Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/21/1987Southold Town Board o£ Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. llg?l TELEPHONE {516) 765 1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI MINUTES REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY._,. MAY 21, 198~77 A Regular Meeting add Public Hearings of the Southold Town Board of Appeals were held on THURSDAY, MAY 21, 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.; and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was Member Robert J. Douglass due to hospitalization. Also present were: Victor Lessard, Building-Department Administrator; Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner, Linda Kowalski, Board Clerk and Secretary, and approximately 40 persons at the beginning of the meeting. Chairman Goehringer opened the meeting and proceeded with the first public hearing on the agenda, as follows. The verbatim transcripts of all the following hearings have been prepared under separate cover and filed with the Town Clerk's Office for refer- ence simultaneously herewith. 7:35 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of ERNEST TARMIN. Accessory structure with insufficient setback from bluff/bank along the L.I. Sound. ROW off north side of Main Road, Orient. 7:42 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of PUDGE CORP., Appl. No. 3625-SE for one-story "mini- storage" buildings at premises along the east side of Horton Lane, Southold. Mr. James Gray spoke in behalf of the application. Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. spoke in behalf of neighboring residents. Mr. Gray is to furnish two prints of final plan as discussed one print to Abigail Wickham, Esq. and one to this Board prior to our June 18, 1987 meeting. As a formality, this hearing will continue to remain open pending receipt of the information and any other Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting (Public 8:07 8:15 Hearings, continued:) input or correspondence in response thereto. The Chairman indicated that this matter will be officially concluded by resolution of the Board on June 18, 1987. Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Grigonis, and duly carried, to continue the hearing on this matter in order to enter the final plan and related input and responses, if any, before June 18, 1987, at which time the hearing will be officially concluded. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to hospitalization,) p.m. Joint Public Hearings were held in the Matters of the Applications of NORTH FORK EARLY LEARNING CENTER by GLEN MOLLER, Special 'E~-e~ion #3626 and Variance #~ for establishment of nonprofit nursery school (or day-care center) within existing building referred to as "Veterans Community Center." Corners of Pike and Hill Streets and the east side of Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. "A" Zone District. Mr. Holler spoke in behalf of the application. No opposition was submitted. (See verbatim trans- cript of hearing for statements.) Following the hearing, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Grigonis, to conclude the hearings pending deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent.) p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded qn the Matter of Appeal No. 3630 - JOHN KRAMER AND WAYNE DePETRIS. Variance to replace existing ground sign, the lower edge at less than 4 ft. above ground. Main Road, Southold, New York~ No one appeared in behalf of the application. (No opposition was received.) The Board requested that the Southold Fire Department be given an opportunity to voice their position on this sign amendment, particularly affects if any on visibility from its premises to the east, and that a letter be forwarded to the Fire Department prior to deliberations or further action. Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Grigonis, to conclude the hearing pending deliberations and submission of a letter to the Southold Fire Department. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings, continued:) 8:18 8:22 9:17 9:22 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of IRWIN AN~ SO~DRA THOMPSON, Appeal No. 3629. Variance for approval of ~nsuff~cient sideyard setback to an exist- ing structure and proposed new structure resulting from an alteration in location of lot line of abutting parcel to the east. "B-I" Zone. Corner of N/s Main Road and E/s Boisseau Avenue, Southold. Mr. Garrett A. Strang as agent submitted a written request to continue the public hearing at our June 18, 1987 meeting since he will be out of state. Mr. Thompson appeared and spoke in behalf of his application. (No opposition was submitted at this time.) [See verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover and filed simultaneously herewith for statements.] Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, to recess the hearing as requested until our June 18, 1987 Regular Meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. p.m. Public Hearin9 was held and concluded in the Matter of ROBERT AND HELEN DIER, Special Exception #3586, to 6stab~'sh ~"Bed land Breakfast Use," an owner-occupied b~iidi~n9~ O~her-~han a hotel, where lodging and break- fast is provided for not more than six casual, transient ~ooms (in conjunction with present accessory apartment and single-family use). 355 Terry Lane, Southold. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Dier spoke in behalf of their application. Numerous testimony was received both in support and against the application. [See verbatim transcript of 19 pages prepared under separate cover and filed simultaneously herewith with the Office of the Town Clerk for reference.] Following testimony, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, to conclude the hearing pending deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent,due to illness.) p.m. TEMPORARY RECESS. Motion was made by Member Sawicki--~seconded by Chairman Goehringer, to recess for approximately three minutes. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All~ MEETING ~CONVENED. Motion was made by Member Sawicki, seco~d by Member Grigonis, to reconvene at this time. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings, continued:) 9:22 9:35 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of the Application of ARNOLD AND KAREN BLAIR under Appeal No. 3439. Variances for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels in this pending divi- sion of land. Cedar Lane (and Pine Place), East Marion, Map of Section Two, Gardiners Bay Estates, Lots 156 through 160, 167 thru 172 incl., and 151 and 153. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. of the Law Offices of Edson and Bruer appeared and spoke in behalf of the applicants. The applicants were asked to furnish the setbacks of the proposed building area and area mergers with noted dwellings for consideration. [See verbatim transcript for statements prepared under separate cover.] Following testimony, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, and duly carried, to conclude the hearing pending receipt of the information requested above. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of the Application of PETER AND BARBARA HERZ under Appeal No. 3543. Variances to-locate new s~ngle-family dwelling with insufficient setbacks from existing bulkhead and highwater areas along Midway Inlet and Hog Neck Bay. 70 Cedar Point Drive, Southold; Cedar Beach Park Map, part of Lots 152 and 110. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. of Edson and Bruer and Brian Shore, Architect, appeared and spoke in behalf of the applicants. [See verbatim transcript for statements prepared under separate cover and filed simultaneously herewith with the Town Clerk's Office for reference.] The Board requested copies of the County Health Department Arc Report/Plan and alternative house plan to better fit the lot. The applicants' agents were agreeable. Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, to recess the hearing until June 18, 1987. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to illness.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings, continued:) lO:12 p.m. Public Hearing was held/reconvened in the Matter of Appeal No. 3593 for THE QUIET MAN INN. Variance for addition with an insufficient front- yard setback from Hobart Avenue, Southold. B-1 Zone District. William D. Moore, Esq. appeared in behalf of the applicant together with Charles Gilbert. The subject of the parking to be required by the Planning Board is still questionable at this time and it was requested that this matter be recessed until same is resolved. [See verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover and filed simultaneously herewith with the Town Clerk's Office for reference.] Motion was made by Chairman Goeh- ringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, to recess Appeal No. 3593 - Matter of QUIET MAN INN without a date, pending the requirements or waiver from the Planning Board concerning site-plan elements. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3605 - TED DOWD. Mr. Dowd appeared to ask if the Board had any questions concerning his pending 280-a Application. The Board indicated they did not and advised Mr. Dowd that his matter would be on for a public hearing for June 18, 1987. Mr. Dowd thanked the Board. APPEAL NO. 3543 - PE?ER AND BARBARA HERZ. The Chairman returned the aerial photograph to Patricia C. Moore, Esq. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting REQUEST FOR RE-HEARING: Appeal No. 3591. PAUL STOUTENBURGH. By letter dated May 20, 1987, Mr. Stoutenburgh requests a rehearing in order to shorten the setback distance of the water windmill tower from 35 feet to 20 feet. By Decision rendered February 5, 1987, the Board considered Mr. and Mrs. Stoutenburgh's request for a water windmill tower at a height of 72± feet and with a setback of 30 feet from its closest point from the north and east property lines. In the Board's decision, the setback was granted at 35 feet subject to the applicant's obtaining and subject-to written permission from the adjoining property owner (Marco), etc. Inasmuch as the request made herein is for different relief than originally requested (which was 30 feet), by law, the only recourse would be to apply under a new application and not reopen the hearing. The Chairman was authorized to send the above response to Mr~ Stoutenburgh. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: After reviewing each of the following matters, the Board took the following actions: On motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Grigonis, it was. RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declara- tions in accordance with the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Section 617, 6 NYCRR, and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold: (a) Pudge Corp., Special Exc. #3625, "Unlisted" Action; (b) North Fork Early Learning Center, Special Exception #3626~ "Unlisted" Action; (c) Robert and Helen Dier, Special Exception #3586, "Unlisted" Action; (d) Ernest Tarmin, Variance #3624; "Type II" Action; (e) North Fork Early Learning Center Variance #3632, "Type II" Action; (f) John Kramer and Wayne DePetris Variance #3630, "Unlisted" Action; (g) Irwin and Sondra Thompson Variance #3629, "Type i~" Action; (h) Arnold and Karen Blair, Variance #3439, "Type II" Action. ' Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting (a) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3625 PROJECT NAME: PUDGE CORP. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines 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: Construct one-story "mini-storage~~ kuildings in this "C-Light" Industrial Zoning District. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, particularly known as: E/s of Horton"s Lane, 1000-63-01~t~ County or, suffolk, more Sout~old, NY REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) This is an application concerning use of premises and is not directly related to new construction. (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. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- (~nyironmental Declarations, Continued:) May 21, 198:7 Regular Meeting (b) $.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determinstion of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3626 S~ PROJECT NA~: NORTH FORK EARLY LEARNING CENTER 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 p~oject not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should no~ 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 IX] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Permissibn to establish private (nursery) school (or day-care center) as a nonprofit organization. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County or. suffolk, more particularly known as: Pike St. and Wickham Ave.,~Mattituck, NY 1~00-140-2-39~ 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 projcct be imple- mented as planned; (2) This is an application concerning use of premises and is not directly related to new construction. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- (EnVironmental Declarations, Continued:) May 21, 198~7 Regular Meeting (¢) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAr~ATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3586 SE PROJECT NA~: ROBERT and HELEN DIER 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 no___~t to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Permission to establish "Bed and Breakfast Use" LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County or, suffolk, more particularly known as: 355 Terry Lane, So~thold,.NY 1000r65-7-20 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.. Southold Town Board of Appeals -]0- ~En¥ironmental Declarations, Continued:) May 21, 198~ Regular Meeting (d) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3624 PROJECT NAME: ERNEST TARMIN 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 ~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Construct acaessory structures With a setback of less than 100 feet from bluff/bank along Long Island Sound LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~Suffolk, more particularly known as: ROW off the N/s of Main Rd~, Orient, NY 1000-14-2-1.1 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR,SEQRA. (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. ' Southold Town Board of Appeals - ] ]- (~n¥ironmental Declarations, Continued:) May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting (e) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAI~TION Notice of Determinstion of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3§~ PROJECT NA~: NORTH FORK EARLY LEARNING CENTER 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:Establish nonprofit private (nursery) school or day-care center within existing building which is set back less than 50 feet from Pike St. and u~on premises havinq less than five or more acres. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County or, Suffolk, more particularly known as: Pike St. and Wickham Ave.,_Mattituck, NY 1000-140-2~39 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is not directly related to new constuction. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- (~nyironmental Declarations, Continued:) May 21, 198:7 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAI~ATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL N0.:3630 PROJECT NAME: JOHN KRAMER and WAYNE DePETRIS 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 IX] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Replace'existing ground sign, the lower edge of which shall be less than four feet above the ground LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County or. suffolk, more particularly known as: 54985 Main Road, SQuthold,. NY 1000-62-1-5 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 envir8nmental area. Southold Town Board of Appeals -13. May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting (g) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRON~iENTAL DECLAP~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPF~L NO.: 3629 PROJECT N~v~:IRWIN AND SONDRA THOMPSON This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the To~rn of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the ~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination'made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: · [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Insufficie.nt sideyard setback to an existing and proposed new structure(s) resulting from a]terati0n in ]o~ation of lot_line of abutting parcel to the east. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: Corner of N/S Ma~n Road agd E/s Boisseau Avenue, South0]d (Thomps0n's Em~0rium). REASON(S)'SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (3(2)) The premises is not located within 300 ft. of wetlands. This is a setback variance regulated by Section 617.13 of SEQRA. Southold Town Board of Appeals -]4- (Environmental Declarations, Continued:) May 21, 198~7 Regular Meeting (h) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3439 PROJECT NAME: ARNOLD and KAREN BLAIR 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: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION O~ A~TION~ Approval of insufficient area and width of two propose~ parce±s ~n th~s pen~ing division of land LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County or. Suffolk, more particularly known as: Cedar Lane, East Marion, N~ 1000-37-7-10.2 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Information has been submitted by applicant or his agent indicating that the project willlnot involve the disturbance of wetlands grasses or areas subject tQ flooding which may be considered wetlands. (3) This is a lot-line variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR. Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to hospitalization.) This resolution was duly adopted. NEW APPLICATION REVIEWS: Mat~er-of ?ARTAN Oil CO., Files No. 3636V and 3633SE. Property LOcation: Corners of Main Road, Marratooka and Sunset Lanes, Mattituck. After reviewing the file, the board requested the following information prior to scheduling the above matters for public he~rings: (1) Four prints showing all pole and building lights, canopy lights, permanent egress/ingress areas [rear incl.]. Please clarify the types of lighting used in these areas, which may all be sketched on the prepared site plans. (2) Sketch showing the previous location of the pumps and island [recently removed]. (3) Copies of permits authorizing recent renovation, construction, and occupancy for the convenience store and self-service gasoline operations. [If no permits are avail- able, please explain.] The Board also asked that a memorandum be forwarded to the Planning Board concerning their review under 100-70 con- cerning site plan elements for this B-1 Business Zoning District. NEW APPLICATION: Matter of WILHELM FRANKEN filed 5/21/87. The Board reviewed the application and ask that the applicant or his agent furnish the exact setback requesed from the closest point of the proposed accessory building to the exist- ing bulkhead and furnish one sketch of a building/floor plan of accessory building as soon as possible. This matter is to be calendared for our first July meeting for public hearing. Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting NEW APPLICATIONS REVIEWS AND UPDATES: (1) Matter of Appeal No. 3635 ARTHUR V. JUNGE. The Board reviewed this matter and calendared same for a public hearing to be held at our first July Regular Meeting. Field inspections and relative reviews will be conducted prior to the public hearing. *(2) Matter of Appeal No. 3412 WILLIAM D. MOORE/BENJAMIN HERZWEIG. Application partly amended to reflect request for a 25-ft. frontyard setback and amended location of setback from nearest wetlands. The Board declare~ this file incomplete until such time as four accurate prints of the amended survey or site plan have been filed with our office and re-placement of the stakes on the premises (at the closest points) as modified. The Board noted that the above information must be received before June 4th in order to meet the deadline for our June 18, 1987 calendar for a public hearing. (3) Matter of PUDGE CORP., Appeal No. 3631 Variance to establish industrial building at the north side of Main Road, Cutchogue. The Board reviewed this matter and calendared same for a public hearing to be held at our first July Regular Meeting. Field inspections and relative reviews will be con- ducted prior to the public hearing. *(4) Matter of JAMES AND MARY TYLER, Special Exception #3638. Modification to Special Exception ~34~-~to permit vehicle doors at road side as construct at the north side of Main Road, Laurel. *[(5) Matter of KAPOTES AND A. HOMAYUNI, Variance #3637, for deck addition with insufficient frontyard at 22185 Soundview Avenue, Southold. *(6) Matter of FRANK AND EDITH SAWICKI, Appeal No. 3640. Variance of insufficient lot width of proposed lots in this pending division of land. (Lots meet minimum lot-area require- ments of 80,000 sq. ft.) 19985 Soundview Avenue, Southold. *(7) Matter of RICHARD F. MULLEN, JR. Variance for fence along frontyard areas exceeding maximum four-ft, height require- ment. E/s Cottage Place, Southold. *(8) Matter of BENTE SNELLENBURG, Appeal No. 3592. Variances '(a) for approval of 8' height of fencing, (b) Appeal of 11/6/86 Order to Remedy Violation which mandates Building Permit for new fencing. Private ROW off the east side of South Harbor Rd, Southold. SOuthold Town Board of Appeals -17- May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting *PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR JUNE REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to schedule the following applications for public hearings to be held on June 18, 1987, before the Southold Town Board of Appeals at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, commencing at 7:30 p.m. (except as conditionally noted): (1) Matter of Amended Appeal No. 3412 HERZWEIG & MOORE. Variances for insufficient frontyard setback and setback from wetlands for proposed new dwelling along the East Side of Meadow Lane, Mattituck. (Board awaits maps to reflect amended locations and relief requested by June 4th.) (2) Matter of Appeal No 3639 - WILHELM FRANKEN. Accessory building in sideyard and within 75 feet.of existing bulkhead. Osprey Nest Road, East Marion. (3) Matter of Appeal No. 3640 ' FRANK AND EDITH SAWICKI. Lot width variances. 19985 Soundview Avenue, Southold. (4) Matter of Appl. No. 3638SE ~AMES AND MARY TYLER. Modification to Appl. No. 3400SE to permit vehicle doors at side as constructed. N/s Main Road, Laurel. road (5) Matter of Appl. No. 3637 KAPOTES AND A. NOMAYUNI. Deck addition with insufficient frontyard setback at 22185 Soundview Avenue, Southold. (6) Matter of Appeal No. 3592 - BENTE SNELLENBURG: (a) for approval of 8' height of fencing and (b) Appeal of 11/6/86 Order to Remedy Violation which mandates Building Permit for new fenc- ing. Private ROW off the east side of South Harbor Road, Southold. (7) Matter of Appeal No. 3605 - TED DOWD. for a~proval of access over private right-of-way the north side of the Main Road, Southold. 280-A Application extending from (8) Matter of PETER AND BARBARA HERZ. (Hearing to be reconvened from earlier this evening on June 18th-see pg. 4 hereof.) (9) Matter of IRWIN AND SONDRA THOMPSON, Appeal No. 3629. (Recessed until June 18th as agreed, see. pg. 3 hereof). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to hospitalization.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting UPDATE: Other Matters Pending Public Hearings (awaiting additional information as noted below): Appeal No. 3259 - NICHOLAS ALIANO. Special Exception to establish four two-story motel buildings containing 10 motel units for transient use, and an office building of 2,500 sq. ft. in area 6n this 3.721-acre parcel, zoned "B-Light Business." S/s Main Road, Greenport (along the east side of 7:ll). **Recessed hearing from 8/23/84 awaiting Village of Greenport contracts to which this plan is contingent upon before action San be taken. Appeal No. 3558 - NICK AND ANNA PALEOS. Variance for insufficient area, width and depth (three proposed lots). S/s C.R. 48, Peconic (formerly Hass). Await Art. 6 Subdivision Action before advertising. (P.B. review 10/6/86). H. Raynor, Agent. Appeal No. 3561 - DOROTHY L. ROBERTSON. Variance for insufficient area, width and depth (two lots). S/s Northview Drive, Orient. Await Art. 6 Action before advertising. R. Bruer, Esq. Appeal No. 3581 - GEORGE DAMIEN. Jackson St., New Suffolk. Variances for insufficient area, width, depth. Await Art. 6 Action per Co. Health Dept. communications. Appeal No. 3298 - C & L REALTY/PORT OF EGYPT. Variance to construct 40-unit motel on insufficient buildable upland of 4.83 acres and having insufficient sideyards. S/s Main Road (prey. Southold Fishing Station/Morris), Southold. (**Await corrected site plans, topographical survey including lowest floor elevations above mean sea level, Health Department approvals, N.Y.S.D.E.C. action, comments or input from Planning Board after review of site plan.) 10/9/84 Appeal No. 3183 - MARY N. CODE. Smith Drive North, S6uthold. Proposed reseparation of lots. Await DEC and Planning Board applications to be filed for coordination/action. Appeal No. 3274 - BEST, SCHMITT, SYVERSON. Variances for insufficient area, width in proposed division of land. ROW off E/s Camp Mineola Road, along Great Peconic Bay, Mattituck. (**Await Co. Health Art. 6, N.Y.S. D.E.C., Planning Board before advertising public hearing. Recent change in title.) ~ Appeal No. 2929 - SAL CAIOLA. Project as proposed is questionable. Status/clarification awaited. N/s CR 48, Southold. Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting (UPDATE, continued:) Appeal No. 3371 - FLORENCE ROLLE. Variances for area and depth, two parcels. E/s Ole Jule Lane and N/s Kraus Road, Mattituck. (**Await Co. Health Art. 6 action.) A. Wickham, Esq. Appeal No. 3342 - PHILIP R. REINHARDT. Variances for area and width (two parcels--). **Recessed from 5/25/83 as requested by attorney for County Health Dept. Art. 6 action (and DEC). N/s Pine N6ck Road (opposite Park Way), Southold. R. Bruer, Esq. Appeal No. 3191 HERBERT MANDEL. Variance to change lot line and locate garage~ in front/side yard areas. E/s Linet Lane Extension, Greenport. Premises of Clempner and Mandel. Await DEC action and PB input before adver~i§ing.) Appeal No. 3249 - DONALD P. BRICKLEY. Variance for nsufficient area and width. S/s Bay Avenue and E/s Broadwater Drive, Cutchogue. (**Await DEC, Art. 6 action and contour maps.) Appeal No. 3268 - J. KATHERINE TUTHILL. Variance for insufficient area, width and depth of lots proposed in this "C'~ Zone. Planning Board denied 9/84. (**Await DEC and Co. Health Art. 6 action after formal applications.) Appeal No. 3542 - TIDEMARK/CLIFFSIDE ASSOCIATES. Await copies of Co. Health approval, updated certification on amended maps by Building Inspector, and continuation of SEQRA prodess when file is complete. P.B. received 12/22/86; DEC received 11/6/86. Appeal No. 3537 ROBERT AND SUSAN D'URSO- Breezy Path, Southold. Await DEC, Co. Health and Trustee actions (after formal applications) to complete file. New dwelling with insufficient setback from wetlands and bulkhead. R. Bruer, Esq. Appeal No. 3545 - PATRICK STIGLIANI. Main Bayview Road, Southold. Await Co. Health Art. 6 action. Area, width and depth variances. Alfred Skidmore, Esq. ~V~llage water not available.) Appeal No. 3S46 GREGORY FOLLARI. Relief of ZBA Eond~on requested concerning disturbance of soil at Sound b~uff. Await DEC action (after ~pplicaCiun) to alter bluff areas before pr~c~,,~.~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting (UPDATES, continued:) Appeal No. 3445 - JULIUS ZEBROSKI. Variance for approval of two lots having insufficient area and width. E/s Waterview Drive and N/s Bayview .Road, Southold. (**Await Art. 6 action and copy of C.O. Paul Caminiti, Esq. Appeal No. 3449 - FRANK AND ETHEL BEGORA. Variances for insufficient area, width and depth in this pending division (three parcels). N/s Main Road, East Marion. (**Await Co. Health Art. VI action, corrected maps to show third parcel, and P.B. application/comments after submission of maps.) P. Caminiti, Esq. Appeal No. 3403 - ANNA LORIA. Variances for approval of two parcels having insufficient area, width and depth in this pending division of land. W/s First St. and N/s King Street, New Suffolk. (**Await Co. Health Art. 6 action after application.) Appeal.No. access (280 a). tion to clarify 3426 GERALD DOROSKI. Variance for approval of N/s C.R. 48, Peconic. **Await additional informa- ROW and P.B. input on pending division. Appeal No. 3411 ANDREW FOHRKOLB. Variance to restore existing building for habitable use (additional dwelling unit). S/s Lipco ~ad, Mattituck. **Await scaled floor plans and C.O. ~. ROsenblum, Esq. Appeal No. 3514 area, width and depth. advertising) GEORGE P. SCHADE. Variances for insufficient (Await Co. Health Art. 6 waiver before Appeal No. 3495 JOHN AND GLORIA SHIRVELL. Variances for ~ insufficient area, width and depth. (Two Lots). N/s Pine Tree Road, Cutchogu~. (Await Art. 6 waiver/action before advertising. Appeal No. 3496 FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. Cabana/beach house within 75 feet of water along Cutchogue HarbOr, N/s Old Harbor Road. (Await Co. Health approval before advertising). H. Raynor, Agent. Sou'thold Town Board of Appeals -21- May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting (UPDATE, continued:) Appeal No. 3575 - ROSA HODGSON. Variances as to insufficient area and width of proposed 46,O00Tsq. ft. lot from 7.152-acre parcel. RT~'Pine Neck Road, Southold. Await Co. Health Art. 6 action. Garrett A. Strang, Architect, to send letter clarifyir~g ROW ownership, etc, {Public Hearing not to be held before 4/7/87). Appeal No. 3389 - THEODORE P£TIKAS. Variance to use residential portion of premises for restaurant use. ~/sFSound Road and N/s Main Road, Greenport, Await further instructions from attorney or applicant. Await PB input on revisions. Appl. No. 3S86SE ROBERT AND IIELEN DIER. Spe~u, for Bed and Breakfast. : Await dete ' ' pecial Exception for Accessory ec ed about 3/5/87 before proceeding. 3SSrry~,'Southold. Appeal No. 3600SE - T. LUCAS AND G. & A. BELTS. Special Exception to allow 70 motel units on 7,~51'~-~-~-~"oned "B-Light" Business, 4,000 sq. ft. of land area per unit with Village water. S/s Main Road (prev. golf range), Greenport. Await §ix items per our Resolution 1/8/87, before advertising for public hearinq. Appeal No. 3549 - J. KALIN AND B. GIBBS. Varianc()s as nsufficient area, width and depth. N/s MaTh Road, Orient. Await Co. Health Art. 6 waiger and copies of current deeds. (As of 2/19/87 Co. Health Art. 6 appl. not filed.) to Appeal No. 3556 - EUGENE AND ANN BURGER. with insufficient setback from wetlands alon§ 2515 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. Await CO and requested from nearest wetlands. Photographs after flagging of construction area. Variance for deed Little Creek. exact setback may be furnished Appeal No. 3602 MARGARET McNAMARA. Wraparound deck within 75 feet of existing bul hl~-~-~-~ in excess of 20% lot coverage. 640 Takaposha (private) Road, Southold. (Await Trustee and DEC waivers before advertising.) Appeal No. 3564 - JOHN DEMP?£Y (Contract Vendee). Variances for insufficient setback from bluff and 280-a. No record of town approval on subdivision. C.O. not available. N/s ROW off the N/s Oregon Road, Cutchogue. Appeal No. 3206 HENRY P. SMITH. Variances for insufficient area a~ W~th (two lot~'P~ic Lane, Peconic. P. Ofrias, Esq. Multiple business uses. P.B. recommends 24 parking spaces. (No communications received since 7/26/84.) Appeal No. 3548 - FRANK R. ZALESKI. Variances for insufficient area, width and depth (three parcels in pending division). E/s Deep Hole Drive, Matttt'Uck. 1/29 're described parcel. Await Co. Health Art. ~ approval. Rec. ~-~ ~nput ~n ~C permit (exp. 12/87). Henry R8ynor, Agent. . Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- May 21, 1987 Regular Meeting (UPDATES, continued:) Application for LOIS AND FRANK THORP. E/s West Lane and S/s North Lane (private), off the E/s Orchard Lane at East Marion. Variances for approval of lots proposed with insufficient area, width, depth, etc. **Await Notice Disapproval after application to Building Department, reissuance of filing fee, postmarked certified-mail receipts, etc. of Appeal No. 3293 - HAROLD AND JOSEPHINE DENEEN. Variances ~or proposed in~uffici, ent area, ~dth and depth of three .par~el~? W/s ROW.off the S/s Bayview Road (west.of .Waterview Drive), ~quthold. 28Q-a not requested. **Await Co. Health Art. VI and ~EC apprqvals/acti.on. Appeal No. 3367 - LOIS AND P~TRICIA LESNIKOWSKI. Variance for approval or.two proposqd parcels with insufficient .area and width. S/s North D[ive, Mattituck. .**Await DEC. building envelopes and setbacks not shown since enactment of Loca.1 Law - Wetlands Setbacks. Appeal No. 3355 -'PAUL AND MARIETTA CANALIZO. Variance to co.nstruct with .insufficient setback in frontyard and from wetlands. **Await. DEC and wetland setbacks map. Trustees reviews pending. There being no other business properly coming before the Board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 10:45 o'clock p.m. The Board agreed to arrange for a Special Meeting within the next 10 to 14 days to continue deliberations on those matters pending (which have had public hearings fi6alized). ~Approved ~ 6//~ /~7~ Gerard P. Goehriya~ger, Chairman Respectfully submitted, ~~oo~wal~ki, Se~cretar~ Southold lown Board of ^ppeals May 30, 1987 RECEIVED AND FiLED BY I TIlE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE J * ~ ~ -eT HOUR ~'~ o pn~ ToWn Clerk, Town of Southold TRANSCRI'PT OF HEARING. APPL NO 3586SE'' ROBERT AND'HELEN DIER THURSDAY, MAY 21, '1987 8:22 p,m. Appl. No. 3586SE - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of ROBERT AND HELEN DIER for a Special Exception by the Southold Town BO~-~d of Appeals to establish "Bed and Breakfast Use," an owner-occupied buildin9~ 'other'. than a hot.el, Where lodging and breakfast is provided for not more than six casual, transient roomers, and renting of not more than three roomers (in conjunction with present accessory apartment and single- family dwelling use) at 355 Terry Lane, SOuthold, New York. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Maps indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I also have a sketch of a survey indicating a parcel of approximately 100 by 282 with a variable width on the other two sides.which sits on the Great Peconic Bay and Terry Lane. And I'll ask you, Mr. Dier, if you would like to be heard? ROBERT D1ER: Yes. On December 1st last year we applied for the Bed and Breakfast. On the 15th you asked that we make the apartment that we had there legal on the grounds. We've done that. We've taken all the time since then doing that, waiting for hearings. There was also hearings, inspections, compliance with inspections, we've done all the things--we've never wasted a minute. We just the other day got our approval. We are here today and back to our application for a Bed and Breakfast. We think we meet all the requirements that have been asked of other people that have been granted Bed and Breakfasts. Room size. Window size. Parking size. We have it all, I believe. If not, we can correct anything. In any other way we are legal as of the day we filed our appeal- we filed our application. Now there are going to be a lot of other people to talk here tonight, and I would like to say a couple of things before they do. It came as a kind of surprise the last time when I got up here, and we were all put under oath. A lot was said not only by a man here tonight under oath were not true but I mentioned it that night, but a lawyer who I thought would Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing -ZBA Appl. No. 3586 - ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21, 1987 I think would be a little bit more careful, who lied under oath. Now if he wants to explain why, he can explain why. He said things that were not true. Now if you want to put us under oath tonight, fine and dan'dy. We would be willing. But just be aware as was pointed out before, there was a lot of stuff that.was said up here that was a lot of hogwash. So let's go ahead with it. CHAIRMAN: Thank .YoU,~'sir~ favor of the ap.plication. Is ther'e anybody else to speak in In favor. HELEN D~ER: M~ Goehringer an'~ Members of the Board, my name is Helen Dier, and I would like to address the contents of a letter sent to you by an.attorney, Kevin McLaughlin, who represents Mr~ and Mrs~ Arnold Blair, who opposes my permit for a Bed and Breakfast. He says in his letter, "~.Prior to the public hearing on the application for an accessory apartment, I personally spoke with Mrs~ Diet regarding my clients'.~ concerns about the over use of this propert~ Mrs. Dier assured me that, in the event the application for an accessory apartment was granted, the]~Diers would withdraw their application for a Bed and Breakfast use~ Relying on that promise, my clients chose not to Object t..e the application for an accessory apartment~ Obviously, the Diers have failed tO 1].ve up to their promise .... " I am here to tell you that I did not promise Mr. McLaughlin anything of the sort. As far as I recall, this is approxi- mately what I said. I called Mr. McLaughlin and told him I did not understand Mr. Blair's opposition to my apartment. He told me that the'apartment and two rooms for bed and breakfast would bring too much traffic into the area. I did tell Mr. McLaugh]in that the hearing was for my apart- ment and not for the bed and breakfast, and that Mr. Blair had his nerve~ ] then told him that the Blairs rented a house and an ill'egai apartment just three feet from my property line all last ~ummer. I have to know these people and they were nice~ Nonetheless, there was 15 to 20 of them. Mr. McLaughlin said he would get back.:tome-an~ he did, to tell me that Mr. Blair dropped his opposition, and I said, "I wonder why," and I hung up. Mr. McLaughlin also states in the same letter that of the approximately six other bed and breakfasts filed, none had such Page 3 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 - ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21, 1987 MRS. DIER lcont~nued)= opposition from their neighbors. Mr. McLaughlin, you forgot the Mattes' application which had as much opposition as mine, and they were approved. On the other side of my home is another rental. Again, nice people. But so many at times that the big house cannot sleep them all. this is Mr. May's house. So they pitch a tent. Not children in the tent, mind you, Tell me again Mr. Blair and Mr. May that I will have a traffic jam on Terry Lane with my apartment and my bed and breakfast. If fulls I would have seve~ people, incl:.uding my apartm.ent, my husband and myself. And to th~ ~eople who 'are represented by Pat Moore. I am curious as to Why nothing was ever said about the traffic the Mays have had all these years. And the Blairs who rented to all these people las-t year. My bed and breakfast full would be two rooms, maximum of four people, mostly in the Summer, on weekends. Thank you very much. .. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Dier~ All right, is there anybody else in behalf of this ap. plication? Yes, Mrs. Combs. PAT COMB'S- My name ~ Pat Combs. I live on Peconic Lane. I have a Bed and Breakfast. I happen to be friends with the Diers. I would just like to comment regarding this. There are a lot of peqple who are for Bed and Breakfasts and there are some people who are against it. My comment is some people who are not for Bed and Breakfast, when it's time for them to have a wedding or a family reunion, they are the first people who will call Bed and Breakfast to make accommodations for their guests because it's less expensive than the motels and hotels. I don't want the hotels and motels to get mad at me. They have large taxes, they have electri-c and so on~ We simply-have two rooms to use like the Diers have two rooms to use. I was a guest on their beach many times last summer, and as far as Helen having a Bed and Breakfast making the neighborhood crowded, or the beaches crowded or the parking crowded, her guests to the west of her house many times have 15 and 20.people on the weekends when I was there with my grandchildren, and it certainly was crowded enough. They had a full team for volleyball~ The neighbors to the east also had many, many people there. And as far as traffic in the neighborhood, this is a neighborhood where I do believe they have Goldsmith's Boatyard and down at the other end, the wes~_e~d, th'e_y have a Town Beach. And as far as Bed and Breakfast changing neighborhoods, I dare say if these people did not have to make their Bed and Breakfasts legal, most people woul]dn't even know that they had a Bed and Breakfast. Page 4 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 - ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21, 1987 MRS. COMBS (continued): My house doesn't have a sign. The Diets would not be having a sign. Unless someone knew where to go, they wouldn't even know it was a Bed-and~Breakfast House. So it doesn't change the neighborhood~ As far as the old thing about real-estate values, wouldn't we all love to have a house on the water because the only place that it's going to go as far as real-estate value is ~'u~" Bed and Breakfast ~s cer- tainly not going to chart.ge that-' T'hat's all I have to S'~y. CHAIRMAN: Thank you~ Mrs. Combs~ Is there anybody else in favor of this application? (None) We'll start with the opposition on this side of the room~ Mrs. Moore. Did you have a question Mrs Shaw? (None) ' ' ' PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: My name is Pat Moore from the Law Office of Edson and Bruer. I r.epresent Tom and Joann Walker, my contin- gencies right here: Tom and Joann Walker~, Joe and Mary Lowry, Margaret Katzenburg, John May, and --excuse me, John May and his wife, and Mildred Moore. For the record, my husband and I live across from Mr. and Mrs. D~er in Mildred Moore"s home, so I am one of the neighbors'as well~ All the ab~tting neighbors are vehemently opppsed to the establishment of this Bed-and-Breakfast business in this re. sidentia'i community. I will emphasis--I wish to emphasis comments that were made by Mr. McLaughlin in the letter, which I think were very ac~'urate and important comments that were made~ The Bed~and-.Breakfast Use was never intended to be permitted toge'ther with the use.of an accessory apartment. I was one of the first~ap~plications, or_~y client, Michael Herbert, was one of the first ap~]ications made be~re you-for a Bed and Breakfast, and I am very much., in favor of a Bed-and-Break'fast use in the proper location ~n the proper setting. And that is what was intended when the legislation~-when the law ~as drafted. And unfortunately sometimes what is intended is not what actually develops. The way the legislation was intended was to limit the number of rooms available to be rented. That would insure the residential nature of the nei'ghborhood, and this is what the neighbors are now Page 5 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 - ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21, 1987 MRS. MOORE (continued): opposing. I would also like to second the fact as Mr. McLaughlin stated in the letter that the accessory apartment was to some extent unopposed by some of the neighbors, including myself, because we were under the impression that we would not force a confronta- tion which is going to occur tonight with respect to the Bed- and-Breakfast enterprise. At this time, Mr. Dier should be seeking what is a use variance. Because of the way the legislation or new law was established, where a Bed and Breakfast is not permitted by Special Exception with an Accessory Apartment as part of the new law, then his application should have been for a use variance. And we know that the standard is very different from a use variance than it is for a special exception or any other type of variance. He does not have what he perceives to be vested rights in this application. Your vested rights do not occur until you have actually relied on an application, gotten the permit, and started construction in whatever you've done. Mr. Dier has run an illegal Bed and Breakfast and illegal apartment for a long time, but the fact that he has run it and not been caught does not give you vested rights in it. In order for the Board to grant a use variance, Mr. Dier must show that the strict application of the Code will create unnecessary hardship. I have standards of proof that have to be shown, and the burden of proof on the use variance. The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if only for the purposes allowed in that zone. As a residential property you are not guaranteed a reasonable return. You are entitled to live on the property, but not make a profit from it. By reasonable return, the cases have shown that you have to satisfy certain dollars-and-cents proof, and the dollars-and-cents proof is by way of expert testimony, and the expert testimony has to determine the amount paid for the land in question, the present value, the maintenance expenses, the land taxes, the amount of mQrtgages and other encumbrances, the income from the land in question. So there are dollars-and-cents proof as part of receiving or the Board even considering a use variance. Page 6 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 - ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21, 1987 MRS. MOORE (continued): The character of the neighborhood is already impacted by the accessory-garage apartment because it is renting to two people. In this case there are two young women. I know from being a neighbor, and seen the women. These two young women have two young boyfriends, who also create two more cars. They all come out of the driveway just as everybody else does. Now he wishes to add three more rented rooms. All together now he will service on his property two renters, two boyfriends or guests-periodic guests, two of their own cars, one storage trailer, that ~f you've gone and made an inspection there is a storage trailer there on the property in the parking area. And two bed-and-breakfast and possibly three bed-and-breakfast guests~ So all together we're talking nine to ten cars. If you've gone to see the property, the driveway is quite long and narrow. It is also as you come out of the property you will notice that the area is heavily treed, there are shrubs. I have been--I have watched cars come by, and I coming out of my own driveway, which is clearly visibles have often near-miss cars coming down the street, because they do come from the Founders Landing Park, come down relatively rapidly and avoiding any kind of casualty there. The neighbors are logically concerned by the fact that where you combine an accessory apartment--which in this circumstance~_t believe is in'violationS'of a lease requirement~ I don't know for a fact if he has a written lease, but the statute does provide that you have to prove that it's not a transient rental, and I did not find a written lease in both the Zoning Board file nor in the Building-Depar%ment file. I may just not have found it, but there certainly should be a lease to insure that even assuming the worst scenario for the neighbors, that he were to receive a Bed-and-Breakfast, we want to make sure that he is not going to rent to more rooms up in the garage~ Assuming the worst scenario. And Bed-and- Breakfast Business, which has been in operation for at least one year, which I asked the Board at one time if you would ask Mr. Diet if he is presently running and Bed and Breakfast, and I think he will answer that he is running a Bed and Break- fast now, and he has been fo~ a certain period of time, and the Bed and Breakfast which is currentl~ in operation, illegally. The 250~ft. dock, which I know certain suggestions were made at the prior hearing that a combination of a 250-ft. dock, a Page 7 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 - ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21, 1987 MRS. MOORE (continued): Bed and Breakfast, and the apartment, could lead to quite a lucrative enterprise there for Mr. and Mrs. Dier. It's terrible when you've reached this level, because you do take it personallyN It's not personal against you (to Mrs~ Dier), I know everyone-- MRS. DIER: No, Pat, we won't take it personally. MRS. MOORE: In any case the situation there is intolerable~ We would not tolerate a Bed and Breakfasts We barely tolerate._, an apa?tment. And it'~s true--an apartment, assuming the lease is valid and was created, he did meet the standards for an apartment and therefore as a right~ the way the statute was~written, he was entitled to such a use~ However., and Bed and Breakfast~ he does not meet the use variance requirements~ In light of the failure to apply for the use variance, the failure to prove he is entitled to a change of use of the property, and most importantly in light of the strong n~ighborhood opposition, as a matter of law and as a matter of justice, ~my clients ask you to deny this appeal. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thanrk you~ Do you want to rebut each individual case or do'you want to wait until the end for a blanket rebuttal, Mr. Dier? MR, DIER: I can't hear what you're saying~ CHAIRMAN: Do you want to rebut each individual attorney or would you want to do a blanket rebuttal at the end? (No response.) CHAIRMAN: I don~t want you to have a heart-attack. That's what I don't want you to do. I just want to say this. We had three years a person renting more than three slips on a dock down on Mud Creek in Nassau Point~ He walked out of this Town Hall and had a heart- attack by the flagpole out there. That's not what we are here tonight for.. .We are here to hear constructive critiC]i~sm. Everybody seems to be extremely courteous and we're very happy about that, and that~s just the way we want to have the heari, ng. go~ Ok? '~ MRS. DIER- Excuse me~ I would just like to clear-something up. Page 8 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursdays May 21, 1987 CHAIRMAN: Would you use the mike--I don't even know if that mike is on Would you try that for us please. MRS, DIER: I just want to clear something up, I don't want you to ever think (to Mrs. Moore) that because of this, this is your job and this is my job, and I want this to go according to law. I am not looking to have an argument with you, and I don"t want ever to have to walk in the street and say, "I~m not talking to you." Ok? Ok. CHAIRMAN: Mr, Dier, MR. DIER: A couple of thi'ngs, For one thing, we've applied for two rooms for Bed and Breakfast, There is one girl living in the apartment~ She was right when she said two~ a wh!.le back she had a roommate~ She is no longer a roommate and there, is one girl living there~ There is no sense even talking about that dock business I don't think~ CHAIRMAN: Please don't bring that up again. MR, DIER: There's no sense in even tal'king abou~ it. moment that's allo So at the CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. DIER: This ~alk about nine car spaces: There is one for the girl in the apartment~ One for my wife and I'-we have a three-car garage. We could always put our seco_.nd car under there so it won't obstruct the parking whatsoever.. That's two for the apart- ment and my wife and I. And two for the Bed and Breakfast rooms. That four~ We have six parking spots with no trouble. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, M'rs~ Di-er~ MRS, DIER: I'm sorry I didn't remember it all at one time, the storage--what did you call it, trailer? .... But MRS. MOORE' Storage trailer or something. MRS. DIER: Storage trailer. This is a venture of my son's and he wanted to make' a rigging outfit of it, and bring .this rigging shop to the boats rather than bring the boats out of the water to repair them. My son is no longer in New York State, and I am stuck with Page 9 Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 - ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21, 1987 MRS. DIER (continued): this thing. I think Pat you did know that Bobby did leave it to me. I have put an ad in the paper to try to get rid of it, and I can't get rid of it. I have paid for it for my son, but I now cannot get rid of it. It's a very difficult thing to do, and we are trying to get rid of it. But it is not a storage shed. There's no roof on it. There's only three sides on it. I'd like to clear that that we don't have a shed. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.. Mr~ McLaughlin? J. KEVIN McL.AUGHLIN, ESQ.: Thank you. My name is Kevin McLaughlin and I am here .tonight representing Mr. and Mrs. Arnold Blair, The first thing I would like to say, and I'll make the comment in this direction very brief. I stand by what I had written in that letter as to the nature of the conversation I had. I don~t think it's the biggest issue before the Board tonight~ What was said in the past between myself and Mrs. Dier, but I do stand by what I wrote in that letter. That's my recollection of our conversation because Mr. Blair was very concerned about the multiple uses that the Diets intended for their property, and the big concern was having them attempt to get Special Exceptions for both an accessory apartment and a bed and breakfast~ And when he learned from me that they were not going to pursue the bed and breakfast if they got the accessor~ apartment. That was one of the reasons Why he did not choose to have me come or to come himself and oppose their appli- cation. The Diers now have two presently existing uses on their property. They got their one-f~mil~y dwelling, and they got their accesso.ry apartment~ There have been six or seven prior applica- tions for Bed and Breakfasts 'before this Board. I a couple of days ago took a couple of hours and went through all those appli- cations, and it seems to me that the one that most closely resembles the instant application of the Diers was the application by Paul Henry, ApPl. No~ 3570. Mr. Henry also has a one -family res.~dence on his property and he has apartment uses on the property also. And the Board denied Mr. Henry's application on the basis that the addition of a Bed-and-Breakfast use would,~ to quote the Board's language~ ...create an over-intensification of uses for this parcel which 'would be injurious to the neighborhood or .community plan .... Page l0 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 - ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21, 1987 MR. McLAUGHLIN (continued): Now Mr. Henry's application was concerning a parcel of property of three acres almost, and the buildings are set back a good distance and are fairly well screened from the neighbor- hood. Here, I believe, the Diers~ lot consists of something less than three-quarters of an acre, surrounded mostly by single- family dwellings, is on the water, and is surrounded by some very expensive houses, All the other applications that I quoted in my letter are certainly distinguishable from the Diers' appli.cation. They either involve much large~ parcels or they ~a~re surrounded by farm land or vacant land~ or they're really in the fringe of a commercial district. And I think that what the Board has to look at is their past history with something where there is already more than. one use on the property, and that history has been reflected in the Paul Henry application which was denied~ The Town Or]dinance allowing for an Accessory Apartment in an A District as a Special Exce.ption stat'es there can be an Accessory Apartment in an existing one-family dwelling, subject to certain specified conditions~ The Code defines a one-family dwelling as a detached building ~ontaining one dwelling unit only. Clearly, the Dier residence will not contain one dwelling unit only if a Bed and Breakfast is allowed there~ Whether you define a Bed and Breakfast as another dwelling or you define it as another use, clearly it is no longer a one-dwelling unit only. It's something in excess of that, and they cannot have in my reading of the statutes both a Bed and Breakfast and an Accessory Apartment on the same premises on that basis~ The language that can be found in the ordinance establishing a Special Exception for a Bed and Breakfast is, ~',~,can be granted provided that the renting of such rooms for such purpose is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the dwelling .... ~ So I think what has happened with the dwelling, this one-family dwelling, is that it's no longer clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the dwelling as a one-family resi'dence, What we have here is basic'ally a commercial operation whereby we're going to have at a minimum three rooms that they're geing to be, and possibly up to four rooms that th'ey~re going to be renting out on some type of basis. Page ll - Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 - ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 212 1987 MR. McLAUGHLIN (continued): I ask the Board in considering this application to review the file on the Paul Henry application, which you denied~ and I think there's no question that the fact circumstances are very similar, and if anything the Henry application may have had more going for i.t in the way of size and distance from neighbors~ And on that basis I would ask the Board to deny thcs ap.plication~ CHAIRMAN: Thank you~ M~. McLaughlin~ Mrs.. co-mbs? MRS~ COMBS: May I ask a question? How many apartments did Mr. Henry have and how many bedrooms did his main house have, do you have any idea? - MR. McLAUGHLIN: My understanding is he had two apartments there~ I don't know how many bedrooms are there~ Legally he certainly wasn't renting out any of those other bedrooms. Whether he was illegally or not, I have no idea~ '- -' MRS. COM'BS: Size-wise it=s not comparable to the Diers. CHAIRMAN: You have to direct the questions to the Board and please use the mike, MRS. COMBS: I was curious how many bedrooms the Henries had and how many'apartments. I didn't feel that the two houses were comparable at all in size~ That's a much larger house with many, many bedrooms and two apartments that are very close to the street. CHAIRMAN: You are referring to the Hen'ry house? MRS. COMBS: The.~Henry House. It's notlquite the same as the Diets. And the'Diers have two bedrooms that they were going to use, not even possible fouP. Mr~ McLaughlin should take a walk through Mrs. Diets' hogse and'see how magy bedrooms she could use~ And the most she could use is two~ CHAIRMAN: Thank you~ MR. McLAUGHLIN: Two plus an accessory apartment which they already have, and as to the number of bedrooms in somebody's house, I don't think there's any limitation in the Code as to how many bedrooms a Page 12 Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 ROBERT AND HELEN DIE. R Thursday, May 21, 1987 MR. McLAUGHLIN (continued): single-family dwelling could have. The question is what use can they be put to, and I think that's what they are trying to do here. Trying to turn what started out as a single-family.dwelling into a commercial operation of three uses on its property. CHAIRMAN: Thank you~ Could you state your name for the file. PAUL HENRY~ My name is Paul Henry. First of all, I would like to say. that I have obvious!.y been involved in this Whole Bed-and- B~eakfast issue in this Town and following it closely, and tried to go about things the way that everybody said ! should by making formal application to the Board. As we all know, the Board turned me down. I'm still trying to understand that decision. I have been following some of the further actions by the Town in terms of the Accessory Apartment and the Bed-and-Breakfast usage~ I would like to quote from Councilman Schondebare at the meeting that was to decide that Bed and Breakfast and Accessory Apartments would not be allowed. According, to Mr~ Schondebarg~ the Zoning Board had to search high and low to deny me prior to the Bed~and-Breakfast and Accessory Apartment Laws being passed~ Mr~ Goehringer actually asked the Planning Board or the -- CHAIRMAN: Code Committee. MR~ HENRY: Code Committee to disallow Accessory Apartments in a Bed and Breakfast. I believe the reason for that was an issue of density where they were concerned about the intensity of usage in a neighborhood. Now I personally felt that the Law that was passed had nothing to do with density in the sense it just discriminated against landlords as opposed to regulating any .]type of density usage, especially my own cases where I would still like to know whose words frQm th~s Board came down and called my usage of Bed and Breakfast as injurious to the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN: Remember now, we're not dealing with your application~ MR. HENRY: No, sir, we're dealing with my appli'cation and my decision as applied to the next decision that.%his Board will make. CHAIRMAN: The criteria that we used in your decision is not the nature of the application that is before us tonight, so you must Page 13 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 - ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21, 1987 CHAIRMAN (continued): not direct your statement-- what you are doing is making statements. You have to direct whatever you want to direct because you were asked to speak toward what the Diers have before us. In other words they paid the application fee, you haven't. MR. HENRY: You got my money already. CHAIRMAN.: Ok. But we rendered a decision already~ MR. HENRY: I wasn't planned to speak today, and to be brought up like I was. So it,s there's-- wasn't expecting CHAIRMAN: Well, I didn't bring you up~ MR. HENRY: What I'm trying to get at, I feel that it's very weak analogy to draw my case and your decision~on, my case ~nto their case. - CHAIRMAN: Well, t didn't do that. Somebo'dy else did. MR. HENRY: No, but I'm commenting on that. MEMBER SAWICKI: We haven't drawn that decision. CHAIRMAN: We were asked by Mr. McLaughl.in to consider it is what he is saying. Ok. Go ahead: MR. HENRY: I think I'm finished~ Let me just add one thing. I do feel that the Bed and Breakfast usage in this Town is in the Town's interest, and I have seen a lot of public outcries against Bed and Breakfast, and I think everybody in this Town ought to give it a chance before they come out and speak, "I feel blindly against it." t know a lot of Bed~and-Breakfast usage'that is totally unnoticed in the communities, and the only place where a Bed and Breakfast gets any press is in this room. Nobody knows about Bed and Breakfast in the real world--just in this room on the applications Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Could I just ask you one question, Mr. Cron, you still to speak, right? JIM CRON: I'm speaking on a different application. Page 14 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 - ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21, 1987 CHAIRMAN: Are there any other attorneys here that are going to speak against this application? Ok, sir. PHIL BARTH: My name is Phil Barth. I live on 725 Terry Lane. I'm a neighbor of Mrs. Dier. First of all~ I'm glad that the--at least on our part, that we are trying to be civil and I'm not quoting anyone liers, and I want to say that for my part I was never opposed to their the Accessory Apartment or the Bed. and Breakfast. And as a matter of fact, for many~ many years, all the neighbors knew that Mr. Diet had.an accessory.~a~_artment that was not legal and no one said a word about it~ We were neigh- bors and we wanted to get along. But things get--sometimes get too far. Now, I'm not.~a la~yer, but I don~t understand how some one can come in front of thins Board and ask for a Bed and Break- fast when the law states that if you have an Accessory Apartment you can't have a Bed and Breakfast. If you 'have a Bed and Breakfast, you can't have an Accessory Apartment. Now hess gotten the Accessory Apartment. So how can he come before this Board and ask for a Bed and Breakfast? CHAIRMAN: Are you asking a question or making a statement? MR. BARTH: Yes, I'm asking the question. CHAIRMAN: The question is s.uch~--~sir, that the law ~- first of all, we have to entertain all applications, all r'ight, regardless--~ this is America and I'm not~._goi~Dg to stand on the red, white and blue, but we do have to entertain all applications~= When an applicant comes before us and f~les the~.papers and pays the fee. To the best of my recollection~ the~Diers had filed their applica~- tion prior to the change of the law, ok~ We as a Board took a stand that we would treat each individual application in its entirety uniquely and singularly in the res.pect that we ask them and we told them that we were holding their application for the Bed and Breakfast in abeya~'~e 'p'e.nding the decision of the Accessory Apartment, and..we did that. It just so happens and Mr. Henry is perfectly correCt that it was brought up at the Code Committee where much if not all of the Zoning Code is changed, modified, critiqued, caveated and all the rest of it-- that the Board, my Board, this Boar~, along 'w~ith Mr~ Douglass who is a member of the Board and presently in the'Hospital, did say that we think it would be a benefit to have the law changed indicating that you can have eitherZor~ And all I can say to you to the best of my recollection that they did file the applica- tion prior to the change of the law. Page 15 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 ~ ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21, 1987 MR. BARTH: This is one thing I know for a fact. CHAIRMAN: This does not preclude them even if the law was in to come in and ask for a variance from the present law. So they could have done that also~ And we would have to entertain the application, as we have so uniquely done almost 4,000 applications ago. This is 3986, so there have been 3,986 applications before the Zoni.ng Board. MR. BARTH: You've explained the case very well and I'm satisfied. But again, as you can see, all the neighbors, but quite a few of the neighbors in that area are opposed to it. Not opposed to it because they don't like Mr. Dier or Mrs. Dier. As a matter of fact, we moved into that area almost'at the same time and we were very good friends. We just don't like the idea of converting a situation that's supposed to be residential into something that's going to turn out to be commercial~ And that's what this looks like it's turning out to be~ Because what you have now is two uses on that property~ It's not that big a property° The houses aren't that far apart~ The fact that you're going to say there's a Founding Landing Park, and there's a Goldsmith Boatyard creating a lot of traffic. That's another reason why we don't want a Bed and Breakfast and Accessory Apartment. We don~t want to add to the congestion. It's congested enough. It come summertime, you can go crazy in that place~ So we don't need any more of that there. So I think that an Accessory Apartment -- he's got that. That's enough. "' CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir. Is there any rebuttal on any attorney's parts or is there anything any attorneys would like to say, or clients of the attorneys before we ask Mr. Dier if there is anything further he would like to say. (No response.) Mr. Dier, is there anything you would like to add? I think the only question I have, and I didn't think to going back in a symmetrical sense in asking you or answering, your question in some roundabout way of saying at the last hearing about swearing everybody in. I didn't think it was specifically necessary in this one, so therefore I didn't do it. But I'll ask you honestly and you answered me honestly, are you actual'l~..~operating a Bed and Breakfast on these prem.ises at the present time or have you last summer operated a Bed and Breakfast? MR. DIER: Yes. Page 16 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21~ 1987 CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you would like to say? MR. DIER: Let me just say this, sir, about that. The apartment is one thing. Bed and Breakfast is an entirely different thing. Bed-and-Breakfast people are living in the house with you. And anybody that goes through the trouble of signing up, applying a Bed and Breakfast without having tried it first is a fooll. You don't know what it's going to be like having people living in the house with you until you try it. And a'nybo'dy that's going to try it, one of the first things I would say to him is, ~'Do it for a while first b~fore you even t'ry._ to make it legal.~ Find out if you like it before.~you ever ggt involved in making it legal. As far as lies go, Phil, !_!m sorry it had to be said~ MR. BARTH: I don't kn~w what you said it. MR. DIER: I said it because O'f things up here were said that were not true~ And the only other thing I have to say is the time we filed there was no law against having the two things~ If we hadn't been held up_by all this rigmarole, how long it takes for all these things, I could have been ready to have the whole thing-- the corrections done for the apartment. It took me maybe two days week. I could have been ready for this two days or three days after we app.!ied. At that time there was no law against them. I still want to be judged by the fact that there was no law against having two things at that time~ CHAIRMAN: Well, have a seat and if there is anything else you would like to say after this lead~.., let us know, and we'll close the hearing~ Mrs~ Katzenburg, how do you do? MARGARET KATZENBURG: I'm Margaret Katzenburg, and I'm one of Mr. DieW~!s near neighbors. I've owned my property for over 50 years and during that time the ownership of most of the houses around me has changed two or three times. During all that time, we~ve been a friendly, neighborly residential area. And the change seems to have come about with Mr. Dier~ None of us like to be unneighborly. But I must say we are all worried. I shouldn't bring up the matter of docks, but Mr. Dier applied for permission to build a 150 ft~ wooden dock out into the Bay. Since then it has become considerably larger, considerably longer. I believe the young lady sai-d 250 feet, and it is not a wooden dock a~y longer. It's supported by tons of concrete in the Bay. Mr~ Dier wanted to have an Accessory Apartment and he had it and he Page 17 Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21, 1987 MRS. KATZENBURG (continued): then got permission afterwards~ He wanted to have Bed and Breakfast, and he tried it. And I think most of my neighbors are terribly worried about what he might want to do next. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, last rap-up~ MR. DIER: I hate to beat the dead dog, but Mrs. Katzenburg, I don't mind what you say as long as it is true. MRS. KATZENBURG: Well I h~'ven't said anything untrue, have I? MR. DIER: Yes, you did. You may not know it but you said something and it keeps happening.. My initial request for that dock was for 250 ft~ The original t~ing~ Two-hundred fifty foot. Not one-hundred. I built it 250 ft~ I got taken down by the ice~ I built it again and it got taken down. And then I got up and went to put the concrete in, so everything has been done~ Don't say I originally had a permit for 100 feet. It was not true. My original permit was 250 ft. MRS. KATZENBURG: Well, I certainly did not intend to lie. Mr. Diet, I have a ~iece of paper at home which was given to me at the time that you made the first application and on it it says 100 ft. with the dock. CHAIRMAN: Last comment, Mrs~ Dier. MRS. DIER: Mrs. Katzenburg, I think that piece of paper that you got was a petition that was written, and they had the wrong information there also. We have all the letters that were written in. There were 63 against it. And- a number of them had wrong information. MRS, KATZENBURG: That was the Army Corps of Engineers. MRS. DIER: Yes, they sent it out. They sent all the letters out, but we didn't t'ry to pull the wool over your eyes. I feel very badly. My husband put it up and I think that this is what has been the knife in everybody's side. This dock. You got to understand that when you have a dock and it goes down, and then you put the money back into it and put it back up again and it goes down, what do you do? We wanted the dock. We needed the dock an~ that=- (More than one person was speaking at this time and the statements were inaudible~) Page 18 Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 - ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21, 1987 CHAIRMAN: The point in question the last time was the dock was not necessarily the nature of this application and we are going to remain in that particular sense. And I would ask you please not to direct anything toward the dock. MR. DIER: No, no. Because Mrs. Katzenburg and others like her have got their hackles up and they're raising hell with what I am trying to do here. A certain number of people. And yet she lives right across the street from the Mayes, who for years have been renting and she knows what they've been doing..~ How many they have had there. It's years. CHAIRMAN: It's counterproductive to point at people. direct the mi You Call MR. ADLER: street. Can I say something in answer to that~ Across the CHAIRMAN.: What is your name, sir? HERBERT ADLER: Herbert Adler and I live across the street from them. The Mayes" tenants have been very nice. MR. DIER: They have. MRS. DIER: They have. MR. ADLER: And we are there all the time. I just feel that that is a strange argument to take. The case involves what is the law here. And I think it should be decided on that. Thank you. The law in the case and that's it. CHAIRMAN: I'll finish this up by saying that my tenure on this Board is seven years. I"m very proud of the Board. I'm very happy. We get along very, very well. Because we are able to see the specifics of the case regarding]ess of what we refer to as the things that are not specifically germane to the case, all right? Cases in question. And in this particular case you have given us much information--probably too much information, information that does not specifically pertain to the case. We don~t care if somebody else is renting an illegal apartment. We are not an enforcing agency. It is specifically the nature of the Building Department, the gentleman sitting to my self and your right, to deal with that specific issue~ And so.fan as we're concerned, Page 19 Transcript of ZBA Hearing Appl. No. 3586 ROBERT AND HELEN DIER Thursday, May 21, 1987 CHAIRMAN (continued): all we can do is inform him of it. And that's primarily the situation at this point. We thank you all. I think we got a little carried away at the ends but I think everybody did an excellent job and we wish you a good evening~ Hearing no further commentss I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later4 MEMBER SAWICKI: Second. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs~ Goehringer, Grigonis and Sawicki. (Members Doyen and Douglass were absent.) Also present during the hearing were Victor Lessards Building- Department Administrator, Linda Kowalski, ZBA Clerks Valerie Scopaz-Shaw, Town Planner, and approximately 35 persons in the audience. May 26, 1987 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE MATTER OF PETER AND BARBARA HERZ THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 9:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3543 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of PETER AND BARBARA HERZ. Variances to locate new single family dwelling with insufficient setbacks from exist- ing bulkhead and from highwater areas along midway inlet and Hog Neck Bay. 70 Cedar Point Drive, Southold; Cedar Beach Park Map, part of Lots 152 and 110. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey prepared by Howard Young. The most recent date is January 12, 1987; indicating the proposed dwelling approximately 23 feet from the dilapidated bulk- head, 19.3 feet from the dilapidated bulkhead leading into the in- let which is silted over; 15.5 feet from the east property line. And it~ closest p0int~Without_the bulkhead, t4~i6~!feet. ~nd~Ii~h~e a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surround- ing properties in the area. The lot I was mentioning was lot 110. It is contiguous to and part of lot 152. Ms. Moore would you like to be heard? P. M00R[,[SQ.:The variance application Was corrected to reflect that there is no need for a height variance. That it does meet the re- quirements. I have an aerial photograph that will assist and at least see what we're talking about. The property is right here and the developed area is here. The applicant~ are clearly faced with practical difficulties in meeting the 75 foot wetland ordinance. As you can see from the survey prepared by Young & Young dated Jan- uary 12, 1987, thi~ property a buts water on two sides. And as you can see from the aerial, along Little Peconic Bay and along the pond, the proximity to the water to the proposed construction, necessi- tates this variance~ First, the variance request is not substan- tial in relation to the requirements. The property is bulkheaded along Little Peconic Bay and I have a letter which I'd like to pre- sen% for the record. It was prepared as part of the Environmental Assessment Form by Thomas Cramer from Cramer and V00rhis when the trustee application was submitted. It does have very relevant in- formation with respect to the property and does answer some of the questions that you may have from the County Health Agency. The one that sent that letter. It will answer some of the questions that I believe may develop. So I'd like to submit that as exhibit "A". The environmental concerns were fully addressed by the Board -- of l.rustees on both the Environmental Assessment Form and by way of the public hearings and the ~dec~s~0n The area along the waterfront has been completely built up as you can see from the aerial photograph. There will be some opposition or there has been some opposition with this property and I question the remarks because the property .... The entire area has been built up and landscaped and lived ~n. It's not virgin territory. The proposed construction will be in line with the B~air property which is across from the Inlet and it's set further back than many of the older homes in that area. And I think that the aerial photo- graph shows that very well and I do have some photographs that I was there recently after the staking. I have the f~rst photograph P~ge 2 - May 21, 1987 Public Itearing - Peter and Barbara Herz Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. MOORE: Continued that I was there recently after the staking. I have the first photograph that shows this stake. It's a very thin stake but you can see that across the inlet is the Blair property. Again, there's the other stake at the corner and the Blair property across the way. The property in the back, the pond, which you can see from the Herz property toward the back of the pond. You can also see that the area around the pond is developed with grass growing down to the water. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: When you're referring to the Blair house, you're referring to .... MSo MOORE: Excuse me. Blair is across from the home over here. It's across from the inlet. This is a better photograph. ~I can't take credit for this one~ Brian Shore is here today. He's the architect. And if you have any questions, he'd be answering them (I hope) for you. He took these very good pictures. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: house? You're referring to the Blair house as which MS. MOORE: Yes. It is that house. I believe that the house and the cottage are both the same property~but I really couldn't go on the property to make a 100% inspection. The property in the back looks out onto the pond. And as I said before, the entire proper- ty is bulkheaded and you can see that there is a substantial beach in front of the bulkheaded property. There's another one of my photographs. You can tell who is who here. CHAIRWomAN GOEHRINGER: was down there. You must have taken them on the same day I MS. MOORE: Probably. Crummy day° The construction of a single family home was approved by the trustee~after a hearing. And as I said, a detailed Environmental Assessment Form was prepared and submitted and you have that. Part of that that I submitted for the record now. And you should have received the Environmental Assessment Form~from t~e'Le~d~.~genc~. So it should be part of the record. They determined, based on inspections and all the same facts that are before you today, that any environmental effects can be mitigated and construction was approved. The house an elaborate design and I have Mr. Shore who can answer any ques- tions you have, any structural questions you might have or concerns. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't have any structural. We don't dis- cuss structural, but we have plenty of questions on setbacks. MS. MOORE: Alright. Fine. i believe that there will be no sub- stantial change produced in the character of the neighborhood or substantial detriment to adjoining properties since the area is already developed° No effect will be created on population densi- ty and government facilities. The setback that you have a problem with, the difficulty there is meeting the 75 foot setback. It can not be obviated in any way. We have the cesspool location. It was P~ge 3 - May 21, 1987 Public Hearing - Peter and Barbara Herz SouthOld Town Board of Appeals MS. MOORE Continued: taken by the Health Department, 100 feet from the pond, 100 feet from the Bay, 100 feet from the adjacent property owner and !O0 feet from the well. At least 100 feet. The well, if you... CHAIR~N GOEHRINGE~: property? Can't the well be put on the back piece of MS. MOORE: That is where the well is put. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: That's no problem? closer to the cesspool. So the house can be put MS. MOORE: No. Let me show you the survey. The well is up here. The well from the cesspool has to be 100 feet. But the 100 feet, the cesspool also has to be 100 feet from the pond. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is the cesspool? MS. MOORE: That's right. At least 100 feet, the cesspool has to be from the pond. You explained this very well to me. ~y don't you explain the location of the cesspool and the problems with it. MR. SHORE: In essence, the only location, legal location, for the cesspool or sanitary system on this property is the one located and approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health. They've asked the well to be located up there. Presumably, to get as far away from the Bay, saltwater intrusion of the wells and so forth. We have that noted on a Health Department approval map. By virtue of a sanitary system being down there, in essence, the only rea- sonable place to place a house is in this particular location. This plot is very unique, of course, because it is bisected by ~[~ ~he pond ~a~-.~ it has frontage on Little Peconic Bay. There is no place, in essence, for a sanitary system to be placed on the (I guess) northerly section of this lot up by the street because we would ncroach on the 100 foot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now I u~d~s.tand~fbat-But why can't the house be moved back closer to the sanitary system if the well is going to be way back here? MR. SHORE: Why can't the house be moved back to the sanitary sys- tem. I think that according to the Health Department requirements, .... d~stance$~ ~ The ~physical distance of the septic tank to the house is 10 feet exactly. The whole system would be, this is $~6]]0wwe!l situation, which the sha]]0wwe~ is about 40 to 43 feet. That's approximately what's shown here. ~f i move the house back, I have to move the system back. The system now encroaches on the 100 feet to the surface water. So we're kind of locked in this situation. CHAIR~LAN GOEHRINGER: we have a problem. MR. kS$$ARD : Could I address the Board as to what lot test well number one and number two are on? What the results were. Page 4 - May 21, 1987 PQb~ic Hearing - Peter and Barbara Herz Southo!d Town Board of Appeals MR. LESSARD : Could I address the Board as to what lot test well number one and number two are on? What the results were. Was it good water? Was it bad? MS. MOORE:i No. It was good water but they suggested that testing be redone prior to reconstruction. So it was adequate to give a C.O. and Health Department approval° They understand that that would be a requirement. This property is bulkheaded. So you're not talking about Unb~tkhe~aded property. CHAIR~;~N GOEHRINGER: Has any investigation been done to the pond that it's going to be .opened at all? MS. MOORE: Actually, there has been some rumblings about dredging the inlet. However, in that letter that I submitted to YoU, the consultant questions'the intelligence of op~ning the inlet and the enviromental effect it would have. Because of some .... He states it very well in that letter and i suggest that you read the para- graphs. He suggest~~ that opening the~inlet may have some Environ- mental impact on the pond. The fact that the inlet is dredged, questionably whether it will be dredged or not, I don't think it is going to be an issue here because they may or may not get ap- proval from the D.E.C. which is what my consultant suggested that the D.E.C. may not be willing to because of the 'argumen%s'~ ~ he made in the assessment form. DOYEN : There's no flow of water through that inlet? CHAIRM~AN GOEHRINGER: No. It's sealed, up. MS. MOORE: It's completely sea]ed. It's been like that since '67. CONVERSATION BETWEEN MS. MOORE, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER AND UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER OCCURRED SIMULTANEOUSLY RESULTING IN UNDECIPHERABLE COMMENTS. MEMBER DOYEN: Is that freshwater down there? CHAIRMAN: It's brackish. MR. LESSARD : The house across the way, I went over there and watched the water flow through it. MS. MOORE: It did flow through° Ok. MR. LESSARD boat over there. : It's not very deep but enough to get a row Yes ma'am. MS. MOORE: I guess the records he had available to him (in '67) said that had been filled in. Now what the extent of the filling is .... you know. CHAIR}.~N GOEHRINGER: I can either question you about this and tell you what are feelings are or what are preliminary feelings are or I can allow Mr. ~C~06~ to discuss the issue first. Whatever you choose is better. MS. MOORE: I'd rather deal with your comments first and then it may eliminate Mr. C~On.'s ~ ~ comments. ~ag~e 5 - May 21, 1987 Rublic Hearing.- Peter and Barbara Herz Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We've had several applications of this nature. And what we've done is, we have asked the ~roperty owner, because we don't care who the agent is, to go back and redraw the house and to give us a house that more uniquely conforms to this particular piece of propertY. The most recent one was the Grasso application on Soundview Avenue in Peconic. Mr~ Grasso... MS. MOORE: Is that (excuse me) on Sound Avenue? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's on Soundview Avenue and Great Pond. In that particular application we had Mr. Denis -Donald Denis - redraw the house three times before we finally got the proper setbacks we could live with on this app!icationa So I would ask you to do that, to give us the maximum value in reference to dis- tance to the dilapidated bulkhead on the west side and to position the house back as far as you possibly can without encroaching or placing the house over the sanitary system. Ok? And that's the first thing I'll ask you. The second thing; you'll have to tell us what you intend to do with the bulkhead. Are you intending to enhance the bulkhead MOORE: Yes. CItAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: .... and taking that dilapidated effect away? MS. MOORE: ~n the front along the Peconic Bay.~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not on theother one? MS. MOORE: If there's no dredging, there's no need for bulkhead over there~ it's a contained system. CHAI~.~N GOEHRINGER: Because the actual later part of the dilapi- dated wooded bulkhead really doesn't even exist any more. The one I am saying is to the west. MS. MOORE: It's been covered over by the sand~ CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: As you know, uniquely, it's not even there. MS. MOOTS: I think when you read the Environmental Assessment Form comments, I believe that the consultant says that although it's not. there in the best condition, that it does have a certain effect on retaining the ground and so on. CHAIR~,~ GOEHRINGER: And the other question is~ are you intending to construct the tieback of that bulkhead along the inlet that does not exist any more past the house to protect this from a storm situation, hurricane situation or whatever the case might be? MS. MOORE: I'm not sure about that one. P~ge 6 - May 21, 1987 Public Hearing - Peter and Barbara Herz Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you going to go from here past the house when you .... You're not going to do anything with this bulkhead? That's the first thin~ you said you weren!t going to do. That's the bulkhead on the west side. MSo MOORE: I don't know about the bulkhead on this side. It may not structurally need to be reconstruct~.. It certainly does need supports and things like that during construction. You're not going to fix the bulkhead until you start building the house. So they made a choice there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you're not anticipating going from here? MS. MOORE: I believe the bulkhead on the west side, I don't think. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There will be no retaining wall? MS. MOORE: I don't think ' they feel it's necessary that,- whoever they consulted with believed Ct was~ _ necessary for the structural pnrposes of their home. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. So the first thing you're going to do is you're going to attempt to redraw the house and push it back as far as you possible can without destroying .... MR. BRIAN SHOR5 : May I address that? I appreciate your com- ments and I agree with you that the house should respond to the site. I felt that in many ways, I've done that. I'd like to point Ou~that for the Board, by scale .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: By the way, I'm not degrading your... MR. SHOR[ : No. No. I appreciate that. I'd like to point out to the Board that by scale, we're talking about a roughly 65 feet between the bulkhead and t~ ~gJnn~g 0f the sa~tary system that I have to work with. That's what I have worked'within. The site is very narrow. At i~s widest point, it's 90 feet and that tapers back and the further north I go, the narrower it gets. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can't the sanitary system be placed closer to the property line, to the east property line? MS. MOORE: No. My guess is that the adjacent cesspool to the well, the location there was put really ,... Seeing all the lines when I received the survey, indicates to me that they really took all points into consideration. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Maybe you can get us a copy of that figure. Because I tell you, I'm talking about the workup that the Suffolk County Health Department did. The first thing to question, is they probably did it... Charlie Brigham does an excellent job in putting the arcs in and I'd like to see those ares. I'd like to see if that sanitary system can't be pushed closer to the east property line so that we can get more distance back. That's one thing. Page 7 - May 21, 1987 Public Hearing - Peter and Barbara Herz Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. SHORE : By pushing that east .... MS. MOORE: How do you get it back? SHORE : ..... how do you get it back? I don't understand. CHAIRb~N GOEHRINGER: Well, it's going to push it farther away from the pond-which will allow it (probably) to go back a lit= tle~bit farther. MR. SHORE I understand~ : You're talking about a few feet perhaps. Ok. I just didn't understand~ CHAIRb~N GOEHRINGER: Is there anyway of changing the location, the physical plan of the house so as not to take away from the character of the house? MR. SHORE : No question. This house has been through... Before it got to this Board, this house has been through several births and rebirths. But again, the physical contraints, it's ~_ very easy to design a house to a site because the physical con- straints are so rigid that we don't have a lot of options. And the fewer options you'.have, the easier it is to make a decision. So by virture of the fact that the sanitary has to be where it is,where the surfacewater is, where the well has to be, puts this house locates this house in this specific location. If we're talking about a matter of manipulating the sanitary system so that we can push the house 2, 3, 4, 5, feet, whatever mathematically we can increase, I have ~b= solutely and I'm sure my client have no problem with that at all. If we're talking about trying to conform or trying to take a 35 and make it 50 feet or 60 feet or 70 feet, it makes the plot virtually unbuildable. CHAIRb~N GOEHRINGER: Well, it really doesn't because there's a great possibility that you might have potable water up in front which would mean you... MR. SHORE : You mean on the Bay side? CHAIP~N GOEHRINGER: ...could reverse the whole system and put the cesspool system all the way down the back and pump the sewage the other way. MS. MOORE: Let me suggest to you, that you don't buy a 300 thousand dollar lot to put your house in'~he back end. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: I agree with you Pat. But I think you have to understand that you are far ahead of the dwelling next to you and ! understand your environmental problems. Pa§e 8 - May 21, 1987 .Rublic Hearing.- Peter and Barbara Herz Southold Town Boand of Appeals MR. SHORE: I'd just like to address something here~ I don't think, and I think I can demonstrate to the Board that there is enough room on the northerly side or the street side to develop a house and a sanitary system that's going to be a sanitary sy.stem that's going to be 100 feet away from the surface water, unless you're on the street~ I don't know what the setback requirements are for sanitary, off the front property line. I think it's five feet. MR. LESSARD: Seven and.one-half feet. MR. SHORE: I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think it's a reasonable alternative. Market issues aside. CHAIR~LAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. So what's the first thing you're going to do for us? SHORE : Well, the first thing w~d like to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I use to be a teacher. MR~ SHORE : What we'd like to do then or I think what we should do is explore through the tIealth Department how much we can squeeze this sanitary system Upo And again, maybe through Young's Office, develop a mathematical model if you will based on the con- figuration of this or a similiar house, how far north we can slide this. But I don't anticipate significant gains in that~ CtIAI~&AN GOEHRiNGER: Then let's talk about how far you can push it over to the east property line. Can you go ten feet as opposed to fifteen or five to give us the maximum benefit from ~the possi- bility that that inlet actually has. MR. SHORE : Although I did locate it, and i know five feet is not significant in the field... CHAIP~%[AN GOEHRINGER: No. ~[ot five~ Ten. MR. SHORE : The point I'm making is that there is a dwel- ling to the east and I wanted to get it as far away. It's as if we had the buffer of the inlet. MS. MOORE: As far as the dredging of the in!et~ I did speak to Bill Price who represents Mr. Blair, the property across the way~ And Mr. Blair would possibly agree with the people who want to dredge. That if they were to dredge, they could move it over five feet onto his property. Because h.e felt that he would like to see that area dredged. Taking aside all the environmental concerns and all the Board of how they would react. But even if 'they got all the Boards approvals, they would be willing to move the whole dredging operation of the canal over five feet. I can tell you right now that Mr. Herz was not very thrilled about having the dredging. has been opposed to that all along. So my guess is, that no mat- ter what happens~ it's going to end being moved five feet. So in a sense~ it's going to be creating a greater side yard setback or side yard from the inlet to the house. So if you are considering the future dredging operation, they're taking this figure in mind~ they're considering moving it over. Page 9 - May 21, 1987~ P~b.lic Hearing - Peter and Barbara Herz Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. But we're really not taking that into consideration. We're~taking in for consideration the total amount of usable property thatactuaills exists~=i!~ where the footprint of the house are going to be placed and that's what we're concerned about. So, you'll come back to us at the next regularly scheduled meeting with whatever you... MS. MOORE: That or we can... Would you want to do that or do you want to close the meeting and ..... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No we don't want to close the meeting°because we may go through three redrafts before we!re hapPy~ MS. MOORE: Then I might come back here? MR. SHORE : I haven0 problem with that. I have a problem with that. But again, I think the first round should be to es- tablish mathematically and perhaps in more precise terms and gain a few feet in terms of setbacks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Definitely. MR. SHORE : I have no problem with that at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: east side. And I would decrease-it t0~ ~]ten2Qn~ithe MRo~SHORE : The side yard setback~ the fifteen on the... In other words, put CHAIRb~N GOEHRINGER: Make it 11 because it never ends up ten any- way. It ends up 9.6 and guess where you are again. MR. SHORE : Well, no. works. We try to avoid that.· Sometimes it MR~ L ESSARD : If <I may see the chair sir. I believe when the Chairman read out the initial application, he said 2~ stories. Please keep in mind that in the Type 5 zoning you're allowed two stories. ' ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ MR. SHORE : Yes. But I believe we'r~ a]]0w6da certain per- centage of that third level, a half story as habitable space. A certain percentage. MR. LESSARD : In the Type 5? ' ~-4R. LESSARD : I don't know. MR. LESSARD : It's a maximum two-story out of wood. If you want to take and develo~ a non-combustible,~the leeway is there for two and a half. I know that you're restricted to start with but I don't want you to go home and beat your brains out and then come back and say,~'sorry.'' Page 10 - May 21, 1987 Public Hearing - Peter and Barbara Herz Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. S R 0 RE : I appreciate what you're saying. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you for your. comments o MS. MOORE: Are you going to have this current speaker? we stay here and respond? Should CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: like to do. It's entirely up to what Mr. Cron would J. CRON,ESQ: Well, I'd like to know what the status of the appli- cation iSo Is it being amended? Is it being rejected? Because I'm going to feed this out into the presses. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ..... we had an application of similiar sequence. Not quite as unique as. this one, to be honest with you. And we gave the person an option. We said that, legally we know you're allowed to build on this property~but we're not happy with the setbacks. And we can deny this application or you can come back and redraft it. And it's your option. And they said, we'll come back and redraft it and that's basically where we are at this point. I think it would be counter productive to be honest with you, at this point, to deal with everything as it exists at this point because we're not happy with it. So it's an exercise in futility on your part. MRo CRON : Would you be representing them Mr. Chairman, that as the application now stands, the Board would deny it? CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. MR; CRON : Then the only observations I would make, I will limit them considerably. I have the same obviously... By the CHAZRMAN GOEHRINGER:/ way,i should say, I would deny it. Z have no idea what these gentlemen would do... MR. CRON : Well, I think for the record.then, I should purl. some of what I had to say on the record. I'll make it shorto Ba- sically the Board and my client see eye to eye as concerns With this piece of property, ~n that there have been other approvals. these are really not binding to anything you have to determine as far as area variance is concerned. O~e of the problems we have is fha{ they'~e ~asking for a complex architectural design. This property is just notcnmpa~ble-~'~h~'-~t'h~eY=a~e~P~@pQsing.~.~'i~s- sentially, the house was designed for a variance. ..There was ab- so!utely no attempt to design a house which would meet all the requirements. I would also suggest that really the property is not all that unique. The house is really what the problem is. The house is unique. In'this particular case you're dealing with a structure that's approximately 126 feet long, 103 feet long. If you look at the site plan just to make a couple of observations, the decks in question here are 52 feet long. The house itself is only 31 foot long. I would suggest that if you eliminate the 12 foot deck _, you eliminate the perpendicular 40 foot deck and move the car port and the house back to where the 40 foot deck ends which is about 126 feet, PaGe 11 - May 21, 1987 P~lic Hearing - Peter and Barbara Herz Southold Town Board of Appeals Mr. Cro~n~ Continued ~ith you would have a 75 foot setback- e~'×actly the same house and carport. The problem, obviously, would be then the sewage, septic system which could be moved back and obviously closer to the line. I don't think that area has been pursued at all. Es- sentially, this Board has been presented with something that re- quires (immediately) a variance rather than try to attempt to build what they want without a variance. We are therefore, op- posed on those grounds and also given the conSiderations the Board has raised, approving this application as it has been pro- posed to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Interesting point you brought up Mr. Croh. And that is we are in hopes that they shrink the width of the house from 53 feet to thereby give us more distance from whatever that inlet is~asmay exist or may not exist or whatever the case may be . That's all I can see. MR. CRON The other problem I have _obviously the decks are out of proportion to anything that could be built on this property. They're almost twice as wide as the house is. Like I said, the proposal basically was one that required a variance from concep- tion. There's been no attempt to try to build something compati- ble. I'll rest with that. CHAIRI~AN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Sir. MR: SHORE: May I respond to that? The decks that they refer-to; there are decks to the Bay side, the south side of the house. The small deck to the north side, however, there's a rather long ramp that connects grade to what I refer ~to as entry level on the plan. That's a narrow runway if you will getting from grade up to entry level. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does that go to the top of the carport? that where that goes? Is MR. SHORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So it goes from grade level to one story house. MRo SHORE: One story up. And candidly, we have designed the house and I've done a few homes on the water, to take advantage of the view and that's why my clients purchased the property. And by put- ting the living room, dining room, kitchen area up on the upper level and the bedrooms (children's bedrooms in particular) below, they get the enhancement of that view. Now, so what we're looking at, and also referred to as a deck I believe is a ramp to take up from grade to entry point. By eliminating that nar- row ramp does not move the house a foot. There is no option of moving the house back to where the ramp starts because that puts the house on top of the. sanitary system which is a relatively fixed issue. Again, perfectly willing and anxious to see how the H~alth Department and a site engineer can help us relocate this house, I'd be happy to approach my clients in terms of reducing the width. I have no problem with redesign. But the Page 12 - ~4ay 21, 1987 ~ublic Hearing - Peter and Barbara Herz Southold Town Board of Appeals SHORE: Continued house in terms of width, wants to take advantage of the view and can't be run perpendicular against the property. Again, because of the location of that sanitary system and we will do whatever we can to accomodate the Board's wishes. CHAIR~AN GOEHRINGER: Once we see that arc effected, it's done by (I believe) a Mr. Brigham, we will then look at the proposal in tot0 . after the first redraft, we~may either call Mro Brigham or Mr. meynolds or whom ever is out in Riverhead that is doing this particular one and ask them if it can't be flipped with its sanitary system and well. So don't think-that's really in our realm. I ~ mean, that we don't want to do it because it takes their time and our time. We would rather have you do it. SHORE: Hopefully, I'll be happy to have that inf0rmat~0n for you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. We thank you. Hearing no further ques- tions, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Ail in favor - AYE. RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK o, TOWN OF SOUTttOLD IN THE ~.~ATTER OF ERNEST TARMIN THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 p.m.~Appeal-No.[ 36.24 ~iPublic ~earing commenced in the Matter of ERNEST TARMIN. Accessory structures with insuffi- cient setback from bluff/bank along the L.I. Sound. ROW off North side of Main Road, Orient. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: it appears that this structure is approxi- mately 11 by 11 and I know it's a six-sided structure. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map and a copy of the sur- vey dated March 14, 1984 indicating a lot of 5.775 acres. And I have a site plan survey indicating the main house and the position of the gazebo which is in the rear of the dwelling equally distanced between the house and the bluff line approximately 50 feet from the bluff. I also have pencilled in on this sketch plan is a series of stairs and a platform leading to the Sound. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding proper- ties in the area. Is there anybody who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? It's unfortunate that Mr. Tarmin is not here or some agent for Mr. Tarmin[ because we have specific dis- cussion or questions concerning the steps. Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? Hearing no further questions, any questions from Board members? FOr the record, having gone up there two weeks ago, the approximate placement of the gazebo and its proposed location does not serve (in my opinion) to be any hazard to the bluff and that's from my visual observation. Hearing no further questions, I'lll.make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE~ RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN DATE g/3 ~ HOUR 3: ~3p~ Town Clorl~, Town of Sou~ld [ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE MATTER OF PUDGE CORP. THURSDAY, ~4AY 21, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 7:42 p.m. Appeal No. 3625-SE - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of PUDGE CORP~ Special Exception to construct one-story "mini-storage" buildings in this "C-Light" Industrial Zoning Dis- trict. East Side of Horton's Lane, Southold. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey by John Grahmis and Associates indicating the rear of the property of Horton's Lane of 2 buildings that we had the nature of an application last year from Mr. Gray. It indicates 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; approximately 6 buildings. I have a revised plan here which is exactly the same. I believe there was a more recent one than this. We'll pull them all out. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Grey would you like to be heard? YoU',.have another plan for us right? One that I've seen that's a little different than this one which building number one is... MR. GRAY: What I did on that, I made additional landscaping. The Planning Board asked for' more landscaping and less parking spaces because there was a lack of need for parking spaces. So I do and I brought enough of them for every one of you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's great. Thank you very much. Basically, what you did on this plan; is you consolidated building number one and number two into two separate buildings (Is that correct?) on the south side. And you added some .... MR. GRAY: You mentioned the fire engines and all. I gave a 40/50 foot driveway for the fire engines. you a map where it shows all the driveway. On this one here, And I did give CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It should be in the file. MR. GRAY: These buildings will not be used for storage of any flammable, toxic... I think your planner brought that up. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: The only question I have of you is; how large a vehicle would you allow into this industrial park? Would a trac- tor trailer go into this park, storage park? MR. GRAY: If it did, there would probably be one or two a year. If some trailer were to come in and pick up some furnit~re, a moving van type, but it's not going to be a loading and unloading warehouse. It's open from 8 in the morning until 5 at night.with securityo It is for the individual. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can everybody hear him? page 2 - May 21, 1987 Pub%ic Hearing - Pudge Corp. Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. GRAY: These barns will not,be used for large commercial use. It will be mainly for individual people to store furniture, boats, outdoor furniture, kids stuff from college, machines from the ma- chine shops that they have and things like that. It will be a mini-storage which they use all over the country. There will be no chemicals, toxicants or anything like that. It's not a depot, a truck depot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could we say that the type of building is somewhat existant to the one that exists in Riverhead now down by Starks trailer park down there? MR. GRRY: Yes. That's right. It would be almost identical to that. The doors would be a little bit larger because it's going to be made so the boats can go in. Small isailboats. People have boats and they don't want to leave them out here. They can't put them in the back of their apartments in New York City and they'll be able to put them on the trailer and leave them there until Spring. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason I asked you that question about trailer trucks is that I don't physically see how a trailer truck could maneuver around the buildings and that~was the purpose. MR. GRAY: I~'~s not designed. If you've got to move furniture out of there, a trailer truck might come in and get it but they'll have to get itlfrom where ever it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They won't be able to actually pull it over to the individual building. MR. GRAY: It's not made for a trailer truck. It's either made for just cars or station wagons or small trucks to load or unload it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you have no objection to that type of re- striction if the Board so states it? MR. GRAY: Not at all. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: And what about to the contractors materials and so on and so forth where I'm sure contractors would might want to avail themselves to the rental of one of these units. What do you intend to do with that as rules and regulations? MRo GRAY: If a contractor wants to store a couple hundred bundles of shingles, aSbestos shingles or something like that, I see nothing wrong with it. It will be kind of silly because the cost would be so expensive for him. These things don't go cheap. He could leave i~in a lumber yard or even outdoors. This is for something where people want to put some furniture or they're moving from one place or another and they want to store it. Mainly if their kids are go- ing to college and they want to make room in the house. I am an associate of a partneri~ithat owns 8 of these and that's what they're used for mainly. Page 3 - May 21, 1987 Public Hearing - Pudge Corp. South01d Town Board of Appeals CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: So you're not specifically doing this for the local transient contractor? MR. GRAY: No. No. The Contractor, we will be building south for local contractors maybe with overhead doors and offices and bathrooms in them where they can come in and have a little of- fice and a bathroom and have the truck inside and a rack to hang up their stuff. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not ink.this area though? MR. GRAY: Not in that area. Nobody would be allowed in there after 5 o'clock at night. The chance of 2 or 3 cars being in the entire thing at one time is pretty rare. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. What about the lighting. MR. GRAY: The lighting will be ground lighting. There will be nothing above it. So it will be subdued lighting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And there will be a 6 foot chain~..tink fence all the way around with the pickets up? MR. GRAY: Yes. The 6 foot chain links will be the green vinyl. You can see through it and on top of it would be barbed wire. CHAIR~LIN GOEHRINGER: normal... " That's three strands of barbed wire or the MR. GRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Well, let's see what develops throughout the hearing. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Any- body like to speak against the application? MS. WICKHAM: Good evening~ M~.name is Gail Wickham. I have more questions than a statement of opposition to it. I represent Norma Gregory who is here tonight. She owns the residence adjoining this property to the north. She's lived there for many years and unfor- tunately she abutts an industrial parcel. And her main concern (of course) is with the impact on her residential piece. She has spoken to Mr. Gray. He answered many of her concerns and I think he just answered some more tonight but she did ask me to come down and re- lay her concerns to you so that perhaps you could impose certain conditions that would help minimize the impact. I see he has planned traffic through the center of the frontage and I take it that will remain that way with no access in and out along the side yards. MR. GRAY: There will be no sidewalks. That will be landscaping. ?age 4 - May 21,. 1987 Public Hearing - Pudge Corp. Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: No side drives? MR. GRAY: No side drive. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. We run into a problem picking this up. Maybe ii shouldask you to direct the question to the front and then let him answer the question if you would. MS. WICKHAM: The hours were discussed and that was one concern. I would ask the Board that they impose some limitation on truck traffic in the evening hours. And also having lived across from a truck terminal once myself, I think early morning hours are al- so quite offensive very early. Particularly with contractors, they do intend to get around quite early. So if you could re- strict, we ask for some restriction in terms of regular business hours. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: And you .said those hours were what Mr. Gray? MR. GRAY: 8 to 5. MS. WICKHAM: 8 to 5. Ok. I didn't hear the morning hour. MR. GRAY: Actually this will not be used by contractors. not practical for them. It's MS. WICKHAM: Screening or the lighting in terms of screening or ground lighting you mentioned. I would ask that something be im- posed there. I also assume that you will incorporate normal re- strictions on storage of combustible and other dangerous materials. He mentioned the fencing and we'd ask that there be some landscaping inside the fence if possible to try to make it as attractive as pos- sible. MR. GRAY: Absolutely. We enlarged the landscaping at the Planning Board's request and it's cheaper to landscape ~than asphalt so we're more than happy to do it. It will be done nice. MS. WICKHAM: Another concern is that there is a very large aquare footage of building area back there and the proposal is for basical- ly dead storage and we would be concerned that there be some limi- tation in future conversion to a more active type as like he has up in the front. I realize he would have to come back in for another application. But still, that would be concern given the permission to allow such a large square footage of building back there. There is no real limit in the code on lot coverage. It's more or less up to the Board~, the way I see it. CHAIR~.~AN GOEHRINGER: That raises an interesting question. Will there be any electricity available to the tenants other than the electric lighting within the building itself? In other words, could a person saw boards in the unit? Could they physically change the characteristic of a 2 by 4 b~ cutting it up into pieces or something of that nature? Page 5 - May 21, 1987 Public Hearing - Pudge Corp. SoUthold Town BOard of Appeals MR. GRAY: Let me hear that again. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: set of stairs? Could a contractor come in and build a MR. GRAY: There will be no power there except for lightbulbs in each unit. There will be no work permitted on the premises. If a guy wants to clean up his boat or a guy wants to do some- thing..with~a_piece~of~fu~n£tu~e,i~e~hasi~%o_lea~ebby~5,~O'~o~, their personal job. MS. WICKHAM: I would like to ask, and I assume this is the plan, that there would be no outdoor storage. Particularly when he men- tioned boats, that comes in mind. That this would be an interior storage. 'And if it's practical, it appears from the way the plan is, I'd just like to take a look at the new plan. That some of the garage doors face outward towards the boundary line and ! don't know if it could be rearranged. It might be less intrusive to the neighboring properties if they were to face inward. Keep the traf- fic flow inward. CHAIkMAN GOEHRINGER: There's a little problem with that Ms. Wickham in respect that the Planning Board has asked for additional screening in the center buildings which are somewhat contiguous to your applicants .... Let's take a look at this. In fact, why don't you take one of these and study it for a moment. Do you understand the question Mr. Gray? MR. GRAY: Yes. MS. WICKHAM: This is not what you had in your file. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We just received this. Planning Board had looked at it. This is after the MR. GRAY: The plans remain the same. We had these 10 foot over here. The buildings remain the same. This is 10 foot. It was 3 foot before and no~ it's a 10 foot buffer and this buffer stays the same. That's a 12 foot buffer. This is all landscaped. No traffic comes down here. There's no way traffic can go down here. On-the other side also. The only traffic can come right down through the center and they'll be a security gate there. MS. WICKHAM: The question I raised is whether the building could be switched around to allow the access in and out here rather than here and some more landscaping here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you referring to Building "E"? MS. WICKH~4: That's the one that concerns me the most. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In other words, you're saying just flip it? MS~ WICKH~ .M: Yes. Pag~e 6 - May 21, 1987 Public Hearing - Pudge Corp. Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any problem with that Mr. Gray? MR. GRAY: Well, there will be doors on both sides of that build- ing, on each side. In other words, there's a cut through that cars get in and come down as far as that divider area down the center. It's just like a dividing line. You can barely see it. There's doors on each side of this just like it is in that plan. MS. WICKHAM: So your garage doors will be on the north side. MR. GRAY: And the south side. MS. WiCKH~: There's sod there. How do you get in? MR. GRAY: That will all come out. These were eventually plans for factory buildings, these storage buildings. MS. WICKHAM: So this is not the final plan? MR. GRAY: It is not the final plan. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: what you're saying? So the sod is going to come out? Is that MR. GRAY: The sod will come out on these two buildings. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that will be .... The buildings will not be elongated? Will they remain the same size? GRAY: They are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So basically what we'll have is pavement there. Rather than change the physical characteristics of the building, why don't we ask the gentleman to screen that side by either some more fencing adjacent to your property owner (to your client) so that she's not looking into something of that nature. It reminds me of the application of Mellrose if you can remember. I'm sure you do. Down on Albertson Lane. MS. WICKHAM: Their house is further west than that. MR. GRAY: This is Mrs. Gregory's property here and this is al.- ready screened there by a 12 foot buffer building and that's got a fence all the way down too and screened there. Over here is farmland and over here is the village. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Is there anything between the existing build-~ ings and this building over here? Anything in between? MR. GRAY: No. Just a fence with parking on both sides. Page 7 - May 21, 1987 Public Hearing - Pudge Corp. So~thOld Town Board Of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:. So you have additional security is what you're saying. MR. GRAy: That will be a fenced in area. The entire park is secure. Nobody will be allowed in there after 5 o'clock. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Let's see what else developes. Thank you. Do you have other questions Mrs. Wickham? ' MS. WICKHAM: I have one more. It kind of goes along with what you mentioned about contractors or major movers coming in. Is there going to be a maximum storage area per customer that would more or less ensure this scheme of small mini-storage? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't want to answer the question for him but I think what you're asking is; can you knock partitions out of the building to make them bigger. MR. GRAY: Yes you can. These partitions come out. If a fellow hasi~ a 10 by 20 and he says he wants a 10 by 40, you can take out the partitions and have a 10 by 40. MS. WICKHAM: So he could (theoretically) rent the whole building for one storage. MR. GRAY: No you can't. You can only take every third partition down. It's constructed that way. MSo WICKHAM: And what is the size of each cubicle? MRo GRAY: The Cubicles are averaging 10 by 20. Some would be 12 by 30, 12 by 40. In the brochure it will show you a different size and how they can be moved around. For the dividing parti- tions, it has to be every third one has to stay in. There would be no need for it because there would be no power there. There would be no sewage or anything for them to do anything. MS. WICKHAM: Well, my request would be that if it's going to be mini-storage, that some how be defined in terms of size of each thing. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Do you have any suggestions on the legal-e? MS. WICKHAM: Perhaps in terms of a maximum square footage per unit of rental space or an unpartitioned unit ofl rental space. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: So the max you're referring to is; every third partition would be 30 by 20. Is that correct? The max could be 30 by 20. MR. GRAY: 30 by 50 because you knock out ~he partition going across the building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I see what you're sayingo Page 8 - May 21, 1987 Public Hearing - Pudge Corp. Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. GRAY: You can't confine it because the fellow comes in and he wants to store enough for 3 units. He doesn't want three separate units.' He wants one unit where he can store enough in there; whatever it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 30 by 50 is 1,500 square feet. MR. GRAY: That's a maximum. Even all the mini-storage I know of, I don't know of anyone who would rent that size. They build their own building when they get that size. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' Are you giving a maximum amount of units in this particular park anyway? Are you telling us how many maximum? MR. GRAY: Just by the size of the building. The size would con- trol the number of units. The buildings can't change within the system. Some would be 12 feet wide, 10 feet wide and there-would be a difference in depth. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you going to give us a complete plan before we actually entertain a decision here so that we can use that plan as the etched in stone plan, so to speak? MR. GRAY: Yes. I can get you one now. I'll bring it up to date where it specifies no toxicants, no chemicals. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: I meant the one removing the sod and having the parking lot and possibly the rules and regulations so on and so forth. MRo GRAY: I'll put all the rules and regulations on the front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, the next problem we have is shall we close the hearing in receipt of that or shall we leave the hear- ing open and close it at the next regularly scheduled meeting; bearing in mind that I'm sure MS. oWiCkham would like to see a copy of that° What do you want to do? Close it in receipt of it? MR. GRAY: I'd like to see that yes. Providing Ms. Wickham gets a copy of that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to close the hearing or leave it open until the next regularly scheduled meeting. MR. GRAY: I think we ought to close it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You ~hink~we ought to close it. MS, WICKHAM: And what would we do about comments? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's where the problem is. I thihk we better leave it open to be honest with you, until the next regularly scheduled meeting. And you'll give us all that infor- mation and we'll be all set to go then right after that. Page 9 - May 21, 1987 Public Hearing - Pudge Corp. Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: If he could send me a copy of that, I could con- vey any comments I might have before your meeting, if there are any. MR. GRAY: Suppose I do that. Suppose I drop her off a copy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGE~: A!right. Let's do this then. Let's do this. We'll leave the hearing open. When we receive the in~ formation from Mr. Gray, we'll ask him ho~ he intends to send you a copy of it. If he doesn't sent you a copy, w~'ll call your office and tell you we have a copy and we~.ll ask you for your comments prior to the next meeting. We won't specifically entertain any specific questions at the next hearing. We'll just simply close it as a matter of formality. Unless there's something of traumatic instance in the change of the plan that requires that. Is that alright? MS. WICKHAM: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that all right with you? MR. GRAY: with her. We'll drop it off to Ms. Wickham and I'll go over it If I have to do it over again, I'll do it over again. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Shaw, you had a question? No. A!right. We thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? MS. WICKHAM: I'm sorry. I have one more question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Go ahead. MS. WICKHAM: How many days a week will the installation be open? MR. GRAY: I'd say 6 days a week. MS. WICKHAM: Which day would it be closed? MR. GRAY: Sunday. MS. WICKHAM: Sunday, ok. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much Mr. Gray. Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting for this formality of closing the hearing pending the final copies of the site plan and the rules and regulations and then having those transmitted to the attorney in oDDgsition~ RECEIVED AND FILED BY T~ SOUTHOLD TOm .CLERK ± zn zavor - DATE ~/3~3l ~? HOUR ~: ~ ~ .~ TO¥~N OF SOUTHOLD IN THE MATTER OF THE NORTH FORK LEARNING CENTER THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 8:07 p.m. Appeal No. 3626-SE - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of NORTH FORK EARLY LEARNING CENTER. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, 100-30B(3) for (nursery) school (or day care center), as a nonprofit organization, referred to as "Veterans Community Center," north side of Pike Street, east side of Wickham Avenue, and south side of Hill Street, Mattituck~ "A" Zone. 8:07 p~'m. Appeal No. 3632 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of NORTH FORK EARLY LEA~ING CENTER. Variance'as to in- sufficient setback of existing building and lot area for nonprofit (nursery) school (or day-care center) within existing building re- ferred to as the "Veterans Community Center", Pike and Hill Streets, Mattituck. "A" Zone. The Chairman read the legal notices and applications for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will do these simultaneously. We have a copy of a survey indicating the three roads that this building is on of approximately 1.5 acres. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Yes sir. MR. MUELLER: Hi. My name is Doug Mueller. I'm the director of the program. Just simply, I think the application you just read states the case. I think that the building is very specifically and uniquely set for the purpose that we're using it for. In the Town of Southold, the Town Board has seen fit to agree with this and backed that up with an approval of funds that help us meet the state and town approvals. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you what precipitated this appli- cation? Why we're you turned down. MR. MUELLER: Basically, the community center has never had any form of C of O or even proper papers since it was built. I guess it was just left alone because it was a veterans group. And i was the first group to seek any form of licensing from outside the town. In order to have a full day program, you need to have approval from the State and the State requires a letter of approval from the Zoning Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can we expect any difference or changes in physical characteristics of the building by your getting it? MR. MUELLER: ing. The building has never had anything made to the build- CHAIR~-~N GOEHRINGER: What about to the yard area or anything? ~'Page 2 - May 21, 1987 Public Hearing - North Fork Learning Center Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. MUELLER: The yard area, currently in the last 5 years, had a small fence well within the property lines and that fence is going to be replaced with a chain link fence 4 foot high. The same di- mensions on the survey, I think, it shows a little<ll0 ~Z~ot!~amea~ around the garden where it changes. Otherwise, it's_.the same fence and there are no other changes to be made. All the changes in the building are basically safety orientated for the State. Alarms and plumbing and things like that, electricity. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you be coming back with another appli- cation asking for more occupancy? MR. MUELLER: We couldn't have more occupancy without major struc- tural changes to the building. It's not self allowable. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You use the entire first floor area of the building. Is that correct? MR. MUELLER: Yes. that's correct. CHAIRM~N GOEHRINGER: You would not be utilizing any of the second floor of the building? MR. MUELLER: No. The second floor of the building is unfit for any usage at this point. The entrance to it is an interior stair- case. The exterior staircase in the back is even inappropriate. It would take major renovations far in excess of what we're put- ting in the building now to change the upstairs. It would take exterior staircases front and back, windows. It would be a major renovation for the top floor to be used. We don't have access to it. It's not part of our rental. It's not in our current lease and we don't anticipate using it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Granting both a variance and special excep- tion for the use of this building, would it precipitate a lease or a more extended lease for you,].for you to operate this center? MR. MUELLER: Well., currently we have a lease that just took effect. It,s a three year lease. And at this point, that's the intent of the veterans group is to work it three years at a time. They seem very happy with us. We have been managing the building in its en- tirety without any help or interference. And they just would like to take it three years at a time so that they can see we're operat- ing in accordance with their own wishes and we're happy with that. We do have a relationship of trust and I expect to continue there as long as it's serving the community and it pleases the veterans group. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason I ask the question is; I was just wondering if the veterans group Was utilizing the building in any way at any time. MR. MUELLER: Well, within the lease, they have permission to use the kitchen on Veteran's Day. And I believe .... I think that"s it. And I also think, there's something about the senior citizens are asked to be alloWed to use the parking lot once a month when they take their monthly trip and leave their cars there. ~page 3- May 21, 1987 . Public Hearing - North Fork Learning Center Southold Town Board of !Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no indication that they are going to now rebuild the'upstairs of the building and use it for a hall or anYthing of that nature. MR. MUELLER: The veterans have not used the building in over 5 years. The 5 years that I know of, it hasn't been used in any way.and they have no intention right now of using it. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you very much. Anybody else like to speak in favor~of this application? Anybody like to speak against i~? 'Any~questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion (and wish you good luck) closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. RECEIVED AND LED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK T TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE MATTER OF JOHN KRAMER AND WAYNE DEPETRIS THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3630 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of JOHN KRAMER AND WAYNE DEPETRIS. Variance to replace existing ground sign, the lower edge at less than 4 feet above ground. Main Road, Sou~hold. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and~surrounding properties in the area and I have a copy of the original survey done on this property whiQh mately 50 by 150 and a sketch of the sign which appears to be--~ feet 6 inches by 36 inches~and approximately 12 inches off the ground. The location of the sign is approximately 8 feet from the inside of the sidewalk and the present building sits approximately 36 feet 5 inches from the existing property lineo Is there somebody here who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Either Mr. Kramer or Mr. DePetris? Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? The only information I'd like to have for the record is that I'd ask you to send a letter to Mr. DePetris and Mr. Kramer asking them to contact~the Chief of the Southold Fire De- partment asking him if he has any Objection to the lowering of the sign and asking them if they have any objection to the sign being lower based upon the visibility, fire trucks ~entering and exiting from the fire house. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE ~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE MATTER OF QUIET MAN INN THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1987, PUBLIC HEARING 9:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3543 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of QUIET MAN INN. (Recessed as requested from April 23). Addition with an insufficient frontyard setback from Hobart Avenue, Southold, B-1 Zone. Main Road and Hobart Ave- nue, Southold. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The next hearing is a recessed hearing. And therefore, I don't have to read the information and we'll go on to Mr. Moore. MR. MOORE: Good evening. Bill Moore. Offices of Cross Commons in Mattituck. I'm hear on behalf of the Quiet Man. Mr. and Mrs. Charles Gilbert are here with me. When I saw the schedule and i say my wife was on for 4 or 5 hearings, I hustled back to the of- fice and prepared my comments in writing. I've got a couple of things for you. I believe the architec~ provides a packet. I don't know if it's duPlicated for all of you. Maybe it has been but I think the most important information.~'ve got is the tax map, it's the existing site Plan, it's the proposed site plan of the inside and then one of the outside. The third item was writ- ten comments in the form of a memorandum. I'll summarize real fast because the clients were good enough to appear and I want to do justice to the public hearing, if you do have any questions. Very quickly, what we're here to talk about is the proposed exten- sion to the Quiet Man Inn which is (I'm sure everyone knows) located on the corner of Hobart and Main Road. The applicants purchased the property last summer. A family member is a chef. And it's the hope and the desire that they can expand the existing kitchen facility which is a fire trap and for which they can not get insurance. And to expand the existing seating, not by terms of capacity, but only in terms of space. If you had the pleasure of being there since they've done some interior work and fixed it up and tried to sit at the present tables, you'd find that you were sitting elbow to elbow with your neighbors. The proposal is merely to stretch out and spread out the existing tables. In fact, they'd be willing to condition any permit, variance or Planning Board approval with that in mind. I think that's an important thing to keep in mind when contemplating this. We're here for a frontyard setback be- cause of a corner lot on the corner of Main Road and Hobart. The unique thing about the property is that Hobart is a one way street. The corner lot section of the code is concerned with putting build- ings at intersections that will impede or create dangerous traffic situations. Hence, the need to keep those buildings back off the street corners. But in this case, you've got a one way street going down or in a southerly (more or less) direction on Hobart. I don't think the concern is quite as great in this case. Another observa- tion and it's made in the memorandum, is that business property of the existing businesses in town, are regulated before this Board for variances because most, if not all of the existing businesses in town, can not comply with the code as it's been adopted. Most of them pre-exist. I came in last summer representing Metro Rental. Page 2 - May 21, 1987 Public Hearing - Quiet Man Inn Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. MOORE: Continued To try and bring out that trend or that fact. I'm sure you sit night after night hearing these type of variances. We're here again, tonight for that purpose. As it currently stands, we can't use the kitchen. We can't get insurance. There is no fire safety systems in it. I have a letter from Henry Hahn, who is their insurance agent, attached to that and I think you had been given that earlier. Another item is that drinking holes are going by the by. The public is changing their habits. They do no go in in large numbers. Drinking and driving is a primary concern. And bar owners are being told and persuaded to provide food on the premises. That's their goal here. These are young people who moved to the Town of Southold. Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert live above the Quiet Man and they really want to make a go of it. They do not believe that the bar business in itself, just serving drinks, can make it. They'd like to expand that kitchen so they can pro- vide a pub-like setting for those of us who are out late at night to get a bite to eat and like something to drink. That's the goal of the piece of property. I'm working with Mrs. Scopez trying to come up with something that's agreeable for the parking. The ad- dition doesn't eliminate the floor we've got. We may reconfigure them. The Planning Board suggested parallel parking. The appli- cants are more than willing to do that. We've been working with Mr. Thompson over at the Emporium and with Wayside and we have all kinds of informal agreements. Wayside has even given us writ- ten agreement. It's a separate problem and I'd like to get that squared away with the Planning Board if I can. If necessary, if you should grant the variance requested here tonight, that it could be contingent upon a satisfactory resolution of this off- street parking. With its recognition .... This is a unique cir- cumstance here. We technically must meet before the Planning Board for site plan approval as we are doing an alteration. So we are willing, however, to convenant and we would not increase existing seating capacity. Somewhere in there I think the park- ing problem can get worked out. i just haven't quite figured out where it's going to get worked out yet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Where are the cesspools on this building? MR. MOORE: I aPologize. I think you asked me that question be- fore and I didn't get to the answer. MR. GILBERT: Do you have a large scale map? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, here's the largest survey I have. MR. GILBERT: I can generally point out. In general, now this is the proposed extension here. There is one here, one approxi- mately here and one approximately here. This is very general. CHAIR~.[AN GOEHRINGER: I assume. So you would be having to move them anyway, Page 3 - May 21, 1987 ~Public Hearing - Quiet Man Inn SouthOld Town Board of Appeals MR. GILBERT: In fact, when we took Over the property, we were told that there was a three year extension for the complete re- bUilding of them. I think we have, or less than one year left to do that. We have already approached the Health Department people in Hauppauge regarding that and so forth and so on and much larger capacity ones could be contained in this landscaped area. We have gotten people who do this type of work to come out and scope out the area and so forth. They said it can be done and so forth. In terms of Health Department regulations and so forth, it would require only normal type and leeching sort of thing. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Alright. Now, the purpose of the reces- sing of this hearing was for what purpose? MR. MOORE: it had been my hope that we would have resolved the parking in that time. CtIAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And 'you have not. MR. MOORE: And we have not been able to resolve it. I want to go ahead and ask then, if you're inclined to grant the variance, please make it contingent upon some satisfactory resolution of the parking. I didn't know if I could get the answer for you by tonight. If I have to make an application .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'd just rather continue the hearing until such time that you get some type of parking. MR. MOORE: If that's how you prefer, fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can't see any reason why I should close it and if you can find parking somplace, let's recess it without a date. Do you have any~ideal how long they need? ~. MOORE: I don't know. I have the benefit of the transcript of their last hearing. I've been meeting with Valerie and I'm hoping to get back together with her on some resolution. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: can I just ask you this question? Is there any specific reason why you haven't attempted to add on to the rear of this building as opposed to .... ? I'm talking about for kitchen facilities as opposed to attempting to... The other part of it for the elongation or the width of the building is a dif- ferent situation. But iS there any reason why you haven't chose to...? MR. MOORE: My understanding is that we are as far back to the property line. Although it is commercially zoned, there is a residential property behind us. We are as far back as we are permitted to go. On top of that too, if you observed the proposed floor plan of the cafe area as I might call it, it allows us to wrap that kitchen around some traffic space for waitresses lea~ing from the kitchen directly into the cafe line rather than into the pub area. Page 4 - May 21, 1987 ~Public Hearing - Quiet Man Inn Southo!d Town Board of Appeals CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Ok. Well that answered that question. LeG's recess without a date and come back to us when you're ready. Yes, Mr. Gilbert. MR. GILBERT: I know earlier this evening the Chairman made it quite clear that it's important to keep comments germaine to the issue at hand.~ And from my understanding (of course) Bill is handling the legal issues which I guess are the germaine issues and I think it's parking. Nancy and I felt that it was important just as one citizen to another, not as a legal expert or as a businessman, to emphasize the spirit of this project which I feel is germaine. A social gathering place is very important to a community. The Quite Man is one of the few establishments which remains open all year around that are here for all the people of this community. It's also a way of life. It's not so much a busi- ness persay, as thought we were running a retail store operation and so forth. It's a way of life. It's something that~ou have to love to do. It is our purpose and although this is not a formal hearing, may I be considered sworn in on this° It is our purpose to provide a better establishment, not a bigger one. One that can be run responsibly as it should under law and by community standards or Southold community standards in general. Since the time we have taken over the Quiet Man last July, I think we've demonstrated our interest in improving the property itself, interior at first, ex- terior we hope, and providing responsible management. The history of the operation sincd July 2nd, brings that out. I merely ask you to take that into consideration. It's our heartfelt wish that you would please consider that. I thank you. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We have to, I have to come down anyway and look at the interior, the later part of the building anyway within the next month. I'll either stop down on some Satur- day. What time do you open? MRo GILBERT: We're open at !! except on Sundays we'r~ open at 12. CHAIRM~N GOEHRINGER: Ok. I'll stop down some Saturday morning just after 11 and maybe alone or with a couple of the fellows. I really get out of the house on Saturday nights so I don't get tele- phone calls from people that come out on Saturday and Sunday and are looking for variances. So we thank you sir and we'll recess it until such time that you can come back with some information for us. MR. MOORE: Alright. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing this hearing without a date° in favor - AYE~--~-~: RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TO~N C ~LEBK DATE ~ PIOUR,~ ~> ?~ Town Clerk, ToWn ~'$outholcl TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE ['L~TTER OF ARNOLD AND KAREN BLAIR THURSDAY, ~Y~21, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING 9:22 p.m. Appeal No. 3439 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of ARNOLD AND KAREN BLAIR. Variances for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels in this pending division of land. Cedar Lane (and Pine Place), East Marion, Map of Section 2, Gardiners Bay Estates, Lots 156 through 160, 167 through 172 incl., 151, 153. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIP~N GOEHRINGER: I have a recent copy of a map proposed Novem- ber 4, 1983 and amended November 18, 1988 by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard? MS. MOORE: We seek ~a variance from the bulk and parking require- ment after additional recommendation by the Planning Board and the D.E.C. approval to be subdivided and construct a single family dwelling in%ended.to be 75 to 100 feet from tida]~ wetland. I counted as exhibit "A", rather than walk back and forth, I'll give it to you all at once. It's the D.E.C. permit that permits a con- struction for the subdivision and construction. We would like to point out to the Board that the proposed Master Plan has this proper- ty as a one acre or 40 thousand square foot parcel. Therefore, it is in conformity with the character of the neighborhood as evidenced by the proposed Master Plan and I do have a copy. As exhibit "B", I have the proposed Master Plan with highlights of yellow, the area where the lot is located~ I'd also like to point out that the sur- rounding properties are an average of 100 by 100 feet or 10 thousand square feet parcels as shown on the tax map which I photocopied the tax map. That's the larger tax map at the Assessor's Office. It doesn't show this parcel. I indicated where it would be but it does show the surrounding parcels and you will see that the entire area consists of quarter acre lots and half acre lots and that will be exhibit "C". If you notice from the survey, the properties (at one time) were subdivided into quarter acre parcels. That was from a 1927 subdivision map that was filed but somehow or another it's confused whether it's been grandfathered or not. Over time, the properties did merge into the one owner; Gardiner's Bay Co., Inc. and their property was then sold to Mr. and Mrs. Blair. The par- cels to the south were eroded over time and have been elongated by way of erosion. So that what remains are the two parcels or the ~a~rcel size set off that we have before you. CHAIRMAN GO~G~R: in these two? Are there any riparian rights there ~Page 2 - May 21, 1987 Public Hearing - Arnold and Karen Blair Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. MOORE: Of the water? i don't really know to be quite honest. I don't know if anybody has been claiming rights. As was stated in the application, the upzoning was intended to slow down the growth and the development but not to merge the property of care- less owners. And that's what, in this case, occurred. This ap- plication will not create a significant effect on the increase population density. You're only creating one additional lot. And we have the Health Department and D.E.C. approval for the proposed set off. We have all the requirements at this point and we need the relief from this Board. At this time, we request that you grant us this approval to set off the two parcels or the parcel. CHAIR~LAN GOEHRINGER: While I have you up here, have you done a sketch for us and what parcels are presently merged and houses are on and maybe you can answer these questions for me or you can take them down and give us the answer later. Is there a house on 7 and 8? MS. MOORE: If I could just use the table, it might help. are the exhibits, "A", "B" and "C". These CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm referring to exhibit "C". MS. MOORE: Ok. This is the subdivision. It doesn't show where this property is. It does show the adjoining property. I think, on the survey, it might be better indicated. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What I was referring to .... MS. MOORE: If I can't answer it, I'll try to answer it for you in the meantime. CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: I'll show you a copy of ours. I want to know if there is a house on 7 and 8 or if there is a house just on 7, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12.1, so on and so forth. MS. MOORE: You want to know if houses are on all of those? CHAIR~LAN GOEHRINGER: I want to know if these lots are merged and if there are houses or if the lots are merged themselves. And where are there houses. Are these vacant parcels? I assume you can get that from the Assessor's Office. MS. MOORE: Yes. I would have to do that. Linda, can ! come by and just make a copy of what you need? BOARD CLERK k KOWALSKI' Su~ Tom.orrow CHAIRMAN GOEH~INGER: S~condl~ is z~ our'unaers~an~ing ~na~ ~ar- diner's' Bay Estates-is not on the ex~cepted list? Is that the rea- son that precipitated this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not on the excepted list. MS. MOORE: That's all? ~Page 3 - May 21, 1987 ~ Pub. lic Hearing - Arnold and Karen Blair ~. Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Well, no. I know that these here in the back are not constructed on. This is primarily vacant. It ap- pears to be because I was up there. MS. MOORE: Are you asking about the whole subdivision that is Gar- diner's Bay Estates? CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: Just down in that area there because you had mentioned in your presentation that they were quarter lots and they are really somewhat larger than quarter acre lots because some of them are merged. MSo MOORE: Right. I was primarily talking about, in general, the lots throughout the whole subdivision. Not necessarily .... Some of these are 155 by 128. So they vary in size but they're of the 10 thousand square feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any specific reason why the proposed footprints are so far back to the rear of the property? Is it for the purpose of the topographical height above sea level? MS. MOORE. I believe it was for the purpose of the D.E.C. that we suggested a proposed house location which was what they wanted to see. That's typically done by the surveyor and I_dOn't ~rea~l~. know if that was....~. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you ask him that question for us? MS. MOORE: Yes. Building lot footprint. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And does that conform to the present zoning requirement? In other words, these are one acre lots. What do we have for a setback (VictOr) on one acre lots? Fifty feet? MR. k[SSARD : More than one acre would be 50 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What about frontyard? MR. LESSARD : Same thing. MS. MOORE: The properties, I believe these are all on the water. They would require having to come back for a construction permit from the trustees and the Zoning Board and the D.E.C. I don't think we could put a house any further than 75 feet from any water body. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only other thing was 280-A status to the property. It appears to be m6cadam Road. I don't know if it's con- tiguous to that macadam Road. I couldn't make that determination by looking at it. And for the record, I've never seen more hella-, tius poison ivy on a piece of land. MS. MOORE: I've never seen such crazy surveys. ,Page 4 - May 21, 1987 ~ Public Hearing - Arnold and Karen Blair Southold TOwn Board o~APpeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. That's it right at the moment. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of the appli- cation? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members. We'll make a motion closing the hearing pend- ing the receipt of that information that you are gOing to give us. Thank you for coming in and giving us that information. Ail in favor - AYE. RECEIVED AND FILED BY sou o owN DATE /~/~/$7 ' HOUR, ~: