HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/19/1990 HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------X
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
HEARING - - In the-.matter, of:
Murray Jacobs,
Mark and Ellie Gordon
Samuel and Rachel Salzman
A. Lios
Eileen Villani
Thomas Collins
John C . Perrone
Eva Halla
Robert and Theresa Turner
Elsie Parkin,
Applicants
-------- ----------------------------------X
53095' Main Road
Southold; New York 11971
April 19 , 1990
BEFORE: GERARD P. . GOEHRINGER, Chairman
BOARD MEMBERS: CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
ALSO PRESENT: DOREEN : 'FFRWERDA
_g-
2 .
THE CHAIRMAN: This -is the regular monthly
meeting of the Southold Town Zoning Board
of Appeals-.
The first appeal on the agenda is._ 3926
on behalf of Murray Jacobs. Legal notice
reads as follows:
Upon Applicant Number 3926 . Variance
to Zoning Ordinance, Article III , Section
100-33 , disapproved for permission to con-
struct an accessory shed in side yard, acces-
sory buildings may be located in the required
rear yard. Property location: 1180 Sage
Boulevard, Greenport ; County Tax Map Number
1000-53-5-9 .
W
E
o I have a copy of the survey dated
March 20 , 1975 indicating a one-story frame
O
dwelling approximately centrally located on
W
Z
aproperty line,- pending --- excuse me, looking
0.
at it from the water side, left side which is
a
approximately north,, northwest , I see,.the proposed
IL
storage shed of 10xl4_.and I will ask the
approximate distances of the applicant . I
have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating that and the surrounding property
-
J
3 .
area. Would you like to be heard, Mr. Jacobs?
MR. JACOBS: Murray Jacobs, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Could I ask that you use
the microphone? We're takingtnis down. Thank you.
MR. JACOBS: It is impossible for me to
use the backyard on this property because it is
on the water. The only available spot on my
property, is where I indicated that shed because
the rest of it is .on a hill and I don ' t want to
excavate for it . There' s no foundation for it ,
no electricity and no plumbing. It ' s simply on
a few blocks. It is a handsome little house
and it was , a hardship to be without it because I
W store a lot of things when I come off my boat
° that won't fit into my small house. I am asking
N
simply because I don' t think it will change
w the environment at all since there are no trees
Z
Z
0
a being knocked down. I 'm asking for a change in
m
o
0
the rules .
a
THE CHAIRMAN: Could I ask the approxi-
mate distance to its. closest property line
which.-would be basically, the end of your
property?
MR. JACOBS: Well, it ' s three feet .
4 .
THE CHAIRMAN: What ' s ,the approximate
distance from the water or -the high water mark?
MR. JACOBS: The high water mark is
probably 25 feet , maybe 30 .
THE. CHAIRMAN: What about on the road?
MR. JACOBS: I would say that ' s about
75 feet , but it is on a hill.
THE CHAIRMAN: When I was down there,
the shed, . it is existing? It is there presently?
MR. JACOBS: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: There are no utilities on
the .shed at all? The reason why I did see it
was because there are not any leaves on the
trees. It is. more difficult when there are
leaves.
MR. JACOBS: Was that your red Mercedes?
THE -CHAIRMAN: No, I wish I had, a red
Mercedes. Somebody else stopped there I guess.
MR. JACOBS: It is -a handsome little house.
THE CHAIRMAN: I didn't say it wasn ' t .
I have no further questions,: Thank you for
coming in and giving- us those distances . I
would ask you however, to recheck them for us,
5 .
if you would not mind.
MR. JACOBS: I ' ll- do it tomorrow and
I ' ll send you a note. I ' ll be glad to.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anything else? Would
.anyone like to speak on behalf of this appli-
cation? ( Pause ) Would anyone like to -_speak
against .this applicati<o.n? (.Pause) • Are there
`any .questions from the Board Members?
COLLECTIVE RESPONSE: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: No further comments.
- I.:make a motion to close- the hearing.
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye
MR. DOYEN: Aye'
MR. SAWICKI: Aye
MR. DINIZIO: Aye
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is Mark
and Ellie Gordon, Appeal number 3927 . The legal
notice reads as follows :
Upon application -number 3927 - Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III , Section
100-33 , as disapproved for permission to con-
struct an accessory building to tennis court
6 .
located in front -yard; accessories permitted
in the rear yard only. Property location:
Private Road #7, Fords Road, Southold, County
Tax Map Number 1000-87-1-18.4 .
I have a copy of the survey dated May
7 , 1987 by. Roderick Van Tuyl (phonetically
spelled) P.C . and it indicates the prior appeal
to this Board for the proposed tennis court-
which is. Appeal Number 3887 and the nature of
the application, that the- proposed accessory
building back up to what appears to be the
sotheast side, tennis court and I have a copy
of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating that
W and the surrounding property in the area.
o Peter, would you like to..be heard?
PETER STOUTENBURGH: I 'm representing the
O
Z Gordons, Mr. Chairman and Members, I 'm here
w
Z
Z
a to answer any questions. The Gordons, in the
U previous Appeal, have been granted permission
W with 'a five-foot additional set-back from the
IL
west, "property line, which seems to work out quite
well. The neighbors seem pleased with that
and also, reduce the tennis court :from 60 feet
to 55 feet.The structure they're looking to add to
1
7 .
south end court is in furthest from the road
closest to. their house and will be used as a
bath and shower service, sport facility and
for storage. Previously the Gordons converted
their garage, a couple of years ago, and found
a lot of equipment and stuff they.'re- looking to
store. The utilities they plan are just water
and electricity. It will be put on a slab
similar construction to a garage.
THE CHAIRMAN: The only restrictions we
place on anything of this nature is that the
doors to the . showers open on the outside, Okay?
-In other words, well let me just ask you this
question. The building is one-story?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: It is within the
accessory story.
THE' CHAIRMAN: So if we want to grant
the application, if we put restrictions of 12 feet
which we construe to be one story, does that
fall within . . .
MR. STOUTENBURGH: I 'm not designing it .
It ' s the architect . I 'm assuming because of the
width of it , .it would make tYe building look
very. . . . . . I' assume your problem with that ,at least
8 .
from the design I have seen. . .did you get a sketch.
THE CHAIRMAN: We may have it here. I
think we have. I 'm. showing 10 .feet on the wall.
I have it here. I just don't know what the
height of the -roof is.
MR: STOUTENBURGH: We're shooting for 18
feet or whatever the limitations are on that .
THE CHAIRMAN: Will you call us and tell
us if it ' s 18 or whatever it is? I don' t think
there ' s any way of scaling it .
MR. STOUTENBURGH: That ' s the problem.
It is a sketch.
THE CHAIRMAN: There ' s no scale on it .
W It only shows the 10 feet to this particular point
f
which appears to be above the door.
N
MR. STOUTENBURGH: I can get that informa-
O
Z t ion for you. .
w
Z
Z
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is it going to be
m
U open rafters?
0
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes,, from what I 've
IL
gotten from the architect and from the Gordons
themselves . There ' s going to be two garages
with open and closed screens and breezeway be-
tween it and two sort of attic storage above it .
No indication of interior finishing with the
J
9 .
exception of the bath area and large doors , ' both
of the garages on both ends .
THE CHAIRMAN: It is going on 24x60?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: 24x55 . I can get the
information- on the height.
THE CHAIRMAN: What I was saying before,
your restriction is that the shower doors open
on the outside to preclude, not necessarily in
this case, this is a generalization preventing
any type of habitable structure ending up with
the subsequent owners .
MR. STOUTENBURGH: I can understand that .
I mentioned the bath opening out , no access from
inside. Is that the same thing as the showers?
W
E
o THE CHAIRMAN: Yes .
MR. STOUTENBURGH: So long as the bath-
room opens . . .
w
Z -
THE CHAIRMAN: To the exterior of the
building.
o "
W MR. STOUTENBURGH: I believe it does..
4
That ' s one thing I knew about .
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you very much.
You' ll send us, you' ll give us a yell.
MR. STOUTENBURGH I ' ll get it sent from
the architect on his letterhead.
i
10 .
THE CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to speak
in favor- of this application? Against? ( no one )
THE CHAIRMAN: From the Board Members?
(no response )
THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no further
questions, I make a motion to close the hearing.
We will receive the height question from
Mr. Stoutenburg.
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye
MR. SAWICKI : Aye
MR. DINIZIO: Aye
THE CHAIRMAN: The next is an appeal
on behalf of Samuel and Rachel Salzman, Appeal
W
Number 3928. Legal Notice reads as follows:
U.
Upn application, applicant Number 3928,
CQ
variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article III A,
O
Z Section 100-30 A. 3 , as disapproved for permis-
ZZ
Z
sion to construct addition to an existing dwell-
0 ing, proposed construction will have insufficient
0
W front yard .setback. Property location: 65 Old
a
Salt Road and 400 Rochelle Place, Mattituck,
County Tax Map Number 1000 , 144-5-22 .
I have a copy of a sketch which is dated
1-14-9'0 .'in'dicating renovation for this particular
T1.
dwelling and the nature of this particular
application. is a 6-foot addition to the front
of an existing garage and I have a copy of the
Suffolk County -Tax Map 'indicating this. and
property in the surrounding area..
Would somebody like to be heard?
(No response )
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody who .
would like to speak in favor of this applica-
tion? (No response) I, really should pause
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody who
would like to speak against this application?
(No .response)
THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, I ' ll
make a motion to' close the hearing and reserve
the decision until later. .
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye
MR. -DOYEN: ' Aye
MR�. SAWIC&I : Aye
MR DINIZIO: Aye
THE CHAIRMAN: This is the fastest
hearing we ever had.
12 .
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is on
behalf of A. Lios . It- is Number 3920 and the
Legal Notice reads as follows:
Upon application, applicant Number
3920 , Article XXIV, Section 100-244 , as - dis-
approved for permission to construct a deck
addition to existing pool; proposed construc-
tin exceeds permitted lot- coverage and will
have insufficient side yard setbacks. Property
location: 310 Linda Road, Mattituck; County
Tax Map Number 1000 , Section '106-1-14 .
I have a survey from Anthony Lewandowski -
2-13-90 ,' indicating a one-and-a-half story frame
house, screened in porch and swimming pool en-
closed by a fence with pretty much of a-ground
LL
level deck around swimming pool, and I have
o
Z a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating thi
W
Z
and surrounding property in the .area, and I believe
a
m
you'd like to be heard, Mr.. Bohn?
0
Z MR. BOHN: Robert Bohn. I don ' t know
W
a
what the next thing is but.. the deck, the' ques-
tion here is it ' s 70 or 80% below ground level.
That wasthe idea of constructing it, so is the pool.
The pool area was excavated out about three and
. 9`l-
13 .
half feet below grade at one -end and at grade
at the other end. There was an approved permit
for the pool in the side yard.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, Notice of Disapproval
reads , construction exceeds permitted lot coverage.
This we discussed one Saturday morning when you
came in to see us . Construction exceeded the
permitted lot coverage and will have insufficient
side yard setback. Action required by the Zoning
Board of Appeals, coverage applied for would be
600 over allowable 200. Did you do any calcula-
tions on this .
MR. ' BOHN: It was done by the Building
m Department . I don 't think that ' s correct . It ' s
W
f
o not that much.
THE CHAIRMAN: I thought we calculated
z roughly, but we didn ' t have it surveyed at that
w
Z
Z
r time.
a
m
U MR. BOHN: I ordered a new survey.
o _
W THE CHAIRMAN: This one we have here, right?
IL
Could I ask you to do this., Mr. Bohn. Could you
stop in the Building Department please, sometime
within the next two weeks . The disapproval was ,
written by Thomas Fisher but the additional wordage
of coverage applied would be the 65,0 over allowable
1 I
ate-
. 14 .
use. This is by Victor Lessard because he wrote,
"Victor" on the bottom.: Could you please see how
they calculated that 65% so we know exactly what
percentage is over as mentioned that day you
came in: That was a long time ago. I think it
was October, somewhere in that range, 19'89 . We
do have a problem with this lot coverage issue in
reference to a percentage basis . It seems 65% is
a- little in excess of what they're referring to.
We' ll estimate it ourselves and if you want to get
back to us within the next two weeks, we 'll address
the issue then.
MR. BOHN: Do you have the correct measure-
ments on that survey?
THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't you give them to
us right now. I 'm sure it ' s to scale so we ' ll
measure them.
MR. BOHN: Do you want a. copy of this?
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, great . Is that the
original?
MR. LESSARD: That ' s not my writing. You
can' t read mine..
THE CHAIRMAN: Who did that?
MR. BOHN: This was the Building Department .
15 .
Department .
THE CHAIRMAN: . Well give, us all -of this
and we' ll study it and get back to you and if,
for some reason we can't decipher this, how
it sounds,, just let- me .have your telephone
number, Mr- Bohn.
MR. BOHN:- 765-1119 .
THE CHAIRMAN: Just let me ask you,
do- you want to. recess this in case we
notice additional information? -
MR. DINIZIO: I have an additional
question. I 'd like to know when the building
,permit was issued for this pool?
W
MR. BOHN: I didn 't apply. The original
permit for a swimming pool was from Norm Reilly,
the building permit-for the pool. I don't,
p
Z know about the date.
w -
Z
Z
MR. DINIZIO: Well was this five years
m
0
ago
a
U
W MR. BOHN.: No, it was last year. It ' s
IL
probably just about run out by now. It was
around this time last year when the pool went
in.
MR. ' DINIZIO You say there was a variance
- as
16 .
to put the pool in the side yard?
MR. BOHN: I had nothing to. do with`the
pool. All I did was put the deck on. Okay, the
pool was shown on the original ,permit applica-
tion, joined to the house. Then we just put a
deck around the pool. That ' s where I came into
it and we found out the permit didn't include
the deck. It only included the swimming pool.
That ' s how we got to this point .
THE CHAIRMAN: But the deck is not at-
tached to the house at this particular point?
MR. BOHN: No. It is three feet away.
MR. DINIZIO: What ' s the distance -from
the deck to the fence on the side yard?
MR. BOHN: It ' s about six feet to the
side and it ' s right up to the fence on the front
point and about twenty-five feet from the rear.
MR. DINIZIO: That ' s the deck, not the
pool.
MR. BOHN: That ' s the deck to the fence.
MR. DINIZIO: Okay, thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any additional
questions? (No further questions ) .
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want . to send the
I
17 .
Building Department a memo requesting additional
information about the pool?
MR. DINIZIO: There are definitely some
questions as to . the lot coverage issue and after
we calculate it , I would definitely want to see
how they base this lot coverage.
THE CHAIRMAN: ' We' ll recess here till
the regularly scheduled meeting and. we ' ll hopeful-
ly have the additional information at that
particular time.,
MR. BOHN: This whole thing came about
because of the excavation. In other words, it ' s
way below grade. It was supposed to be allowable
W at that time. That ' s where the hang-up came with
f
0
0
the Building Department .
0
0
THE CHAIRMAN: I think in fairness to you,
i
z I could be wrong, but we're trying to figure out
Z
0
howthey got the swimming pool on the side yard as
° permitted use because it ' s not.. You're._contracted t
Z
put a deck around but the accessory-structure is not
permitted . in the side yard, That ' s where the issue i' _.
A gain, the deck is secondary. It is the nature
of the hearing, the lot coverage issue, but it is
secondary to your particular issue,
18.
MR. BOHN: They still have to deal with
the pool?
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to answer
that question?
MR. DINIZIO:. I just have a question
how it got into this location?
THE CHAIRMAN: That would be the Building
Department .
MR. DINIZIO: I have a question on it .
I want to know, I intend to ask the question..
THE CHAIRMAN: We had a similar problem
over in Southold last Spring. That ' s the reason
we 're questioning it , because there was a similar
situation. Inthis particular case it was a deck
and also a pool also got detached from the house,
that was one of- our concerns, how it got in the
side yard anyway.
MR. BOHN: That I could not tell you. I
came after but it shows the pool or deck attached
to the house. That ' s in the original applica-
tion for the permit. That' was the only 're.ason
it was granted, as lon.g .as, it was attached by
' six feet to ._the house.
-o?s
19 .
MR. DINIZIO: You would have other problems
with- that also.
MR. BOHN: When , I came in, at that point
it was after the pool was finished.
MR. DINIZIO: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would you go back to the
Building Department , send them a memo and we ' ll
reschedulethis for a regularly scheduled meeting.
We ' ll re-advertise :it in reference to time. We ' ll
send you, a ,notice. You were notified- this time?
MR. BOHN: Sure.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody
else that would like to speak on behalf of the
W appplication, either pro or con? (Collective
f
° response: No. )
N
0
THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no questions , I
W make a motion to recess this hearing until the
Z
r
next scheduled meeting.
m -
0
0
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
a
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye. .
. MR. DOYEN: Aye
MR. SAWICKI: Aye
MR. DINIZIO: Aye
20 .
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in
behalf of Eileen Villani, -.Appeal Number 3921.
Legal Notice reads : Upon application of the
applicant , Eileen Villani, variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII , Section 100-239B,
for per to construct deck addition to
existing one-family dwelling, proposed construc-
tion will be within 75 feet of water or; wetlands .
Property location: Private Road 925 Wood Lane,
Peconic, County Tax Map Number 1000, 086-06-10 .
The survey I have before me is dated
November 6 , 1989 and in behalf of Surveyor,
Howard W. Young, it indicates a one-story frame
house and garage and to add a deck of varying
distances along the rear of the house adjacent
to the waterfront . I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and the surrounding
property in-the _area, Is there somebody that ,would
like to be heard?
( Robert Kozakiewicz - phonetic spelling)
MR.. KO-ZAKIEWIC'Z : I 'm here on behalf of
Eileen Villani. I believe the notice may be
misleading, ''to construct . " Permission to con-
struct a deck, existing one-family -dwelling and
pursuant to .April, 1985 or shortly thereafter,
21.
her husband and son constructed a deck. Recently ' ,
she discovered the problem and got Notice -of
Disapproval -fr-om Mr. Lessard and went to the
Board of Trustees . I think the letter is all.
part of the record before the Board. We recently
also sent you a notice from the D.E.C . indicating
a letter of No Jurisdiction from them based upon
the fact the bulkhead in question has been there
since or prior- to September 20 ,1977". The house,
when purchased in 1985 was -in the present con-
figuration as it existed, - and would be within
the 75 feet of the bulkhead as it was. I spoke
to Mrs Villan'i and she -could not be here and
m
she indicated to me that she wished to make known
W
o to the Board that at that time, she' didn 't realize
LL
the consequences inasfar' as the Town Board with
0
Z the 75 foot setback, and .the survey does show,
w
Z
0 with respect to setback, we have 39 . 8 feet
a
wood bulkhead and 45 . 8 . . . so we 're looking
0
a
Z for a variance on approximately 50o in this case. '
W ,
THE CHAIRMAN Does she" plan- to have' a
roof on the deck at all?
MR. KO'ZAKIEWICZ : No.
THE CHAIRMAN: So the deck will remain open?
-a(O
22 .
MR. KOZAKIEWICZ : Yes .
THE CHAIRMAN: Will there be any changes
or modifications to the deck?
MR. KGZAKIEWICZ: She tells me, no. She
indicated there would be none.
THE CHAIRMAN Will there be any additional
lighting placed around the deck?
MR. KO•Z.AKIEWICZ : No, I didn 't ask her
that particular question. I don ' t believe so.
THE CHAIRMAN:. Well thank you for coming
in. I have no further questions. Are there any
questions by any Board Members?
(Collective response: No. )
THE CHAIRMAN: Would anybody in the public
like to speak either pro or con concerning the
last application.
(No_.response)
THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, I ' ll make
the motion to close the hearing .and reserve
decision till later,.
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye
MR. DOYEN: Aye
MR. SAWICKI : Aye
MR. DINIZIO: Aye
23 .
THE CHAIRMAN: The next- appeal on the
agenda is Applicant Appeal Number .3919 , Legal .
Notice reads:
Upon application of applicant Thomas
Collins, variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article XXIII , Section 100-239 4 .B, for per-
-mission to construct a deck addition to a one-
family dwelling, proposed construction will be
less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Property
location: ` 305 Dawn Drive., East Marion,' County
Tax Map Number 1000 , Section 35-5-20 .
I have a survey from Howard. W. Young,
the most -recent date, May 31st . . . I 'm sorry,
W September 6 , 1989 , indicating a one-story frame
° house and garage somewhat centrally located.
N `
O
The nature of the. application is three-phase
W deck which extends to the southeast property.
Z
Z
0
m 'line pretty much east, comprising different
variations of 16.3x12 feet , 8-. Qx5 ' ; 1.Q .'8x7 ' and
attached and graduated as it. goes down to the
water. I have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax map indicating this and surrounding prop-
erty area. Would anyone like to be heard?
Sir?
24.
MR. BOWMAN: . My name is Charles Bowman,
President .of Land Use Company and I 'm representing
Mr. Collins. The situation here again, is the
deck is partially constructed. It is not yet
completed. There' s still some decking missing.
Mr. Collins was -unaware of the need for a 75 '
setback requirement . There is property inthe
area that has structures closer than the 751 .
I 'm sure upon your inspection, you' ll see most
property developed right to the bulkheads
with the lawn to the bulkhead. wiTere the existing
deck would be 49 ' rather than 75 ' from the bulk-
head. But certainly it is our. opinion that it
W
would conform to the neighborhood. Also, it
o would not have any detrimental effect on Dawn
Lagoon. We're here after being advised by Mr.
0
z Lessard we should be here. So we hope you' ll
w
Z
r consider this .
THE CHAIRMAN: We'd like to ask two
a
questions, somewhat similar to the last hearing.
Will, at any time, there be either
gazebos or any roofing placed on any one of
these three tiers?
MR. BOWMAN: No sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will there be any lighting
25 .
that would be other than shie2ded 'to the property?
MR. BOWMAN: No, sir, 'not. that I 'm aware of.
THE CHAIRMAN: '.Will . there _be any further
extensions on the deck?
MR. BOWMAN: No sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak
in favor of the application? (No response)
THE CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to
speak against the application? (No response)
THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, I make
a motion to close the hearing and reserve
decision till later.
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye '
W
0 MR. DOYEN: Aye
LL
0.
MR. SAWICKI : Aye
O
z MR. DINIZIO: Aye
W
Z -
z
THE CHAIRMAN: The next. appeal is
m
U Appeal Number 3930, John C . Perrone. Legal
0
a
W Notice reads as follows:
Applicant Appeal Number . 3930, Special
Exception to the Zoning Ordinance; Article X,
Section 100-101B, for permission' _to -occupy and
use as a billiard parlor for commercial .
26 .
recreation. Property location: Main Road.,
State Road 25 , Mattituck, County Tax Map
Number 1000 , Section 122-6-31.
The special exception reads : Occupancy
for use of billiard parlor for commercial rec-
reation, fully enclosed, using normal acces-
sories incidental hereto associated withthis
activity. . Varying the occupancy for this use
consists of four units , total area 36x80 .4
within Building Number l closest to Main Road.
I have- a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding property in
the area. Would you like to be heard, Mr. Cuddy?
MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy for applicant ,
John Perrone who is at my' side. I would first
ask that you accept into the record the disclos-
ure affidavit . Mr. Perrone' s wife, Polly
Perrone is now employed by the Planning Depart-
ment . I ' ll hand that up to you:
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much
Mr. Cuddy..
MR. CUDDY: Mr. Perrone is a Mattituck
resident who would like to open a billiard
parlor on his property which is commonly known as
�33'
27 .
Mattituck Commons. It is on the north side
of Main Road opposite a gas station in the
business area. The property is surrounded
by businesses . The site was approved about
a year and a half ago by the Planning Board,
consisting of three buildings. This building
that ' s nearest to the road, is approximately
.2900 square- feet and he proposes to install
12 billiard tables and to operate it under his
direction. ' In other words, he will be there. He ' s
going to lease the property. He ' s going to
-control it . He ' s going to supervise it . He
intends that no- one under sixteen will be
permitted on the premises. He intends to
W
f
0 operate it on a basis from Tuesday through- ,
Sunday and he would operate it from hours of.
n
0
Z approximately, I would say twelve to
w
Z
Z
twelve during the weekdays. He would operate
m
3 it weekends from one p.m. to two a.m. ; Friday,
a
WW Satur_day and Sunday...
This-is an area that .has abundant
parking for this;.type-.of operation because all
the other .places. are closed during the , heavy
'7'-
28.
hours that his billiard parlor would be
operating. He' s going to invest approxi-
mately forty thousand dollars in getting the
tables and set-up and he' ll have a snack bar
but no alcohol, so that ' s no problem. - He' s
set conditions that there be no alcohol at
these premises . He ' s local and he' s going
to be in there full time. I would submit to
the Board that this probably is as decent an
operation as you could get . I believe that
it conforms to all the requirements that are
set forth in 263 and 264 of the Code.
I don' t envision that there would,-..be
any adverse effect on the surrounding area
or upon the businesses or property. I 'd
ask the Board' to approve this application.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can I have the Sunday
hours?
MR. CUDDY: One p.m. to two a.m. ,
I 'm sorry, one to twelve and the Friday and
Saturday hours . are one p.m. to two a.m.
THE CHAIRMAN: For the record, there
is no school in close- proximity -except
for the Laurel -Elementary-School?
-35
29 .
MR. CUDDY: That ' s right .
THE CHAIRMAN: So that ' s no particular
problem. There ' s no sale of alcohol so that
should not be a particular problem. We have
placed restrictions on other food establish-
ments that are closest to the scho.ol in the
past . But I don ' t foresee any problem in that
respect . Thank you very much for coming in.
MR. CUDDY: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to
speak in favor of the application?
(Collective response: No. )
THE CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to
speak against the application?
W
4 (Collective response: 'No. )
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions
o
z from any Board Members?
W
Z
Z
(Collective response: . No. )
m
THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no questions,
o
a
W I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
a
reserve decision until later.
_MR. DINIZI.O: Second. '
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you all for coming
in. All in favor?
30 .
MR. . GRIGONIS Aye ,
MR. DOYEN: Aye
MR. SAWICKI : Aye
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal number,
is 3914 and the Legal Notice reads. . . .could
I just ask somebody to close that back door?
. . .Thank you. Appeal applicant , Eva Halla,
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III A. Section 100-30 A. 3 , Article XXIV, Sec-
tion 100-244 , Bulk and Parking Area, Article
XXIII, Section 100-239 .4 , building setbacks
from water or wetlands, for permission to
construct a one-family dwelling.. Property
location: 55 Glen Court, Cutchogue, County
Tax -Map No. 1000 , Section 083-01-01.
The survey I have before me, produced
by . Roderick Van Tuyl (phonetic spelling) , the
most recent -date, September . . . January 4 ,1990 .
We have a very i.ntefes.ting application .
here in that the applicant is requesting a- ., ,.
zero lot line based upon the top of the bluff
to Glen Court , which is simply- at this particular
point 4 paper,_. street and the application
31.
is a request that the deck be approximately-
65 feet from the top of the bluff or what -
we refer to as the lip of the bluff. I have
a zero lot line right adjacent to Glen Court with a
151 . setback-'on the. west side, -33 ' on the east side.
I have a copy of .Suffolk County Tax Map indicating
this and surrounding property in the area. Mr. Lark?
MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road
Cutchogue. The first thing I 'd like to hand
up would be a single and separate ownership
search which is 244 Section. Should you re-
quire it , I hand that up as an exhibit . I
thought the Chairman was going to read the
W
application. : The application is a part
0 of the record, sworn by Mrs. Halla, on
January 26, 1990 . However, I would- like to
0
cover a couple of highlights for the Board.
. w -
Z
a
since, as Mr. Goehringer. s.aid, this-is a
m
0
unique application:
a
W Mrs. Halla cannot be here tonight because
a she lives in Levittown and is ill. However,' her
builder, Mr. Dempsey is here and he can
answer any questions since the application
you have before you, she was working in
32 .
concert ,with, him 'to try to conform this house
to the existing-topography and surrounding
neighborhood and existing houses there. . There
was indicated in this application or petition
that Mrs . Halla, your petitioner is under contract
to Mr. Dempsey. However, it was contingent upon
getting the bgilding .p'ermit . One of the key
pieces to keep in mind here is that this is a lot
on a single, separate ownership since February 13 ,
1970 when she and her husband purchased it . The
map .is a_ filed map called the Map of Birch Hill
which was filed some years prior, I believe 1965 .
So one section of the zoning code which
W
we' ll cover in a minute, says we can go back to
E
LL the ' 65 code. So I ' ll just point that out .. In
0
the interim, her husband died so she is the sole
01
Liowner 'and she no longer has any need or intent to
Z
Z
build on the property and that ' s the reason she ' s
m ,
selling to Mr. Dempsey. But her original intent
a
was to' build- the .home. her husband passed away
in 183 so she ' s decided to, sell the lot . The lot
you have on_. that map before you is 100 ' width and
it runs to .the, really, foot of the bluff. It has
a legal depth, 'of. 205 ' but when looking at the file ma
33 .
there ' s another 50 feet interior that ' s owned by
the Beach Association. That ' s why,,you see in the
north, the separate search is owned by the Associ-
ation. The lot does not go to the-. high water mark.
It goes basically, to the bottom of the bluff with
a legal 205. feet from the roadway as indicated in
the map. The- area, since the filed map, I don ' t .
know how to define, "substantial, " but the neighbor
have found in that area over the years, the bluff
erodes at approximately 1 foot per year, the top
of it . That ' s approximate. If you go back to the
early surveys and I know from my own experience,
living in the neighborhood, that ' s about right on
average, about 1 foot per year it is receding. So
what you have here today, you have 151 feet useable
property on the westerly side and 134 feet on the
easterly side. The bluff runs on a bias to the
front of the property on the roadway .so that ' s why
you have the difference in footage, the zoning in
effect at that time, the file map when she bought ..
However, that was a kind of ~misnome?� because .the
zoning required 12 ,500 square feet. As- the maps
are, they're half-acres , 20 ;000 . That ' s what
the Health Department was requiring- in those days
r ��-
34 .
but the front yard in those days was 35 ' and the
rear yard 25 ' . It had required 20 ,000 for the
Health Department . In those days there were other
houses along the bluff in that area and there was
no problem. There are two houses to the east owned
by Mrs. Bryant that got variances from the Board of
25 feet , some ten or fifteen years ago when the
houses were- constructed but they .did not have the
erosion problem or the shallow lot depth that this
lot now suffers .
Now the property as you know, is zone R-40 .
It becomes a non-conforming lot under the existing
zoning ordinance - in all respects, width, depth,
front and side yard requirements , in order to con-
W
E
0 struct any kind of home, and I stress that , any.
kind of home, on the property. Also another sectio
0
Z under the zoning code which you're familiar with is
w
Z
you have to have a setback of 100 feet from the top
a
of the bank so you don 't have to go past 6th grade-
W to realize you can' t conform or build even a dog
IL
house on the property, much less anything else when
you take it into the zoning.
I want to digress here because when the
zoning was passed, they passed Section 100-244 ,
35 .
sub-sectiorn' ( a) states the policy. Sub-section (b )
talks about -s-ingle and separate, so this meets the
requirements that it ' s a single and separate. The
end of sub-section (b) they talk about what relief
can be granted and then the zoning law goes over .to
section (c ) which is a little bit confusing. It
says that in the case of a single, separate owner-
ship,non-conforming lot in that sub-division,
approved after April 9 , 1957 , which we- have here,
relief ' of all_ 'front , side and rear yard area di-
mensions shall be granted to the extent that the
front , side and rear side area dimensions were re-
quired at the time the map was originally filed.
That is; as I indicated, 25 ' in the rear, 10 ' on
the side and 35 ' in the front . You can construct
a house with that . With that, section, you will have
to determine if . it will give us relief from 100 ' .
But even - if you do determine it and after consultin
with the builder and everything, we- still come here
and apply'-for a variance, it is still .felt that for
a variance for zero front' feet because,, again, as
: you indicated, of the erosion" problem on the bluff,
you'd be kidding yourselves to try and force
I
f
36 .
a home up toward the bluff. This was pre-
sented to the Association and when it was
explained to them, they heartily endorsed it and
they own the roadway. It wasa private road as
well as a -beach and they heartily endorsed the
house be built on the road, right on the road.
What it is intended to do, and, have .as a .part
of that application, is never to develop that
road but rather give an easement of 25 feet
. . . I 'm sorry, . . .25 feet apiece on each of
the adjoining lot- owners , they 're not to
construct anything there but it would be land-
scaped easement because the road, as you all
know, was constructed back in 1965 and has
fallen into disrepair. There are trees and
shrubs and weeds and there is. no road there
at this time. It ' s very unsightly, so the
Association endorsed granting the driveway
which was what. Mr. Dempsey wanted to construct
on his 25 feet on the side half of it . And
then on the other half would be put landscap-
ing which would blend in with a high ante-
bellum home. This sits on a lot on the south
I
37 .
which was originally the -estate owned by Lupton
(phonetic spelling. ) That seems to be a reason-
able solution because they did not want Mr. Demp-
sey or anyone else to construct a home any closer
to the bluff. Of course, all the builders would
like to put the homes on the bluff because they
can sell so rapidly but it is a fact , and the
circumstances of erosion and all the problems
they have there, it is not a simple matter of
just bulkheading the bottom. If the Board goes
there to see the many thousands of dollars spent
by property owners . The east , they bulkheaded
the bottom, bulkheaded the middle, bulkheaded
W the top this winter. It still comes back a foot
0
° per year no matter what ' s done over there. By
N
allowing plant vegetation to grow, it slows
W down the erosion problem with the exception of
Z
Z
0
course, of a hurricane or excessive rain. Then
0
° it all goes to a mud .slide and that ' s where we
0
IL
a
Z
get the average of a foot per year.
So, by putting it up by a roadway, al-
though it requires zero variance, it 'does make
sense in this situation. The Association and
neighbors all endorse it because they think
,7 -
38.
-that it ' s a reasonable way of solving the
problem. It does give a 65 foot setback
from the bluff, not 100 foot but again,
rather than try to enforce a section of the
code. which allows 25 foot rear yard which we
could have obtained at the time, it seems
a lot of sense to do it this way.
I won't comment on the house. If you
have any questions, you can ask Mr. Dempsey..
He' s here. I won' t take up much more of
your time. It is a Catch 22 situation but
with this type of home that he' s constructing
with a deck and the rear end and rear yard
of the property which would still be 65 foot ,
the north end of this, from the bluff which
I have submitted to the Health Department and
they have approved. I think you have a letter
- in the file indicating installation where the
septic tank and cesspool and water would be.
` - That has been approved.
THE CHAIRMAN: You concur, the zoning
existed in 1970 and basically is the same
zoning that you would have today in reference
to the setback concerning the area of Section
244?
39 .
MR-. LARK: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: These were what , again?
MR. LARK: As I indicated, we had not
changed the code till ' 71 or ' 72 and the map
was filed in ' 65 and you had a 35 feet yard
front and a 25 feet. rear ,yard . . .
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the -map on the
excepted list?
MR. LARK: It is not the excepted map.
It is a file map that meets the requirements
of 244 .
THE. CHAIRMAN: The reason I ask that
question is because I have trouble understand-
W ing it in total, a law, you can superimplant
f
° prior side yard and rear yard and front yard
N
up to the present day standards. We still
W have, under those sections, relief from 'un-
Z
Z
a divided lots so therefore, with this type of
o -
problem, how you can superimplant old zoning
on top of the present zoning.
MR. LARK: That ' s why I pointed out
the section. I 'm not sure that . 244 Section
(c) supercedes what I read in (b ) Section .
40 .
I 'm really not sure on it but it all became
academic -after talking to the Property Owners '
Association and realizing the erosion problems
and the type of homes constructed there in
relationship to the neighborhood. So he -would-.
not put 850 square foot house but he does pro-
pose to put up there, as you have in the appli-
cation a house that has got 2252 square foot, -front of
1768 . He ' s also confonted with 1600 square
foot covenant restriction problem. We have a
lot of problems to overcome and so it was
decided to go in for zero front yard area, then
if the Board felt that 244 section didn' t apply
to 239 section, then to ask for a variance of
100 foot . So we 're moving back from 100 foot
end.- up as to 65 feet .
THE CHAIRMAN: The only other thing I
wanted to mention was the issue of 1600 square
feet . Are there any other houses in the sub-
division that are less than 1600 square feet?.
MR. LARK: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: So the Association amends
the 1600 square feet stay?
MR. LARK: Yes, they're all larger, as
1
41.
a matter of fact.
THE.,.CHAIRMAN: All right , I guess we ' ll
talk to Mr. . Dempsey.
MR. DEMPSEY: John Dempsey. The only
question is, of course, which has been pretty
much answered is , why a particular configuration
of a house is, after reviewing the property with
Dick, is there a limitation, the configuration?
In other words, .why, having that piece come out
toward the. road which I don 't know what figure
you're referring to or letter. It ' s really a �
reverse "L" ,., .. , .the lower portion of-the- "L, is a
garage area,' I 'm not set on this particular
m house. I have flexability. I just have a house
W
o and I figure .I would settle in this community
and on this piece of property.
0
Z THE CHAIRMAN: So, - in other words , the
W
z
z
garage could be = (inaudible) wou]_cl be
U decreased . on the 'east 'side?
o -
a
W MR.. DEMPSEY: Yes.
a
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. LARK: We do have a part of the appli-
cation. He has a building plan layout and-
proposed- elevation and he' wanted a house with
42 .
a garage because it. fits in with. the neighborhood.
He felt that by putting it on the roadway, that
way -he could landscape what is now a paper
street to give access . There was a resolution
rather than go to a separate," detached garage,
drive straight in, then that requires a further
variance and more construction on the property.
THE CHAIRMAN: The only reason I. wanted
to mention that Mr. Lark, is we're talking
specifically about easement , not abandonment
of road. It. is strictly an easement there.
I know the road, most construc-
tion there is a driveway and then it ' s landscaped.
To my knowledge, these are private roads . They're
owned by" associations . If the Domlaski (phonetic )
farm was developed, there was no ingress going
to this particular area.
MR. LARK: That ' s correct. To show how
adamant they are, the speculators named, bought
to cut out four lots, legal as sections, down
Oregon Road through the farm lots . They approached
the Association and practically offered lifetime
paving and all kinds of money and everything else
but when the Association looked at it , they were
43 .
. .adamant , not to allow anybody else in, and out
of there. As a practical matter when you look
at Diminski' s (phonetic) piece, on the excavation
. . . that ' s why Mr.Dempsey pushed the house as far
to the west as he could because it ' s a tremendous
ride straight up there which; you have a lot of
excavation. How do you handle that? The original
subdivision was 65 and it was probably not proper
that they allow these properties in Greenport .
The only other thing is what about the
disturbance of land in the front and the rear of
the house which would be between the deck and the
top of the bluff?
MR. LARK: He built the house on the bluff.
THE -CHAIRMAN: Do you. understand the ques-
tion? Are you clipping the bluff in any way?
Well, are you proposing to clip the bluff?
MR.DEMPSEY: I 'm -sure you would like me to sair
"No. " Obviously, I would like to obtain as nice a
view as I could for the homeowner on the type of
growth that is in there. Now there are - not any
substantial trees. Most of them are locust .and
wild cherry and poison ivy.
THE CHAIRMAN: You. have to say poison ivy?
44 .
I had poison ivy already this year.
MR. DEMPSEY: There ' s black cherry, some
locust trees . Until 1970 that was cleared. That
had, been cleared by the original developer in
1964 and ' 65 when he did ' the subdivision. He
cleared that . Believe it or not , that -was used
by a skeet range. That lot was cleared, so the
trees that you have there really have grown since
about 1973 give or take a year and not very big.
THE CHAIRMAN: We're definitely going to
have to investigate that a little more. The only
other investigation I 'm going to request , I will
attack that from the water side which I have not
W done till this point . We ' ll ask Sloane Water
F
Conservation to go down and evaluate the bluff
N
and we ' ll do that within the next two weeks . The
O
Z reason we' have not gone down is that the property
w
Z
2
line does not extend to the high water mark but
0
in this particular case, I mentioned this is a
unique application so we make application tomorrow
IL
to Sloane Water to let them go down and evaluate
the bluff.
MR. LARK: I suggest to the Board that
we recess till the next regularly scheduled meeting
45 .
and wrap it up till that point .
THE CHAIRMAN: During that time, a couple
of us, well we ' ll all go down and attack it . I 'm
going to do it from the water side. My only
concern is the top of the. foundation 'may possibly
give us an elevation factor from either the front
corner of the house . . . but where at the top of
the foundation we would. approximately be where we
could get an idea exactly where we 're going.
MR. LARK: You mean the road side, the
actual house, not the garage?
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, we 're talking right
here ( indicating) this point right here, the top
of the foundation. Okay, three feet- above glade
o right now.
g MR. LARK: Okay, to gain flexibility there,
0
Z to raise it or lower it?
w
Z
Z
THE' CHAIRMAN: I understand that we 've had
m
this application for a little while and it is
0
W necessary that we deal with it on this particular, basis.
a
MR. LARK: When they build on the water,
they like to get a foundation. high, out of the
ground because of the view. They push you. I
also questioned it . That ' s the answer they gave me.
46 .
So what they said, three feet , I 'm sure that ' s
what they have in mind to get it up as high
as they can.
THE CHAIRMAN: That would be a normal
height for a foundation, five foot in and three
foot out . Do you have a pretty even grade at
that particular point?
MR. DEMPSEY: Yes it .is . . .only when you
get closest to the water. When you go west by
Diminski, it goes right up. You have to look this
time of year. You can see clear. In the summer
time it ' s covered and you can't see as you can
now.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have not been down there
since. I ' ll go back and attack it from the water
side. .
MR. LARK: When you get to the bluff, it
is . . . it seems to go level but when you come
back toward the. mansion the hill starts to. I, think
the original subdivider actually cut a _tda.d iri, . .
d.t- has compounded:: That '-s a hell of a problem
they're living with. ".'Th'is erosion has to stop,
this erosion . .._.. . . . . . "so that ' s why he was
tucking the house as far west as he could get .
47 .
He originally wanted to put it on the east . Then
when he realized he was nestling in it , so to
speak . . .
THE CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank you very
much.
Is there anybody who would like to speak
on behalf of this application? (No response)
Is there anybody who would like to speak
against this application? (No response )
Are . there any questions from the Board
Members? (Collective response: No)
THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions
I make a -motion to recess this hearing until the
W next regularly scheduled meeting and we ' ll do a
further investigation and refer the matter to
N
O
Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation.
W MR. DINIZIO: Second.
Z
Z -
0
a. THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
m
a
o MR. GRIGONIS: Aye'
Z
oW. MR. DOYEN: Aye -
MR. SAWICKI : Aye
MR. DINIZIO: - Aye
-Sy-
48 .
THE CHAIRMAN: Robert and Theresa Turner.
Appeal Number 3922 . Legal Notice reads as follows:
Upon Application of the Applicants, Robert and
Theresa Turner, Appeal application number 3922 ,
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III ,
Section 100-30 A.4 , Bulk and Parking Area, for
permission to construct an attached swimming pool
to house.
Property location: 1525 Albo' Drive, Laurel.
County Tax Map Number 1000 ,-126-03-17 .
I have a copy of the survey dated January
24 , 1989 indicating from Roderick Van Tuyl,p.c. an
above ground swimming pool. Proposed depth area
approximately 7 plus or minus feet from the west
property line. I have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map.
Would you like to be heard, Mr. Turner?
MR. TURNER: Robert Turner, 1525 Albo Drive,
Laurel. The existing pool as it is now, if I were
to move it , would block the entrance to the
basement door so that ' s the reason for the variance.
THE CHAIRMAN: You're proposing to
49 .
deck around that stairway?
MR. .TURNER: Yes.
. THE CHAIRMAN: It is in existence, an
in-ground pool? .
MR. TURNER: Yes. That ' s not necessarily
the application.
THE CHAIRMAN: You can do that . . .
only this matter, 72 feet .of this I 'm sorry
7 feet, is toward a particular property line,
Is that correct?
MR. TURNER: It is more like 32.
m
F The pool is 3%2 into the side yard but it
O
is 7 feet from the property line. There' s
N
O
O
not going to be any change. The pool stays
Z
z right where it is .
O
r
a
m
o THE CHAIRMAN: Are you putting a deck
u
0
Z around this side of the pool?
W
a
MR. TURNER: No.
50 .
THE. CHAIRMAN: Okay, the deck will only be
as you're showing here, toward the east side of the
property or more directly in the center of the house?
MR. TURNER: Right .
THE CHAIRMAN: So that part of the pool would
be exposed as it presently is? Will there be any more
changes, any additions?
MR. TURNER• No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, no railroad ties or
anything of that nature changing it?
MR. TURNER: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there
anybody who would like to speak on behalf of this
application? ( no response )
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who would like
to apeak against this application? (no response)
THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions from the Board
Members . (Collective response: No. )
Hearing no further questions, I ' ll make
a motion- to :close the hearing and reserve decision
till later..
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: . All in favor?
51.
MR. GRIGONIS:'- Aye
MR. DOYEN: Aye
MR. SAWICKI : Aye
MR. DINIZIO: Aye
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for coming in.
I hope to have a decision for you shortly.
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is on behalf
of Elsie Parkin, Number 3925 . The legal notice
reads as follows: Appeal Number 3925 , Elsie Parkin.
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A,
Section 100-30 A.3 , ,Bulk and Parking Regulations
in this Division of land. Property location:
7575 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, County Tax Map Number
W 1000-104-04-27 .
° I have a copy of the map dated Januazy24 ,
0
1990 , Roderick Van Tuyl, p.c. Lot Number 1 being
W 37 ,500 square feet with road frontage approximately
Z
Z
0
m 125 feet ; lot number 2 which is a lot that includes
0
u 27 , 400 -, Iq.feet which is approximately 128 feet
to
road frontage, Skunk Lane and Bay. Avenue. This
is the Suffolk County Tax Map of. this and the
surrounding area. Is there anybody that would like
to be heard on behalf of this application?
KAREN HAGEN: Karen Hagen, Wickham, Wickham
52 .
and Bressler. (Phonetic) Applicant regrets she
can 't be here. She has a work-related meeting.
What I 'd like to say about the application, we
have been in a similar situation in the past .
where two houses on one lot , the practical difficult
being that it is difficult and burdensome two
houses on one lot , in terms of selling, renting
and keeping up the property. And I 'd like to
stress that. the size of the lot in comparison to
the surrounding lot on the same zoning is large
to subdivide property and would enable the neighbor-
hood to have a lot of similar size to surrounding
lots and would also be easier for property owners
to keep up their P .C .O. ' s .
I submit for - the applicant , there has been
an access for more. than thirty-three years, both
dwellings occupied since prior to the zoning code.
This is the former Petruchi (phonetic) houses and
I assume there was an active C .O. on both these
houses.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes there are. How long
has Mrs. Parkin owned the property?
MS. HAGEN: Since 1971. She owned both
parcelssince 1971. She and her husband obtained
i
53 .
both parcels in 1971. It was deeded to her
alone, in 1976 .
THE CHAIRMAN: These houses are rented?
Or does she live in one of them?
MS. HAGEN: She lives in the smaller one
and rents out the larger one.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms . Hagen.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak in
favor of this application? (No response )
Is there anyone who would like to speak
against the application? (No -.response )
Would any of the Board Members like to
ask any questions? (Collective_response: No)
Seeing no hands, and no questions from
m
W
the Board Members, I make a motion to close this
0
U.
hearing and reserve decision until later.
0
0
z MR. DINIZIO: Second.
w
Z
0 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
r
a
m
0 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye
0
Z MR. DOYEN: Aye
W
IL
MR. SAWICKI : Aye
MR. DINIZIO: Aye
THE CHAIRMAN: We have one more hearing
that I recessed, a hearing from a prior meeting.
54 .
I 'd like to run out for a second and grab a little
more water. We ' ll recess. So move. All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye
MR. DOYEN: Aye
MR. SAWICKI : Aye
MR. DINIZIO: Aye
( Recess of the Agenda for April 19 ,. 1990 )
(Last hearing on April 19 , 1990 Agenda, ,
Robert Ochenreiter and Edward Lenceski,
Number 3908 - See separate transcript , same
date. )
55 .
C E R T I F I C .A T I O N
I , Myrtle Kiefer, do hereby certify that
I am an Official Court Reporter and that
the foregoing constitutes a true and
correct transcript according to my
official stenographic notes .
5- q-90
Date MyrtIC Kiefer,
Grand Jury Reporter
m
W
E
0
LL
N
O
O
n
O
i
Z
W
2
z
0
}
m
O
U
O
U
Z
W
a
n
0101 74590—
• ' - -_ yam_
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF 'SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
----------------=---------------------- -X
SOUTHOLD ,TOWN- ZONING BOARD -OF' APPEALS .
. • ,
HEARING; In the .Matter of
ROBERT OCHENREITER .
and EDWARD. -LENCESKI-,
Applicants
-------------=----------------------------X
53095 Main, Road
Southold,. New- York- 11971
April 19 , 1990
BEFORE:
GERARD P., -GOEHRINGER; _
Chairman.
BOARD 'MEMBERS:
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE. DOYEN,, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
ALSO PRESENT,: DOREEN FERWERDA
2 .
(HEARING RE-CONVENED)
THE CHAIRMAN: The final appeal of the
evening, recessed from last meeting on behalf
of Robert Ochsenreter and Edward Lenceski,
Number 2908 . It ' s probably the first time
I 've pronounced it correctly. This particular
recess was requested for Mr. Moore. So I 'd ask,
Mr. Moore, if you'd like to proceed.
MR.MOORE: Good evening, William-Moore,
Suite 3 , Clause Commons, Main Road, Mattituck.
I apologize. There' s been a lot of work that
was going on. When we were done, when we ended,
there was a request by the Zoning Board of
Mr. Lessard that he provide it. specific vacant
land C .O. ' s list on the tax property part . So
if I may just simply request those pieces of
information which are in your file already,
become an official part of the record. I have
nothing more to add. That was work I was going
to get together and submit . I 'm glad Mr.Lessard
has already done that and got it in to you.
Do we have a clean copy of this to put
in the file?
1
3 .
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, we have it . Thank
you. For the record, I have sent Mr. Lessard
a memo requesting him to come tonight , to just
continue one other discourse that we were dis-
cussing and he did come and we appreciate that .
Could I ask you to use the microphone, Mr. Lessard?
We were discussing lots built
on single, separate ownership as opposed to lots
bought on merged parcels of vacant land C .O. ' s at
the last meeting. It is my understanding that , -at
that time I was talking to you, that we were dis-
cussing the single and separate searches. You
used the word, by name; "Bogus, " referring to
single, separate searches that you received in
the past . I's that correct?
.MR. LESSARD: Yes .
THE CHAIRMAN: Concerning lots , I assume
that you had requested single and separate
searches on, is that correct?
MR.LESSARD: Yes , title searches . The only
difference between a regular search and a single,
separate search thev 're really searching the
property around to make sure that it was not part
of any other parcel. That ' s my understanding of it .
4 .
THE CHAIRMAN: My question to you, was
there single and separate searches of this
particular -parcel and did you receive them,
to your knowledge?
MR. LESSARD: Not that I 'm aware of. The
only thing I could say to this is, there was a
title guarantor at the closing and there was a
lawyer for the seller and a purser for the bank
and I 'm sure they all did their homework. Of
course, there ' s nothing guaranteed in that either
because no one ever questions the title search
for single and separate because it was the exemp-
ted list . That ' s what this is all about . It was
W 1966 . . .you have a copy. It was ' 66 or ' 67 , what-
ever it was . I have it here. I have one dated
N
0
here May 24 , '66 . That ' s the one I gave you. I
Z don 't know if I received it from you or the Town
W
Z
Z
a Clerk from me. That was from me, you requested
m
0
it last time. I thought I had given one to Jim.
W Apparently I .didn't .
a
THE CHAIRMAN: There ' s one other question
which escapes me at this particular time. Do you
have any questions?
MR. DINIZIO: Just the property tax record.
5 .
I looked through all of them and the only one
I could find that really'-"actually divides the
lot to build a house, it -'seems, correct me if
I 'm wrong that most of those contain, if there
was something with a -lot line, it was just the
neighbors got together and divided up a lot that
was between them to expand the lot .
MR. LESSARD: Yes, it is horrendous. Under
that subdivision they got away with murder in that one
MR. DINIZIO: But there' s no other instance
where the lot was actually taken off another piece
of property was separate and a house built on it .. I
don' t believe; .if.'you researched under . . .
MR. LESSARD: Well first off, it is' hard
m
w to trace back through the present:=Assessor' s
0
cards but Walter, there ' s a good chunk of this
N
O
O
subdivision, but to get it up to my generation, if
Z .
Z you would, the Kray' s (phonetically spelled)
Z
0
r
divided up the property and sold it to the Olivers,
0
a
the Komisky' s (phonetically spelled) and they were
in the same subdivision but away from the problem.
So I didn ' t go too much . into it . I know there was
lots bought and sold. Komisky' s, then Fred Kray
had three or• = four of them. Frank Oliver had at
i
-f 7'
6 .
least three and the thing that amazes .me in this
whole thing, in researching this, you have to' keep
in mind what we 're after here. You see, we're
going out and creating another can of worms. It ' s
not going to answer it . So I did it but I didn ' t
do it . I didn' t put that much time into it . What I
did find out is the subdivision is filed with the
County in 1927 and the Town went into zoning in
1957 and from that I could tell the first piece of
property to go single and separate. Again, you
have not got that much research.
Now Zahra here, the subdivision, I 'm not
picking on Zahra or anybody else. I don 't want to
start with that nonsense.- Here with that subdivi-
sion, that was excepted by the County and went
into zoning before we ever put the exception list .
The first thing that happened, instead of buying
lots according to the subdivision that ' s hacked
.out between two lots and as you go down through
the process , the immediate neighborhood,, because.
they didn't want to go 86 lots. It '.8 a hell of:
a lot of lots. We started the other .side, . Ocean .
Ryder, I hope I said that right , that property
originally belonged to Rodney Cox who died in ' 66
1
7 .
and his widow got married again and Ocean Ryder
bought two lots vacant , one the house was on it,
in 1972 or whatever it was . So there was no
problem there but then you see another notation
where in 173 , I think May of ' 73 , apparently
George Taylor here I 'm guessing, he could probably
tell you better plus offer some kind of situation
where he bought maybe, three-quarters of the next
lot to him. Okay, no lot line changes, no nothing,
just by deed` apparently filed with the County.
Then you have two lots after that , that involve
the Lenceski' s . They come along in 1985 . They
want a house. Fine. They buy two lots but in buy-
W ing two lots . here, I could never understand all
this time, nobody stays in the subdivision. They
N
0
bought two lots like everybody else but then bought
Z thirteen feet on the east and- ten feet lot on the
W
Z
Z
o
west . Now you can 't blame these people. They
o bought what was offered to them. And then we go
0
z
W down to Clancy which is next door. Stacy, I think
a
the guy' s name is, he buys this lot and he gets
in a push and shove with Mrs . Zahra where he sells
that , dumps it to Gastar (phonetically spelled) who
8.
builds _a house on it and sells it to Clancy. I
would never be the one to go out and tell you where
all these lines are but this was a continuous prac-
tice right along. I did what you said. I got hold
of John Wickham. I don' t know what the hell is
going on, what you people were doing back in the
60 ' s and 70 ' s and I said, "How do you handle the
subdivision?" and he said, "Whatever it called for
at that period ' of time. If a person hacked off a
piece and filed it and the County didn' t object ,
it was fine .with them. " And I said, "You've got
to be kidding me?" and he said, "Hell, no. How
do you think Schoolhouse Road was developed? They
just hacked off every time they needed another lot . "
r
m
w
So, you know, you people are faced here with a
0
o
problem procedure. How are we going to stop it or
0
should. we stop it or should we recreate a whole
Z
w
Z bag of worms . I would not want to be in your shoes .
o
r
0
I can tell you that right. now.
u
Z .
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you all done?
w
a
MR. LESSARD: I 'm not finished.
MR. DINIZIO: I still think maybe I 'm missing
something but I 'm searching but still didn' t find
anything.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have not found anything in
9 .
these records- that would go to the extreme of
splitting-;a lot and putting 'another house on
it and actually issuing a C .O. for that . These
don't say that they list a lot and put a house
on it , that that actually really happened here.
What I was basically looking for, I think you
said that it is common,-,practice to go to those
excepted .lists and do that . What I 'm basically
looking for in this development is where was it
done?
MR. LESSARD: I didn 't have time to re-
search all those vacant land lists. I gave, I
don 't know how many houses were on them but they
were contiguous lots .
THE CHAIRMAN: Were houses on them or not?
MR. LESSARD: I don't know as far as this
particular . . . I don' t think the Board should be
separating one against the thirteen.. This particu-
lar subdivision for whatever_:.you are looking, you
should look under Kominsky or to Lesko (phonetic-
ally spelled. ) I think another lot went to Acardi
(phonetic) or something like that. That ' s just
one example again. Frank -Oliver, ` too, he hacked
off pieces for his . daugh-ter, Pamela and then another
- 7i-
10
lot to somebody else and 'I think the fourth lot
went to the fellow that fixes washing machines.
I don ' t know his name, Raynor?
THE CHAIRMAN: . Thank you.
MR. LESSARD: You may have a problem. I
didn 't want to create a whole damn cloud here.
I was trying to keep it so we would not lose
sight of the fact what we were here for in the
first place. Anything else I can help you with
or I didn't answer?
MR. DINIZIO': I 'm still somewhat
confused. I _look to those basically, as being a
layman. I would probably say I don't understand
fully, as most people do, but it just came tome ,
if I black out the names, okay, what would pop up
to me is that these two here would still have been
unusual compared to the rest of them:, What I was
basically looking for, if there is an identical
situation to this amongst the houses in the general
area . . .
MR. LESSARD: ( interjecting) You're asking
for a long shot , Jim. I think what we 're looking
at here, I talked to Mr. Wickham, I hate to keep
using his name. I talked to him. I said to him,
11.
"John, you're talking of putting subdivisions,
.the exception list , how do you take them off?
Does the Town Board. pass some legislative action,
resolution, to remove these and another one.--to
put new ones when they're developed? We just
took them off, they were just taking up .space?"
You have to put yourself back in the late 60 ' s
and early 70 ' s and you've got a whole different
ballgame than what you're looking at today. You
people have to make a decision because they were
doing this and that was the past practice. . . How
the hell do you legally stop this stuff? Who' s
going to be penalized because you say, "Stop, " and
then the next day somebody steps into something.
W
That ' s not my problem. That ' s yours. I 'm glad
N
I 'm not sitting up there.
0
Z MR. DINIZIO: That ' s what I 'm searching for.
w
Z
Z
a MR. LESSARD: I 've probably confused you.
m
MR. DINIZIO: Well certainly the whole
O
Q
W thing confuses me. I still would like, if you
a
could show me, a situation similar to this one.
MR. - LESARD: I ' ll try, Jim. I was away
and things have been crazy. I.11 try. That ' s
the best I can tell you.
12 .
MR. DINIZIO: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: The only other thing I have
. . . I remember the question, I don' t remember if
it was before this particular hearing actually
commenced but when the application was filed with
us or during the time between the two hearings,
certainly, it was not between those two hearings,
but back before this , I went to your department
and requested an application for vacant land C.O.s .
Now it is my understanding presently, that the
Building Department is not granting any more vacant
land C.O.s .
MR. LESSARD: ( Interjecting) The resolution
passed. Nobody is getting any of them any more.
MR. DINIZIO: I went to the Legislative
Hearing last week and we were told at that time,
it did pass as you concurred.
MR. LESSARD: When I received the applica-
tion it clearly stated that it requests a single
and separate search.
THE CHAIRMAN: For the applicant to go
before your department ,•. okay . . . with the request
to see if this particular lot did stand and
was not merged with any other parcel.
13 .
Now my only problem with that , I really don't
.understand why we didn 't get a single and
separate search on this one. You're clearly
stating you thought there may have been one,
you were not really sure at that time. Are
there any single and separate searches that
you have received that you immediately threw
out because they were, using your phrase, "bogus?"
Or anything you showed to us to indicate that
they did not specifically . . . they were not
germaine to the issue?
MR. LESSARD: When you say, "bogus" title
search, the way that was done, part of the time they
W would give the history of the property back to
° before zoning. Then you would get a report . The
second page of the lot to one side, the third page,
O
i
Z the lot to the other side, okay. Then you would
W
Z
Z
get a report the bottom title search indicated
0
0
there was no -contiguous property. Now the thing
that makes that "bogus" is that that is not so
because if you can, in relation to the second and
third page, put a time frame of all three pages
in front of you, you can see that it ' s contiguous .
That ' s what I mean by "bogus" title search. To
14 .
answer your question about the title search on
vacant land, I talked to Matt and I talked to
Robbie. Before Matt I talked to Jay Schondebare
(phonetically spelled) and I said to him, "How
am I supposed to handle the subdivisionsthat were
stamped and approved by the Planning Board. They
never merged. " And he said, "Well do they merge
or don't they merge?" Okay, I said, "Well, you
know as well as I do that people come out and buy
lots if they stand a chance,' and grab one on either
side for their kids . They do that . How do you
want to handle that?" - He said, "Okay fine, forget
the . title search'." he said, "for all improved sub-
divisions that are approved by the Planning Board,
all those on the excepted list . " With that , what
I had in mind, anytime one of those came up, I
would not get a title search for it . I would make
sure that we had a signed subdivision and I have
a copy of every subdivision that ever happened.
THE CHAIRMAN: You mean signed by the
Planning Board? ,
MR. . LESSARD: Yes . It is not worth a
fiddler' s hoot .if I try to collect by the County
Planning Board.. That ' s bogus.
-76
15 .
THE CHAIRMAN: Filed with the County
Clerk' s Office?
MR. LESSARD: Yes . We don 't know if it
was ever filed. . .I won' t discuss it . The hell
with it . It has nothing to do with this.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do we have any other
questions, Jim?
MR. DINIZIO: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much.
Is there anybody else that would like to say
anything? Mr. Moore, do you have anything
further?
MR. MOORE: No.
r
W THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else in the com-
0
munity? Any other applicants?
MR. LENCESKI : We just have two additional
Z
w exhibits that we 'd like to add. We have one for
Z
Z
0
Mr. Moore to examine and one for the Board. - .Basic-
ally, it ' s a chronological summary of the dates I
U
Z
have that I was here at the first two hearings .
There were objections made by the Counsel involved
in the Inland Homes . Both questioned our `t.imeli-
ness in filing the petition, also our Jurisdiction-
al choice of who we filed to and this more or less
16 .
answers the questions. It shows we did not
file untimely and we applied to the proper
jurisdiction as directed by Mr. Schondebare,
(phonetic ) Town Attorney at that time. Thank
you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further ques-
tions or- ;comments . . . Mr. Zahra, you have some-
thing to say?
MR. ZAHRA: The name, Zahra, was mentioned
tonight . It appears that Mr. Lessard may have
thought , I 'm speculating, that this person was
related to me and that ' s why he came in defense
of using it . I want to clear it for the record
that it just became known to me that that lady
lives on that street , this past week. I believe
her name is Sara Zahra and there' s no relation
whatever. I don't know if I 'm standing up here
in her defense or mine.
MR. LESSARD: That was .not the point that
we had.
THE CHAIRMAN: We thank the audience, appli
cants -and attorneys and Mr. 'Lessard for coming in
and for everyone ' s courtesy.
I make a motion to close the hearing and :
17.
reserve decision.
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor.
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. SAWICKI : Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
(Completion of Agenda Regular Meeting by the
Appeals Board Members, Thursday, April 19 ,1990 . )
I , Myrtle Kiefer, Official Court Reporter, hereby
certify that -the foregoing pages are a true and
W
S
o correct transcript of the meeting held on April
0 19 , 1990 , Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals,
n
0
Z Southold, New York.
w
Z .
Z
m
U
Date MyrtVe Kiefe
W Court Reporter
a