaces. How many, from your recollection, at the last Planning Board meeting, were they talking about? MR. MOORE: My understanding based upon the code, is that it's one space for five seats, i'~And to use 38 as a number to which the Gil- bert's and sworn to in affidavit, that's the seating capacity, you get 7 and a fraction. Obviously, 40 seats would be 8 parking spaces. Thirty-eight is 7 and change. So call it 8 parking spaces. It was unclear from the letter that came out of the Planning Board,?just the number of spaces that were being apPlied. In fact, I have not had the opportunity to appear before the ~lanning Board on this matter.~i! That was being held by the architect~before me. In any event, I believe that the number we're talking about is 8. I take accep%ion with the statement, therefore, that we are eliminating those 4 to 5 parking spaces that presently exists. Giving us the benefit of the doubt, even 5 and we're using 4 and saying we need 4 additional off-street parking spaces. The property, as the Planning Board points Out,in its memorandum, is physically incapable of providing additional park- ing. If~th~'~sit~ation can stay in ~ts status quo and no one could do anything about it, we'd have a pre-existing use there. We've got 38 seats and the parking is what it is,~where it is,~hOw it is and when it is. I think the application is an attempt to enhance that piece of property. I don't know if you've had the opportunity to go in. and see the property since the Gilbert's have taken it over £n the last year but they have done a very nice job with the inside. And I think their goal~is to enhance that piece of property which has had a varied reputation throughout its history. CHAIRMAN: Now, just let me ask a question here~so that we get down to a little bit more practical situation. The new addition, is it planned to be made out of wood or cement? I had heard it was going to be a greenhouse effect. Is there some sketch? MRS. GILBERT:~ !~What[ the plan was, was to build the porch wood frame in exactly the same period as the front window which would be keep- ing in character. As a matter of fact, Bill, if you showed that sketch. This is existing and proposed. CHAIRMAN: So it would be wood construction. MRS. GILBERT: Exactly the same as what's up ther~now. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. MOORE: So I just repeated myself to get myself ~olling and get myself back on track. The Planning Board's goal of getting everyone to conformity is great but it doesn't always work. So you're hhief for that° We want to enhance the property and improving it. And again, being more than willing to condition a variance if you should be amiable to granting it to condition it on retaining the existing seating capacity. So we're not talking about an additional traffic congestion problem, a seating capacity problem that we're just ig- noring and saying forget about it. We're going up to 60 seats and we know, we can't accomodate that. I think you've got a problem if you maintain that position throughout the~entire Town of Southold. P~a~ge 4 - Quiet Man Inn Hearing Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR.~MOORE~ (eontinued)~ It's not really appropriate to say; hey, there's business zoned property on the North Road and making those guys comply with it. That is in fact, the case. 'I think that's fine but we've got to recognize that if you take a type reading of the code and if you want to change your use, you've got to come in. You, as a Board, will be seeing more of these applications. We did try to obtain formal and informal agreements for parking. [iwe didn't succeed at the former. We did succeed at later. Wayside gave us a written affidavit saying that they would be willing to have up to six ad? ditional cars parking on their lot as an off-street use. They're closed during the primary business hours of this operation in busi- ness. And the Planning Board f~lt that that particular, and I think they reiterated it in this memorandum, that that was not the best kind of parking available. ~The offer was made and we don't have the best parking available but it certainly was there and they did not accept that or like that alternative° As far as I know, the offer still stands. 'ii met-.and~spoke with the owner of Thompson's Empori- um. A very nice gentleman who bent over backwards to say by all means, please park here. He even told me to put up a sign on the building of the Quiet Man that said additional parking at Thompsons~ but he didn't want me to go into a f~mat~_w~i~ten agreement for ob- vious reasons. He's got his own plans for his own property. He didn't want to be tieing up members there. But the important thing of concept is his hours of operation°of closing at 6:00 6r~6:30 at the latest on a Friday night. And this business operates at night primarily~so that we had~.overlapping uses of the same parking spaces offered willingly by the owner of Thompsons. Not in writing but he certainly was willing to do that. So we're not talking about cars pauring all over the street. We have informal parking available to us. There's also an owner, people who became friends with the Gil- berts who ~n the propertY just to the west of Wayside in a little red house there and th~ adjoining piece as well. It's not prevalent to develop~,~tt doesn't have parking on it at this time but'~an individual had let us know (that hey) if and when he can get parking on his piece of property, again, we will have an informal place. He doesn't want to tie it up for the same reasons. Parking is at a premimum. I think that's a given. But you can not draw blood from a stone out of a piece of property.~.'~nd the thing that I can offer to you as the strongest reason~for your willingness to grant a variance that we are not in- creasing seating capacity. I do not believe that we're losing the 4 to 5 spaces that presently exist there with this enclosed porch addi- tion. We had the two site plans there. And I think that is the strong- est statement that I can make that can give this Board the feeling that their not granting and giving away the store~in granting an opportunity to enhance a piece of property and improve its utility and condition. CHAIRMAN: Three basicathings. tion. Is that correct? This is approximately a 12 foot addi- MR. MOORE: Ten. CHAIRMAN: Ten foot addition into the sideyard area or the frontyard area so to speak~with a variable change of the kitchen area. Secondly, I have a letter from the Fire Marshall so to speak, which indicates ' that he construes the seating capacity to be 57. I'm sorry. The total ?,a~We 5 - Quiet Man Inn Hearing Z,.B~.A. - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN (continued): occupancy to be 57. Now, when you're referring to seating capacity, you~%re referring to only tables. You're not referring to barstools. MR. MOORE: No. I'm including barstools. CHAIRMAN: Including barstoolso MR. MOORE: Yes. I think there"s an affidavit in the file somewhere signed by Charles Gilbert. And I believe that he broke it down to 26 seats at the table and 12 at the bar for a total of 38. So that was the total seating capacity and I have a photocopy of that here somewhere. CHEIRMAN: Can you give us a copy sometime? The third thing is that I had gone down there last Saturday afternoon. And amongst the cars that were parked in the existing parking area, I had started... I had trouble finding the west monuments to be perfectly honest with you. And possibly you could either reconstruct them or take a siting from one side so that I could at least go down there and start making some other measurements. But What I would like to see is the possi- bility ~f~'a plan for diagonal parking regardless ~6f what other Boards have said and so on and so forth. Because I think that's prob~bt~>~the only way you can maximize ~he existing parking ..... TAPE ENDED CHAIRMAN: However, you may be able to bury one down in the other end down toward the rear of the building by taking the curb out. And I don't know again, to what extent the property goes to that curb. So possibly on the southwest side and On the northwest side, you could at least give me some idea by driving a stake in where exactly that property line is. And possibly by the next meeting you could come up with a diagonal parking pl&n with some plantings in if, a barrier so to speak, between that and the building so nobody drives right in and something of that nature. That's the reason I asked if the build- ing was a cement construction or wood construction. Because as you know, cement will withstand a little more impac~ than wood. Thank you. MR. MOORE: Ok. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Did you want to sPeak anyway Valerie? A question from the Town Plan- ner, Mr. Moore, is- on what grounds was the 38 seating capacity arrived at? Was that'something that was existing in the building or was that something that wasf.. I'm not sure I understand the question. MR. MOORE: I think I understand the question. to you. I don't have it right now. I will get an answer 'D~e 6 - Quiet Man:Inn Hearing Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN: You will get it for us by the next hearing. anything else? Is there · Q~ PLANNER: I would be interested to see what his answer is. The applicant is basing his entire argument for the expansion. In- stead, he's not expanding his business use. He's asking the Board to make the assumption that 38... How they arrived iat~'tha~ number in '~ha't~ CHAIRMAN: Anything else? No. Is there anything else that anyone would like to say before we recess this hearing until the next regu- larly scheduled meeting? We'll recess both hearings until the next regularly scheduled meeting. ' Making that a motion. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRI PT,.OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1987 Appl. No. 3~54 AppJicant(s): WILLIAM MOORE, ESQ. AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG, ESQ. k0cati0n of Property: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattitucko County Tax_.Map ID No, lO00- llSz 5 - 7 Board-Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Serge Doyen, Jr., Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member, Charles Grigonis, Jr. The Chairman opened the hearing at19:27 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a recessed appeal from the last regu- larly scheduled meeting on behalf of William Moore and Benjamin Herz- weig. Ms. Moore, is she representing? Who is representing whom~ Would you like to use the mike sireand state your name forC~he record° MR. HERZWEIG: I'm the attorney and I'm also one of the propgrty o~ners. By way of background, there's several things that I would just like to put on the record basically so we understand where we are. The last time we met, statements were made by someone_named Ellen Larsen regarding this particular piece. Again, what I'm abo~t to say is solely for the record and is not intended against Ms. Lar- sen personally. I'm saying this basically because I have to prote¢t the record as you proceed forth in this proceeding. It has come to my attention thatL~s. Larsen, in addition to being an elected offi- cial and a ~rustee of the Town of Southold, is also an active politi- c&l candidate for local political office and that she~s running in the next general election for a position.on the Town Board° I would presume that Ms. Larsen's statements at the time were motivated by certain political considerations and that's all I will say. Just% again, by way of background, so we understand where we are tonight. We h~ve already gone through SEQRA process. A final environmental impact has been issued, findings have been made. I think this Board has adopted those findings and incorporated them into this particular hearing° But the bottom line of what the Trustees did, they basical- ly granted our application. InSdding so, they pushed the proposed house from 35 feet setback from the road to 25 feet setback from the road because they wanted to keep the rear line of the house afcertain Page 2 - William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig Hearing Z.B.A. - 9/t0/87 MR. HERZWEIG (continued): number of feet away from the two-foot contour which is the wetlands boundary. I think that'S ~38 feet. That of course, as you know, has necessitated another application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the 10 foot variance from the existing zoning ordinance. When we were here some time ago at the presentation, this Board granted our a-plication to the~extent of putting the hour 30 feet from the set- back of the roado However, in doing so, I think unintentionally as I look at the survey, the'~rear ling of the house is not uniformed in relation to the two-foot. ~n other words, the Trustees said stay 38 feet from the two-foot contour. The way this Board made its rul- ing the last time, we were 38 feet on the one side and 42 feet on the other Side. The result of which was to reduce the depth of the house from 28 feet down to 23 feet. After consultation with your Town Attorney, a gentleman who's name ~I believe is Mr. Yakaboski, we werelari~inally going to petition this Board for a rehearing. Mr. Yakaboski suggested that instead of a rehearing, we make a new appli- cation to this Board seeking basically, to correct what is a minor defect in the prior determination of this Board. That was the pur- pose of the hearing last week. What we're looking for is we will ad- here to the 30 foot setback line that this Board has originally de- termined. All we're asking is that the rear[~tine of the house be perpendicular across the back line to the two-foot contour so that there be a uniformed 38 foot setback from the wetland as mandated by the Trustees. If that were the case, the depth of the house could be increased back to where we originally proposed. The original pro- posal, by the way, was submitted to the Trustees. And I would note in passing that theYTrustees had~no problem at all_with the size of the house. This is as my recollection is concerned. At the last~ hearing, a gentleman named Alan Northinger w~ho is also a lawyer, asked to adjourn this hearing in part, because of a letter we sub- mitted from Frederick Wood who is our expert. That letter is a part of reeord. It's dated August 20, 1987. Mr. Northinger, I believe, said he wanted some time to reply to that letter and the Board acted in his request. Also, as parenthetical again, I presume rhetorical questions were raised, "who is Fred Wood?". I h~ve Mr. Wood here tonight to basically give y~u further testimony or to embelish upon that letter. But there's one thing I'd like to add to the record now that I wasn't away of back then. Mr. Wood, in addition to his other present duties, also does appraisals for the Southold Savings Bank. He also tells me that he's presently employed by the T~wn of Southampton for their farmland preservation program and was invited by the Town of Southold to do appraisal work for the town in regards to its farmland preservation work. Mr. Wood, for business reasons, decided that he didn't wish to accept the invitation with the town. I bring that to mind and I wish to make it part of the record merely to show that Mr. Wood's qualifications were thought well enough by the Town of Southold to ask that he take part in the farmland preser- vation proguam. Now, I'm not all that familiar with ho~ to proceed before this Baord. I could &sk Mr. Wood a series of questions much line an attorney would ask a witness on a witness stand or I could just ask him to.make a narrative as to what he did, what his find- ings and conclusions are and also he tell you more about his own work. Page 3 -Wiliiam Moore and Benjamin Herzweig Hearing Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN: I think we have his passed experience pretty well down in reference to the later and so on and so forth. If you remember, at the last hearing, Mr. Herzweig, we asked both sides tonight to specifically dismuss that difference of 38 to 43 feet and how that will effect you and how it will effect them and that's what I would like you to limit your questioning to. MR. HERZWEIG: Alright. In'~hat case, I've explained the background. The first way where it is 38 and 43, would decrease the depth of the house. Perhaps Mr. Wood can come up and just explain to you the prac- tical difficulty and the economic hardship that's intendant when you build a house that's basically a railroad car. MR. WOOD: I'm a real estate appraiser, deisgnated appraiser. I'm also a licensed professional engineer. I've been practicing in the field of appraisal for approximately 15 years. I've been a licensed practicing engineer for approximately 25 years. I was asked by Mr. Herzweig on his behalf to study the impact of the specified setbacks on the problem of hardship. What sort of hardship it did present to his constructed residence at the site. I reviewed that particular request!in two ways. As I mentioned, I looked at it as~a real estate appraiser and I also considered it from the standpoint of being a pro- fessional engineer. I've been practicing in the field of engineering and I am presently actively involved in the design and drafting con- struction review of residences themselves. Construction from the standpoint of supervising construction. Not a builder in that respect. There was two points that came to mind initially. ~I~ this particular application, if~he total depth of the home were ~'reduced to 23 feet and w~'re required to adhere to the 30 foot setback as well as the 43 to 38 foot setback on the rear property line, it would result in a house or a home that would have a depth of approximately 23 feet. It would be a long narrow home. If we were to construct a home of the type which would be a one-story residence, it would result in a home that was narrow. In fact, it would be to an extent, that in order to free-flow any access within the house itself, providing for hallways, minimum hallways, we would end up with rooms or room sizes which would have to be sacrificed. They would end up being quite small. The end result would be to give a ..... TAPE ENDED MR. WOOD: They would be ha~dito utilize because of the narrowness of the room. The>o~herceffect it would have would be because of the set- backLrequirements in both the front and rearyard, it would be difficult to create an esthetically pleasing home. I visited the neighborhood. I looked at the homes in the area. You will find that there is a mix- ture of one-story residences, two-story residences and they have 'varying lines. They have setbacks. They have garages that extend to the front. They have roof line changes and that sorn of thing. That all can be done where you have s~fficient room and suff~dient depth to create a residence that would have that appealling look. In the present case, however, with the narrow depth and shallow depth of the property that would be allowed; a residence that would be constructed~on there could not really take advantage of those eminities because we would not be able to set back. We would not be able to break roof lines. It would be a conventional retangular home. In fact, if we tried to regain the area that was lost by adhering to the 38 foot setback at the southerly Page 4 -Wiliiam Moore and Benjamin Herzweig Hearing ~Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR. WOOD (continued): end of the property, it would result in actually changing the rear line of the property to conform to that setback. So it would turn out to be a regular. We'd have to actuall~no~ch~ths~mea~fof~%he house. The effect is two-fold. One; it's esthetically not appeal- ling. And the second effect is; that now we have created a situa- tion where the actual cost of the home to create a home with equal area, would actually increases What we have done essentially, is stretched the home out to regain the total floor area that we w~e~~ originally looking for. This would require, in essence, more wall area for the same floor area that would be created. And this in ef- fect, is increasing the per~squa~e foot cost to constmuct a home of that size. So it would actually be a more expensive home to construct then as originally planned if we had a 28 foot width. The other ef- fect would be the one of interior flow as I mentioned. ~If the style of the home would be changed to a two-story home or we were to add a stairway in their residence2 either to a basement or something of that sort~ now what we're faced with is a home that's only 23 feet deep. We would have to provide a stairway for access between levels. ~he result of that would be having to create a stairway with a turn. We could not put a single flight of stairs in a home that small~ It would be a straight up from the center or from the outside wall of the home to the~second story or down into the basement. So we would have to create an actual landing and cut the floor joints to make a 90~ turn and possibly e~en a~180 in o~d~-~to utilize two levels of residence. So the net effect is not only to increase costs but to reduce the utility of the structure to be placed on th~ site. As far as valnes are concerned, they're pointed out~ The very smal~ footprint allowed with the present restriction on the property, would restrict the construction of the Style of the home~and it would also create a less appealling effect. Ahd what effec~ it would have on the market would be the average buyer entering the area and looking at homes in the area would not necessa~±ly attracted to this resi- dence because it would look l~ss appealting. It would have the ap- pearance of a narrow railroad type flat and it would obviously re- duce its value to the owner. I estimated, based on and my knowledge of the area and the types of homes that are located here, the overall effect on the value of the home will probably reduce it from 15 to~20% ovs~kll. I would also like to point out that it was my opinion that if the variance was to be granted as requested and the depth of the home would be increased, the home would be built on the site. It would have any adverse effect on the neighborhood. It's my~opinion based on the study of the area, that it would not reduce the value of the surrounding pr~perties.~ Nor would it prevent their future use for residential purposes. ~here would be no adverse effect that I could see on the neighborhood. I think that's about the sum of what I intended to discuss with the Board. If there are any specific ques- tions that the Board might have concerning my letter or anything I didn't cover, I'd be happy to answer their questions. ~age 5 - William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig Hearing Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN: Let me think about it for a little while. I thank you so much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Remember gentlemen, we're limiting this to the difference between the two applications. If you have problems with that, I'd be very happy to answer the question or show you what we're talking about. MR. ~TANZO: I'm an adjacent property owner. I've been away, out of town for a while. I understand there was a meeting that I had missed. I will try to address this as one question. The Trustees went through an intensive study and placed this house in a position that it does effect the envi~onment~ I've been arguing the environ- ment from day one. Now it seems that the house is going to be relo- cated. If it's repositioned,... What I'm saying .... CHAIRMAN: Let me explain it to you first so that you understand exactly what we have going here. When they brought the applica- tion in originally, the application concerned a building envelope. The building envelope was 43 feet from here and 38 feet from here and that's exactly what we grantedo They then came back and said, we want 38 feet~ (That's what this application reads.) from here, 38 feet from here. That's what this application is now dealing with. The difference between the 38 feet on the north property line and the 43 feet which was originally granted. That's what we're dealing with tonight. Just so you understand. MR. DEBR©WSKi: I guess I don't understand the word granted. I guess the question is that we don't understand. I don't understand exactly what was granted. Are we talking setback or are we talking a minimum departure from the existing wetlands as 43 and 38 for a sliding con- tour? CHAIRMAN: To the best of my knowledge, to answer the question, ~ihat Icb~t±eve was granted by this Board was a 30 foot setback from Meadow Lane. There was a building envelope placed upon this particular sur- vey o~ survey of this facsmile which indicated just what I pointed out to Bob Kastanzo.~ And that was, that it was 38 feet basically toward the so~th~property line from the ~wo~foot ~ontour and 43~-~fee~ward the north property line to the two foot contour and that's the way the de- cision was written° MR. DEBROWSKIi~ And the building contour should be interpreted by being acceptable area. CHAIRMAN: Building envelope. Some place in that building is where th~ building%~ill be built. MR. DEBROWSKI: He will be bind by the 30 foot setback from the road and the 38 and 43 towards the marshes from the 30 foot setback. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. name for the record sir. He has a question. Can I just have your Page 6 - William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig Hearing Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR. GOLDBRIG: Are we talking then that we are actually ~o~ating this house a slight bit to make use of the other corner? CHAIRMAN: I would say that that's probably what they're asKi~g for. MR. GOLDBRIG: I see. MRS. MOORE: I don't think so because we still have the 30 foot set- back from the front. CHAIRMAN: No. What he is asking is it going to increase the depth of the house. I think. Is that what you're asking? MRS. MOORE: No. I think he's asking if it's going to turn the house. MR. GOLDBRIG: Are we rotating this house to .... CHAIRMAN: No. What they're doihg ~is~>tryihg to increase the depth of the house at one particular point on it in the envelope. MR. GOLDBRIG: The~ aren't rotating anything? CHAIRMAN: No. MR. : And without increasing the envelope at all. CHAIRMAN: On the north side it would be increasing ths~envelope from 43 feet to 38 feet. You see, this is very .... You have to excuse me. Having been a teacher for 10 years and I've been out of it for 8, it's very difficult to explain these things unless you have a blackboard up here and you can draw it. Unfortunately, ~ don't have one and I hate to digress for one second. A couple of years ago they asked me to come in and expl&in zoning to an eighth grade class and I said I can't ex- plain zoning to an eighth grader, (I told ~he Supervisor this.) with- out a blackboard and we brought the blackboard in and that's basically what we should have here. I think it was confusing to the other mem- bers of your association at the last meeting just as I wanted you to be understanding (Bob) of exaCtly what we were addressing here. I should also tell you that we have before us an article 78 brought by this gentleman and this applicant here or her husband attempting ~o stay the decision that we made at 43 feet and 38 feet and 30 feet from Meadow~Lane. That's another situation and that's being handled by our attorneys. I!m sorry. '~I apologize. ©oes that answer your question sir? : Why are we doing anything if they're not moving it? CHAIRMAN: W~i we're increasing. What they're asking us to do is in- crease a building envelope t~ward the north property line from ~3 feet and move it out closer to the two foot contour to 38 feet. MR. : This house would no~r~longer be square? .Page 7 - William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN: Well, I assume what that would give them is five more feet on that side of the house. So the house, instead of being as Mr. Wood stated, 23 feet on that side, it would be 28 feet. MR. : It will not be a retangular house then. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think that they could choose to build any type of 'house that they wanted to as long as it was inside that building en- velope. MR. : ~hat my question is coming down to is the drainage in the m~p. The Trustees switched the house in a certain position. They were very careful on locatiQn due to drainage~ Now, that area; they were able to get around this because of ~he 10 foot elevation. That's why the D.E.C. is not involved in this. Now, the Trustees Said fine. It's a very i~sensitive. The house is in a situation like this.~'And if ~.~ adhere to everything of the new covenants and restrictions that are being drawn, this can go ahead. Now, what I'm asking, does this effect the drainage? This new contour, this different elevation; are we now in a different point where the drainage of the house can effect the environment? In essence, what I'm sa~ing; should th~ decision not go back to the Trustees because it's a revision of this plan. CHAIRMAN: There's still a~aths ~0 foot elevation, Bob. MR. : I understand that. t"m looking at the different move- ment of water drainage from the house and possibly whateve~lse comes from there. CHAIRMAN: I can't answer that question° MR. Trustees. That's wh~ I'm asking why it did not go back to tlhe MRS. MOORE: If I can answer that. ~hat~we're doing is making the Zoning Board consistent wi~h the Trustees application so that they will both be consistent. What we have now is the Zoning Board saying; yes you can build within the area. However, it's cut back in the back. So it's not consistent with the Trustees. It's less than what the Trustees gave. We want to have exactly what the Trustees gave us. No more, no less. MR. : I'm sure that this gentleman would understand. From an engineering point of view, when something is designed as a revision, the person that<~designed it, should have the option to make sure it's to the original plan. That's what I'm asking now. CHAIRMAN: Let the record state that that was Ms. Moore that was just directing her stat~ement and she was directing it to the Board. Al- though it was more for Mr. Kastanzo's benefi~ Mr. Herzweig, maybe he'll answer the question for y~u. P'age 8 - William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR. HERZWEIG: I don't know if I can answer it. I think Ms. Moore can answer it as well as anyone can. Basically, insofaras, drainage and all that other~st~ff, that was Considered by the Trustees. They con- sidered water flow, nitrate flow, birds, turtles, reptiles, everything on this property. They said 38 feet. I think Ms. Moore's point is that this little correction we hear tonight is basically to conform with what the Trustees had in mind which was 38 across the line in the back and that's basically it. We're not asking for anything more than what the Trustees said we could have. CHAIRMAN:~ In answering you~ question Mr. Kastanzo, what we can do is direct a memo to the_Trustees asking them if they feel that there is any specific change in reference to drainage. And we will close the hearing based upon the fact that (hopefully) we will receive some- thing from them indicating yes, no or maybe. And it may... I don't know what their response will be. We can't presuppose that. However, we might have to reopen the hearing again. We'll see what happens. MR. DEBROWSKI: I'd j. ust like to mention to Mr. Herzweig that Alan Larsen spoke out against this construction more than a year ago. CHAIRMAN:~ Thank you. MR. HERZ~EIG: My simple point was just to protect the record in case we have to end up ink. court on this one. This was functioning simply as it were. I know MR.o Larsen's position. She voted against us in the Trustees and that's all I'll say. We have no~ ill will toward her. I wish her every success but I do have to protect my own record and my investment of this property. Thank you. MR.-DEBR©WSKI : Several points in contention here. We'll now dis- cuss Ms. Larsen for a moment. It was mentioned. And I think as a citizen, I would now like to take the other side of the story or may- be the devil's advocate. Just perhaps, this Ms. Larsen recognizes, she's a public official. She gets paid directly by our taxes and di- rectly out of budget. Just perhaps she understands her position as best as I've seen it understood as public officials. That is, she represents the phhlic at large. She recognizes what the general opinion or the concensus of the public is. And just perhaps she feels it's her duty to show up here. ~n defense of her, I think that should be said. With regard to Bob Kastanzo, I think he mentioned that the Trustees have done an ~xtensive study and they come to a conclusion and put some geometry on a document that~llowed for a dwelling to be bui~%~there. I think what the Trustees did is they came to some compromise to minimize the environmental impact. I don't think there's not going to be any environmental impact. I think they did,~ in good faith, try to minimize it. That's another point that should be mentioned. I guess for me personally, there are many things about government, bear in mind I'm not getting off the subject, but I look at what happened in this town and what is happening now. We do have a waste management problem. We do have an aquifer to deal with. In fact, you people know this better than I do. So bear with me. I'm only rambling on. I assume you know it better than I do. We have congestion problems, we have all sorts of problems that have come about~ (I.~think) because of the lack of con- trol regarding rate of development et. cetra. I look, as an individual in the community and say yes. There are many good people working hard, ~age 9 - William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR. DEBROWSKI (continued) paying their taxes with a community spirit° And in lieu of that or not in lieu of that but along with those thoughts, we do have several people who come in and they look at the situation a little bit dif- ferently and they try to capitalize on it. And government is providing for both. I guess the question in my mind is; who is winning out. Are ssl~ct few being allowed, perhaPS, because maybe they know the rules better. Maybe in essence, what it looks like, we were sold a bill of goods a year ago. Just recently on the most recent hearing that you entertained, covenants were brought up as a defense for making a move or not making a move. On the other hand now, we have a situation where we have seen the covenants have been pushed asideo And in fact, they've been replaced by other covenants. And I look at this, and myself, I'm a little disconcerted and I look at one of the other problems we have in society. We look at our youth and we wonder and we scratch our head. Why are they perhaps, drif~±ng off, some of them and some of them not? And I say; they are sensitive human beings. They can see what's hap- pening. They have al t'~he sensors and they have a mind to resolve what they see, feel and taste, et. cetra. And axe we setting a good example. And ~11 I'm saying is; gosh. We bought 50 some residences in the com- munity, 4 parcels of land and eventually built them and they were .... And these associated with those purposes, were these covenants attached to a deed and what was every single rule~ To the best of my knowledge it looked like society must have some:'r~les or framework by and they must, to some degree, there's got to be a point where they say; yes, we will deviaue from these rules up to this point. And I ~hink as a Board which governs the people, I feel you do have that in mind. I sometimes, as I'm sure you do and we do out there, the "Joe Blow" general public wonder where your break off point is. When will you say; no, I'm sorry. This is going beyond. In the particular case we have here, historically, this piece of property, parcels adjacent to it, have been in contention. As parcels of land now will provide adequate dwellings, for anybody in society and that's why they haven't been built on. That is why the bank got rid of them and got rid of them and got rid of them and whoever else's hands they've passed through. And I look at Mr. and Mrs. Moore and say they look like a lovely couple. I~.don't have anything against thlem at all. My only thought is that there is one question in mind that does bother me a little bit and in fact, some of you may say you're sorry that you didn't get in there and buy that property at a song and maybe sell it at a dance or some- thing like this. I don't know. No. I'm sorry, i'm the type of in- dividual like the rest of you and most of the peoPle at large out I' there said; yes, m Willing to abide by rules. We must abide by rules and have an orderly, because that's condusive to an orderly developing~society. And bear with me. I'm not lecturing you. I know you already know this. I'm reiterating it'.to bring up to your mind. Perhaps maybe you'll do some thinking about it because there are many parcels of land around here that are available if one needs a dwelling. And there are obviously, realtors out there wanting to sell those things. And the fact that these people do find a piece of property that was in contention, and Ii~can'~'~halp but ~think and I~m sure there are others who can't help to think; do you really want to build and..~provide a dwelling and a nice little nest for them- selves and a future family and live in a community with a sincere Page 10 - William Moore and Benjamin Rerzweig Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR. DEBROWSKI (continued) community or are they trying to turn it around. And if they,re trying to turn it around, good. You, we and a lot of lists of rules, deem that property not buildable. And why should we change now when there is so much property out there. ~Lnd furthermore, we have demonstrated as a society, right in this local area, that we can't handle sufficiently all the problems that are developing because of a rapid influx of passenger loads in this area. And we're going to talk about importing water resources et. cetra. These are costs to our federal land, to the tax base, to the neighbor, the proposed re- spective neighbor. And I can't help to feel that perhaps, maybe there is something undemocratic about allowing realtors to capitalize on a situation at the expense of the public at large which I see hap- pening. We're getting to the point where there must be some transi- tion point, point of no return where the amount of property that is available for building and the resources that are available underneath it, those resources that can support the population density. There must be some sort of point that is defined. All of a sudden the pop- ulation density has now exceeded the resources and now whatever gets done in the future, is at a COSt to whatever taxpayers are here. Now, if we don't be charitable, we all are benevolent. Most people, most people in this society have a benevolent layer about them. They would love to help the fellow man. And I guess what I'm saying is that if you want us to be charitable, and it's getting to that point. That's a point, perhaps with some investigation, requires some investigation on the Town Board, governing committee or whatever bodies to explore and come to the conclusion on it. Is the future development that is being realized, being realized at the expense of the taxpayers, those people who have lived here for years, done their job, have not resorted to mercenary feelings from within to capitalize on situations that they see most of which probably couldn't have anyhow. In fact, we all fall into that category. And if that,s happening, let's not abandon them. And especially it's happening when you see company Values are absolutely prohibited where my children can't even be our neighbors. I'm not talking about living adjacent to me. They can't live 10 miles down the road. The average family can not afford to provide, as a parent and look forward to their future. We are not the Kaytis', the Neethus. Nothing against them, but we are not terribly affluent and perhaps they're not either. (inaudible) ever that might be obvious to some and not to others. It doesn't make any difference. But I just think we should address some of these points in making our decision to allow for variances that in my opinion, can only add (in an extraordinary way) to the cost of the society's balance. Go out and buy a regular piece of property like the rest of us had to do, relative to whatever costs are at the time. I want to bear on one more point. Realtors are making soma good money. If indeed we are burdening down our resources, I don't mind people making a liveable wage. But when property Values go up to $100 an acre, $120 dollars for a two acre parcel, that's fine if perhaps made. It would be fine, if perhaps made. Most of tha~ money or a good portion of that money was being funneled back into the government, governing body at large to provide for the re- sources that will be necessary to support life on that parcel. And if that money does indeed not come back to the government, what hap- pens. The government has to go out and get it as the situation de- '~ge 11 - William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR. (continued): teriorates. So 1,11.~caution, I'ill caution everybody, to be sincere about their thoughts of allowing variances and to consider what's going on. In one hand you have a situation where you value covenants and in one hand you have a situation where you throw them out. And in reference to my Statement on youth, what are you teaching these kids? These kids are getting confused as ~e~adults are. We must be consistent. We must have rules. There's got to be a point and that is where we must set it. I'm sorry. Especially in a situation where there certainly is enough land available° And I guess I want to make it clear that I'm not addressing you personally. I think ~he~e is a question in my mind as to your motives. And perhaps not knowing you, you would maybe even emphasize on that situation if the roles were reversed. I'm not sure about that. But I wouldjplead with you to pay a little bit of attention, maybe play that tape back after a while and say this guy does ramble on. He's a little bit But let's see, does he have any points that ~re~Df any Use"~th±~-'com- munity and society. Thank you very much. MR ..... : There was a question raised about elevations before. I guess the Board, in the interim of Mr. Debrowski's statement, had ample opportunity to look at the survey, iPerhaps you can enlighten us on the drainage question. TAPE ENDED MR. WOOD~ I have observed the site plan. i have seen it previously as well and I have reviewed the environmental impact statement as has been submitted. And it's apparent'~from the contours (you have the survey~in front of you) that in general, the area of the building en- velope, the slopes that we're talking about are l['on 15 or possibly slightly le~ss. The area that would be covered by the building en- velope itself would be,'as suggested with the relief that's being requeSted, would end at elevation 11½ at the north end and would touch just touch but not to be built on at the south end. So they would be well within the 10 foot elevation. The point to be made here is that these contours are not unusual for the adjoining properties~ that-run to th~north. The slopes are not that severe that drainage could not be retained by planting and by adequate swelling and other methods so that the amount of runoff would be minimized and controlled within the site. The slopes themselves, ~ven as we approach the pond, fall well within a pitch of 1 on 3 which is basically a stable slope. Although, we do have drainage in ~hat area. It is a stable slope with vegetation and other protective measures. The runoff should be easily contained. MR. : One last point Mr. Goehringero I think if you read Some of the recommendations of the Trustees, I think they recommended those mitigation measures as part of the construction. So that should more than adequately address Mr. Kostanzo's concerns. MR. : With an engineering~background as I have, as well, the town has put great time and money, they've had engineers review %he environ- ment. If there'~ any changes, I think it should go back to the original designers so~they~can have an opportunity to make sure all their original questions have been satisfied. I understand all the permits have been Page 12 - William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig ~.Z.B.A. - 9/10/87 MR. ~ (cHntinued): issued. Now, there's a ~light change. There's no argument on my part. We all stand here and speak of homes, homes for society but nature is very important. I live there. ~t's very important. I kave hours and hours of films o~_nature. I want to be absolutely sure. Because of that, again, that decision should come. If there is any change, the decision Should come from the Trustees. The cove- nants and restrictions have been forced on how their plans and so on for water flow and to protect that area. CHAIRMAN: Well, we'll send them the letter as we said. MR. : Mr. Geohringer; I'm sorry to make this a see-s~w kind of a thing° But I think we h~ve to understand something. The SEQRA process is at an end basically. The Trustees have made their determination and they have ~otedo And ths.onl~ reason we're here to- night, as Mr. Moore told you the last time, is because the Trustees sent us here. Maybe Mro Kostanza would join us in amending our appli- cation. We originally wanted 25 feet. If we had the 25 feet, you would noti'~- be engaging this at all. But you were probably opposed to the ........ 25 feet setback as opposed to 30 feet setback. The main point,is that we're not seeking any change. He keeps on talking about change. There is notchange. We~ze not askin~for mhange. All we're asking for is to give us what the Trustees s&id we~could have which is 38 feet. There was a technical error that was made by al]prior determination of the Board. I mean no disrespect to this Board. I~m getting a little angry. It's been two years since we've been inwDlved in this project of a half acre piece. I've had it with political speeches~and con- stitutional arqUmsnts and so forth. All we want is what we're entitled to. The Trustees said 38 feet. We said we'll live with 38 feet. You said 30 feet, we do not want 30 feet. All we want is that everything should be kept technically correct so we can go on with our plans. And quite frankly, I don't know what are plans a~e. I don't whether Bill Moore and Pak are going to buy the property or what we're going to do with it. The main point is we're not changing anything from what the Trustees s~id. Sendin~Tus back to the~Trustees is just another effort to delay this, anOhhe~effort to cause us to spend us more money. And incidently to Mr. Debrowski's speech, the more money we spend on a project, is one reason why property costs are so high and why people can't li~e in their own community. Because people like Debrowski~, people Kostanzos, create all these false issues, cause you to go back, spend more time and mo~e money. The simple truth of the matter ms; than since we start this project way back in 1985~ We have not meant to rape this property. Wa haven't meant to spoil-~the area. From the very inception of this project, our only idea was to build a nice house that would blend in with the community, that would be an asset to the community and so forth. It took me five minutes to buy that property. And Mr. Debrowski might tell me,that it was a foolish investment. As a matter of fact, when I was before the Trustees, he came up here and said; you made a foolish investment. "~I'll swear on a stack of bibles that he said that to me. And as god as my witness, I will fight this case as long as it takes to show them that I'm right. This is a beau- tiful piece of property. It's not as environmentally sensitive as everybody thinks it is. The environmental issues are finished as far as we're concerned. All we want to do is get on with this project and let us do what the Trustees said we can do. Page 13 - William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig Hearing ~Z.B.Ao - 9/10/87 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. : As I said before, I am not agry because this has been approved. If there's any modification or revisions, be- cause we are talking about there are revisions, that goes back to the Trustees. And I believe you had said that you are going to do that and I was happy with that decision. Now, as far as anything else, I am also angry tooo If you look at this from the day Rydell had this case, the Board refused going beyond 35 feet. And if you look~back when Kramer withdrew because of other problems he had be- cause it was in a very ticklish situation and somebody else picks it up. I don't want to dig up the dirt but it smells on that end too. The thingcis, I want to protect the environment. I live there. CHAIRMAN: You~?last point Mr. Debrowski. MR. DEBROWSKI: I just want to point out .... Mr. Kramer, he dido What are we to believe. Let's look at our situation an~ this wh61e group of people being Mattituck Estates, subdivided that place, wrote up some nice little rules and s~id-these will be attached to the deed. They sold us a bill of ~oods because they came to us and said; hey, when you buy this, you've got a good set of rules. And there is nothing wrong with those rules. And now ~long comes Mr. "M". Mr. Abbott also went on to Say, which we were foolish enough and naive enough as community minded people, to believe that this man was in fact going to dedicate that whole area and all the per- ifery around that pond as a public park area and recreational area for our children,.and all this nonsense and we believe him. We did not need lawyers° We didn't ~'e~Al~ ~h~s~.le~a~guem~t~.l~e~bel~eved~ him as human beings, man to man. What do you expect us to do. Mr. Kramer comes along after a while and tells us that he wants to be a neighbor. He wants his family to move in there° After a while, a little bit of rebuttal on our part, the man states to the public fine. He really is maybe buying that land for speculation. And in regard to a foolish investment, I might be the f~olish one. And I might have to concede to that and I really was only remarking or offerring rebuttal in response to what you said at that particular meeting. It was one of my immediate thoughts. It remains to be seen° I think what we have here is not a show case. Let's watch out for peo- ple who want to make a fast buck. Maybe it's not my business what the heck is going on. But if you really need a buildable piece of property, you need a shelter, the whole community will help you. There's no doubt abou~ that. But by god, when you pick up a marginal piece of property and it starts to become a precedent in the communi- ty when there's still a lot of land left around, We see people rea- lizing that large absorbant money~alues or returns on their money because they're willing to go out and put a bet on something which they think they've got a chance to win. I think when that's hap- pening at the sacrifice of the rest ~f ~atfd~that~ci~C~en~ally---- another reason why property values are going up. There's no doubt in mind it's not because people wan~ to protect their interest. It is because people see there's a demand and that's simply it. Many people a~e selling this area out. Property values are going up, not because of people like myself who want to uphold covenants and docu- ments that we were led to believe because we're so darn naive. You don't realize we were brought up in~-a generation that hey; I look at Fage 14 - William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig ~.B.Ao - 9/10/87 MRo DEBROWSKI~ (cohtinued): my fellow man and I can trust him° I can shake the man's hand° I don't need all this legal paraphanelia to support what's going on between he and I and that was the generation we were brought up in. To have faith in your fellow man. Well, by god, what's happening with our society. We're~setting real good examples of why not to believe that way and we've got a Society coming UP for our children that are not believing that way by example. Not by education. By example, ~that's their education. We don't have anybody telling them that. They can see it. Let's turn around and let's get control of our community and let's live like human beings and I feel that this touches this. Given his consideration and indeed if you do want to build there because of your humane interest, go do it. But if you turn that thing around and P~of~t Dig on i%, you cost us a lot of money. Don't think that you haven't. Fifty people came down here. Forty at one time initially to get this going, to let this communi- ty know that; yes, indeed we're concerned about the decisions that a-re made around here~ And yes indeed, we represent a group. And the othe~ hand could have a contention. What happens? What has happened? Who's winning? They're winning. We're losing. We had all the rules. We had everything in our pocket~ We were sold a bill of ~oods. So if I'm a little bit apprehensive about believihg what's going on, please emphhsize it for me. Thank you very much. Good night. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE $OUTHOLD TOVCN cL~RI(