Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/11/1991 HEARING ^1RANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN .BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1991 Board Members Present : Chairman, Gerard P . Goehringer Members : Doyen, and Dinizio Absent : Charles Grigonis Jr Linda Kowalski, Z .B .A. Secretary and approximately 45 persons in the audience . Appl . No . 3699 Applicant (✓ ) : Gregory Fegos Location of Property: S/S Naugles Drive, Mattituck County Tax Map ID No . : 1000-99-5-17 The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 : 30 p .m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record . ' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Indicating the approximate placement of the house which is scarf more toward the westerly side of the property at approximately '42 . 2 feet from Nuagles Drive and it appears to be 27 . 2 feet from the rear property line . I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area . Is there somebody . who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? This is appeal 43995 . Hearing no comment from the audience I make a motion recessing this until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Appl .No . 3989 Applicants : Robert J and Norma . E. Sieber Location of Property: Main Bayview Road County Tax Map ID No . 1000--76-2-20 The chairman opened the meeting at 7 : 32 p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : I have a sketch and copy of the survey. The survey was produced by August P . Knapp dated 5/16/83 mentioning the house which is somewhat centered in the center of the property. The nature of this application is a patio which faces Bayview Avenue and. which I assume protrudes into.. front yard area and- I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area . Is there somebody who would like to be heard on behalf of i i Page 2 - January11, 1991 Public Hearing -Robert J and Norma E Sieber Southold Z .B .A. this one? MR. BRUER: This is a piece of property and a deck that was actually the prior deck was created prior to zoning and there is a 1983 pre-existing certificate of occupancy for the house and I believe it did include the deck since the deck was there when they gave this pre c/o. It fronts on two streets as I think you observed and what the applicant did was he made a mistake and took down the old deck which was existing and was proper at the time . He created, actually what he did was he eliminated 80% of the non- conforming use and just left a reconstruction. He reconstructed the deck a little bit in the front leaving less then what was there before . He moved the decking that was on the Smith Drive North and put out a patio in the rear which is acceptable under the ordinance . This is a small lot that was created well before the present zoning requirements of lots these days and the house was built back at that time . This is the old Smithfield Park area . Considering the fact that what was done by the applicant was to reduce the non- conforming use by over 80% we would respectfully request that the Board grant the application as asked for . I think the papers pretty well spell it out . The deck on -the front that is there doesn ' t go out really any further then what was there originally. The area as I said has been reduced and we would ask that you would please grant it . It would be a hardship, it is unique and its really not changing the character of the neighborhood . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : The gentlemen is selling this house? Is that the reason you need the c/o? MR BRUER: Yes, actually he sold it, with the condition that we get the c/o . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will vote on it as quickly as we can . MR BRUER: We appreciate that because he loses a large escrow deposit if it is not granted . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will do the best we can for you as quickly as possible . MR BRUER: When do you think you might know? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Well, we have one more to make tonight Mr .Bruer and we may be able to get to this one . We will see what we can do . t t Page 3 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing -- Robert J and Norma E Sieber Southold Z .B.A. MR BRUER: Thank you very much . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: questions from Board Members? I make a motion granting this as applied for provided that the existing deck remains open and unmoved. Hearing no further comment I make a motion, Seconded by Jim Dinizio, All in favor - AYE . Appl .No . 3991 Applicant (s ) : Grace & John Fiore Location of Property: 150 Sunset Way, Southold County Tax Map ID No. 1000- The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 : 35 p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have - a survey- done by Roderick Van Tuyl P .C. dated June 4, 1990 indicating a one story frame home, built within 12 feet of the bulkhead . I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indl.cating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody here to represent the Fiore application . MR CAMINITI : Since the application was filed I have a more current survey which shows the actual distances if you like . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely that would be great, I appreciate it . MR CAMINITI : I also have some photographs you can have . This is somewhat similar to the previous applications Mr . Chairman. Although the parcel is a rather good size for the scenic beach area, the house itself was constructed only within 11 feet of the bulkhead . The bulkhead existed prior to 1976 and my clients purchased the property in 1976 from a Judge Vurgio who has been the owner for over 25 years . We have a letter of waiver of jurisdiction from the Town Trustees and there is one pending now from the DEC. What happened here was since the people owned the property since 1976 and we weren't under any regulations at that time as to setback . They constructed a deck that completely surrounds the house . i e Page 4 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Grace and John Fiore Southold Z .B.A. It surrounds the house on the north, east and west side . We have a stop work order from the Town Building Department to okay a variance . In conjunction with the application we are asking for permission to screen in the patio which is on the south side of the house . Basically the people just were not aware of the fact that they needed a permit to construct it . He built it himself with his neighbor and as you see it ' s a pre-existing use, that shows itself on the c/o . All houses are built that way in the area and it ' s not unique and it certainly is a hardship if we could not maintain this . We are asking for a variance on the setback for this . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He does not want to do any screening on the portion of the deck that is facing the water, only on the cement portion. For the record after viewing it I don' t have a particular problem with it . I did have a problem if there was going to be any screening of the existing wood deck . We will discuss it and certainly it is nothing he is going to screen tomorrow anyway, so we will have the decision for you in a short period of .-time . MR DINIZIO: Can I just ask a question? On my copy of the survey on the patio it has like a dotted line that comes out by 5 or 10 feet . Is that an addition to that patio? On this one here I noticed it 's not . It says like 5 feet . MR CAMINITI : There is an application pending by it . His application was to extend the patio by an additional 5 feet . MR DINIZIO: But that 's not the case right? MR CAMINITI : I would not like to press my luck at this point . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can let us know. MR CAMINITI : If possible we would like to enlarge the patio by 5 feet . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will you give us a setback on that side and include the 5 feet, with the 5 feet what the distance is to the MR CAMINITI : Do you want a new survey? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, just give a figure, give a call . Also find out from the contractor how high the walls will be that is proposed on the application for that particular area which is the flag zone patio . Is there anybody else who Page 5 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Grace & John Fiore Southold Z .B.A. would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to spear: against the application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I . make a motion to close the hearing reserving the . decision until later . All in favor - AYE. Appl . No . 3992 Applicant (s ) : Pamela Ann Conlon Location of Property: 1765 Peconic Bay Blvd, Laurel County Tax Map ID No . 1000- The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 : 49 p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey from Peconic Surveyors dated 6/10/86 revised 10/24/90 indicating a proposed house for the rear of the property this is a corner lot approximately 35 feet from the rear of the property 8 feet from the other rear yard and 24 feet from North Oakwood Road . I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area . Is there somebody who would like to speak on the Conlon application? MR CONLON: Mr . Chairman the applicant is present, with your permission I will speak on her behalf . The lot admittedly is a narrow lot . What we propose to do there is in the same character as the neighborhood . It ' s a small new residence that we will place on there . The area, the property is deep it is 200 feet by GO feet, as are many of the lots in Laurel Park . I trust that this committee and the Town will look favorable on the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: can I ask you also why you chose to build a house which is approximately 31 feet in depth in opposed to 27 or 28 . MR CONLON: To be honest with you, the builder that we are dealing with . The particular builder, this is a model that they are offering. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only thing that I cannot live with is the 5 foot setback . If we want to construe that to be the rear yard . It could be the side yard depending upon what you chose . I would propose the minimum would be approximately 8 feet . MR CONLON: I can live with that . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : That is what I would be able to deal Page 6 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Pamela Ann Conlon ,Southold Z . B.A. with, which may require you to shrink the depth of the house . MR CONLON: Shall we talk to the builder about procedures or contact you later as to what we should in order to accomplish that? Do you give us an approval? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We could give you a conditional approval based upon a minimum rear yard of 8 feet and a minimum front yard, yes or we could push it forward by 3 feet which would be instead of 24 and 8, 24 and 5, it would be 21 and 8 . Something of that nature . That may .require us to go down and remeasure the area however . The house to the north I can recollect, but it 's set back pretty far it 's almost down to tile water I think , MR CONLON: Yes it is . We 've had discussions with the neighbors in the subdivision . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There will be some variation. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands, any questions from Board Members? MR DINIZIO: No . I think you covered it, making the house a little smaller . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later . All in favor - AYE. Appl . No . 3984 Applicant (s ) : Pudge Corp. Location of property: 1040 Hortons Lane, Southold County Tax Map ID No . 1000- The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 : 54 p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have copy of the site plan produced by John A. 'Gramis dated 7/24/86 revised 9/1/87 . I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area . Would you like to be heard Mr . Gray. MR GRAY: Thank you very much. On the building itself, when we originally applied for the permit to put a mini storage there we were allowed somewhere around 30 feet in height and Ben Orlowski from the Planning Board said that he would like Page 7 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Pudge Corp . Southold Z .B.A. to have it reduced somewhat . So we reviewed the plan and decided to make it a one story building. Now they asked me how high would it be and I told them I don ' t know 13, 14 , 15 feet in height . Everything was agree upon know when we decide to put an office in the front to accommodate all the storage buildings there we never went up 18 feet in height knowing we were violating anything at all . We just raised up to that height so that it would look nice . Namely to accommodate the air conditioning and heating units behind the roof rather than on the ground . The area is not used for storage, the height is just for the air conditioning units behind the roof . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How high is the roof? MR GRAY: I think it 's just18 feet . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It ' s still a one story building as you mentioned . MR GRAY: Yes it is still a one story building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you dismantle any of the storage areas or anything for the construction of this? This was placed in between the other ones right? MR GRAY: That ' s right . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Everything is pretty much the same except for the erection of this particular building, it ' s really an office use . MR GRAY: It ' s in the original site plan. There were 5 buildings proposed two were built than 3 were added, with the office in the front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How big is that building approximately. MR GRAY: The office is only 15 feet by .50 feet . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The rest of it is storage . It is a nice looking building. I thank you very much for presenting that to us . We will definitely deal with it very shortly as quickly as we can get to it . What would you like to say? MR MCCARTHY: We don ' t have a truck renting agency there at all we drive the trucks and we go with the mini storage operation. We do not solicit people to come and rent trucks, kids leaving college, going to college, people come from Louisiana, California come in there with their merchandise Page 8 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Pudge Corp. Southold Z . B.A. they store it . There are no more then 5 trucks there at a time . We keep them all hidden and then they take them away after they are used . If we accumulate too many our agency takes them away. We never have more then 5 trucks maximum. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me understand this, somebody would actually bring a truck load of merchandise, they would then probably store in your building and then they would leave the truck there . Then the agency would send somebody out two people out and they would take the tricks back . MR MCCARTHY: They would take them back sinless we had room for them or leave them there, somebody leaving would take it to Louisiana or California . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Where would those trucks be stored? MR MCCARTHY: They would be stored right on the premises . Right behind the fence . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So it ' s not really not a truck rental agency or anything . MR MCCARTHY: Definitely not . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You manage this entire portion in the back of the fence . So you are actually managing this particular building along with the temporary storage of these vehicles . You are not renting this in any way? You are only renting the buildings that are forward of the fence? MR MCCARTHY: That ' s right . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you again. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? MR DINIZIO: Will there be any sign for these Rider trucks or anything? MR MCCARTHY: There probably would be a sign up there for a Rider truck to let them know when they come in. It wouldn' t be a public sign. It wouldn' t be a great neon sign flashing. MR DINIZIO : Who rents these than you? They will come to your office? MR MCCARTHY: Yes . They can come for the mini storage and the rental at the same time . People come in and fill out the application and they would leave the truck there, then Page 9 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Pudge Corp Southold Z . B.A. somebody would pick up the truer and bring it back . The people would use the mini storage . MR DINIZIO: It ' s incidental to the storage as opposed to just renting trucks? MR MCCARTHY: Yes . It 's not a typical rental . We come in and pick up the truck . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later . All in favor - AYE. Appl No . 3699 Applicant (s ) : Mitchell Marks Location of Property: 29829 Main Road, Orient County Tax Map ID No. 1000- The Chairman postponed the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Appl No . 3996 Applicant (s ) : Stanley Wernick Location of Property: 200 Private Rd 95, Cutchogue County Tax Map ID No . 1000-72-1-1 . 6 The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 : 02 p .m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey with a most recent date Of 12/19/88 from Roderick Van Tuyl P . C. It is a survey indicating a one and a half story or two story frame house . Constructed a little closer to the easterly or northeasterly property line then it is any other portion of property with a in the ground swimming pool, inclosure area attached to it . The nature of this application is out of a site plan produced by Ward Associates which shows that the new deck and new addition which is to be constructed on the easterly side again northeasterly. Shows a setback of approximately 15 feet 5 inches to a variable of 18 feet 5 inches toward the private rd #5 and approximately 70 feet for the deck 80 feet for the proposed addition of the existing two story frame residence . It is a rather extensive addition, which is the nature of this application. Is there somebody who would like to be heard for Ward Associates? MR FEELEY: I 'm the architect on record for Ward Associates speaking on behalf of the Wernicks . The first issue .I would just like to bring to your attention that we received Page 10 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Stanley Wernick Southold Z . B.A. not in the mail . They hadn ' t made any issue of it. We did send it to the address that is noted on the Assessors records . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are those the people to the west side? MR FEELEY: Right . This is the subject application property on this . The one issue is that the pool and the existing residence both c/o ' s existing in place . The addition itself due to its limited nature of the existing design only allows us to attach on certain location and therefore that decided where we put this addition. Being that we were locked out by the pool and the facility itself . The side addition is conforming, the bluff addition is what we are seeking a variance as you know. The design is bringing everything to a single level looking down the road towards a future retirement residence . They are moving -the existing roaster bedroom which is on the second floor into this addition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will this be a one or a two story addition? MR FEELEY: One story addition . Other then that there is discrepancy on one of the surveys that we did have which is a previous survey which had 91 foot setback from the bluff . We don ' t know how that comes into play but the new survey had a 77 foot setback . Also we would like to show by this map is that the adjoining residences have setbacks of 77 on the west side and 35 on the east . So we really are not infringing on anything as far as the character of the setbacks in the area . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I apologize . I was down to see this one and I don ' t remember if there was a bulkhead along the Sound down below. A retaining wall . Is there a retaining wall? MR FEELEY: Yes there is . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It kind of limits the erosion factor on the bluff . This bluff is in relatively good shape because it is a really high hazard erosion area . In reference to top side erosion. Because of the great lawn that is in the rear of this house it seems to be very little erosion at all . The only restriction that the Board was so inclined to grant this would be that leaders and gutters be placed on the premises and that they be placed in a holding container, or that they be drained toward the private road and away from the bluff . That is the main concern I have at this point and of course there would be no construction any closer then 70 feet to the top of the hill . This should be a concern . Sometimes we Page 11 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Stanley Wernick Southold Z .B.A. require hay bails or straw bails but in this particular case where the property falls away I don ' t think it is actually necessary because you couldn' t possibly have that amount of rain water that would actually cause that height to spill over the top because of the way it is graded . MR FEELEY: Also the design of the roof will help that . It is going to shed off to the side, majority of it . only the northerly end would be shedding toward .the bluff and with the gutters it could be prevented . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much . Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody who would like to speak against this application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further comments I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later . All in favor - AYE . Appl No . 3998 Applicant (s ) : Henry 'and Mary Raynor Location of Property: Peconic Bay Blvd, Laurel County Tax Map ID No . 1.000-126-4-1, 2, 4, 5. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 : 10 p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have survey a produced by Peconic Surveyors most recent date is 10/14/90 indicating two rights of way. One walking path and the other a roadway, driveway dirt construction primarily. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area . Would you like to be heard Mr . Raynor? MR RAYNOR: Basically we are working with an old filed subdivision map 1929 A.L . Downs . There are 4 rights of way involved . The one before you on southeast portion extending over lots 31 and 10 going through lots 28 and 30 . They were originally deeded as access to lots 28, 29 and 30 however, on a physical review of the site to develop a lot out of those 3 lots on the A.L . Downs subdivision which we propose to do it would be extremely environmentally unsound to try and follow this right of way as it exists . The second right of way exists from Peconic Bay Blvd along the boundary running north to lots 24, 25, 26 and 27 there is also a developers map right of way which he is had that westerly right of way to the east in a dog like fork . We presume that it would be better to condition to come up the westerly as described by deed then to proceed through the developers right of way to the east Page 12 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Henry and Mary Raynor Southold Z . B.A. and then again to the north. The property in question exists on town maps as 3 separate tax deeds and I am trying to procure for the Board a single and separate title search for each one of those . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You will be back with that right? At another hearing . MR RAYNOR: If it is required . Yes I will . To date in the deed transfers that I have brought to your office lot 24 was deeded to the Estate which we are contract vendees in 1952 . Lots 25 and 27 were deeded from in 1950 . Lots 28 - 30 were deeded from Arthur Downs son in 1965 . I will leave with the discretion of the Board to decide whether or not we should come back and whether or not they are merged, because they do pre-exist zoning ordinances in the Town of Southold . I hope I haven' t confused the Board any. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No . We will wait until we get that single and separate search. You are having one done at this time? MR RAYNOR: We are having one prepared . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Can I just ask you a question, when one goes to the site and one rides down the road through the caverns there appear to be two rights of way there . Are they encompassing one right of way? MR RAYNOR: They are not . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are only talking about the easterly right of way which is the nature of this application. You are also proposing that area which then basically approximately to the rear of the house that is on the corner of this right of way on Peconic Bay Blvd . You are proposing that we run an alternate right of way through lots 24, 25, 26, and 27 to the back lot rather then using that existing dog leg which goes to the east and then to the north . MR RAYNOR: That is correct . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To what extent would you be considering conventing that lot , 20 foot access, 15 foot access . MR RAYNOR: I would leave it at the discretion of the Board, however, the 4 lots to the north goes with the 24, 25, 26 and 27 we have proposed to make a single driveway. 28-30 would use the first part of that driveway in common usage . Whatever the criteria would be set by your Board . It 's very Page 13 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Henry and Mary Raynor Southold Z .B.A. wooded and we would like to disturb as little as possible . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : As you arc aware that I don ' t know whether we are under contract with Sidney Brown or not but we do have a gentlemen that has now come to the Town and it has been the suggestion of this Board in the past to have the Town Engineer look at this right of way, existing right of way. We will have this gentlemen go down or at least a member of the highway department go down and take a look at it . MR RAYNOR: The existing right of way on the westerly side is in very bad shape . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will see what his suggestion is in reference to enhancing it at this point . How many houses use that existing right of way. MR RAYNOR: At least 3 . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think toward the rear that also becomes a common right of way it appears that when it goes around the trees again, does it not? MR RAYNOR: It appears that way on tax maps . It doesn' t reflect. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you don 't mind what we will do is recess this hearing to the next regularly scheduled hearing and have the Town Engineer or a member of the Town Highway Department go out and take a look at the right of way and let them make some suggestions . In the interim I will go and take a look at the alternative access that you are requesting through lots 24, 25, 26 and 27 . I have a sketch of that but I wrote in the other one I forgot about the other access, which is a better idea probably. MR RAYNOR: If you look at the access from the southeast of the properties in the described deeds you can see it 's prohibited the driveway. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I drove in there with my four wheel drive and got about 3/4 of the way through, then turned around and came back out . That was my concern because access for fire vehicles would be very difficult without taking a substantial amount of trees down. I do concur on that basis . Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? seeing no hands I make a motion recessing this hearing -to the next regularly scheduled Page 14 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Frank Sawicki Southold Z . B.A. meeting. The next regularly scheduled monthly meeting, All in favor - AYE . Appl No . 3999 Applicant (s ) : Frank Sawicki Location of Property: N/S C.R. 48, Southold County Tax Map ID No . 1000-51-3-5 The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 : 19 p,m, and read the notice of hearing and application for the record . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The proposed building to be used, it is a building of approximately 70 feet in width and 90 feet in depth. I have copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area . Would any of you gentlemen like to be heard? MR SAWICKI : Good evening Members of the Board . I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and present the case to you on behalf of my Uncle Frank who is hear tonight and ray Aunt Mrs . Walter Sawicki who asked me to represent her . I brought you up a letter as she is out of state for this hearing this . evening. The letter is for your files . The basis of this appeal centers around the fact that their potato barns are no longer able to be used for agricultural storage purposes . Frank and his brother Walter used these potato barns quite extensively throughout the many decades that the family farm was in business . Walter Sawicki passed away more than -two years ago and even before he passed away the barns really weren ' t used for real active agricultural purposes for approximately three years prior to his passing away. With the exception of partial leasing to other potato farms who would use it for potato storage there has been little or no agricultural use enjoyed by these buildings for the last 5 to 6 years. Please understand that after a brother of Frank and Walter Sawicki passed away the family farm has been totally dissolved, retired and unfortunately I personally must add there will probably be never be another Sawicki farm again. Where does that leave them with the potato barns? Under current zoning use they can legally be converted of course to a residential building but you know as well as we do how costly that would be . Even if it is at all possible . You are probably literally speaking enormous sums of money to convert a potato barn into a residential building. They have been trying in earnest to rent these building for other agricultural uses but to no avail . As a matter of fact the current tenant Steve Doroski who leases only part of the building for potato storage and has been for a number of years now. Iie has already provided Page 15 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Frank Sawicki Southold Z . B .A. . notification that they will no longer be using the potato barns since they too are discontinuing potato farming after this winter storage season is over . With the dramatic decline in Southold Town it ' s basically and virtually impossible to find any type of tenant under the current agricultural restrictions . The hardship arises to them when you consider the costs involved to continue to own and maintain these buildings and not be able to generate any rental income to cover any of these costs . Annual fixed costs alone include property taxes over *2100 . 00, insurance over $3100 . 00, electric bills over $3000 . 00 . Hence you can see that these barns cost over $8000 . 00 a year just to own without including the variable expenses for maintenance and repairs which are quite costly as we know for large buildings . I will be happy -to provide you later with documentation of these costs on an annual basis again for your files . Uncle Frank and Aunt Mrs . Walter Sawicki I respectfully request that a variance for permission to utilize these existing potato barns for inside storage of general miscellaneous items other then presently permitted as agricultural storage uses . Such examples of these miscellaneous items might include boats, trailers, various equipment, construction materials, and even perhaps household items, and antique cars . Certainly the required loading and unloading of such items would be infrequent . Generating little or no change in adjacent parking areas and no change in traffic on near by roads . They are requesting strictly inside storage which would not be visible from any neighbors or neighboring areas . Basically such newly permitted use would be no different than currently allowed under agriculture . Only the storage item itself would be different . If such variance was granted then it is felt that Frank and Mrs . Sawicki could much more easily .rent or lease these: buildings thereby making ownership of the buildings affordable . There; is no other way that we know of to be aide to derive income from these buildings to meet such fixed and variable costs associated with them as I Have outlined . I would like to point out further to you that other then Mrs . Sawicki living several hundred feet to the; east of these buildings there are no other residences closer then approximately two to three tenths of a mile to the west down the road . It is fully intended that the permission to store such general and miscellaneous items is granted would in no way harm the current landscape of the area since no storage or continuous activities would be permitted to take place outside the building. No commercial business at all would be permitted in or around the building. Again the surrounding neighborhood would notice absolutely nothing different from outside the buildings as we see currently. We would oppose any efforts to erect signs and generate any additional traffic in that vicinity. All we are asking is permission Page 16 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Frank Sawicki Southold Z . B.A. for again strict inside storage only. Any activities not be repetitive but to reiterate any activities in the vicinity would be no different then we see currently now allowed under agriculture except it wouldn ' t be agriculture strictly any logger . Frank and tars . Walter Sawicki also wish to offer you formally or any Town department to the right to inspect at any time these buildings . To insure that the proper storage is in fact being conducted if you so find it proper to grant this variance . In summary, unless this appeal and variance is permitted such buildings will not only be rendered useless but they will cost well in excess of *8000 . 00 a year to own while remaining vacant . That is my formal presentation . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have two buildings here is that correct? MR SAWICKI : Right . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : What is the actual construction of those buildings? The roofs are wood . MR SAWICKI : The roofs are wood and the walls are cement block . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As I think . you are aware we did render a decision to -two brothers in Cutchogue for a similar types of buildings . One was steel and one was wood and one was some other composite material . They are presently renting those . That decision was rendered sometime in 1988 . We of course have placed a restriction on that . That it be of dead or inactive storage and I think that we concur in that particular aspect . The one problem that we do have however, we did have Mr . Gray here tonight who owns Pudge Corp. who owns mini storage, in fact, it ' s right in back of us right over here . We asked him at the time that there be no storage of --turned tape over -- gasoline tanks . It has been the procedure of most everyone who owns a boat of that nature to fill a tank up for the winter so that there is less condensation . This Board may restrict if it so desires to grant this application that it be limited to any type of dead storage that not contain any nocuous or flammable material . That is ,what we are -primarily concerned about . MR SAWICKI : That would be no problem what so ever . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : There are many many boats out there that the motors are extricated from and then of course the boat is then stored for the winter . That is something you will have to deal with. We are concerned with flammable material . Page 17 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Frank Sawicki Southold Z . B.A. MR SAWICKI : That would be no problem. We were jest trying to provide examples of different types of basic what we thought would be very safe types of storage . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Thank you very much for your presentation and we will do the beat we possible can. Say hello to your father . MR SAWICKI : Thanks very much and enjoy the snowstorm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions I make a motion closing the hearing reserving the decision until later . All in favor - AYE. Appl No . 3995 Applicant (s ) : Gregory Fegos Location of Property: S/S Naugles Drive, Mattituck County Tax Map ID No . 10-00-99-5-17 The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 : 37 p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The first application of the evening, the gentlemen was a little late because of the weather and I did promise him that we would take care of his application first . So we will ask Mr . Fegos if he would use the microphone . MR FEGOS : Good Evening Mr . Chairman I would like to apologize for the inconvenience . What I am requesting from the rear view of the house from the site or to connect the rear deck to the side door . There is a 5 foot deck going I have a stoop 5 x 6 so I am trying to connect that to the rear deck which was a mistake on the original plan presented to you. That is why it was basically there . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Is this deck roofed in any way. MR FEGOS : No it is not . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you Have a plan to roof it in any way? MR FEGOS : No . Page 18 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Gregory Fegos Southold Z . B .A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much for driving all the way out here . MR FEGOS : I thank you and I apologize again. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No problem. Good night . I make a motion reserving my decision of recessing it to the next regularly scheduled meeting and closing the hearing at this point . I want to withdraw it . I make a motion withdrawing my first decision. I make a motion closing this hearing and reserving decision until later . All in favor - AYE. Appl . No . 3990 Applicant (s ) : Cholowsky/Casola Location of Property: 3340 Hor_ton ' s Lane, Southold County Tax Map ID` No . 1000-55-1-9 The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 : 40 p .m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have copy of the site plan produced by Fairweather and Brown Architects Designers from 122 Front St . Greenport, NY dated 10/15/90 indicating this particular site plan. Are there people in the audience who would like to see this site plan prior to the discussion of this hearing? AUDIENCE: Can I ask a question? Is that similar to the map that appeared in Thursday' s Suffolk Times? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think it is . Of course it 's reduced a great amount . AUDIENCE: Yes . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That 's why I asked you are welcome to . Yes sir . AUDIENCE: I would like to see it . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : ,Sure . What we will do here at this particular point then is just allow anybody that would like to take a look for a couple minutes . Who would like -to be heard on behalf of the applicant? Mr . McLaughlin? MR MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you Mr . Chairman and Members of the Board . I 'm here on behalf of the applicant Michael Cholowsky. Basically what we have here is an approximately 17 acre Page 19 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Cholowsky/Casola Southold Z . B.A. parcel of property on Norton. 's Lane which is almost directly across the street from existing Lucas Ford facility. What the applicant proposes to do is erect a driving range miniature golf and related building and facilities . What we are here for this evening is a very limited issue . The zoning code of this Town has a regulation as far as this special exception use and the agricultural conservation district which makes it a requirement that any type of facility like this must be operated as a not-for-profit type of business . I have submitted to this Board a memorandum of law and I think it 's very clear in my mind from my research that the courts of this state will not allow such a provision -to prevail . It ' s the province of zoning and planning to limit and control the uses to which a property is put . It is not the province of zoning or planning to attempt to dictate who can use the property and what this provision of the special exception use does is try to limit that type of entity which can operate this kind of business . I think if you have had a chance to review my memorandum you' ll see that all the courts of the state including the highest court , Court of Appeals, have ruled that such limitations are illegal nullify basically. So what we are here for this evening is simply that variance . To allow us to go forward with an application for a special exception and a site plan approval from the Planning Board on behalf of a operation that is going to be run as a business profit operation . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a AC District? MR MCLAUGHLIN: That is correct . Any of the issues concerning the manner in which this operation shall be conducted or how it shall be built and operated really I think should more properly reflected in future hearings regarding special exception use and or site plan approval . This again is a very limited issue that we are Mere before this Board tonight . We are certainly happy to discuss the project, to answer any questions that any one may have in relation to the project and Mike Cholowsky and his father are here and if there any questions we would be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: will there be any lighting on the driving range? MR MCLAUGHLIN: Yes I believe that snows on the site plan. The lighting that will be directed basically outward from the tee area to the landing area for the golf balls . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only other question I have is the issue that you are actually looking for . I assume what you L Page 20 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Cholowsky/Casola Southold Z . B .A. are looking and correct me if I 'm wrong, Pair . McLaughlin, you are looking for either relief from that number which is number 7C at 100-31 page 1041 which says "such use shall not be conducted for profit as a business enterprise . " MR MCLAUGHLIN: I am looking for relief from that and allowing us to if we can obtain future necessary approval-- from this Board in the way of a special exception and from the Planning Board a site plan approval to be able to operate for business purpose . Not as a riot-for-profit type of operation . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My only concerti is that I assume that we have pre-exiting golf course-, and we have a pre-existing miniature golf course and we used to have a pre-existing driving range in the Town of Southold . If we were to relieve this condition, or to vary it somewhat, this would cause a precedent, so to speak, within the Town. That is my only concern at this point. It could not only affect this particular project but many other projects and that is my ultimate concern. I have heard of discussions of construction of a 200 acre golf course in Laurel, which would certainly not operate unless it was operated for profit . MR MCLAUGHLIN: Unless it was a private club . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Similar to North Fork Country Club. I have also heard discussions about Islands End being profit or not-profit I really don 't have that at this particular point and it is probably pre-exists zoning anyway. That ' s my main concern at this point . Do you have anything you would like to say in that area? MR MCLAUGHLIN: Well I think obviously every application has to stand or fall on it 's own merit . I suppose there is legitimacy to your concern and people would certainly come back and point to this . If I 'm denied the relief at this point obviously I think I have no alternative but to go forward and again I think the precedents that I have provided to you in my memorandum of law would indicate that I will ultimately prevail probably. If that were true if I had to go that route and I did prevail then that portion of that zoning ordinance would then be gone throughout the Town. It would their not be limited with my application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : I think what you had better let us do is recess this hearing to the next regularly scheduled monthly meeting and in the interim we will discuss your memorandum of the law with out Town Attorney and we will go from there . Now that is not meaning that we will have it in r r Page 21 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Cholow✓k-y/Casola Southold Z . B .A. t . the C_ar1., -?r=art of February, i will b . � } a-rr [' _ , t 4ri ):k�. t "!3_! i�7lt� sC! ttl la�_r._ part of February. MR MCLAUGHL,IN- My, c)j117,' �:4dfl,i;4_`i'-' � 1L! v hat cf� Vf Q3 fi y this along as expeditiously ._�,s possible beca s:e obviou-Sly we do have other, assuming that we get beyond this stage, we do have other hurdle,_: to overcome and we would like to progrr:?-_ as quickly as possible . - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER.a Are your applicants contract vendees or do they own the property? MR 1.1l=LAUGHLIN: They are 1 oni term 1 ease=; with option to purchase . CHATR1`IAN GOEHRINGER: I don' t particularly want to, to be honest with you, continue this to any great degree what I want to do is Just-- discuss it with the Town Attorney. We have been ver":` busy on motions and all the reet of It I )lave not gotten chance to discus: this with them. I should point out for the audience that it is the nature of this Board that when a person brings a hearing before our calendar that we do hear the case and we do appreciate everybody coming out here . I just want to mention for the audience again that you have the perfect right to speak tonight that this is a preliminary meeting for that sole purpose of dealing with the issue of not-for--profit as opposed to profit which exists in the code . MR JOHNSON: I live on Horton ' s Lane . It ' s my understanding the previous speaker, this point of law would allow him to build a fat rendering plant for any particular business he decided to build . I 'm I correct in that . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; I don ' t know because I have not completely reviewed the memorandum of law. That is a question however though. After_ we give the Town Attorney a copy of this that you might ask the Town Attorney. MR JOHNSON: If it seems so unusually wrong to be able to do that . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There ' is no question that when I sat with the gentlemen who immediately sits to my Teft and should mention this gentlemen has been on this Board for 35 years along with gentlemen that is just in the hospital . I asked him uniquely, at a joint meeting with the Doard of Appeals from the Inc . Village of Greenport and the State came down and we were dealing with a training. session. I said to him "Charles Grigonis tell me why what brought zoning to the Town of Southold?" He told me that somebody wanted. to build a Page 22 - .January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Cholowskly/Casola Southold Z . B .A. sauerkraut factory in a residential district . That is basically, if that answered your question, fine . MR JOHNSON: Thank you very much. MR MCLAUGHLIN: If I could just briefly respond to that . My application ic; not to allow us to do any kind of profit business that we want to do there . My application is simply to allow us to operate, in our particular instance, the golf driving range and miniature golf for profit as opposed not-for-profit. As far as the public would be concerned, there would be absolutely no difference between the two operations . To walk upon the site you would see absolutely' no difference between a profit and a not-profit . We are not proposing to do anything other then what is allowable as a special exception in the AC District . We are merely asking that as opposed -to having to form a not-for- profit corporation and operate a business without making a profit . That we will be able to do it as a regular business corporation, partnership or individual ownership . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Please understand that I am not comparing your clients project to a sauerkraut factory or anything of that nature because I am not . MR MCLAUGHLIN : I was basically responding to the question and we are limited 'to what we could ever hope to be able to do under a special exception to those uses that are allowable for special exceptions , MR WINTERS : I live on Hortons Lane . I would like to address instead of going into my feeling about whether or not a driving range constitutes a golf course and speak to the question brought up by counsel of the applicant and due respect to Lawyer McLaughlin. The wording on this I went back to the zoning book and when you get into a AC District it talks about preservation, it tall.s about residential. development with a minimum of two acres . It talks about certain exceptions, maybe a two family home, possibly a nursery, a church, things like that . A golf driving range seems a far cry, to me, from being anything with any kind of agricultural or conservation orientation . It ' s a business pure and simple and it belongs in the business district, not . in a residential district which AC is . In fact AC is probably more restricted in terms of residential zoning then is a pure RE, Because it addresses the wide open ranges and the preservation of the flavor of the Town . The agricultural flavor of the Town. In any event, getting down to the possible exception uses, one of them refers to and I 'm going to read if I may, beach clubs, tennis clubs, country clubs, ' I Page 23 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Cholowsky/Casola Southold Z . B .A. golf clubs, public golf courses, I presume that would be something like the county course in Riverhead, an annual membership clubs catering exclusively to members and their guests . When the conditions of that, I 'm trying to get to Lawyer McLaughl in' s point . Is that such use shall not be conducted for profit as a business enterprise . It ' s my guess in reading this and thinking about it a little bit, that the authors of the zoning law put that in there for very a specific purpose because they knew that beach clubs, tennis clubs, country clubs, golf clubs, public golf courses that wouldn ' t apply, but that 's a little different . An annual membership clubs are not-for-profit . There maybe some exceptions to that like Islands End which you said pre- existed zoning anyway. A private membership only exclusive membership only North Fork Country Club. For example : Developers flock to these clubs to build residential areas, residential homes surrounding them, because it enhances the value of a residence rather then retracting from it . As I suspect that a golf or driving range and miniature golf is that you probably would with lights and this type of thing . I don ' t think anybody is going to flock to put in a residential subdivision surrounding a golf or driving range . I believe that to take the for profit or the not-for profit issue pull it out separately and try to deal with it alone is not the intent of the way the zoning by it ' s authors . I think is unfair to the zoning section as a whole to try to fracture what was originally set out. It is in there as a condition to make sure that if a golf club does go in to a AC area, a residential area, it is in indeed a private, exclusive golf club that is going to enhance the residential area, blend in with the residential area and not be something other then that . Not-for-profit is a different issue from that and I don ' t think that it can be dealt with separately. It is the only thing that we are allowed to talk about tonight . You can ' t do that because if we do it 's Just `.wrong. This is not the way this was written . It can ' t be done that way, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINCER: Th.-_ink you. MR MQRTIGER : I own property on North Sea Drive and I Second his opinion . MS FISHER: I live at the very end of Hortons Lane and I would like to say that I agree with everything that Mr . Winters just said . MR BOOS : Horton ' s Lane . Considering the situation here and I 'm not going to say very much except that I consider the fact that Lucas Ford is across the street is pretty Page 24 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Cholowsky/Casolta Southold Z . B .A. distressing already and I don ' t feet that more distress is necessary. MR PATAGLIA: I live on Horton ' s Lane . I agree with Mr . Winters . In addition we, there are many people in this area that don' t, haven 't heard about this plan going in . Haven ' t been advised and haven ' t had a chance to come up here and oppose it . If we could get a continuance . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : That is what we are going to do tonight . Thank you . MR REGAN: I also live on Hortons Lane . We feel very strongly about this . First of all there will be a great deal of traffic, there will be lights . What we are really concerned about is that it could turn into a like it did in Farmingdale some years ago. We are very much upset over the idea of not having a continuance until all of our people are available to come here and talk about it . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you . MR STOLLMEYER: I live on Soundview Ave near the corner of Horton ' s Lane and want to agree with all of the former speakers . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir . MS LEPRESTI : I also live on Horton ' s Lane and I aria very much opposed to this whole proposition. We are very worried . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Thank you . MR MCLAUGHLIN: Just a couple of points to reiterate . Whether this operation is done as a not-for-profit operation or whether it is done as a profit operation it 's the same facility. Secondly if it is not a special exception use in this district there is no other district within the Town of Southold in which it falls . This is the specific district in which an operation such as this sort was put into the zoning ordinance and it 's my position to this Board that the attempt within that ordinance to limit it to a type of person that can own and operate that business is illegal . It cannot be done legally. That is the sole point that I want to make to the Board this evening . Again assuming that we go on to the next step any and all questions regarding the actual operation of the facility will be open again to public comment as well an continuation of this hearing. We are happy to sit down and talk to people about this at any point in time and see if we can overlay some fears . Page 25 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearing - Cholowsky/Casola Southold Z .B .A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We thank you all for coming in . We will continue this hearing around mid February. We will readvertise it in the interim. Everybody thank you for your courtesy and have a safe trip home . Hearing no further comment I make a motion to recessing it to the next regularly scheduled monthly meeting . All in favor - Aye . Appl . No . 3993 Applicant (s ) : Kenneth L . Edwards Location of Property: The Gloaming, Fisher Islam' County Tax Map ID No . 1000- The Chairman opened the hearing at 9 : 05 p .m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record . MR DOYEN: I have viewed the site because of the topography this is the only practical site on this lot for an accessory building . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it a one story building? MR DOYEN: It will be a one story building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not to exceed how high? MR DOYEN: Less then the ordinance limit . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To be used strictly for storage? MR DOYEN : Strictly for a storage garage for an automobile and storage . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINCER: What tyre of utilities? MR DOYEN: Possibly electricity but no water, no other utilities . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No heat? MR DOYEN: No heat . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no other questions . No further- questions? MR DOYEN: The only thing I ' ll add it certainly can' t be objectionable to anybody else because of it ' s location. It ' s more or legs in the center of his lot as it works out . Page 26 - January 11, 1991 Public Hearin cj - Kenneth L . Edwards Southold Z . B . A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the People in the audience you should be aware that we are discussing an application which iS t-he last one of -the evening for Kc-ll Edwa-rds who is a F.! ,.:;1-,ers 111-land llernbur of the Planning Board c-Ind an applicant at this particular hearing. Mr Doyen has persollall,,, viewed pre-misus and he 13, then giving his- testimony concerning k,-- this Premises . Which we did not fly over th -oolf ­t P 0_1 L- Me-clY because it is an accuc--.-;ory building in the side ;,,and arc la . we, t h,-:).n k. y you --i ga.1 n 1-1 r , D o en f o r of r mo lay, MR DOYEN; MY Pleasure 11,1r . Chairman. CHAIRMAN COEHRINGER : We know that you have come a long way I or G , .er quest-ions . Is there anybody in -hi,- , H(:,�a r i n q Etc) f�-*ur�th the audience that would like to speak against this application? Anybody like to speak in favor of the a-(p 1)1 i c a 4(-i o n? Seeing no hands I make, a ra(--)tion closing the hearing reserving decision until later . All in favor AYE . BY__(2 �&W RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE S"OUT111�'OLD TOW14 CLERK DATE, I-,'OUR Town Clerk, Town of