Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/16/1987Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RnAD- BTATE RnAD 25 c:DUTHI3LD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CI:IARLESGRIGONIS, JR. N ! N U T E S SERGE DOYEN, JR, ROBERT J. DOUGLASS REGULAR NEET I NG JOSEPH H. SAWICKI THURSDAY., ]JULY 16, 1987 A Regular Meeting and Public Hearings of the Southold Town Board of Appeals were held on THURSDAY, JULY 16, 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.; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting the five members of the Board of Appeals. Also present were: Victor Lessard, Building-Department Adminis- trator (arr. 7:45)~ Janet Garrell, Suffolk Times Reporter; Linda Kowalski Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately 15 persons at the beginning of the meeting in the audience. Chairman Goehringer opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded with the first public hearing on the agenda, as follows: (All verbatim transcripts of the following hearings have been prepared under separate cover and filed simultaneously with the Town Clerk's Office with these Minutes for reference.) 7:35 p.m. 7:58 p.m. Public Hearing held and concluded Matter of GEORGE D. DAMIEN. Area, width and depth variances in this pending set-off division. Corners of Jackson, Fifth and Main Streets, New Suffolk. Mr. George D. Damien spoke in behalf of his application. (No public opposition was submitted during the hearing.) 7:58 p.m. 8:04 p.m. Public Hearing held and concluded Matter of WILHELM FRANKEN. Accessory building in side yard and with insufficient setback from bulk- head along Gull Pond Inlet. W/s Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. Mr. John Geideman spoke in behalf of the applicant. (No verbal opposition Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings, continued:) 8:04 p.m. 8:10 p.m. 8:10 p.m. 8:15 p.m. 8:15 p.m. 8:18 p.m. 8:18 p.m. 8:27 p.m. 8:27 p~m. 8:49 p.m. 8:49 p.m. 9:00 p.m. was submitted.) Public Hearing was held and concluded Matter of ARTHUR V. JUNGE. Electrical shop use in this "A-40" Zone. N/s C.R. 48, Cutchogue. (No verbal opposition was submitted.) Public Hearing was held and concluded Matter of PUDGE CORP. Industrial use in this "A" Residential Zone. N/s C.R. 48, Cutchogue. (See verbatim transcript for opposition received and rebuttals.) Public Hearing reconvened and concluded Matter JAMES AND MARY TYLER. (continued from 6/18/87). Michael J. Hall, Esq. appeared in behalf of the applicants for Richard F. Lark, Esq. (No verbal opposition was submitted.) of Public Hearing was held and concluded Matter of DINA MASSO. Accessory boathouse structure with deck at foot of bluff, and deck and new stairs along and at top of bluff areas, all landward of existing wood bulkhead along Peconic Bay, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. Garrett A. Strang, R.A. appeared in behalf of the applicant. (No verbal opposition was submitted.) Public Hearing was held in the Matter of JOSEPH REIN- iHART/FRED WIGHTMAN & DAVID FREY. Variance for establishment of multiple uses in this "A-40" Zone. N/s Main Road, Peconic. Mr. Garrett A. Strang, R.A., Roger Elston, Esq., Mr. Joseph Reinhart, and Mr. Fred Wightman spoke in behalf of the application. Following testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goeh- ringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, to recess the hearing until August 20, 1987, pending receipt of the previously requested Pre-Certificate of Occupancy (Nonconforming Premises), which will list the legal uses of record, and copies of the case laws cited by Mr. Elston. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of PAUL AND CHARLOTTE GALGAN. Variance to construct a~ditions within 75 feet of existing bulkhead along Eugene's Creek, 4605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. Mr. Galgan Southold Town Board of Appeals (Public Hearings, continued:) -3- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting 9:00 p.m. 9:06 p.m. 9:07 p.m. 9:18 p.m. 9:.18 9:46 .p~m. spoke in behalf of his application. No verbal opposition was submitted during the hearing. 9:06 p.m. Recess for short break. Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, to reconvene the meeting at this time. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. Public Hearing was reconvened and concluded in the Matter of FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. Beach pavillion of a size 38' ..by 16' and attached deck areas extend- ing 124~ feet ~nd 28 feet wide (exclusive of stairs), accessor~ and incidental to the established single- family residential use, within 75 feet of tidal wetland and highwater mark along Peconic Bay, at 575 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. No verbal opposition was submitted. Henry Raynor spoke in behalf of the applicants. The Board requested the specification for the new bulkhead, including a vegetation plan to be submitted as soon as possible. [See verbatim transcript of statements.] Public Hearing was reconvened in the Matter of .BENTE SNELLENBURG (continued from 4/20/87 as agreed). Var'iances: ~ .for approval of 8' high fencing along easterly property line a length of 72+ feet, (2) Appealing the 11/6/86 Order to Remedy Violation which mandates building permit for new fencing along the easterly property line. ROW off the E/s South Harbor Road, Southold. Judge Snellenburg spoke in behalf of his wife's .applicatio.n. Philip J. Cardinale, Esq. spoke in opposition to the application (in behalf of the easterly neighbor, Mrs. Dean). Mr. 'Cardinale submitted a survey which shows the fence partly encroaching his client's property. Judge Snellenburg requested a recess pending his review of the survey and further written documentation, if he finds necessary. The Board recessed the hearing until August 20th, in order to accept further written submissions from any party, and indicated that no oral testimony would be received on August 20th and that the hearing would then be officially declared concluded. Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Douglass, ~o hold this heari.ng in "open recess" in order to accept additional written documentation until August 20th, 1987, and without additional verbal testimony. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting CORRESPONDENC~E: Letter Dated July 6, 1987 from Mr. Carmine Aliperti, President, Vel Construction Corp., 1138 William Floyd Parkway, Shirley, NY 11967, in the Matter of Premises Now or Formerly of RIAL REALTY CORP.. The Board Members reviewed and discussed Mr. Aliperti's request for "permission to plant several trees within a 100 ft. of the bluff" on premises now or formerly of Rial Realty Corp., private right-of-way located off the north side of Oregon Road, Mattituck. County Tax Map #1000-95-1-3. Z.B.A. Appeal No. 3551, determination rendered October 10, 1986 conditio, ns the subdivi~sion and area variance as follows: ",,.No disturbance of land within the 50 ft. distance shown along the 49.5 contour line of proposed Lot #1 .... " Motion was made by Member Douglass, seconded by Member Sawicki, to forward the following response to Mr. Aliperti, requesting a plan showing all proposed changes (which may or may not be in violation a.nd mu. st be further investigated by the Building Department, etc.): "...It is our recommendation that a plan be submitted to the Building Department showing all proposed changes or grading plan (existing verses propos.ed), together with the areas .of plantings. In this way, it can be determined by the Building Inspector whether or not any distance of land is being proposed and advise you to proceed further through our office and through the N.Y.S.D..E.C. as may be deemed necessary. ... Please furnish us with copies of your application to the Building Department togeth, er with .the pro.posed grading plan in order that we may be kept up-to-date .... " Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. NEW APPLICATION: MR. AND MRS. THEODORE KRUKOWSKI. B~ard Secretary, L-T~da Kowalski, advised the Board Members that Mr, and Mrs. Krukowski are asking for a refund of the $150.00 variance filing fee due to .the fact that there are so many agencies involved for their proposal (10' by 14' accessory shed'within 75 feet of wetlands), which are now required to be addressed by the. Trustees and the D.E.C. The Board agreed to~ recommend a refund of the $150.00 filing fee, which was filed on July 13, 1987, and no i.nspections or other paperw.ork have ~bee9 processed at this point in time. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting PENDING DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appeal No. 3624: Application of ERNEST TARMIN for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to con- struct accessory structures with a setback of less than lO0 feet from bluff/bank 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. Following deliberations, the Board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on May 1987 in the Matter of the Application of ERNEST TARMIN under Appl. No. 3624; and 21, 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, andl 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 accessory building. The dwelling is shown on site plan prepared August 23, 1984 by Keller-Sandgren Associates, A.I.A. to be set back ll6± 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 Agricul- tural Zoning District. 3. By this application, appellant requests permission to locate gazebo structure of a size ll feet in diameter and at a height not to exceed 12 feet, With a setback at not less than 50 feet from the bluff area (36~2 ft. el.). Also shown on the site plan submitted for consideration is a proposed stairway to extend from the top of bluff seaward a length of 37+ feet and attached 8' x 8' square deck/platform area at the top of bluff area, 4. Article xi, Section 100-119.2, subparagraph A[1] Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3624 - TARMIN decision, continued:) 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. 5. The Board finds that although the difficulties created were self-imposed, the location of the gazebo struc- ture at a distance not closer than 50 feet from the bluff is not unreasonable. The structure will not require a foundation-type construction and will inot be attached to the livable floor area or be used in any habitable manner. 6. For the record, it is noted that there are similar structures located with similar setbacks along the Sound bluff. 7. It is further noted for the record that the Board does not feel it is in a position to approve the stairs and attached deck/platform along the bluff as applied, and that additional documentation will be required before approval is to be rendered. As an alternative, this Board approves the gazebo as noted below, and denies the stairs construction without prejudice to future application. In considering this appeal, the Board also finds and determines: (a) the relief requested is substantial in relation to the requirements, being a variance of 50% of the requirements (50 feet); (b) the placement of the accessory gazebo structure at a point not closer than 50 feet from the top of the bluff is not unreasonable and will not be detrimental to adjoining properties or change the character of the district; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique~ (d) the practical diffi-culties are self-imposed; (e) the difficulty cannot be obviated by some Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3624 - TARMIN decision, continued:) 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. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to APPROVE the accessory gazebo structure (ll ft. in diameter and at a height not to exceed 12 feet) as applied, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Accessory gazebo shall not be located closer than 50 feet to the 36.2-ft. elevation (bluff) line, as applied; 2. Accessory gazebo structure shall remain open, except for screening, and not enclosed at any time; 3. Accessory gazebo structure shall not be used at any time for living or sleeping quarters; 4. Accessory gazebo structure shall be located in the general area as shown on the sketched site plan (and not closer to the dwelling on this property and neighboring properties); 5. Proposed lighting, if any, must be shielded to the property (of a mushnoom-type); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request for the construction of deck/platform/stairs, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as applied. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3605: Application of TED DOWD for a Variance for Approval of Access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a~ over a private right- of-way located off the north side of the Main Road, Southold, and extending to the applicant's premises, identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 56, Block 1, Lot 5.1(5), containing 7.3± acres. Following deliberations, the Board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on June 18, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of TED DOWD under Application No. 3605; 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 familiar with the premises in question, and the surrounding areas; and personally viewed and are its present zoning, WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. This is an application for a Variance pursuant to the Provisions of New York Town Law, Section 280-a for approval of access over a private right-of-way extending from the north side of the Main Road, Southold a distance of 1392± feet and 8± feet wide. 2. The premises to which appellant is requesting approval of access is presently unimproved and contains a total acreage of 7.3± acres, identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 56, Block l, Lot 5.1 (5). This access road application does not reflect a request for access to any more than the one dwelling lot in question. Adjacent to this premises is a dwelling presently owned by P. Kelley which also gains access over the westerly portion of this right-of-way. 3. After personal inspection of the right-of-way, it is noted as follows: Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3605 - DOWD 280-a, decision continued:) The present traveled road to the Kelley driveway is 8± feet in width, consists of stabilized sand, small gravel and loam. Test hole depths between the Main (State) road and railroad are 6± inches. Other depths of road materials from railroad to Kelly driveway (north) about the same material but at depths from three to four inches. Road surface at present is in fair condition. Railroad crossing has exces- sive grades (between 15.5% and 17.5%) which may cause inter- ference with long-wheel base vehicles. Culverts at drainage ditch crossings are working. The last 250± feet of the 1392± ft. length is cleared only and will require grading and updating. 4. It is the position of the Board members that the improvements as noted below are necessary for safe and sufficient access by emergency and other vehicles under the requirements of New York Town Law, Section 280-a. The Board does not feel that a waiver or reduction of the requirements would be within the best interests of the Town. 5. In granting this limited 280-a approval, the Board finds: (a) the relief requested is the minimal necessary and is not substantial in relation to the code requirements; (b) there will be no substantial change in the character of this district; (c) the relief as conditionally granted will not cause a substantial effect or detriment to adjoining properties; (d) the circum- stances of this appeal are unique and there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (e) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that a Variance pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a, for approval of access for premises identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 56, Block 1, Lot 5.1 (5), containing 7.3± acres, as applied in the Application Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3605 DOWD 280-a, decision continued:) of TED DOWD, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION__S: 1. This 280-a approval is limited requiring improvements to the right-of-way in order to allow proper issuance of building permit(s) for the future construction on this 7.3± acre parcel of one dwelling, barn, and other incidental structures, in accordance with all zoning regulations. This 280-a approval shall not be deemed approval for any other parcels abutting this right-of-way which shall be subject to formal application(s) for 280-a updated access approval before issuance of any building permits. 2. Improvements, within the legal perimeter of the right-of-way for a minimum width of ten (10) feet, as follows: (a) For the first 1142± feet, place a 2" compacted surface of 3/4" stone blend; (b) For the last 250± feet: 1. Remove topsoil 12" deep, replacing w th compacted material [containing 15% or more of small gravel, sand, and 15% or more of loam]; 2. place 2" top course (compacted surface) of 3/4" stone blend (10 feet wide); 3. profile to be submitted indicating how this 250 ft. length of road will meet the present road as updated; profile will indicate depth of replace material which should not be less than 6"; (c) Grade road at railroad crossing with addi- tional fill to provide grades not more than l:lO [10%] with 1 on 4 side slopes. Fill to contain 15% or more of small gravel, sand and 15% or more of loam. Sloping areas to contain ground cover or similar material to prevent wash outs. 3. All trees and brush must be cleared a minimum of 10 feet in width and minimum height at 12 feet. Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3605 - DOWD 280-a, decision continued:) 4. Right-of-way to be continuously maintained; 5. If right-of-way improvements three years, this 280-a approval will null and void. are not constructed in automatically become Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Member Douglass, seconded by ChaT~an ~inger, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declara- tions in accordance w.ith the N.Y.S. En. vironmental Quality~ Review Act (SEQRA), Section 61.7~, 6 NYCRR, 'and Chapter 44. of the Code of thee Town of South~ld~ .~ (a) Appeal No. 3581 (b) Ap~ea'l No. 3639 (c) Apgeaq No-. 3645 (d) ~ppeaq No. 3635 (e) Appeal No. 3496 (f) Appeal No. 3642 (g) Appeal No. 3631 (h) Appeal No. 3644 [continued on page 12] GEORGE D. DAMIEN - Type II; 'WI-LHELM FRANKEN -Typ'e II; P-~UL-AND CHARLOTTE G~LGAN-Type II; -ART. HUR V. JUNGE Type II; FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. - Type II; DINA MASS~ Type II; PUDGE CORP.- Unlisted SEQRA Action; FREDERICK WIGHTMAN/DAVID FREY/JOSEPH REINHART Unlisted SEQRA Action; 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -]2- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) (a) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3581 PROJECT NAME: G'EORGE D. DAMIEN 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: Approval of insufficient area, width and depth of two parcels in this pending set-off division of land LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Corners of Jackson, Fiftk and Main Streets, New Suffolk, NY 1000-17-9-12 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 ne~ construction as regulated by Section 617.13 for a lot-line or area variance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CO~TACT: Linda KowalsRi, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -]3- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) (b) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAI{ATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3639 PROJECT NAME: WILHELM FRANKEN 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 cant adverse effect on the below. the within project not to have a signifi- environment for the reasons indicated 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: Locate 25' x 25' accessory building in sideyard with insufficient setback from existing bulkhead along Gull Pond Inlet LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of suffolk, more particularly known as: Osprey Nest Road, Greenport, NY 1000-35-6-22, 23, 24 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% Separating the project in question from the waterfront or tidal area is'other construction and/or a bulkhead in good condition. FOR FURTItER INFORMATION, PLEASE C~NTACT: Linda Kowalski, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. (3) Information has been submitted by applicant or his agent indicating the project will not invol~ the disturbance of wetlands grasses or areas subject to flooding which may be considered wetlands. mc Southold Town Board of Appeals -]4- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) (c) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3645 PROJECT NAME: PAUL AND CHARLOTTE GALGAN 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 additions to dwelling landward of existing construction and within 75 feet of existing bulkhead along Eugene's Creek LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of suffolk, more particularly known as: 4605 Stillwater Ave., Cutchogue, NY 1000-137-03-05 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, S~QRA FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CO~TACT: Linda KowalsRi, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. (3) Information has been submitted by applicant or his agent indicating that the project will not involve the disturbance of wetlands grasses or areas subject to flooding which may be considered wetlands. and posted Southold Town Board of Appeals -]5- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting Environmental Declarations, Continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAt~ATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3635 PROJECT NAME: ARTHUR V. JUNGE 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 wlthin 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: Establish electrical ~shop use in this "A-40" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: C.R. 48, Cutchogue, NY 1000-96-1-19 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) This is an application concerning use of premises and is not directly related to new construction. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda KowalsRi, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Town }{all, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -]6- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) (e) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3496 PROJECT NAME: FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [~ Type-II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Construct beach pavillon and attached deck within 75 feet of highwater mark and/or kandward edge of tidal wetland along Peconic Bav LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 575 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk, NY 1000-117-03-06 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) Separating the project in question from the waterfront or tidal area is other construction and/or a bulkhead in good condition. (3) The relief requested is a setback variance as regulated by Secti~R6~R~ER6I~qT~B~A, PLEASE CO~TACT: Linda Kowalski, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appealsf Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -]7- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) (f) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3642 PROJECT NAME: DINA MASSO 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 accessory boathouse structure with deck at the foot of the bluff and deck and new stairs along and at top of bluff areas, all landward of existing wood bulkhead along Peconic Bay LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of suffolk, more particularly known as: 5705 Nassau Point Road, Cu%chogue, NY 1000-111-13-04 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short £orm has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CO~TACT: Linda KowalsRi, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. (3) Information has been submitted by applicant or his agent indicating that the project will not involve the disturbance of wetlands grasses or area subject to floading which may be considered wetlands Southold Town Board of Appeals -]8- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) (g) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3631 PROJECT NAME: PUDGECORP. 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: Establish and construct 7500 sq. ft. building for insudtrical use in this "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: C.R. 48, Cutchogue, NY 1000-96-1-20 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) This is an application concerning use of premises and is not directly related to new construction. FOR FURTIIER INFORmaTION, PLEASE CO~;TACT: Linda Kowalski, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -]9- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) (h) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRON~NTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3644 PROJECT NAME: FREDERICK WIGHTMAN/DAVID FREY/JOSEPH REINHART This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: ~Use_Variances for Limited Business(es) and/ or Interpretation of activities permitted under Pre-C.O. uses LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of suffolk, more particularly known as: Main Road, Peconic, NY 1000-75-1-16 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. (3) This is an application concerning use of premises and is not dire~FURTHERrelated i~F~A~F~r~ CO~TACT: Linde KowalsRi, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. CORRESPONDENCE: Letter dated July 6th received July 9th from Mrs. Margery M. Walker concerning Premises of RICHARD ZEIDLER at Edgemere Park, Laurel. The Board Members ac~nowledged receipt and authorized the Chairman to respond indicating that this possible violation is presently being handled by Special Counsel Francis J. Yakaboski lpursuant to verbal co~plaints to the Building ~epartment and Mrs. Walker's previous letters). M~. YakabQ~ki has had conferences with Mrs. WAlker concerning this matter, and it is out understanding that the Bay Constable has taken steps under Chapter 97 of the Wetlands Law concerning the violation. Any inquiries concerning legal steps and enforcement concerning zoning matters should be directed through the Office of the Town Attorney, Mr. Yakaboski, or through the Office of the Building Department as the enforcing agency of zoning matters. It is not the juris- diction of this Board to determine violations or institute legal proceedings of this nature. INSPECTION: Appeal No. 3418 - GRETCHEN HEIGL. The Chairman. asked the building-Department Administrator to inspect the subject right-of-way and accept same with such additional improvements he feels are necessary. The Chairman agreed that the base of the right-of-way is acceptable for this one dwelling. Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, and duly carried, to accept the improvements as recently con- structed subject to the Buildin§ InSpector's additional ~equireme_~ts~__kif_~nY~ antis approval, before issuance of the pending Certificate of Occupancy. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. CORRESPONDENCE: The Board Members acknowledged receipt of a copy of~correspondence from Jeffrey Levitt, Esq. concerning "BroadwaterS Cove~Associ~tio~" to expand docking facilities, addressed to Francis J. Murphy Supervisor and making reference to the Town Trustees Meeti.ng~ held M~y 28~ 1987. Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting At this point in time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjoorned and called a Special Meeting to be held within the next 10 days. Agenda items III (c) and (f), and IV will be carried over to the next agenda. The meeting adjourned Southold Town at 10:35 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted, in'da ~ ~r~tary Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPT-OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1987 Appl,-No~ 3581 Applicant(s): GEORGE D~ DAMIEN Location of Property: JackSon, Fifth and Main Streets., New Suffolk _County Tax Map ID No. 1000- 17 - 9 - 12. Board Members' present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Serge Doyen, Jr., Charles Grigonis, Jr. Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: (none) Also present were: Mr. Lessard (Building Dept), Linda Kowalski~ Board Secretary, and approximately 20 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey done by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C.-dated July 15, 1968 indicating the house lot, which is approximately 90.11' by 150' variable. SECRETARY: There are two surveys there cut and taped together to show both lots and the division line. C.HAIRMAN: Ok. There's Lot #2 which is 12,663 sq. ft.(proposed). And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Damien would you like to be heard? GEORGE DAMIEN: Mr~ Chairman and Members of the Board. Thank you for giving me this ~opportunity to emphasize some facts of my case. As you read in my petition, after I bought it, my lot. I went to the Building Inspector at that time and asked him because he was the only one in authority, asked him to determine whether I would have the right to have two lots. And he said, 'Yes.'~ He said the law, effectively~ I mean the law at ~hat time was 125' by 100' and I have more land than that. However, in view of the fact there are four houses behind my pr©perry and in view of the fact that I have three children~ I decided to ask for a variance in order to be able to have this opportunity to present for me to have three houses. So I applied for a hearing which took place in 1966 and during the hearing--before that the Building Inspector told me you don't even have to apply to have a hearing because you are within the law and you have the right to have two lots. And I said, "Well maybe they will give me a variance.' And so I applied and during the hearing--copies of this on page ll--the Chairman of the --the Chairman at that time--said clearly and I will simply read this, The Chairman said we would not deny ~wo lots, and then he added we would have tp apply again to divide this property into two lots. Page 2 - Public Hearing Z.B.A. Appl. No~ 3581 - GEORGE D. DAMIEN July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting MR. DAMIEN (continued): The whole thing comes clear. I, after the hearing, went back ~to the Building Inspector and asked him, because I was a Professor teaching at Columbia University. I said, "Well, what am I supposed to do to have this into two lots?" And he said there's nothing to do, you are within the law and consequently addressing yourself to me is the procedure to follow. So I said fine, and he issued as you have in the files~ the permits for two houses. However~ 'I couldn't build two houses be.cause I didn't have the ne~d at that time, and he issued in writing in 1975--when I went to ask him again~ because I knew the zoni~ng --the variance-- not the variance, the size of lots had been changed-~.and he wrote me a letter of which you have, and said and it says hear and I will read it again, clearly, November 5, 1975, an official document issued by the Building Inspector~ ..~Mr. George Damien New Suffolk, NY Dear Si r: In reply to your inquiry, please be advised: The actaeon of the Board of Appeals #949, Sept~ l, 1966 dividin$ your proposed ~gn the ~/s Fifth Stree't, New Suffolk into two'bb~.lai'6g lots, one with frontag~ on Jackson St. and the other with frontage on Main Street, has not been changed or rescinded~ You still have two building lots on E/s Fifth Street as the Board set them off in 1966~ Yours truly~ yS/ HOWARD TERRY Building Inspector... Now I have been penalized. In the meantime, of course, the administration changed~from a Republican Administration, and I went to the new~ who $o my knowledge was not a Building Inspector and is Director of the Building Department~ Mr~ Lessardo And I explained my case to him and he told me, ~'~No~ The Building Inspector made an error"and consequently I don't have two lots." I ~alked to him, explained to him that I want to fight it~ Nobody told me what to do excep~ just to apply, and Page 3 Public Hearing Z.B.A. Appl. No. 3581 GEORGE D. DAMIEN July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting MR. DAMIEN (continued): when I applied to an official, and when he issued the official letter, this letter is not (inaudible)~ I happen to be a Doctor of Law although I don't practice, but I teach law and this is to me absolutely incredible that an official document issued by the same Building Inspector is considered to be in error. That is something that I cannot be penalized. It's like the previous President of the United States signs an order and Mr~ Reagan says , ~No~ he was in error.~ That is legally speaking something that never happens and I am'puzzled~ so I applied for having a hearing to confirm this decision that I had in 1966~ I was within the law .and I had the right to have two bui_!ding lots~ The decision taken by the Zoning Board on October 2 last year, I applied--in April,__finally on October the 2nd I have a hearings and ] was again puzzled ~y a decision that ~as taken at that t~me~, I did not ask --and 'this is again something which I cannot understand--] did not ask the Board to confirm the decision of 1966~.that I don't have a right to three lo{s. I woutdn=t apply for nothing to have--it doesn't make sense. I applied to have a hea,ring,_and to have a decision to confirm the fact that in 19~6 when I applied first I have the right to hav~ two lots because the at that time the-zoning ordinance required 125~ by 100' Then since I could not get what I have been trying to .have fo~ 21 years now, .~ applied for a second hearin§ today which is taking place. I have said in detail, I had written a petition which I explained all the facts and so forth~ First of all, it was denied to me~ I applied in November--we are now in July--without going through details I was asked that I cannot have the hearing before obtaining an (inaudible) from the Department of Health Services in Riverhead concerning my lot. And I explained and wrote letters that if I have a second lot, then I will first of all go forth complying with whatever require- ments are in force by the Health Department. But what is interesting to some extent to me is when I had the hearing in October 1986, the Chairman of the Board did not require that I have to have this application of the Article VI of the Department of Health Services. And I said and I explained and wrote many letters. My file is quite voluminous. That this Article vi contains a special paragraph that says ..~cases which are determined by the Zoning Board prior to January 1, 1981, Article VI does not apply .... " Well, finally I was very pleased to be called by the Secretary when I was in Florida that I will have today's hearing scheduled. Because on August 4, 1986, the Department of Health Services, Page 4 Public Hearing Z.B.A. Appl. No. 3581 GEORGE D. DAMIEN July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting MR. DAMIEN (continued): Mr. Royal Reynolds, Public Health Engineer, wrote a letter here addressed to Judith Terry, Town Clerk, indicated a copy to the Zoning Board, and it said, 'In order to determine whether the property is exempt from Article VI of the Sanitary Code, it is necessary to know whether the Town of Southold has issued Planning or Zoning Board approval for this property .... "In order words, that I have a lot. If I don't have a lot, of course all these Health requirements which meets the cesspools and the wells does not apply. And for the (inaudible) again I do not have after so many years any satisfaction, and I am penalized because the interpretation was the previous Inspector made a mistake. If he made the mistake I am not the guilty one. I don't see why I have to continue to be penalized to be able to use my property the way I had the right in 1966 when I bought the property. So I will simply say that in the present situation, again, with the second appeal, second hearing, I am appealing to the Chairman of the Board and the Members of the Board to confirm the fact that I do have as in 1966 two lots because the objection made by Mr. Lessard, who is Executive Director of the Department of Buildings, I did not apply, I did. I went to the Building Inspector and asked him what am I supposed to so, and he said there is nothing to do. You are asking me, I'll give you the permits. You are within the law. And that is the decision of the Board from the Zoning Board. So, what I have done is simply ask him and as in my file, I sent you the original of the Building Permits which he gave me for the second lot, and after that of course, I am not a wealthy man--I didn't have the money, This is the original for the second lot which you have. So I do not understand why after so much procedure it cost me money. In 1966 it was $5.00. Today it is $75.00 plus $50.00 for the Planning Board, plus I don't know what. I also have to pay for Department of Health Services and in the final analysis I haven't got anything and I am penalized for some- thing which is simply, I'm not involved..I haven't done anything wrong. And I would appreciate definitely a decision taken by this Board, and I appeal it to the Chairman and Members of this Board to simply restore my rights and grant me a second lot-- and I'm glad also-to emphasize the fact that as you well know, according to the United States Supreme Court on June 9th of this year, - of the Constitution--this is an application from the law of the decision. "Landowners are entitled to compensation when their land is made useless by zoning, planning and environmental and other land-use restrictions," Page 5 - Public Hearing Appl. No. 3581 - GEORGE D.~ DAMIEN July 16, 1987 ZBA Regular Meeting MR. DAMIEN (continued): Well I have been exactly in the same situation and the Supreme Court of the United States is granting here to the landowners which includes myself~ the right to compensation which I am not going to do. I would like simply to have my second lot as it can be determined and for which decision I will be grateful to the Chairman and all the Members for. Thank you. CHAIRMAN' Can t just ask you one question, Mr. Damien. MR~ DAMIEN: Yes, by all means. CHAIRMAN: Would you just step up here one second please. I have both applications. This to my left over here and to your right is the appliCation of last year's and this is ~he application of this year's. If you'll notice the maps are pieced. SECRETARY: One had the house and the other did not. CHAIRMAN: MR. DAMIEN: But they are virtually the same thing. Yes. CHAIRMAN: The house was not plotted on the other one, ok. I see. There is one other thing. I just wanted to clearly state for the people in the audience that the application of 1966 says, and I'll read it, "George D. Damien, Appeal No~ 35032 Variance Requesting Confirmation of Building Inspector's Actions Prior Z.B.A. Decision Rendered Appeal #949, 9/1/66, recognizing two separate building lots having insufficient area, width and depth~ required by Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code~ Location of Property .... " I just wanted to say for the record is what yQu asked us to do in that application was to reaffirm that Decision of 1966, and that was the reason why we did not require Article VI Approval because you were asking us to confirm it differently from the application that we have before us now. As you know we denied the application in 1986~ and that's where we are today. We are here with a new fresh application of which we did ask you to get Article VI Approval, which you didn't, but we did grant you a hearing. Is that correct? MR. DAMIEN: Yes. That is correct. That's besides the fact that when I applied last year my request was simply to confirm Page 6 - Public Hearing Appl. No. 3581 -GEORGE D. DAMIEN July 16, 1987 ZBA Regular Meeting MR. DAMIEN (continued): not that I have no right to have three lots. · CHAIRMAN: No, it says two lots in the public hearing, MR. DAMIEN: But it says insufficient area, which is not the case. I had sufficient area at that time in 1966. CHAIRMAN: Right, MR~ DAMIEN: And as to this Article VI, since this is a decision taken in 1966~ paragraph (c) if I am correct does not apply for any decision taken before January l, 1981. Now if I have the lot--if I build I will comply with'the requirements of the Department of Health, no doubt. If t sell the property, whoever will buy it has to comply with it--that goes without saying. Ok? CHAIRMAN: Thank you, MR, DAMIEN: I thank you very much, CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? _.(None). Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later~ MEMBER DOUGLA'SS: Second~ CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming in. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Douglass and Sawicki, Messrs~ Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Respectfully submitted.., Linda F~ Kowalski Z.B~.~A~ Clerk and Stenographer TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1987 Appl, No, 3639 Applicant(s): WILHELM FRANKEN Location of Property: W/s Osprey Nest Road, Greenport County Tax_ Map ID No. 1000- 35 - 6 - 22, 23, 24 (now 24.1) Board-Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Serge Doyen, Jr., Charles Grigonis, Robert J.~ Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Also present: Mr. Lessard (Building Dept). Absent was: (None) The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:58 o'clock p.m. and read 'the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the subdivision map of the area, cop~-of a sketch of a survey dated 4/28/87 indicating a proposed accessory building approximately 15 feet south of the residence and 13 feet from Osprey Nest Road at its closest p6int, at its farthest point approximately 40 feet which is the rear of that part of the accessory building. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard? JOHN GEIDEMAN: Mr. Franken is unable to be here tonight. I'm John Geideman if there are any questions, I'd like to help you. CHAIRMAN: Is there any reason why you didn't push this down a little bit farther to the bulkhead? MR. GEIDEMAN: Well only to be well within the restrictions of the D.E.C. who suggested that we not go any closer to the bulkhead than is necessary. CHAIRMAN: Do you know exactly what the footage was on that? MR. GEIDEMAN: Fifty-six feet. CHAIRMAN: Is that approximately where you're putting this. Yes, I see. Because it's a rather oddly shaped piece of property, t missed that on the original. Are you aware Mr. Geideman of the conditions normally placed on buildings of this nature? MR. GEIDEMAN: With the restrictions on front of building and rear of building? CHAIRMAN: No. The restrictions that the building only be Page 2 - ZBA Public Hearing Matter of WILHELM FRANKEN July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN (continued): used for storage purposes and not for habitable purposes or buhk quarters? MR. GEIDEMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN: It is a one-story building? MR. GEIDEMAN: One~sto'ry with a gable roof and no ceiling inside, just storage area.~ _ .... CHAIRMAN: What would be the maximum height of the structure from ground level? MR, GEIDEMAN: Eight and four. About 13 feet. CHAIRMAN: And we also ask that there be no lighting placed, all lighting to be shielded to the property, not to cause any disrup%ion to 6ither the road or surrounding neighbors. That's another restriction we usually place on there and we usually ask the question if there will be electricity or any type of' heating placed in the structure? MR, GEIDEMAN: Only for lighting~ CHAIRMAN: Only for lighting. MR. GEiDEMAN: No water or drainage. CHAIRMAN: And it will probably have a cement floor? MR, GEIDEMAN: Concrete slab. CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much. Let's see w,hat develops throughout the hearing. I may have another question for you. MR. GEIDEMAN: Thank you,~ CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody against the application? Questions from Board Members? (None) I thank you for coming in, I'll close the hearing now~ MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded~ The hearing was declared concluded at 8:04 p~m. Vote of the Board: Ayes: A11. : ~~wa s _h ,- B~)~r~'Se-c~retary and Stenographer TRANSCRIPT. OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THUR~DA'Y, JULY 16, 1987 Appl.-No. 3635 App_licant(s): ARTHUR JUNGE Location of Property: N/"s C.R. 48, Cutchogue .County Tax Map ID No. 1000- 96 z 1 19. Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Grigonis, Doyens Douglass and Sawicki. Absent was: (none) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.), Linda Kowalski~ ZBA Secretary, and approximately 15 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:04 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a ~opy of a site plan indicating a piece of prCperty of approximately 168.17 feet by 252.68 feet variable, indicating a proposed industrial building "A" of 40' by 110' and future building of 40' by, appears to be 83'9" 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? How do you ARTHUR JUNGE: Chairman and Members of the Board, I'm Artie Junge~ I just want to get the variance so that I can build my shop so I can conduct my business within the limits of the Town of Southold~ I know there has been a lot of controversy of contractors and how they've been operating their businesses, and I just want to be on the up-and-up. I bought this piece of property because it's on the proposed Master Plan as Light Industrial. That's about it. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Junge, did you get a vacant land C.O. from the Building Department indicating this as a leg~] lot? MR. JUNGE: No'. CHAIRMAN: That wasn't one of the requirements? And you have closed on this property or are you still contract vendee? Page 2 - Public He,ring (Z.B.A.) Matter of ARTHUR JUNGE Appeal No. 3635 Regular Meeting of July 16, 1987 CHAIRMAN: You did close on this property? MR. JUNGE: Yes~ I have a deed, that's 611. CHAIRMAN: I believe we have the deed. or the deed~ It's either the contract SECRETARY: That's the deed. CHAIRMAN: Ok~ Is there anything you wish to say concerning the proposed uses for the record? MR~ JUNGE: The only other thing that I would probably do, I have a couple of other contractors that have already asked me if they could come in and rent space from me and I said I would possibly consider. CHAIRMAN: Did you-- MR. JUNGE: It would be--they would be in the building trade. CHAIRMAN: Did you think about asking the Town Board for a rezoning on this piece of property as opposed to coming-- MR. JUNGE: Rezoning for what? CHAIRMAN: Fo~ business. MR. JUNGE: As opposed to Light Industrial? CHAIRMAN: As opposed to bringing this application before this Board~ Did you think about a change of zone on the property? (Mr. Junge nodded negatively.) CHAIRMAN: No. Let's see what develops through the hearing~ Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? (..None). Hearing no further questions~ I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded. The hearing was concluded at 8:10 p.m. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawic~i. Board Secretary and Stenographer TRANSCRIPT-OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURS6AY, JU~_Y 16, 1987 Appl.-No, 3631 Applicant(s): PUDGE CORP. Location of Property: N/s-C.R, 48, Cutchogue _County Tax Map ID No. 1000- 96 ~1 -20. Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.), Linda Kowalski and approximately 12 persons in the audience at this time. 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 copy of a plan dated 4/29/87 for a propose~building for James Gray iHdicating a very similar plan of a 7500 sq. ft~ building placed somewhat toward the center of the property, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area~ Is there somebody that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? On Pudge ~orp~ Anybody wishing to speak in behalf? Anyone against? Go ahead, Mr. Heinisch. BERNARD HEINISCH: My name is Bernard Heinisch. I reside on the North Road in Southold. t object to any industrial building being built on any residential zoned property~ This can only lead to a copycat routine that can be built in anyone's backyard, frontyard or sideyard if this is allowed~ I have a petition signed by 22 people, who all reside on the North Roa~ C.Ro 48, all residents that also object to any industrial building being built in residential property. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to speak against this application? (None) Questions from Board Members (None). I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later, The hearing was declared concluded at 8:15 p.m. d~ · Kow~aq§ki, B6a-~i~--Secretary TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JULY 16, '1987 Appl. No. 3638 Applicant(s): JAMES AND'MARY'TYLER Location of Prop6rty[ N/~n-Roa-ZF, Laurel County Tax Map ID No~ 1000- 125- 1 19.6 Board Members present were~ Chairman Goehringer, Members Grigonis~ Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. Absent was: (none) Also present were: Mr. Victor Lessard (Building Dept.), Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 12 persons in the audience at this time. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 8:15 o~clock p.m. (The hearing was recessed from the previous hearing held on June 18, 1987.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a recessed hearing from the last Regular Meeting. There was a Special Meeting in between.. We will ask Mr. Hall if he is representing the applicant at this time? MICHAEL J. HALL, ESQ.: Yes, I am Counsel for Mr. Lark. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to address the Board. MRe HALL: I don't know if there is anything f6r' me to say. and Mrs. Tyler are here. They did submit the berm plan that the Board requested last month, and I believe the Board has that in their possession. We're just here to ask that the Board act as swiftly as possible. We're under some kind of pressure. If there are no further questions. CHAIRMAN: The only question that I have of the applicant is in the area--maybe I should ask you both and you both could come up here if you wouldn't mind. Thank you very much, Mike~ In the area of this ground cover. What are you planning on putting there, Jim? JAMES TYLER: We're planning on having.tbees out here and it will be like low shrubbery and then a Stockade fence around Page 2 Public Hearing (Z.B.A.) Appl. No. 3638 JAMES AND MARY TYLER Regular Meeting of July 16, 1987 MR. TYLER (continued): the entire back to keep it all fenced in. CHAIRMAN: Where will that start? Here? MR. TYLER: We're not sure exactly. It depends on how far the money runs to be very honest with you~ Coming from the back we're working to shelter the entire back so there will be nothing seen on the back~ MR. HALL: What will this ground cover be? MR. TYLER: No grass. The only grass, sod will be at the front, along_with this, is low shrubbery and stuff like that. And over here~ Mr. Crenshaw is in the process of putting a berm up the entire side~ CHAIRMAN: My question to you is, do you have any objection to putting a little higher bushes in this particular area, say a minimum of three ft~ MR. TYLER: No, nos I don~t. CHAIRMAN: here too. You don't have any objection. As to the case over All right. Let's see what develops. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion clOsing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Thank you very much for coming in. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second~ The hearing was concluded at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, F. Kowalsk', Board Secretary TRANSCRIPT. OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1987 Appl,-No. 3642 App~licant(s): DINA MASSO Location of Property: 5705 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. ~County Tax Map ID No. 1000- 111~ 13 - 04. Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. Absent was: (none) Also present were: Victor Lessard (Buildin.g Dept.)~ Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 12 persons in the audience at this time. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:18 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey--actually it's a site plan produced--by Mr. Strang indicating a bluff area along the top of the bulkhead about 55 to 60 feet, and a proposed boathouse pretty much in line with the existing bulkhead and a set of 1, 2, 3, 4-- approximately four sets of stairs with a platform up on top with landings coming down to the waterfront area, which is basically the rear. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicat- ing this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard, Mr. Strang? GARRETT A. STRANG, R.A.: Yes~ thank you. Good evening° The appli- cation is as stated quite simple and straightforward. My client is desirous of building a boathouse down behind the bulkhead. The use of the boathouse would essentially in the off-season storage of small boats that they have--a sunfish and a little rowboat and power boat that they can put inside this particular building. Also in the event that there were to be a pending storm they could very easily secure the boats in the building as opposed to --right now they would have to be run up to the nearest ramp facility and pulled out of the water, trailered around to the upland part of the site~ We made an application to the Trustees for this particQlar situation and they granted a waiver~from their jurisdiction. And we have made an application pending with the N.Y.S. DeE.C. Page 2 Z.B.A. Public hearing Appl. No. 3642 DINA MASSO July 16~ 1987 Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN: My question to you is, how large is the boathouse? MR. STRANG: The boathouse is relatively small. I believe it's shown in scale on that site plan if I'm not mistaken. I'll pull my application if my application finds the size of it. It's approximately 12 ft. in depth, front to back, from the bulkhead back to the bluff it would be 12 feet, and we're looking at 36 ft~ of construction overall length~ It is one story. CHAIRMAN: That includes the deck~ the 36 MR. STRANG: Ri§hr. CHAIRMAN: That's where you have the 760 sq. ft. mentioned here. MR. STRANG: Yes~ CHAIRMAN: The length~ do you have the length approximately? MR~ STRANG: The length will be 24 feet --let's say 12 feet would pass it to the deck~. CHAIRMAN: You are planning on constructing this right adjacent to the bulkhead? MR. STRANG: Yes, right along side the edge of the bulkhead since the bluff starts quite quickly to the bulkhead with just trying to sque. eze it into that onlz area that's level. CHAIRMAN: pilings? What kind of construction are you going t~ drive, MR~ STRANG: Given the fact that it's an accessory building, we'll probably set it on piers. I imagine--the way I envision it at this point in time is to excavate a small area, drop in what's called a sonar tube, and fill it with concrete and set the building on that~ CHAIRMAN: As for the deck, the deck would be constructed pretty much the same way? MR. STRANG: The deck would sit on posts, C.C.A. treated posts would be extended into the ground approximately three feet. Page 3 - Z.B.A. Public Hearing Appl. No. 3642 - DINA MASSO ~]uly 16, 1987 Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN: Going on to the stairs for a moment. WOuld you be constructing these stairs with the minimal amount of disruption to the bluff? MR. STRANG: Yes, we would. The intention is to work within the contours of the bluff and to build a safe stair that hugs the bluff as closely as possible. It's not going to extend up above the bluff. The extent of clearing would be strictly the width of the stair and the landings and any ~egetation beyond that WasI~disturbed would be replaced. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea how big the platform is on top? MR~ STRANG: The platform at the very top I W~uld say at this point--I don't have the drawing in front of me--but the drawing at the top is probably a 10' by 15' CHAIRMAN: That looks good in comparison with what the building is down below. Ok. Would there be any lighting that would be required to have a restriction shieldiDg it from the neighbors on the property? MR. STRANG: Any lighting would certainly be--we would be willing to keep the lighting controlled within the confines of the site of the deck area.~ I know there has been some controversy in the past from boaters who don't~ like these high intensity lights shining out across the Bay in their vision as they're coming close to shore. So we would confine any lighting onto the deck area, and there is a stairway that extends from the bulk- head down to the beach so there may be ~ome lighting in that immediate vicinity also. CHAIRMAN: All right. We thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody wishing to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? MEMBER DOUGLASS- Yes~ I wanted to ask one. from the beach to the top of the bulkhead? What is the elevation MR. STRANG: 7 feet~ From the beach to the bulkhead is approximately 6 to MEMBER DOUGLASS: How often does it change? Page 4 - Z.B.A. Public Hearing Appl. No. 3642- DINA MASSO July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting MR. STRANG: It has been pretty stable over the years. It hasn't been deep. The hii§hwater mark is probably out 10 or 12 feet from the edge of the bulkhead to the actual highwater mark. So there's at least 12 feet of beaah there on an average. And there hasn't been any evidences That bulkhead has been there for some time and there's no evidence that it has been undermined or that the beach has eroded~ So that's pretty stable elevation along there. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you, CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until~latero The hearing was doncluded at 8:27 p°m. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. Respectfully submitted, KowaTski, Board Secretary TRANSCRIPT~OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1987 Appl.-No 1644 App_lican~(s : FREDERICK'WIGHTMAN/DAVID FREY/JOSEPH REINHART Location of Property: N/s -<a~_n Ro~ / Peconic ~County Tax Map ID No. 1000~ 75 ~ I -l~. ' .... Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Grigonis, 'D'oyen, Douglass and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) ~'- Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building De~t.), Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 20 persgns in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8-27 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of survey dated 11/8/86 indicating spFcific changes to this piece of property, of which there has been at least one application before this Board over the period of years, of which I have a copy, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Go ahead, sir. ROGER ELSTON, ESQ.: Roger Elston, Davies and Elston, 33 Kings Highway, Hauppauge, NY. I represent the Contract Vendeers,.. Frederick Wightman and David Frey, who are under contract to purchase the property from the Reinhart Estate. And if I may give you jsut briefly the background of the history of this property. Some time in the mid-'3Os~ 1935 or 1936, the buildings were erected there Agnes Reinhart, now deceased, and it was for a period of time used as a liquor store, and I believe there was an apartment there and so forth, and over the course of years there were many different uses put to the property. And I do .have a list that was prepared by Mr. Reinhart going back the last 10 years, and I'm sorry, I just have the one. I can't give all of you a copy but I would !ik~ to provide you with this copy that I have here. (Submitted three page list signed by Howard Reinhart.) CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. ELSTON: The property is presently being used as a canvass shop for the purchase of manufacturing and retailing canvass goods. There is a plumbing business there for storage. Business office. The Town has a municipal storage of equipment vehicles there. And there is the apartment upstairs. Now it's Page 2 - Appeal No. 3644 WIGHTMAN/FREY/REINHART Public Hearing Transcript - Z.B.A. Regular Meeting held July 16~ 1987 MR. ELSTON (continued): basically our position that the Town Zoning Laws, Section lO0-118(B) provides that a nonconforming use of a building or premises may be changed to a use of the same or higher classification. According to the provisions of this chapter. And I believe.that the use of the premises that it's presently being put to consists of those which would be consistent with General Business or Light Business. And it's our position that the owners of the property, or pros- pective owners, will have the right to make certain improvements to the premises following the 50% rule as to modifications to the building, to continNe to use the building for various purposes consistent with that which has been put to use since 1935~ An application has been made to the Building Department and those applications have been rejected, and the reasons for that were not__quite clear because we feel that the applications are proper and that they do conform to the requirements of the Town. Now, Mr~ Strang=~ who you gentlemen are certainly familiar with~ has been working wit~ us_on this~ and he is prepared to explain to the Board just what the prospective purchasers intend to do~ And we feel that what is go.ing to be done there is going to be only an improvement to the structures that are there, and it will be an asset to the community and certainly in no way detrimental, and they intend to put a structure there that will conform to the character of the community, and Mr. Strang will make that presentation. GARRETT A. STRANG, R.A.; I think that by the Site Plan that's been Submitted we tried to clearly define what is going on there. There is two separate and distinct existing buildings nn the site --the westerly building is approximately 1~60 5q. ft~ on the first floor. That's the building that presently houses the canvass shop, and has had various and assorted retail business establishments in it in the past. There's also the approximately 1600 sq~ ft. structure to the east which is being used as the housing facility for the Town plowing vehicles and maintenance vehicles. The intention is basically to link those two structures together with an addition that's approximately 450 sq. ft. and to convert the what is now garage~ if you will, into retail business use. In addition to that in the rear of the property, there is another building, a barn-type building, that has had in the past various and assorted uses: some of them farm related, and some of them business related~ of various sorts~. Again, we intend to maintain that use: part of the building will be used for storage and part of the building will be used for business Page 3 Appeal No. 3644 - WIGHTMAN/FREY/REINHART Public Hearing Transcript Z.B.A. Regular Meeting held July 16, 1987 MR. STRANG (continued): be it retail,office, or whatever, would be allowed under the definitions of the Code~ The square footages of the required uses have been clearly depicted on the site plan, developed and present6d to the Planning Boards The parking was in compliance with the zoning~ and the site plan was submitted to the or referred to the Building Department for certification. It's since that particular step has happened that we've gotten routed to come before this Board. Again, I'm somewhat confused or at a loss as to why we are here. I don't know that it's absolutely necessary. I also think of the position that what we are doing is within the realm of the code~ the definition and intent of the code. So I gues~, initially we need either a clarification as to what it is why we are here~ and then proper action can be taken accordingly~ ~HAIRMAN: Can we assume that these buildings were all built in 1932, MR. REINHART:All about 1935. CHAIRMAN: All about 1935. SECRETARY: Could I have his name please. MR~-ELSTON: This is Mr. Reinhart. Mrs. Agnes Reinhart's son. MR. REINHART: I think the buildings were all built in 1935. Between 1935 and 1936. We lived in the apartment up above. We had a_gas station downstairs on the one side, and we used the office for the produce business. The building in the back was a potato house for many years. We raised more potatoes that year. And then the liquor store was opened about the start of World War It, and she sold the liquor store in I guess it was the '5Os. I can't remember the man's name, now. I have it in the papers at home on it, but he leased that building and we rented the apartment out and he rented the store next door out~ There were various real estate offices in there, and there was an accountant in there, and he kept the liquor store--was sold once or twice~ Once from one owner to the other. And maybe about 10 years ago moved down to the Shopping Center in Cutchogue, his lease had run. Snce since that time there has been two or three real~estate people in there~ The Tray House was in the store. And the Canvass Store was in there~ Tidy Car was in one part for a while~ And we've had various tenants upstairs. Page 4 - Appeal No. 3644 - WIGHTMAN/FREY/REINHART Public Hearing Transcript Z.B.A. Regular Meeting held July 16, 1987 MR. REINHART (continued): Baglivi had the back barn for his antique bus~ness. There are plumbers in the back barn now. That's about all I can %ell you. CHAIRMAN: In 1957, which was the inception of zoning, would you say at that particular time that what existed in the buildings were the liquor store, and in the easterly part of the front building leased to the County or Town at that time for purposes of storage~ ~MRr REINHART: Garage was leased to the County. There was a liquor store at %.hat time. And I think there was an accountant De~t door, and it was the same man~ CHAIRMAN: In the same building as the liquor store? MR. REINHART: In the same building as the liquore store. two stores there. There's CHAIRMAN: Do you remember the accountant's name? MR~ REINHART: liquor store. MEMBER SAWICKI~ It was the same man that owned the operated the Now in the shopping center in Cutchogue. Grebe. MR. REINHART: Different tenants for upstairs. He had at that time when he bought the liquor store~ he leased the whole building, and he sublet the two parts~ His lease ran out and he went to larger quarters and then we got different tenants. CHAIRMAN: Ok~ Thank you for giving us that historical background. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? MR, ELSTON: I would just like to reiterate to the Board the point that Mr. Strang pointed out, and that is the question "What are we doing here." I think what we're really doing here is asking the Board to give its approval that we have or we feel we have the right to do, but to get clarification as to the statute so that the Building Department will recognize all that we're doing is permissive. Thank you. Page 5 - Appeal No. 3644 WIGHTMAN/FREY/REINHART Public Hearing Transcript Z.B.A. Regular Meeting held July 16, 1987 CHAIRMAN: Who else would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anyone against this application? (None). I think to only briefly answer your question, sir, I think it's extremely difficult to superimpose what preexisting uses were there other than the fact that Mr. Reinhart said concerning the liquor store at the time of the inception of zoning~ and the storage use by either the County or Town Highway Department in the easterly building. And whatever MEMBER GRIGONIS: And antique store. CHAIRMAN: Yes~ and antique store in the rear building. And I know Mr. Baglivi held auctions~ I donJt know who was there prior to he, and I believe Mr. Grigonis to my left here said the building in the rear was also used for grating potatoes, which is an agricultural use~ So I don't know how much farther we can go on that issue at this point.~ MR. ELSTON: What I'm suggesting~ sir, is that the owners of the property should be permitted to use the premises for anything that is consistent_with the General Business purpose, as long as it's in the same category. Now if an antique store or plumbing supply store was within the General Business category, then the owner should be permitted to use the premises for general business purposes as long as it's consistent with the type of businesses preyiously used. All higher cla§sification as to the zoning ordinance provides for. And it's for that purpose, we are saying if you want to go to the Building Department and do something with this building~ ~$hat's consistent with its prior use, then we should be allowed to do that. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you. before I close the heating? Any other comment, Mr. St-rang, MR. STRANG: The only thing I Would like is When the decision is made and that the Board make it clear enough~ going into assump- tion that the decision is favorable~ that in the event there were to be a change of occupant or tenant if you will at some future day, we would not have to find ourselves before the Board again~ I think that's what has been presented here. That anything that's compatible and continuous with the General-Business classification can happen, so that we have a liquor store today, and we want to put an accountant in there tomorrow, we don't Page 6 - Appeal No. 3644 - WIGHTMAN/FREY/REINHART Public Hearing Transcript - Z.B.A. Regular Meeting held July 16~ 1987 MR. STRANG (continued): have to come back to the Board again for another decision. CHAIRMAN: As you know, Mr. Strang, we have been discussing situations like this many, many times. My question basically to the Contract Vendees or applicants are, are they willing or have they thought about taking any specific nonconforming use away so as to reinstitute the possibility of that type of situation? In other words, are they willing to use only the rear part of the building for storage, without retail use, thereby allowing the reconstruction of the front part? MR. STRANG: You're making reference to the barn building in the rear of the separate buildings? CHAIRMAN: Yes° MR. STRANG: I don't know-~ MR. ~GHTMAN: I think in the Site Plan it has it's only 850 sq. ft~ for retail space, which is a very small amount in the back-- CHAIRMAN: I understand. MR. WIGHTMAN: And that would pretty much be for a showroom, maybe for a manufacturer~ such as a plumber, plumbing and Heating., or window shop. SECRETARY: May I have your name please for the record? MR. WIGHTMAN: Fred Wightman. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. All right. We'll toss it around and see what we can do. We thank you very much for coming in, and for your courtesy. VICTOR LESSARD, BUILDING DEPT. ADMINISTRATOR: If I could clarify the position of the Building Department. The gentleman wants to know what they are doing here. The nonconformity the way the Law is written according to the Building Department, who interprets these laws by the way, says a nonconformity a't the time of the inception of zoning will remain, ok, but if it remains dormant for two years, you lose the nonconformity. Now that means that nonconformity is exactly what you are doing at the time of zoning. Page 7 - Appeal No. 3644 - WIGHTMAN/FREY/REINHART Public Hearing ~Transcript - Z.B.A. Regular Meeting held July 16, 1987 MR. LESSARD (continued): It doesn't mean that you're going to pass decision:"Well a retail store or liquor store is the same as.~" That goes to the Board of Appeals to make that decision~ If Mr. Reinhart could prove every time he changed a nonconformity that there was no dormancy of two years in between.-~that's No. 1~ And No. 2, that he get the proper OK from the Board of Appeals to classify the changes he was making~ Ok? That's the position of the Building Depart- merit. We haven't got the latitude to allow it. That's the way the law is written. That is Why you are here with the Board of Appeals and ask for a-carte blanche to do whatever you want in the residential zone~ well that's up to the Board of Appeals. MR. ELSTON: With all due respects, the Case Laws have held where there is a nonconforming use that that use may be put to a different use as long as it's within the same category of use. Thus, if it's General Business and you have an antique shop in there, there is no prohibition to put in a pharmaceut~c~l business. MR. LESSARD: Who made that decision, sir? MR. ELSTON: The Case Law of the State of New York has said that. MR. LESSARD: Who makes a decision that what yo~'re changing to is of the same nonconforming status? MR. ELSTON: Well~ sir, then you would have to look to the classification of the Town Zoning. For example, if the Town says in a General Business use--you start off, let's say ~ou have a liquor store to begin with. And that liquor store falls within the General Business category. Then as a nonconforming use, you would then be permitted to use that building for any- thing that would fall into that category, thus if the liquor store falls in General ~usiness category and General Business permits a grocery store or provides a veal store, or anything of that nature, that it would fall into thet category and you wouldn't be changing the nonconforming use as long as you maintain that same category and.then we would have to look to the statute or the zoning laws to see what are the categories or permitted uses within that particular zoning regulation. MR. LESSARD: If that is so, and t'm assuming that you know more about it than I do, I'm no lawyer--but it also states Page 8 Appeal No. 3644 - WIGHTMAN/FREY/REINHART Public Hearing Transcript Z.B.A. Regular Meetipg held July 16, 1987 MR. LESSARD (continued): that it requires an Amended Site Plan~ None of this stuff is happening~ That has nothing to do with this but-- CHAIRMAN: That's a Planning Board issue. What I would like to ask you, sir, is that you supply us with some of that case law that you're referring tog And secondly~ it's my understanding that only a C~O,~ 'Pre-C.O. for these buildings have been applied for--so as a matter of formality, I'm going to ask this hearing be recessed until ~he next regularly scheduled hearings so I have everything that's complete~ It's merely a formality, and I'll be in receipt of your partic61ar case law at that point hopefully, and we will also have the Pre-C.O. from the Building Department so we know what we have and what we might need. And if I close the hearing, I can't ask for anything else, and I might need something else. MR. ELSTON: I will be happy to supply whatever they wish. CHAIRMAN: Thank you~ MR. ELSTON: Now as to the question of the continuous use, again, we have Mr. Reinhart present, and if you would like to inquire as to the uses~ he would be happy to try and ans'wer them. CHAIRMAN: There was a question, Mr. Reinhart, raised by myself and the Building Inspector concerning the possibility of lapse of time in between these businesses in and out of these buildings. MR. REINHART: There has always been business in those buildings. There hasn't been any lapse of time--no where near two years. They've been emp%y four months~ dhanged tenants, but there has always been somebody in that building and always somebody in the barn. MEMBER SAWICKI: I also am very well familiar with the territory. And there has always been a business in there. CHAIRMAN: T.hank you very much. Ok. Hearing no further questions~ I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting~ SECRETARY: August 20th? CHAIRMAN: For August 20, 1987. Page 9 - Appeal No. 3644 - WIGHTMAN/FREY/REINHART Public Hearing Transcript - Z.B.A. Regular Meeting'held July 16, 1987 Member Sawicki: Second. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Board Secretary TRANSCRIPT-OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSb~Y, JULY 16, 1987 Appl.-No, 3645 Applicant(s): PAUL AND CHARLOTTE GALGAN Location of Property: 4605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue _County Tax_ Map ID No. 1000- 137- 03 05 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. Absent was: (None). Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.), Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 12 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:49 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating an addition to t~ north side of approximately 10' by 24'2" and installation of a ramp on the south side. We don't have-- it looks like 14'6" by 8'2 and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard, Mr. Galgan? PAuL GALGAN: Mr. Chairman. Paul Galgan, Stillwater Avenue. One clarification on that last phraseology you had regarding a ramp. That's not a ramp at this time. CHAIRMAN: No, I know it's not~ Proposed ramp~ MR. GALGAN: The extension is for a new entranceway to alleviate the concrete steps that a few of your Board members were witness to today who were on my property. Just to reiterate as stated my wife's condition necessitates removal of those dangerous conditions as they exist, thereby I made the application to the Building Department for those proposed additions, and I was denied because of the presence of the water with the 75 ft. restriction. I'd just like to call to your attention that all proposed construction is landward of the existing framed build- ing. I do have an application with the Town Trustees. I do have application with the D.E.C. and I have been verbally assured that I should have no difficulty because of the grade. _Again, your members of the Board were present and should be able to testify to that fact that the property is approximately 15~ 18 feet above the highwater mark. Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of PAUL AND CHARLOTTE GALGAN~ Appl. #3645 Southold Town Board of Appeals ~ July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN: Do you is the nature of the construction on the south side of the building actually part of this application? Has the Building Department turned you down for that part of it or is it merely-- MR. GALGAN: I'm led to believe it's just because of the fact we are within the 75 feet of the water~ The side variances will remain the 10 and 15~ CHAIRMAN: Ok. Because the reason why I was misconstruing the original copy of the survey was I failed to read the actual building plau, which I noted fairly much in line with what you have presently there except for that little nook area that you're referring to. MR, GALGAN: Yes. Right now, presently the concrete steps go out beyond that area as the Members saw where we staked~, that would ~ome back to the existing building. It's only going to go out 3½ feet. CHAIRMAN: I was over to the house last Saturday and I did not go any farther than the garage. The prior owners were personal ~riends of mine, Muriel and Bob Reydon, so I know the house very well, MR. GALGAN: steps? Ok, So then you're familiar with those concrete CHAIRMAN: Yes. I thank you. who may hav~ a question, I'll see if there's anybody else MR. GALGAN: Thank you. CHAIRM~N: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody to spea~ against this application? Questions from Board Members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and ~eserving decision. We'll try to give_you a decision as quickly as possible~ MEMBER-'SAWICKI~ Second, The hearing was concluded and the resolution was duly carried by all the members~ A Fi KO~ALSKI, SECRETARY SOUTHOLD TOWN. BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT~ OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1~987 Appl.-No. 3496 App_licant(s): FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. Location of Property: 575 Old. Harbor Road, New Suffolk .County Tax Map ID No. 1000- 117~ 03 - 06 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None). Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.), Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately 15 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9;07 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a site plan dated 5/27/87 indicating th~-groposed beach paviltion and extensive deck area, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Raynor, would you like to be heard? HENRY RAYNOR, JR.: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Henry Raynor, and I'm agent for Frederick Koehler, Jr. The variance before you is to construct a beach house on this property. It is not for habitation. It's here because it's within 75 feet of Cutchogue Harbor, New Suffolk. By letter of stipulation from the Architects, Samuels and Steelman, the highwater mark is exactly 44 feet from the proposed construction. The applicant has perm.its (a) from the Town Trustees to recon- struct the bulkhead, Permit #396. I believe this is on file with both thelbuilding inspector's office as well as your board. The applicant has received from the New York State Office of Environmental Conservation a letter of nonjurisdiction. This is because the project itself is landward of the preexisting bulkhead Of 1972, and is above the 10' elevation contour, The applicant'g P.E., Mr. John Grammas has obtained approval on the water and sewer configuration from'the Suffolk County Environmental Health Services~ A copy of those plans were submitted to your Board prior to this. On the basis of all of these permits and the applicant's reasoning~ as well as.. the granting by the various agencies for approval of this project, Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing Appl. No. 3496 - FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. Southold Town Board of Appeals - July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting MR. RAYNOR (continued): I request a favorable resolution by the Board. questions~ I'll be happy to entertain them. If there are any CHAIRMAN: Mr~ Raynor, it is my understanding that this is again going to be constructed a lot similar to the application we had tonight on a boathouse, right adjacent or abutLing the bulkhead. MR. RAYNOR: The bow itself will be recessed It feet. CHAIRMAN: From the actual-- MR. RAYNOR: From the actual bulkhead. there will be_decking to the bulkhead. There will be an overhang CHAIRMAN: Now, in the construction that exists now, the pilings that are being driven, are those pilings be driven to shield what is left of the bluff taken down or is that actually a portion of this beach house? MR. RAYNOR: That is a secondary bulkhead that's being established by Rambo prior to plantings for erosi'on-control purposes on the bluff. That is not part of the structure of the house. We don't have a permit for the structure or the house~ We have a permit to build the b~lkhead only. CHAIRMAN: Ok. There's no possibility that this would ever be used for a helicopter pad or anything of this nature_other than for the sole purpose of using it to shower in and possibly store personal items, or whatever the case might be. MR~ RAYNOR: Not being an expert on helicopter pads, I wo61d think it would be very dubious, particularly because construction and the elevation of the beachhouse is being designed primarily so none of the neighbors would have a view of it. It would not interrupt their view of Peconi~ Bay. The sloo~ or the grading and the slope to the west I'm sure would prohibit it as well as the configuration of the roof. It's not designed to be a helicopter landing .pad. CHAIRMAN- The other question I had it~ what specific permits were required to actually severe that bluff, that natural area that basically is the rear lawn.? Page 3 - Transcript of Hearing Appl. No. 3496 - FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. Southold Town Board of Appeals July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting MR. RAYNOR: The two permits that we have are (1) being from the Town Trustees #396, and (2) was a series of inspections and discussions with the D~E.C~ pertinent to the particular project as well as several meetings with them to explain, and the drawings you see presented, they declared non-~urisdiction type. CHAIRMAN: Do you have an architectural plan that Mr. Koehler would have or that you could supply us concerning the type of secondary and I guess--in the discussion, what I first ~aid concerning the type of baffling that you're using to shield the cabana or beach house from the bluff, or the dune or the hill, or whateve~ you're g.~ing to refer to in the rear~ We are not particularly too attuned to see the severing of this type of situation, and if the Board so granted this, we would nos like to see the soil end up on top of it~ causing either death or disfigurement of anybody, and having it slide or whatever the problem might be here. MR~ RAYNOR: ~ assure you, neither would the applicant. I don't have the building specifications with me for that sector of the bulkhead. However, it's under contract with James H. Rambo of Southampton if the Board will request it, I'll be happy to send a set of building specifications. We'll note on there there is a stipulation about re-vegetating and planting. CHAIRMAN: The applicant I assume felt this was the only viable place that they could construct this as opposed to on top of the hill or on the edge or whatever the case might be. Is that correct? MR. RAYNOR: Yes~ he does~ and two architects~ And that was on the advice of two P.E.s CHAIRMAN: All right. I thank you very much. MR. RAYNOR: Thank you~ that bulkhead? You would like the specifications for CHAIRMAn: Yes, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of this application? Anybody against the application? (None) Hearing no questions, I'll make a motion closi.D.g the hearing pending receipt of the bulkhead specifications from Rambo Associates concerning on what revegetation may exist here~ The hearing was concluded and motion was duly carried by all. k_~/=LINDA F~ OWALSKI, SECRETARY SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Page 3 - Z.B.A. Hearing Transcript Appl. Noo 3592 - SNELLENBURG Z.B.A. Regular Meeting - July 17, 1987 P. CARDINALE, ESQ. (continued): Finally, eluding to the appeal, and the arguments asked in the appeal from the Order to Remedy Violation, there are four statements made, each of which we disagree with. "A variance it is maintained is 1½ ft~ and is not substantial." Well, it is a 20% variance that is being sought here. You're being asked to have permitted an 8 ft. fence in a 6½-ft. zone~ That is I think a substantial variance. The second argument is"that an additional l½ ft~ of fence height will not change the neighborhood character." I've indicated and these pictures will show you in a moment that this fence particularly since with reverse side as the most unattractive side, to the neighbor~ would in fact change marketly what Mrs. Dean sees outside of her windows. Incidentally, there is no reason for us to believe there is anything but a legitimate dispute between neighbors since they had no reason-- no unpleasantness prior to this. The third reason advanced is "that the appellant has no remedy other than to remove her recreational area." This I think is the we.akest of all the arguments, since I can give the appellant three very readily-- I've argued that it is a self-inflicted hardship. I can give the appellant three very readily obtainable alternatives of which could be done to remedy this existing violation. Number 1, since the fence starts at six, unfortunately during the 72 ft. period it runs along the objectant's line goes to eight and then comes back to six, you could simply make it a six ft. fence by simply cutting off two ft. of the offending portion. Another way to easily remedy the situation would be move he says his recreational area. There isn't any recreational area as I understand it. There is no deck if you look at the survey attached to your petition. There is nothing behind that house. He could sit on the lawn or the open area on the other side of the yard. There is no preexisting deck which requires him to be close to that side and which requires the fence. The final thing, which occurs to me as I read the statute is, if he moved his fence in five ft. at the point where he wants to make it eight ft., it is my reading that you would not have jurisdiction because it wouldn't_be--the statute reads that any fences along the lines to c~om~!'y and then it further states that "along the lines could be within five feet of the line. So if you want to put up an eight ft~ fence, it would seem to me that you would just move in five ft. He didn't do that. So there are.very easy things that could be done here to avoid the situation which presently exists which Page 4 Z.B.A. Hearing Transcript Appl. No. 3592 SNELLENBURG Z.B.A. Regular Meeting July 17, 1987 P. CARDINALE, ESQ. (continued): not in compliance with the Code. Ok, the only other statement that I have in regard to the issue 'of basically the character of the area and what this noncomplying fence does to it, and also for your consideration the balancing of the equities here as to whether as a practi.cal matter you're going to insist the Judge Snellenburg make his fence a six ft. fence throughout r~ther than_ six-eight-six, or whether you're going to let it go and grant this variance. Obviously this is not the most earth-shattering decision the world would see this year; however, I think it's a legitimate issue that you really have to consider carefully whether there is unique-~practical difficulty and hardship are unique to this situation, and it is very important for this judgment for the following reasons: The property -- th6 privacy affording shrubbery was removed for a portion of this construction. The appellant according to your letter in your file left the 72 ft. of noncomplying 8 ft. high stockade fence prior to applying for a variance and states that the evergreens have Dot thrived in that area. We cannot check this since they are now down. But it appears now that there are at least 35 vertical trumps with healthy foliated branches on the appellant's side of the yard which rises above and immediately along side the 8' High portion of the fence. There are also another 35 evergreen trees in the easterly adjoining lot within 15 to 20' of the path adjacent and parallel to the noncomplying section of the fence. So what'we are saying is the shrubbery certainly to our view thrived or did well enough for indeed it had to be cut down in order to put the fence up. The fence that was put up several points of it pursuant to the survey, which I'll offer to have you consider for the file once Judge Snellenburg looks at it and it indicates certainly that the fence post up to almost a foot encroach on the property of the Dean's. Secondly, that one of the pictures put over here indicate that in fact one of the trees on the Dean side was taken down during the construction. I say this only in the sense of a context of how this occurred. It occurred in too high, it occurred without the neighbor's knowledge. She asked how high is it going to be--she was told it was going to be 8 ft.-- Page 5 ~ Z.B.A. Hearing Transcript APpl. No. 3592 - SNELLENBURG Z.B.A, Regular Meeting- Ju~y 17, 1987 P. CARDINALE (cOntinued): she indicated an objection--she indicated the reason for the objection that the house Wa~ considerably designed for a particular view=-and the objection was heard--no comment was made--the fence was put up--and two days later when she returned on a Friday the fence was completed. My point is simply that there was notice that this fence would be not in compliance with the existing statute, so that if there is a prOblem here it is a self-in.flicted problem~ CHAIRMAN: Thank You. MR, CARDINALE: Ok~ We"ll move along quickly. I know this is your last hearing this e~ening~ The f~nce a~ evidence by the picture #2 here, in addition to being_two feet too highe~ or perhaps too high is unsightly. THat's obviously another reason why we feel we changed the character of the area particularly our neighbors' are in view of that area, and #2 seeks to evidence that point. C.HAIRMAN: Can I just address one issue? Is there at any point an encroachment on the Dean's property by the fence? MR. CARDINALE: Yes. is an encroachment-- We contend 6s per the survey that there CHAIRMAN: Could I just see that survey and I'll give it back. (Chairman viewed A. Lewandowski survey dated May ll, 1987). CHAIRMAN: MR. CARDINALE: I'll leave that there for the moment and I'll submit them all, I want to show them to the Judge first. The context or the'arguments that are addressed now or again going to balancing the equities and the character of the area. The house as evidenced by_~hoto #3 h~re -~we contend and Mrs. Dean will support this and testify too as necessary, that the rear view of the house here specifically the window and the kitchen were specifically angled at some expense by the Architect in his plans to enjoy an unobstructed view of the water during the winter period.~ certainly~ If the fence conformed. Now, Page 6 Z.B.A. Hearing Transcript Appl. No. 3592- SNELLENBURG Z.B.A. Regular Meeting - July 17, 1987 MR. CARDINALE (continued): this is interesting. This is what ( ) of Mrs. Dean's--that if that they when they built this house, which.was built between January of 1985 and January of 1986, that they were aware that there was a 6] fro fence requirement, and that this view and this angled window which cost them another $1,000 in their house would--if the fence was not higher than the 65 ft, before and the continued view as would the windows in th~ other downstairs area of the house--it cle.~rly at this point, is obstructed and the view is ruined for ~hem. If you b~lieve= I contend that they built their house relying on the 6½-st~ statute, then I believe that you must consider that in weighing the equities-- that's Picture #3~ The photos that I'll show you as 4A and 4B are offered to indicate that there is in fact a view from each of the four windows on the downstairs area that were--are affected by this fence in that the character of their view and that the character of the area are affected by what is happening here~ Pictures 5~,and 5A'-the filed pictures I'll show you are offered to show the obje~tant's deck, that is the deck that Mrs~ Dean has on the rear of her house--is shielded by natural foliage in consideration of her neighbor's privacy and views and her own, which works against I think the argument of Judge Snellenburg that this must be permitted because he has a unique problem that his recreational area is too close to his neighbors. I pointed out before that he has no definite specific recreational areas so he ~ould move his area of sitting.~and recreatin outside to the other side of the yard~=which is 100 feet aw.ay, But further point accordingly to Mrs- Dean, the distance .from her deck to his is far more than 35 ft~ indicated to the area where Snellen- burg~ are usually in the exterior portion of the yard, And more importantly, that it is shielded and buffered by natural foliage. Finally, the self-inflicted,..self-imposed hardship scenario which ~ tried to put..across to yoM, I think should weight heavily in the equities and in the letter of January 27th writ%en by Mr~ Dean~ prior to his death~ indicates that he does have a legitimate interest. And I assume that one of the problems ~of~.the 8 ft. fence is that you're worrying about the da6ger'~of~ maintenance~ or wobblyness of safety. He indicates that he feels that as recently as November of 1986, some several months after it was put up it was unsafe and that it was wobbly, and obviously the higher the fence~ the more likely the s~fety considerations of that type would be involved. With --I would Page 7 - Z.B.A. Hearing Transcript Applo NO. 3592 SNELLENBURG Z.B.A. Regular Meeting - July 17, 1987 MR. CARDINALE (continued): like to show the pictures I've eluded to and the survey to Judge Snellenburg and ask that they be considered by you in your deci- sion. They're numbered 1 through 5. Number One purports to show again the encroacqment that I've spoken of by the survey and the fact that a tree on the side of the neighbor was in fact taken down during the construction which he objected too Number Two is offered to show the unsightliness of the existing fence, 2 and 2A. Number 3 to show the unique angles of the windows which we contend were specifically designed by the architect with the 6½ statute in mind. Number 4, 4A and 4B to show the ground-floor window views were affected by this fence. And #5 and 5A show the shrub privacy and foliage surrounding the deck of the objectant and the fact that the fence is in fact not necessary for the privacy-- certainly not an 8 ft. fence is not necessary for the privacy o~ petitioners So I'll give these to Judge Sne]lenburg and I'm sure he has sometning to_.say~ (Judge Snellenburg viewed the pictures to be submitted for the file.) JUDGE SNELLENBURG: Would you excuse us for a moment, gentlemen? SECRETARY: How many pictures are being submitted? Are 5 and 5A six? MR. CARDINALE: [Submitted photos). 1 and lA are two pictures. 2 and 2A are four. 3 is five. 4, 4A and 4B are eight. 5 and 5A are ten~ There are ten pictures listed as five exhibits. JUDGE SNELLENBURG: I ha~e no objection. I would like to reserve with respect to the survey because this is the first time I have seen them. Mr~ Cardinale has indicated he will send me a copy. MR. CARDINALE (to Mrs. Dean): Do we have another copy of this survey? Ok~ We'll get you a copy of this. JUDGE SNELLENBuRG: All right. And subject to my inspection. MR. CHAIRMAN: what we can do~ Judge, is carry this on to the next Regular Meeting if you wish to close it at that point so that you may inspect the survey and see where the posts a?e and so on and so forth !_f you so desire. JUDGE SNELLENBURG: Certainly i~ wasn't our intention to put the POsts on She De.an property..~ They were put where existing posts were when they were in~talled~ S~me of them may very well be out -- which case will require that they be removed under all circumstances. ~Page 8 - Z.B.A. Hearing Transcript Appl. No. 3592- SNELLENBURG Z.B~.A. Regular Meeting- July 17~ 1987 MR. CARDINALE: Mrs. Dean, did you want to say anything? CHAIRMAN: You are going to have to use the mike, if you wouldn't mind? We do ask you too JEAN DEAN: I'm Jean Deans I live at 180 Teepee Trail. One thing I find is hard is the fact that ordinances were blatahtly'disregarded as evidenced by the Snellenburgs' refusal to acknowledge the existing ordinance and continued to put up the fence. It would seem to me that ordinances are made for people's protection and I feel that governing bodies have a responsibility_to see that ordinances are carried out--otherwise they. lose their effectiveness. My contention-= the function of our property 3_ it was my~husband's believe that if the %ence was bound at the original height that we are not concerned about that. Also the fact that the architect spent a lot of time looking over the property in placing the different windows and on the existing ordinances they would --the views would not have been affected~ I know that Mr. Snellenburg has no easement rights over our views except that they were there under existing ordinances. Thank you. CHAIRM~N: Judge~ is there anything that you would like to add at this point or shall we recess until the next regular meeting? JUDGE SNELLENBURG: The only ting I am interested in is the survey at this point. I don't think-- I would ask you rest on the record. CHAIRMAN' As a formality, shall We recess the hearing until the next Regular Meeting so that yQu may look and see if the posts are over the line and sp on and s~ forth? JUDGE SNELLENBURG: Would you give me a date as to when-- C~AIRMAN: Augus~ 20th~ JUDGE SNELLENBURG: And we don't need to appear unless I-- ~HA~iRMAN: You d~n't need to appears-but I don't know. At this particular ~oint~ I thought YON wanted to inspect the survey. '~UDGE SNELLENBURG: I do. But if I have no o~jection, I'll'~'let ~ou know. Either way, 'I will le~% you know by l~etter. CHAIRMAN~ What I would like you t~ do at that particular point is to r~duce your--wh~tever sSatement you have concerning the Page 9 - Z.B.A. Hearing Transcript Appl. No. 3592 - SNELLENBURG Z.B.A. Regular Meeting - ~u]y 17, 1987 CHAIRMAN (continued): reviewing of the survey as to writing~ and we will then submit whatever you say to Mr. Cardinale and then he can-- JUDGE SNELLENBURG: I'll send h~m a copy~ CHAIRMAN: Ok. Send him a copy and then he can send us a copy, and we'll close the hearing. But there will be no further verbal testimony from this particular point. Ok ..... hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the next Regular Meeting only for written input, no verbal testimony, of August 20, 1987~ Thank you very much~everybody,for coming in and for your courtesies. The Chairman's motion was seconded by Member Douglass, and unanimously carried. The hearing was recessed until August 20, 1987, for the purposes of accepting written communications and written input only. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ki ,~Se c r~e t amy Southold Town Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1'987 Appl.-No. 3496 Applicant(s): FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. Location of Prop~erty: 575 Old. Harbor_Road, New Suffolk County Tax_ Map ID No. 1000- 117- 03 - 06 Board Members present were: ~hairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None). Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept. i, Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A~ Secret~ary, and approximately 15 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9;07 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a site plan dated 5/27/87 indicating t~e-proposed beach pavillion and extensive deck area, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Raynor~ would you like to be heard? HENRY RAYNOR, JR.: Good ~vening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Henry Raynor, and I'm agent for Frederick Koehler, Jr. The variance before you is to construct a beach house on this property. It is not for habitation. It'-~s here because it's within 75 feet of Cutchogue Harbors New Suffolk. By letter of stipulation from the Architects~ Samuels and Steelman, the highwater mark is exactly 44 feet from the proposed constr'uCtion. The applicant has permits (a) from the Town Trustees to recon- struct the bulkhead, Permit #396. I believe this is on file with both the building inspector's office as well as your board. The applicant has received from the New York State Office of Environmental Conservation a letter of nonjurisdiction. This is because the project itself is landward of the preexisting bulkhead Of 1972, and is above the 10' elevation contour. The applicant's P.E., Mr. John Grammas has obtaihed approval on the water and sewer configuration from the Suffolk County Environmental Health Services. A copy of those plans were submitted to your Board prior to this. On the basis of all of these permits and the applicant's reasoning, as well as the granting by the various agencies for approval of this project, TRANSCRIPT~OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1987 Appl,-No. 3496 Applicant(s): FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. Location of Property: 575 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk .County Tax. Map ID No. I000- 117- 03 - 06 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None). Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.), Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately 15~persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9;07 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a site plan dated 5/27/87 indicating t~e-~-proposed beach pavillion and extensive deck area, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Raynor, would you like to be heard? HENRY RAYNOR, JR.: Good'evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Henry Raynor, and I'm agent for Frederick Koehler, Jr. The variance before you is to construct a beach house on this property. It is not for habitation~ It's here because it's within 75'feet--of Cutchogue Harbor, New Suffolk. By letter of stipulation from the Architects, Samuels and Steelman, the highwater mark is exactly 44 feet from the proposed construction. The applicant has permits (a) from the Town Trustees to recon- struct the. bulkhead, Permit #396. I believe this is on file with both the building inspector's office as well as your board. The applicant has received from the New York State Office of _Environmental Conservation a letter of nonjurisdiction. This is because the project 'itself is landward of the preexisting bulkhead Of 1972, and is above the 10' elevation contour. The applicant's P.E., Mr. John Grammas has obtained approval on the water and sewer configuration from the SUffolk County Environmental Health Services. A copy of those plans were submitted to your Board prior to this. On the bas'is Of all of these permits and the ap'plican-t's reasoning, as well as the granting by the various ag~gc~ies for approval of thi-s project~ Page 3 - Transcript of Hearing Appl. No. 3496 - FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. Southold Town Board of Appeals July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting MR. RAYNOR: The two permits that we have are (1) being from the Town Trustees #396, and (2) was a series of inspections and discussions with the D.E.'C. pertinent to the particular project as well as several meetings with them to explain, and the drawings you see presented~ they declared non-~urisdiction type. CHAIRMAN:_ Do you have an archi, tectural plan that Mr. Koehler would have or that you could supply us concerning the type of secondary and I guess--in ~he discussion, what I first said concerning the type of baffling that you're using to shield the cabana or beach house fyom the bluff, or the dune or the hill, or whatever you're going to refer to in the rear. We are not particular_ly too attuned to .see the severing of this type of situation,...and if the Board so granted this, we would not like to see the soil end up on top of it, causing either death or disfigurement of anybody, and having it slide or whatever the problem might be here. MR. RAYNOR: ~ assure you, neither would the applicant. I don't have the building specifications with me for that sect6r of the bulkhead. However, it's under contract with James H. Rambo of Southampton if the Board will request it, I'll be happy to send a set of-building specifications. We 11 note on there there is a stipulation about re-vegetating and planting. CHAIRMAN: The applicant I assume felt this was the only viable- place that they ~o.uld construct this as opposed to on top of the hill or on_the edge or whatever the case might be. Is that correct? MR. RAYNOR: Yes~ he does. and two architects. And that was on the advice of two P.E.~ CHAIRMAN: All right. I thank you very much. MR. RAYNOR: Thank you. You would like the specifications for that bulkhead? CHAIRMAn: Yes, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of_this application? Anybody against the application? .(None) Hearing no questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing pending receipt of the bulkhead specifications from Rambo Associates concerning on what revegetation may exist here. The hearing was concied~d and motion was duly carried by all. (~/~DA F. KOW~LSKI, SECRETARY~ SOUTH~LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JULY 1'7, 1987 Appl.-No..3496 Applicant(s): FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. Location of Property: 575 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk .County Tax_ Map ID No. t000- ll7& 03 - 06 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None). Also present were: Victor Lessard (Building Dept,), Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary, and approximately 15_persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9;07 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a sit'e plan dated 5/27/87 indicating the--proposed beach pavillion and extensive deck area, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Raynor, would you like to be heard? HENRY RAYNOR, JRt: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Henry Raynor, and I'm agent for Frederick Koehler, Jr. The variance before you is to construct a beach house on this property. It is not for habitation. It's here because it's within 75'feet 'of Cutchogue Harbors New Suffolk. By letter of stipulation from the Architects~ Samuels and Steelman, the highwater mark is exactly 44 feet from the proposed construction. The applicant has permits (a) from the Town Trustees to recon- struct the. bulkhead, Permit #396, I believe this is on file with both the building inspecto'r's office as well as your board. The applicant has received from the New York State Office of -Environmental Conservation a letter of nonjurisdiction. This is because the project ~itself is landward of the preexisting ~ bulkhead-~of 1972, and is above the 10' elevation contour. The applicant'~ P.E., Mr. John Grammas has obtained approval on the water and sewer configuration from the Sbffolk County Environmental Health Services. A copy of those ~plans were submitted to your Board prior to this. On the bas'is Df all of these permits and the applicant's reasoning, as well as the granting by the various agemc~ies for approval of thi-s project~ Page 3 - Transcript of Hearing Appl. No. 3496 - FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. Southold Town Board of Appeals - July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting MR. RAYNOR: The two permits that we have are (1) being from the Town Trustees #396, and (2) was a series of inspections and discussions with the D.E.C. pertinent to the particular project as well as several meetings with them to explain, and the drawings you see presented, they declared non-jurisdiction type. CHAIRMAN: Do you have an architectural plan that Mr. Koehler would have or that you could supply us concerning the type of secondary and I guess--in the discussion, what I first said concerning the type of baffling that you're using to shield the cabana or beach house from the bluff, or the dune or the hill~ or Whatever you're g.~ing to refer to in the rear. We are_not particularly too ~attuned to .~ee the severing of this type of situation and'if the Board so granted this, we would not like to see the soil end up on top of it~ causing either death or disfigurement of anybody, and having it slide or whatever the problem might be here. MR. RAYNOR: '~ assure you, neither would the applicant. I don't have the building specifications with me for that sect6r of the bulkhead. However, it's under contr~act with James H. Rambo of Southampton if the Board will request it, I'll be happy to send a set of-building specifications. We'll note on there there is a stipulation about re-vegetating and planting. CHAIRMAN: The applicant I assume felt this was the only viable place'that they could construct this as opposed to on top of the hill or on_the edge or whatever the case might be. Is that correct? MR. RAYNOR: Yes, he does. and two architects. And that was on the advice of two ~P.E.§ CHAIRMAN: All right. I thank you very much. MR. RAYNOR: Thank you. that bulkhead? You would like the specifications for CHAIRMAn: Yes, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of this application? Anybody against the application? .(None) Hearing no questions, I'll make a motion closiDg the hearing pending receipt of the ~bulkhead specificatio'ns from Rambo Associates concerning on what revegetation may exist here. The hearing was concluded and motion was dul~ carried by all. (~/~NDA F. KOW~LSKI, SECR£TARY SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLF~ TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1987 Appl. No. 3592 Applicant: BENTE SNELLENBURG Location of Property: ROW off E/s South Harbor Road, Southold, NY County Tax Map ID No. 1000,-87-2-21~ Board Members present; Chairman 'Gerard P~ Goehringer~ Members Serge Doyen~ Charles Grigonis, Robert J. Do~glass and Joseph H, Sawicki~ constituting the five members of the Board of Appeals. Also present were~ Victor Lessard, Building-Depto Administrators Linda Kowalski~ Board Secretary, and approximately 12 persons in the audience. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 9:18 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is the last hearing~ hearing opened lastly I believe on 4/20/87 and we will continue with 'the hear- ing at this particular time. I will ask the applicant or the agent for the applicant if he would like to say anything, and that's Judge Snellenburg~ JUDGE SNELLENBURG: Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen. I'm appearing in behalf of my wife who is not well at the moment. I~ll ask the Board to dispense with her appearance. There are tw~ matters before the Board~ An appeal from a determination of the Building Inspector requiring a building permit and a variance with respect to fence height. The appeal presents the question of law. I submitted a statement, or she submitted a statement back in March, I believe it was, March 5th. And it was Ma~ch 5th. And we submitted a statement. The first issue presents a question of law~ which I will ask the Board to determine--the question with respect to the variance is set forth in the application and the statement I would like to hand to you at this point. (Statement the same as previously submitted on 3/5/87). t am not the property owner, as you know. CHAIRMAN: I know. prooerty owner. That's why I say you are the agent for the JUDGE SNELLENBURG: Yes. Page 2 - Hearing Transcript Appl. No. 3592-SNELLENBURG ZBA Regular Meeting - July 17, 1987 CHAIRMAN: We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. you very much. Mr. Cardinale, would you like to speak? Thank PHILIP CARDINALE~ ESQ.: Yes. Good evening~ As you know, I am here representing Jean Dean, adjacent property owner. And origi- nally I was representing her husband as well. He passed away ~n March suddenly, so that's the reason why this hearing has been delayed, among other reasons. The Board ~'s asked to consider as Judge Snellenburg indicated two questions. I'll address it very briefly~ The first, which is the issue of whether a building permit is required~ In January, Donald Dean had written a letter to the Board, a copy of which I have here and which I am sure is in the file, and INill elude to that letter because it contains a number of arguments that I'll advance tonight. But certainly since the statute now hequires clearly for a fence a building permit, considering it a building, specifically, and certainly since the fence that was there was a four ft. open fence, I forget what they call it-- CHAIRMAN: Split rail. MR. CARDINALE Split rail--public policy would almost dictate that when someone is removing preexisting fence, even assuming it to be preexisting, and replacing it with a fence of a differ- ent type, that a building permit would be required. And even if it wasnJt required, certainly a variance would be required here. The rest of the few moments of the Board time I will address on the variance. The standard as you well know is practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship unique to the petitioner resulting from the denial, and of course the burden is the petitioner's. If the Board concludes at the end of this hearing in consideration of what it hears and has in its file that to grant the variance would be destructive of the purposes of the ordinance, and it shouldn't. The good news here is as far as I can tell this is not an issue of a spite fence or a neighbor's squabbling. The legitimate dispute set forth before the Board here of whether or not this 72 ft. section which is clearly in noncompliance with the 6½ ft. statute can be supported by practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship unique to the petitioner. We contend that it clearly cannot be. If you look at the petition and the reasons advanced in the petition, and then in a moment look at the appeal from the order to comply from 'the Building Department, the reasons advanced I submit are Page 2 ZBA Hearing Transcript Appl. No. 3592 SNELLENBURG ZBA Regular Meeting ~ July 17, 1987 PHILIP J. CARDtNALE, ESQ. (continued): not strong. The practical difficulties in this situation we contend are not great to the petitioner. We contend further the hardship is not unique, and more particularly self~imposed~ self-inflicted. And finally we contend that the character of the district in the area would in face be changed by such stockade fence of eight ft. The petition indicates that the appellant's preexisting parcel is only 120 ft. wide, whereas the buildings built closer are 15~ or 175. That may be true, but if you look at the Tax Lot Map, this is as wide as most of the other lots in 'the surrounding area, so that it is not unique as to width, and we contend that it is not unique further in any pertinent way. The issue of the uniqueness I'll elude to--in passing if he insists but I'll leave it to your consideration. The issue as to hardship is the one that I think is really weak in the petition. The hardship we maintain is not unique. We also maintain it's self-inflicted in two ways. The foliage was cut down, which you'll see from some of the pictures here prior to putting in this fence, so that the privacy was minimized in the process of putting in this noncomplying fence. Furthermore, prior to the fence going up, petitioner was on notice from the objectant that the fence was not in compliance and it was requested that the fence not go up~ So that for reasons so to argue that it is a unique hardship because_ the privacy is required but at the same time to acknowledge that much foliage was taken out in order to put up the fence., and also to acknow- ledge that I knew I wasn't supposed to put up the fence at 8 ft. when I put it up because my neighbor spoke to me prior to the fencing going up-~it seems to me the hard~hip spoken of here is self-inflicted. As to the character of the district, again I elude to the letter of January 27th written by Donald Dean. A stockade fence of_the type that these pictures will reflect he argues and I argu in turn, certainly more reflective_.pf a nonrural close quartered environment than it is of the kind of rural shrubbed envi~ronment had existed And for that reason, I think the character of the district would in fact be changed by permitting not only a stockade fence but a noncomplying stockade fence.