HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/26/1990 HEARING a
ti
1 TOWN OF SOU^sHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
2
------------------------------------x
�1 D3 —
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD _
�f 4 •
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING L!3
5 ------------------------------------X —_--- v?'dd .rye
6
7 Town Hall
53095 Main Road
8 P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
9
September 26, 1990
10 7 : 32 P.M.
11
12 B E F O R E
13 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
14 Chairman.
15
BOARD MEMBERS:
16 .
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
17
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
18
(JOSEPH H. SAWICKI A SIA/
19
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
20
21
ALSO PRESENT: LINDA KOWALSKI , Board Secretary
22
23
- 24
25
2
2 (Excerpt of Southold Town Zoning
a
3 Board of Appeals hearing, September 26 ,
4 1990 . )
5 (Time noted: 8 : 22 p.m. )
6 THE CHAIRMAN: The second to last
7 appeal , Number 3955 . It is a recessed
8 appeal from the last regularly scheduled
9 hearing. It is in behalf of Dominick
10 Sblendido and A. Auricchio.
11 We ask Mr. Cardinale if there is
12 something he would like to add to this . I
13 do want to address a specific problem we
14 had, that we never had before.
15 Mr. Cardinale, are you familiar with
16 the problem we have from the prior hearing?
17 MR. PHIL CARDINALE: Yes, I am.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready to
19 address the Board?
20 MR. CARDINALE: Yes .
21 Good evening, gentlemen, and the
22 female member of the Board as well .
23 I am aware of the problem because one
24 of the secretaries of the Board called me to
25 advise me my remarks were not able to be
3
2 transcribed, because the Court Reporter was
3 not here and I guess the machine didn' t
F 4 work. Therefore, I will have to be somewhat
5 more complete than I would otherwise be then
6 in today' s representation.
7 The applicants , Dominick and Ann
8 Sblendido are present here, as is Angela
9 Auricchio.
10 You want to stand, please?
11 (Applicants standing. )
12 MR. CARDINALE: As I indicated last
13 time, Dominick and Ann are husband and wife.
14 Angela and Ann are sisters . They have owned
15 the residence involved here since 1977 . As
16 a little bit of background, they are in
17 their early sixties and they are
18 anticipating using the house, which they
19 have used as a second home, as a year-round
20 home at some point and that is why the
21 extensive renovation was commenced.
22 Another note is that during this saga
23 I am about to address, between March 16,
24 1989 and today, some 18 months later, they
25 have been unrepresented up through 8/1/90
4
2 which, as I go through this, you will see
3 was the point at which I entered the
4 situation and asked Mr. Lessard to issue a
5 disapproval so we could come before this
6 Board.
7 I hope that this presentation this
8 evening will shed more light and less heat
9 on this matter than the original hearing
10 did. My representation to you is based upon
11 a review of the Building Department and ZBA
12 files .
13 Incidentally, I reviewed your file
14 this afternoon. There is apparently going
15 to be a supplemental memorandum submitted by
16 Marie Ongioni , the attorney for the adjacent
17 neighbor Mr. Tober, which I have not had the
18 opportunity to respond to since I haven' t
19 read it . So I would like that opportunity
20 to respond in writing a few days after this .
21 I .also consulted, of course, with my
22 clients , with the builder, with the Building
23 Department personnel , with the surveyor, as
24 you requested I do, and I have that survey
25 for you showing the lot coverage. I
1 5
2 consulted with the Town Attorney, Mr.
{" 3 Arnoff , in regards to some of the remarks I
4 am going to make tonight .
5 I reviewed at length the applicable
6 code provisions since the last time we were
7 here. I think that was on July 25th. The
8 presentation I am going to make, and the
9 good news is I believe I can do this in 10
10 minutes , is in four parts . one is a brief
11 recitation of the facts that got us here
12 which I don' t think are greatly in dispute.
13 The second is a more interesting part, and
14 that will address the questions or issues
15 properly before this court, and the law
16 regarding that .
17 You recall , Mr. Goehringer, that one
18 of the things that did get transcribed was
19 my remark that I was surprised by the
20 opposition and that I believed it to be very
21 wide-ranging and I had serious questions as
22 to what the court could in fact do in this
23 instance under its authority, under the
24 statute. I am going to address that in the
25 second part of my remarks .
1 6
2 The third part will be a rebuttal of
` 3 the inaccurate statements of the opposition,
4 specifically the neighbor adjacent , Mr.
5 Tober, through Ms . Ongioni . As a preview of
6 that I have and will submit, in a moment,
7 the lot coverage surveys . As I suspected
8 -- last two months ago -- the lot coverage
9 according to the surveyor is now 13 1/2
10 percent which is far below the 20 percent
11 permitted of this lot . So Ms . Ongioni ' s
12 'allegation that it was 28 percent is wrong,
13 as a number of her other allegations are.
14 Finally, I would like to briefly
15 review the equities involved here. In
16 regards to the facts , November 25th, 1977 ,
17 Ann, her sister Angela, and her husband,
18 Dominick, purchased the property. There was
19 a husband involved of Angela but he had
20 passed away. They have resided weekends ,
21 vacations, summers, as I indicated earlier,
22 up to March of ' 89. On March 16, ' 89, more
23 precisely a few weeks before that , they
24 retained Argyle Construction to obtain a
25 building permit in regards to this matter
2 and to build a renovation which would
3 include essentially doubling the size of
4 this house.
5 Construction commenced sometime after
6 March 16 , ' 89. I think it was in June or so
7 on the plans , which were submitted, which
8 were accepted, where a building permit was
9 issued and which were in your file as
10 Exhibit Number 1 and which clearly show two
11 kitchens which, incidentally, it could and
12 will be argued does not necessarily mean
13 that was an error on the part of the
14 Building Department, to issue a building
15 permit , even showing two kitchens .
16 THE CHAIRMAN: What date was this?
17 MR. CARDINALE: March 16, 1989 .
18 Thereafter, construction commenced,
19 as I indicated, without incident until
20 12/5/89 when a Stop Work Order was issued.
21 The Stop Work Order of 12/5/89, which is in
22 your file, indicates to the owner "You are
23 notified to suspend all work at the
24 location. " The basis of the Stop Work Order
25 is "No foundation inspection, no second
1 g
2 survey, nothing built as per plan submitted,
3 appears to have insufficient front yard
4 setbacks , cannot build a two-family dwelling
5 in an R-40 zone. "
6 The conditions under which the work
7 may be resumed:
8 One, submit a new survey showing all
9 setbacks and houses within 300 feet on the
10 same side of the street , which would be
11 relevant to Section 100-230 which provides
12 for relief automatically for, as you know,
13 lots where the setback within 300 feet is
14 less than that which would otherwise be
15 required.
16 The second condition was to -- now
17 this, mind you, was nine months after the
18 initial permit -- new plans show all details
19 stamped.
20 The third condition for resumption
21 eliminates the two-family dwelling.
22 Fourth, pay the new fee. Failure to
23 remedy same may constitute an offense.
24 The builder, according to your file,
25 met on December 11th with the Building
1 9
2 Department personnel . Incidentally, Victor
3 Lessard got a lot of grief last time.
4 Victor Lessard is not really much on the
5 file. Much of it is other members of the
6 Building Department; Mr . Fischer (phonetic) ,
7 Mr. Horton (phonetic) , Mr. Lessard. There
8 is a number of people involved in this file.
9 They met and there is a notation, on 12/12
10 the Stop Work Order was lifted and
11 permission to resume construction was given.
12 That was not given just for the fun
13 of it or for no reason.. It was given
14 because in the file, at the request of the
15 Building Department , was submitted by my
16 clients a statement, which is in Marie
17 Ongioni 's papers , that they would not use
18 the residence and had no intention of using
19 it as a two-family residence. That they in
20 fact did submit plans, which you have as
21 Exhibit 2 from the last hearing, which did
22 something more than simply restate the
23 original plans . It interrelated this house,
24 in a very meaningful way because the
25 Building Department was legitimately
1 10
2 concerned that this house should be
3 interrelated since it had some indications
4 of a two-family structure.
5 They insisted apparently that there
6 be an interrelation of each floor between
7 the two parts of this home -- hallways , in
8 other words , and most significantly, if you
9 walk through this home now with these plans
10 they insisted the bedroom -- all the
11 bedrooms in the upstairs area are all
12 interrelated. There is just a big hallway,
13 and this was required as was the exclusion
14 of the kitchen which had already been
15 approved.
16 As a condition of going forward, my
17 clients agreed to this, presumably.
18 Remember, they were unrepresented because
19 the contractor urged them to do so, and they
20 gave the statement of non-use to family.
21 They changed their plans to interrelate both
22 floors and they addressed the other issue,
23 which was the issue of setback, by
24 indicating that they would provide the
25 setback survey, showing the setbacks of the
� 11
2 home within 300 feet, which survey they did
3 in fact obtain, and it did in fact establish
4 that they needed in order to get this big
5 ' round stoop, which you will see on the
6 plans , approved to get a variance because
7 the big round stoop was 18 feet from the
8 front line. The average, depending on how
9 you calculate my clients ' setback, at 18 as
10 proposed or at 26, is either 26 or 28 for
11 the other houses .
12 If you notice the plans , the house
13 simply stayed on the same line as the
14 existing or renovated portion of the home.
15 So that actually, with the exception of the
16 stoop, they do not need a setback from the
17 front yard because they were not , under
18 Section 100-242 , increasing any nonconfor-
19 mance. We were building on the same line
20 except for the stoop. So it was agreed they
21 would submit this setback survey, and if
22 necessary, they would seek the variance and
23 they would not do any further construction
24 on the stoop. And they lived up to that .
25 Nothing happened much between.
1 12
2 December 12 , when the Stop Work Order was
3 lifted on the condition just indicated,
4 until May, except that; one, it became
5 clear that the setback, the smallest setback
6 possible for the stoop would be 26 to 28
7 feet, not 18 . ,, So they would need a variance
g for that , for the stoop .
9 And also in the file there is a
10 January 5 stop appearance ticket indicating
11 that they should come to court on January
12 5th, which is referred to in Marie Ongioni 's
13 paper work, for failure to obey a Stop Work
14 Order. It was never signed. It was never
15 issued and, apparently, what it was was
16 sitting in the file because if they hadn' t
17 gotten together on the 12th -- llth or 12th
18 -- to agree to lift the Stop Work Order, it
19 would have been issued. So to say there was
20 no compliance between 12/12 and the next
21 Stop Work Order on 5/29 is inaccurate, based
22 upon what I have seen in your file.
23 In any event, we are now at 5/14
24 which is , I believe, Mr. Horton comes out to
25 make an inspection. Incidentally, we are
1 13
2 now around $176 ,000 into this construction.
3 Mr. Horton notes that at the point where
4 they pulled out the second kitchen, and if
5 you look at the plans , the whole back of the
6 house was going to be a kitchen with the
7 exception of two bathrooms in between, that
8 when they agreed to make the second kitchen
g into a great room, in December, they --
10 according to Mr. Horton, which is a
11 reasonable observation, when he got out
12 there on the 14th he was suspicious because
13 there was plumbing in the wall in the great
14 room facing out towards the backyard which
15 could be utilized for the sink and/or for a
16 kitchen. It was the plumbing set up for the
17 sink.
18 Mr. Horton discussed it with the
19 builder and with the clients -- with the
20 builder, I know at least -- and the clients
21 came to me after that discussion and they
22 said to me in about late in May, early June,
23 "We need a variance for a wet bar because
24 that 's what we want to put in. We want to
25 put a sink in and a bar overlooking the
1 14
2 window, looking out into the backyard. "
3 So, I said, "Well , unless something
4 has changed in Southold Town, you don' t need
5 a variance to put in the sink for the wet
6 bar, " meaning a bar with running water.
7 Under the circumstances , I didn' t doubt the
8 Building Department had good cause to be
9 concerned that they might be permitting this
10 and that it may thereafter illegally be made
11 into a kitchen.
12 So the gist of it was , when I spoke
13 to Victor, I said, "Victor, what are we
14 doing?"
15 He said, "Number one, you've got to
16 get a setback anyway because the variance
17 shows 26 or 28 . Number two, go to -- I am
18 not getting any further into this -- go to
19 the Board and find out if you can have a wet
20 bar. "
21 I said, "Victor, I am not going to
22 the Board and asking them if I can have a
23 wet bar with a sink because I know I can
24 have a wet bar with the sink in the _great
25 room, but I will ask them to interpret
� 15
2 whether a second kitchen originally proposed
3 necessarily makes this a two-family
4 dwelling. "
5 There is some law on this which I
6 will get to in a moment . The gist of it is ,
7 now we are at 5/29 on the facts , and I asked
8 him to please issue a notice of disapproval
9 so I can get going on the variance. He did.
10 It is in your file and it indicates the
11 following:
12 Under Article 3A, Section 130 . 3 and
13 Article 23, Section 100-230A, construction
14 has insufficient front yard setback. Also,
15 under Article 3A, Section 100-30A2 ,A1 (100-
16 31A) , a permitted use one-family detached
17 dwelling not to exceed one dwelling on each
18 lot . (A two-family dwelling is not a
19 permitted use. ) Action required by the
20 Zoning Board of Appeals .
21 Hence, we are here. We needed the
22 setback. We knew that since late in
23 December, when we got the setback survey.
24 We just didn' t go in for it because we were
25 not working on the stoop. We agreed not to
1 16
2 work further. Now we are in here and, in
3 fact , Victor I think really, I would add,
4 was going to permit the construction to
5 continue if we pulled out the plumbing on
6 that wall . Instead of doing that , because
7 of this second Stop Work Order and the back
8 and forth, we elected to come in to put two
9 questions before this Board:
10 1) May we please have a variance for
11 the stoop, because it is 18 feet from the
12 line instead of 26 to 28 feet of the
13 neighbor's .
14 2) May we have an interpretation of
15 the indicated section from this Board as to
16 whether a second kitchen necessarily means
17 that a house which -is interrelated on both
18 floors and which is now and has been used
19 for the last 15 years by two sisters , does
20 that necessarily mean it is two family?
21 When we finally got to the hearing,
22 on 7/25 , my clients were quite surprised at
23 the confusion about what it was we were
24 seeking. My first remarks were we are not
25 seeking a permit for the two-family home.
1 17
2 We were not seeking an accessory use for an
3 apartment . We are seeking a variance for
4 the stoop and we are seeking an interpre-
5 Cation of an interesting legal question
6 which I had already discussed, by this time,
7 with Mr. Arnoff .
8 The issues that I believe are
9 properly before the Court are, I believe,
10 the following:
11 The questions which the Board
12 properly made -- has before it . You may be
13 relieved or you may not . You may believe me
14 or you may not, but I believe if you consult
15 with your Town Attorney, he will agree that
16 despite what the revoked -- building permit,
17 tear down the house, cut it in half ,
18 contingent urges that it is not within the
19 purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals ,
20 under these facts which I have just
21 indicated, to do that .
22 If you look at Section 100-271 , which
23 is the empowering portion_ of your zoning
24 statute, the indication there, as you are
25 well aware of , is that the Board's power and
1 18
2 authority is to hear and decide appeals from
` 3 and review any orders , requirements,
4 decisions or determinations made by the
5 Building Inspector; to grant variances , as
6 the ones we are seeking; to grant exception
7 which we are not seeking; and to interpret
8 any order, decision or determination of an
9 administrative officer by determining the
10 meaning of any prevention or of any
11 condition or requirement under the chapter.
12 The point I am really desperately
1 13 trying to make clear to you is that we have
14 no real problem to speak of with the
15 Building Department . We are asking you to
16 give us a variance or not give us a
17 variance, as you see appropriate under the
18 law as I will address it in a moment , and to
19 give us an interpretation positively that we
20 may put that kitchen in or negatively that
21 we may not , and in doing so I believe you
22 must reach the issue of whether a second
23 kitchen necessarily makes a home a two-
24 family dwelling.
25 Now, the logic, the way I approach
1 19
2 this logically is -- and incidentally, the
` 3 notice of disapproval from the Building
4 Department which was requested by me, and
5 which is dated May 29, and the Stop Work
6 Order that followed the next day, defines
7 our problem. Our whole problem is that
8 after this whole saga which you know about,
9 we requested on 5/29 the long awaited and
10 the not surprising order to get our stoop
11 variance and that this one-family detached
12 dwelling has to have only one dwelling unit ,
13 and there was an interpretation of the
�J 14 Building Department that putting a wet bar
15 in on that wall where the original kitchen
16 had first been approved would be not proper
17 -- much less a kitchen. It is our position,
18 which I will advance further, that a kitchen
19 itself is proper.
20 How are we going to get out of this
21 Stop Work Order which indicates, inci-
22 dentally, the June 1st order, construction.
23 has insufficient front yard, not being
24 constructed as per plans , plumbing installed
25 for second kitchen? We have to get your
1 20
2 approval for the second kitchen or take out
3 the plumbing. Incidentally, if you don' t
4 give us a second kitchen, would you please
5 let us know that we can put a wet bar in
6 there, which I am defining as a bar with a
7 sink in it with running water which many,
8 many great rooms have in many houses; and
9 finally, an okay from the principal Building
10 Inspector, in other words Victor, to look at
11 it and to make sure he would be happy with
12 what we are doing. If we decided not to go
13 forward with the stoop and if we decided
14 further not to challenge on the kitchen or
15 the wet bar, we could have continued
16 construction.
17 Now I am sitting here in October .
18 That may have been the wiser choice, since
19 we have been held up four or five months .
20 The petitioner's application, incidentally,
21 indicates as you know and should know that
22 what I was seeking was a variance for
23 insufficient front yard and an
24 interpretation to permit second kitchen,
25 interpretation of ordinance sections
1 21
2 regarding second kitchen in one-family
3 dwelling.
4 If you look at your two notices , that
5 would probably explain to you to some extent
6 why everyone is in an uproar. We are not
7 seeking a permit for a two-family dwelling.
8 We never have been. I believe that is part
9 of the reason why everybody is so upset , in
10 addition to the fact they don' t like the way
11 the house looks and it will look better when
12 we put some trees around it . We do not seek
13 nor have we ever sought the two-family
14 permit .
15 We do seek the following, and here is
16 the case: a variance. You know that we
17 have to establish for the front yard
18 variance practical difficulty, unnecessary
19 hardship, and that the relief would not be
20 inconsistent with the neighborhood. It is
21 our position that practical difficulty
22 standards is met by the fact that this is a
23 pre-existing nonconforming lot . That is we
24 are dealing with a small allotment of space
25 in an undersized lot , that the next-door
1 22
2 neighbor has in fact an 18-foot setback. We
' 3 are seeking the same setback, that the
4 average within 300 feet is 26 to 28 foot
5 setback -- that we are not even seeking a
6 setback here for the line of the house. We
7 are seeking a setback for the circular
8 stoop, so that it is less offensive, so to
9 speak, and the house actually remains back
10 at the 28-foot level .
11 Secondly, in regards to unnecessary
12 hardship, the unnecessary hardship, the best
13 argument is the whole saga which I
14 delineated in the first part . This whole
15 saga of $146 ,000 worth of expenses and
16 constant cooperation with the Building
17 Department to do whatever they ask us to do,
18 I believe established unnecessary hardship.
19 Finally, unlike what is indicated in
20 Marie Ongioni ' s paper work, please take a
21 ride and look at the house. In fact , if you
22 want to see the house, please ask for the
23 key. We will be glad to let you go inside,
24 something the architect never did although
25 he wrote a three-page letter to you.
1 23
2 The new houses in that area,
3 particularly on the bay side and the
4 renovations are quite lovely, are quite
5 large, and if you look at the house I want
6 you to realize that that house has 1, 400
7 square feet on each side of it, so to speak.
8 This whole house is 2 ,800 square feet . This
9 is not a big house. I have been in it . It
10 looks pretty big sitting there because there
11 is nothing on this lot but this house and
12 some construction debris , but 2 ,800 square
13 feet is not a big house.
14 Incidentally, Marie Ongioni argued
15 this was an illegally issued or improperly
16 issued permit . I believe that is
17 inaccurate. So that is the argument on the
18 variance. If you look at the community,
19 they have larger homes than 2 , 800 square
20 feet on lots of similar or lesser size,
21 although the picture you have from Ms .
22 Ongioni are smaller homes which also exist .
23 There are some very nice big homes on the
24 bay side -- across from them.
25 Now let ' s get to the question of
1 24
2 interpretation. Why do I think you ought to
3 interpret that the second kitchen does not
4 necessarily make a two-family dwelling?
5 Well , for one thing, it would help I think
6 if you looked at the definition of "dwelling
7 units" in your code. That is interesting.
8 It says -- and this indicates I believe that
9 Victor Lessard and the Building Department
10 were in fact doing their job in indicating
11 that a dwelling unit is defined as a
12 building or an entirely self-contained
J 13 portion thereof . . . . you can look at 100-
14 13 .
15 The point is that this is not a
16 building or an entirely self-contained
17 portion thereof , this second dwelling. it
18 is a totally interrelated home. Who is
19 going to build a two-family dwelling, with
20 interrelated bedrooms with one big hallway?
21 Who is going to build a two-family dwelling,
22 with a connection on both floors which
23 people walk through? If you want to get in,
24 as the opposition suggests , to how this
I
25 could easily be made an illegal two-family
25
2 dwelling, then we will have to have the Town
3 Building Department police all over town
4 because you can do that with any building.
5 In fact , as you know, if they just
6 put a door, and then two doors when the got
7 inside, this whole entire problem would not
8 be before your Board because that generally
9 is the way people who want to be sneaky do
10 it .
11 The point is, this is an interrelated
12 building on both floors , by direction of the
13 Building Department when we filed our new
14 plans . So despite the fact that these two
15 older sisters , who want separate heat and
16 separate water and separate electric , if
17 they can get it put in that doesn' t make it
18 a two-family dwelling. That is one thing I
19 would ask you to look at.
20 I also bring to your attention the
21 Riverhead Zoning Board of Appeals decision
22 in the case of Wilmont (phonetic) issued in
23 July of this year. What happened there, Mr.
24 Wilmont had a house in which there were two
25 kitchens with the pre-existing use. He
26
2 requested, as I am doing, a single-family
3 CPU. The Building Department has to go in
4 to see. They see the second kitchen. They
5 say no, we can' t give you a CPU for a
6 single-family dwelling when you have two
7 kitchens . They go to the Zoning Board of
8 Appeals to get an interpretation of whether
9 they can or cannot do that . The decision,
10 Pat told me, of that Board was the
11 following: That a second kitchen does not
12 automatically mean a two-family dwelling.
13 Issue - the one-family Certificate of Pre-
14 existing Use. We got it in '77 , a one-
15 family Certificate of Pre-existing Use, and
16 we want now a one-family Certificate of
17 Occupancy. We don' t want a two-family. We
18 never have.
19 Finally, I would like to mention that
20 it seems on a matter of law and equity that
21 all of you sitting here and standing here
22 know that there are one-family homes sitting
23 in this town which legally have two
24 kitchens . There are kitchens off the bay,
25 on Nassau Point . There are kitchens off of
1 27
2 pools . There are rec room kitchens . Yet
3 these houses are nonetheless one-family, not
4 two-family homes , because they are
5 interrelated.
6 My point , of course, is that Mr.
7 Lessard and the Building Department
8 correctly insisted on interrelationship of
9 this house. That they were connected. That
10 the bedrooms were all together. That there
11 was one hallway and that is the indicator,
12 not whether or not there are two kitchens .
13 The third thing I wanted to do --
�J 14 technically, I do not have to do this . You
15 are limited to considering what I am
16 requesting and considering what I am asking
17 you to interpret, and you can' t start taking
18 down buildings on me. If you are convinced
19 on that , technically I do not have to rebut
20 the inaccuracies in the paper work from Mr.
21 Tober. However, I cannot resist .
22 I will submit , at this time, the
23 survey from Peconic Surveyors demolishing
24 the argument advanced that this new
25 renovated dwelling has 20 percent or more
1 28
2 lot coverage. It just isn' t so. It is
3 wrong. Ms . Ongioni , I believe, is also, on
4 behalf of Mr . Tober, whose motivation. I
5 leave to your consideration, but I note this
6 Board can sufficiently differentiate what
7 some boards call , quote, religious objection
8 as opposed to real objection to a particular
9 project . There is a motion involved here.
10 I don' t know why. She is wrong on that
11 point . The lot coverage is 13 1/2 .
12 As to the argument about setback,
13 attached to my application, petitioner's
14 application, here is the setback survey.
15 What happened here, and what happened
16 properly under 100-242 , quoted in Ms .
17 Ongioni ' s own paper work, is that the
18 Building Department correctly permitted my
19 clients to simply extend the existing
20 setback line front and back on this
21 residence by sufficiently adding a second
22 part to it .
23 If you look at 100-242 and read it
24 carefully, it supports that . Nothing in
25 this article shall be deemed to prevent the
1 29
2 remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement of
3 the nonconforming building containing a
4 conforming use provided that such action
5 does not create any new nonconformance or
6 increase the degree of nonconformance with
7 regards to the regulations pertaining to
8 such building.
9 If you look at the old survey in
10 Marie Ongioni ' s papers , if you look at the
11 new survey you will see that we don' t do
12 anything but simply -- and, incidentally, if
13 this is wrong and I for one know of many
14 instances where exactly the same thing
15 happened -- we simply extended our front
16 line and extended our back line. We have
17 not run into any sideline problems .
18 Therefore we stayed within the same building
19 envelope as we were originally in. And this
20 is particularly so, with the exception of
21. the stoop. We consider that under that
22 particular section, 230 . We have a setback
23 not of 50 feet -- not of 30 feet , but of the
24 average within 300 feet . So on that issue
25 she is , I believe , also wrong.
1 30
2 On the. side of this house, this house
3 is smaller than it would be. Significantly
: 4 smaller than it could be. It is 2 ,800
5 square feet . So they are wrong on that ,
6 too.
7 There is in your file, the only
8 notification I saw was a letter dated August
g 25th, from George Yorkey (phonetic) , a New
10 York City architect , who admits he was never
11 in the house -- presumably saw it either
12 from the street or trespassing on the
13 property, and yet presumes to advise you to
14 tear it down. If Marie Ongioni is simply
15 wrong, as I have indicated, and you believe
16 this to be true, this man is simply
17 ridiculous and I am sure you will treat that
18 letter with the care that it deserves .
19 None of that is important if you
20 believe, as I believe you will , that your
21 authority under the statute is limited.
22 Even if these arguments have had some merit ,
23 which they do not, the permit for the
24 reasons indicated was never improperly
25 issued. There was no lot coverage issue, no
31
2 setback issue, other than the stoop, and no
3 oversize issue.
4 As to other remarks about whether we
5 met the standards for the variance, I
6 believe we have as I indicated earlier. The
7 confusion in the papers , as I studied them,
8 is simply this : She is talking about a
9 variance for a two-family house. We have
10 not reached that standard because we never
11 wanted a two-family house. We reached the
12 standards for the setback on the stoop.
13 As to the question of interpretation
14 of the codes, I leave it to your
15 consideration.
16 Finally, I have introduced you to the
17 applicants . They are real simple, down-to-
18 earth people, trying to retire out here.
19 The saga has been 18 months . I believe that
20 is a hardship. They had enormous expenses .
21 The kindest thing you recall said about them
22 earlier here was their house was a
23 monstrosity and they were animals for having
24 torn down the trees in front of it . They
25 heard it .
1 32
2 The use is going to be the same as it
3 has been since 1977 . The title is in a
4 family of two sisters and a husband. The
5 house is totally interrelated on the new
6 plans , both floors . The size is as
7 indicated; 2 ,800 square feet . They have
g acted in good faith in the last 18 months ,
g which is what the Building Department told
10 them to do. We have spent a lot of money,
11 $167 ,000 in the process . To suggest that
12 this is a self-imposed hardship, as
13 suggested by some of the opposition,
14 although some of them tempered it with, "It
15 is really the Building Department ' s
16 problem, " to suggest my clients created a
17 self-imposed hardship is totally outrageous
18 in the facts .
19 Thank you for listening to me.
20 THE CHAIRMAN : The only thing that
21 confuses me about this application is that
22 it actually looks like a two-family house,
23 because of the two doors . I want you to
24 think of that , Mr. Cardinale. I am going to
25 ask you about it at the end of this hearing,
1 33
2 what you can do about that particular
3 architectural view.
4 MR. DINIZIO: Can I ask a question?
5 Because you explained to us just exactly
6 what we are supposed to be considering here,
7 I just want to make it clear that I am
g considering that we are supposed to make a
g determination on the determination that
10 Victor Lessard for the Building Department
11 has said, by looking at these plans and
12 inspecting that house, that they interpret
13 this to be a two-family dwelling.
14 MR. CARDINALE: I am glad you stated
15 that . That is not what they said. If you
16 would speak to your Building Department and
17 Mr. Lessard, he will confirm what I said to
18 you tonight . They have no problem with the
19 plan as it exists so long as we did what we
20 promised to do, which was interrelate these
21 two floors .
22 They have no problem except they do
23 not want plumbing, as you walk in what is
24 now called the great room, on the back wall .
25 The contractor put plumbing in there , and
1 34
2 they .don' t want plumbing in there.
3 Our response is, it is not a kitchen.
4 It is a wet bar. Victor has been around
5 long enough to respond to that , "Right .
6 Tell it to the Zoning Board of Appeals . " He
7 is concerned, legitimately, if you permit
8 plumbing on that line it can be altered
9 later to a kitchen. The point is that if
10 you took that stance on every case in the
11 Building Department, you would never permit
12 a wet bar -- that is a bar with a sink -- in
13 any great room, and to deny my clients to
14 have a wet bar in their great room is
15 unfair.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Would we use the
17 phrase "great room" to mean then also?
18 e MR. CARDINALE: Yes . I do encourage
19 you and I am sure my clients would be glad
20 to have you get inside.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: By raising that
22 question that Mr. Dinizio just did, I am
23 afraid it appears that we are not going to
24 be able to close this hearing because we
25 might have to get Mr. Lessard back again and
1 35
2 discuss it with him on the record.
3 Certainly conversations with the Building
4 Department concerning this hearing are not
5 germane to everyone in the audience who is
6 here for this hearing. So that ' s where the
7 problem is .
g MR. CARDINALE: In anticipating that
g question, I asked Mr. Lessard -- tried to
10 reach him this afternoon without success . I
11 was in here at 4: 30 . He was out on the
12 road.
13 The other thing I will state, which I
14 am sure you will confirm, is that I said to
15 him -- and this really is a problem because
16 we haven' t been able to build since June
17 1st , that we are coming into cold weather.
18 The house is unprotected. I said, "What the
19 heck do I have to do to get the Stop Work
20 Order lifted?"
21 He said, "What you've got to do is
22 don' t worts on the stoop until you get a
23 decision, and pull out the plumbing. "
24 I said, "If I pull out the plumbing
25 and I get approval for the kitchen and wet
36
2 bar, I just wasted a few hundred dollars . "
3 So my point is , I don' t want to get
4 my clients in a bigger jam than they already
5 are. If I withdrew this application, I
6 could go back to the Building Department and
7 tell them, "I am taking out my kitchen -- my
8 kitchen plumbing -- for my wet bar, which
g you are concerned about this kitchen, and I
10 will forget this circular stoop. "
11 My position is we have complied in
12 every other way, and the Building Department
13 believes we have complied. I believe he
14 will verify that .
15 THE CHAIRMAN: In answer to your
16 question, Jim, what we had was the exact
17 updated plan, which there was only one copy
18 from the Building Department . It was lent
19 to us from the Building Department 's file
20 from the last meeting , and our prior
21 secretary had returned it to the Building
22 Department the morning after the hearing.
23 So we don' t have the exact , most updated
24 plans .
25 That 's possibly it. Maybe you can
1 37
2 furnish us a better copy of the plans .
3 MR. DINIZIO: Our plans don' t
4 indicate that the upstairs is separate, in
5 that it has a wall . It appears to be a
6 wall .
7 MR. CARDINALE: Which plans are you
8 looking at , Dumber 1 or Number 2 I
9 submitted?
10 MS. KOWALSKI : Number 2 .
11 MR. CARDINALE: That is . the one that
12 shows the great room on the lower floor.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes .
14 MR. CARDINALE: There is , in fact , an
15 interconnection between all the bedrooms ,
16 and if those plans do not show that , they
17 should. I am surprised. I didn' t look at
18 them carefully. You may be correct.
19 There was one other thing I wanted to
20 mention, which is that Victor indicated --
21 well , in regards -- I guess I stated what he
22 indicated. So I ' ll just leave it at that .
23 I thought I was going to advance, Mr.
24 Dinizio, you are correct that the confusion
25 that brought out the neighbors i believe was
1 38
2 greater anger than necessary, and what
` 3 concerned this Board, is if you loolt at --
4 not my application but the notice of
5 disapproval of May 29th, Victor indicates
6 the section why you can' t have the two-
7 family. He doesn' t indicate his underlying
g reason for stopping the work . I am telling
9 you the underlying reason is because of the
10 plumbing in that wall . He wanted it out .
11 I said to him, "Couldn' t I put a wet
12 bar even?"
13 He said, "No, not even a wet bar
14 unless you get the Zoning Board of Appeals
15 to approve it . "
16 I said, "That's ridiculous . I ' ll go
17 for a kitchen and see what they say. "
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms . Ongioni , pursuant
19 to my discussion with Mr . Cardinale, you did
20 read rather a lengthy memorandum. Are you
21 prepared to do that again?
22 MARIE ONGIONI : I am not. I am
23 making that a part of the record. I don' t
24 want to take the Board's time once again
25 tonight . In view of the lost time, last
1 39
2 time, I am not going to go through the
3 entire memorandum with you.
4 THE CHAIRMAN : We do appreciate it .
5 MS. ONGIONI : Since it is part of the
6 record, I don' t think it is necessary to go
7 through it once again. I have a
8 supplemental memorandum I would like to
9 submit now. It is much shorter than the
10 previous one.
11 (Above-mentioned memorandum submitted
12 to the Board. )
13 MS. ONGIONI : I would just like to
14 make a few points . Hopefully, I will hold
15 to the ten minute parameter that Mr.
16 Cardinale suggested before.
17 First I would like to advise the
18 Board that my clients are not present
19 tonight , as Mr. Tober took ill last week.
20 He had a heart attack and he was
21 hospitalized in the middle of last week, in
22 Manhattan, in St . Luke's Hospital . That is
23 why their presence is not here tonight .
24 However, I do believe there is quite
25 a bit of community opposition and I believe
1 40
2 they are in the audience, and although I do
3 not know them by name I would like to remind
4 the Board of petitions submitted by, various
5 community members at the last hearing.
6 I will not reiterate the points made
7 in the earlier memorandum submitted in July.
g I will say though that in response to one of
g Mr. Cardinale's points , there was an error
10 in the calculations regarding the lot
11 coverage and I withdrew the application that
12 the lot coverage exceeds 20 percent . It
13 does not . The multiplication was based upon
14 the building , 58 by 56, instead of 56 by 24
It or thereabouts . So the lot coverage
16 allegation in the earlier memorandum is
17 withdrawn.
18 However, I believe that the Board
19 still needs to review the totality of the
20 circumstances here and the building in its
21 entirety in determining what this really is .
22 As one of the opponents indicated at the
23 last meeting, there is every indication that
24 this is a two-family dwelling. I know that
25 this is not before the Board now. The only
1 41
2 two issues which are before the Board are:
3 1) whether or not a second kitchen
4 should be allowed; and
5 2) the front yard setback.
6 In my opinion, I urge the Board to
7 reach that conclusion that both these
8 requests are secondary to the project as a
9 whole. In viewing the site, you have two
10 entrances . You have two fuel tanks . You
11 have duplicates of so many essential
12 services that are in the dwelling. I submit
13 that the conclusion is that this is , indeed,
14 a two-family dwelling.
15 I would also like to point out , it is
16 within this Board's jurisdiction and, in my
17 opinion, to revoke the building permit . I
18 refer to the Board, to the same section with
19 which Mr. Cardinale referred the Board to,
20 which is a section of the Town Law, a
21 section of the Southold Town Code, Section
22 100-271, and it states that this Board has
23 the power to hear and decide appeals from
24 and review any order requirement decision or
25 determination made by the Building
1 42
2 Inspector. I submit this to the Board, that
3 the determination made by the Building
4 Inspector can, indeed, be reviewed and that
5 reviewal could indeed result in annulling
6 his decision to issue a building permit and
7 to, in fact , annul the building permit .
g So, contrary to what Mr. Cardinale
9 has advised the Board, it is my opinion that
10 this Zoning Board of Appeals according to
11 New York State Town Law, has the power to
12 make such determinations . And in the memo I
13 submitted tonight , I refer you to two cases :
14 1) Second Department Case, Matter
15 of Village Green Center, Inc . versus Reidy,
16 249 NYS 2d 440 (2nd Department 1964) . This
17 case indicated that a Zoning Board of
18 Appeals is empowered to revoke a building
19 permit issued to an applicant and the Board
20 possesses such authority.
21 There is another case, which is a
22 Third Department case. So based upon that
23 case law, it is my belief it is within the
24 power of the Zoning Board of Appeals to make
25 such a decision. As a matter of fact , I
1 43
2 believe that this Board has indeed revoked a
3 building permit in the past .
4 Now, as far as whether or not this is
5 a two-family residence, the applicant
6 indicates that is not before this Board.
7 Well , that may not specifically be before
8 this Board, but the inescapable conclusion
9 is that this has all of the elements of a
10 two-family dwelling. It has six bathrooms .
11 It has two dwelling units which are mirror
12 images of each other. While Mr. Cardinale
13 may indicate there is an interrelationship
14 between the two dwelling units , if it is an
15 open hallway that , in my opinion, was an
16 accommodation to give the appearance of a
17 one-family dwelling. The hallway could have
18 easily been closed. There are two front
19 entrances, which clearly indicate there are
20 two totally separate dwelling units .
21 Once again, the case law has
22 indicated that the test of whether a
23 dwelling is a one or two-family residence is
24 its design, and I refer to the case of
25 . Matter of Stafford versus Incorporated
1 44
2 Village of Sands Point . Justice Shapiro, in
3 this case, believes one must consider both
4 design and nature of occupancy as a twofold
5 test and he did not believe that the case
6 before him met that test .
7 I would submit to this Board that
8 similar facts exist in this application.
9 Here we have a two-family unit, although
10 sisters; two heating systems, two electrical
11 systems; two entrances and stairways .
12 Whether or .not a second kitchen should be
13 added to this dwelling is really irrelevant ,
14 because it is a two-family dwelling.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Could I just ask you
16 to give us copies of those cases that you
17 are stating?
18 MS. ONGIONI : If you would like me
19 to, I will do that . They are cited in the
20 memo.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: It doesn' t have to be
22 tomorrow.
23 MS. ONGIONI : I have copies in my
24 office, and I will get them to you.
25 There is one new issue which I would
1 45
2 like to bring to the Board's attention.
3 There is a possible violation of the wetland
4 statute here. It appears that the
5 Environmental Conservation Law could have
6 been violated. I don' t have an exact
7 dimension between this property and, I
8 believe, it is Gull Pond Inlet . I have it
9 attached to the memorandum. Yes , it is Gull
10 Pond Inlet .
11 It appears that this property may be
12 270 feet within the inlet , and if that is so
13 the Department of Environmental Conserva-
14 tion's approval should have been sought
15 because the Environmental Conservation Law,
16 Article 25 , Title 4 , requires that the
17 excavation and removal , either directly or
18 indirectly, of soil , sand or the dumping,
19 filling, or depositing, either directly or
20 indirectly, of the same substances or the
21 erection of any structures within or
22 immediately adjacent to wetlands that is
23 within 300 feet . The areas immediately
24 adjacent to the wetlands are regulated by 6
25 DTYCRR Part 661 and in Section 661 . 4(b) ,
1 46
2 stating that adjacent area is defined as
3 within 300 feet landward of a wetland.
4 This adds to the totality of the
5 circumstances involved in this application
6 since its inception. There have been
7 numerous violations of numerous parts of the
8 Town Law and the State Law and I believe it
g is incumbent on this Board to look very
10 carefully at this application, and to
11 perhaps even go beyond what the applicant
12 has requested. I would like the Board to
13 consider this as a formal request by Mr. and
14 Mrs . Tober that the building permit be
15 revoked. If the Board indicates that it
16 wishes to have a specific application
17 requesting that relief , I will submit such
18 application to the Board.
19 Finally, I understand that this
20 application is being reviewed by an attorney
21 who has been appointed to investigate
22 specific Building Department files . I
23 believe the attorney is Barry Warren
24 (phonetic) , and I understand that he is
25 investigating the facts of this file, and I
1 47
2 would suggest to the Board that it may wish
3 to hold a decision in abeyance pending a
4 finding of that particular investigation. I
5 am not sure if such a deferral would be
6 mandated, but it might be advisable to do so
7 at this time .
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
9 MS. ONGIONI : Thank you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: So the Stop Work
11 Order, Mr. Cardinale, is still in effect .
12 MR. CARDINALE: It is , unless I pull
13 out the plumbing which I think I should have
14 done four months ago. Let me leave you. with
15 one issue. That is the DEC thing. I think
16 you are aware, as I am, that if there is a
17 street between, the Department of Environ-
18 mental Conversation loses their jurisdic-
19 tion. There is a street in between here.
20 The second thing is , I have been
21 before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
22 last ten years for relief for my clients . I
23 appreciate it if you believe you guys have
24 the right to revoke this permit , that you
25 let me know because I will be doing worse
1 AS
2 with you than I am doing with the Building
3 Department , and the whole purpose of going
4 to you is because I wasn' t happy with the
5 Building Department .
6 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a
7 relief agency, to seek relief when someone
g is hurting from an administrative order . If
g they want to do what they want to do, they
10 shouldn' t piggyback on this application. I
11 think they would have the right to bring an
12 Article 78 against the Building Department .
13 I suppose we are going to have to give you
14 some law on this , and I will do so .
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here
16 that will not be here for the October
17 meeting that would like to say something for
18 the record? Anybody in the audience, either
19 pro or con, concerning this particular
20 hearing, or is the any spokesperson for a
21 group?
22 Yes , Mrs . Sblendido.
23 MRS. SBL,ENDIDO: You are saying you
24 will not have the meeting until the end of
25 October?
1 49
2 THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct .
3 MRS. SBLENDIDO: Could we get some
4 sort of temporary extension to winterize the
5 house? I mean, we have got a big investment
6 here.
7 MR. CARDINALE: This is the issue I
8 was referring to earlier. I am aware of the
9 Board' s problem. I assume you want to speak
10 to Mr. Lessard.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: We have to get Mr.
12 Lessard on the record and in the interim I
13 have to discuss it with Mr. Arnoff , who is
14 the Town Attorney.
15 MR. CARDINALE: Right . Mrs .
16 Sblendido, do you wish to winterize the
17 home?
18 MRS. SBLENDIDO: Yes . I would like a
19 ruling as soon as possihle. This is four
20 months now. That 's all I ask, a ruling from
21 someone -- anyone -- because, you know --
22 because I cut down my trees --
23 MR. CARDINALE: The only suggestion I
24 would have, that the Board obviously wants
25 to keep it open so I can submit a memorandum
' r
1 5Q
2 on the supplemental brief , is it possible to
3 take Mr. Lessard's deposition instead?
4 THE CHAIRMAN: That is the question.
5 I would rather not do that . My question is
6 to what degree are we talking about
7 winterization? Are we talking about the
8 erection of walls , the installation of
g Heating element:?
10 MRS . SBLENDIDO: Can I put one
11 kitchen in?
12 THE CHAIRMAN: I believe there is a
1 13 Stop Work Order on the, premises at this
14 time, Mrs . Sblendido, and that is the
15 problem that exists .
16 MRS . SELENDIDO: How do I go about
17 getting it lifted, or should we just bomb
18 the place?
19 MR. CARDINALE: They have not been
20 able to use it this summer. That aside, I
21 suppose what I have to do is speak to Mr.
22 Lessard about what he would permit; as he
23 indicated earlier, to permit construction in
24 the house as long as we pull out the
25 plumbing.
1 51
2 THE CHAIP.MAN: Hearing no further
3 comments , I recess this hearing to the next
r
4 regularly scheduled hearing . In the interim
5 we will discuss it with the Town Attorney
6 and in concert Mr. Cardinale will discuss it
7 with Mr. Lessard and see if the Stop Work
8 Order is to be lifted or not lifted.
g In reference to the question„ before
10 I continue with ,the motion, Ms . Ongioni , I
11 discussed that issue concerning an
12 investigation of this particular permit , and
13 i think you are perfectly correct , that, the
--1 14 Building Department file has made its way up
15 to Hauppauge, or wherever Mr. Warren' s
16 office is , because I believe we requested a
17 copy of that most updated set of plans and
18 they were non-existing because they were not
19 in the building.
20 The Town Attorney mentioned to me
21 that he had specific questions . So you
22 might want to contact him in regards to that
23 particular request . I think it is a little
24 lengthy to go into it , at this particular
25 time. It will be mentioned in the decision
1 52
2 somewhere down the road, and that is
3 basically the situation as I know it at this
4 point .
5 Also, Mr . Cardinale, when you speak
6 to Mr. Lessard afford him the notion we will
7 be discussing with him the possibility of
8 coming to the next meeting so we might speak
9 to him, not interrogate him, but speak to
10 him as we did before regarding the questions
11 that have arisen on this particular project .
12 We thank everybody for their courtesy
13 and for coming in again. I make a motion
�J 14 recessing to our next regularly scheduled
15 hearing
16 MR. DINIZIO: Second.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
18 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
19 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
20 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
21 THE COURT: Thank you very much.
22 (Time noted: 9 : 27 p .m. )
23
24
25
F
1 52A
2
+ 3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
4
5 I , GAIL ROSCHEN, do hereby certify that
6 I am an Official Court Reporter and that the foregoing
7 constitutes a true and correct excerpt of the Southold
8 Town Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on September 26,
9 1990 , according to my stenographic notes .
10
GAIL ROSCHEN
12 Official Court Reporter
13 '
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
2
____________________________________X �/ V
3 D .
4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OCT ` Z 1990
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING
5
_______________________________J____X
6
Town Hall
7 53095 Main Road
P.O. BOX 1179
8 Southold, New York 11971
9 Septembe-r- 26, 1990
7 : 30 P.M.
10
11
B E F O R E
t 12
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
13
Chairman.
14
15 BOARD MEMBERS:
16 CHARLES *GRIGONIS, JR.
17 SERGE DOYEN, JR.
18 JOSEPH H. SAW I CKI, A05S&N r .
19 JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
20
21, ALSO PRESENT: LINDA KOWALSKI , Board Secretary
22
23
24
25
•� .S�P�-�y/3L�e �6, /990
1 2
2 THE CHAIRMAN: We would like to
3 welcome everybody here. This is our
4 regularly scheduled meeting of the Southold
5 Town Zoning Board of Appeals . We would like
6 to welcome Mrs . Kowalski . She has not been
7 with us for the year. She is on my right ,
8 and your left .
9 MS. KOWALSKI : Thank you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: We would like to
11 welcome everybody here tonight . The first
12 hearing on the agenda is Appeal Number 3961 ,
13 in behalf of Venetia McKeighan.
14 (Legal Notice read off record. )
15 (Time noted: 7 : 33 p.m. )
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the
17 survey, dated September 20 , 1965 , indicating
18 a one-family dwelling, located somewhat in
19 the center of the property, closer to
20 Pond than to Bayview Avenue. I have a copy
21 of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating
22 this and surrounding properties in the area.
23 The nature of the application is for a
24 gazebo on the road side of the house.
25 We ask if there are any applicants
1 3
2 here.
3 MS. McKEIGHAN: Venetia McKeighan.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: How far from -- I
5 should have mentioned this to you --
6 MS. McKEIGHAN: I have it here. I
7 did get a letter. It will be 30 feet from
8 the south line, 60 feet from the north line,
9 30 feet from the house, 70 feet from the
10 street .
11 THE CHAIRMAN: How large is the
12 gazebo?
1 13 MS. McKEIGHAN: It was going to be 10
14 by 10 . After I heard a new price today, I
15 may be down to 8 by 8 .
16 THE CHAIRMAN: The purpose of it is
17 mainly an aesthetic reason?
18 MS. McKEIGHAN: No. The reason, my
19 mother is 84 and living with me. She is
20 housebound, but she can walk in the yard.
21 She doesn' t like it in the back because the
22 back is a lot more windy and it is a lot
23 cooler than in the front, where the sun
24 comes and the house shields her from the
25 wind. I thought she could go out and sit
4
2 there and it would be a place for her to go.
3 Now she walks down the driveway and there is
4 nothing to do but turn around and go back.
5 I thought if I could have a gazebo, she
6 could sit there and in the front also
7 neighbors could see her and come over and
8 talk with her .
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Will it be lighted in
10 any way?
11 MS. McKEIGHAN: No.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: The foundation is very
1 13 simply the base of the gazebo. It is
14 probably out of pressure-treated wood and
15 sits right on the lawn.
16 MS. McKEIGHAN: Yes .
17 THE CHAIRMAN: And the approximate
18 height, do you have any idea?
19 MS. McKEIGHAN: I did ask them and I
20 did submit that . I think they are like 12
21 feet high.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I ' ll look in here. It
23 has been some time since I 've looked at the
24 file.
25 MS. McKEIGHAN: I think it is 12 .
r
1 5
2 THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you. We hope
3 to have a decision for you probably tonight .
4 So if you give us a call in the morning --
5 MS. McKEIGHAN: Thank you very much.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else
7 that would like to speak in favor of the
8 application? Anybody against the
9 application? Any questions from Board
10 members?
11 Hearing no further questions, I make
12 a motion closing this hearing and reserving
Tl 13 decision until later.
14 MR. DOYEN: Second.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
16 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
17 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
19 (Time noted: 7 :36 p.m. )
20 THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in
21 behalf of Harold Gordon, Appeal Number 3962 .
22 It is a variance for a deck addition to
23 existing residence with insufficient side
24 yard setback. The legal notice reads as
25 follows :
}
t�
6
2 (Legal Notice read off record. )
3 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a
4 survey, dated January 6, 1972 , by Alden
5 Young, indicating a parcel just under an
6 acre with a frame bungalow probably a little
7 closer to the west side than it is to the
8 center of the property. Attached to this
9 existing frame bungalow is a deck which
10 surrounds it on two sides partially. The
11 nature of this application is to reduce the
12 side yard from 10 feet to 8 feet , on the
13 deck side which is the closest portion to
14 that side of the property. I have ,a copy of
15 the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
16 and surrounding properties .
17 Doctor, would you like to say
18 anything for the record?
19 DR. GORDON: Yes . Dr. Harold Gordon,
20 124 Hickory Avenue.
21 We wish to enlarge the size of this
22 deck you just mentioned. Since it is used
23 right now it is an existing deck. We wish
24 to enlarge it, since it is uncomfortable and
25 its use is restricted for that reason. It
1 i
Y
t 7
2 is inappropriate to build a deck or enlarge
3 it in any other manner.
4 I am informed my neighbors don' t have
5 any objection. So I hope you will see
6 favorable action on it .
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Doctor, what would you
8 say the height above the ground is on that
9 deck presently?
10 DR. GORDON: I would say three feet .
11 THE CHAIRMAN: In closing it will
12 still be a pole structure holding it up, or
13 will it be cement block foundation?
14 DR. GORDON: Well , the house is
15 presently on cement blocks . So we may very
16 well skirt the whole thing around in the
17 same manner.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank you
19 so much.
20 Is there anybody else that would like
21 to speak in favor of this application?
22 Anybody that would like to speak against the
23 application? Any questions from any Board
24 members?
25 (No response. )
cS S? 7-e W 6 G-: o2(,
1 8
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Taking this out of
3 order, I did have a discussion with Dr.
4 Gordon and he is in need of getting started
5 on this project. In that light, I make a
6 motion granting this application as applied
7 for. I don't have any other specific
8 restrictions on it. Do you?
9 MR. DINIZIO: No. I ' ll second.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Granted as applied.
11 All in favor?
12 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
13 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
14 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
16 (Time noted: 7 : 40 p .m. )
17 THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is
18 Number 3966, in behalf of Peter Bloom.
19 (Legal Notice read off record. )
20 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a
21 survey dated September 27 , 1988 , indicating
22 a survey of Lot Number 17 of this file map,
23 and showing a one and a half story frame
24 home approximately 36 feet from Old Shipyard
25 Lane or Road, and a flag patio in the rear
1 g
2 of this dwelling which is at ground level .
3 The nature of this application is to
4 encompass that flag patio and put a raised
5 deck along the entire rear of the house, and
6 a partial deck around the west side of the
7 house adjacent to the garage. The deck in
g size as proposed is 11 feet by 33 feet , 6
g inches . I have a copy of the Suffolk County
10 Tax Map indicating this and surrounding
11 properties in the area.
12 Is there somebody that would like to
13 speak?
14 MR. GRATHWOHL: My name is Kenneth
15 Grathwohl . I am here by proxy to Mr. Bloom.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: We have been down
17 there and we have seen what Mr. Bloom wants
18 to do. I don' t remember exactly how close
19 to the rear property line -- which of course
20 is really the side property line --
21 ( Interruption)
22 MR. GRATHWOHL : The rear property
23 line is approximately a foot and a half .
24 The existing garage, which has a CO, is one
25 foot off the line.
1 10
2 THE CHAIRMAN: What about the height?
3 MR. GRATHWOHL: Fourteen inches above
4 grade.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: You are not going to
6 disturb the original hedge along --
7 ( Interruption)
8 MR. GRATHWOHL: No, the hedge will
9 not be touched.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: I think the property
11 line is the steel fence inside that hedge.
12 MR. GRATHWOHL: According to the
13 survey, it says , "hedge on line. " There is
14 no indication, no corner markers or
15 anything.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: You will not be
17 extending to the garage?
18 MR. GRATHWOHL: No. We will be shy
19 of the garage.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: So basically, your
21 plan here is about right on the dollar.
22 MR. GRATHWOHL: Probably.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you very
24 much.
25 Is there anybody else that would like
i
1 11
2 to speak in favor of the application?
3 Is there anybody that would like to
4 speak against the application? Any question
5 from any Board members?
6 Hearing no further questions , I make
7 a motion closing the hearing and reserving
8 decision until later.
9 MR. DOYEN: Second.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
11 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
12 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
13 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for coming
15 in. I hope to have a decision for you
16 shortly.
17 (Time noted: 7 : 45 p.m. )
18 THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is
19 Appeal Number 3964, in behalf of Kenneth
20 Minnick.
21 (Legal Notice read off the record. )
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy and a
23 set of plans . Presently on the property is
24 a one-story frame home of ranch style, the
25 parcel of approximately 139 by 273 plus . I
1 12
2 have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
3 indicating this and surrounding properties
4 in the area .
5 Is there somebody that would like to
6 be heard?
7 MR. MINNICK: Kenneth Minnick.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you
g would like to say for the record before I
10 interrogate you?
11 MR. MINNICK: . Well , the reason why we
12 have requested this was we recently met a
13 couple, that is a Section 8 couple. We have
14 known them for about a year and they were
15 having trouble with housing. We thought
16 that , gee, maybe if it was feasible we would
17 go into it .
18 In the long term, we both have
19 parents that are living out here that are
20 retiring or are retired and in the future,
21 at the rate that the taxes are going and
22 expenses out here, we figured they are going
23 to have to part with their home eventually
24 to survive. So we figured we have a place
25 where they could live too, and we thought we
1 13
2 would do a seasonal rental for them, too.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: The only problem I
4 have with the application is that there was
5 no provision in the original special permit
6 to allow for an addition to the dwelling
7 itself . You have to utilize the existing
g footprint of the existing dwell'ing.
g MR. MINNICK: Yes . That was
10 explained to us, but it was suggested we
11 apply and convert the garage into an
12 accessory apartment .
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you do that?
14 MR. MINNICK: We could, but that
15 wasn' t -- we wanted a separate entity. We
16 wanted an apartment that had vision from the
17 existing dwelling so there would be some
18 kind of personal setting for anybody that
19 lived in it . That 's why we connected it
20 with the breezeway. So it would be a
21 separate unit .
22 THE CHAIRMAN: The only one we ever
23 granted is a utilization of a two-car
24 garage.
25 MR. MINNICK: We had thought possibly
1
1 14
2 we would put in for an expansion, an
3 addition to the house which would be
4 connected by the roof line and later apply.
5 Then it would be an existing footprint .
6 THE CHAIRMAN: The problem is the law
7 reads it has to have a valid CO, before
8 January 1 , 1984 . The purpose of that was to
9 utilize all the existing structure first
10 before we go into actually creating these
11 apartments in newer structures -- dwellings ,
12 I should say.
13 Where do we go from here? I know
14 there is a need for affordable housing.
15 Tell me.
16 MR. MINNICK: We had looked into
17 that , too. We looked into low-income
18 housing loans and things like that , to try
19 and even get the money to do this project .
20 We had checked and found out that there was
21 always something missing. We couldn' t apply
22 for it . After all avenues were exhausted
23 and we couldn' t get grants, our last resort
24 was to try and go this way. But , like I
25 said, the whole purpose -- right -- is for
5 .
5
1 15
2 family, ultimate immediate family, when you
3 can' t afford to live anymore to have a
4 place.
5 I didn' t want to do it in the
6 existing dwelling, if at all possible. That
7 is why I am asking for the consideration on
g the separation. The property we are located
g on is residential and agriculture. If we
10 did modify the existing garage and applied
11 for a dwelling within it, then we would have
12 to do a separate garage and we would still
13 be encompassing the same amount of land at a
14 later date. To do another two-car garage
15 would take up the same amount of space as
16 the addition would.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: It would be unkind of
18 me to have you leave here thinking you are
19 half-way there or something in the nature,
20 which you are not . We really can only let
21 you utilize the garage. We have no problem
22 with you constructing another garage, either
23 attached to the, house or detached from the
24 house, as long as it is not in the side yard
25 or the front yard.
1 16
2 At this point, the only thing I can
3 offer to you is that if the Board is not so
4 inclined to grant the addition that you want
5 -- do you want us to consider the garage?
6 MR. MINNICK: No.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Why don' t you say
8 something?
g MRS. MERRY MINNICK: We could have
10 put an addition on the house, but then it
11 would not have been legal to rent it to
12 anyone.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct .
14 MRS. MINNICK: That is the purpose we
15 went this way.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that , but
17 I don' t know how to explain this to you. It
18 is not the way you should have gone. They
19 should have told you you had to utilize the
20 existing footprint meaning the existing
21 house structure, because I assume it was
22 built prior to 1984.
23 MRS. MINNICK: Yes , it was before
24 that .
25 MR. MINNICK: Yes . The house was
1 17
2 built before 1984 .
3 THE CHAIRMAN.: You have a valid CO on
4 the house attached to it before January 1 ,
5 1984?
6 MR. MINNICK: It was completed in '79
7 -- the CO.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: So the house then
9 qualifies .
10 MRS. MINNICK: We met all the
11 requirements except the fact that you could
12 not legally rent and if we put an addition
13 on you could not legally rent it in that
14 area.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct . Tell
16 me what I can do, other than I am telling
17 you we cannot give you the addition. We can
18 possibly grant you a conditional permit
19 based upon the fact that you have been
20 utilizing the existing attached garage. You
21 don't want to use the garage?
22 MR. MINNICK: No. We don' t want to
23 pull anybody's leg and play the game and go
24 with the wet bars . We figured that is not
25 the purpose of all the zoning laws . We
1 18
2 figured we'd try it .
3 If the Board feels that it couldn' t
4 be granted because of , like you say, the
5 existing footprint, then it must be the
6 Board' s decision to find that way.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: I will tell you this .
8 We .will review it with the Town Attorney
9 before we make a decision to see if there is
10 any possibility, and the law may be changed
11 in the future. We have no idea. We have
12 had some pressure in reference to that .
13 When I say "pressure, " I am talking about
14 people asking for additional things . As of
15 to date, the only thing we have granted is a
16 conditional relief , or what we refer to as a
17 conditional special permit for the utiliza-
18 tion of the garage.
19 Thank you very much.
20 Is there anybody else that would like
21 to speak in favor of the application?
22 Anybody that would like to speak against the
23 application? Any questions from any Board
l 24 members?
I
25 Hearing no further questions, I make
1 19
2 a motion closing this hearing and reserving
3 decision until later.
4 MR. DOYEN: Second.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
6 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
7 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
g MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
9 (Time noted: 7 : 55 p.m. )
10 THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is
11 Number 3967 , in behalf of Kim Campbell .
12 (Legal Notice read off record. )
13 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the
14 site plan and a copy of the Suffolk County
15 Tax Map indicating a parcel of 4. 3 acres
16 which is on the water. The site plan
17 indicates a proposed garage in the front
18 yard area. Our Fishers Island consultant
19 and member of the Board, Mr. Doyen, has
20 brought us pictures from Fishers Island
21 indicating the approximate placement of this
22 particular proposed garage.
23 Is there anybody that has an interest
24 in looking at them in the audience?
25 Seeing no hands, is there anybody
1 20
2 representing Ms . Campbell concerning this
3 garage -- from Fishers Island? Is there
4 anybody that would like to speak in favor of
5 the application?
6 Is there anybody that would like to
7 speak against th-e application?
8 Do you have anything you would like
9 to say for the record, Serge?
10 MR. DOYEN: No. I did inquire of the
11 architects and they said there would only be
12 electricity in the garage and it was only
13 for storage -- the garage for storage.
J 14 THE CHAIRMAN: The approximate size
15 of the garage is 16 by 24 -- approximately
16 16 feet in height, of hip roof construction.
17 Hearing no further comments , I make a
18 motion closing this hearing and reserving
19 decision until later.
20 MR. DOYEN: Second.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
22 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
23 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
24 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
25 (Time noted: 7 : 58 p .m. )
/990
1 21
2 THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in
3 behalf of Frank Curran, Appeal Number 3963 .
4 (Legal Notice read off record. )
C cc mows THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a
D
60 21990 sketch of the survey indicating an existing
house set fairly close to Haywaters Cove,
8 surrounded by somewhat a bulkhead seawall
9 type of situation. The nature of this
10 application is a construction of a 20 by 30
11 foot storage building on the easterly side
12 of the property, approximately 3 feet from
13 the easterly side yard -- actually property
14 line -- and I have a copy of the Suffolk
15 County Tax Map indicating this and
16 surrounding properties in the area.
17 Would you like to be heard?
18 MR. PETER STOUTENBURGH: Yes, please.
19 Chairman, and members of the Board, I
20 am mostly here to answer any questions and
21 to make sure that if there is any paper work
22 missing in your records , I could give you
23 copies of it .
24 In terms of the past , almost every
25 project they have done has had to come
22
2 before the Board because of the awkward size
3 of the land that they made their home on
4 some time ago. One thing that was never
5 constructed was the utilities space, since
6 maybe ten years ago they converted their
7 garage into a bedroom for the expanded
8 family.
9 We had gotten an approval from both
10 your body and the Trustees for a swimming
11 pool complex in the front yard, I think two
12 years ago or so, and we had run into
13 problems with the DEC stating that the only
14 place they really felt we could do any
15 building .was pretty much exactly where• we
16 asked for this storage facility. It is in
17 the side yard, and we are not asking to'
18 reduce the rear yard setback from the
19 bulkhead any further than what the house is
20 from the bulkhead presently, which was also
21 I think the request at the time from the
22 DEC. The variance that we had gotten in the
23 past was , I believe, 800 and something feet .
24 We are looking for a building envelope of
25 approximately 600 this time.
1 23
2 THE CHAIRMAN: That variance at that
3 time dealt with an existing lot coverage.
4 MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes .
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Therefore, you are
6 going to be 200 square feet under the
7 existing lot coverage.
8 MR. STOUTENBURGH: What we had asked
g for, at that time, yes . It had requested a
10 reduced front yard, as well , which we are
11 not asking for at this point . The property
12 narrows too much as we get towards the front
13 of that .
14 So we are looking or they are looking
15 for a 3-foot setback from the side yard
16 property line, the same reduced distance
17 from the bulkhead and looking for a, hope-
18 fully, variance of 25 percent approximately
19 of lot coverage.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Existing distance
21 proposed -- I 'm sorry -- proposed distance
22 of the -- let 's just use the phrase distance
23 from the garage or proposed garage to the
- 24 bulkhead is what?
25 MR. STOUTENBURGH: Eight point five.
1 24
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Eight point five.
3 MR. STOUTENBURGH: Which is what the
4 house is off the bulkhead at the closest
5 distance.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: I notice you want to
7 build 3 feet to the easterly sideline. Does
8 that include the overhang?
g MR. STOUTENBURGH: It doesn' t include
10 the overhang. The building they have looked
11 at has less than -- I would say less than a
12 foot of overhang. It is probably less than
13 that . It is a minimal amount of overhang.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: What about water
15 runoff?
16 MR. STOUTENBURGH: I spoke with the
17 Trustees when we met them on the site, and
18 they had some confusion. Hopefully, at
19 their meeting tomorrow we will get our
20 letter of approval from them. They
21 indicated that at the meeting.
22 All runoff is going to be contained
23 on a drywell on the site or however they
24 request it . We also have no porous surface
25 inside the building so that it would be
1 25
2 contained.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: What about height?
4 MR. STOUTENBURGH: Height is a story
5 and a half . They are looking for storage
6 above, although it will not be a total two-
7 story structure. It will be something along
8 the line of a salt box . I think the plans
9 we had sent in with it are from a very
10 similar structure we did, from Anderson on
11 Nassau Point . It is just a salt box which
12 has two-thirds. height on one side.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: What are you talking
14 . about, maximum 16? That ' s something, again,
15 if you don' t have it with you, Peter, it is
16 all right .
17 MR. STOUTENBURGH: I think the plans
18 that' you have --
19 THE CHAIRMAN: It is shown here as
20 19-9 on that side.
21 All right . The only other problem we
22 have is a rather new one and I don' t think
23 it has ever been done any other place in
24 Southold. We are, however, all firemen on
25 this Board and I don' t know if you sat
1 26
2 through these hearings on Carol Road.
3 We started out on Carol Road, over by
4 the Sound Beach Motel- and we started with
5 one garage on the lot and we kept on going
6 down the line as people moved out and
7 converted the houses from seasonal dwellings
g to year-round. Most of them had heat in
g them, anyway. The nature of this Board' s
10 policy is not to close up side yards , as one
11 usually does . The restriction on this , if
12 the Board is so inclined to grant it , may or
13 not be to have two existing garage doors;
14 one in front and one in the back.
15 MR. STOUTENBURGH: I don't think that
16 is a problem.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: We do that mainly for
18 two reasons . I am from Mattituck, Jimmy is
19 from Greenport, Serge is from Fishers
20 Island, and Charlie is from Southold. We
21 find that it is very easy to fight a fire if
22 you can open the garage door and pull a hose
23 through the garage door rather than try to
24 wind it around, and that is exactly what we
25 did on Carol Road and every one of the
1 27
2 existing garages we granted. So that may be
3 the restriction on this .
4 MR. STOUTENBURGH: I would assume
5 that 's fine from the customer' s standpoint,
6 from what he told me.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: It doesn' t have to be
8 an overhead garage door.
9 MR. STOUTENBURGH: Is there also a
10 distance between the two buildings that
11 could be suggested -- one or the other?
12 THE CHAIRMAN: I don' t think you are
13 going to be able to get it there. Usually
14 the distance is 8 feet, and I don' t think
15 you are going to get it .
16 The other concern is the opposite
17 side of the dwelling. It is completely
18 fenced with a four-foot fence and you just
19 cannot drag two and a half and three foot
20 hoses over a four-foot fence. As I said,
21 this may be a consideration. I don' t know
22 at this particular time, but if you -- on
23 the 20-foot -- how large a door are you
24 putting on this , 8 feet -- 10 feet?
25 MR. STOUTENBURGH: Eight foot is
1 28
2 minimal . It 's quite often 9 foot for
3 aesthetic reasons . They may go down to S .
4 THE CHAIRMAN: We would not -- on the
5 back side of the building -- we would not be
6 requesting anything larger than 8 feet . It
7 does not have to be overhead. It could be
8 swinging.
9 MR. STOUTENBURGH: I 'm sure that 's
10 fine, that or 8 foot . Between the two would
11 be given an option.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: I don' t have any other
13 questions, as long as you allow us to put a
14 restriction on it that it is only to be used
15 for storage purposes .
16 MR. STOUTENBURGH: I don' t think
17 there is a problem. The house is big
18 enough.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much
20 for coming in.
21 Is there anybody else that would like
22 to speak in favor of this application? Is
23 there anybody that would like to speak
24 against the application? Any questions from
25 Board members?
29
2 Hearing no further questions , I make
3 a motion closing this hearing and reserving
4 decision until later.
5 MR. DOYEN: Second.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
7 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
8 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
9 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
10 (Time noted: 8 :09 p.m. )
11 .S�i'e Gt Al THE CHAIRMAN: The next hearing is a
12 recessed hearing from July 25th, at which
13 time new maps were submitted and I now have
14 before me a new map indicating a requested
15 set-off of now three houses on a private
16 road off of Fox Avenue in Fishers Island,
17 indicating three existing dwellings that
18 probably have pre-existed zoning. We have
19 seen them personally, all three of them.
20 The first lot is approximately 40 by 120 ,
21 Lot Number 2 is 44 by 120 , and Lot Number 3
22 is 16, 714 square feet or 85 by -- or 85 by
23 combination of about 180 . And they have
24 existing CO' s .
25 We ask the attorney if he would like
A
30
2 to speak in favor, of the application?
3 MR., HILL: Michael Hill , 208 Roanoke
4 Avenue, . Riverhead, New York. I am appearing
5 in behalf of Thomas and Allison Sargent .
6 Recognizing that you have all seen
7 the area, - I would also like to present to
8 the Board a video tape of the area.
9 (Applicant's counsel handing video
10 tape to the Board. )
11 MR. HILL: It is narrated by Mr.
12 Sargent so any comments are his . It was
13 done. in the cold days in January. I guess
14 the snow wasn' t on the ground.
15 In addition to the facts submitted in
16 the application, I would like to point out
17 that initially it had been thought that the
18 Town of Southold's laws were going to be
19 changed so that when we came here in a
20 voluntary merger, as we had here, it
21 wouldn' t. be necessary for us to go to the
22 Planning Board. We . have had at this point
23 the filing of an application with the
. 24 Planning Board for the subdivision.
25 Assuming that that subdivision is granted
T
31
2 and we are going to need variances , we made
3 an application for here as additional
4 economic hardship -- assuming they would
5 give us a subdivision in order to comply
6 with any setbacks which I think are
7 impossible on these particular plots .
8 The houses that are existing would
9 have to be moved. The cost of that is
10 prohibitive, to say the least . There is no
11 change in the character of the neighborhood
12 at all . The houses there are all built very
13 close to the front line. They are all very
14 close together and these houses have existed
15 in that condition, the three houses on these
16 properties , since the inception of zoning.
17 As I said the last time to you, by a
18 court decree, a third lot was merged into
19 this . It was originally a two-lot
20 subdivision and the houses are going to just
21 exist as they are, no changes -- one
22 driveway added to the premises and that is
23 shown on the video tape by my client, posted
24 out where that is going to be, and otherwise
25 there are no changes to the property.
1 32
2 THE CHAIRMAN: The only problem I
3 have is with continuing with the use,
4 whatever, with the garage apartment . This
5 Board may put a time limit . I realize the
6 lady that is presently living in it is 84
7 years old, or something of that nature. I
8 have no idea whether she will stay, but that
9 may be a recommendation of mine in reference
10 to putting a time limit on the existence of
11 the garage apartment .
12 MR. HILL: How many years?
13 THE CHAIRMAN: I am estimating 10 at
14 this point , and only bearing in mind she has
15 probably lived there for a fairly long
16 period of time, according to Mr. Sargent ,
17 although he said she is in good health. We
18 have done this once before in Orient, to my
19 knowledge.
20 That may be a recommendation. I
21 don' t want you to leave here thinking you
22 have three valid CO's , that there is a
23 possibility --
24 MR. HILL : My only question is
25 strictly hypothetical and hopefully if we
1 33
2 encounter any problem -- let 's suppose this
3 particular woman lives in excess of ten
4 years , can we come back at that time for an
5 extension?
g THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly, sure.
7 MR. HILL : Hopefully, we will all
8 still be here.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Right .
10 MR. HILL: Thank you.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else that
12 would like to speak in favor of this
13 application? Anybody that would like to
14 speak against the application? Any
15 questions from the Board?
16 Seeing no hands, I make a motion
17 closing this hearing and reserving decision
18 until later.
19 MR. DOYEN: Second.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
21 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
22 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
23 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
24 (Time noted: 8 : 14 p.m. )
25 THE CHAIRMAN: The next application
34
2 is in behalf of James, Peter and Chris
3 Meskouris . This is a rather unique
4 application in the respect that we have
5 opened, half of this application before and
6 had recessed it, which was 3951, and I will
7 open 3957 .
8 (Legal notice read off record. )
9 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a letter from
10 the agent of the applicant, who is Mr.
11 Fitzgerald, in the file. I have a copy of
12 the survey,, produced by Anthony Lowendowski
13 (phonetic) , dated 1/29/90 , indicating a lot
14 of approximately 75 by 167 plus or minus . I
15 have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map.
16 Would you like to be heard, Mr.
17 Fitzgerald? ''
18 MR. JAMES FITZGERALD: I would be
19 happy to answer any questions that you have.
20 I don't have anything to add to the
21 information in the application.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: This is interesting.
23 What was different on this one, Jim, is the
24 fact that the deck I assume that's the
25 most easterly parcel --
1 35
2 MR. FITZGERALD: Thirty-seven, yes .
3 THE CHAIRMAN: (Continuing) -- is not
4 as encompassing as the other two . In other
5 words, it doesn' t encompass both sides of
6 the property line.
7 MR. FITZGERALD: That is correct .
g THE CHAIRMAN: However, it does
9 encompass the entire west side of the
10 portion -- westerly portion of the lot where
11 the house is located.
12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes .
13 THE CHAIRMAN: I assume the decks are
14 the same as the decks that exist on the most
15 westerly lot .
16 MR. FITZGERALD: Number 35 .
17 THE CHAIRMAN: And the nature of this
18 application as modified and as we discussed
19 with the Town Attorney is for the reparation
20 of each one of these individual houses -- .
21 dwellings which presently have existing CO' s
22 on them and were merged when purchased.
23 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes .
24 THE CHAIRMAN: By a father and two
25 sons .
1 36
2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes .
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Who all have separate
4 families .
5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes .
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else
7 you would like to say?
8 MR. FITZGERALD: No. I don' t have
9 anything else.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything Mr.
11 Meskouris would like to say?
12 MR. PETE MESKOURIS: I don' t know if
13 you are familiar with the area . I imagine
14 you are, but when you step out of the house
15 you go right into sand. I would appreciate
16 it if we are allowed to have the deck.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
18 Is there anybody else that would like
19 to speak in favor of the application?
20 Anybody that would like to speak against the
21 application? Any questions from any Board
22 members?
23 Hearing no further questions, I make
24 a motion closing this hearing and reserving
25 decision until later.
1 37
2 MR. DINIZIO: Second.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor
4 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
5 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
6 MR. DINIZIO: Aye .
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much
8 for coming in.
9 (Time noted: 8 : 20 p.m. )
10
11
12
13
14 I , GAIL ROSCHEN, do hereby certify that I
15 am an Official Court Reporter and that the foregoing
16 constitutes a true and correct transcript of the
17 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals hearing
18 of September 26, 1990 , according to my stenographic
19 notes .
20
21 GAIL ROSCHEN
Official Court Reporter
22
23
24
25
, ' 1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
2
--- -------------------------------X V
3 D
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OCT 12 1990
4
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING
5
------------------------------------X
6
Town Hall
7 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
8 Southold, New York 11971
9 September 26, 1990
9: 30 P.M.
10
11
B E F O R E
12
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
13
—J Chai rman� BSF�J
14
15 BOARD MEMBERS:
16 CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
17 SERGE DOYEN, JR.
18 JOSEPH H. SAW I CKI, 4se4vi
19 JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
20
21 ALSO PRESENT: LINDA KOWALSKI , Board Secretary
22
23
24
25
A, i 9 9d
1 2
2 (Excerpt of Southold Town Zoning
3 Board of Appeals hearing, September, 26,
4 1990 . )
5 (Recess taken at 9: 27 p.m. , at which
6 time Mr. Goehringer recused himself from the
7 hearing, and proceedings resumed at 9: 30
8 p.m. with Mr. Dinizio presiding. )
9 THE CHAIRMAN: I make a motion to
10 reconvene.
11 MR. DOYEN: Second.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
13 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
14 MR. GRIGONI.S: . Aye.
15 THE' CHAIRMAN: My name is James
16 Dinizio, Jr. , and as Gerry explained to you
17 before, this being a small town, you know we
18 all have friends and Gerry felt it better
19 that he not be here for this meeting. So I
20 am going to conduct it. We will reconvene.
21 (Time noted: 9:33 p.m. )
22 THE CHAIRMAN: This is the
23 application in behalf of Village Marine,
24 Application Number 3938 .
25 (Legal Notice read off record. )
1 3
2. MR. DINIZIO: We have a copy of the
3 zoning map, and the Southold Town Property
4 Tax Records and County Tax Map.
5 Does anybody wish to belheard in
6 behalf of this application?
7 MR. CUDDY: My name is Charles Cuddy.
8 I am an attorney for the applicant , Village
9 Marine. This is an application for a piece
10 of property that on the east side of Bay
11 Avenue, in Mattituck, approximately 150 feet
12 south of the Main Road. For those who have
13 some knowledge of the area, it is directly
TJ 14 right in back of the Hess gas station.
15 The parcel is 23, 645 square feet . It
16 has an existing building on it . It has a
17 frame building. It has an existing metal
18 building. It is our intention to replace
19 the existing metal building, as it is
20 approximately 1 ,000 square feet, with the
21 new building which will be 2 ,400 square
22 feet. Also, it will be a metal building.
23 In addition, we want to place a boat rack,
24 which is 11 feet by 102 feet in length, at
25 one corner of the property.
ti
1 4
2 These two additions to the property
3 --. really, in Ione case, replacement gave
4 rise to this application, and without going
5 back to the Book of 'Genesis, I would like to
6 go back a little bit to the beginning, at
7 least zoning-wise, and discuss for one
8 minute what we have and what maybe we don' t
9 have.
10 This piece of property has been there
11 for years and years . It has been used as a
12 marina for years and years . In 1989, the
13 Town Board legislatively endorsed the use of
14 this piece of property as being in the M-I
15 Zone. All the uses we have are permitted
16 uses. All of the uses we are going to make
17 are permitted uses . We are not changing any
18 uses . We are not asking for an. extension of
19 a non-conforming use. We are asking for
20 area variances based on the small piece of
21 property, half-acre piece, that we cannot.
22 use properly, we think, without these
23 variances .
24 The variances that we are requesting
25 begin with one from the bulkhead. Our
ti
s
5
2 present situation is that we are located
3 approximately 32 to 33 feet back with the
4 existing metal building, and I refer you to
5 the site plan map, which I think you have a
6 copy of , just to see the distances, but we
7 are asking that instead of being 32 or 33
8 feet back from the bulkhead, that in fact we
9 be 28 feet back from the bulkhead.
10 So that is the extent of the variance
11 from what exists and, I think, what existed
12 is important because this is not a vacant
13 piece of .land we are asking for variances
14 on. This is an existing parcel . We are
15 asking, essentially, from the bulkhead that
16 we have from the metal building, the new
17 one, a difference of approximately five feet
18 from what we now have.
19 We have a front yard that 's 37 . 3
20 feet . That conforms to the requirements .
21 We have a side yard approximately that is 3
22 feet , on what is the northerly side of the
23 property. We are going to take the new
24 building and extend it exactly parallel . So
25 we end up with 3 feet . The requirement of
r
6
2 the side yard, as I understand, is 20 feet .
3 What we are asking for is that we be allowed
4 to have exactly what we now have. It is 3
5 feet, and that we are not changing it . It
6 is very narrow. It is a 3 foot lot . It is
7 3 feet and we are going to continue in
g exactly that .
g This Large building will have a 20-
10 foot rear yard. The requirement is 25 feet .
11 The rear yard backs onto the fenced area and
12 also backs onto the business zoned piece of
13 property, so that the variance there is
14 indeed very slight .
15 As to the boat rack, the boat rack we
16 ask that we be given a 10-foot side yard on
17 one side and a 10-foot rear yard.
18 Requirement again for the rear yard is 25
19 feet, but it is a rear yard that extends
20 onto a 5-foot metal chain link fence and
21 also back onto the right-of-way. So
22 essentially there is no use, except for
23 vehicles going back and forth, of the rear
24 yard.
25 The boat rack will allow us to store
2 boats . We do not intend -- and I say this
3 most emphatically so there is no question
4 from anybody in the audience or anybody on
5 the, Board -- we do not intend to bring any
6 new boats as part and parcel of what we are
7 doing.
8 The reason for doing this is to take
9 the existing boats -- and the entire area is
10 essentially cluttered with boats because it
11 is a small parcel -- to put the. boats that
12 are being repaired inside the building.
13 They now repair the boats outside the
14 building. When it gets rainy and cold, to
15 repair the boats outside the building is
16 difficult. They want to use the new
17 building to repair the boats . They want to
18 store the existing boats they are repairing
19 on the rack. Therefore, they will clear out
20 the cluttered area of the boats now. We
21 cannot take a car and go into the existing
22 facility, because there are boats all over.
23 Once that clears out it is their
24 contention to try to use that area to expand
25 the parking. It is not shown on the map
1 8
2 that way and that' s not what we ' requested,
3 but it is our intention to try to get more
4 parking spaces, and the parking now is 7
5 spaces . It has been 7 spaces for a long,
g long time. The requirement is much greater.
7 The requirement is 29 spaces . We would have
8 no place to have any additional parking,
9 except if we clear out the boat area. We
10 are saying simply we intend to put more
11 spaces there. We don' t know how many. We
12 have 7 . We, had 7 . We are not increasing
13 the number of boats . We are simply going to
14 use it as it is .
15 As far as landscaping, there is
16 minimal landscaping. I would say there is
17 no landscaping at this site, because it is
18 basically a building and parking area. We
19 are a boat storage area at this point. We
20 will put some landscaping bushes and flowers
21 along the area that is used for the dock at
22 this point . That is right at the bulkhead.
23 Aside from that, there is no place to
24 landscape at all . We ask for a variance for
25 that requirement .
1 9
2 I would point out to the Board that
3 real practical difficulty in this
4 application is that you have a lot which not
5 only is small , but has a strange configura-
6 tion. The configuration is triangular in
7 slope. Because of that, I think the
8 variances we ask for are not excessive.
9 I think the variances would meet the
10 test of practical difficulties . We are not
11 going to change the character of the
12 neighborhood. There is no other means to
13 use it to get the point we want to be at ,
14 which is to have a larger usable building
15 for the repairs . There is no excessive or
16 further demands at all on governmental
17 facilities . We are going to have variances
18 for the most part that are not substantial ,
19 certainly in light of what we already have.
20 They are basically minimal variances
21 compared to the overall requirements. Some
22 of them are significant, but not compared to
23 what we have.
24 I would ask that this Board encourage
25 properties to be improved, that they permit
1 10
2 and grant this particular variance. I would
3 like to say that if the Board were to reject
4 this variance, what would happen is you
5 would have basically the same place you now
6 have. You would have no improvement in
7 structure. You would have a clutter of
8 boats, no better parking. There would be
g nothing that would improve the site and I
10 think that would be inappropriate.
11 I would say two things in closing.
12 First, it has been my experience that on
13 occasions , when site plans are pending, that
14 you get communications either at the time of
15 the hearing or after the hearing from the
16 Planning Board. If that happens , I would
17 ask for the opportunity to respond to
18 whatever the Planning Board says that that
19 may be negative concerning this application.
20 I want to point out to the Board that
21 at the time this application was initially
22 made, Linda Kowalski , who is the Board
23 secretary and administrative assistant , was
24 working with me in my office. She no longer
25 is , but I want it to be known. From the
1 11
2 very time she began working for the Town,
3 she no longer worked on this application.
4 I would ask that you approve the
5 application. Thank you.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cuddy, I can tell
7 you that I believe today we received
8 something from the Planning Board requesting
9 that we hold the hearing open or recessing
10 it with the idea they could have some input
11 into what was going on here. I can give you
12 a copy of that .
13 So they haven't submitted it yet, but
14 they did say they intended to comment on
15 this application.
16 MR. CUDDY: I would certainly ask
17 that I have the opportunity to respond to
18 whatever they say .
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly, as long as
20 you are willing to go forward with that .
21 MR. CUDDY: Otherwise I would have no
22 reason to keep it open except for that
23 narrow point.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you like to
25 respond in writing to that?
1 12
2 MR. CUDDY : I would prefer to respond
3 in writing. If there's is in writing -- I
4 take it they are not here -- that it will be
5 in writing. I will respond in writing.
g MR. DINIZIO: They haven' t made
7 comments yet . As soon as we get them --
g MR. CUDDY: Fine. Thank you.
g THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cuddy, I have a
10 few questions but I think I will wait until
11 after I hear if anybody has any other
12 comments positive to this application and
13 negative comments .
14 MR. GOLDMAN : Robert Goldman. I am
15 the program coordinator for the North Fork
16 Environmental Council . I would like to read
17 a statement into the record.
18 "The North Fork Environmental Council
19 is opposed to the granting of bulk and
20 setback variances to Village Marine.
21 The applicant has failed to show why
22 the strict application of the zoning code
23 would cause hardship necessitating
24 variances . The applicant has operated the
25 marina for a number of years . What is the
f
1 13
2 hardship? We respectfully remind the Board
3 that the inability of a business to increase
rounds for claiming
4 profits is not g g
5 hardship.
6 The subject property is a pre-
7 existing, nonconforming site according to
8 the M-I Zone adopted 1/10/89. The site is
g . 55 acres . M-I requires at least 4,000
10 square feet. The granting of further bulk
11 reductions by the variance would be
12 completely contrary to the intentions of the
13 Master Plan. Granting bulk and setback
14 variances here would be making a bad
15 situation even worse.
16 We respectfully remind the Board that
17 the M-I Zone figures prominently in pending
18 litigation between NFEC and other parties
19 and the Town. NFEC has proposed revisions
20 to the M-I Zone in the course of the
21 litigation. Relevant to this appeal is
22 requirement C. (1) (f) and (g) of said
23 revisions which state:
24 (f) For each one square foot of
25 surface water occupied by the marina, there
1 14
2 should be 1 . 25 square feet of upland area
3 available (exclusive of area covered by
4 setbacks and required landscape area) . To
5 the extend upland area is unavailable to
6 maintain the 1 to 1 . 25 ratio described
7 herein, the ability to use surface waters
8 shall be limited specifically in this
g special exception permit .
10 (g) The permitted number of boats at
11 such marina will be limited to one boat per
12 1, 250 square feet of upland area (exclusive
13 of areas covered by buildings, required
14 front, side and rear yard setbacks, and
15 required landscape areas) . The special
16 exception permit shall state specifically
17 the approved boat capacity for the marina
18 approved.
19 NFEC is fully confident that we will
20 win the suit and that the proposed M-I Zone
21 will be adopted. In which case, if this
22 appeal is maintained, it will have to be
23 reviewed by the Board utilizing new
24 criteria, partially cited above.
25 James Creek is included in the
1 15
2 Peconic Bay Critical Environmental Area
3 designated by Suffolk County. The action
4 proposed by the applicant is therefore the
5 Type I under SEQRA with a presumption of
6 significant impact requiring an
7 environmental impact statement . A long-
8 form Environmental Assessment Form is
g required to be filled out by the applicant
10 and the lead agency.
11 NFEC believes that a significant
12 increase in boat traffic, water pollution,
13 noise, automobile traffic and wildlife
14 habitat degradation would occur as a result
15 of the proposed action. The Board should
16 initiate a coordinated review of this
17 appeal/application with all concerned
18 agencies . The Board should request lead
19 agency status , issue a positive declaration,
20 and require that an environmental impact
21 statement be prepared. "
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else
23 that would like to be heard on this
24 application?
25 MS. KOOP: Gertrude Koop . I live on
f
1 16
2 Bay Avenue, in Mattituck.
3 Mr. Cuddy, I would like to ask you
4 -- because I know you but I don' t know the
5 name of the marina owner -- when you spoke
6 of this storage rack, you gave foot space.
7 How high is this thing going to be? Don't
8 tell me in feet . How many layers of boat?
g MR. CUDDY: Two, at the most .
10 MS. KOOP: There are here tonight
11 many people who are living in homes that
12 have been established for quite a few years ,
l 13 prior to the Village Marina business . When
14 they developed their property on James
15 Creek, John Klein (phonetic) had a marina of
16 a type. At that point , it was a rowboat and
17 putt-putt motor. Today it is high speed
18 boats that are dashing in and out and, as
19 was spoken of before, is causing pollution.
20 I do not feel that to enlarge this building,
21 to give allowances to exceed the space
22 allotments should be done.
23 Secondly, I think rather than waiving
24 parking restrictions, I think there should
25 be a bigger demand on parking restrictions .
1 17
2 If the bank across the street really
3 enforced their sign, which says , "For
4 bankers only. Other cars will be towed
5 away, " many of the boaters on Saturday and
6 Sunday would have a long walk home because
7 the only place they park their cars is in
8 the bank parking lot .
9 If one car is parked on Bay Avenue it
10 is almost an impossibility to get two cars,
11 one going in each direction, in and out of
12 Bay Avenue. It makes a tremendous hazard
13 and a definite difficulty. I think there
14 should be a greater demand for demanding
15 more parking on the property. As Mr. Cuddy
16 said, they intend to have more than seven,
17 but good intentions -- you know there's an
18 old statement that says , the road to hell
19 was paved with good intentions . And I don' t
20 like to see the entrance to Bay Avenue going
21 to hell .
22 Also, we have another marina. Within
23 the powers of planning, and so on, it was
24 decided James Creek wasn't worthy of being
25 used. So they allowed a marina to develop
1 18
2 on either end. What one didn' t pollute, the
3 other one did. That too, at one time, was
4 stated it wouldn' t be more than 100 boats ,
5 and I am sure the number there exceeds far
g more than 100 boats .
7 I hate to see the same thing
8 happening up there. I don' t think we should
9 have to look at the storage facility and I
10 don' t think we should have to be
11 inconvenienced by parking that ' s a hazard to
12 all of us . Thank you.
13 MS. MARRINER: My name is Jeanne
14 Marriner. I live off the Bay Avenue.
15 I concur with the statement of Mr.
16 Goodman and the Environmental Council . , I
17 urge you to consider this very carefully.
18 There are multiple problems . It is not only
19 pollution in the creek. It is a definite
20 traffic hazard in that whole area where the
21 marina which was -- as Mrs . Koop said -- a
22 very small little operation, a little
23 outboard repair shop and a few rowboats . It
24 was never meant to be a large marina . It
25 was sited inappropriately. I think the
1 19
2 lawsuit will prove this .
3 I hope that you will take all this
4 into consideration, and think of the traffic
5 hazards . There is also a potential fire
6 hazard. In fact , that Hess gas station is
7 right there. Fiberglass boats are highly
8 volatile. One fire and you could have a
9 tremendous situation in the neighborhood
10 that is so congested that people can' t get
11 out of Bay Avenue, and anything further in
12 this area would just be contributing to more
13 detriment to the people that live there.
14 The object of good zoning is to protect the
15 public's health, safety and welfare.
16 Please remember that . Thank you.
17 MS. SAWASTYNOWICZ : Nancy
18 Sawastynowicz . I would just like to have
19 the Board become lead agency and ask for an
20 environmental impact statement to be done on
21 this project, because this time they say
22 they want to make more roads . It will be
23 more boats , more congestion, more pollution,
24 all of the above that everybody else stated.
25 I think it is a serious problem we are
1 20
2 facing with our bays being polluted, by not
3 just boaters but the whole environment .
4 So let ' s look at this with a lot of
5 concern. Thank you.
g THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?
7 MR. CUDDY: If I may, I would like to
g respond to some of the comments that have
g been made. I am disappointed to a fair
10 degree, although not surprised, by Mr .
11 Goldman. I am disappointed because the
12 whole crux of his remarks directed not
13 towards this application, but towards some
14 preconceived agenda that some people have
15 and the North Fork Environmental Council , to
16 my knowledge, has not done very much
17 positive but they have done a lot through
18 the kind of statements made here that negate
19 any form of change, any minimum progress .
20 I bring to the attention of the
21 people that are here and the Board, once
22 again, this application does not have to do
23 with James Creek. We are not putting more
24 boats in the water, and we are not putting
25 anything that is going to cause additional
1 21
2 pollution. I think to talk in those terms
3 has really missed the point .
4 There is an existing building. There
5 is an existing site. We can use it exactly
6 as it is . It can stay that way. That' s
7 what you would end up with. You would not
8 end up with what I think you intend to,
9 which is to deny completely. They' re asking
10 you to legislate here instead of listening
11 to an appeal .
12 I - take exception to the North Fork
13 Environmental Council as a unit, standing
14 here through Mr. Goldman, without either a
15 resolution showing his authority or giving
16 us any indication of what standing they
17 have,. I want it on the record, I object to
18 their standing, at this point . I don' t
19 think they have any in connection with this
20 application. Their interest is totally
21 environmental .
22 I point out to this Board in April of
23 1989, the Town Trustees -- I am making this
24 a part of the record -- approved this
25 application as to the building . At that
1 22
2 time, it is my understanding they did make
3 an environmental declaration. This has been
4 through that process . This is over a year
5 ago.
6 I think that I could sympathize with
7 someone like Mrs . Koop who is concerned
8 about traffic. I point out to the Board, I
s think we are going to eliminate part of the
10 traffic problem. If this , again, was denied
11 there would be no improvement in the traffic
12 situation. None at all . So the very
13 concern she has, that the traffic is bad, is
14 not going to improve if this is rejected.
15 If it is accepted I think there may be a
16 material improvement because you are taking
17 boats from where they are now parked, or
18 stored, and you will be putting cars in
19 those spaces . I think the traffic situation
20 can be significantly alleviated by approving
21 the application we seek.
22 I say this is an upland application.
23 It has nothing to do with the water. It has
24 nothing to do with increasing environmental
25 hazards in this area. The marina is there.
1 23
2 It has been legislated. Mr . Goldman read
3 from the proposed revisions that the North
4 Fork Environmental Council would like to
5 make to the Town ordinances -- not the
6 ordinances , but the proposed revisions these
7 people want to make. I think they are
8 irrelevant to this proceeding.
9 I point out to the Board that my
10 client is here. Mr. Young is one of the
11 principals of the marina. I said, and I say
12 it on his behalf , that this is not an
13 increase as to the number of boats . This is
TJ 14 to try to eliminate an unfortunate
15 situation. It 's nice that it is raining
16 outside, because that is one of his
17 problems . He cannot work there in the rain.
18 He wants to put the boats inside, not
19 increase the number of boats either.
20 Therefore, I ask for the approval of
21 the application. I am handing up a copy of
22 the resolution from the Trustees .
23 (Mr. Cuddy handing the Board a letter
24 from the Board of Trustees, dated May 10 ,
25 19 . )
1 24
2 THE CHAIRMAN: How high is this rack
3 going to be?
4 MR. CUDDY: My understanding is that
5 the accessory limitations, the accessory
6 unit to the building or structure can' t be
7 higher than 18 or 19 feet . I don' t remember
g which one is applicable. It will not be
9 higher. We are not asking for a variance to
10 go higher.
11 I agree there is an aesthetic
12 question involved. We think we are trying
13 to clean up the area. It would certainly
14 not be more than two, maybe end up with
15 being one, but we can' t go higher than the
16 law allows at this point. For an accessory
17 structure, we can' t go higher than 18 or 19
18 feet .
19 THE CHAIRMAN: In relation to the
20 shape of the parcel , I had a question as to
21 whether or not the land that is to the rear
22 of the boat rack is the front yard or not ,
23 in that it is on the right-of-way.
24 MR. CUDDY: I don' t believe the
25 definition of street or right-of-way makes
A
1 25
2 that the front yard. I would point out to
3 the Board that , first of all , our access to
4 that is zero because there is a five-foot
5 chain link fence. But my understanding that
6 the definitions in the zoning ordinance do
7 not make that a front yard simply because it
8 is a right-of-way there.
g THE CHAIRMAN: ' I am sure you are
10 going to have a lift of some sort, to lift
11 the boats out of the water.
12 MR. CUDDY: They use a ramp, and Mr.
13 Young can tell you if they are going to use
14 a particular lift .
15 MR. DAVID YOUNG: We use it for
16 storage of new boats only. New boats , boats
17 that are being serviced. The boats that are
18 cluttering . The boats there are plenty. We
19 are not using it in a high and dry marina .
20 The dry rack will never be used for a
21 dry land marina situation. They will only
22 be used in order to store new stock boats
23 and boats that are being worked on in the
24 facility. It is financially inconceivable
25 for me to use it as a marina-type situation,
1 26
2 where we are launching and retreating
3 customer's boats .
4 THE CHAIRMAN: So it is for storage
5 of new boats?
6 MR. YOUNG: Inventoried boats, stock
7 boats we have inventoried that are for sale
g and customer boats that are being worked on.
9 In other words , if it is a two rack set up
10 we' ll keep the stock inventoried boats on
11 the second set of racks , up high, which
12 reduces theft and give us a place to keep
13 the boats out of the way and the customer
14 service boats will be kept under them in
15 that rack -- in that rack place.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: On the ground level?
17 MR. YOUNG: On the ground level , yes .
18 THE CHAIRMAN: It is just really the
19 ground level and one rack above that, and
20 nothing above that?
21 MR. YOUNG: No. You can' t do it . It
22 requires about eight foot above.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a launching
24 ramp?
25 MR. YOUNG: Yes, there is a launching
1 27
2 ramp. It has been there since we owned the
3 property, and I assume it has been there
4 since Mr. Klein owned the property. We use
5 it for our own use only.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: You do haul boats out
7 now to work on?
8 MR. YOUNG: Yes .
g THE CHAIRMAN: What do you use, a
10 forklift?
11 MR. YOUNG: A trailer. We have a
12 forklift on the premises that we use to move
1 13 boats, remove motors from boats , remove
J 14 boats from the trailer to work on the bottom
15 of the boat, or whatever.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: My concern was how are
17 you going to get those boats onto that top
18 rack?
19 MR. YOUNG: We have a forklift that
20 we own.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: So it is capable of
22 lifting the boat up seven or eight feet and
23 pulling it onto the rack?
24 MR YOUNG: Yes .
25 THE CHAIRMAN: What will you be doing
1 28
2 with the boats tied up at the dock for the
3 winter?
q MR. YOUNG: We store all of the
5 storage boats . ' We lease a piece of property
6 in Aquebogue, where we store all of our
7 winter storage boats . When we initially
g bought the property two years ago, we saw
9 Marquettes (phonetic) had a very congested
10 situation in the winter. There was no room
11 to park. Customers had no access to the
12 place. We made a decision to utilize a
1 13 piece of property in Aquebogue. Every boat
14 we store, except for the boats that are
15 being worked on and the boats that are being
16 sold by us, either by brokerage or the boats
17 that we own, we keep that all -- we keep on
18 that property in Mattituck. We lease a
19 piece in Aquebogue in order to store all the
20 boats -- the customers that are in the water
21 or that come in that we service, we take
22 everything to Aquebogue.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is all I
24 have. '
25 MR. YOUNG: Thank you.
1
1 29
2 MR. GOLDMAN: I am a little surprised
3 Mr. Cuddy would take such exception to the
4 North Fork Environmental Council ' s comments
5 on this application. Mr. Cuddy well knows
6 we comment on applications in both Riverhead
7 and Southold. Just for the record, so it is
g clear, I do represent the North Fork
9 Environmental Council . I am duly authorized
10 to do so, and the Board may inquire of that
11 with our Board of Trustees . I am authorized
12 to .speak in behalf of NFEC.
13 I think the point we want to make
14 more clearly to the Board is that this
15 application has to be considered a Type I
16 application under SEQRA. It is a critical
17 environmental area, so designated by Suffolk
18 County, 500 feet from the mean high water
19 mark of the Peconic Bay and its tributaries
20 of which James Creek is a tributary. There
21 is a presumption of significance to this
22 action and that would indicate the need for
23 an Environmental Impact Statement . That is
24 the important point that we want to bring
25 out to the Board.
1 30
2 The rest of my statement was a
3 presentation to the Board of what we believe
4 to be the case and our opinion. We also,
5 again, re-emphasize we are pointing out to
6 the Board it has an application under the
7 SEQRA to assume lead agency status and we
g are requesting that you do so . Apparently
9 when this application was made to the
10 Trustees, they did assume lead agency status
11 and requested a short Environmental
12 Assessment Form and that is contrary to
13 SEQRA. They should have requested a long
14 form.
15 The ball is now in your court . You
16 have the responsibility and the opportunity
17 to become lead agency here and we would urge
18 you do to so.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
20 MS. EVETTE MELLENDER: What I want to
21 ask -- is there a procedure in the Town if
22 someone asks for a variance that the
23 neighbors are to be notified within a
24 certain area? Because we were never
25 notified of this , except for the North Fork
1 31
2 Environmental Council .
3 I remember many years ago they wanted
4 to build a pathway through that was going to
5 come by our house off of the Main Road and
6 we were notified. They said that ' s when you
7 are "X" amount of feet from a home that is
8 asking for a variance or a business that is
g asking for a variance. What I am asking is
10 should the people on Bay Avenue that are a
11 certain amount of feet from this have been
12 notified?
13 THE CHAIRMAN: It is adjoining
14 property owners , ma' am, and we have a list
15 of them.
16 MS. MELLENDER: It is only adjoining
17 properties?
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes . I have the
19 addresses here .
20 MS. MELLENDER: Could you clarify
21 that for us , at any future point?
22 THE CHAIRMAN: We have a list of
23 adjacent property owners , and then receipts
24 of certified mail for eight neighbors . If
25 you would like, I could name them.
1 32
2 MS. MELLENDER: It is only property
3 that touches on that property?
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes .
5 MS. MELLENDER: They were sent a
6 certified letter on this?
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, and I probably
g should have stated it at the beginning of
g this hearing. There were legal notices
10 placed in the papers .
11 Is there anything else? If someone
12 would like to make comments , step up to the
13 mike and we can get your name.
14 MR. RICHARD LUHRS: I had sent Mr.
15 Goehringer a letter, and I hope that you
16 received it . I wanted to know that you have
17 it on file, about my concern and many of my
18 concerns are the same as the North Fork
19 Environmental Council . But going back to
20 this point about not notifying different
21 neighbors, when was that notification sent?
22 Very recently?
23 MR. CUDDY: When the application was
24 made.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: May 4th.
1 33
2 MS. KOWALSKI : It 's required to be
3 sent a week before it is filed.
4 MR. LUHRS: It doesn' t include, other
5 than the neighbors who are adjacent to the
6 property line.
7 MS. KOWALSKI : It is not required to.
8 MR. LUHRS: That's fine. Thank you.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Are any of those
10 people here?
11 MS . PATROWSKI (Phonetic) : I did
12 , receive a letter.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else that
14 would like to speak?
15 MR. EDWARD BURKE: I live on Bay
16 Avenue, and the rear of my property is on
17 James Creek. I am just wondering why they
18 are going through all this if they don' t
19 want to expand the marina.
20 I can remember back about 14 years
21 ago, when Dave Strong was standing here and
22 he wanted to expand his marina. The people
23 here were against it . He said that he had a
24 mini-marina. What that meant no one seemed
25 to know, but the people up where you are
a
1 34
2 sitting said it means 100 boats maximum in
3 the water, on the land stored, and that is
4 the way it was left . They gave him an okay.
5 No new buildings .
6 Go down and look at Dave Strong' s
7 now. Maybe 400 boats. The rack that was
g only going to be this high (indicating) , now
g is about five stories . Now I have to look
10 at it . I don' t know what they are going to
11 do, but I can tell ,you what happened before.
12 It certainly wasn' t nice. If they do that
13 down the end, of course it 's all money.
14 Everything is money.
15 1 You people up there are to protect
16 us , not them. And if we have rules and you
17 people make variances for everything I don' t
18 think it is fair to the taxpayers and the
19 people that live along the creek.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody
21 else?
22 Hearing nothing further, I make a
23 motion. to recess the hearing.
24 MR. DOYEN: Second.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Until the next
•
1 35
2 regularly scheduled meeting. We are going
3 to recess this hearing until our next
4 scheduled hearing, which is probably going
5 to be the end of October.
6 MR. CUDDY: Can I ask the purpose of
7 the recess?
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Well , I would like to
9 investigate the North Fork Environmental
10 Council 's letter a little further. I would
11 like to sit down and read that letter.
12 MR. CUDDY: Does the North Fork
13 Environmental Council have a copy to supply
14 the applicant with?
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes . We have this .
16 Also, your comments about standing
17 has, in my mind, particular meaning. I
18 would like to investigate that a little
19 further with the Town Attorney . I would
20 like to give you an opportunity next time to
21 further bolster your case.
22 (Court Reporter requested Mr . Cuddy
23 repeat a portion of the testimony. )
24 MR. CUDDY: My objection to the North
25 Fork Environmental Council was :
1 36
2 a) although he recites this , I have
3 never seen a resolution. I have never seen
4 anything from the Council itself that
5 indicated that the Council had determined
6 they were taking a stand. I don' t know
7 where Mr. Goldman gets his information from,
8 but he apparently hands in writings and
9 makes comments on behalf of them.
10 My first objection was that I don' t
11 believe that it is sufficient for him simply
12 to stand and announce that an organization
13 is something that he is representing at this
14 point . I would like a letter -- more than
15 that .
16 Secondly -- (interruption)
17 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I am a
18 director, and I can tell you he's honest .
19 MR. CUDDY: You weren' t asked that,
20 number one. Number two, I am asking for
21 more than a director to sit here. I am
22 saying I would like to see something in
23 writing saying that he has done this . You
24 can bring all of the Board of Directors down
25 here the next time. I guess that will prove
l 1 37
2 it . If they have it in writing I would like
3 to see it . I think this applicant has the
4 right to ask that question. I think the
5 Board has a right to ask that question.
6 They oppose unanimously every
7 application that I have ever made in this
8 Town. They are there. They oppose it .
9 The other thing I am saying is I
10 don' t think that they have standing to
11 oppose an area variance. That ' s very
12 different than coming in and saying, "We
Ll13 want you to ,do something, " in front of the
14 Town Board, legislatively. It is very
15 different than coming before the Planning
16 Board. They' re saying that here they have
17 some reason to take issue.
18 Some of the neighbors , I understand
19 their standing. I don' t object to that at
20 all . The North Fork Environmental Council ,
21 I take serious issue with standings they
22 have to object to the area variance.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
24 MR. GOODMAN: If Mr. Cuddy is going
25 to make a request to the Board to
a
1 38
2 investigate the standing of the North Fork
3 Environmental Council to appear at public
4 hearings, I think it might be incumbent upon
5 him to at least cite to the Board initially
6 some law or some facts in law, some
7 precedent in law, where an organization
.8 can' t come through its representative and
g speak at a public hearing. This is
10 something absolutely new to me. I have
11 never heard of anything like this in my five
12 years in doing this, between the Riverhead
1 13 Board, the Southold Board, the Suffolk
14 County Legislature where an organization was
15 challenged as to whether they could come
16 before a public body or a public hearing. I
17 think Mr. Cuddy will have to submit
18 something.
19 I would request that if the Board is
20 going to follow through on Mr. Cuddy's
21 request, they request Mr. Cuddy to produce
22 something that says we can' t . This is new
23 to me.
24 MR. CUDDY: I don' t challenge Mr.
25 Goodman' s right to freedom of speech.
1 39
2 MS. JEANNE MARRINER: I am also a
3 member of the North Fork Environmental
.4 Council , and when I am not able to attend
5 meetings I am very pleased to have Mr.
6 Goodman or another NFEC representative
7 representing my views . We enjoy NFEC
g because we all have similar views and I
9 think that certainly gives them standing.
10 He is representing one thousand plus
11 members .
12 THE CHAIRMAN: When the question of
13 standing comes up, I don' t question your
YJ 14 standing. But I would like to, at least , if
15 someone raises the question about that , I
16 would like for that particular thing to be
17 cleared up before I close the hearing. I
18 would not like to have something that could
19 not be commented on. I would not want to
20 have my thoughts not be commented on.
21 So I would like to read the letter
22 over, and I would like to investigate with
23 the Town Attorney the standing of the
24 organization. It has been raised be ore, in
25 other applications before us .
1 40
2 MR. YOUNG: If there is anybody with
3 any kind of environmental concern it would
4 be myself as a marina owner. Without an
5 environment we wouldn' t have a business .
6 Without boating, without fishing, w 'd have
7 nothing. I am very environmentally
g concerned._ The last thing I want tc do is
9 create havoc on the environment . It is my
10 livelihood. So if there is any
11 environmental question or if there is any
12 problem with any environmental impact in
13 this project we are trying to do, please let
14 me know so that I can correct it .
15 The only thing we really want is to
16 be able to work indoors in February and stay
17 warm. We have absolutely nothing other than
18 that , but to work in a .tin ramshackle
19 building that is big enough to get half a
20 boat in. In order to make our mortgage
21 payments we have to have a shop we can
22 produce work out of so that we can pay
23 utility bills , hire our help, and ha e a
24 viable business in the Town of Southold.
25 That 's it .
1 41
2 THE CHAIRMAN: At the risk of going
3 any further, I understand the reaso for the
4 building. The rack I have a lot of
5 questions about . Do you have parking spaces
6 there now?
7 MR. YOUNG: It varies from time to
8 time. What happens is Monday there is a
g flow of boats into the place that are broken
10 down and they need repair. By Friday and
11 Saturday, it ' s out . We have an agreement
12 with the bank, where we can park customer
13 vehicles in the bank. The customers are
14 marina customers . They know about it .
15 That 's why there are cars parked in the bank
16 parking lot on the weekends . The b nk
17 agrees with us on that . They know bout it .
18 It is fine.
19 Right now what we would like to do is
20 make it so that we can park our car , our
21 customer cars next to their boat slips . We
22 are trying to clear that bulkheaded area.
23 We want to landscape it , plant flow rs and
24 have parking for our customers . There are
25 only 25 slippings there.
1 42
2 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand. You are
3 not increasing that .
4 MR. YOUNG: All we want is a workable
5 building, where we can go inside in the
g winter and a little bit more room in the
7 yard so we can maneuver what we are oing
g there. We've got a good lot situati n on a
9 Monday morning from the broken-down oats .
. 10 They flood the yard and we need a pl ce to
11 put them. This rack system will cle r more
12 room so that we can put the boats on the
13 back line of the property, and leave that
14 bulkheaded area along the water clea so
15 that the customers can park their ca s in
16 there; 'pull in the driveway, turn ar und.
17 Right now, the only access is you
18 have to back in with the boats and t ailer
19 and it makes it very difficult . A c stomer
20 will pull in there to have his boat orked
21 on, and he will block Bay Avenue bec use he
22 has to back it in. Not a lot of customers
23 know that . They pull it straight and they
24 have to back out in the road.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: How many boats do you
1 43
2 suppose this rack will hold?
3 MR. YOUNG: Twenty boats .
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Twenty boats; 10 on
5 top, 10 on bottom?
6 MR. YOUNG: Right . It will clear
7 room for 10 more.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Ten additional?
g MR. YOUNG: Ten additional boats .
10 You will have room. There is only about 20
11 boats in the yard now. It is a gri lock
12 situation. If you have 10 on the top rack,
13 you' ll have the other 10 against th fence.
14 You can maneuver. You have room.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
16 Is there anybody else?
17 MS. KOOP: I may seem very stupid on
18 this . I thought the question was : How many
19 spaces do you have for parking now? I don' t
20 think you just answered that . You said that
21 there was an agreement with the bank, which
22 I am sure there was . Do you have parking
23 spaces back there now?
24 MR. YOUNG: Not really, no.
25 MS. KOOP: If you have spaces for 25
r
r
•
v
l �
♦ t
1 44
2 boats and you are only accomplishing 10
3 boats on top, which makes it a saving of 10
4 boat spaces in the yard, right?
5 MR. YOUNG: Right.
6 MS. KOOP: -- on the ground. In my
7 mind it would seem you only have room for 10
8 cars .
g MR. YOUNG: It 's the configuration of
10 the boats and trailers . It is much longer
11 than a car.
12 MS. KOOP: Thank you.
I 13 THE CHAIRMAN: We are going to recess
14 this hearing until the next regularly
15 scheduled meeting, which will be some time
16 at the end of October .
17 _ Do I have a motion?
18 MR. DOYEN: Second.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. All in favor?
20 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
21 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
22 (Time noted: 10 : 30 p.m. )
23
24
25
4 � +
1 44A
2
3
4
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
5
i
6
7 I , GAIL ROSCHEN, do hereby certify that I
8 am an Official Court Reporter and that the foregoing
9 constitutes a true and correct excerpt from the Southold
10 Town Zoning Board of Appeals hearing of September 26,
11 1990 , according to my stenographic notes .
12
13 GAIL ROSCHEN
Official Court Reporter
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25