HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/07/1996 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1996
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
Prepared by Noreen Frey
7:36 p.m. Appl. #4356 - MARTIN AND CHRISTINE KOSMYNKA.
This is a request based upon the December 6, 1995 Notice of
Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, in which applicant was
denied a building permit to construct an accessory garage building in
the required front yard at less than 35 feet at 1985 Pine Tree Road,
Cutchogue; Parcel #1000-98-1-11.2. This parcel consists of a size
under 20,000 sq. ft. , and the principal front yard setback is shown
under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B. (This is a carryover from
1/10/96 to consider alternative locations.)
Chairman: The first hearing on the agenda is on behalf of Martin
and Christine Kosmynka. Mr. Kosmynka, how are you tonight?
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: The board has asked me to go back and look
to see if I can make this thing further off the street. Going back
and measuring out again, I can make it work at 25 feet. Now moving
my drywells. It will. be right on the corner of it all, without
removing any trees.
Chairman: Do you have a plan for us?
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: Again, not the scale. It shows it right on
the corner of it.
Chairman: I see, ok. But you've measured it and it is.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: Yes, it's right at the corner.
Chairman: Ok, all right. Is this the only copy.you're going to give
us?
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: No, I have a couple of copies.
Chairman: And we're 25 feet and what are we off the property line?
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: Well, I'm still holding the correct side yard.
Chairman: Which is five.
1
f •
Page 2 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Secretary L. Kowalski: No. Ten, right. No, I think it is five.
Chairman: I don't have it on the index so that's why I asked the
question.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: You have me confused. I have to look. It
wasn't a requested to go there.
Secretary: It's based on the size of the property. You have less
than a half acre, right?
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: Yes
Secretary Linda Kosmynka: What does the original plan show?
Chairman: It doesn't show. That's why I asked the question.
Three foot side.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: Three foot side.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: You had mentioned Tom LeViness and in
speaking to Tom, is --. He had asked me to make sure that I put
the garage on the side that I'm looking to put it on.
Chairman: Yes
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: The reason being that his lot size is closer to
mine in size, so he said if you could put it on side because the
other side has an anchor.
Chairman: So he's on the southwest, southeast side.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: That's correct.
Chairman: OK, all right.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: I think his front footage is 83 on 53.
Chairman: OK
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: And he also would have to put a garage in
f ront.
Chairman: I don't have - I don't have any comment about it.
Let's see, we'll start with Mr. Doyen. Mr. Doyen, do you have any
comment.
Member Doyen: No
Chairman: Mrs. Tortora
Member Tortora: No
x a
Page 3 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Chairman: Mr. Dinizio
Member Dinizio: Well, if we're going to hold this over can we get
this. Can you stake it out for us?
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: Yes, I had it staked out once.
Member Dinizio: Yes, I know.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: Obviously it got knocked down.
Member Dinizio: It's supposed to rain tonight and tomorrow, so
maybe the weekend.
Mr. Martin Koskynka: Sure, ok
Member Dinizio: OK, thanks.
Chairman: Mr. Villa
Member Villa: No, I've been by a couple of times but the place has
been under snow.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: Yes, and the plow came down and redid it
again.
Member Villa: I'd like to see how it lays out to tell you the truth.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: Ok
Chairman: So we'll go over there and we'll do that. We'll take a
look at it again. Do another field• visit and even if you can't put
the stakes in the ground. Hopefully, you maybe you could put a
couple of cement blocks with stakes in it.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: I'll put it on rear and front. Is that what
you want to say, or all four corners.
Chairman: Well at least the front two corners.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: OK
Member Villa: Is this going to be 24 by 24.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: If I have to shrink it, I'll shrink it, you
know whatever.
Member Dinizio: Well, if you could put the four corners. That
would be helpful to me, and I just want to verify how high it's going
to be.
Page 4 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: Well it would be within codes. I'm not
looking to --. You know, it's not a two story garage.
Member Dinizio: OK
Chairman: You said, it's going to be like one and one half story
though, right?
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: Yes, I'd like to be able to have some space.
I don't want to have a flat road. I have a 12, 12 pitch on my house
now. I'd like to make it in the same type.
Chairman: OK
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: Architectural look that I've done already
with my house.
Member Dinizio: All right. I think we're talking --.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: I have no intentions of building where there
is going to be height to stand or anything like that.
Member Dinizio: OK. Well I think were talking 15 feet, right
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: Well I think code is somewhere around 15 feet.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Code is 18 feet for a mean height.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: For a garage.
Chairman: Great
Member Villa: And the drywell is visible on the snow.
Mr. Martin Kosmynka: Yes, you'll see it. In fact you will see it
right on the corner of where the garage is, it's right there where
the drywell is.
Member Villa: OK
Chairman: Thank you very much. Anybody else like to speak in
favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the
application? Yes Dr.
Dr. Cottrell: My name is Thomas Cottrell. I spoke the last time.
This garage is going to cover essentially half the width of the
property. It's going to be, I heard last time, 18 feet high which is
just short of how far it's going to be off the road. He's proposing
to only move it six feet. It's 24 by 24. Six feet is not going to
make it in the impression of this bulk of a garage is going to look
like on Pine Tree Road. There's no other structure, no where near
the road like that, and I think if you want to conform the Town Law
Page 5 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
of Southold, than put in where it belongs. He has alot of room in
the front of his house.
Chairman: OK. Thank you Dr. Anybody else like to speak against
the application. OK, seeing no hands I make a motion to recess the
hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting based upon the
request from Dr. Cottrell.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Could we include a date of March 6.
Chairman: Yes, including the date of March 6, 1996.
Member Dinizio: Seconed.
Chairman: Thank yoU very much. You'll relate that to Mr. LeViness.
Dr. Cottrell: I will.
Y, 1
Page 6 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
7:44 p.m. Appl. #4358 - ROBERT E. GREEN. This is an appeal
based upon the November 21, 1995 Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector in which applicant applied for a building permit
for the "existing deck" and was denied under Article 111A, Section
100-30A.3 of. the Zoning Code due to insufficient side yard setback
and insufficient total side yards at less than the required 35 feet.
Subject premises contains a 38,900+- square feet in lot area located
in. the R-40 Low-Density Residential Zone. Location of Property: 790
North Sea Drive, Southold, NY; Parcel ID #1000-54-5-14.
Chairman: I have a copy of a survey dated 1987 from Roderick Van
Tuyl pc indicating the replacement of the deck is on the front side
of the house and approximately five feet from the Westerly property
line. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
and surrounding properties in the area. I have one letter, I have
two letters in support. Let me just check, ok That's what it
appears. Who would like to be heard on this? Mrs. Moore, how are
you tonight?
Mrs. Moore: Fine thank you. First I have a confirmation opposing
this. Do you need this right now.
Chairman: Sure, we'll take it.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Sure
Mrs. Moore: I included many fax in the application and just to
elaborate on a few points. The Green house, Robert Green's house
was originally built at an angle from what you can see from the
plans. So right from the beginning the house was located at 13 feet
from the property line, and created a non conforming structure. He
was the owner of the property, and the adjacent parcel that is
presently owned by Fischetti. That parcel was conveyed to Fischetti
in 1991 so when this deck was built, he was not encroaching on
anyone other than himself. These were however separate properties,
separate lots, and would create a problem obviously when he would
choose to get a mortgage or to sell the property. The house if you
saw from your inspection, is located 200 feet from the road. The
adjacent property Fischetti, is located approximately 50 feet from
the road. So we have a distance of 150 feet or more between the
most effected property, and this application. Apparently when this,
obviously a self imposed hardship, they built it without a permit.
When they originally built most of the deck, they did have a permit.
They had a concrete patio underneath the portion that was built
without a permit, and apparently he didn't realize that covering over
the patio would require a building permit. Or a least a modification
for the original permit.
Mr. Green suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, MS, and that again
required him to provide more access around his property. You can
see from the property off of North Sea Drive that, that whole area is
e 1
Page 7 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
a beach area, sandy soil. It's really difficult to get around. In
the best interest of the ecology of the area, it makes sense to build
a deck because you limit the amount of human activity around your
property, and that really is a lovely area. It's just like putting a
house in the middle of the beach. That's the kind of surroundings
you're facing. In order to get an idea of what it would cost to
bring the property into conforming. I got a quote from Bob Kehl's
Home Improvement, and very kindly he gave me an estimate of what
it would be, the cost that would be entailed in removing the violated
structure, and then somehow or another getting it. When you cut off
the portion of the deck that would be in violation, putting some
rails up, and then you still have the underlining concrete that
you --. He didn't even give me a quote on repairing the concrete.
So I have a quote of $4500.00 that is a significant amount of money
if you were required to remove the deck that has been there for
many years.
We recognize that the variance is substantial because we need a
setback of five feet, and the required is 15. Did I give that out, I
did, right?
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yes.
Mrs. Moore: So it is substantial in light of the Zoning Ordinance.
However, also in light of the circumstances here, and the character
of the community. The way this problem developed. We hope that
you will grant the variance as requested, and I have a quote here
for you which you could include in your records.
Chairman: I'd just like to ask you some questions Mrs. Moore.
Mrs. Moore: Sure
Chairman: Is this house for sale?
Mrs. Moore: Yes it is.
Chairman: OK, because I was suggesting possibly a life estate
situation on the deck based on the man's disability, but if he has
that, it's not going to work.
Mrs. Moore: Yes
Chairman: OK, we'll start with Mr. Villa this time.
Member Villa: What you say, it's already built. I don't know. I
have feelings about it. If it came in raw I'd would certainly not be
too considerate about it. Can we put a condition in, if they are
ever going to work on this thing, that part should be taken down.
A t
Page 8 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular. Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Mrs. Moore: Well I would think that if it deteriorates to the point
that it has to be repaired, replaced, than I'm sure that. I'm sure
this property is going to sell. Also keep in mind that that
Morris' (?) application. If you recall that. I think it was two
years ago. I was here on another property owner that's house next
door, the neighboring to that, had the very really identical
situation, and you did grant a five foot setback. Again, I want to
remind you. He's not affecting anyone. I mean, the property is 158
feet from his neighbor. So, if you go and take a look at the
surrounding area, he looks like he's out in nowhere. He really is
isolated.
Member Villa; I've been there. I've been there.
Mrs. Moore: Yes
Chairman: We've all been there.
Mrs. Moore: It's really is an insignificant impact.
Chairman: Well, I was thinking more to the ,effect that if there was
any substantial construction such as, a roof or any type of enclosure
placed around it. It would have to be brought into conformance. As
a open deck --.
Member Villa: One of the neighbors letters, basically states that,
you know, they don't want to see anything happen and if there is
anything done in the future, that they would like to see them comply.
Chairman: That's what I meant.
Mrs. Moore: Keep in mind that Mr. Fischetti bought the house from
Green the way it was, with the condition, and with the setbacks, and
with a survey that showed the location of, the deck of his neighbor,
presumably.
Member Villa: No, it wouldn't show that. It would only show
encroachments.
Mrs. Moore: That's true, however we could measure it out.
Member Villa: It wouldn't show the neighboring lot unless there was
an encroachment. That's my own thought. The deck is old and it
probably needs some work anyway. I'd be happy to see if there is
some kind of a clause in there, where it could be addressed in the
future.
Chairman: Yes, we can work on something. Jim.
Member Dinizio: No, I have no questions.
Chairman: Lydia.
Page 9 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Member Tortora: On the survey that you submitted. What portion of
the deck is without permit, 3500 applied for.
Mrs. Moore: Looks like because the building permit. I took the
picture from the building permit and it's very unclear. But it seems
to be, this area. No, this is with a permit. This area right here.
Member Tortora: So it's from
Mrs. Moore: So it's really from.
Member Tortora: Because it's very deceiving from the survey.
Chairman: It's from the concrete stoop.
Mrs. Moore: I know I had the same problem.
Chairman: It's from the concrete stoop.
Mrs. Moore: Yes I know. I had the same problem.
Chairman: Pat, it's from the concrete stoop back. Isn't that
correct?
Mrs. Moore: Concrete stoop --.
Member Villa: The concrete stoop forward.
Chairman: Forward I meant.
Member Tortora: Where is the North?
Mrs. Moore: This area right here.
Chairman: Yes
Member Tortora: That connects to the variance, right.
Mrs. Moore: Well no, only from here over would be the encroachment.
Member Tortora: Because this is 16 feet from the house from here to
here.
Chairman: Actually, it's from the edge of the household.
Member Tortora: According to the scale on this Map.
Mrs. Moore: Oh, all right. I have measured it and (inaudible) .
Member Tortora: And that's the Map for (inaudible) .
i ■
Page 10 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Please Note: Very noisy, cannot understand Mrs. Moore and Member
Tortora for a few sentences
Member Tortora: As far a tax. It would be from here to here.
Chairman: It's really from the edge of the household.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: To the East you mean. To the edge of
the house to the East.
Chairman: Yes
Mrs. Moore: But I believed he had a permit for this portion here.
Chairman: Right
Secretary Linda Kowalski: But you don't need a variance for that.
Mrs. Moore: How he got a building permit for it, because he did get
a building permit.
Chairman: Sure
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yes, but he did need a variance. He
could if he asked for it, get a building permit but that not the
problem. It's the Easterly side that needs a variance. Which is,
how wide there on the Easterly side. Is it five feet.
Chairman: Five feet
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Five feet, that what I thought.
Chairman: We'll attempt to put some terminology into a decision.
Mrs. Moore: Thank you very much
Chairman: OK Mr. Doyen, I assumed you didn't have any questions?
Mr. Doyen: No
Chairman: OK. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in
favor of this application, Sir. How are you tonight.
Mr. Fischetti: Fine. I'm Mr. Fischetti. I'm speaking in favor and
not in favor. I have the adjacent piece of property. I have no
objection to Mr. Green keeping the deck as it is right now.
However, if he does sell the property or it he does renovate, then I
think there is plenty of room for the project to conform to
regulations. There is enough to put decks on the other side, and
my back yard is facing that area, and it would be close to my
property. So, I don't object at this point. It would be a hardship
e
Page 11. - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
to tear it down right now, but if it was sold or renovated then I
think it should conform to the regulations. That's all I have to say.
Chairman: Very good. Anybody else like to speak in favor?
Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'd like to make a
motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later.
Member Villa: Second.
Chairman: All in favor.
� s
Page 12 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
7:58 p.m. Appl. #4360 - PAT J. IAVARONE. This is a request,
based upon the January 18, 1996 Notice of Disapproval issued by the
Building Inspector, in which applicant was denied a building permit
to construct a porch addition at less than the required minimum 15
ft. side yard, Article XXIV, Section 100-244•B of the Zoning Code.
Location of Property: 996 West Road, Cutchogue, NY; Parcel ID
#1000410-7-3. This parcel consists of nonconforming lot area of
34,000+- sq.ft.
Chairman: I have a copy of a survey dated January 5, 1996
indicating the approximate placement of the porch which was 12 ft.
4 in. to the property line, and the nature of this application. I
have a. copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard?
How are you tonight? Could you state your name for the record, Sir?
Mr. Tor. Torkelsen: My name is Tor Torkelsen, Torkelsen Builders
and I'm doing the construction for the applicant Iavarone and Ms.
Iavarone are here. What you see before you is. He bought the
house last year and has renovated it. He's repaired the back porch
and built a porch on the other side and the side that he's putting it
on, he will be encroaching about two feet. Off of that comes his
kitchen and his basic living area. So that was the side that he
really needed, you know in order to have table on that side. So,
he's requesting that two foot allowance to symmetry to keep the whole
deck 12 foot around and also, so that he can have a table and still
access through. I don't --.
Chairman: This is a raised deck of approximately how much off the
ground?
Mr. Tor Torkelsen: Actually, it's --. In the front part it's maybe
6 inches above grade. It goes approximately 2 feet above grade in
the rear.
Chairman: And the rear is towards the water.
Mr. . Tor Torkelsen: Toward the water.
Chairman: Right. Ok. Why don't you just stay there while we
start with Mr. Doyen first.
Mr. Doyen: No
Chairman: Mrs. Tortora
Member Tortora: , What's the size of the porch, and is this going to
be an enclosed porch?
Mr. Tor Torkelsen: It has a roof over. It's 12 feet out from the
house.
Page 13 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Member Tortora: It's 12 feet out from the house.
Mr. Tor Torkelsen: Yes
Member Tortora: And the depth of it.
Mr. Tor Torkelsen: The depth goes back about 50 feet roughly
Member Villa: How much?
Mr. Tor Torkelsen: 50 feet roughly.
Chairman: 50 feet.
Tor Torkelsen: Now there is an existing porch in the back which
has been renovated, which is 12 feet out, which goes the whole
length of the back, and the other side has a deck.
Chairman: When you refer to the back, you're referring to the water?
Mr. Tor Torkelsen: Towards the water.
Chairman: Right
Member Tortora: So it's 50 by 12. What's the height.
Mr. Tor Torkelsen: The height is eight feet off the deck with a
pitch coming on. I do have a plan if you would like to see the plan.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: We have a plan.
Chairman: We have a plan. It's just that some of the --. Not
everything is mentioned in it.
Mr. Tor Torkelsen: OK
Secretary Linda Kowalski: We borrowed it from the Building
Department file Lydia.
Chairman: Here's the actual letter. We're going with Mr. Dinizio.
Member Dinizio: No, I don't have any questions.
Chairman: Mr. Villa
Member Villa: Yes it says, proposed porch. But I heard you say
it's coming off the kitchen and dining room. So you're saying it's
not going to be enclosed.
Member Villa: It's going to have a roof over it but it's a covered
porch and I think --
Page 14 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Member Villa: So it's only going to be used in' the Summer time.
Mr. Tor Torkelsen: It's only going to be used in the Summer time,
and the reason it's being covered is because it already has a covered
porch in back. And from the looks of it, it blends into the
character of the house. That's basically why. The thing wraps
around and it's covered.
Member Villa: So right now you're siding that side of the house but
this is going to be attached .onto that side?
Mr. Tor Torkelsen: We're holding off on the siding, depending on
the outcome of this decision. So, people put the roof on and then
the side above it, above the roof.
Chairman: That's why you have that facia plate across the bottom of
the doors. That's where the deck would hook onto.
Mr. Tor Torkelsen: The deck would hook onto there. In either
case,. they would still have that because they'd make that a one
Chairman: OK. We thank you Sir. Is there anybody else that
would like to speak in favor of this application? Hi, how are you
Sir. Nice to meet you.
Mr. Pat lavarone: How do you do. My name is Pat Iavarone. I just
want to submit a letter that I was passing to the draft regarding
Posting the property.
Chairman: Good
Mr. Pat Iavarone: And I also wanted to note that in my own dialogue
with my neighbors on either side of me, neither of them have any
problems. I assume that they have noted accordingly.
Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Pat Iavarone: Thank you
Chairman: I further state. Does anyone have any objection to this
application? Does anybody have any particular problems? Do you
want to make a motion Jim, what.
Member Dinizio: I'll make a motion. That it remain open though.
Chairman: See. I'm not putting words in your mouth. So it's going
to be granted as applied for as long as it remain open.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: What do you mean by open.
Member Dinizio: No windows, screens.
Page 15 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Chairman: Not a permanent part of the house.
Member Dinizio: No heat, no --
Chairman: That it remain the same, with a one story structure that
it intends to be. Is that right. Will you Incorporated that in it.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: But the roof is ok if they --.
Member. Dinizio: As applied, I mean.
Chairman: As applied.
Member Dinizio: OK
Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK
Chairman: Who wants to seconed it.
Member Villa: I'll seconded it.
Chairman: Seconed by Mr. Villa. All in favor.
8:05 p.m. Appl. 4361 - Estate of Mary Anna Muir/Susan Park Utz.
This is a request, based upon the January 24, 1996 Notice of
Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, in which applicant was
denied a building permit to construct a single-family dwelling at
less than the required rear yard setback of 35 feet, Article XXIV,
Section 100-244B of the Zoning Code. This parcel consists of a
nonconforming lot area of 12,318 sq. ft. and is located at 295 Youngs
Road, Orient, NY; Parcel ID #1000-18-1-12.
Chairman: I have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick Van
Tuyl pc dated July 5, 1995, amended December 20, 1995 which
indicates the approximate placement of the proposed house. I have a
copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding
properties in the area. Who would like to be heard on this? How
are you Mrs. Utz. Would you like to use the microphone, and we'll
grill. you for a little while, not really. We didn't grill anybody
yet tonight. Is there anything you would like to state for the
record.
Mrs. Susan Park Utz: I'm attempting to build a small house on a
piece of property I own on Youngs Road in Orient, next to another
piece of property that I'm in the process of selling, and those
people are living in the house at this point, renting from me. They
will be the only neighbors that are effected by any change in the
regulation there, of the footage on the rear yard because, the other
three sides of my property have a road or a dirt road, or some kind
of a. road, and that's considered front yards. So I have one rear
yard and three front yard, and it's the rear yard that seems to have
21 feet instead of 35 feet which will be basically between my garage,
Page 16 - Transcript of IIearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
and the beginning of the other property line. The neighbors, as I
said, are my tenants at this point, don't care one bit if it's . 21
feet or 35 feet. They said, the closer I am the better because I can
help take care of their little kids.
Chairman: That's good. OK, great. We'll just see if any board
members, Mr. Doyen.
Member Doyen: No.
Chairman: Mrs. Tortora.
Mrs. Tortora: No
Chairman: Mr. Dinizio
Mr. Dinizio: No, not at all.
Chairman: Mr. Villa
Member Villa: I just have a question. You're saying, from your
garage and when I look at the survey, it shows 35 feet from your
garage to the right of way. 35 feet from the house to the other
right of way. 21 feet from the rear, what I guess is the rear of
your house to the porch, not a garage.
Mrs. Utz: Oh, the porch. I thought that was part of the garage
and the porch.
Member Villa: Well, the .porch looks like it sticks out further than
the garage. That where the 21 foot dimension is.
Mr. Utz: Oh ok, that's fine. It could be that the garage is up
closer against on the rear side, and then the porch, that would be
on the west side.
Member Villa: So that is the 21 feet.
Mrs. Utz: So, it would probably be 21 feet from that porch.
Member Villa: The garage is 35 feet from the right.
Mrs. Utz: That's good.
Chairman: Is this going to be a raised porch or is it going to be a
ground level porch?
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Are there steps going into it?
Mrs. Utz: That's a good question. I'm trying to imagine from where
my porch is going to start. Whether it's going to be on the ground
Page 17 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
or raised up, and what would be under it, if it wasn't on the
ground. I guess it's on the ground.
Mr. Gordon Price: That first floor of it starts 16 inches above the
ground.
Mrs. Utz: Thank you. This is my architect.
Member Villa: So the porch does stick out further than the garage.
Mr. . Gordon Price: It sticks out three feet further than the garage
itself. The garage is 24 feet from the line, and the property line,
to the other house I believe, the neighbors house is a good 50, 60
feet.
Mrs. Utz: That's what I understand.
Mr. Gordon Price: Right
Chairman: So this is a wood porch.
Mr. Gordon Price. Yes it is. It's a covered porch. It's part of
the architecture of the slope in the woods.
Chairman: OK
Mr. Gordon Price: So, it's really part of the house itself.
Chairman: And your name is what, Sir:
Mr. Gordon Price: Gordon Price
Chairman: OK, thank you. All right. Mrs. Tortora, no questions.
Well, thank you so much. Is there anybody that would like to speak
in favor of this application? Yes Ma'am. Before you speak, we are
going to try to find the custodian and turn down the heat before our
eyebrow's start to curl. So, we will do that as quickly as we can
find someone walking by. How are you tonight. Could you state
your name for the record.
Mary Anne Wilde: My name is Mary Ann Wilde, Sue Utz's neighbor.
On the rear or the --. I'm not clear about whether it's the front
yard or one of the front yard but to the rear of the house, siting
the right of way. I'm in support of the new building but I would
like to inquire about any future provisions or covenants on the
property since it is so close to my property, and what procedure
about covenants or easements in the future.
Chairman: Well, we certainly can grant that there be no further
reductions. Of course, that will mean, that they will have to bring,
she would have to bring or any subsequent owners would have to
bring in an application for us for any further improvements, ok.
Page 18 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
That is not necessarily a storage building. They might be able to
get a permit for a storage building depending upon how the Building
Inspector interprets the front yard, rear yard aspect, all right.
The board could limit the distance of the rear yard from the back of
the garage on, which would then force her to limit the size of her
deck area. That was what precipitated the. question of.. Is it a
ground level deck or is it above the ground.
Mary Anne Wilde: And what would the difference be if it was ground
level.
Chairman: Three feet. Three feet. Oh, if it was ground level.
The garage would be set back and not the deck. It would be the
closest amount. It would be a three feet difference. Is that
correct Mr. Price? Three foot difference. You understand what I
mean.
Mary Anne Wilde: Yes
Chairman: So that's basically that, you know. I don't have no idea
how these board members --. We don't go out together. We haven't
discussed it, and so that's really the purpose of deliberating
after. We don't, not make decisions because we don't want to do
them in public. Everybody's welcome to stay. We'll probably do
them after the last hearing. It's just that we don't know how
everybody feels about each particular application. All right.
Mary Anne Wilde: Thank you.
Chairman: Your welcome.
Member Villa: Jerry, one other questions. Did we get in the record
what the size of the house, the square footage?
Chairman: What is the approximate size of the house, Mr. Price? .
Mr. Gordon Price: A little less than 1500 square feet.
Chairman: Thank you, Sir. Is there anyone else that would like to
speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? OK, seeing no
hands I make a motion on closing the hearing and reserving decision
until later. All in favor.
Page 19 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
8:11 p.m. - Appl. #4359 - Edward E. Williams. This is an
application based upon the December 27, 1995 Notice of Disapproval
issued by the Building Inspector, wherein applicant has applied for a
building permit to construct a single-family dwelling and was denied
due to insufficient front yard setback from an abutting right-of-way/
property line, Article XXIV, Section 100-244B. This parcel contains
a total lot area of 54,887 sq. ft. located in an R-80 Residential
Zone District, at 16315 Main Road, East Marion; Parcel
#1000-23-1-12.1.
Chairman: I have a copy of a survey dated February 23, 1979
indicating the proposed house location and I have a copy of the
Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding property in
the area. Is there anybody that would like to be heard?
Patricia Moore as Attorney: Assuming we're all talking about the
same survey. This is the most recent amended survey that has a
house about 35 feet from the property line.
Chairman: Yes
Mrs. Moore: OK, good. Thank you. I'm here to cause a little bit
of trouble, I'm sorry.
Chairman: 35 feet from the right of way.
Mrs. Moore: From the right of way.
(Secretary Linda Kowalski: It's in your update today. Weren't they
in your box today?)
Chairman: Go ahead.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: I guess I'm going to start with a little bit of
trouble because when we, Mr. Williams and I both looked at the code,
we said what. This is not a corner lot, and what I suggested was,
that we go talk to the Building Inspector and see where they are
coming up with this interpretation. Apparently it's been one of
these things that have been done this way. But when you read the
code, that's not what the code says. The code defines a corner lot
as " A lot at the junction of an abutting two or more intersecting
streets". Then you look at the code and what the code says, the
streets are defined as, and it goes through an elaborate description
of three different definitions of what a street is. None of which
include a right of way. The only time that a right-of-way is defined
is a right-of-way line, and that's where it describes that the
setbacks should be, from the edge of the right-of-way, and that
makes sense because when you're building, you want to have a
setback from the right-of-way, so there is access and you're not
interfering with the access. So, that makes sense. Making this a
corner lot that require making this 60 feet from the right-of-way
Page 20 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
line, doesn't make sense. What you have is a property that has a
glorified driveway through the properties in the back, and that's
being considered a corner lot, as if it was a street or a corner with
an intersection, with heavily traveled traffic.
So that was I guess, the first thing we did was. I saw a
interpretation because if you find that this is not a corner lot than
Mr. Williams, Mr. & Mrs. Williams do not need a variance. They can
meet all of the setback requirements for a lot from a right- of-
way. If you don't agree with my analysis, ok and we request that a
variance be granted. The house is situated right now, approximately
in the center of the property. The Williams owns, bought this
property 17 years ago and have been waiting patiently until they
were ready, especially to retire and build there dream house on this
piece. They, if they were to conform to the corner lot definition
and build a house on this parcel, it would look like a long tube,
with the end of the tube having the water front view, and the rest
of the tube, having a. view of their neighbors, and that's not what
was intended for this piece of property. And really in conforming
with the character of the neighborhood, the houses in this area try
to make uses of the beautiful view of Orient Harbor, not of their
neighbors. So, we would ask in light of the character of the
community. The fact that if this was not a corner lot, he would need
no variances whatsoever. He's setback 35 feet to the right-of-way.
Twenty feet from the other side. So that, there is clearly enough
room for a nice reasonable size house.
He initially had a dream house that was a little bit
different and went back to the drawing board and said. Well, all
right. We'll increase the setback from the right-of-way and reduce
the size of the house and put the garage underneath in order to
make an application with a minimal variance request. So, in light of
all that, we would ask that you grant the variance for. Find an
interpretation for the code that this is not a corner lot and
therefore there is nothing necessary, and because they are waiting
for the weather to break. They are anxious to start right away.
They would ask that you grant the variance as soon as possible.
Also, have the drawings. Mr. & Mrs. Williams just got, hot off the
press. I have drawings of the house if you would like to see it.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Do you want those back.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: Do you need them back.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Well, we would need them for the record
for about two weeks. Then we could give them back.
Mr. Edward Williams: That is a preliminary plan so it's to scale.
Chairman: That's all right, ok.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: This is the side that's going to be on the
water view. On the Main Road. The Main Road is the windows.
Page 21 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Chairman: What's approximately the square footage Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: 1600, 1600 square feet.
Chairman: OK, Mrs. Moore let's start with Mr. Villa.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: OK
Member Villa: Just out of curiosity. I know it's set way back.
What is the distance from the Main Road back?
Mrs. Patricia Moore: This is the survey that shows it.
Member Dinizio: It's set here.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: At least 90.
Member Villa: That's the back lot, that's not --.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: About 320 ft.
Chairman: That was the question. Take your time.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: We have one of the survey's we had at one
point.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: About 320.
Chairman: Well, if you take 90 away from 464 or whatever the width
of the house, is basically the setback.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: From the street rest.
Member Villa: From the main road.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: From the Main road.
Member Villa: 312 feet.
Chairman: OK
Member Villa: That's good enough. I just --.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: It's 1.3 acres, the whole lot.
Chairman: Right
Mr. Edward Williams: It's 312 feet from the
Chairman Thank you Sir
Page 22 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Member Villa: Is that right of way going to be used as your
driveway too?
Mr. Edward Williams: Yes, that's why I originally purchased this
property, because the driveway was there. The right of way was
there to Mr. Hicks. So I figured if I bought this piece it saves me
a 380 foot driveway to build.
Member Villa.: And it's only seven and one half feet wide.
Mr. Edward Williams: It's 15.
Chairman: Yes, it lays on both pieces.
Mr. Edward Williams: 15 foot wide, the right of way. But seven and
one half foot is on my property.
Member Villa: OK
Chairman: That was the question that I was going to ask. Anything
else, Mr. Villa?
Mr. Villa: No, that's all.
Chairman: Mr, Dinizio: No, it's just that I agree with you on the
right of way situation. I think that it's kind of ( itive) when
you're talking about the right of way instead of a street. But, I
don't recall as ever having to make that decision.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Probably be 25 years ago. It's before my
time or your time. It's in the record though, that they have always
done it this way. Pat, sorry, we interpreted. Go ahead.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: And I'm used to that kind of an answer, you
know. It's always been done that way.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: It was done in the record - by Resolution
of the Board of Appeals about 25 years ago.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: Yes
Secretary Linda Kowalski: But they feel it should be changed.
They can do that.
Chairman: Mrs. Tortora?
Member Tortora: Do we have a formal interpretation of that letter?
Secretary Linda Kowalski: No, you can include it in your decision
though. She hasn't filed for a separate interpretation. Pat, we
usually require a separate fee and all for a formal interpretation.
Page 23 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
But you're using that as part of your presentation for the granted
variances, right. Is that it.
Mrs. *
rs. .Patricia Moore: Whatever you'll give. I mean, if you interpret
it that it's not a corner lot, then we don't need a variance.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: That's right.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: So, it does seem a shame to go through this
kind of process and the expense. When in fact, it's a driveway, and
you provide for it in the code by setting back from that right of way.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yes
Mrs. Patricia Moore: Otherwise, it's being a duplicate. I don't
know.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Well, they can reverse the decision.
Member Tortora: Well, the only thing I feel about this. I don't
view this as a proper right of way. I personally don't think that
the 60 foot setback is adequate.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Well, we can do that in the decision and
if there is another procedure or fee, we would let you know.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: Just send it to the Building Department.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: That's right.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: So the next guy won't be affected by it.
(Apparently there was belief by the applicant that this may have
been the first application of this type, or that the former
interpretation of "frontyard" setback would be changed for private
rights-of-way. See action/resolution taken and noted in the Minutes
which did not change the interpretation requiring front yard setbacks
from private rights-of-way. )
Member Villa: I have concerns over that.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: It has to be discussed as a Board, too.
Member Villa: It has to be discussed because is this going to open
up a can of worms.
Member Tortora: But the variance requested is substantial.
Member Villa: Oh I don't have a problem with this. The way this is
set up here (on this plan) .
Page 24 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Member Tortora: If you interpret it, that is the problem here. The
way the Building Department interprets it.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: The only thing is. If you change the
interpretation, you're .going to set a precedent for the whole Town of
Southold.
Member Villa: Right
Secretary Linda Kowalski: That's why it has to be discussed. There
are all kinds of rights-of-way. There are all kinds of reasons for
rights-of-way.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: I understand. I have no problem.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: We handle them on a case by case basis.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: You create a precedent but only to the extent
that if you want it changed you go through code revision and you
write it into the code.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Right
Mrs. Patricia Moore: And that's the proper way, so that people will
read it and say, "Oh of course, it's a corner lot." But the way it's
written in the code now, to have a policy of the Zoning Board. I'm
not sure is the accurate.
Chairman: No, it's not.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: Or proper procedure to do it, and I don't want
to put the Williams through that, that --.
Chairman: What we'll do is Mrs. Moore is, put it on the list. We
have a list now. This is the fifth on the list.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: The code should be changed.
Chairman: Right, you're absolutely correct.
Edward Williams: I understand it was just changed anyhow to include
the way the Building Department understands it. It was changed to
include right of ways. That's the way they interpreted it.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: On the setback it was the size of a yard
setback.
Member Tortora: It's very hard to interpret.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: It will be addressed, Pat. We will be
putting it in writing.
Page 25 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Mrs. Patricia Moore: I don't know if the Williams are anxious to
start their construction, so whatever is in the best interest of the
clients certainly, you know I'm in favor of it. This particular
situation I thought was unfair.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yes, it's not the first time it's come
before the board so that's why it's got to be discussed again.
Chairman: Thank you.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: Do you have other questions.
Chairman: We'll see what generates out of the for or against.
Mrs. Patricia Moore: OK, thank you.
Chairman: Thank you. Anybody else in the audience that would like
to speak in favor of this application.
Mrs. Williams: I would just like to say that if we want the Town to
look nicer, I don't think facing the house from the side to the water
when people drive by, looks as nice as this house will look. You
know, there's no law for that but it just makes common sense to me
that you would want it to look.
Chairman: In conformance.
Mrs. Williams: Yes, in conformance with the rest of the ( )
that are all facing the water.
Chairman: Anybody else like to speak against the application.
Hearing no further comments. Anybody like to offer a Resolution.
Member Dinizio: Well, I'd like to grant it as applied and it
certainly is a perception of, as you just said, how it would look in
the neighborhood. It's a long narrow lot, you know. You have to
perceive it to be a lot in any respect, in a driveway along side it,
not necessarily a road, and I prefer that we didn't even try to touch
the right of way situation. Certainly not even mention it in this.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: At the later stage, yes.
Chairman: Yes, I'll seconed it. All in favor. Have a lovely
evening.
Page 26 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
8:25 p.m. - Appl. No. 4362 - LEWIS B. SHANKS. This is a
request for the grant of a waiver as provided by Article 11, Section
100-26 in this merger of land as determined in the January 22, 1996
Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, concerning a
vacant parcel of land if 11,250 sq. ft. , which land has been held in
common ownership with adjacent land during a period of time
commencing July 1, 1983. The subject land is referred to as Lot 77
on the Map of Founders Estates, and the land adjacent thereto is
referred to a Lot 76 also containing less than 20,000 sq. ft. in
area.. Street Address: 450 and 350 Old Shipyard Road, Southold,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-64-2-47 (and Parcel
1000-64-2-48 transferred by deed on 6/7/90 from Shanks to
Chiaramonte) . Zone District: R-40 ,Residential.
Chairman: I have one letter in support. I have a copy of a survey
dated April 10, 1995 indicating a parcel of property approximately 75
by 150. I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
and surrounding properties in the area. Is there someone that would
like to be heard. How are you tonight.
Jennie Gould Esq: How are you Mr. Goehringer. Jennie Gould
appearing for Lewis B. Shanks. I have a tax bill for Lot 47.
Chairman: OK
Jennie Gould Esq: I have copies of the vacant land deals that were
issued previously and this is an updated.
Chairman: Oh, that's good.
Jennie Gould Esq: The Tax Maps that Scott Russell prepared for me
today showing which parcels were still vacant in the subdivision.
Chairman: Oh, that's great. Thank you.
Jennifer Gould Esq: Just to give you a little background on this
application. You know, as far as we're concerned this is an apparent
merger because back . in 1990 Mr. Shanks conveyed to Dr.
Chiaramonte in his way or ( ) tonight, and before he did
that, there was a CO issued to Lot 48, which was conveyed to the
Chiaramonte's, and Mr. Shanks, whose Mother before she died, had
applied for a vacant land CO with the Building Department. A
vacant: land CO from the Builder Inspector in 1986. Then after she
died Mr. Shanks went himself, and got another vacant land CO in
1989 because he wanted to be sure, when he conveyed to the
Chiaramonte's that he would still have the 'lot.
His intention was, he and his wife live in California I believe,
that they would come back and build a home. Well, six years have
passed and they decided that they wanted to sell the parcel. They
don't want to build now and they entered into a contract for sale.
1 �
Page 27 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
The buyer applied for a building permit, was issued a building
permit, and then in August of this year that building permit was
revoked by the Building Department saying, it was a non buildable
lot. So, that's why we're here tonight because the lots have merged
according to the Code. Linda, I gave you the Title Search, didn't I?
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yes, that's in the file.
Jennie Gould Esq: These lots, originally they were conveyed to the
Shanks parents by 55 and 56 as separate parcels. They never been
merged by deed before. As you can see from the Tax Map, they
have always been separate on the Tax Map. In the notice of
Disapproval, Suffolk County Health Department has issued a permit to
dig a test well on the premises. So they have been, and there are
separate Tax bills for the property.
Chairman: There is also Town water there, isn't there?
Jennifer Gould Esq: I don't know what the test wells, maybe for. I
don't know. To tell you the truth, I don't know.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: See if it says it on the map.
Jennifer Gould Esq: If you look at the criteria in the new merger
law, the first thing you're apt to consider. Will there be an
increase in density in this subdivision. The Founders Estate
subdivision was filed in 1927. If you look. at the Map, most of the
parcels were quarter acres. A few are larger, a few are smaller.
But most a quarter acre, 75 by 150, which is the size of this lot.
There are, originally I think there were 127 separate parcels. Some
of those have merged. You can tell that by the Tax Map.
But there are only 9 vacant parcels at the present time.
So, by allowing him to construct a home on this parcel, is not going
to upset the density of the neighborhood, or be inconsistent with the
neighborhood. And it would be also recognizing a lot, which is
consistent with other lots in the neighborhood. In fact, as I said
before, it's bigger than alot of the lots. Obviously, if he's not
granted the waiver, there is going to be economic hardship. He has
already lost one sale because of his inability or the buyers
inability to get a building permit. When he sold the lot to Dr.
Chiaramonte in 1990, he assumed he was keeping a buildable lot for
himself and his family. Finally, the character of this lot itself.
There are not going to be any problems with fill or any adverse
effect on the environment.
Chairman: OK
Jennie Gould Esq: Any questions.
Chairman: We'll start with Mr. Doyen.
Page 28 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Member Doyen: Not at this time.
Chairman: OK,Mrs. Tortora.
Member Tortora: How many lots in the area have merged?
Jennie Gould Esq: They got to be today. There was originally 127.
Now there are at least 100 with, he thought with improved houses on
them. It's hard to tell how many 'have merged. Some you can see
with the Lot line changes. He looked them up and said, there are at
least 95 to 100 houses. You have to subtract it. I think, nine
vacant and the rest --. But there are 100 existing lots, so maybe
it's going to get merged.
Chairman: OK. Mr. Dinizio:
Member Dinizio: Only that it's fairly clear to me that the intention
was always to have a lot, and it was never given up in any manner.
That's all I have.
Chairman: Mr. Villa
Member Villa: The only problem I feel is that, you know, you say
there are only 20 merged lots, but if you grant this merger. What's
going to say the other 20 can't come in. You're not going to save
the density. This is always a possibility.
Jennifer Gould Esq: When you say merge. Some people have it that
way because they want it that way. They built there home in the
middle of two lots.
Member Villa: Well, some of them.
Jennifer Gould Esq: I mean, that's probably an issue with the entire
merger law. You don't really know which lots are merged, and which
lots people choose to have that way.
Member Villa: That's right, and I've seen situations where houses
were actually destroyed to create the second lot, and it does
happen. I mean, houses burn down, they move houses so that they
can free the second lot. It's hard to say. My problem with this,
that even the original zoning that went into effect in Southold in
1957 created Lots of 12.5. This one is even smaller than that. That
was the smallest zoning that Southold had. So this predates zoning.
But you know, it is a small lot.
Jennifer Gould Esq: Well, if you look at the rest of the
neighborhood though, and this is a rather large neighborhood, over
100 homes, and most of them are on 11,00 square foot parcels. It's
not in keeping with the neighborhood in any respect.
Chairman: What did you say the date of the subdivision was?
Page 29 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Jennifer Gould Esq: The subdivision was 1927. I think most of the
building went on in the fifties, but the subdivision was 1927.
Chairman: We thank you Ms. Gould. We'll see what developes at the
hearing here. We'll be closing the hearing at. the end and recessing
for later. So you're welcome to .stay. You'll hear the deliberation.
Jennie Gould Esq: OK, great
Chairman: Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of
the application? Is there anybody that would like to speak against
the application. Seeing no hands I make a motion closing the hearing
and reserving decision until later. All in favor
Page 30 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
8:45 p.m.-Appl. No. 4354 - LOUIS MOORE BACON (ROBINS
ISLAND) . This is an application based upon two Notices of
Disapproval, the grounds for which read as follows:
E. 1 Family Vacation Home, s/w portion of Robins Island
will exceed principal building height limitation of 35 ft. as stated
in the Bulk Schedule for the R-400 Zone.
E.1 Family Vacation Home as a principal one-family use;
Building C.7 Caretaker Cottage for year round use and occupancy
and Buildings B .1 Lane . Lodge, C4 (C4.1) Agricultural Compound,
E.4 Garage with staff or guest quarters each as an accessory: One
family Dwelling not to exceed one (1) dwelling on each lot under
Permitted uses in an R-400 Zone. Action required by the Zoning
Board of Appeals. All buildings which will contain living quarters
as an accessory with an extension of the principal one-family
dwelling use and/or which exceed 18 ft. ft. height limitations as an
accessory are being considered for variances under Article 111,
Section 100-33A.
A.2 Boat House, B.1 Lane Lodge, B1.1 Garage, B.2 Mackay
Cottage, C.1 Recreational Building, (Farm center unit) E.4 Garage
with staff quarters, B1.2 Mechanical Services Building. and B2.1
Mackay Garage will exceed 18' height limitation as accessory
buildings, Article 111, Section 100-33A. (Approvals required by the
Zoning Board of Appeals before building permits may be granted. )
Location of Property: Robins Island, near North Race of Great
Peconic Bay, Town of Southold, NY; Parcel ID No. 1000-134-3-5 of
434+-acres.
Chairman to Kevin Law, Attorney for the Applicant: We thank you
and your staff your architect and everyone for the great assemblage
of the visual aids that we have here. I do need a motion to
reconvene. All in favor, Aye.
Mr. Kevin Law: Thank you very much. Kevin Law from Nixon,
Hargrave, Devin & Doyle for Mr. Bacon. As the board knows, we
were here for our first public hearing in the month of December, and
we tried to use that meeting to introduce Mr. Bacon's plans for
Robins Island to the board. We then went into the next hearing in
January, where we tried to concentrate on the presentation of the
dwelling unit issues, which is one of the more significant parts of
our variance application. We then spent the later part of January
addressing some of the concerns and comments with questions raised
by both your Environmental Consultant who assists with the board in
carrying out its SEQRA responsibilities, and from a member of the
community, and we recently forwarded that response to the board and
to your consultant.
What we'd like to do here tonight, if it pleases the
board, is to address the height variances and to discuss the reasons
why we are requesting the height variances. What I'd like to do is
just share some comments with you without those height variances to
get some thoughts and comments, and then turn it over to Jim
Page 31 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Thompson who's you know our architect, Mr. Bacon's architect for
the plan, and he could go into a more specific description of those
height variances, and using those visual aids that we brought here
tonight, the model and the drawings.
Chairman: It sounds perfect.
Mr. Law: If it sounds okay to the board, I will commence my
comments. Thank you. Again, part of what we did during the
month of January was that Mr. Thompson went back and reviewed the
design and the functions of the structures that Mr. Bacon is
proposing, and we're happy to report to the board that we have
significantly reduced the size of the boathouse as well as we've
reduced the size of three of the garages that we're seeking variances
on, to the extent that we brought them down to 18 feet. We've
eliminated the need for variances on three of the garages. While we
are still seeking a variances for the boathouse we have brought down
the size significantly from 35, a proposed 35 foot height to 29.6
feet. What I'd like to do is inform the board as to what the
function of some of the structures are that we're seeking, what the
Height variances are and some of the reasons why we're seeking the
variances.
The boathouse - those who have an application in front of
you - we've identified it as 8.2 in area A, which we refer to as the
Island access area, is basically designed for the control the
property access. It is also going to, besides the boat storage
functions of this building, it will also have room and space for the
boat captain's first aid area and security. The boathouse will
function and serve as access for equipment, goods and services as
well as emergency vehicles. It is going to be designed to be
visually appealing. It is, we would like to think that it represents
a resurrection almost all other structures that were once on the
Island.
For those who are familiar, and I know that the Southold
Community is, and the New Suffolk Community is. Historically there
were a number of structures right where we're proposing to build the
boathouse, and especially the old brick Hill building was once
there. Five hundred feet to the south the proposed location of the
boathouse are four existing buildings which, the roof tops because of
the topography, are actually going to be higher than the proposed
height of the boathouse. Jim will get into that more as he goes into
discussing it with the drawings.
For those members of the board that were with us on the
site inspection in December, if you recall the windy day that it
was. We were standing right there near the boathouse, and we could
barely hear ourselves talk to one another. I think that goes to show
the need to have a secure structure there, and to provide the access
for the Island, and also to provide for the comfort of those coming
to and from the Island, as well as all the other reasons I just
Page 32 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
shared with you. For the equipment goods and services and
emergency vehicles.
We do not believe that the boathouse will create any
undesirable change to the community. We believe the design promotes
seclusion with the existing buildings on the Island, and that we plan
as required, we will comply with all the Town, and DEC, Wetland
requirements and regulations and standards. More importantly, that
we don't believe that this will have any detriment to the health,
safety and welfare of the community. It will be consistent with a
multiple-boat houses and similar structures throughout the waterfront
communities on both Forks.
Those are the reasons, and the reason why we need the
height is again, because it's going to be the primary structure where
goods and services and vehicles, bringing those goods and services
to the Island will be coming off the dock and on to. Some of these
utilities, fuel trucks and emergency vehicles will need height as
well. So, we think there is a need for the size we're proposing.
Feel free to interrupt me, not interrupt me, but ask me questions if
it pleases the board, I'll just go right into again, the description
of the buildings we are seeking variances on, and if you want to
save your questions till the end, I'll accommodate the board.
Chairman: While you're talking about the boathouse again. The
access is directly from the dock to the boathouse but there will be
an alternate access around the boathouse for emergency vehicles. Is
that correct?
Mr. Law: Yes that is correct.
Chairman: That was my concern. Ok.
Mr. Law: The next building that we're seeking height variances, a
height variance for, is the recreation building. Again, on your
records, I hope you've identified it as Cl, C being the farm center
area, and the recreational building we're proposing at 45 feet
high. We think that the building will address the recreational needs
of the applicants guests and family. As I stated out in December
meeting, there are no parks or playgrounds over on Robins Island,
and having an indoor recreational facility which will also prevent
children. As you know, Mr. Bacon has four of them.
From planning in environmental sensitive areas, what we're trying to
do with the structure is to keep all related indoor recreational
activities under one roof, for the sake of effective organization as
well as to prevent multiple structures from impacting the
environment. We believe the building is nestled far enough inland,
not to be seen, lower than the tree lines, and the proposed design is
going to be an attractive gambrel farm style roof to be consistent
Page 33 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
with the farm center that going to be located in with the other
Agricultural building in that area.
Again, like the boathouse we don't believe this will have
any undesirable change to the Community, and it would have no
detriment to the health, safety and welfare to the community to grant
this variance. Just one other point with this. As you know,- we
discussed at the December hearing. We are proposing an indoor
tennis court for this structure, and an indoor tennis facility, if
you checked around, we believe needs a minimum of 40 feet height to
accommodate an indoor facility. I share that with the board as
well. We did a little bit of research on that issue.
Chairman: On that issue, there is . no physical impact because it's
nestled in the trees. Is that correct.
Mr. Law: Yes, we believe so. We believe it's nestled far enough
inland. You can see on the model, if you do recall, it's this
building here.
Chairman: Right
Mr. Law: All the way. Pretty much close to the center of the
Island. The next building that we're requesting a height variances
is the vacation home. Mr. Bacon vacation home which we identified
as D.1 down in the Southwestern portion of the Island. Again, it's a
tall building because we believe a tall building equals a small
building footprint. We can take up less space on the ground by
going up a little higher. Considering the size and the uniqueness of
the - Island, we do not believe that that is a substantial request.
Again, rather than dot in the coast line with large estates, as some
may want to do, someone else on the Island. Mr. Bacon is just
looking to establish one vacation home on the Island.
Again, we believe the vacation home will be lower
than a tree line. It's only going to be around 200 feet in length.
No, it's only going to be visible from about 200 feet of coastline.
Let me take that back again, I'm sorry. There will be about 200 feet
of the coastline view, will be disturbed, and that is less than three
quarters of one percent of the 5.15 miles of coastline on Robin's
Island. So we believe that is a very insignificant number. Thus,
the impact will be minimal. The house will also be setback over 100
feet away from the top of the bluff.
Again, Mr. Bacon plans utilizing attractive designs to be
compatible with the Historic structures in the community. We also
plan on having a vegetated buffer up to six feet high. Six feet in
height as well as to plant shade trees in front of the house. Here
again, we don't believe there won't be any undesirable change to the
community, and that there won't be any detriment to the health,
safety or welfare of the community. We believe it's an appropriate
use for the Island.
Page 34 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
The next and perhaps last height variance, and I say
perhaps, and I'll park that thought for a moment because I'll get to
another issue, when I get to talk about the caretaker's cottage in
the Lane Lodge. The next structure that we need a variance for is
the garage with staff quarters. That is down also in the family
area, in front of the vacation home. The garage itself is allowed in
any respect. An 18 foot high garage. We're looking for a 25 foot
structure. Again, we believe that the 25 height variance that we're
seeking for this structure is not substantial. It will not be
visible off Island because it will be in front of the vacation home.
We would like to view this garage with the staff quarters as simply,
unattached guest quarters to the vacation home with no neighbors.
There will be no undesirable change to the community.
Again, with the small footprint, there is less of an
impact, and we don't believe there will be any detriment to the
health and safety of the community by granting this variance. The
last two structures that we are requesting height variances on, and
when I say request, I still think it's up to the board as to whether
or not we need height variances for these structures. That is the
Caretaker's Cottage which we've identified as C.7 in the farm center
area, and the Lane Lodge B.1. Both are proposed to be 25 feet
high, and what we spent our January meeting on, going over the
dwelling unit issues on habitable quarters, on accessory or
subordinate buildings, depending on how the board views these
buildings. I know the board hasn't ruled on that yet.
Perhaps I'll throw this out to the board, that if it
grants those area variances for those uses, the board could consider
allowing those buildings to go up to 35 feet as a right, as a
principal dwelling unit under the R400 code would allow. If that
would be the case, there would be no height variances needed here.
If however you view, or construe these buildings to be subordinate
to the principal use, which is the vacation home, which is the
principal building, we then require and respectfully request height
variances.
So, I'd like to just show the board a couple of facts on
both the Caretaker's Cottage and the Lane Lodge. The Caretaker's
Cottage would be 10 feet lower than the 35 feet committed under the
code. I think both the Planning Board and the Town Attorney
shared with the board. The Island is a large isolated estate and
requires a 24-hour-a-day caretaker, and we need accommodation to
accommodate a caretaker for the Island. This house is also nestled
far enough inland, to the middle of the Island. Again, it's in the
farm center which we've identified as area C in the center of the
Island. We don't believe it will pose any threats to the community
and there will be no detriment to the health, safety and welfare of
the community.
Lastly, and I'll be quiet after this one, is the Lane
Lodge. We are proposing this one to be also to be 25 feet in
Page 35 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
height. The Lane Lodge again presents again, another different set
of circumstances. It's already up, it's existing. As you know,
Mr. Lane, one of the former owners, commenced construction of it
back in 1917, I believe it was, Jim, and just never completed it
because of illnesses and other problems came upon that family.
However, Mr. Bacon was strongly encouraged by the Town
to restore that structure and he would like to do so, and use it as a
combination for his shooting guests and other family guests. This
building has already consisted with the existing and proposed
structures on the Island. It would be a waste to not restore it and
to knock it down. Further, waste to do nothing with the building,
and have Mr. Bacon pay taxes on a building he can't utilize. I think
it's in the Town's interest and Mr. Bacon's interest, to restore this
building and not request any additional height on it. Just give us a
variance if one is needed, and I say, if one is needed for what's
already existing.
Again, I believe this request proposes no threat or no
detriment to the health, safety. or welfare of the community. With
those comments on the record, I'd like to now turn it over to
Mr. Thompson who can perhaps give you a better description of at
least the boathouse, which seemed to be a concern to the board at
the last meeting, and he can use his drawings that him and his staff
were able to do over the last month.
Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. . James Thompson: Good evening. My name is James Thompson,
Architect from Greenich, Connecticut representing Mr. Bacon. In
response to the board questions, we've attempted to make a graphic
presentation here to indicate some of• the features and characters,
and the general style of work that it is. We've been commissioned to
produce for Mr. Bacon, and respectfully submit that since it's not
possible to have a.11 buildings on the property designed at the same
time, it's going to be a long process that this gives an indication
of the flavor of things. We feel it's also been important given the
fact that we're proposing to establish a structure and location that
have had structures on it back into the mid 19 century. That it is
not a new visual impact on the community and that although the
building is higher than 18 feet allowed by code for . accessory
buildings, that it's not a substantial visual impact.
What we've attempted to do here is, in sections, to take
it all the way through the site from the forest tree line behind ,the
Lane House, down to the water including an accurate scaling of the
pier 380 feet long, that extends into Cutchogue Harbor, show the
relative height and massing of the existing buildings in the contexts
of the proposed new structure. So, what you see at this point of
the drawing is, the Mackay Cottage, the Lane House and the
Icehouse, which are in a .group at the top of the hill. This is Lane
and plan, Mackay and Ice and this is the footprint of the boathouse,
Page 36 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
which is at elevation 12 feet above mean sea level. The existing
structures are at 32 to 34 feet above mean sea level, and they reach
heights of the buildings.
Again, this is one of the difficulty with the code. In
our opinion, the measurements of building heights to mean rafter
length, obviously produces a lot of different kinds of heights for
different roof styles, and I know this is an interpret problem. A
building like Lane, two and one half story structure, because of it's
salt box design measured against the short rafter, which is the way
the Building Department looks at it, actually only has a height of 25
feet, although it's a very substantial structure. In a simple gable
roof, in an effort to produce a shingle style agricultural looking
building as a boathouse, and the larger scale is the view from the
North as though you were standing on the pier looking towards the
structure.
What's proposed here is intersecting gable roofs. We've
attempted to break down the mass of the building by using single
story wings on it, as opposed to all the buildings being a two story,
related only this center bay that runs through, that has the loft
mezzanine. But to have access for vehicles with, you know we're
required to have a 14 foot high door, which really drives the height
of the building overall. One of the things we're continuing to
attempt to do is, minimize footprints of buildings and the results
and the lack of efficiency's and volume, and the increased excavation
that comes whenever we try to spread things out into a larger
footprints and stay lower with the buildings, there is a collateral
impact of increased excavation. In forested areas it means, more
clearing, more soil disturbance and over all we think a negative
impact on the site, particularly giving some of the voluntary
restrictions that we're prepared to accept in terms of spoiled stock
pile and disposing the spoils and what not in a construction effort.
Every cubic yard of soil that cannot be, as a result of excavation
that can not be handle dapp ropriately on site in an environmental
acceptable way, has to be exported from the site. So, there is
definitely a cost associated with spreading the building out
horizontally.
Again you can see as Kevin mentioned, the actual height of
this if you can imagine being in a boat in the Harbor on the Town
beach in New Suffolk and looking across. The presence of these
buildings which have been here since the early part of the 20
Century, will actually have higher ridge lines than the proposed new
structure at the beach, and I do have one other little sketch, which
it's not usually successful, but I'd like to pass it around as an
effort to do an accurate scale massing on the photograph enlargement
showing the pier of the boathouse and the Lane house behind, that
gives you a sense of how those are layered in three dimensions. If
you were in a boat a thousand yards off shore in the middle of
Cutchogue Harbor.
Page 37 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Chairman: Jim, would you like to move over so you can see this.
Why don't you, ok.
Mr. Jim Thompson: It's hard to figure out to turn it to you guys or
to the audience. Is there any question or additional points we could
make in this area before we go to the other demonstration?
Chairman: Only that we dearly would like to borrow this for a little
while, while we're pondering --.
Mr. James Thompson: We're prepared to submit this as an exhibit.
Chairman: Wonderful, thank you.
Mr. James Thompson: We also got some black and white copies that
are not mounted.
Chairman: OK
Mr. James Thompson: That are available to submit. There not
renderings, they are just black and white.
Member Dinizio: The building that's there, that is not a building
that you intend to build, not that, the other.
Mr. James Thompson: These are all existing.
Member Dinizio: Yes, they are not clustered in that fashion, they're
just --.
Mr. James Thompson: That's actually you know, the site section was
taken through here. So if you actually stand and look, they actually
overlay and we felt compelled to draw all three buildings, because if
you just see any one of them by themselves, it doesn't give an
appropriate sense of what the building masses of these, as a
collection at the top of the hill.
Member Dinizio: But it's not one building, that's not one building.
Mr. James Thompson: What your actually seeing. You're standing
right here and you're seeing one, two, three, four buildings.
Member Dinizio: OK
Mr. James Thompson: In that group, and you're going to think,
the key thing here is, to begin to see the height differential caused
both by the topography and the scale of the buildings.
Chairman: Right
Mr. James Thompson: That exist.
Page 38 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Chairman: Right
Mr. James Thompson: Lane in particular which is a substantial
structure. It's between 22 feet higher in elevation. The bottom of
Lane is virtually at the top of the proposed boathouse.
Chairman: The clearing aspect of what occurred over there of
course, makes it much more visual and you know, I understand what
you're saying.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: How high is the highest point of those
four buildings put together? I mean, is that the 45 foot lot.
Mr. James Thompson: The actual ridge of Lane house is 35 feet
above average grade and it's sitting at 32 feet above sea level, so
it's 67 feet above sea level.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: In height.
Mr. James Thompson: To the ridge of Lane house.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK.
Member Dinizio: You were interested in how high the house is from
-- (to Board Clerk) .
Secretary Linda Kowalski: If you mean when you look "at it," yes.
Thanks, Jim.
Mr. James Thompson: 67 feet from this point and we're proposing a
height of 29.6 on the boathouse itself. The structure is 28.8 to
there but then there is an average grade deferential that you have to
take into consideration. So, ridge height as opposed to height for
ordinances purposes on this building is 32 feet and the floor of the
building is 12 feet above sea level. So, 44 feet to the ridge. 67.
Board Secretary: And that's the highest part of the Island really,
right there too, right?
Mr. James Thompson: Actually, the highest point of the Island is
back up here in the center where the water system are. Which is 80
feet above sea level.
Member Doyen: How much?
Mr. James Thompson: Eighty feet above sea level.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Thank you.
Chairman: Great
Page 39 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Mr. James Thompson: This exhibit is a little more, not as dramatic,
but what we've attempted to do here is a geometric analysis that
views you, and occasion of site lines and relative impact of the
requested height variances at the family vacation house. The plan is
a replication of what was an exhibit in the Environmental Assessment
Form which obviously shows Peconic Bay, the beach and bluff, the
vegetated buffer zone with the proposed location of the family
vacation house, pool, pool house and garage with Staff quarter's. To
reinforce Kevin's comment, given the heavy vegetation of forest in
this area, the garage with Staff quarters is about 240 feet back from
the top of Bluff. If we elect to define top of Bluff it's a 50 foot
contour which is where the inflection from the level terrain down
slope occurs. Again I think, with that distance back, the difference
in height between an 18 foot building and an 25 foot building is
relatively insignificant.
One of the big concerns here is, if required to conform
than basically what we're talking about, is the living quarters
being in dormer space under the rafters which given the requirement
for habitable space to have a seven foot ceiling heights, you really
reduce the effected usable area of the structure requiring again, a
larger footprint, more impact as opposed to allowing enough height to
have wall space on that second floor to get headroom. The pool
house as proposed is a conforming structure as an accessory, and
what we've done is taken a vertical section through the site and the
primarily building and one of the things that clear from this is.
The bluff comes up and it drops a little bit as it goes to South, and
also drops significantly as it moves East on the interior. So, your
effective average grade is approximately 46 feet above mean sea level
at the house itself, and your effective average grade at the top of
the bluff is 50, so you're already starting below that point.
We're suggesting the willingness to maintain the native species
vegetative buffer average six feet in height - I think, it's - 20 to
50 feet,
MR. LAW: 25 to 50.
MR. THOMPSON: 25 to 50. So one of the things that we had hoped
to do was to be able to make an adjustment to this falling grade, by
bringing the house up a bit, hoping to maintain some views out over.
the bay and what we show in the drawing is in blue, conforming
group line that respects the 35-ft. height requirement, and the net
effect of that is essentially a 1-1/2 story structure which would
mean all the bedroom spaces and the rest of that on the second floor
of the building would be under the eaves and require dormers, et
cetera, in order to have light, -air and views - which doesn't offer
the prospect of a very generous design.
.By asking for the 10 ft. variance to 45 ft, it allows the 2-1/2
story structure requested which then means that under the eaves
spaces would simply be secondary space of storage, et cetera but it
gives us again the wall height to allow vertical walls on second
Page 40 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
floor to allow bedrooms and whatnot to have more typical windows and
not be restricted to sloping rafter and dormer spaces in principal
bedrooms and family living areas. Again, I think the other key thing
to realize is that given the height of the bluff, the setback from
the top of the bluff and vegetation, there are very considerable
sight lines out to the bay. ' There are no neighbors. There's
effectively 45 ft. height even in a boat you would have to be within
200 - basically the whole zone within 250 feet of the shoreline, you
cannot see the house. So they're talking about boats offshore - 100
yards or more away from the Island that you would begin to see the
ridges at 45 feet height. So I think there's a relative proximity
there and there's an impact. We're now talking about being 200
yards offshore before you can even see the walls of the house.
We're talking about a shingled roof and a tree canopy and what is the
relative impact, visual impact if you're more than 200 yards away
from the man's property before you can even see walls or cornices or
windows.
CHAIRMAN: Well, the greatest impact is going to be in the winter
time when there's the least amount of (leaves)--.
MR. THOMPSON: True. But your sight lines are not going to
change even in the winter.
CHAIRMAN: No. You're absolutely correct.
MEMBER TORTORA: You could have a 6 ft. vegetated buffer, we
went to 50 feet.
MR. THOMPSON: I think 50 ft. depth. is actually what we're showing
in the drawing. And again, most of the preliminary guidance that
we're getting from geologists and otherwise indicates that the
maintenance of shrub-type vegetated buffer is critical component
that's part of the long-term management plan through the Island area
to try to maintain the stability of the bluffs to the degree that
bluffs at those heights can be stable. So again I think the real
variance requested in my opinion is minimum relief for the specific
sight situation that we're dealing with in this case. And again
there are no Southold Town dwelling units or other habitants that
will be visually effected by this structure.
(Changed tape.)
CHAIRMAN: As always, the information that you have brought us is
just unprecedented. Just unprecedented. Magnificent. The
remaining area of the agricultural compound would be just as
traditional in the endeavors of architectural -
MR. THOMPSON: Our mandate is to produce for Louis Bacon a family
residential estate that carries the character of the East End of Long
Island, 19th Century Architectural treatments. I think the greatest
compliment he could give us when we're finished is that we were
a
Page 41 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
never here in the first place. Simply found a nice Estate left over
from the 19th Century, like he was able to have it for years.
CIIAIRMAN: Unbelievable. Thank you so much.
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you.
KEVIN LAW, ESQ. : Mr. Goehringer, I think you can tell that it's an
exciting project. It's one of the most exciting projects I've ever
worked on, probably ever will work on. I know there are challenges
before both us, the applicant, and the Board, and what I did the
plan, Mr. Bacon's plan clearly does is, it demonstrates that he
plans on being a careful steward of the Island. I think it's an
environmental sensitive plan. It's an aesthetically pleasing plan.
There's no detriment to the safety, health, welfare of the
community. There are nothing but positive effects on the local
economy, local property tax base, New Suffolk School District, and
the property is unique. We believe the plan observes the spirit of
the Code and strives and reaches and achieves the purposes sent out
in the Town Code and in the Town's Master Plan. We believe the
plan furthers the public interest and it protects the public safety
and welfare. And with that, Jim and I will be happy to answer any
questions and/or reserve our right to respond to any comments.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only comment that I have is that, I
have two comments - Mr. Allen has asked me to read his letter into
the record so I'll do that before the end of the hearing. And my
discussion with Mr. Newman today from the Suffolk County Planning
Commission regarding the Suffolk County Planning Commission's
determination of basically saying that this is a town determination
decision, he did ask me one question, and I don't know if he
mentioned it to you, and that is that we have talked about the
possibility of the Building Inspector and one representative from the
Zoning Board after each particular project is completed - probably
when you're ready for a C.O. or whatever the case might be. He
had asked me, and I don't think if it was a formal request, but he
asked me if either one member of the Suffolk County Planning
Commission could go with us on a site inspection and so I'm just
throwing that out to you.
MR. LAW: It certainly sounds like a reasonable request.
CIIAIRMAN: I think what he was requesting is that, you know, a
different member each time that a representative goes over there.
I'm not talking about during construction - I'm talking about at the
completion of each building or whatever, and I said I would throw
that out to you. I don't think it's unreasonable.
MR. LAW: It sounds reasonable. And to the extent that we could
try to coordinate an inspection with a visit from one of their
planners assigned to this, to try and accommodate, especially if it
r
Page 42 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
furthers the relationship between your particular board and the
county.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ok. Mr. Villa, any questions?
MEMBER VILLA: Just out of curiosity when you mentioned footprints
and everything else on the vacation home. I see on the chart you've
got a. square footage there. What's the footprint there? Just
roughly.
MR. LAW: Which structure?
MEMBER VILLA: Vacation home.
CHAIRMAN: The vacation home is 15,500 square feet.
MR. LAW: That's floor area. We need the footprint itself. '
MR. THOMPSON: It's about 7500 including porches.
MEMBER VILLA: And basically it's going to be occupancy on two
floors.
MR. THOMPSON: We're calling it 2.5, 2-1/2 story structure. There
are some habitable spaces under the eaves particularly for off-season
storage.
SECRETARY L. KOWALSKI: Does that 7500 figure that you gave
include all stories or is that just the first floor?
MR. THOMPSON: That's the first ground floor.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. Going back to Member Dinizio.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a couple of things. Mainly not concerning
tonight because they're so detailed, I can't believe that I asked for
that. I know I had asked for some scales, but this is
overwhelming. But I did, going through some of the correspondence
back and forth, a redraft of conditions - I think you saw that
already, Kevin, I'd just like to clarify something here or maybe get
some king of comment from you on this. And I'll read it to you.
"The owner agrees to allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to inspect
the island, and within buildings and structures, to insure compliance
of covenants and conditions established by the Zoning Board of
Appeals."
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I re-worded that a little bit, Jim. I'll give
you the new one. What number is that.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ok. It's the mentioned of "covenants" I guess is
my concern.
u �
Page 43 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What number is that - CC-TA-9.
SECRETARY: I reworded it to add "Building Inspector."
MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess what I'm looking for, Kevin, is some idea
of what you think the covenants are.
KEVIN LAW, ESQ. : What are you looking for, my opinion as to the
legal definition? If the Board is looking to impose certain
conditions on this, what I view them as, that they are conditions
that will run with the land, that they will be binding on Mr. Bacon,
his heirs, and assigns and successors, and that if we wanted to
deviate from the plan as proposed here today, we would have to come
back before this Board and request your permission. And if that's
your idea of a covenant, we're on the same page.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ok. Does it necessarily - in other words, you're
thinking more towards the building aspect of this as opposed to the
entire island and say covenanting all the island, remaining
undeveloped part of the island as never being developed, or --
MR. LAW: Correct. We're not talking about covenants and
restrictions relating to the specific building we're seeking the
variance on.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They have to be related to the variance
portions.
MEMBER DINIZIO. Ok. And one more thing, in Mr. Fenton's letter
of February 1, because I don't recall hearing this. He's discussing
what, I guess, he heard at the meeting - at Number 2, he says,
"Mr.' Bacon will not attempt to reduce the taxation of Robins Island
by reasons of any allocation to any tax free element and would pay
taxes on the entire parcel." Is that a true statement?
KEVIN LAW, ESQ. : No. It's not. It's a bit inaccurate, and I sent
to the Board yesterday, Linda - I don't know if you had a chance to
get it to them?
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, but the Board Members just received
it tonight and they didn't get to read it before the hearing. But
they do have it.
MR. LAW: Basically, what I represented and else
represented phrased differently than as Mr. Fenton phrased it, or
categorized it, was that as for property tax assessments on the
Island - the actions taken by Mr. Bacon, whether they lead to any
reduction if he was entitled to that, or if they are going to lead to
any increases - it's going to be up to the Board of Assessors, and
the point I made last month was once we 'get a couple of these
Page 44 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
improvements under way, and constructed and get C.O.s for them,
items like that typically lead to increased assessments. And a
further point I made was that Mr. Bacon is going to be a major
provider of property taxes, and he's not going to be a demander of
any community services. And furthermore, I'm glad you raised it.
It's part of a untold story with this plan, and we included it in our
submittals back - originals submittals - and I don't mean to be a
repeater or bore the board with repetitions, but I think it's very
important to note that in 1985 Mr. Bacon paid over $93,000 in
property taxes to the Town on behalf of the Island, and over 53% of
all those taxes went just to the New Suffolk School District and the
New Suffolk Library. $45,000 plus went to those two entities.
The other balance went to the Town of Southold with about 16% going
to the County of Suffolk. So, and he's not requiring any services
there, so I think the plan is a win-win for all the municipalities
and entities as well as Mr. Bacon if he is granted the relief he
seeks.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ok. Well this (letter) is just not what I heard
and I wanted to verify that that was not what anybody had agreed to.
MR. LAW: I believe you heard what I stated at the January hearing.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ok. That's all I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Member Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: Let's go back to the principal-accessory.
Originally you had commented you wanted us to make a determination
for dedication on what would be the original structure.
Mr. Kevin Law: Correct.
Member Tortora: Tonight you mentioned that if a height variance
was going to be needed on the Lane cottage and also on the
Caretaker cottage, are you saying that those would then become also
principal structures?
Mr. Kevin Law: No, I'm not trying to be ( ) . What I was
trying to do was lay out is perhaps an option for the board. You
know, we presented our case and I know the board can't make a
decision until the Seqra determination. That's what we're hoping for
next month. We were looking for, yes the designation of the vacation
home as the principal use, and principal building. And then we seek
an area variances for the other accessory, or park the word
accessory for a minute, subordinate buildings that also contain
dwelling units or habitable quarters. It wasn't clear from, yet from
the board, if you were going to treat those buildings as accessory
buildings or if you were simply going to grant the area variances
which, I believe the board has the authority for.
Member Tortora: Use variances or area variances.
Page 45 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Mr. Kevin Law: Excuse me.
Member Tortora: You're applying for use variances.
Mr. Kevin Law: No, no.
Member Tortora: Yes.
Mr. Kevin Law: Area variances. This is what we spent a good deal
of time talking in general.
Member Tortora: On the Lane cottage.
Mr. Kevin Law: Yes
Member Tortora: It says use variance.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Where does it say use variances Lydia.
Member Tortora: Right here.
Mr. Kevin Law: That was on a earlier chart and since then we've
spent the month of January talking about the interpretation for area
variances for those.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: This was going back to November and it's
been changed several times.
Mr. Kevin Law: You're correct.
Member Tortora: Because we were around with that and where are
we now.
Mr. Kevin Law: You're absolutely right and the point I was trying
to make is this is that. If there are accessory buildings, then this
18 foot height limitation, then we'll need a height variance as well,
for that to get increased height. However, if the board was just
simply granting us an area variance to allow habitable quarters in
the subordinate buildings, perhaps we could go as far as 35 feet.
This is for getting a variance which is permitted under the code, and
then perhaps we don't need the height variance as well. But that
was up to the' board to decide and I wasn't sure which way you were
leaning, if any way yet.
Member Tortora: You just kind of throw me this evening with it.
Mr. Kevin Law: You're absolutely correct. I just tried to lay out
another option for the Town and the board then.
Chairman: Mr. Doyen, no questions. We thank you Mr. Law. We'll
see what generates about the hearing.
r �
Page 46 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Mr. Kevin Law: Great, again I thank the board for all the time it's
allowed. Mr. Thompson and I on behalf of Mr. Bacon. As I said, I
know it's a very unique project and a very challenging project and a
very complex project and we tried to present it in a understandable
way, we thank the board for it's time. Again, I'd just like to
reserve the right to respond to any comments that may be made
tonight and to respond in writing to the board, if the board chooses
to close the Public Hearing tonight. Thank you very much.
Chairman: Thank you. Before we go into any other, members of the
community I just want to read this letter from E, Davies Allan. It
says. Dear Sir, it's addressed to me. I've attempted to follow the
topic of Robin's Island in local periodicals and most recently read a
commentary of your meeting held earlier this month. It's dated
1/22/96.
As a native of this area, and a businessman for 30 years,
I've had ample opportunity to watch at times --and at times
participate in-- various big money projects on the East End of both
Forks. Some were never completed leaving contractors and
municipality skeptical. Others have been completed and the final
project leaves us, all the less than enamored. Still other projects
we have find to be an asset, both in appearance and in tax dollars
earned by the Town.
Such is the case 'with the current status of Robin's
Island. Years ago I asked to visit the Island on the request of the
perspective foreign purchaser. Later, another visit on the behest of
a West Coast magnet. We all know that Suffolk County struggles with
the ownership possibility as well.
Bottom line I feel, we all are better off than imagined.
Mr. Bacon brings us the best of all worlds. The property remains
on the Tax Rolls with prospect of no more than a handful of kids to
go to local schools. Mr. Bacon's ambitions are particularly modest
when we take into account the vast acres he owns. Furthermore,
Mr. Bacon has generated a serious influx of cash for the folks who
live here through payrolls and local purchases.
Most important his checks don't bounce, because many
people would be disappointed if Mr. Bacon found his Island pursuits
to be, to much of a hassle, and he found a friendlier atmosphere
saying, the Chesapeake or South Carolina. Whatever, we might be
inclined to take his money, he might be inclined to take his money
there, and sell the Island to Suffolk County for a park. An agency
that can't take care of what it has already. Immediately we would
see the Island come off the Tax Rolls and an influx of five million
people scrambling for the opportunity to trample Robin's Island
terrain. Frank at the Marina near the Town ramp, would like more
money selling tee shirts and Robin's Island key chains than fixing
outboards.
Page 47 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Mr. Fenton, a local critic would want to move out of Town
because his taxes went up to compensate for the loss of Robin's
Island taxes when owned privately. Vehicle and boat traffic would be
a source of ire and an ire of many others. There's probably a
notion that folks with alot of money to spend should be viewed with
askance.
From what I see, Mr. Bacon is an exception, and we .should
be a bit more willing to take him for what we see of him. Let's give
him a chance, not scare him away. Yours truly. I thank you.
We'll now go on to anybody else that would like to speak in
favor of this project. Yes Madam.
Mrs. Joan Robbins: My name is Joan Robbins. I live in New
Suffolk. My husband and I have been a resident of New Suffolk for
41 years, and we care about Robins Island and we care quite alot.
We would be very happy to see most of the Island preserved. A
better word conserve by the people who know how to do it, a major
conservancy. We have no objection whatever to Mr. Bacon the
owner, millionaire, having his castle, and we'll be extremely
gratified to see the Lane house completed and the Mackay house
restored.
Everything Mr. Bacon has done in the Hamlet of New
Suffolk that we have been able to see, is of the highest quality of
material and workmanship, and I think that is no small consideration
considering the years of soil neglect by the previous owners. Both
of the Island and New Suffolk lots. The process of rehabilitating
the Island has cause and will continue to cause, some inconvenience
in New Suffolk, but it not a ( ) on the inconvenient that we
would suffer if the Island was fully developed, and I hope you bear
that in mind.
Mr. Bacon has demonstrated not only a willingness but a
desire to accommodate any concerns that we might have in New
Suffolk, and we believe that we could work out any problems in the
future. After all, the Island is part of New Suffolk. The end
effect on our tax base remains to be seen. But we believe and I'm
speaking for my husband and myself, that it's more likely to be
positive than negative. Mr. Bacon plans do not remove it entirety
from the tax base and the buildings as planned will certainly
generate taxes without accruing a large service cause that full
development would inevitably bring.
The Island historically has pretty much taken care of it
own, and we remember decades ago sitting in our dining room of a
morning and watching Bob Pugsley who was the Island's boat captain
for many, many years, walk the caretaker's small child. He came up
from the boat slip, up Third Street, and across the ball field to the
school. The Island will provide its own services and the Island is
no stranger to hunting, legal or otherwise. Its identity as a
Y
Page 48 -- Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
private game preserve is part of its history and why should we not
object.
We in our 'Hamlet and in the Town should consider
ourselves fortunate to have at long last an opportunity to have
responsible management of the Island for future generations, while
retaining some private ownership equally responsible. Please bear
the future in mind as you will on Mr. Bacon application. Sincerely,
and my husband and I have signed it. Informally, I think the
Island has fallen in a tub of butter and we better make sure to keep
it that way.
Chairman: Thank you, thank you very much. Is there anyone else
that would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against?
Mr. Fenton.
Joseph Fenton, Esq. : What if . you want to speak in favor and
against.
Chairman: That's fine.
Mr. Fenton: I'm a little bit at a disadvantage because we had a
snowstorm when this response came in.
Chairman: Right.
Mr. Joseph Fenton: And I had to go to Philadelphia for three days
and I just got back. I haven't had a chance to speak to as many
people as spoke to me before. I did get some initial reaction to
some of the content. The principal concern was that, the herd of
deer that nature maybe for a thousand years was breeding and that
numbered in the hundreds, and that its proposed or perhaps has
already happened, reduced to 10 or 15 animals, and there were
comments made to me. This may be a preserve but the number of
animals that were eliminated, that perhaps some people think it's a
slaughter house, it's not a preserve. Words like conservancy and
preserve don't jive with what's happened to this deer herd.
Chairman: I never heard the figure.
Mr. Joseph Fenton: Some of the comments were, had even more
feeling than that.
Chairman: Could I just say something to you, Sir, to clear the
record. I have no idea of what the total population was at the time
that Mr. Bacon bought the Island.
Mr. Joseph Fenton: It was too high probably.
Chairman: OK, correct. We were told when we were over there, it
was about 83 or 85, ok. we were told that that was going to be cut
approximately 50 o based upon the longevity of the animals that were
t
Page 49 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
evaluated, all right. I never heard the figure of 10 to 15. I mean,
maybe that could be cleared.
Mr. Joseph Fenton: It was in the memorandum that you received.
Chairman: OK, I was told half of that population when I was there
on December 7.
Mr. Joseph Fenton: I'm recounting to you.
Chairman: Right
Mr. Joseph Fenton: I go hunting and fishing. I think the preserve
to me and according to the dictionary, a preserve according to the
dictionary is to keep or save from injury or destruction, to defend
from evil to save, to keep in the same state, to uphold sustained
guard, to save from decay to prevent in that order. The concept is
that not everybody is delighted with reducing the herd from 10 to 15
now. I think he has a right to.
Chairman: Right
Mr. Joseph Fenton: But that doesn't mean everybody is happy about
it. One person said it's Dachau for deer, that it's not
sportsmanship. You try, to encourage the herd, and if nature spent
probably a thousand years of breeding the herd, some of. them died
off because they were weak and so the strongest ones survive. In a
year or two that's gone. I mean, there was no physical exam given
to these survivors, and I can understand his motivation. I think, I
touched on it and I think there is a concern about ticks and Lyme
disease and maybe this is overkill. Sportsmen that I know who go
hunting were upset when they found this out.
Now I haven't had an opportunity because I was in
Philadelphia and because we had a snowstorm when this first came
in. But there is a comment that's, you know, everything isn't
grand, everything isn't wonderful. I was in favor of an individual
buying Robins Island, and I think my friends in New Suffolk know
that. I defended, .I thought that this was the best thing that could
possibly happen. But everything may not be peaches and cream, and
I think he may have the right to, but that doesn't mean everybody's
happy about it.
Chairman: I just want to say that I, we do not have the power to
control the amount of -.
Mr. Joseph Fenton: I know that.
Mr. Chairman: You're certainly welcome to speak, but we're getting
awry of the --.
Page 50 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Mr. Joseph Fenton: And the same thing is true of the heliport. I
mean, that's not your bag. This is the town board. This is a DOT
and I hope that there will be public hearing with respect to it.
Chairman: I should point out to you -.
Member Dinizio: (Interrupting) Can I comment?
Chairman: No, I will first, then you can, if you don't mind.
Member Dinizio: OK
Chairman: The heliport in my opinion is an extremely important
thing to be placed on this Island. I am a member of a Rescue Squad
and when we have to get someone off this Island, it's extremely
important to have.
Mr. Joseph Fenton: It should be some regulation with respect to,
the flight path, with respect to the danger to, depending on the
flight path. The danger to the boating people who are at the North
end of the Island and you know what's, that fills up.
Chairman: But that's why the helipad, I think, is scheduled to be,
relatively in the center.
Mr. Joseph Fenton: I understand but are they going to come over to
New Suffolk. Are they going to come over there - carte blanc is not
the way to go. There has to be some understanding of some, what it
is. This is not a landing and take off pad. This was a quiet
bucolic palette, and that's what he wanted and that's what he bought
and that's, we understood was where we were going. I'm not sure
that's the case, and I don't know what happens to property value.
You try to sell your house now, and this fellow Mr. Allen wrote a.
very nice letter but I understand that Mr. Allen owns the landing
craft that he rents to Mr. Bacon. So, he has some connection here,
and naturally he would say what he said about him. I'm not
blooping. I've been at it too long. I've been here all my life.
I have grandchildren, three of them living close by and going to
school. I'm not about to leave here. As far as taxes are
concerned. My taxes are 50 times what they were in 1948. I was
doing a Hilary Clinton the other day. I was getting rid of some
files and one of them was a 1948 file. I went through it and there
was a bill. Property soared to what I have now. The taxes were
$117.00. That's what happened. Part of it is inflation because a
1948 dollar is now worth a nickel. But some of it is, you know more
government, more whatever. But, I'm here for the duration and I'm
pleased that an individual bought it. I want the taxes to continue
because whatever taxes Mr. Bacon doesn't pay, the rest of us will.
I apparently misunderstood what Mr. Law said. I think you'll have
an opportunity to look at that transcript and see what he said, and
you heard it and I heard it, or thought I did, and we'll see what the
transcript says.
Page 51 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Chairman: You're very welcome, Mr. Fenton, to reduce anything to
writing.
Mr. Joseph Fenton: I know that.
Chairman: We're going to leave the hearing transcript open for two
weeks assuming we have the votes to do that.
Mr. . Joseph Fenton: Whatever comments there are, there are.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Well not the hearing, the written (ref:
open for two weeks) .
Chairman: I meant the written portion of it.
Mr. Joseph Fenton: There is no reason why the people who are
interested in Robins Island because they are viewing it every day
and they know what it was. I remember when my father and R. J.
Deerborn and Jim Norris was going to buy it for $200,000.00 in the
thirties, and I went over there looking at it with them. It's an
obviously unique property. I'd like to see it preserved. I'm not
sure anything that is being done is preservation. I'm not sure that
the experts really know everything that they claim to know about.
They cleaned out all the brush and now there is no place for the
animals to nest, so they are bringing in Christmas trees to replace
some of that, so there is a place for nesting. At least that's what
I've been told. I don't know if that's the case. But to just say
everything is wonderful and everything is great. "Isn't he grand?"
It's like Emperor's new clothes. You just have to sit back and make
sure that - . What's happened to the deer population in the name of
environment doesn't evolve into something else which would ( )
the entire hour. There are a number of issues that height raised.
There was a question of, backing oil spill and I read what comment
was made about that. That there hasn't been an oil spill of this
character in Eastern Long Island. I don't know how pertinent that is
because we had it on the 19th. We had a 93000 oil spill on the
Sound. 93,000 barrels. I would like to be sure that we don't have
one. That's why I, and I know you disagree with me -.
Chairman: I don't disagree.
Mr. Joseph Fenton: Well no, I just thought Lilco was the way to go.
Chairman: Oh Lilco.
Mr. Joseph Fenton: Because they can pull a cable through and they
won't disturb the Bay bottom and they can jack that thing right
through, two or three feet under the bottom of the Bay and without
any trouble. It's an alternative and there is less chance of an oil
spill because there is less oil needed. The great base, I don't
know. You're a governmental agency and I don't know if this whole
generation is to way for this government to enrich people because if
Page 52 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
five or ten percent of the people that buy electricity, the price for
the rest of us has got to go up. That's how it works.
So, the environmental statement did not address the
possibility of Lilco being used and I think it should, and not just a
deprecating statement that Fenton thinks that New Suffolk people gets
cheaper electricity. I never said that, and I don't mean to be
testy. I understand what he's trying to accomplish here and I'm for
it. I just have some questions and some of them aren't even mine.
Some of my friends who make the comments and who are reluctant to
come up here and say what they think. Either by, because they are
afraid of retaliation which is silly, or because they are not the
kind of people who will stand up and say what they think. But they
certainly say it, and some of the people who are very happy with
what's happening there.
Maybe when they start hearing helicopter's coming over,
they may not be so happy down the road. The time to talk about it is
now and not later. Like Mrs. McGowan had the problem with her
property in New Suffolk. She waited too long, and I think now is
the time for people to go and say what concerns them, and ask the
questions, and that's how the Democratic system is supposed to
work. If it's a matter of getting people to write letters, I don't
know if that means anything. You know what letters are. You can
make your own judgment. You can make up your minds. You can
see the ( ) . I'm sure that it's going to be a lovely
result, but I don't think that we're going to scare them away by
asking questions. I mean Mr. Allen thinks so but I don't think
that's what happen. He has too many invested in this. This is what
he wants and he should have it. But that doesn't mean everything.
That's all I have to say at this point.
Chairman: Thank you, Sir.
Mr. Joseph Fenton: I appreciate the fact that you permitted me a
period of time in which to submit anything. I'm not sure I'll take
advantage of it but we'll see.
Member Dinizio: I'd just like to comment on the deer. Part of this
whole thing because I'm not a hunter. I never shot a shotgun before
in my life. Never went out to the woods. Not by any feeling or
any commitment on my part. It's just that I choose to occupy my
time in other ways. But when we went over there on the inspection,
there was one thing that was certainly striking to me. That it
didn't hit home until I actually asked the question, which was, "How
could I walk through that woods?" This wooded Island that you
would think it would look like that when you fly over an airplane.
You can walk just about anywhere on that Island without getting so
much as a scratch from a brier or having to move a branch and you
know, it just was so easy to get around there. It didn't dawn on me
until I asked a question as to the reason, why that would be.
Page 53 - ,Transcript of Hearings
R.egula.r. Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
I live near Moore's Woods and you can't walk through
Moore's Woods unless someone clears it and it didn't appear to me
that this was cleared. I guess from what I understand the deer eat
everything in sight, up to about five or six feet as I understand
it. Certainly, Mr. Fenton, your comment is harsh in that, you paint
a picture of butchery and I see it the opposite. These deer, I've
hit three deer with my car on Shelter Island. These deer have no
place to go. These deer particularly on Robin's Island - was a
refuge for them. Yes I agree, but they overstayed their welcome
and certainly overpopulated the Island. I don't know to what
extent. I have no idea.
However, I believe that a favor is done to the healthy
deer to try to control that population. I don't know what the right
number for a 400 acre lot, you know. Island should be, I have no
idea, but I do know that what I saw. The harm done to that Island
and to the other resources of that Island, you know. Where the
birds may live or where ducks, whatever. Squirrels and skunks and
whatever else is on that Island certainly couldn't live there in a
way that they would normally in a wooded area, because there was no
wooded area under a canopy of trees. I wanted to clear that and
make it clear. I don't see your way Mr. Fenton. I see it quite the
opposite way and from my view, it was personally being out on the
Island and seeing the devastation that was caused by deer. That's
all I have to say.
Chairman: Mr. Law.
Mr. Kevin Law: May I just briefly. I want to thank Mr. Fenton for
coming down again and sharing his comments and concerns. We
appreciated it last month. We tried to address his concerns. I
thought he raised a couple of good questions the last time. We tried
to address them. We believe we did adequately and I also want to
thank him for lending his support to the plan. I didn't hear that in
January and I'm glad he has expressed that tonight and I appreciate
Mr. Fenton, we do.
Just briefly, he raises good questions on the Helipad.
Just again, if you didn't get a change to read it in our response,
this is the process. Mr. Fenton will have another opportunity to
share some concerns and comments on that. We are in the process of
preparing FAA notice of air space determination. They will review
that. We then will seek the request of the Southold Town Board to
--. We'll have plans before this Town board. The only thing the
Town board has to do. They send it up to the New York State
Department of Transportation Commissioner to see if it complies with
State DOT ( ) and if the helicopter and the sea plane landing
area are adequate in terms of their standards. The DOT will then
tell the Town. Yes, these plans do meet our specs and requirement
and so there will be an opportunity to be heard on that Helipad
issue.
Page 54 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
As for the oil spill and cable underneath the ground. The
most recent experiment with cables underneath the ground, Long
Island Sound, Iroguis gas line from Westchester County into Commack
Long Island. That plan from what I understand, has been
experiences a lot of problems. They are going through law suits
right now because the devastation it did to the Agriculture and the
Bay bottom destruction. I think Connecticut again have been
contemplating if they haven't already sued the contractors who
installed those cables. So there is significant problems not to
mention the cost of bringing cables underneath the Bay.
Chairman: Can I just ask you a question about that Mr. Law?
Mr. Kevin Law: Sure.
Chairman: When that oil truck is brought over in that small LST, is
there any vehicles on the landing ship craft at the time. Or is that
the only vehicle that's brought over at the time.
Mr. Kevin Law: As far as I know, Jerry, it's the only vehicle on
there.
Chairman: Right.
Mr. Kevin Law: And we have a meeting scheduled in a couple of
weeks with the Health Department to go over, begin proper fuel
storage plans and we know we will be complying, and have to comply
and exceed Suffolk County Health Department regulations for storage
of the fuel that we have over there.
The last thing just on, I'll be quiet is just. On the
deer. Jim (Thompson) maybe could have said this better. I
believe there was a typo in our response. We're getting that out
because we were trying to get it to the board by last Friday, and I
think it was on the second, to the second last page-. They may have
been a typo in there. I think there are more deer than 10 to 15. I
think maybe Jim maybe, 30 to 35 or 20 to 25. Again, I just want to
close and again thank Mr. Fenton for coming down and sharing his
comments and concerns. I think we adequately addressed them and if
not then, I believe I just did. Thank you.
Chairman: Jim, do you want to talk?
Mr. Jim Thompson: I would like to refine that because the factual
information and there is a typo in there. The factual information
and guidance from Wildlife Biologist Dr. Aaron Mullen from University
at Ithaca, New York State DEC, and other experts that were brought
in from across the country indicate that, the goal of the healthy and
sustainable Deer herd on Robin's Island should be targeted towards
the population of 20 to 25 animals. If the vegetated community on
the Island was in a healthy and viable condition, and unfortunately
as much as I respect Mr. Fenton and other people's emotional
Page 55 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
approach to ecology and to environmental science. What we're dealing
with here is emotional tunnel vision, and the selection of an
individual animal or species within a vegetated communities or the
animal community, does not constitute a viable approach to ecology.
We have a responsibility for a piece of property that been designated
a critical environmental area under Suffolk County Legislation, and
one of the reasons it's a critical environmental area is one of the
most important things about it, is the unique vegetated community
which over the last decade it's been virtually destroyed by Deer
predation of vegetation, and frankly I regret the fact that I didn't
have the opportunity to' meet Mr. Fenton in 1994 and invite him to
help me personally bury carcasses of Winter starved Deer that were
rotting literally inside buildings where they were trying to find
shelter. It's a gross inhumane and painful existence. To starve
animals to death because they are in that kind of stress condition.
I personally buried 40 animals out there in the Spring of 1994. I
would never condone that kind of cruel abuse to anything that lives
on this Planet, and it will not be allowed to happen again.
Chairman: Thank you, ok. If there is anything that the board
would like to say before we close the hearing to public comment?
No. Seeing no hands again I would like to thank everybody here
that is interested in this project. Members of the Community, we
appreciate your comments. We also wish you safe home and I'd like
to make a motion closing the oral part of the hearing. We will leave
the overall written portion of it opened for approximately for two
weeks.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: We have to be more specific and give a
date. February 20th. Would that be two weeks.
Chairman: Yes. February 24.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: That's 26 days.
Chairman: Make it February 24th.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Excuse me, 19 days.
Member Dinizio: Are we going to meet then?
Secretary Linda Kowalski: No.
Chairman: No, we're just going to close the oral hearing--.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: So it will be February 24 (for the end of
the written, entire record) .
Chairman: So if anyone writes to us what will happen, Mr. Law, if
someone writes to us or Mr. Fenton, we will then circulate the letter
to the other party and then we'll allow them to come back with
information.
Page 56 - Transcript of Hearings
Regular Meeting - February 7, 1996
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Secretary Linda Kowalski: I just wanted to ask another thing.
Kevin was going to give a chart with the length and width of the
building and stories, ok.
Mr. Kevin Law: You'll have it tomorrow.
Secretary Linda Kowalski: Thank you.
Chairman: And you're leaving with us.
Mr. Kevin Law: Anything you require or desire.
Chairman: Just these two. Of course we would love to have these,
if you've seen the size of our office, there would be no way. So
again, closing the hearing for any oral testimony at this point, and
leaving the hearing transcript open for, written in till the 24 of
February. All in favor.
Mr. Kevin Law: Thank you very much.
Typed by Noreen Frey from tape recordings.
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
DATE /-�)lI f HOUR ( - L
Town Clerk, Town of Southold