Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/29/1996 HEARING For Filing "as is" TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS (May Need Minor MAY 29, 1996 Corrections) SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Prepared by Noreen Frey 7:30 p.m. Appl. #4386 - CINDY AND MITCHELL RUGGLES. Application for a variance based upon the May 6, 1996 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, ref Zoning Code, Article 111A, Section 100-30A.4 to locate an above-ground swimming pool with entry decking and fence enclosure in an area other than the required rear yard at 1150 Nakomis Road, Southold, NY. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-78-3-15. The subject parcel contains a total lot area of 13,200. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a sketch of a survey indicating the present placement of the house, which is somewhat centered in the center of the lot, with the deck on the rear of the house. I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I also have a penned in area, indicating the pool at approximately three feet from what appears to be both properties to the corner. Is there anybody that would like to be heard? Use the mike and we'll grill you a little. CINDY RUGGLES: Oh good. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to say for the record? CINDY RUGGLES: No, just that ( .) wasn't my home, and I saw the site. Technically, it does not comply with being in the back yard. Technically, it's used in the side yard. Actually and physically, it's behind my house, and in my back yard. It's not really, not a side yard. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I was trying to figure out how they established a side yard on that anyway. CINDY RUGGLES: The side yard was because whatever was my last structure, which would be my deck, would have to be beyond the deck. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's right. CHAIRMAN: OK CINDY RUGGLES: Requiring the trees to be taken down, and it's so close to the deck, that you could actually dive from the deck into the pool, and I didn't think that was a --. Page 2 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: I always thought everything from the exterior of the back of the house, was SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No. CHAIRMAN: Not anymore SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Not for years. It always been the end of the rear structure. CHAIRMAN: OK, I stand corrected, all right. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Only if you had a patio at ground level, then that would be exempt. CHAIRMAN: OK, we'll start with Mr. Villa. Mr. Villa, any questions? MEMBER VILLA: Well, I was trying to get it penned down as to how far off the lot line it would be, because it's quite a bit of space there. It says, three foot minimum. I don't particularly care to see it three feet off the line. CINDY RUGGLES: No, I was just saying that I would comply with that. We also have cesspools that we want to keep clear, and have access to, if we need to, in the future. I didn't know exactly where it would be placed. I would have to speak to a pool installer, but I wanted to comply with whatever rules you had, and so that was your rule, minimal three feet. So, I'll stay with that. MEMBER VILLA: That's probably what will happen. Once the pool is built, you'll probably want to put a deck all the way around it, or what have you. I see it's only showing a part of it. CINDY RUGGLES: That's what I really anticipated. It's an above ground pool. I wasn't going to ( ) . MEMBER VILLA: Well, you see some above ground pools, that have extensive decking. There's no question about it. So) it looked like you had about 40 feet or more between your property line and the deck. MITCHELL RUGGLES: I have two cesspools between the deck, and right in that 40 feet, there's two cesspools right in that location. I'm going to try to situate the pool in the event that I need the cesspool. I'm not going to have to take the pool down to get to the cesspools. I'm going to situate it a close as I can to the house. I'm not going to encroach to the property line, with any intent. That's not my intent at all. I'm going to keep it as close as I can, and situated to the best of my ability, keep it away from the property line, just in case I did want to put a deck around. I anticipate putting a small deck, just enough for two lounge chairs, and entry ladder. A deck is a big expense, and I don't plan on doing that. Page 3 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. . May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: What do you think is a realistic figure off that side property line? MITCHELL RUGGLES: What would the Town ---. What would you find acceptable? I don't know where I'm going to put it, but I'm willing to put it wherever you tell me to put it. MEMBER VILLA: Well, I don't know where the pools are. So, I was thinking in my mind, that if you split the distance between the deck and the property line, with the pool, you'd have about 10 feet on both sides. Ten feet from the deck, and ten feet from the property line. I don't know if it fits in there. That's why I'm asking you. What's a reasonable distance. MITCHELL RUGGLES: I don't think it would fit there. It's a 21 ground pool. That would put me right on top of my cesspool. If I move it forward to the corner of the house, I'll be encroaching on the side property line right there. MEMBER VILLA: Well, you said you wanted to keep a distance there, so you could drive your truck through there. CINDY RUGGLES: A truck that would need to ---. MITCHELL RUGGLES: Between the corner of the house and the pool, I would like to bring a pick up truck in there, if I had a delivery, and I wanted to load it through the back door. My sliding glass doors are the biggest part of the house, and my boat. Three and one half, four feet off the property line. I could probably make it four feet off the property line without a problem. CINDY RUGGLES: Would you'd mind giving us five feet, but I didn't know. I thought I just had to comply with the rules. 1 SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No, we didn't tell you that. someone else told you that in another department, probably. If you comply without a variance, it's three feet. But when you have to go for a variance, it's up to the board discretion to give the set back. MITCHELL RUGGLES: That's why we put that in there. When I thought that was the rule, I didn't really zone it. out. I didn't put it down. I was moving the hose around trying to make it fit, and I really didn't get technical about it. But, you know ---. MEMBER VILLA: That's my only concern. CHAIRMAN: We'll pick a number, okBob. MEMBER VILLA: Yes CHAIRMAN: Jim. Page 4 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. . May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: I personally think you're entitled to three feet myself. The cesspools are located where you have them indicated, I see no problem with that. Certainly, if the deck was built later on, you'd be entitled to build a deck and still have the pool there. So, you just be aware that, the deck can't go, and the pool can't go any closer to the property line than three feet. Just be aware of that. I'm sure that you are. Obviously, you're aware of the setbacks, and you do need some access to your yard, obviously. MITCHELL RUGGLES: Right MEMBER DINIZIO: Are your cesspools located there? MITCHELL RUGGLES: I never went out with a shovel. That's what the survey says when I bought the house. I never had to dig it up, and it looks like there are two depressions in my backyard, where they possible could be. As soon as I got the zoning from you guys, I was going to go out there with a shovel and find out exactly where they were, and then I was going to have a guy come in and level out my plot, and put in my ----. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's certainly probably a good idea just considering all that weight your putting there. MITCHELL RUGGLES: I don't want to drive a back hoe over there, when he's leveling out the pool. So, I'm going to have to find them. MEMBER DINIZIO: Sure MITCHELL RUGGLES: I'm going to situate it so that there not crushed. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN: Lydia MEMBER TORTORA: The only other thing is. I just wondered if you couldn't put it on the other side of the house, where the boat is. To switch it. It looks like you have a little more room over there and --. CINDY RUGGLES: There are alot of trees. There are trees that belong to the neighbors, and I couldn't take down there trees, and there are trees completely shading that area. That is why we chose the other area. MITCHELL RUGGLES: And the other spot is bigger. CINDY RUGGLES: As you can see, how the property line goes. MITCHELL RUGGLES: We talked about that but, it's really shady all day long over in that spot. It's not the best location I have for a pool, and this will catch me some afternoon sun, to warm it up. Otherwise, we're going to have an ice cube in the back yard. Page 5 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Serge. MEMBER DOYEN: No, thank you CHAIRMAN: Nothing. OK, let's see what developes here throughout the hearing. Do you have anything else for the record. OK, thank you. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone would like to speak against the application? Anybody want to propose anything? I'll make a motion five feet from both property lines. MEMBER TORTORA: Second CHAIRMAN: All in favor, aye. 7:40 p.m. Appl. #4379 - LISA AND NIKOLA GALJANIC. Application for a variance based upon the Building Inspector's April 4, 1996 Notice of Disapproval, ref. Zoning Code, Article XXIV, Section 100-244B as amended 11-28-95 to construct new dwelling, maintaining the existing dwelling's front yard setback location. Location of Property: 1065 Bay Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-9-1. This parcel consists of 17,590=-sf. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the survey indicating the approximate placement of the house and the nature of the application before us proposed at approximately --. The existing house is 17 feet 7 inches, and this is encompassing that existing house. So, it's a variation between 20.7 and 17.7. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I have a copy of the plans, and the overall layout of the house. Would someone like to be heard? How are you? Could you state your name for the record? RICHARD SAETTA: Yes, Richard Saetta. As you can see, I guess you visited the site. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we saw the glazier effect on --. RICHARD SAETTA: And you could see the problems that are there. We're doing this, that we can keep the foundation part, as part of the house, with 50o underneath the ground. So, it wouldn't become a basement, and we wouldn't really interfere with the wetlands, or maybe consider what the Trustees had given us a letter or waiver, saying that they had no jurisdiction, so I won't be going to the DEC. What we're trying to do, is keep the house at elevation where people from parking, and, coming on from the street, can get into the house. We really wouldn't have --. The other option we have is fill. Put a tremendous amount of fill on this lot. If anyone has any suggestions of another way to do this, or if there were any problems, I would like hearing them ---. CHAIRMAN: Is the creek bed ever wet . T Page 6 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals RICHARD SAETTA: In the yard. CHAIRMAN: Yes, the whole rear portion of the property. RICHARD SAETTA: No, it hasn't been in the last couple of years that I've been doing this. CHAIRMAN: OK RICHARD SAETTA: It's actual elevation is nine-five We' re actually building a house where the elevation is ten-five, which is really above the DEC regulation. I don't think that I'm going to have a problem with it, but if they're any other suggestions anybody has, as to how to handle this. CHAIRMAN: Ok, ok. Let's start with Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No, I have no questions. MEMBER TORTORA: No, that's quite a slope. CHAIRMAN: OK, Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No problem. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, I have a problem. I drove up and down the street, and it would appear that this is the only house that's close to the road. All the other lots would appear to me to be, in the range of 25 to 30 feet. Now, when you look at this, and the way you have it laid out, the back of the house as you show it, is down where that shed is. The shed is at the very bottom of the hill, so I would be much happier if you would keep the front of this house back 25 feet, at least in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. RICHARD SAETTA: The thing is, the front of the house which your looking at, we're asking for the deck, which is --. The house is set back from that. MEMBER VILLA: I know. RICHARD SAETTA: The only reason we did that, is so that you can enter from an elevation into the finished floor of the house from the road, without being lower than the road. Their problem where there is runoff there, because it's a lower section. MEMBER VILLA: But the existing building that's there, is on a fairly leveled ground. The back of that is still basically the same elevation as the front. So, if you set the deck that's at the back of the house, which is 25 feet, you'll have the same situation. Page 7 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals RICHARD SAETTA: No, no the deck --. What we're saying is the deck. The offset we're asking for is not actually for the foundation of the house. MEMBER VILLA: I know. RICHARD SAETTA: It's for the deck of the house. MEMBER VILLA: The deck will be at the same elevation as you proposing now. RICHARD SAETTA: As a finished floor, yes. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, if you were back 25 feet. RICHARD SAETTA: Right, but how would you know? As you go back 25 feet, what's you're going to find out is. The property level is dropped, so how do we enter this house? MEMBER VILLA: Not at 25 feet it's not, because at the back of the existing house, it's still at the same level as the front. That's where you'd be keeping the front of the deck. RICHARD SAETTA: What we're asking is that the deck reaches out, and touches that elevation. MEMBER VILLA: The deck would touch that elevation anyway. If it's at the back of the existing house, if you started a deck, it's at the same elevation. RICHARD SAETTA: Yes, what we're saying is that we would try to do is, enter from the front. So, as you come, as you step back to the back of the house, if you go look at the house, the back of that house, the foundation is three feet out of the ground. The front of the house is seven. MEMBER VILLA: It's not much. It's not much difference. I looked at it. The back of the house, when that house is only eight feet deep, it's basically the same elevation. RICHARD SAETTA: If we push the house back of course then, we're going to be further towards the center of the lot. What I'm trying to avoid is creating problems for the neighbors, like filling this lot, because then there will be problems, because what we have to do -=-. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, but if we grant this to you, then the lot next to it is a similar situation, and you're going to have two houses sticking out there, like a sore thumb. Every other house on that street is back 25 or 30 feet. RICHARD SAETTA: We're asking for 17.5 which is --. 1 Page 8 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. .. May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: I'm saying, that I could live with 25 feet, and I think the others are back 30 or 35 basically, in compliance with the code. RICHARD SAETTA: I think the house directly, that would be South of it, is closer than that. The new garage that was built is closer than that. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, I didn't see any that were very close, because I went up and down the street looking to see if there was anything --. RICHARD SAETTA: The house directly South of this house, has a new garage built. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, you can't live with 25 feet. I mean, even that's 10 feet less than the code requires. The code requires 35 feet. RICHARD SAETTA: I believe it would create a problem. MEMBER VILLA: I can't see it. RICHARD SAETTA: Then we would have to set the whole house back further, which would then bring the foundation further out of the ground. MEMBER VILLA: You can't bring it further out of the ground because, the back part of the foundation is at the lowest part of the lot, as it is. That's where that little shack is. RICHARD SAETTA: The back part of the foundation, right. What we're trying to do, is maintain the 50 0 of the foundation under the ground, so it's not considered a basement, or a first floor. Which means, the second floor of the house , wouldn't be unuseful. We're trying to keep 510 of the . foundation under the ground. If we move the house back, then the foundation becomes further out of the ground, and is considered a basement, which is considered a floor. If that is considered a floor, we can only use two floors, the second floor of the house would be unuseful, other than for storage. , RICHARD SAETTA: I can't see it. I'm sorry. I can't see it sticking out like a sore thumb there, because this is going to be a big structure. RICHARD SAETTA: Well, it's 17 --. Actually, the house itself is 1500 square feet. , so it's not a huge house. MEMBER VILLA: No, but it's still ---. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to go out, and have another field visit on this. A couple of us, so we can understand this better. MEMBER VILLA: If you want to. Page 9 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: What we're`discussing here. MEMBER VILLA: Sure. CHAIRMAN: Is your timeliness on this, that you have to get this done today, or can we get it wrapped up by the end of June or what? RICHARD SAETTA: I believe so. CHAIRMAN: Ok, let do that, because I do understand what you're talking about Bob. I can't visualize it without being at the site. MEMBER TORTORA: Let the members go again this week. CHAIRMAN: OK, we'll see what developes throughout the hearing. We'll just recess it until the next regularly scheduled meeting, which is the .third week of ---. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's June 26. CHAIRMAN: In the interim, we'll go out. If we need to call you, we'll have you there, all right. You live in Town? RICHARD SAETTA: Yes, my office is in Greenport. CHAIRMAN: OK, good. If we need you, we'll go from there. Mr. Villa is an engineer so ----. RICHARD SAETTA: All right. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming in Sir. Would anyone else like to speak for or against this? Ok, hearing no further comments I'll make a motion recessing the hearing for the next regular scheduled meeting, pending another field visit. MEMBER VILLA: Second 7:50 p.m. Appl. #4384 - VINCENT MANAGO as Contract Vendee (Owner: Edith Purpura) . Application for a variance based upon the April 22, 1996 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, ref Zoning Code Article XX111, Section 100-239.4 to replace accessory storage shed in a location less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Location of Property: 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Parcel No. 1000-118-4-10; also referred to as Lot 64 and part of 65 on the "Amended Map A of Nassau Point" (1922) . The subject premises contains a total lot area of 1.375+- acres in an R-40 Zone District. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a sketch indicating a proposed storage shed, within a double phased bulkhead area, closer to the landward portion of it. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating Page 10 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard on this? Kevin, how are you tonight? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: Basically, what the applicants are looking for here, is to restore one of two storage sheds. Actually, there was , a storage shed and cabana on this property. Unfortunately, the bulkhead was allowed to deteriorate, and a storm came in and wiped those out. We're looking for a fairly small 8 by 10 storage shed, down on the bulkhead. Really, the purpose is so that, things like chairs and umbrellas and things, don't have to be hauled up a rather steep bank, to be stored further back from the 75 foot setback. In fact, I think if you measure it out, the house, the rear of the house itself is probably 60 feet away from the existing bulkhead, and under present zoning would in fact, not be property set back. I, think you, have pictures that illustrate the old shed and cabana. I think you also have pictures that show the neighboring properties, most of which has similar type sheds or cabanas located down below the bank, and the present owners now the Manago's, have elderly and somewhat infirm relatives that would be using the beach as well, and it would be very difficult to be hauling things up and down that steep bank there. So, that's basically what our application is. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN: OK, is this a storage building or a cabana? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: It's a storage building. CHAIRMAN: OK, and what will it contain or consist of? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: Are you asking me what it's going to be constructed of or --. CHAIRMAN: No. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: Or, what's going to be kept in it. CHAIRMAN: What utility will it have. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: Electricity for lights. CHAIRMAN: No water. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: No CHAIRMAN: No showers. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: No CHAIRMAN: No lavatory facilities. Page 11 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: No. It's simply to be used, as for storage of chairs, and things like that. CHAIRMAN: Ok, the width between the two bulkheads is approximately ten feet. That's what I read on this., In other words, we have the first phase bulkhead, which is ------ KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: 15 feet, I believe. CHAIRMAN: 15 feet ok, so if we're eight out, and we're going ten across, then we have basically seven feet before we get to it. We're retarding it back I should say, and starting from one direction to the other, all right. This is a very difficult situation. It's like hanging a tent in the sky when you go down there, because there is tremendous devastation. There was such devastation that I had to take my father out of the car, and walk him up there, to show him what happened. It's unbelievable, it really and truly is. I had that happen to a friend of mine by the way. Same situation, if they had the upright stays in. They didn't backfill it, just before a storm. It broke everyone of them off, and did further water intrusion. Ok, we'll start with Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILLA: Well, I can see why they need it. There's no question. I think you speak very favorable when you say the existing bulkhead, because that's really not a existing bulkhead, the way I look at it. CHAIRMAN: No there isn't. MEMBER VILLA: My main concern was that you were keeping it back from the front bulkhead wall, because you're going to have two of them, and I see you're proposing that. So, I really have no problem. CHAIRMAN: OK. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: All I need is a placement of it, and that's the problem that I have. It appears to be almost directly centered here. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: When the Manago's initially went to the Town Trustees, they had it placed further to the --. CHAIRMAN: North, I think that is. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: North that is. I don't know if I've provided you, but we have gone back to the Town Trustees and asked for it to be placed towards the center, and that's what the proposal really is. To pretty much center it. CHAIRMAN: OK Page 12 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: Within the property line. CHAIRMAN: OK, can you just give u' a figure for both properties. You don't have to do it tonight. You can call us tomorrow. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: Sure CHAIRMAN: OK, so we know what the figure is, and take the ten feet off. So, it would be perfectly centered. Whatever it is, KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: OK CHAIRMAN: Because we have to make that part of the decision, ok. Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: We'll see what developes. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone that would like to speak against the application? Anybody like to offer a resolution. MEMBER VILLA: I'd like to make the motion that we approve it as submitted, with the proviso that the only utility be electric. CHAIRMAN: In the center of the property. MEMBER VILLA: Right CHAIRMAN: And more importantly, we'll be in receipt of the actual amounts on both directions, ok. Did you second. MEMBER DOYEN: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. 8:04 p.m. Appl. #4385 - KEVIN & ASCENSION KYLE. Application for a variance based upon the May 6, 1996 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, ref. Zoning Code, Article 111A, Section 100-30A.3, to construct deck addition with a setback at less than the required 50 ft. rear yard setback, at 815 Park Avenue, Southold; County Parcel No. 1000-56-1-2.4, also referred to as Lot #14, Long Pond Estates Subdivision. This is consisting of 40,017 sf.. in an R-40 Zone. , CHAIRMAN: I have a survey indicating the approximate placement of the house, which is almost directly, due center lot. The nature of the application is the deck, approximately 20 feet off the rear of the Page 13 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals house, restricting the rear yard to 40 feet, as proposed. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding property in the area. Is there someone that wants to be heard? MEMBER VILLA: I have a question on this first. CHAIRMAN: Surely. MEMBER VILLA: In the advertising they say, it's says a corner lot. How do they get a corner lot out of this? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That shouldn't be on there. CHAIRMAN: That was taken out. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That was taken out of a legal notice. I told you that. You forgot. MEMBER VILLA: Well, you just read it. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I know. That was only when I typed the agenda. MEMBER VILLA: I'm looking at this, and it doesn't look right. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That wasn't advertised that way Bob. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kyle and Mrs. Kyle. How are you tonight? KEVIN KYLE: Fine CHAIRMAN: What would you like to tell us for the record? KEVIN KYLE: For the record, the reason we're putting in for it. The rear of the deck is behind the homes. It's directly behind the homes, and nothing sticks out from the side and we feel that in keeping within the neighborhood. Neither neighbor on either side object to it; and I feel it's just a deck, and it won't infringe on the open space property owned by Mooring. CHAIRMAN: Is this going to be roofed in anyway. KEVIN KYLE: No, it isn't. CHAIRMAN: Ok. How far above the ground approximately. KEVIN KYLE: As far as the --. ASCENSION KYLE: Two or three feet. CHAIRMAN: Two or three feet. _ Page 14 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals KEVIN KYLE: It's about three feet. CHAIRMAN: I guess that pretty much answers it. Is there anything else that you would like to say before we go through the --. KEVIN KYLE: The reason we have it that size is if we have a family get together, it would be a big enough size to use and not a porch. CHAIRMAN: OK KEVIN KYLE: Basically, that's what it would be without the small extension. CHAIRMAN: OK, thank you. We'll start with Mr. Doyen questions. MEMBER DOYEN: No CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora MEMBER TORTORA: You have 100 feet on one side, and how much on the other side? KEVIN KYLE: I think it's the same amount on either side. MEMBER TORTORA: The only question that I would ask is, why not put it on the side. You would need a variance, to meet the code. KEVIN KYLE: The doorways out to the porch through the rear, I do not have sliding glass doors on the side. I don't want to change the whole construction of my house. CHAIRMAN: OK, Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: Good answer. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILLA: The only question you have open space in the back. Is that part of the subdivision? It's always supposed to remain as open space. KEVIN KYLE: Yes, it's owned by Mooring and it's supposed to remain open space. MEMBER VILLA: It's owned by Mooring. It's not supposed to be deeded over to an association. KEVIN KYLE: I don't know exactly what it is, but when we had to mail the cards out, it had to mailed to Mooring. MEMBER VILLA: But it's still permanent open space. _ Page 15 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: OK, we'll see what developes. We thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Anybody like to make a motion? 5 MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll make a motion granted as applied. CHAIRMAN: Ok MEMBER VILLA: Second CHAIRMAN: And that it remain unroofed. All in favor, aye. Thank you very much. Have a lovely evening. 8:04 p.m. Appl. No. 4383 - HELEN DITTUS. Application for a variance based upon the May 7, 1996 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, ref. Zoning Code Article 111, Section 100-33B (1), for approval of accessory shed in the southwest corner of the rear yard "as exists" at less than the required three ft. setback. Location of Property: 305 Masters Road, Laurel, NY; County Parcel No. 1000-126-9-22; also referred to as Lot #6 and part of 7, Map of Property of Dan J. Stack (County Map #815) . Size of property: .25+- of an acre. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey indicating the approximate placement of the shed. We have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard? How are you tonight. Could you state your name for the record. DEBORAH DOTY ESQ: Deborah Doty, I'm the attorney for Mrs. Dittus. Essentially, they built there shed 15 or 20 years ago, not realizing the setbacks requirements, and it's a little to close to the side yard. There is a big fence there, that's around a pool on a neighbors property. So, in terms of infringing on the neighbors, it's really not going to that much. That's basically it. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILLA: Well, I saw that there was a letter from the neighbor who was not objecting, although said," if any work was done on the shed in the future, that they would like to see it comply", and that's what my feeling would be. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any objection to that. DEBORAH DOTY ESQ: No I don't. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. _ Page 16 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora MEMBER TORTORA: No Chairman: Mr. Doyen MEMBER DOYEN: No CHAIRMAN: Ok, all right. It's looks like a real fast hearing here. Are you going to give them something? DEBORAH DOTY ESQ: Let me just glance a little bit longer. Initially, I have to pay for the post. CHAIRMAN: While you're standing up there, is there anyone else that would like to speak either in favor or against this application? Mr. Villa would you like to make that a motion? MEMBER VILLA: Yes, I would like to make a motion, that we accept it where it is, on the proviso that if any work is ever done in the future, upgraded, or relocated, or what have you, that it be put it in a place that complies with the code. CHAIRMAN: Ok, All in favor, Aye. 8:07 p.m. Appl. No. 4381 - LARRY AND LINDA RAPPAPORT. Application for a variance based upon the Building Inspector's April 30, 1996 Notice of Disapproval, ref Zoning Code Article 111A, Section 100-30A.3, for approval of porch addition "as built" with a setback at less than the required 15 ft. minimum side yard in this R-40 Zone District. Location of Property: Lot #14, 13 and part of 12 as shown on the Map of Point Pleasant containing 2.00+- acres; 1605 Pleasant Road, Mattituck, NY County Parcel No. 1000-114-1-5.1. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey indicating the porch, that's the nature of this application, which appears to be about 12.5 at it's closest point. 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 tonight Sir? LARRY RAPPAPORT: My name is Larry Rappaport. I'm the property owner and this was an innocent error, because the original survey was not clear. Certainly no intention to violate that, but it's built and I thought this would be helpful. This is a porch that 8 feet deep by 32 feet wide, and the part that violates the setback is this two and one half feet at it's worst point, and two inches on the other end, and it runs about seven feet. I don't know if this is helpful. I took some pictures of how it looks from my house, and the neighbors house, and the scrubs and fencing that are there. I don't know if that would be helpful or not. Page 17 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Thank you, that's very nice of you. Last time I was up there the garage was on fire. It must have been well before you owned the place. LARRY RAPPAPORT: Yes. I own it three years. CHAIRMAN: It's a very unique area. LARRY RAPPAPORT: We love it. We're retiring to it next year. CHAIRMAN: Very nice. I'm going to send those down to Serge, and we'll pass them down this end. LARRY RAPPAPORT: By the way, that's a major improvement that we made to our house. CHAIRMAN: Gorgeous. Yes, I was quite amazed. The house was extremely run down I'm sure, when you purchased it. LARRY RAPPAPORT: No, the prior owner is the one that improved it, and then we bought it, and we made this further improvements, since we're going to be moving here full time. CHAIRMAN: Very nice. LARRY RAPPAPORT: But in my opinion, a generous amount of trees and fencing and privacy for'the neighbors purpose. CHAIRMAN: We'll give you these back in one second. We'll just pass them down. We'll start with Mr. Doyen. Any questions of Mr. Rappaport? MEMBER DOYEN: No CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing I noticed is, there was a letter of concern from one of your neighbors. LARRY RAPPAPORT: Yes MEMBER TORTORA: Asking if you would create a vegetated buffer zone. LARRY RAPPAPORT: There is such a zone, but several of the scrubs have died, and I have not replaced them. I would be willing to replace the ones that are around the porch. CHAIRMAN: Yes LARRY RAPPAPORT: My neighbor is talking about replacing the whole length of the house, and the front yard, which is quite a number of Page 18 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals scrubs. That area is nowhere near any kind of a setback problem. But I would be more than willing to replace the scrubs that would cover the ---. He already has scrubs by the way, that covers that, but I still would be willing to do this. The one thing he mentioned is 10 foot scrubs. It's a little difficult because up to eight feet, they can deliver to the house. Ten feet they need a fork lift, and they would really destroy the property, and these are scrubs that would grow a foot a year or so. They would get to be 10 feet very quickly. But I would be more than happy to put in scrubs around the porch. I believe that four large ones would fill in the missing ones, and the porch would be covered at that point. CHAIRMAN: Great. Serge MEMBER DOYEN: No CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa MEMBER VILLA: That application, when you say around the porch, you're talking along the fence line? LARRY RAPPAPORT: Yes MEMBER VILLA: Where the porch is? LARRY RAPPAPORT: Along the fence line. Right now, there is a row of them. MEMBER VILLA: Yes LARRY RAPPAPORT: Along the fence line. In my opinion, actually there are two that are missing in that area. But I would pack it more tightly with four, so that the porch cannot be seen from his house. MEMBER VILLA: So, you're not talking about foundation planting when you say, around the porch. You're talking along the fence line. LARRY RAPPAPORT: No, no. We're talking about eight feet after the MEMBER VILLA: One other question. Who made the application to the Building Department? LARRY. RAPPAPORT. The contractors, Harrington and West. MEMBER VILLA: And the contractor didn't realize that you were infringing on.the side lot. Page 19 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. . May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals LARRY RAPPAPORT: They didn't, and the Building Inspector didn't either, because it was not clear. It was just an error. MEMBER VILLA: Well, I could see the Building Inspector, but the contractor must have been out there physically to see, that it wasn't 26 feet. Anybody in their right mind knows that it's not 26 feet, because you're 12 feet off that property line. That's what you are. LARRY RAPPAPORT: I agree. No one picked up on this. It's an error, but it was not an intentional error, because if we knew this in advance, we probably would have done it differently. Although, as it is, the house is rectangular and symmetrical, and if you had to cut off part of it, it would look kind of strange. CHAIRMAN: OK LARRY RAPPAPORT: By the way, what we've done esthetically, is in my opinion, benefit to the neighbor, because this is an 1860 house and there is a porch on the water side, and there is an exact new porch on the opposite side where the kitchen is. So, it's a much more attractive thing if my neighbor could see it, then the kitchen entrance that we previously had. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Rappaport. LARRY RAPPAPORT: OK CHAIRMAN: Anybody like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Anybody like to offer a resolution? Here are your pictures back. Thank you so much. LARRY RAPPAPORT: Thank you, Sir. CHAIRMAN: I'm making an offer of resolution granting as applied for, provided that the applicant plant a minimum of at least four bushes, adjacent to or across from. Adjacent to the fence or the property line, a minimum of eight feet in height, evergreen type to be continuously maintained. Ok. Maybe, after he installed them, he should call us, and we'll take a look at them: SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How high was the bushes Jerry. CHAIRMAN: A minimum of eight feet. Who will second it. MEMBER DOYEN: I did, ok. Thank you. All in favor, Aye. 8:14 p.m. Appl. No. 4382 - ISLAND ALE, INC and F. CICHANOWICZ 3rd. Application for a variance based upon the Building Inspector's March 25, 1996 Notice of disapproval to construct new principal building at a width of more than 60 feet which is restricted by Zoning Code Article X, Section 100-103C of the Zoning Code. Proposed Restaurant (Principal Use) in this B-General Business Zone District. Page 20 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals Location of Property: 32240 Main Road Cutchogue; County Parcel No. 1000-103-1-19.3 (includes former #103-1-18 consisting of one-half acre, and entire 26.2 acres is part of a 55.2 acre parcel of record in 1985) . CHAIRMAN: We have a rather extensive map indicating the site plan of this project. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Neil, I think you are going to do the presentation. NEIL CICHANOWITZ: Yes CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight? NEIL CICHANOWITZ: I'd just like to say that the reason for our application for variances, really based upon the fact that this is an on-going project. What we've been doing for a few years now, as I understand it. The Zoning Code which required this disapproval, was enacted at a time, after we had started the project. Our building lay outs were somewhat established. The width of the building was reflected in that. Some of the reasons why we had the building laid out in the fashion that it is, are because we wanted to place some gardens to the rear of the building. I believe it's on the site plan that gardens are laid out. You could imagine having a garden in the front yard, or to the side of the building and watching them. Cars go by,on the Main Road in Cutchogue. Another reason why, we think it fits with the properties tremendous amount of road frontage that we have. We have 450 feet of frontage on the road. I'm sure you all inspected the site. I notices the stake's there, and the building doesn't appear tremendously wide- from the property. CHAIRMAN: How much of this property did you guys have rezoned? NEIL CICHANOWITZ: It's 3.27 acres. There should be a line of demarkation. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: This is the zoning map in the file. It shows it exactly. NEIL CICHANOWITZ: The only other thing I wanted to mention was. In talking with some of the people here in the Town, that the Legislation that this is effected by, was intended to stop the expansion of further building of strip malls, and I think this project is obviously not that kind of a project. We intend to have only one use here, that being a Restaurant. CHAIRMAN: Great, I ,thing we'll start with Mr. Villa MEMBER VILLA: You were saying one use. It's going to be more than just a restaurant. It's going to be a brewery, right. Page 21 - Transcript of Public Hearings + Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals NEIL CICHANOWITZ: Well essentially, the type of business that it is, is really a restaurant that has a brewery area in it. In the same respect that you would have. a kitchen. It has both. MEMBER VILLA: OK, I thought that was almost the main part of it, similar to a winery. But you're going to have a restaurant in conjunction with it. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, they changed the plan. I got a new plan today that confirms that, and that's the map that Jerry has. CHAIRMAN: Ok, Mr. Dinizio: MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you going to be manufacturing beer? NEIL CICHANOWITZ: Yes MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you going to sell it out to other people? NEIL CICHANOWITZ: We'll just initially just serve it in - the restaurant, and offer it to people in a take home container. But not like distribution, or mass marketing. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK MEMBER VILLA: But that's a possibility in the future. NEIL CICHANOWITZ: Certainly. CHAIRMAN: Is this beer preserved enough to do that? NEIL CICHANOWITZ: No, it has to remain refrigerated. It's not intended initially to be bottled or trucked. What we thinking of doing is, putting it in little rallers, which are take home containers. I don't know if you're familiar with them. I think they're two and one half gallons at the most, and that's what we're looking into starting with. CHAIRMAN: What would be the shelf life of the beer? Any estimate? NEIL CICHANOWITZ: In that container, in a refrigerator five to seven days, perhaps. MEMBER VILLA: What kind of a capacity are you talking about in gallonage. NEIL CICHANOWITZ: Of beer, in a year. MEMBER VILLA: Some period NEIL CICHANOWITZ: We're looking at producing, my original estimates for the first year maybe about 600 barrel's. Barrel's are 31 gallons. Page 22 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: 31 gallons. MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that going to be stored on the property? NEIL CICHANOWITZ: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Part of the restaurant atmosphere. NEIL CICHANOWITZ: They will be able to view the storage tanks and the brewery tanks. MEMBER VILLA: What did you say the overall figure was? I got lost with the --. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: 600 barrels. MEMBER VILLA: 600 barrels, ok NEIL CICHANOWITZ: 31 gallons in a barrel. That's an initial estimate. CHAIRMAN: I know that this isn't really not part of the application, but it adds to the ambiance of the whole project, ok. What is the actual aging time in the barrels, after you produce the beer. Is it to just hold it in these barrels? I mean, it's not aged like the wine is aged, is it? NEIL CICHANOWICZ: Depending on the variety of the beer. It needs to ferment anywhere from seven days up to at lest 22, up to 30 days, depending on the kind of beer it is. CHAIRMAN: Great, terrific. Thank you, Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I didn't see a survey. Did you submit a survey or flood plan showing the setbacks? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's what this is. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't see --. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK CHAIRMAN: You guys don't happen to have a survey with you, do you? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Something that would show setbacks. MEMBER TORTORA: Showing the setbacks to the buildings on the plot. . NEIL CICHANOWITZ: No, I don't believe the building setbacks. Well, they have the survey from today. Page 23 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals FRANK CICHANOWITZ: I'll give you some of the pictures. CHAIRMAN: Great, thank you. FRANK CICHANOWITZ: The setbacks on these, are from Van Tuyl. CHAIRMAN: OK FRANK CICHANOWITZ Jr. The closest part of the building to the road is 150 feet. CHAIRMAN: What we'll do, we'll take about a four or five minute recess before we conclude the hearing. We'll let everybody look at them. So if anybody has any questions. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Where are the setbacks on here. FRANK CICHANOWITZ: They're not listed on this because this is ( ) . They should be on Van Tuyl's. MEMBER VILLA: So you're having two curve cuts coming in here. FRANK CICHANOWITZ: There are two approved curve cuts already MEMBER VILLA: One in and one out. FRANK CICHANOWITZ: Two in and one out. There is duel access on the East side. The existing curve cut is, in and out. The westerly one is in only. I guess that's because of what's going to happen west or ( } . CHAIRMAN: Great idea MEMBER VILLA: Now, this is only 3.7 acres out of the whole piece. FRANK CICHANOWITZ: Yes, this is the --. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead Frank, point to it. NEIL CICHANOWITZ: The line is approximately here, and it's about 3.27 acres. The whole farm is 26.2 acres. FRANK CICHANOWITZ: This is the farm house, the farm has, and that zone line goes right straight across here, and Coster's Funeral Home starts right here. It's goes all the way down to Harbor Lane. MEMBER VILLA: So you're proposing to have some of your landscaping actually almost ---. FRANK CICHANOWITZ: The landscaping and buffering, which we're required to have, out on the Agricultural part. Page 24 - Transcript of Public Hearings + Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: OK FRANK CICHANOWITZ: The building is well within it. The building is almost centered. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How wide is the building? NEIL CICHANOWITZ: 120 feet. CHAIRMAN: Great, ok. MEMBER VILLA: What is the width of the front, 300 --. FRANK CICHANOWITZ: 440. NEIL CICHANOWITZ: Actually, it's 450 is the road frontage. The building width is 130. CHAIRMAN: This is a winery building to be used as a restaurant and a ---- (changed tape) . CHAIRMAN: Before we go for a recess for a second, could you please tell us what's developed with the little tenant house, that you have on the one side? FRANK CICHANOWITZ: We've done nothing with it, and at this point -- NEIL CICHANOWITZ: Vacated it. FRANK CICHANOWITZ: We vacated it. It's been vacated since last November. CHAIRMAN: OK FRANK CICHANOWITZ: And actually, what we're probably going to end up using it for, is a construction shed, and then it will just be used for storage. Supplies to supplier, you know. CHAIRMAN: OK, and it's going to remain at it's present location. FRANK CICHANOWITZ: Because we originally were going to move it . back, and we really didn't want to. Now, we don't want to at all. CHAIRMAN: Great MEMBER VILLA: That's going to remain like an accessory building, but inhabitable. FRANK CICHANOWITZ: Right. No, there won't be anybody living in it. Page 25 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Good, all right. We're going to take a three minute recess, and have everybody look at this. We'll come back for any questions, and then go to the public, ok. Anything you have to add Neil, you can add too. CHAIRMAN: The discussion prior to this was Mr. Frank Cichanowitz and his Son Neil, ok. Neil, what would you like to say? NEIL CICHANOWITZ: In addition, I'd just like to mention in response to the Farm Board. People that read in the Suffolk Times last week. The intended builders, is to be one building ( ) It is not going to be a steel structure building. ( ) and' it's custom design, in it's application. The only other thing I would like to mention is. In sticking with the approximate original lay out, that allows us not to have to resubmit to the Town Board, the Health Department and the Planning Board, and New York State DOT as well. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I just want to mention one thing. The Planning Board gave permission already, on approval on the site plan, back in October for a similar layout, right. FRANK CICHANOWITZ: Yes SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK. That's what I was told. CHAIRMAN: OK MEMBER VILLA: What was the letter we got from the Planning Board, saying that they had all kind of changes. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That they required, all those things for an amendment to prior conditional approval. They require it. It's like a new application. But he does have an approved plan. MEMBER VILLA: Are you sticking with the approved plan? NEIL CICHANOWITZ: No, we resubmitted a new site plan which is the one that Mr. Goehringer has in front of him, which we are waiting Health Department approval, who has to stamp the drainage and septic systems, before the Planning Board will approve the ( ) MEMBER VILLA: Well, we've got to ---. NEIL CICHANOWITZ: I think that the comment that she made, was in respect, us keeping the location of the building, and the general lay out of the building, and the width of the building, which is the issue here, was in keeping to a similar site plan which we initially had --- . SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's right. NEIL CICHANOWITZ: Approved from you, the Planning Department. Page 26 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. ,, May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's right. MEMBER VILLA: The plan before the Health Department is basically the same capacity and everything, or just a revised layout. NEIL CICHANOWITZ: Yes, that's correct. We had to move a couple of walls, that's essentially it. We actually reduced in lot coverage. MEMBER VILLA: Your sanitary floats stayed the same. NEIL CICHANOWITZ: Yes CHAIRMAN: What's the total seating capacity if you take the dining room. Have you had any estimates on it? NEIL CICHANOWITZ: Yes, we can seat approximately 120 in the dining room, and about 60 in the pub. CHAIRMAN: Great, all right. Let's see what developes at the hearing. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any further questions from the board members? MEMBER VILLA: Has the applicant seen the letter we've gotten from Mr. Orlowski? CHAIRMAN: Yes, that was precipitated in, not to move the building. MEMBER VILLA: All right. So in answer to this you're saying, that the tenant place not be moved. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. His concern was, the Orlowski brothers, that it would be moved to a site that was very close to their property. Both Mr. Cichanowitz's decided not to move the building. That's correct, right NEIL CICHANOWITZ: Yes MEMBER VILLA: That resolves that problem. CHAIRMAN: Right, anybody else any further comments. Anybody have any objection to this plan on the board. Anybody like to offer a resolution? MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll grant it as applied. I'd just like to discuss lighting in the garden. MEMBER TORTORA: The Planning Board has ( ) . I think they're going to take care of it. Page 27 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. . May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: So, we don't need ( ) . Then, granted as applied then. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Serge had already second it. You . just need top vote. CHAIRMAN: All in favor, Aye. 8:35 p.m. Application of SCOTT RUSSELL - Reconvened hearing (carryover from May 1, 1996) . Postponement until June 26, 1996 (discussions for alternative still pending between applicant and neighbor) . CHAIRMAN: This is a carryover. I'll make a motion extending it with no date. (Anybody here for the Russell hearing) . SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Actually, we do need a date June 26. CHAIRMAN: OK, June 26 then. All in favor, aye. 8:36 p.m. Application of Daniele Dupuis - Reconvened hearing (carryover from May 1st) . CHAIRMAN: The last hearing is behalf of Daniele Dupuis. It is a carryover from the last hearing and we will ask her if she is represented. How are you? Is there anything you want to further state for the hearing? You asked for, you didn't ask for it, I apologize. You agreed to it. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: She agreed to it. CHAIRMAN: You agreed to it, ok. DANIELE DUPUIS: I put alot of reasons in my application. I just wanted to add a few things, or clarify a few things. CHAIRMAN: Surely DANIELE DUPUIS: So, I'm seeking a waiver of merger that would recognize the original lot line, created by my Father, and that's something I think I need to explain that perhaps isn't clear to people. Also, I just wanted to give some reasons why I think I have a buildable lot, and my parents feel the same. As to the lot line, I think I'm restoring a previously created lot line. The MS Hand subdivision, which is also an official County Tax Map, number 1280, was created before 1963. The lot line was created in 1968. I read a letter by the Town Attorney that say's "A Deed of record is not necessary to create a lot line", so what happened was that my Father by extending the house in 1968, merged lot 105 to lots 103 and 104. I'm referring to the original lots in the MS Hand and subdivision maps. Page 28 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Yes DANIELE DUPUIS: But, by building this extension into Lot 105, you automatically merged it, because the house was on Lot 105. Part of the house was on Lot 105. You build a barn on Lots 106 and 107, therefore merging 106 and 107 with the structure there. So, the real lot line was affectively on the ground, and was planned by my Father between 105 and 106, and you have a survey of 1968 for this mortgage that shows that. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's an original survey. CHAIRMAN: That's the subdivision. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's not it Jerry. It's an original survey. CHAIRMAN: I don't see it. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's in there. CHAIRMAN: Is it. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: There are alot of things in there. DANIELE DUPUIS: The survey for the mortgage and it shows the two lots, 103 and 104 and 105 MEMBER DINIZIO: Is this it here. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No, that's not it. MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe this one. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: This is it, 1968. CHAIRMAN: It's the one --, Southold Savings Bank. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Jerry, this is what it looks like right here. CHAIRMAN: Oh, oK. Your saying that this mortgage encompasses these three pieces of property. DANIELE DUPUIS: Right, and the original way it was planned to be, and I have some house plans my Father had, that shows a little Map showing also, how that was intended to be. I don't know if you would like to look at it. CHAIRMAN: When did he acquired, the rest of the property? Page 29 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals DANIELE DUPUIS: OK, he acquired the house, the original house in 1967, and the four additional lots in 1966. CHAIRMAN: OK DANIELE DUPUIS: So, the only reason that Lot line is on the records the way I see it, is because the County made a mistake when they made County Tax Map Parcels, and what I think happened is that they used the Deed, instead of going and looking at the exact situation on the ground. CHAIRMAN: Well, the only thing that's different is. You refer to four lots that were acquired in 1966. There were only three lots, because the house truncates 103, 104 and 105. DANIELE DUPUIS: Well no. He acquired 103 and 104 in 1957. CHAIRMAN: That's when the house was originally built. DANIELE DUPUIS: Then in 1966 he acquired 105, 106, 107 and 108. CHAIRMAN: Five, six, seven and eight, and then he added onto the house which truncated Lot 105. DANIELE DUPUIS: Right SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: In 1968, when he went for the mortgage, right. CHAIRMAN: Ok, I understand. DANIELE DUPUIS: So, I believe the County Tax Map Parcels were created in 1976. So, I think they just look at the Deeds, not knowing what the situation actually was. In 1968 one acre zoning did not exist. In 1968 Lots 137-114, and 137-115, didn't exist because they hadn't been created yet. So basically, the way it was done was using the original lot line on the official County Tax Map #1280, the M. S. Hand subdivision. So, to my mind I'm not asking to move the lot line. I'm just asking to recognize the original real lot line, not the one that was mistakenly made by the County. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: The one that shown on the 1968 survey. DANIELE DUPUIS: I'm asking for the lot line on the 1968 survey, which is the real one. CHAIRMAN: Which is ---. What you're saying is, Lots 103 104, and 105 -- DANIELE DUPUIS: Should be one lot. Page 30 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. ) May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Right, and then 106, 107, and 108 should be another lot. That's what you're saying. DANIELE DUPUIS: Yes, and that seems to be the question to some people, so I won't have to explain that. CHAIRMAN: This in no way negates the merger. The merger still exists. DANIELE DUPUIS: That's one aspect, and then the merger. The reason I think, there is not a merger is because my Father never intended to have a merger. The reason was really, a technically, and my parents were not very knowledgeable about the law and how the laws changed over the years. This was all done in 1968. They bought the house in 1957. They bought the other lots in 1966. No surveys were needed at the time either, from what I understand. The reason they got the survey was for the mortgage. CHAIRMAN : Yes DANIELE DUPUIS: Was your Father's name only on the Deed. I have the Deed's here. I just don't want to --. DANIELE DUPUIS: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN: So he owned, he purchased 103 and 104 in his name, and then he purchased 105 and 106, 107 and 108 also in his name. DANIELE DUPUIS: Right CHAIRMAN: There was no attempt to checkerboard in any way. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: They were different years. MEMBER TORTORA: Were they ever held in separate ownership. DANIELE DUPUIS: No MEMBER TORTORA: So they were always merged. DANIELE DUPUIS: Yes, they were always ---. He also bought the other lot. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No, they weren't always merged. There was one quarter acre zoning back then, so they didn't merge until 1983. MEMBER TORTORA: Were they always in common ownership? CHAIRMAN: We meant common ownership. Page 31 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: There were separate times when he bought them, and separate deeds. CHAIRMAN: Right, of course, and in no way did he buy them in his wife's name or any other member's, or Daniele's name or anybody else. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Common names. MEMBER TORTORA: All held in common ownership. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Right MEMBER VILLA: One acre zoning went in Southold when? CHAIRMAN: 1971 SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: The merger law didn't go into the Court records, until the early 19801s. That's when we started using it. MEMBER VILLA: It was automatic when you -- SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Zoning in Southold, we didn't treat them as merger's until around 1980. That's why we put the Grandfather clause in the Zoning Code. It was adopted September 1980. That was part of it. I've been here 18 years, so I can verify that. CHAIRMAN: September 1980. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, that's when we put in --. Remember, when the Zoning Board was doing all the subdivisions. CHAIRMAN: Right SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Instead of the Planning Board for years and years. CHAIRMAN: Yes. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That was the cut off date. They decided that they would. recognize all lots of a certain size, and anything that the Zoning Board also did; without going to the Planning Board. CHAIRMAN: OK DANIELE DUPUIS The reason my Father never even questioned the fact, that he didn't have it, I mean. He always thought he had a separate buildable lot, and what made him think that was. Ever since 1966, he received the separate tax bills and paid the amount that Page 32 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals corresponded to the amount for a buildable lot. The amount of taxes he paid, would be the amount that would be assessed for a buildable lot. CHAIRMAN: OK DANIELE DUPUIS: So he had no question. In about 1986 he in fact, did want to give me that lot, which is now called 137-115. So that my husband and I could build a house there. I didn't accept, so there was never any point in changing any papers, or inquiring anything. I myself thought, it was a buildable lot, so I didn't even advise my parents to get any advise on the matter. It was not anything we knew about. My Mother always considered it as a separate buildable lot. She always talked about, if anything happened to my Father, she could either transform the barn or add onto the barn, and live there, and rent the existing house for extra income. If my Father left before she did, she would need extra income. My Father asked me to be the executrix, should anything happen to him in about 1987. He always told me about his affairs, and referred to his separate lots. He never indicated that he ever thought he was merged. He started thinking about his estate at that time, and in 1988 lie asked Elizabeth Vail, who is a Real Estate Agent at that time, for an evaluation of the market value of his property. He left a little note with these figures. At the time, this was 1988. The house and it's lot was worth $225,000.00. The barn and it's land $150,000.00, and the lot on the water. We also have a lot on the water, if it's not buildable $50,000.00 . So, that came to a total of 425,000.00 in 1988. Now, as a Real Estate professional in 1988, Elizabeth Vail gave these figures, indicating she thought there were three separate lots. That's why I never thought that they would ---. In that letter, in the Vail letter, they indicated they thought, it was merged. But, that seems to be contradictory to me. You know, this is not a signed estimate on her part. It's just my Father's notes, on what she had told him. MEMBER VILLA: You just said --- DANIELE DUPUIS: This also contributed to the fact that he thought he had buildable lots. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: There is an appraisal though in the records. You gave us an appraisal. DANIELE DUPUIS: Appraisal also, yes SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Two appraisals. Two different ones, right. DANIELE DUPUIS: Yes, that's the additional reasons. I've asked at the Tax Assessor's office, and they confirmed the fact that the Page 33 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals assessment was an assessment for a buildable lot. I continue to get separate tax bills. I continue to pay quite a high amount of taxes, and the appraiser Andrew Stype appraised it as separate lots, and I telephoned him again in April, to confirm his appraisal which was made in 1984, to ask him why he thought 137-115 was a buildable lot, and he said it was an average lot size for the neighborhood, and also it was set up to be buildable, and have a pre existing use. My Lawyer also pointed out, that most of the neighbors in the area, have lots consisting of only two of the existing M. S. Hand lots. Whereas, I'm proposing lots which contain three. So, in effect it would be bigger than alot of lots in the neighborhood. I also do not think granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. I think, it's in keeping with the concept of zoning, in that. The neighborhood I live in, is quite built up already, and it wouldn't change the nature of the neighborhood. While there are some one quarter lots, and some one third acre lots, and there are many one half acre lots. Using the acre number 43,000 about, we're proposing a two-third acre lot, two- two-third acre lots. Reading the appraisal I took down this information. The neighborhood is over 75% built-up. The neighborhood is classified as suburban. The present land use is 80% one family. The properties in the neighborhood are compatible. I am proposing to allow a residential use on lot 137-115 that is similar to all the other residential uses in the neighborhood. I realize there was this technically of having lots in different names, but I think use is what effects the neighborhood, not the name on the lot. Really, the question is the lot big enough to allow a house that it would be in character with the rest of the neighborhood. Now, if I had excepted my Father's offer and if I had been allowed to build at that time, there would be a house there now. I see no negative environmental impact in the neighborhood. Although, I'm saying that the original lot line was in effect between 105 and 106. If we did take the County Tax Map Parcels, I own six of those original lots. What I'm proposing to do is change 137-115 from a lot that is 95% conforming now, to one that is 72% conforming. But in fact, by including that lot number 105 in the house lot, I'm changing that lot from one that is now 46% conforming to one that is about 70% conforming. They would be two equal lots. It would be bigger than many of the lots in the neighborhood. The impact of the merger on me, and then that --. I have several figures given. I don't have one figure that was given to me, about how much it would reduce the value of my property. But, Andrew Stype told me $25,000.00. Scott Russell in the Tax Assessor's office told me it would reduce it about $40,000.00. Some Real Estate professionals have even given me higher figures. But, it diffidently has a impact over the market of my property. The other impact it has is. If I do not have separate lots it also limit's me. The market, I'm selling my property. The market is very difficult right now, you Page 34 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals know. I would prefer to sell as, all my three lots to one buyer, and let the buyer decide. But, I might be forced to envision selling just one parcel, or maybe selling the two to different owners, even though my preference is to sell all three. Also, the merger destroys the residential use of my property. That's what it does. Even if I was planning to stay, I couldn't do what I want. I want to build an extra little cottage for a rental purchase, and build a dock on my land on the water. But, that would prevent me from doing that too. You know, if my husband and I stayed here, we would need extra income also, and I might want to rent the house just as my Mother had planned to house. In actual fact, we have paid taxes for a buildable lot even since 1966. If a merger occurs it means, we were paying taxes for something. . It seems like a double ( ) . If a merger occurs, we're paying taxes for a buildable lot, but we're denied it's buildable use. In addition to having. some value confiscated from the property. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you. The gentlemen by the name of Mr. Wacker that wrote a letter. Is he the gentlemen that lives to the South of you, standing in front of your property to the left. DANIELE DUPUIS: The people that live to the left of me are Carl & Liz Vail. CHAIRMAN: OK DANIELE DUPUIS: And Mr. Wacker lives in back of my --. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Behind what? DANIELE DUPUIS: The lot with the barn I think. MR. WACKER: The barn is about one third of the way into my lot. DANIELE DUPUIS: I wanted to bring up some of the issue brought up by my neighbors, also. Needless to say, it is not my intent to be detrimental to any of my neighbors. That's clear from the start. I do realize that people have preference not to have house next door or not to have House in front of their property. What I don't understand really is why, if my neighbors gave an estimate to my Father in 1988, using three separate lots. Now, why they say that in 1983 they thought it was one, and then in 1988 tell my Father, three. That doesn't seem consistent to me. Also, I don't really know why my neighbors bring up the fact that I inherited the property. Especially because it's a very painful subject for me. The circumstances were tragic. My Father committed suicide. I would much have preferred not to have inherited that property, and be standing here right now and defending my Father's interest. I'd like that. It's enough to have personal --, and it's very true. Also, Mr. Wacker didn't know my parents. He doesn't know my situation. He said in his letter very fairly, that he Page 35 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals believes people should be allowed to do what they wish with their property, and that is exactly my feeling. It's my Father's home also. It's been my childhood home since 1957, and what I wish to do also is rectify a situation which I feel is very unfair. My parents before me and I, are taxed as if it's a buildable lot, and then by the merger, which my parents never knew occurred, and never knew about the law. I didn't really until I got involved in all of this. Because of that, on the one hand you're taxed as if it's a buildable lot, and on the other hand I'm told it's not. That doesn't make sense to me either. I also have a letter here, from one of Mr. Wacker's neighbors, and the Vail's ( ) who contacted me about this waiver. I believe he contacted the board also. Should I read, or would you like to. It's to the Board of Appeals, Town of Southold. The petition of Daniel Dupuis for a Waiver of Merger. Dear Board Members, This is to acknowledge Mrs. Dupuis Waiver of Merger, for the properties on Stillwater Avenue, in Cutchogue. As a adjacent property owner, I will support Mrs. Dupuis request and wish that the board complies with her petition within the extent of the law, established by the Town board, of the Town of Southold. Signed Jean-Patrice Courtand, 505 Track Avenue, Cutchogue. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ok. Are you about completed? Can we move on? DANIELE DUPUIS: I'd would just like to say that, what I'd really like is the determination of the status, in that what I feel is a fair conclusion, is to restore the buildable status of the lot, or to reimburse for the unfair taxes. CHAIRMAN: Let me just say something to you about the taxes. Everybody is taxed the same way. The Assessor's don't know if it's legal or not legal, ok. When I say legal I mean. Legal to build another building structure. You're being taxed just the way every body else is being taxed. The only person that's being taxed less than that, is a person that has a scenic easement over their property, which virtually makes it not-buildable, or it's wetland which makes it not-buildable, ok. I mean, everybody owns a piece of property. I have myself three, one/third acre lots, and a 40 foot lot to one side. I'm being taxes just the way everyone else is being taxed, and I have one piece of property. That's it. I understand your constant establishment of this unfair tax. But it's not really unfair. You're being taxed on the basis of what the square .footage of the property is. That's the way you're being taxed. That's the way everyone is being taxed in the Town of Southold. I mean, I have to be honest with you. I've been in Real Estate since 1971. I've been a Real Estate Broker since 1975. I don't practice it presently. I haven't practiced it since 1986. But I assure you. You're not being taxed any differently in the Town. Page 36 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals DANIELE DUPUIS: I'm sorry. The only reason I say that, is because of what I've been told in the Tax Assessor's office. Otherwise, I wouldn't say that. MEMBER VILLA: Speaking to those people. They always tell me, that they tell people, even though it might be a separate tax bill, that that's no guarantee that it's a buildable parcel. DANIELE DUPUIS: Right MEMBER VILLA: And they are very clear about that, ok DANIELE DUPUIS: They did, but it's just the amount of the assessments . MEMBER VILLA: OK, and as Mr. Goehringer everyone is assessed the same way. CHAIRMAN: My 40 foot lot which is unbuildable, which is adjacent to my house, which is not part of a subdivision, ok, is being taxed just as a third acre parcel are being taxed. On the equivalent of square footage, based upon the way the other lots are being taxed, and there is no difference. I can't build on any of them, any differently than I could build on any three or four of them. That's the way the house sits, directly on these parcels. It may not touch every one of them. But, that's the way I'm being taxed. I'm being taxed on three-quarters of an acre, which includes that 40 foot lot. I can't build on it. I already built one house and that's all I'm allowed to build. . So, I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the taxes would be any different on the barn piece. DANIELE DUPUIS: It would be, from what I was told. The Tax Assessor's said there would be a reduction in assessment of --. The land is taxed now at 1400. A reduction of assessment it would be down to 700. CHAIRMAN: It would be 50 0 less of assessment, ok DANIELE DUPUIS: Yes. You could verify with the Tax Assessor's. CHAIRMAN: If that's what they say, that's fine with me. MEMBER VILLA: That's because it's not a vacant piece of property, that's why. They have a garage on it. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: They're assessing it as a separate buildable lot, and it is higher. They told me that too. But, that's only part of it. CHAIRMAN: OK MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment. I just want to say something. Page 37 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Yes MEMBER DINIZIO: I certainly would assume that if were getting two taxed bills, that one had two lots. Certainly, one should also assume that if both lots are the same size, and they both got tax bills for two separate lots, that were the same size. One could assume, not to say in the workings of Government, in that respect, but more towards common sense, that you would assume if you purchased those lots, and you assumed that they were separate lots because you were getting two tax bills from an entity of Government. Certainly, tax wise, even buildable lot wise, you could assume that. I just would like to point out to you that, I find your assumptions, your Father's assumptions filled with common sense. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's something I hear in the office all the time. I must get hundred's of inquires a year, and everybody . thinks the same way. If you have two tax bills you have two separate buildable lots, and I have to try to explain to them that they are merged, and under zoning they are not buildable lots. But that's what we're here for, •and that's what we have to deal with. CHAIRMAN: OK DANIELE DUPUIS: I thought that was the point of the waiver, is to rectify situations that were --. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: And your here to show that they were intended to be two separate lots, or they were created as two lots, and the board has to make a decision on. MEMBER VILLA: But not the two lots before us. CHAIRMAN: OK. Let's, can we continue. DANIELE DUPUIS: Yes, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Vail MR. VAIL: OK CHAIRMAN: Could I ask you to stand and use the podium? MR. CARL VAIL: I prepared a letter that I want to read to the board. CHAIRMAN: OK MR. CARL VAIL: I have five copies here from a letter from Paul Heffernan describing the difference in value to my property if the lot is sub-divided next door to me. Dear Board Members, Page 38 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals We objected to the proposal before the Zoning Board of Appeals, for a Waiver of Merger by Daniele Dupuis, as to lots on Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. We thank you for permitting us additional time to consult a land use Attorney, which we did, and to submitting our objections in a formal manner. Please make, as part of the record, our continual objections as follows. The applicant seeks approval to ostensively immerge lots R-40 Zoning Use District. In 1957 Henry Fournier, the applicants Father, purchased a one-half acre lot. In 1966, he purchased a contiguous one-acre parcel. The lots are shown on the attached map. The one-half acre parcel included a home, and this was improved by Mr. Fournier in 1967, so that it extended onto a part of the contiguous acre. The applicant Father, clearly joined the lots in the one parcel, by building on both, maintaining them and using them as one lot, for nearly three decades. Presenting to the board, is not a question of immerging, ie recognizing original lot lines. But of subdividing to create two lots. Essentially, the applicant asked the board to ignore her predecessors building on both lots, aggregating them to one use, and seeks creation of a new two lots subdivision, of three file maps each. The justification offered for a division of three filed lot maps, is the fact that the mortgage in 1967 covered three lots, not the two originally purchased. The suggestion is made that the applicants parents may have intended a three lot division, since the mortgage survey showed three lots. This is pure baloney. A mortgage bank through a survey, determined the house was on three filed map lots, not the two lots, constituting the original half acre, and added the third lot to the mortgage, to protect itself and fully secure it's interests in the event of a foreclosure. The inclusion of three lots was delivered, and reflected the fact that the parcels were joined. In nearly 30 years, the previous owner never manifested a separate use of the lot, and to the contrary, confirm the merger into one parcel. The house was extended, a barn added, and the entire parcel was fenced. This board is being asked to assume responsibility not given to it, and that is to subdivide a parcel in the R-40 district, into two, two-third acre lots. Once the applicant predecessor entitled, treated the entire parcel as one, by building upon the third filed Map lot. The parcel was confirmed as a single entity. It cannot be subdivided by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Board's jurisdiction is limited by Town Code Section 100-26A to recognizing the original lot lines. This is not a hardship situation where lots were merged as a result of recent up-zoning. The lots were held as one parcel, through two major Town Code zoning revisions during the past 25 years. Here the applicants seek nothing less than an economic windfall, through a subdivision of two lots, thereby producing a greater gain than one. All of this is being accomplished we submit through manipulation of the facts, and the law. w Page 39 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals We respectfully request that the board not be a party to a subdivision. Neither should this board be persuaded by the economic hardship argument, advance by the applicant. Two lots invariable, product a higher sale value than one. As the board is aware, our name is on the contiguous parcel and if the subdivision is approved, our loss is commensurate to any loss suffered by the applicant. If the subdivision is not approved, we stand ready to offer and do offer to purchase, the closer 50 foot lot to our home for $15,000.00. , cash, which will lessen if not altogether mitigate, the loss suffered by the applicant, if the subdivision is not approved. Economic hardship goes in both directions, and under these circumstances, cannot be a factor, favoring the applicant. Finally, the applicant is selling the Stillwater Avenue property, and leaving the United States to become a resident of Canada. The board is under no obligation to pay her bonus by allowing a subdivision, while devaluing the properties of the residence of the taxpayers that remain here. We ask you to deny this application. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Vail. Could you wait one second. Is there anyone else that would like to speak against this application. OK, Mr. Wacker MR. WACKER: You have my letter. I'll try to paraphrase it, as much a possible. It seems to me that there is one condition in the waiver of merger, and one test, and that is. It avoids economic hardship. I haven't done my homework like these people' here have. I just bought my house. I intend on improving it. I discussed with Mrs. Dupuis the other night, whether or not having another house, directly in front of my house, which would block a Winter water view, and would also detract from the overall appearance of my backyard. Whether that would represent a economic hardship for me. 'But I intend on improving the property and maximizing it's value. She doesn't think so, and giving that. I can understand her indignation of my being here at all. But, the fact of the matter it will, and I don't think there is anyone on the board that would deny that fact. I think it would reduce the value of my house substantially. And also, in hearing what I just heard now, I may have my information correct. But it seems to me that the County Tax Maps, had indicated this property as two separate parcels, drawn along the lines, which was four parcels, and two parcels of the original Hand subdivision. I'm wondering, can the board supersede that. Whether that was put there erroneously or not, and I don't know. I ask the question. CHAIRMAN: Yes MR. WACKER: In that case, I would just have to point out that in fact. Not only would the Vail's be effected economically by this, but Page 40 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals also myself and I believe that other neighbors would be, who have CHAIRMAN: To my knowledge we could, ok. Just as a point in fact. The whole issue of water views, as they pertain by buildings, trees, or bushes or whatever, as they ---. There is no doubt it has an impact upon your property, but it is something that we can't preserve. MR. WACKER: I guess -- CHAIRMAN: I mean, quite honestly. Someone could buy the entire piece of property and intend to relocate the barn, which would also block your water view. The whole water view issue, has been an issue that's been ongoing. We realize that would effect your property. There is no way we could preserve it. MR. WACKER: I just want to make a statement. Again, one of the tests of the laws, is that it would avoid economic impact. CHAIRMAN: Right MR. WACKER: And it doesn't specify to which party, and it clearly according to the law, would be an economic hardship on me. Whether, if there's ( ) standing that water views being blocked, do not represent an economic hardship, and if that is the case in time, SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Sometimes people are able to buy water view easements too. We've heard about that, so. Just one way of---. MEMBER DINIZIO: You're assuming that they wouldn't let the lot grow. You would have not right to cut down their bushes. MR. WACKER: Absolutely not. MEMBER DINIZIO: You're not entitled to that. MR. WACKER: My question again is simple stated. Does reducing the value of my property, whether in the future implicating are there or not, does reducing the value of my property recognize a compromise or consistent, an economic hardship, and I contend that it does. I just wondered, that's my question. I'm not CHAIRMAN: Certainly it would have an effect, and I'll just say this quickly and ( ) . If a house 'was built there, it would certainly have more of an effect upon you, then if it remained with just an accessory building, regardless of water view aspect of it. There's no doubt in my mind. I don't know how the impact of that would be, based upon what the dollars and cents would be. Page 41 - Transcript of Public Hearings ` Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. DUPUIS: I wanted to --. I was going to say the same thing to Mr. Wacker is that, if the lots are merged then conceivable people would want to buy it, and use the barn and have one horse or two horses, or chickens and extend the bard. CHAIRMAN: They may want to make a garage out of it, and build a race car out of it. Who knows. MRS. DUPUIS: Yes. I was going to say the same thing. I cannot guarantee that those lots will remain as is. There is no way I can do that, you know in any way. The parcels did not exist that he's talking about. What existed at that time were the individual M.S. Hand lots. MR. WACKER: That's incorrect. MRS. ELIZABETH VAIL: That cannot be possible. MRS. DUPUIS: When were the County Tax Maps parcels ---. CHAIRMAN: It has nothing to do with County Tax Map parcels, ok. Deeds create County Tax Map parcels. Subdivisions are created when people put subdivisions together. The only ---. When you buy a piece of property, it may indicate one lot, two lots, three lots. It could indicate a half a lot. MRS. DUPUIS: Right CHAIRMAN: As it does in some areas. So, the County, their mapping aspects on real property will only target what is clearly stated within the deed. And so, it really has nothing to do --. I understand what you're saying, but it has nothing to do with that aspect, based up what a person is purchasing or what a person is willing to sell. That doesn't mean it's legal or illegal at that point. And when I say illegal, I'm not saying the sales not legal. I'm saying the normal process of what's legal in reference to a standard lot. Quite honestly, in 1957 you probably could have built on every 50 foot lot there. MRS. DUPUIS: Well, it, didn't happen in that neighborhood that there were houses built. CHAIRMAN: Right, thank you. MEMBER VILLA: Well, when the Tax Map was created by the County, it worked off existing deeds, right. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. MEMBER VILLA: So the deeds showed it at two and four, when the Tax Map was created. Page 42 - Transcript of Public Hearings ` Held Wed. .. May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals CIAIRMAN: That is correct. Mrs. Vail. MRS. VAIL: I just wanted to show you a Map that CHAIRMAN: For the record this is Mrs. Vail. MRS. ELIZABETH VAIL: There are numerous one acre parcels in the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN: Right MRS. ELIZABETH VAIL: There not all 50 foot or 100 foot lots in the whole neighborhood. CHAIRMAN: Right MRS. ELIZABETH VAIL: There are numerous one on one plus acre lots in the neighborhood, this being Dupuis, and this being our property right here. CHAIRMAN: Right MRS. ELIZABETH VAIL: So, the density isn't just small lots. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: When you say one acre do you mean just one tax bill for the whole acre, or are they getting more than one tax bill. CHAIRMAN: The house is on one acre. MRS. ELIZABETH VAIL: The house according to a Tax Map --. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's one a whole acre with one tax bill I guess, because it's one County Tax Map number. MRS. ELIZABETH VAIL: Well, I don't know. I'm just going by what the deeds lines according to the Tax Map. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I was just curious. It doesn't matter anyway. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: OK, hearing no further comment I'll make a motion. Oh I'm sorry Madam. I apologize sincerely. You can state your name for the record. MRS. FLORENCE KENNEY: My name is Florence Kenney and I live directly across from Daniele & Claude Dupuis. I've owned the property for over 30 and one half years. I own one acre creek property. I have no objection to a house being directed there, constructed there CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, how are you tonight. Page 43 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. MARION KING: I'm here representing my client too. I'm Marion King and I represent Daniele because I happen to have a listing on her property, and the one aspect of this whole thing is, that there is two, two-third acre lots. It would certainly pass the Health Department approvals probably, with cesspools and wells. It would certainly make it alot easier for any of the Real Estate. I don't have an exclusive on this. None of the Real estates have been able to sell it the way it is, and by breaking it up like that, the house price naturally would come way down. I know Daniele wants to get on with her life, and it just doesn't seem to me . I've listened to the other people, how it's going to devalue their property. I don't believe it will. As far as Mr. Wacker goes, anything can happen with anybody. Buying a lot off the water, having a water view , and if there's other property in front of it, anything can happen. He just doesn't have waterfront property. So, I just wanted you to hear my comment. I really believe that it will not devalue other properties, and I do think it would help Daniele sell her property, and I feel that two-third acre lots in that area, certainly are adequate. CHAIRMAN: Marion, how much do you have the property listed for? MS. MARION KING: The property started in 19 ---. It's been listed exactly one year this month, and it started at $285,000.00 because of all the property and the house. The Real Estate all had it down to $239,000.00 because Daniele does have another piece of property across the street that's waterfront. Lord knows, it would have to have a mighty long catwalk. But it is waterfront, and if anyone wanted to, they could do it, and probably put a little dock there. So that does add value to it. But all these other arguments. I just don't go along with it. CHAIRMAN: Ok, that's listed for a different amount, another amount. The piece across the street. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's all included. MS. MARION KING: It's included. CHAIRMAN: Oh, it's included, ok. MS. MARION KING: It's included in the property. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MS. MARION KING: It's just a nice area, and two-third .acre lots are not tiny lots by any standard. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Page 44 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. MARION KING: This is a totally different thing. I always wanted to tell the Town Board or somebody, "It sure would have saved alot of heartache, when this law went in about combining the lots". CHAIRMAN: Right. MS. MARION KING: You know, that should have been sent out with the tax bills. So every person would have been aware of it. But they published it in a paper. They're many people that don't read the paper. Therefore, Daniele parents were from France, they were not aware of alot of our laws, alot of people. I go through it every day in my office. People have not idea their property was combined. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: This is true. They don't know. MS. MARION KING: They absolutely have no idea of it. Total innocent mistake, and the Town is at fault. It's the Town's fault that this happened. If that had been sent out in everybody's tax bill, it would have saved an awful lot of heartache, and I just wanted you to know that I think Daniele has a good case. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask you a question? I just wanted to clarify it. The 235 is --. MS. MARION KING: 239. MEMBER DINIZIO: 239, that's all the lots, including the one across the street. MS. MARION KING: All the lots, and the waterfront parcel. MEMBER DINIZIO: Ok. That's all I wanted to know. MS. MARION KING: But many people are not interested in all their property. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MS. MARION KING. They see it and they're not interested in it. CHAIRMAN: In - your opinion Marion, Is the piece across the street buildable? MS. MARION KING: No. CHAIRMAN: No. MS. MARION KING: I'd say it's not. CHAIRMAN: It's strictly dark access. MS. MARION KING: Absolutely. n Page 45 - Transcript of Public Hearings Held Wed. , May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Bob. MEMBER VILLA: Another question. How can you justify as a realtor, people giving, realtor giving appraisals on a piece of property that they must know is merged. Giving them two different values, or an inflated value that they could get if it was immerged. MS. MARION KING: I don't do that. MEMBER VILLA: Well, I --- SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Ms. King office is always checking with us. MEMBER VILLA: OK SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: to see if (unaudible) MEMBER VILLA: How can realtors do this? MS. MARION KING: I don't even give anyone values on their house. When I list a house, I come down to the Town Hall, I get the property card, and I figure up the house square footage. I figure up, how much landscaping I believe it on it. And I figure the value of the lot without the house on it. Putting all those figures together, I come out very close to the bank appraisals. MEMBER VILLA: Well, I commend you for that. I just can't understand how any other realtor can go along and give people false hopes like this, without mentioning that it's merged. MS. MARION KING: I never have since I'v been in business. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: We see it all the time in our office, the building department, but --. MEMBER VILLA: But I don't understand how they can do that, because people come in with this inflated idea . CHAIRMAN: Because they don't understand the law, some of them. MEMBER VILLA: Real Estates SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: They don't take the time. MS. MARION KING: I am very particular in my listing and as I say. I have compared my figures with bank appraiser figures, and I come out mighty close. MEMBER VILLA: Well, you do your homework on it. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, that's the difference. Page 46 - Transcript of Public Hearings " Held Wed. ) May 29, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. MARION KING: I was brought up in a building and a real estate family. So, I was ------ MEMBER VILLA: I wish the other were. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MS. MARION KING: You're very welcome. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Vail. MR. VAIL: Yes, I just want the board to note that I have a letter from Paul Hefferon stating, that my property will be devalued, and that Marion who is so terrible thorough, has not visited my property, looked at my home or appraised it, and yet she's here saying it will not effect the value. Thank you. MS. MARION KING: I'm well aware of where your house is Carl. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comment, we wish to. thank everybody for their courtesy and I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision later. I do not know if we'll get to this tonight. All voted to close the hearing. RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE J�l 1 b J g 6 HOUR R:,5s f Town Clerk, Town of Southold