HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/19/1996 HEARING •o j
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1996
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
7:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4389 - JIM GRAY for TIMOTHY GRAY and
JIMBO REALTY. Hearing carried over at request of applicants
(from 7/26/96) .
CHAIRMAN: We've gone around a little bit with one of the other
boards. What would you like to tell us.
MR. JIM GRAY: I did what they asked. I took it back 100 feet.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. JIM GRAY: So the only difference would be is that, we're
asking for the permit for the dwelling in the front.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
MR. JIM GRAY: The Planning Board already had copies making
( ) the little changes they added, were made on it.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
CHAIRMAN: That's the building on, I guess I'm standing in back of ;
the property looking at the survey. It's on the West side. Is that.
correct?
MR. JIM GRAY: It's on the East side, looking from the property
from the road.
CHAIRMAN: From the road, right.
MR. JIM GRAY: It's on the right hand side of the West side.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, OK. That's the 1750 square feet.
MR. JIM GRAY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN: As in E, building E, ok, let's start. So for the
record, we have the setback at 100 feet.
MR. JIM GRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: We have four separate buildings.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: There's five really.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, there's really. five. There's five separate
buildings.
MR. JIM GRAY: There's six separate buildings.
` 4
r Page 2 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
.' Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: There's six separate buildings. That is correct.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: There's a few more.
MEMBER TORTORA: There's more than six.
CHAIRMAN: No, there's six even.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, a few more then last time.
There were three last time.
CHAIRMAN: Well, I was concentrating about the big buildings first,
and then I was adding the other ones on, ok.
MEMBER TORTORA: There are three large buildings.
CHAIRMAN: There are three large buildings, ok. The buildings
of F, or D and F are one story buildings.
MR. JIM GRAY: Yes they are.
CHAIRMAN: OK, just as is the case of the office.
MR. JIM GRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: OK. All right. Let's go on with Mr. Villa. Do you
have any questions regarding this plan Mr. Villa?
MEMBER VILLA: Well as he's saying, he only needs a variance for
the parking. He still needs a variance on the width of the
buildings, right?
CHAIRMAN: That is correct.
MR. JIM GRAY: Excuse me Mr. Villa.
MEMBER VILLA: You still need a variance on the width of the
buildings. The code only allows 60 feet.
MR. JIM GRAY: I'm sorry. Yes you do, yes.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Three of the buildings.
MR. JIM GRAY: Five feet over, ten feet over the buildings.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
MEMBER VILLA: How about the one, that building D is. I want
you to look at that one. How long seven? How long is it?
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's not the width. You're
talking about depth there. It's allowed to be that deep.
� y
Page 3 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
., Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. JIM GRAY: It's 15 feet wide.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's 15 feet wide.
CHAIRMAN: Well, this is drawn on the scale, right? We can scale it
if we want to.
MR. JIM GRAY: It's the long drawing.
MEMBER VILLA: It's the long drawing.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: The new one with your agenda's.
It's clipped to your agenda's tonight, that just came in yesterday.
CHAIRMAN: The one that says September 18 on it.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Right, the date (unfinished sentence) .
SECRETARY 'LINDA KOWALSKI: You have your agenda there Bob,
from your box. Today's agenda.
MEMBER VILLA: Yes, I have all kinds of stuff.
CHAIRMAN: The date is August 12 revision, 1996. Is that you got
Jim?
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Bob got the right map. That's
the right map.
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What's that doing here.
MR. JIM GRAY: It's August 23.
MEMBER DINIZIO: This is all landscaping.
MEMBER TORTORA: Where did you all lose it?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Do I have the right one? Do I have the right
one?
CHAIRMAN: It says August 12, 1996 revision.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Where does it (unfinished sentence) .
CHAIRMAN: And then it says August 23, 1996 revision, right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: August 23, 1996.
Page 4 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: We got the right one.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It has five or six buildings.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Could we give Bob a little
while? It's in his box, in the office.
CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll let him look at it. OK.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Serge, did you take your
information from your box tonight, Serge? Do you have your thing
from your box.
MEMBER DOYEN: No, that why (unfinished sentence) .
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, you have to pick up your
mail.
CHAIRMAN: OK, lets go on with Mr. Dinizio. We'll go back to
Mr. Villa. Do you have any questions on the plan Mr. Dinizio?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just wondering why you changed it so
drastically?
MR. JIM GRAY: . I was told to change by the Planning Board. They
didn't want any buildings over 60 foot, and I told them I couldn't
get anything under 70 foot that would work with the situation but,
they thought that 70 foot is better than 100 feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What about the efficiency's that you said you
would gain from, you know. The last time I spoke, we spoke here.
You said you needed these buildings, that they would be efficient.
Well, do you lose that now with these buildings?
MR. JIM GRAY: Yes, we've also ( ) from the bigger
building.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You need three heating systems, three cooling
systems, three everything obviously, or five, six, instead of two.
MR. JIM GRAY: Yes. The climate control unit will be the three big
buildings, A,B,C. The other buildings will not have climate
control.
MEMBER DINIZIO: All right. I mean, are they still going to be
surrounded by un-insulated buildings, un-insulated storage.
MR. JIM GRAY: Yes
MEMBER DINIZIO: They still will be this way here.
Page 5 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. JIM GRAY: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Except now you have to buy an additional unit.
MR. JIM GRAY: That's right.
CHAIRMAN: OK, Mrs. Tortora.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Wait a minute. I have one more question.
CHAIRMAN: Oh, I'm sorry.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Also, in building A, the front squares says 45
or 35, 40. What is that?
MR. JIM GRAY: That's the office.
CHAIRMAN: The other is the Caretaker's quarters.
MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, so that's five feet closer to the road. You
need something there also.
MR. JIM GRAY: At the time, everybody's we had spoken to, didn't
seem to think that five feet would be a big issue, because it was
just for security purposes.
MEMBER DINIZIO No, not an issue. I agree. It's probably not
an issue but, I mean.
MR. JIM GRAY: We're asking for the five.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If we have to grant, we should grant it.
CHAIRMAN: So it's five feet over here. Good point.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask one more question?
CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you satisfied with this plan Mr. Gray. I
mean, are you satisfied with this? .
MR. JIM GRAY: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, thank you.
MR. JIM GRAY: OK, thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora.
MEMBER TORTORA: Well, I'd like to note that we've come a long
way from where we started, from a couple of months ago, and we
certainly have been numerable to a number of suggestions, not only
Page G - .September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
to this board, but the Planning Board, and I'm fortunately
very grateful to you for that. The only question I really have at
this point is. I note, and I'm not quite clear on this. I note on
the Planning Board's letter of September 18. , they were talking about
a minimum width of 15 feet, should separate the residence and the 15
by 110 foot building to the West of the property, in order to insure
fire access. Do we have that?
MR. JIM GRAY: Yes we do.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's what I thought. I mean, in this plan
you made that change after this letter came. I really don't have any
questions so.
MR. JIM GRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: How high are the buildings? The three large buildings
grade wise. Just off the top of your head. How high off the
ground are they?
MR. JIM GRAY: They would be around 21 feet.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen.
MEMBER DOYEN: No
CHAIRMAN: Back to Mr. Villa.
MEMBER VILLA: OK, you just clarified something for me. The only
ones that are going up the two story's into the three big buildings.
The other ones are single story, 21 feet.
CHAIRMAN: These are modular steel constructions similar to the
other.
MR. JIM GRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: That you constructed which are (unfinished sentence) .
MIR JIM GRAY: That's right. The ones across ( ),
they're man sized.
CHAIRMAN: OK
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How high are the other buildings,
Jerry?
CHAIRMAN: How high would you say, the other buildings are Jim?
MR. JIM GRAY: The side buildings.
CHAIRMAN: Yes
Page 7 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. JIM GRAY: 10 feet.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: All three of those side buildings?
MR. JIM GRAY: Yes, they're only two side buildings.
CHAIRMAN: No, she's referring to the Caretaker's.
MR. JIM GRAY: Oh that's just a one story.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, actually all of them.
Building E is the house.
CHAIRMAN: Right
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How high is that building?
MR. JIM GRAY: I would say that the normal house is
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Probably could be 18 feet high,
right?
MR. JIM GRAY: Maybe 10 feet from the road.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, OK. The other two are 10
feet.
MR. JIM GRAY: I would say 10 to 12 feet tall.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK.
MR. JIM GRAY: Just so you have pitching, so you can get the rain
off the roof.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, thanks.
MEMBER VILLA: Building E is the residence for the caretaker.
CHAIRMAN: That's correct.
MEMBER VILLA: So are we going to build something in here saying,
that it's approval for residency is contingent upon the storage. We
don't want to see a residency left behind, if this thing goes vacant.
CHAIRMAN: We can put that in.
MEMBER VILLA: All right.
CHAIRMAN: Do you understand what he's saying.
MR. JIM. GRAY: Yes.
4 .
y Page 8 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: Do you have any problems with that?
MR. JIM GRAY: No.
CHAIRMAN: OK, all right. I guess that about does it. We'll see if
anybody in the audience would like to speak in favor? Anybody like
to speak against? All right. Do you want to modify this decision
later Ladies and Gentlemen?
MEMBER TORTORA: In terms of what?
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: There is no decision yet.
CHAIRMAN: Yes. Do you want to deal with it later?
MEMBER TORTORA: ( )
CHAIRMAN: All right, we'll deal with it later. I'll make a motion
closing the hearing and recessing it until later.
MEMBER VILLA: Second
CHAIRMAN: All in favor, aye.
7:32 p.m. Appl. No. 4407 - DIANE HEROLD, Architect for
HUGH and ROSEMARY MURPHY. (Hearing carryover from 8/21) .
CHAIRMAN: We will go with Ms. Herold. How are you tonight?
DIANE HEROLD: I'm overwhelming you with information tonight, so
we'll go through it kind of quickly.
CHAIRMAN: OK. Hello Mr. Murphy, how are you?
MR. HUGH MURPHY: Fine thank you.
DIANE HEROLD: Mr. Murphy is here with me, and I also have Mr.
Davis, the building mover.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
DIANE HEROLD: To look at the job initially, and got started on
this ( ) The board was also concerned about the History of
this project, and so I've written you a two page letter which I'll
read, just to go through the dates. Just to give you an idea of what
has evolved. In the Fall of 1994, Ernie Davis to name his brother's
building, met with Mr. Murphy and his sister. Therefore, they were
discussing moving the building. The building and the
foundations.
Page 9 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
In October 31, 1994 Davis Brothers ordered a test hole and
was billed accordingly. That's pages 3, 4 and 5, in the sheets that
you've received tonight, just to show you that, a builder mover was
indeed involved with this project and the onset.
I met Mr. Murphy in June of 1995, and at that time Mr.
Murphy gave me a sketch that's in your packet. ( ) that
he dated March 17, 1995 and at that time he was proposing the two
additions, that we came before this board and was granted. We also
received the DEC and the Trustees approval, over the course of
time. I've given you some plans. One was a piling plan that in
1995, that was for pricing just to see if everything was in the
budget.
If you look at that plan you'll notice that, there are a
number of different floorjoist. Some of them go a different way.
It was a fairly complicated piling plan because the house is old, and
of course was built sort of piece meal. I also have a floor plan in
there, that was taken from Mr. Murphy's sketch that he gave me.
Basically, I told him that we were talking about too many little
rooms, and he wasn't going to benefit with the additions that we were
proposing.
The last two drawings you will see, is what he's proposing
to built. The floor plan and the front elevation. This resulted
from Bedrooms and Gardening Remodeling issue, the Summer of 1996,
and that's basically when our focus changed and we became
(unfinished sentence) . We had to come back to the board and discuss
perhaps, demolishing the building and rebuilding it because the
design was so different from the existing house. Does the board has
questions .for me or either of us?
CHAIRMAN: Well I think the, Mr. Villa, I hate to put you on the
spot again, but from an engineering standpoint, there were concerns
with you and Mr. Dinizio, concerning this project.
MEMBER VILLA: Well as you know, I had some concerns the first
time.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
MEMBER VILLA: I mean, and I know Mr. Dinizio voiced some
concerns at our last meeting. He had different concepts of it now,
then the first time around. Now we're talking about completely
demolishing and basically building a two story house there.
DIANE HEROLD: It will be a story and one half, the way they
interpret it because if you look at the elevation, the second floor
is under a main gable. It doesn't have a two story ( ) to it,
except that the gable ends.
MEMBER VILLA: To what would be the comparison of the height of
the existing versus the new, because right now it's rather
Page 10 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
unappreciated. It sits down in a gully, but now you're going to
(unfinished sentence) .
DIANE HEROLD: It does, unfortunately you do have to raise the
house, probably about two feet. I was incorrect when I came to the
board and said it was only about eight inches. When I spoke to the
Building Department again, they said that would be to the bottom of
the girders, so I think we'll have to raise it about two feet. So
already the house is going up two feet, and I would say we're
probably looking at another six to eight feet in height. But
basically, we'd be looking at the low end of the gable toward the
street. In that drawing that I show you is the street side.
MEMBER VILLA: So you're talking about eight to ten feet higher
than the existing house.
DIANE HEROLD: Yes,
CHAIRMAN: What's the actual cost between the two projects, or
would have been the cost in the old project, and then the cost to the
new project?
DIANE HEROLD: We really didn't address it. Do you want to give
a. price on the moving part of it?
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Could we have your name please
first?
MR. BERNIE DAVIS: Bernie Davis of Davis Engineering
MR. BERNIE DAVIS: Bernie Davis, Davis Brother's Engineering, and
the moving cost was I think, about $10,000.00.
CHAIRMAN: To move it off to the side and back.
MR. DAVIS: Off to the side and put it back.
CHAIRMAN: In this particular case, what they are proposing now is
very simply a demolishing. Is that correct?
MR. DAVIS: Yes, that's what happened. It started out a moving
job, and then this came about, so.
CHAIRMAN: OK, thank you.
DIANE HEROLD: In addition to the $10,000.00, we'd also have to
look at the cost of rebuilding alot of the walls that are in the
house, probably we'd only be able to save ( ) . None of the
interior walls would be salvageable, and we'd also have to (
unfinished sentence) . There are illegal ceiling heights in the
present house. We would have to scab on to make the walls at least
eight feet high to conform to code, and then the windows. So
basically we're talking about removing the roof and all interior
L
Page 11 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
1 Southold Town Board of Appeals
things, and all the electrical and plumbing would have to be
replaced.
CHAIRMAN: OK
MEMBER VILLA: This was not known to you before, you made the
last presentation?
DIANE HEROLD: I realize that there was alot that had to be
done, but I thought that from Mr. Murphy's sketch, we would be
working with what was presently there. If you look at his sketch,
he has alot of little rooms. I could probably have salvaged more.
MEMBER VILLA: I'm talking about the ceiling and everything else.
You didn't realize that? That would have had to be altered
anyway.
DIANE HEROLD: I would have left it that way.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And the renovation, we would have just added
on the addition, and the addition would have met code.
DIANE HEROLD: The additional work was what was there. Now
it's kind of impractical to do that, in view of what we're trying to
accomplish with the house.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is my point exactly, that you basically got
a variance from us with assumptions made that this house was going
to pretty much remain the same, besides maybe some siding, a new
roof or whatever but, basically remain the same, and be picked up
and put back and have a addition put on, whatever side. I'm
assuming that they would have looked somewhat similar to the house,
and as Bob's saying, I don't usually pick on these things. It's
usually not my purview. If you want to go two and one half story's
and you can make it under 35 feet, I usually don't mind that. But I
do mind when you're asking for a variance and you explain it in one
particular way, and we understand it and we say. Yes, that sounds
pretty practical. You have an old house and you want to put a few
more feet on it, fine. Now basically, you're coming back to us with
a brand new house, building a brand new house on this lot, on
setbacks that we granted for an older house, and I'm still having a
little bit of trouble with that.
DIANE HEROLD: Could I just interrupt for a minute. Perhaps
what has happened also, is that Mr. Murphy has looked at the house
and is willing to invest more in it, than he originally was thinking
of or able to. At this point he's looking at it as retirement and I
think maybe his perception of it has changed. Perhaps maybe
when he started two years ago, we could all fix it up with the new
foundation because the foundation is all falling in. Over two years,
Page 12 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
you certainly can change your concept of what you want out of the
house, and I think perhaps that has changed.
MR. HUGH MURPHY: If I might interject, I'd like to make the
downstairs floor, if it's so granted. I'd like to make that
handicapped accessible. Diane and I have talked about that and the
idea is the door openings wouldn't permit this, and the way the bath
rooms were lined up in the first design, everything was very very
small. We couldn't get around the bed with the wheelchair, if we
wanted to do so. I would like, I'm in the Plumbing Industry. I
would like to put in this house, elevated toilets, and probably have
handicapped shower with the bars and all that, so it can be
accessible by the wheelchair. I really think that what I'm asking
for is in the best interest of this Town for 200 years. I'm not
going to be around here forever, and I think on that spot, this is a
beautiful, beautiful cottage. I'm not looking for a home. The first
design I got, gave me the impression that it had a home look to it.
I don't want a home. I've got a cottage now. I want to put another
cottage there. I really believe as you drive down Oaklawn Avenue,
and so many cars stop to look down that creek, this would really add
a beautiful thing. I can't tell you how many times on television,
I've seen that little cottage. On the network that does the weather
and everything. They have a little picture of that. A little corner
of it. Not the whole house, but just the porch side going down the
creek. I really believe, I know probably you people aren't
interested in esthetics or what the building looks like. But from my
point of view, the second drawing is a tremendous improvement, over
the first drawing from the exterior of the house.
CHAIRMAN: OK
MEMBER VILLA: Well, I'd might just jump in here for a minute.
You're talking esthetics and basically I think that this is one of
the things that Jim and I are concerned with. You have a small
cottage, we said Ok, you could expand it somewhat. Now you're
coming in saying, you want to demolished it, and you want to build
this big house on a postage stamp lot. Well you're saying, it's not
a big house but it's more than what we had anticipated , and if you
came in with a vacant lot, proposing everything you're doing here,
you'd be looking at an entirely different situation. Basically
that's what you're doing now. Now your saying, in essence. I have
a vacant lot because I want to knock it down. I don't want to start
from scratch.
MR. HUGH MURPHY: I understand your point of view. I really do,
and I know that this precedent is set in the Town, that you have to
look at. But believe me, nowhere along this line were we trying to
pull the wool over your eyes. I hope you accept that.
MEMBER VILLA: OK.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora.
Page 13 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER TORTORA: I wasn't present at the last hearing, but I
was present at the hearing where we needed you to prove the
variance from 41 to 36 feet. This is in a flood plan zone.
DIANE HEROLD: Yes it is.
MEMBER TORTORA: Have you reapplied?
DIANE HEROLD: To whom.
MEMBER TORTORA: You had originally received approvals.
DIANE HEROLD: I received a DEC approval, which was no
jurisdiction that would confirm that -it would apply to the new
house. I went back to the Trustee's and when they wrote their
original decision, it did say whatever we had to do with the original
house, realizing it was not in very good shape, and therefore it
might have to be demolished. So they rewrote another letter to me.
All this is in the file. I had filed all that time. All those
papers saying, that we have received the updated approvals for
demolishing.
MEMBER TORTORA: That question I have is, I share the concerns
that Jim and Bob Villa have raised. The only thing I would really
like to know now is. You are starting from scratch, that's what
you're asking us to allow you to do. To start from scratch. Is this
the best possible location? Is there a better location? - Have you
considered other alternatives?
DIANE HEROLD: On the site?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes.
DIANE HEROLD: Basically, I don't think we could go any closer to
the Creek.
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
DIANE HEROLD: On the East side, we're very tight. We're only a
couple of feet off. So therefore, we only have to the South and to
the West, and that was considered when we originally doing the
request for the additions, even using the existing house. I don't
think we'd be able to get approvals from the Trustee's specifically,
to go any closer to the water.
MR. HUGH MURPHY: I wouldn't want it any closer.
MEMBER TORTORA: I wouldn't want it any closer. I'm talking
closer to Oaklawn Avenue.
DIANE HEROLD: How do you feel about that? Do you want to be
closer to Oaklawn? Would you mind?
Page 14 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
1 Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER TORTORA: In fact, do you know what I'm saying? If
we're starting from scratch, and you know ( ) . This is an
empty piece of property. But your ( unfinished sentence.)
CHAIRMAN: But you have other advantages Lydia. You could take
the garage. The garage can come down and come back for an
application for a storage building later. The garage is nothing.
I'm not discrediting your garage in any way.
MR. HUGH MURPHY: We didn't even want to bring the garage up
because we knew how difficult it was.
CHAIRMAN: The garage is built on the line. It can come down. It
can be moved more toward that direction. That was my basic
question. I don't mean to jump into this, but will you accept
alternate relief if we can.
DIANE HEROLD: The board would have to grant greater variance.
CHAIRMAN: Yes
DIANE HEROLD: But I think it would be acceptable to my client.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's one of the things that Jerry and I
are thinking along the same lines. In other words, that the prior
variance would be null and void, and maybe. 36 feet instead of 36
feet, we'd look at 26 feet, to get your new house off the Creek,
because I think you're ( unfinished sentence. )
CHAIRMAN: That porch really sticks out.
MEMBER TORTORA: The porch is, you don't have it marked here,
but it can't be more than five feet from the water.
MR. HUGH MURPHY: Yes,. on the East side.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, on the East side.
Mr. Hugh Murphy: But you know it's funny. In all these years and
I've been there about 20 now, over 20, we've never had any
indication that water has gotten into the top of the porch. It's gone
on the floor.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's why they call it the ( ) flood
plan. Stick around for 30 years. I think what I'm suggesting and I
think Jerry's thinking. We're thinking we'd like to see the new
house come back from the Creek, and reconsider a variance on
Oakla.wn Avenue side. If were starting from scratch, maybe we
can. (changed tape)
MR. HUGH MURPHY: Yes, I would be very open to that.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, thank you.
Page 15 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
i Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. HUGH MURPHY: I thought I was going to be kind of stuck with
this garage during this whole thing. Here I'm building a beautiful
home, and the garage doesn't fit. It's not even on the right angle.
It's on the wrong angle. Diane and I were talking about putting up
big bushes, to make it look like it was more properly aligned. But
the garage right now does not line up with the new house.
CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll see what we can come up with. While
we're here, let's see if any body else would like to speak in favor
of the application. Anybody like to speak against the application?
Any further questions? Anybody have any problem with moving this
plan a little bit around the property? Jim.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd just like to discuss it later.
CHAIRMAN: Ok, yes later. I don't know if we'll get to it tonight,
but we'll continue.
MEMBER TORTORA: Do you want to close the hearing or leave it
open, and maybe we'll discuss it. Leave it open and let you come
back with other options to us. How's that Jerry?
DIANE HEROLD: I think we'd rather have some directions from the
board, because we don't know how much you're going to grant us.
So we can come and say, we want six feet and you'll say oh, we'll
interview for 10 feet.
CHAIRMAN: Ok, we'll leave it open.
DIANE HEROLD: So unless you, if you can't get to it tonight but
at some point you could just discuss it, and give us some guidelines
so we could. (unfinished sentence)
CHAIRMAN: Well I've been there.
DIANE HEROLD: Have a survey for you.
CHAIRMAN: I've been there Diane three times, and I just have to go
back again, if I can't come with some adjustment tonight. We'll see
what happens.
DIANE HEROLD: We're not pressing you, but we would appreciate
some guidelines since you are proposing something.
CHAIRMAN: Right, ok.
MEMBER TORTORA: Fair enough.
DIANE HEROLD: To us. We would like direction from you on what
you would consider reasonable.
CHAIRMAN: OK. Can you give us, on the inside of the bulkhead
there, where the porch, where the bulkhead makes the return. Can
Page 16 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
you give us a measurement, so we know what that figure
approximately is? You don't have to do it tonight, you can give us a
call.
DIANE HEROLD: All right, I'll just give her a call and just let
her know.
CHAIRMAN: To the inside of the bulkhead.
DIANE HEROLD: Ok.
CHAIRMAN: All right.
DIANE HEROLD: Excellent, sure thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Have a lovely evening.
MR. HUGH MURPHY: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN: I make a motion recessing the hearing to the next
regularly scheduled meeting.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Could you give a date on that?
CHAIRMAN: October 17. All in favor, aye.
7:52 p.m. Appl. No. 4402 - BARBARA KELLY. Hearing carryover
from 8/21/96 at request of applicant.
CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight?
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Fine.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter. Is there something you'd
like to add to your hearing.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Yes, as opposed to our last hearing, you
gave me some homework.
CHAIRMAN: You gave us a map back.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Pertinent information.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: And this is the lot line, double parcel tax
bills. They weren't here the last time.
CHAIRMAN: Oh, you did do your homework.
Page 17 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Yes, the Assessor's Office was very
accommodating.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: The Tax Maps indicate that there would be
a total of 104 lots on Nassau Farms now.
.MRS. BARBARA KELLY: There are 104 lots on the Nassau Farms
map, that have houses built upon them. The number of vacant lots
remaining to be built upon is 28. Breaking this down still further,
in the orange portion of the map, there are nine sections of property
owners who hold the same ownership lot, accounting for 15 parcels.
So although there are 28 vacant lots, only 13 are lots able to be
built upon at this present time. I know that one of these sections
of adjoining lots have been positioned for a merger because of it's
location on Little Creek, making it mandatory for it's size and
location to be merged. That leaves eight sections, 13 lots remaining
that have been effected by the merger law.
My request for waiver does not in any way veer from the
character of the community in which I reside. There is no
peculiarity and my lots are normal in size. It is a close knit
neighborhood, esthetically appealing. The lots were created by Deed
before June 30, 1983 as part of an old subdivision conforming to
minimal lot requirements, set forth in both Schedule AA at the
time. Parcel #1 my house, the original deed goes back to 146.
Parcel #2, the lot 1954.
The land will not require change or alteration in contour
or slopes, or substantial filling of land. The land is approximately
the same level on each lot. The waiver will not result in a
significant increase of the density of the neighborhood. I only
requested a single family dwelling, and yes the Waiver could hold
security for me against economic hardship. My hearts desire is to
keep the property separate and in tack, as part of my Estate
Planning for my children. They were all born and raised here, even
though it's becoming expensive to keep residence here.
Perhaps the two separate parcels could help it to be more
affordable for them in the future. In 1973 I became a single parent
of four children, ages three, six, nine and eleven years of age.
They were very challenging years, with much sacrifice. I am pleased
to say that all of my children were able to work their way through
College. I have a Teacher and a Physical Therapist who went
through Stony Brook. My youngest Son went to the Coast Guard
Academy, and last Friday he did his first solo flight in a small jet
airplane.
My third Son, third born Son graduated from Suffolk.
Before he left home, he devoted himself over a period of several
years, to repairer's and improving my home inside and out.
Painting, electrical, new roof, plumbing, landscaping. Everything he
Page 18 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
• Southold Town Board of Appeals
could possibly think of and more, so that my life would be easier and
more enjoyable. My oldest daughter married a local boy, and they
have two youngsters, and would love to reside here, but instead, are
nine hour's away upstate because they can't afford it here. I see
them once and sometimes twice a year.
Their ties are strong to this area for all of my children,
just a separate house lot and buildable lot, could help make it
affordable for a couple of them one day. My line of work is that of
caring for the elderly. I live from week to week on my salary and
then I'll have an additional burden of mortgage payments to Mr. Kelly
for the purchase of our marriageable property in January of 1996. I
have no Health Insurance and my bank account consists only of
monies I'm saving towards my next tax bill. Yes, the Waiver could
possible avoid economic hardship.
I too was born and raised here. I love my home and this
area. I make every effort to pay my taxes on time, and I would like
to be able to remain here and maintain my home. I do not choose to
diminish my property value by eliminating my buildable lot. The
lot merger would significantly diminish my property value. For
example let's say., my house and property together are worth
$150,000.00. Separately, the house could be worth $140,000.00, and
the lot alone worth $50,000.00, a difference of $40,000.00 is quite
substantial and I believe grossly unfair.
Leaving the vacant lot buildable would allow me the
option to sell, should I ever be in need or possibly for retirement.
Though this would be a last resort scenario. Nonetheless, it does
represent a monumental financial security to me. My vacant lot
parcel #2, has always been and continues to be referred to as
the lot by our family. It has always been a separate place, as
distinguished as our backyard. The lot was always a hot dry piece
of property, sometimes mowed down, sometimes not. We have planted
fruit trees upon it.
The children have used it for games of baseball,
volleyball, etc. . We made a point of never erecting a building on
it, because of it's separate lot entitlement and tax base. A divider
of three huge cedars remain to separate the property, planted by
original owner's. We have further separation from the lot, to the
row of lilac bushes, until a young maple tree shot up and took over,
shading them out. My parents both passed away a few years ago,
and we brought up some bushes and flowers from their saleable
property and have planted them on the lot. We store our boats on
the lot, and we have a dog run on it.
I see in the local paper, that the Senko home, my
neighbors in the back, has been sold and the lot has a" for sale"
sign on it. I understand that the families of Senko on Sterling
and Kilduff on Bittersweet, were both granted waiver's, and that
their original property lines were reinstated. I am pleased for them
that their goals were attained, which is a fair request. I believe
Page 19 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
we have similar and identical situation here, and that the Senko's
property is two, were held in common ownership. Their's from
1990. I believe our lots to be similar in size as well.
In all fairness and equity I make request for that same
entitlement to my property. Regarding Kilduff on Bittersweet, I
believe they have similar lot size and they too have been in common
ownership, deeded from 1958 which was even seven years before
mine. I have done my homework. I don't have monies to hire an
Attorney so I represent myself. I have submitted my Deeds, my
Survey, my single and separate tax bills and assessments, issued by
Southold Town for over a 30 year period, clearly laying out two
separate tax parcels.
I have submitted neighborhood letters of support and
approval all around stating, waiver would be beneficial to me and at
the same time enhance the neighborhood. I have submitted a friend's
personal letter of encouragement. I have contacted the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services, starting an application process
for approval. I believe the County will recognize the lots shown
separately on County's Tax Maps. T have submitted the necessary
keys. I have submitted a review of History of land use, and History
of land and intended use. I have researched to the best of my
ability and I would like to finalize without alot of cost. Does
anyone have any questions?
CHAIRMAN: The Senko lots were which lots?
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: The Senko.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, of the new Tax Map that you gave us.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Senko was 10 and 11.
CHAIRMAN: 10 and 11.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Ten is the lot.
CHAIRMAN: Ok, we'll start again with Mr. Doyen.
MEMBER DOYEN: No
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora, do you have any questions of Mrs.
Kelly?
MEMBER TORTORA: No
CHAIRMAN: Ok, Mr. Dinizio?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa?
Page 20 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
• Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER VILLA: Well, as you know I wasn't in complete agreement
on the Senko's approvals either. But the - thing that upset me is.
In doing your homework here, you're saying, there are only 28
vacant lots, 15 of which are owned by adjacent properties Which
basically means we can have 15 more applications before us here, for
the same relied.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: That's true.
MEMBER VILLA: Now, how can you say it's not going to increase
density, if that's what it's going to lead to.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: I'm saying that it fits well into the
neighborhood because that's what the original map had planned out,
this size, and there are lots this size built on, and it's not too
dense. The area has alot of character because of it.
MEMBER VILLA: Well, _ it has character because of the way it
exists. You're talking about 28 homes in there that might not be the
exact same character.
MRS. BARBARA BELLY: Well no, the character will change
somewhat, but I don't believe it will be too dense.
MEMB ER VILLA: You're also saying that this will enhance the
neighborhood. How will building another house enhance the
neighborhood, rather than a vacant area which has a nice vista. I
mean, you maintain it. It looks nice. How can a house make a
difference in approvement?
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Houses enrich a neighborhood if you keep
them up nicely and I do.
MEMBER VILLA: Well, ok. I have no other questions.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. While you're there, thank you very much.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: I'm not through, I have more.
CHAIRMAN: OK, go ahead.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Are there remaining obstacles to my vacant
lots being reinstated, as buildable. You know, are there obstacles
that i can overcome, in order to reinstate it? I ask vou.
CHAIRMAN: Well, I think we have to make a decision on what the .
minimum lot size we want to create down there. If we avant to create
it: to a waiver; and that's an issue that we're wrestling with at this
particular point, and that's the only thing I can say to you at this
poiri t, all right. I had certain qualms about the Senko
application, and I have a similar situation here. Of course; '_snowing
that there are 15 other waiver's that could come before us; we have -..
to drawer the line and find out where exactly we're going to drawer
Page 21 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
the line in reference to minimum square footage. Are we going to
drawer it on the property line, or are we going to say, there's just
not enough property to create a second lot at this point. I don't
know what the answer is at this point. You're certainly welcome to
listen to the deliberation tonight, assuming we get to it.
Everything we do is in public. We're not talking behind anybody's
back. So we are going to continue this process. It's a learning
experience for us for this subdivision, but the waiver's themselves
have been learning experiences. We've only clone them for a short
period of time. I'm not trying to be evasive or any other way. I
know how important this is to you, and I don't take it lightly.
MRS. BARBARA BELLY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Honestly I don't.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN: When it effects people lives, you can't. You cannot
take it lightly.
MEMBER VILLA: Jerry I do have one other question.
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MEMBER VILLA: I'm sorry. I do have one other question. In your
presentation you said basically, you were looking to get a
disapproval so that in the future, there might be a sale or it might
be for one of your children.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Yes
MEMBER VILLA: Why are you applying for a Health Department
approval for a construct to build?
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Well, I thought that was all part of the
process. 1
MEMBER DINIZIO: It is.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Of adding to my application.
MEMBER VILLA: No it's not.
CHAIRMAN: No, can I just explain. She had to make an application
in order to start the waiver process, ok,
MEMBER VILLA: To the Building Department.
CIAIRMAN: To the Building Department and of course the Building.
Department requires Health Department approval. So she should
really hold up on the Health Department approval. That's what
you're saying.
Page 22 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: ( ) she didn't ask.
MEMBER VILLA: OK, well. She can make an application to the
Building Department without going to the Health Department first. I
mean, that goes without saying.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: They don't advise. The Town
doesn't advise people what's best for them. They decide that.
MEMBER VILLA: Because you just sort of contradicted, ok.
CHAIRMAN: Yes. Go ahead.
MEMBER DININIZO: I listened to you intently, ok and what I get
from your comment is that you had this vacant lot. The kids grew
up knowing that this was a vacant lot next door. You call it the
lot. I know, I grew up with a lot next door, ok. It's actually
still a lot. But only because someone had a little foresight, or
someone heard something during the course of merging lots, that it's
suppose to be John J. Dinizio instead of John Dinizio, and it's
two separate lots. My assumption is, that's probably what you failed
into.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: But certainly you looked at this map I
assuming, when you purchased the land, and you said I'll looked at
all these nice lots, vacant lots whatever they happened to be, and
you had every intention of seeing houses on each and every one of
them, whether or not they were there or not. They were deeded and
approved at some point in time, and you expended at some point in
time that houses would be on those lots.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Yes
MEMBER DINIZIO; Am I (unfinished question) .
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So, all you're really asking us now is, what
you've assumed, all the entire time you've been in this situation.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Exactly.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: The only difference is, this was compounded with the
fact that there was no agreement between you and your ex-husband
for the last 18 or 20 ,years, so therefore there was nothing you could
do anyway.
MRS.- BARBARA KELLY: No, my hands were tied. -
. Page 23 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: Your hands were tied until this year, till 1996.
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Until January.
CHAIRMAN: OK, I'm sorry. Is there anything else?
MRS. BARBARA KELLY: Yes, I just want to finish up here. I now
address each of you, the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider my
request for favor and ask that you grant my petition. You would
wave the merger and recognize the original lot lines of my two
properties, based upon the findings presented at this Public
Hearing. I think back to November 23, 1971 when one acre zoning
was enacted. My husband and I and the family were not even living
here at the time. We returned in 173. I wonder was there
information sent out to us property owner's, that would be effected
by this merger law. Surely had we known, we would have
responded. I choose to support and have confidence in my
Government. I am a patriotic law abiding American citizen.
My property rights I feel have been violated, and I'm
seeking justice. I wonder how many are still out there totally
innocent of how this merger law has effected their properties. It's
as the thief in the night coming in as the family sleeps. Since I
recently purchased our marital properties from Mr. Kelly on January
12, 1996, I immediately changed titles to uncommon ownership.
Myself for the home and myself and my two Sons for the lot, and to
tell you the truth I'm offended by a merger law, that penalizes
common ownership. I was raised with the belief that when two people
marry, the two become one and possession take on joint or common
ownership. Isn't it peculiar that I now am being penalized because
of marriageable property's were held in common ownership at some
time since July 1, 1983.
Is this the offense of which I'm being afflicted by this
penalty. Surely I'm not deserving of such punishment. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to
speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody that would like
to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a
motion closing hearing and reserving decision until later. All in
favor, aye.
8:10 P.M. Appl. No. 4415 - THOMAS BALL. Based upon an
August 21, 1996 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building
Inspector, applicant is requesting a variance under Article XX111,
Section 100-239.413 to locate a deck addition within 75 feet of
bulkhead, at 1890 (W/S) Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold, NY;
County Parcel ID No. 1000-66-2-46, also referred to as Lot 4 on the "
Map of Beixedon Estates," Block 7, filed 1946 with the Suffolk
County Clerk. This parcel contains a nonconforming lot area of
21,071 sq. ft. and has a nonconforming setback from the new
bulkhead, as exists.
Page 24 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey from Peconic Surveyor's
indicating a proposed deck area. It appears to be 45 feet to the
bulkhead, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
and surrounding properties in the area. You are Sir?
MR. THOMAS BALL: Yes, Thomas Ball.
CHAIRMAN: What would you like to tell us?
MR. THOMAS BALL: Just the application to build a deck. The back
of the house when constructed has sliding glass doors, and was
designed for a deck. We just never had the money to proceed with
it. Now we have resources and we'd like to put a deck on the back
of the house.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
MR.. THOMAS BALL: If you want me to elaborate. If there is any
other questions.
CHAIRMAN: It's going to be an open deck?
MR. THOMAS BALL: Linda had mentioned the limited restrictions
they have. Basically it's going to be an open deck. Maybe we'll
screen it in if we can. The use of (unfinished sentence)
CHAIRMAN: The entire deck. The entire deck you'll screen in.
MR. TI-IOMAS BALL: Probably just a small section, I imagine.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: He might have a roof too, right.
A roof with the screen and everything.
MR. THOMAS BALL: A roof. I don't know, you mean like a
structural thing.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, how would you screen it in?
MR. THOMAS BALL: What's that?
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How would you screen it in.
MR. THOMAS BALL: ( ) said that to petition the house, we
wouldn't have to go through this process again, if we ever wanted a
screened in area. I don't know, like a canvas or something. So,
that might be a possibility, or a small section. Certainly not the
whole thing. I mean, an area where you could sit.
CHAIRMAN: You mean, the area where it's greatly retarded into the
house.
MR. THOMAS BALL: Yes.
Page 25 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: On the Westerly side.
MR. THOMAS BALL: At some point, maybe we'd want to do that.
Maybe put in a small screened in area. Immediately, that won't
happen for a couple of years. We don't have the money for that
for sure. Basically, we'd like to put that in, because at that time
I won't have to go through the process again. It's expensive. Just
a simple deck, 15 feet out in the back of the house, and to look at
the (unfinished sentence) . When we did the bulkhead, the deck is
actually further away form the water than all the other pools and
obstacles, the decks and pools in the rest of the neighborhood in
terms of ( ) . You have a diagram, and we're actually
further back from everybody else, in this proposal.
CHAIRMAN: OK, we'll start with Mr. Doyen.
MEMBER DOYEN: I don't have any questions.
CHAIRMAN: OK, Mrs. Tortora.
MEMBER TORTORA: When I visited the property and maybe the
wind blew it down, but it wasn't posed.
MR. THOMAS BALL: Oh, when did you visited, today? It must
have, the rain, it was raining hard yesterday. I noticed it and it
had gotten all wet in the fog. I had it up since the enforce.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I need you to sign a affidavit for
the sign. We couldn't, we didn't have it.
MR. THOMAS BALL: I did, I gave it.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You did.
MR. THOMAS BALL: I left it at your office.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I couldn't find it in your file.
MR. THOMAS BALL: Notarized affidavit. I did, I did drop it off.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK.
MEMBER TORTORA: And when I when out to the property, it's a
very large deck. There was no posing stakes in the ground. So I
tried to imagine.
MR. THOMAS BALL: Why it's basically, it's a square deck. It's
going to be ( ) in the back of the house, the lumber, because
of the long sliding glass doors, you can almost see a straight line.
MEMBER TORTORA: And you're requesting a variance to be with,
from 75 feet to the bulkhead to be 45 feet ( ) .
Page 26 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold 'Town Board of Appeals
MR. THOMAS BALL: Well, just to mark it off. They wanted to know
the actual distance from the bulkhead now, so I just measured it
all. Fifteen from the house would make this 45 figure, the final
distance from the bulkhead.
CHAIRMAN: So right now, you're approximately 60, at it's closest
point.
MR. THOMAS BALL: Right.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If we're going to have to straighten that out,
which way you want it.
MR. THOMAS BALL: Well no, it's going to be straight. It's going
to go 15 feet to the back of the house, and line with the house.
MEMBER DINIZIO: But will that actually get you 45 feet to
(unfinished sentence) .
MR. THOMAS BALL: To it's narrowest point. To the closest point
to the water is 45 feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO Because you know, you built it out and you end
up 44 feet, you're going to have trouble.
MR. THOMAS BALL: I know.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We have to figure which way you want to word
it.
MR. THOMAS BALL: No, I measured it and it measures 45 feet.
CHAIRMAN: Regardless of what you have on the plan, it's got. to
be a straight line, exclusive of the steps.
MR. THOMAS BALL: Right, right. That's what it is.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Almost 30 square feet of step
area.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, but I mean.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's very ( ) everyone's
talking at once.
CHAIRMAN: You can use up, you can use up 30 square feet very
easily though.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: If it's over 30 square feet, then
you have to include the steps in the setback.
Page 27 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. THOMAS BALL: Oh no, we just going small, nothing
elaborate. It's not the set of steps, ( )not an
involved thing.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, all right.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
MR.. THOMAS BALL: Fifteen feet out, right to the house.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa.
MEMBER VILLA: Well I look at this, and it sounds simple, but
you're looking at a deck that's 61.3 feet long.
MR. THOMAS BALL: Well what it does, it keeps the traffic off the
back lawn area. Right now, everything over the back yard, and if
you look at other properties adjacent to us, all of them have decks
bigger than ours, and pools and everything, and other (unfinished
sentence) . You can see the diagram, that's an active diagram.
MEMBER VILLA: Yes, I looked at the diagram, and I looked at the
house next door to you. You look like you're sticking out, well in
front of that house.
MR. THOMAS BALL: No, no, it's not.
MEMBER VILLA: You do, and even the sketch shows it, and the
retaining wall actually juts out, so that it's going away from the
houses, as you go down the line.
MR. THOMAS BALL: Their pool is closer to the water, than this
deck will be. Alot closer.
MEMBER VILLA: You know, basically we're here to grand relief, but
generally one of the things you're looking for is minimal relief.
Now, the way your house sticks out here, on the left hand side, as
you're looking at it from the water.
MR. THOMAS BALL: Right.
MEMBER VILLA: You have a protrusion there that comes out 13 feet,
and it's 16 feet wide. Most people would look at it, 16 by 13 foot
deck, as being an ample deck.
MR. THOMAS BALL: Well.
MEMBER VILLA: Square that off in there, you wouldn't be coming
any closer to the water than what you already are. But you want to
come out another 15 feet, and go across the whole house. So, what's
the square footage of this deck?
r
Page 28 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. THOMAS BALL: Well, from the closest point to the water, the
deck is going to be 15 feet wide, and basically the whole idea is to
keep the traffic on the deck and away from the backyard area. I
would thing that (unfinished sentence) .
MEMBER VILLA: Well, what do you have, a marching band I mean?
MR. THOMAS BALL: Oh no, it's (unfinished sentence) . Many
people have decks as big. As a matter of fact, the neighbor two
house down, has previously had a deck this size. It's common. Just
to wrap the back, the house was designed to have a wrap around
deck in the back. They're all sliding glass doors, and that's the
way it was designed. Unfortunately, we never had the money to do
it, so we never pushed it. I just let it go, and my wife said, we
have to get this thing done. I didn't want to piecemeal. I just
wanted to keep the cost down, and get one simple deck out.
MEMBER VILLA: Why the square footage of it?
MR. THOMAS BALL: The beach, it's not that far out actually.
There is alot of property left, I mean, that I never going to
touch. The houses on it, a weird shaped lot, you can tell, it's like
a pie shaped. I would have loved to set this house back closer, but
you really couldn't get a house on this lot. We tried, and actually
we reduced the size of the house and re-angled the house. Very
difficult when we built this house to begin with, to get it to fit
this unusual shaped lot. And you wanted to keep it as far back as
you could, so that was the problem.
CHAIRMAN: OK, the only question I have is, with the enclosure. If
you're going to physically put a roof.
MR. THOMAS BALL: No, I'll never have a structured roof, never.
All we'll ever do, is have one of those canvas things. You know, I'd
never go for a (unfinished sentence) .
CIAIRMAN: But that's still a roof. I'm talking about, if you're
talking about an enclosure similar to what they build in Florida, or
around patio's area, or around swimming pools, with no physical roof,
it's all screened, that's not a problem. But if it has, if it has a
canvas roof, it's still a roof.
MR. THOMAS BALL: Then leave it out. Leave it as a screened in
area. I mean, this is something that I probably will never do. This
is just an idea, that we said we'd cover all bases, and it's so
difficult to go through the process, we'll probably never do that.
Well, ok just put screened in, and whatever.
CHAIRMAN: Or no roof.
MEMBER VILLA: You're not following How are you going to put
up screened walls and not have a roof.
4 a
Page 29 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR.THOMAS BALL: You can't even put a canvas over it?
MEMBER VILLA: That did he said?
MR.. THOMAS BALL: Oh, then leave it off, if it's going to effect
your decision, then leave it off. It's not a big thing to me. It's
something I'll never do. But this deck is something, my wife is
going to be really be disappointed if I don't get it. We've been
waiting 10 years for this thing.
CHAIRMAN: OK
MR. THOMAS BALL: I've got to get this thing going, and I don't
think I'm asking alot. 15 feet from the back of the house, you
have the whole rest of the property , that's never going to be used
basically.
CHAIRMAN: OK, let's see what developes throughout the hearing.
Thank you Mr. Ball. All right. Is there anybody else that would
like to speak in favor of this hearing? Is there anybody that would
like to speak against it? Hearing no further, yes Sir. Could you
just state your name for the record.
MR. ED WILLIAMS: What's so absurd about the man wanting to build
a deck.
CHAIRMAN: I didn't say anything, that was.
MR. ED WILLIAMS: And all the deliberations.
CHAIRMAN: Can I just answer your question. Can I just answer
your question first. I need your name for the record.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Ed Williams.
CHAIRMAN: When this 75 foot restriction was placed in the code, we
are aware that there were existing houses. In fact, I informed
member boards, that there were existing houses, that could never
meet the setback requirement. This particular house happens to be a
relatively new house. What we are trying to do is minimize the
impact of the deck. That is all we're trying to do. There is no one
here to my knowledge, and I'm not speaking to my other four fellow
board members, that are trying to eliminate this gentlemen from
having a deck. I assure you Mr. Williams, ok, it's just that the
code reads 75 feet, he is saying 45 feet. That was, I assume one of
the reasons why Mr. Villa asked the question. Is that correct Mr.
Villa?
MEMBER VILLA: Yes, plus the fact that, you know, we're charged
with giving relief where it's reasonable, but they always say, your
supposed to give minimal type relief. Is this the minimal that is
absolutely necessary? That is the question.
Page 30 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR.. THOMAS BALL: Well, that's (unfinished sentence) . What do you
do? You go a small deck and the whole house was designed to have
decks, and I don't know how you could possible do a partial deck on
this. The whole thing is laid out form, with the sliding glass doors
going all the way across the back. I actually see, actually making
(unfinished sentence) . If your asking any of my neighbors. They
happen to live in the City and they love the idea. They have been
waiting for this thing. It's going to make the neighborhood look
nice, and it actually keeps the traffic away from, when you have
picnic's and what not. You keep it away from the water area. This
is where you want to keep. Keep the traffic away from the water.
You would think that this is something that you would want, and it's
not really asking for alot. I don't think it's imposing on the
environment in any way, or the Town's restrictions. There is a
bulkhead there, and I don't see, if anything, it make the whole area
look nicer. I mean, my neighbors are thrilled. Obviously, they are
in New York City so they can't come tonight. Both my neighbors
live in New York City and ( ) . Actually all my three. One
lives in Garden City, we count that as part of the City.
So that's why they can't make it. They are strongly in favor of
this. It will finally make the back area of my house look
presentable. It's been looking sloppy for eight years now. The only
reason I waited again, is strictly the( ) cost. This will
help keep my cost down, by doing the project all at once. To try
and keep coming back, and do it piecemeal. I figured, I don't want
to do that either. It's an expensive proposition, to build a deck
that happens to be the length of the house, 15 feet out. I thought
15 feet, that would be a good size, because that's the length of a
standard size joist.
.CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. THOMAS BALL: And that's not really that long.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
MEMBER VILLA: I asked you several time and I didn't get an
answer. What's the square footage of this deck?
MR. THOMAS BALL: We gave that out, I don't have it now. It's
60 by 15, what's that.
MEMBER VILLA: It's more than 15 because you're filling in the
voids too.
MR. THOMAS BALL: OK, if you want to add that in too.
MEMBER TORTORA: 1.6 plus 13. 16 plus 13 by 2 .
CHAIRMAN: Why don't you let him calculate it, and come back to us.
MR. THOMAS BALL: I have to come back. I don't have all, your
right. There's an indentation at the far end of the house. The way
Page 31 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
it's laid out, it's going to look neat actually. Like a nice clean
line. If you start breaking it off at the top of the deck, it's
actually going to look sloppy, if you do it that way. This will be
the last ( ) I come .
CHAIRMAN: 'I'm going to close the hearing. Bruce, Mr. Anderson
kindly gave you, so come back and give us a figure. All right,
thank you. Hearing no further comment I make a motion closing the
hearing, pending the receipt of the square footage of the deck.
Thank you. I need a second.
MEMBER DINIZIO Second.
CHAIRMAN: All in favor, aye.
7:37 p.m. Appl. No. 4411 - Swim-King Pools, Inc. for
JONATHAN and MARGARET STERN. Based upon a June 19, 1996
Notice of Disapproval applicant is requesting a variance under
Article 111, Section 100-33 to locate an accessory swimming pool with
fence enclosure, all located in the front yard area on this corner
lot. Setbacks are established in a front yard area on non-waterfront
parcels only by, the Board of Appeals, if allowed by variance.
Location of Property: Situate along Birds Eye Road a private road
off the north side of the Main Road, and situate along the southerly
side of another private right-of-way, Orient, NY; County Tax Map
Parcel #k1000-17-2-1.13 (known as Lot 2 and part of 5, Stern's
Subdivision Map (10/1/93)
CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a sketch of the survey, indicating the
approximate placement of the pool, which is almost dead center from
the road there. It's approximately 82 feet from the Hanson property,
40 feet from Birds Eye Road extension, 85 feet from the house, and
approximately 218 feet from the southerly. It's really easterly
properly line. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding property in the area. Is there
someone here representing the Stern's? How are you tonight Madam?
State your name.
MS. JANE COCHRAN: I'm Jane Cochran.
CHAIRMAN: I need you to sign this confirmation of posting.
MS. JANE COCHRAN: I have it.
CHAIRMAN: Oh you do, thank you, thank you so much. What can
you add to the hearing , so that we may understand this?
MS. JANE COCHRAN: Well, 'the way the house is situated on the
property, and we didn't realize that, what we thought was the side
yard, is actually the front yard. So our side yard actually has a
farm in it, and the back yard is the grape yard in Orient. That's
our reason for asking for a variance.
c . ,
Page 32 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
• Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: OK, the pool is 16 by 32. It is not enclosed, it is
completely open.
MS. JANE COCHRAN: Other, than a fence.
CHAIRMAN: Other than a fence, ok. Let's start with Mr. Doyen.
Any questions of this lady?
MEMBER DOYEN: No.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora.
MEMBER TORTORA: No, I have no questions.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio.
MR. DINIZIO: No
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa.
MEMBER VILLA: No, I just , was a little dismayed to find that it
hadn't been staked out, so you basically have to go out there, and
envision where this pool was going to be.
MS. JANE COCHRAN:' The pool itself. Well, it had been marked
earlier, but I didn't know that we should have staked it.
CHAIRMAN: OK. Are you going to put a deck in area around the
pool in any way?
MS JANE COCHRAN: No
CHAIRMAN: OK, so therefore the 90 feet will hold (unfinished
sentence) .
MS. JANE COCHRAN: I'm saying no. Could you tell me please what
that would mean?
CHAIRMAN: Well, you're going to raise the grade of the pool
enough, to create either a deck with some sort of mosaic slate, or
are you going to put a wooden deck around it?
MS. JANE COCHRAN: I'm not going to , put a wooden deck around
it.
CHAIRMAN: So maybe, ground level.
MS. JANE COCHRAN: Absolutely, it will be.
CHAIRMAN: OK, all right.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I just wanted to ask her. Are
you with Swim King Pools?
c
• Page 33 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
• Southold Town Board of Appeals
MS. JANE COCHRAN: That's right.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK.
CHAIRMAN: Let's just see what developes throughout the hearing,
and we'll let you know. Thank you.
MS. JANE COCHRAN: Very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor
of this application? Anybody like to speak against the
application? Hearing no further comment, does anybody have any
particular problem. Would you like to offer a resolution on this
application, since the pool is dead center on the lot more than
likely, or would you like to hold it off?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'll move it.
CHAIRMAN: Ok, make the motion.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I move it that we grant it as applied.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No deck I guess. You have the information
there.
CHAIRMAN: And (unfinished sentence) .
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: With fence enclosure.
MEMBER DINIZIO Well that's normal.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's normal anyway.
CHAIRMAN: Do you want to second that Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: All in favor, aye.
8:29 p.m. Appl. No. 4414 - DONNA IGLESIAS WEXLER:
Based upon an August 21, 1996 Notice of Disapproval issued by the
Building Inspector, applicant is requesting variances under the Bulk
Area Schedule, Article 111A, Section 100-30A.3 for approval of Lots 1
and 2 as proposed, each with insufficient lot width to the new
division line and insufficient side yard setbacks ' from existing
dwellings. Each lot is proposed to contain a minimum of 40,000 sq.
ft. as required in the R-40 Residential Zone District. Location of
Property: 8335 Main Road (Route 25) , East Marion, NY; County
Parcel ID #1000-31-2-32.1.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Mrs. Wexler is a client of mine.
Page 34 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And I will not be voting on this application.
CHAIRMAN: OK. I have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick
Van Tuyl pc, indicating these two parcels, indicating 1.0 acre's
for each one of them indicated on the survey, lots # 2 and # 3. Lot
#2 being the Westerly lot, and lot #3 being the Easterly lot, both
containing houses that are existing. I have a copy of a Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding property in the
area. How are you tonight?
DONNA WEXLER.: I'm all right.
CHAIRMAN: OK
DONNA WEXLER: Would you like me to explain.
CHAIRMAN: Sure. Donna could you just pull that down, so we get
you on tape?
DONNA WEXLER: This started out as a lot line change, and
everything was going fine until I got to the Board of Health. When
the Board of Health looked they said, we want the two houses
separated. Well, I looked at my Tax Map and I said, not a problem.
It showed in the Tax Map and they said, that's great. Well, I had
this little kind of wedge on my Tax Map, and it showed one house.
So, what they asked me to do was, go and get a Certificate of Title.
So I went to them and they said to me, oops, that really doesn't
belong there. I said, what do you mean oops? They said, that's
really the store in East Marion. So then we went back to Van
Tuyl, and Van Tuyl went and did quite a bit of (unfinished
sentence) . Did you get the papers to show the research that he
did?
CHAIRMAN: Let's see what I have.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Everything is in there.
CIIAIRMAN: I think everything is in there.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: If you gave it to us, it's in our
file.
DONNA WEXLER: I have another one here. He had a whole
survey and found out, that the Tax Map was indeed wrong. So the
Board of Health said, now we really want to have two separate
acre's, with 40,000 square feet each. And I said, that's OK with me,
I really didn't care. But he also went and was able to find an
original, where the farm was divided into 3 spots, and that both
houses were divided originally, and they were on separate lots, and
this was just a matter of going back and looking at the Tax Map.
This parcel in fact that I thought was a. parcel, isn't a parcel.
Page 35 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
• Southold Town Board of Appeals
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: What a story.
DONNA WEXLER: So then I went back to the Planning Board, and
I said, I didn't know what to do. So Melissa was wonderful. So I
said Melissa, drawer me whatever you want, and it will be fine with
me. So Melissa sat down with everybody, and they came up with the
map that you're looking at tonight. They said, they wanted to map
something like this, so that people could put swimming pools on it,
and whatever else they wanted to do, and I said fine. My main thing
was to keep the farm the way it is, so that the two farmers can
farm, and then the houses would-be separate.
Well now, everybody's got 40, one whole acre each, and
the farm is settled. There isn't going to be, because I have to call
the Highway Department, and they said no problem, because there
isn't going to be an extra driveway added. It will just be an
easement onto the back so that they can get to the barn. Actually,
it will probably be the same line that it was, just extended so that
there is more property. Everybody can have their swimming pools,
whatever they would like to have in the back. The farmers can still
farm, and the other thing is, the Board of Health is happy. They
are happier now then they were before. I've submitted everything,
and everything should pass by tomorrow through the Board of
Health. The 16 acre's that are left are being purchased by the Water
Authority.
CHAIRMAN: OK, go ahead.
DONNA WEXLER: The good part is. The Water Authority is going
to be up in the back near the woodland, and he said the farmers can
still farm, as long as they don't use any bad pesticides. So this is
wonderful, because Walter Geico wanted me to go back, and give
another subdivision. But now I'm hoping that maybe we can work it
out, after I got this, maybe I can get it through the Water
Authority, to give him land too, so that he can have that permanent
CHAIRMAN: OK, the right-of-way that you're referring to was over
lot #2.
DONNA WEXLER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN: Which is the only width that you have between the
buildings, that you can get to the rear of lot #1.
DONNA WEXLER: No, no, no. It's on the West side.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's what I got.
DONNA WEXLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN: I'm showing it there.
Page 36 - September 19; 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
DONNA WEXLER: Where it says driveway.
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DONNA WEXLER: There's a driveway there already. Right.
CHAIRMAN: OK, that's the one. All right, sounds good. Mr.
Villa, questions.
MEMBER VILLA: Yes, you confused me. You're talking about
getting back to lot #1. That fronts on Rocky Point Road.
CHAIRMAN: I meant lot #3. Pardon me.
MEMBER VILLA: That fronts on the main road.
CHAIRMAN: Right, well that's the only width, that's the only place
she has the width to have the driveway, to get to lot #3.
DONNA WEXLER.: That's going to be there. Nothing is going to
change.
MEMBER VILLA: All right. So basically there is going to be a
right-of-way over that lot, for the other one, for the car?
DONNA WEXLER: Just like it is now.
MEMBER VILLA: OK, I lost you for a minute.
CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, I apologize.
DONNA WEXLER: And what's nice is that the farmland will stay
farmland. The woodland will stay woodland, and the two houses will
have enough property now for one acre each. The other thing is,
we have to change the Tax Maps, so we don't have any wedges.
CHAIRMAN: OK
DONNA WEXLER: Do you have any questions ?
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRMAN: Oh that's right, I apologize. Mrs. Tortora.
MEMBER TORTORA: ( ), amazing History.
DONNA WEXLER: You know what, it was wonderful. The Planning
Board, when I came back with all the information from the Title
Company and the Board of Health, they were really wonderful. They
were really a great help so, and then they sent me to you.
Page 37 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: Good, ok. Thank you so much.
DONNA WEXLER: Thank you. Is there anything I have to do
more?
CHAIRMAN: No, just sit tight for a minute, and let's see what
developes here.
DONNA WEXLER: OK.
CHAIRMAN: All right. Is there anybody else that would like to
speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against
this application? OK. Does anybody have any problems with this
particular application. Anybody want to offer a Resolution?
MEMBER TORTORA: I will.
MEMBER DOYEN: Second
8:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4413 - J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq. for EVA
MULLINS. Based upon the August 13, 1996 Notice of Disapproval
issued by the Building Inspector, applicant is requesting a waiver
under Article 11, Section 100-26 for a single parcel with a combined
lot area of 31,250+- sf.. The basis of the disapproval is. that this
land area, identified as 1000-77-3-5, 6, 7, was created by deeds
prior to 1983, however, some time after 1983 this land has been, and
is, in common ownership with an adjoining 40,500+- square ft. area
identified as 1000-77-3-15. Location of Subject Property: East
sideof Pine Avenue and Westerly side of private right-of-way at
Goose Bay Estates, Southold, NY; Zone District: R-40 Residential.
CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey indicating everything I just
mentioned, and indicating the house in one corner of it, and a two
story garage. Roderick Van Tyle pc. dated July 24, 19096. I
have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area. Mr. McLaughlin, you've been
very patient. I saw you sitting there.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ. I'm here this evening on behalf of Eve
Mullins whose also here, and on behalf of her 96 year old Mother,
whose also a co-owner of these properties. As the board is probably
well aware, Section under 26 of the Town Code is entitled Waiver of
Merger, and it sets forth a criteria that this board is supposed to
apply in reviewing a Waiver of Merger application, and the criteria
basically are as follows: That the waiver, whether the waiver or
not, will result in a sufficient increase in the density of the
neighborhood. Whether the waiver would recognize the lot that is
consistent with the size of lots, in that neighborhood. Whether the
waiver would avoid economic hardship. Whether the natural details
and character of the contours of the slopes of the lot, will not
significantly be changed or altered in any manner, or there won't be
any substantial filling of the lot, effecting any nearby
environmental flood area's.
Page 38 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
The History of these lots is basically that, lots 30 through
one half of 42, of Goose Bay Estates, were purchased over periods of
time. Lots 33 were first purchase by a Mr. William McDavis, who is
the applicants Uncle. Then it was transferred to her Father in June
of. 1942. Lots 34 through 37 of the Goose Bay Subdivision were
purchased by a separate deed by Mr. McDavid in May of 1947.
Lots 38 through one half of lot 42 of the same Goose Bay subdivision,
were purchased by a separate deed in September of 1946. Then the,
what's commonly referred to by the family is the back lot, which is
Tax Map lot #15, which is not a part of the Goose Bay subdivision,
was purchased by a separate lot in November of 1949.
Presently a house exists on what were lots #38 through one
half of #42, of Goose Bay Estate, which is also known as Tax Map Lot
# 5. Throughout the years, the applicants, the Father and now the
Mother and the Daughter, have had four separate deeds. There have
been four separate Tax Map numbers assigned to these various lots,
and they received separate tax bills over the years, and they have
dutiful paid their taxes. They have always assumed that these lots
had remained separate, but as we've already heard this evening,
unbeknownst to most people, that we're savvy enough or fortunate
enough to be forewarned. When merger came in, the merger doctrine
according to the Town's interpretation, takes all of these lots and
merges them together into one lot, that's in excess of 71,000 square
feet. Almost 72,000 square feet.
If you look at the Tax Map for section 77, you'll see that
if this lot remains merged, it's probably by far the largest lots in
Section 77. Our application tonight is basically to allow the merger
of the front three lots, 5, G, and 7 into one lot, but to not merge
in the over 40,000. square foot rear lot or back lot, which is Tax
Map lot #15. No, there is a complicating factor here. Back some
time age, in addition to the house, a garage was built. It was
always the intention of the applicants that the garage would be on
Lot 5 with the house. In fact, I have submitted to this board, a
survey that purports to show that it was located there. Eve's Mother
is ill. This was her house where she lived. She's no longer able to
live there, and what the family had hoped to do was, to perhaps put
her house up for sale, sell it and use the proceeds of the sale, to
be able to take the necessary health costs that are required for this
elderly lady, and retain a separate vacant lot. They had Van Tuyl
conduct a survey, and when they got the survey, low and behold,
the survey shows that the garage is in fact, partially located on the
rear lot, lot #15.
So frankly what we're hoping to do is make this into a two
way process where, if we can get a waive of the merger of lot 15,
from the other three lots, we would then intend to go to the Planning
Board and ask for a lot line change, that would divide these lots. I
don't have the survey in front of me. Instead of North and South,
Page 39 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
East and West, and vice versa so that, both lots would then have
frontage on ( ) . Some of the neighbors called me. They
were concerned about the use of the right-of-way in the back, if the
back lot was deeded to be separate, and frankly when I told them
that our intention was to take that second step, assuming that we got
a waiver of the merger, and go to the Planning Board. They were
delight that there would then be frontage on Pine Road for both lots.
I think if we look at the criteria that I discussed
earlier in section 126, as it applies to this application, befit all
of the criteria. The waiver merger here won't result in a
significant increase in the density of this neighborhood. You'll end
up with two lots. One with 40,.500. square feet, which is the back
lot, lot 15. The second lot, the front three lots merged together of
31,200. square feet. If you look at the Tax Map you'll see that this
is far, even broken up into two lots, this is far in excess of most
of the lots in that area. What we would be talking about is the
possibility of. someday of an application being made for a house, what
would be the vacant lot. So I don't see that that would be any
significant increase of the density of that neighborhood. In
keeping with that, the waiver would recognize the lot that is
consistent with the size of the lots in the neighborhood.
For example. Lot 16 which is adjacent to lot 15 and was in
fact, a portion of Lot #15 at one point and was deeded out in 1950,
currently owned by Alice Hussey, is an 80 by 150 foot lot,
basically 12,000 square feet. In fact, that's larger than alot of
the lots in the area. As far as avoiding economic hardship, I've got
a letter that I'd like to submit to the board from James Brewer
Realty. Basically what it says is, if you take the whole 70,000 plus
combined lots, with a house on it obviously, the value would be
somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000.00. If in fact, you had
two separate lots, one with the house on it, that would be worth
$170,000.00 and the other vacant parcel would be worth $100,000.00.
So, we've got approximately a $70,000.00 difference in the value of
the lot as one almost two acre lot, versus a house lot and a separate
vacant lot of over 31,000. square feet.
And the final criteria really is, talks about the effects
of the contours and the slopes, and if you been out there, it's
relatively flat parcel, wouldn't require even if someone was to build
on the vacant lot, would not require any significant filling or
anything like that. It wouldn't have any ascertainable effect on any
nearby environmental flood area's. As I said, the intent really is
to hopefully end up with two lots, probably to sell the lot on which
the house is located, in order to be able to take care of Eve's
Mother and her escalating health costs, and to be able to keep the
vacant lot for purposes of the family to be able to utilize in the
future. As I said, both I and one of the applicants is here and we'd
be happy to answer any questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN: What's in the garage Kevin? Is there any apartment in
the garage?
Page 40 . - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. MULLINS: No, there is a second story, but it's for
storage. My Mother had an apartment but she left the apartment,
because she had to have some space to put things.
CHAIRMAN: OK
MRS. MULLINS: And they added the second story.
CHAIRMAN: OK
MRS. MULLINS: There's no water, no nothing.
CHAIRMAN: And you are Eve Mullin.
MRS. MULLIN: Right.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: There is presently no one living on the
premises.
CHAIRMAN: Right. I'm aware of that. All right, we'll start with
Mr. Villa.
MEMBER VILLA: You're saying that your going to go for a lot line
change, to get the lots to run the other way.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: Frankly, . I don't know if we have any
choice, now that we know where the garage is located, because the
garage is partially on, what would be the separate lot, assuming we
got the waiver of the merger. Unless we redrew the lot lines, we
wouldn't be able to do anything with the back lot, lot #15, because
it's already encroached upon by the garage.
MEMBER VILLA: I realize that, you can always move the garage
though. I thought that's what you were going to say. You were
.going to try to sell the one lot, and then as a condition of the
sale, move the garage, then you came out with the other one.
CHAIRMAN: I thought you were going to, excuse me, I just want to
say this. I thought you would say well, I need about 9,000 square
feet to add to the other one or whatever the square footage would
be, just to cause a tee, come around the garage and add it to the
house lot. That's what I thought you were going to do.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: I think frankly it would make more
sense for most people out there, and after discussing it with my
client, I think it would be preferable to having the lots, having
both lots front on the unused road, because that back right-of-way
isn't really used at all. Frankly, that's the way the neighbors
would like to keep it.
1
Page 41 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER VILLA: Have you spoke to the Planning Board at all about
that, because that was my concern. I don't have any problems with
the two lots fronting on Pine Tree. I just don't, I just wonder if
by doing that, you're eliminating somebody's rights to go back
there. The right-of-way is access for the lots, and at some point,
something is going to happen because those people have to get to
their lots.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: We don't own the right-of-way.
MEMBER VILLA: I realize that.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: So we don't have any control over,
other than the fact that we presently have the right to use it, in
order to gain access to the back lot. We clearly wouldn't have no
legal right to, nor would intend to, interfere with anybody's else's
right to use that right-of-way.
MEMBER VILLA: But then the lot line change, you would certainly
be willing to stipulate that there would be no further division of
the land. In other words, I can envision somebody buying it and
then coming in saying, look I front on both streets, and I want to
split this lot in half.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: I don't believe we would have any
trouble with stipulating that, we wouldn't want any further division
of the land.
MEMBER VILLA: That's all my question.
CHAIRMAN: So the land that the lots would be split even to your
knowledge, they would be split even, in reference to square footage.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: Not necessarily.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: If we could get a larger portion on the,
what would then be the vacant lot, that would be our preference, but
then I don't know where that application would go.
CHAIRMAN: The only problem that we have Kevin is, you're asking
us to grant the waiver on improvement that truncates two lots.
That's the only problem that I have.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: I'm not sure what you mean by
truncates.
CHAIRMAN: Well, you have an improvement which lays right dead
center in the middle of the property line, and that's the problem.
That's the only problem that I have. If that was the question, that
was the purpose of the question. Is there anything in the second
story of the garage? We determined no, it's very simply a storage
Page 42 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
building. OK, that's fine, but we're still have an improvement
truncating two lots.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: That's why, frankly why we are telling
•you this evening, because I assumed it was going to be a question,
why we would take that second step.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: To do a lot line change application.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Why don't you make it a condition
of the waiver.
CHAIRMAN: OK
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: As agreed by the applicant.
CHAIRMAN: All right.
MEMBER VILLA: Well after following your thinking to, and I know
where this is going to. If we divide the land evenly, we'd end up
with two lots at 35,875 square feet.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: OK,
MEMBER VILLA: What you're saying is basically you want, the
vacant lot that you're creating, bigger. How much bigger?
MRS. MULLINS: 40,000.
MEMBER VILLA: 40,000.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what he said.
MR,S. MULLINS: 40,000. and 31,250.
CHAIRMAN: So basically you want to create. Mrs. Mullin basically
what you have exactly right now, if we granted a waiver.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Two lots, yes.
CHAIRMAN: Two lots, she wants to keep one. She wants to keep
the house lots smaller, than the lots that's created. That's
basically (unfinished sentence) .
MR.S. MULLIN: I want the house lots and the ( ) put in the
back, and I want to keep the land.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
Page 43 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER TORTORA: So it would be 20,000. square feet.
MRS. Mullins: I have no plans to build, nothing. It hasn't been
built on in 50 years.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
MRS. MULLINS: And in my lifetime it probably won't be. It's a
sentimental thing.
CHAIRMAN: OK. Mr. Dinizio.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: The Town Board can't approve it
without the waiver. You have to have two lots.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Before the Planning Board can
change the lines.
CHAIRMAN: So we would have to make a condition.
MEMBER VILLA: Right.
MEMBER TORTORA: Why don't we just recognize the two lots, the
41,000.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's all we can do.
CHAIRMAN: That's all we can do. We're just asking questions,
that's all.
MEMBER TORTORA: Because you may find later, that you may
want to move the garage.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Move the garage.
MEMBER TORTORA: So that's why I'm not really interested in
making the condition on the lot line change.
MRS. MULLINS: The house is practically sold if this is agreed to.
CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MRS. MULLINS: And the two people very much like the land
behind it, and (unfinished sentence) .
CHAIRMAN: Right, OK.
MEMBER VILLA: That's the way it's going.
MRS. MULLINS: I don't want more land.
Page 44 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
• Southold Town Board of Appeals
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That leaves you more options, you
know.
CHAIRMAN: Jim.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions at all.
CHAIRMAN: Lydia.
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN: Serge.
MEMBER DOYEN: No.
CHAIRMAN: Ok, we'll see what developes throughout the hearing.
Kevin, thank you.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN ESQ: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor?
Anybody like to speak against? Do you want to offer a Resolution?
MEMBER TORTORA: Why • would you, not contingent on the
offer a Resolution as applied for, because that gives them the
freedom to come back and (changed tape) .
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: As long as they do one of the two
options.
MEMBER TORTORA: Did you hear that Jim, Bob?
MEMBER VILLA: Yes, but the thing is, if you grant the two lots,
you're going to have to address the garage.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh, you have to address the subdivision.
CHAIRMAN: That's why we have to address the garage.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's what we're saying. We will do that in
the approval. Either the garage is moved onto the existing lot, or a
lot line change.
MEMBER DINIZIO Right.
MEMBER TORTORA: Either, or.
MEMBER VILLA: OK
MEMBER TORTORA: I don't care.
CHAIRMAN: Ok, who wants to second?
Page 45 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER VILLA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN: All in favor, aye
8:55 p. m. Appl. No. 4416 - A. Reilly & Sons, Inc. for
NANCY E. BUTKUS. Based upon an August 28, 1996 Notice of
Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, applicant is requesting
a. variance under Article 111, Section 100-33 to locate an accessory
swimming pool with fence enclosure in an area other than the
required rear yard at 3855 Mill Lane near Wolf Pit Lake, Mattituck,
NY; County Parcel ID #1000-107-4-3.
CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey indicating a very beautiful
older two story house, and penned in is a swimming pool, showing it
some 30 or 35 feet from the Lane, which is in side yard. Actually
it's in the front yard. A copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr.
Reilly, would you like to be heard?
MR. NORM REILLY: Good evening everyone. I'm here
representing my client Nancy Butkas, whose in the audience right
here. Simply, we have a request to put in a swimming pool in the
front yard of this residence, since it is on a corner lot. As you
can see by the survey provided, that there are numerous cesspools
in the rear yard or small rear yard area that's there. I just gave a
little more information to the Chairman, which I'm sure he passed out
to you. Originally, we had requested 35 foot setback from the Mill
Lane property line. That's the East side of the property.
A little more site work, looking around we found another
cesspool. As you know, years ago people didn't have swimming pools
in mind, and there is another cesspool just to the East of the house,
where the one corner of the pool now is drawn in. So, instead of 35
foot setback from the road, we're asking for 30 foot instead, which
will fit the pool in there. Across the street, there's a nice old
farmhouse there. That is located only 20 feet from the property
line. We're talking from the property line here to Mill Lane, is
probably another eight to ten feet out from the property line, to the
edge of the road. So actually from the road edge, it's more than 30
feet. So, basically that's where we're at.
CHAIRMAN: OK, Mr. Reilly this is an uninclosed swimming pool.
MR. NORM REILLY: Right, there will be no deck around it.
CHAIRMAN: It's going to be ground level.
MR.. NORM REILLY: Ground level.
CHAIRMAN: OK. All right, we'll start with Mr. Doyen.
MEMBER DOYEN: No.
Page 46 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora.
MEMBER TORTORA: When I saw the stake, it is a lovely house by
the way. When I saw the red flagging for it, the flagging had the
pool going where it is indicated on your drawing here. There was
also fencing that came up almost to the side of the house though.
Is that fencing for the pool because I didn't see that?
MR. NORM REILLY: That fence does not meet the code. It's not,
they have an addition on that house there. The fence may go there,
but that fence presently does not meet the code. It's about four
feet high or.
MEMBER TORTORA: Now in other words, I'm sorry. I probably
didn't make myself clear.
CHAIRMAN: Let here drawer this.
MR. NORM REILLY: When did you look at the parcel?
MEMBER TORTORA: Today.
MR. NORM REILLY: Ok, it was staked out two different ways.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes it was.
MR. NORM REILLY: Whichever way the pool goes, depending on
how far the cesspool goes out. It will not go out passed the 30 foot
setback.
MEMBER TORTORA: So you haven't determined at this point,
whether you're going to have it go East to West, or North to South.
MR. NORM REILLY: Chances are it's going to East and West. But
the older cesspools, if you're familiar with them, the brick ones.
Sometimes the old craftsman built them pretty large, and if it's too
large to put the pool in within five feet of it, then we're just
going to have to turn it the other way. But at any rate it's not
going to go out pass the 30 foot setback from the property line.
MEMBER TORTORA: OIL.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa.
MEMBER VILLA: Well, that's sort of what I was going to get to.
Why don't you align the pool the other way, because it 16 by 32, and
you'll pick up 16 feet running it the other way.
Page 47 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: Well, when I was there, I'm not answering the question,
but they're concerned about taking trees out too.
MEMBER VILLA: Well, I look and there didn't seem to be trees
involved.
CHAIRMAN: It's two big trees. One on the (unfinished sentence) .
MEMBER VILLA: It would be West of it. .
MR. NORM REILLY: There's two, two large trees, and they would
like to leave one of them there, so we going to do our best to do
that, so we don't have to take two of them.
MEMBER VILLA: You couldn't align it the other way, going North,
South.
MR. NORM REILLY: Not really, I mean we're going to try, but the
cesspools is going to determine what exactly is going to happen there.
MEMBER VILLA: Couldn't they abandoned that, if they have other
cesspools. You're saying, you have three or four cesspools. If it's
an old (unfinished sentence) .
MR. NORM REILLY: They put an addition on the house, and it's
put into there, and they opt to put a new one in. The piping
around the corner is not the right thing to do with the drain
MEMBER VILLA: I realize that.
MR. NORM REILLY: It would have to go, you know.
MEMBER VILLA: You definitely know that this brick pool is in use.
MR. NORM REILLY: Yes it is. But at any rate, whichever the
way the pool goes, it's not going to go out passed the 30 foot
request.
CHAIRMAN: OK, let's see what developes here. Is there anybody
else that would like to speak?
MR. NORM REILLY: Just as a point of interest.
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. NORM REILLY: I just received the required notices that have
been sent out, but the neighbors have all been contacted by Nancy
and they have a copy of this and there is no objection to the project
or whatever so.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Reilly.
MR. NORM REILLY: Thank you guys.
Page '48 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
• Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in
favor? Anybody like to speak against? Any other questions Ladies.
and Gentlemen? Do you have any objection to it at 30 feet Bob?
MEMBER VILLA: Well, I'd just like to see it maximized, you know. I
didn't see the preview being a problem. Maybe I looked at it wrong
but, no I guess not.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How far from the house?
MEMBER TORTORA: There's one tree that's going to come out
anyway Bob I know. I looked at that.
CHAIRMAN: Moving it Norm, whichever way you intend to built it,
ok, East or West, North or South. What is the closest portion the
swimming pool would be, touching the house a distance?
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Nearer the house?
MR. NORM REILLY: Well, it depends on the cesspool, you
obviously can't go across. That's 10 feet out from the house
CHAIRMAN: OK.
MR.. NORM REILLY: So.
CHAIRMAN: So you're talking at least 15 anyway. OK, all right.
Anybody want to offer a Resolution on this? I'll offer a Resolution
granted as applied for, no closer than 30 feet.
MEMBER TORTORA: No closer than 30 feet.
CHAIRMAN: That is correct. All in favor, aye.
9:03 p.m. Appl. No. 4418 - Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. for
FLORENCE PAVLAK. Based upon the August 27, 1996 Notice of
Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, applicant is requesting
a Waiver under Article 11, Section 100-26 for a parcel containing a
total lot area. of 25,000 +- sq. ft. The, basis of the Disapproval is
although this lot was approved by subdivision of the Town Planning
Board March 11, 1970, that between July 1, 1983 and April 14, 1985,
this lot, identified as 1000-107-1-5.2 was held in common ownership
with an adjoining lot, identified as 1000-107-1-5.1. Street Address:
3755 Grand Avenue, Mattituck, N.Y.
CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey prepared by Donald A.
Malm land surveyor indicating 24,245 square feet. is the creation
of the waiver lot we talking about. I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the
Page 49 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
area. Mr. Olsen, how are you tonight? It's been a long time. We
haven't seen you in a while.
MR. GARY OLSEN: Good evening. My name is Gary Olsen and
I'm an Attorney representing the petitioner Florence Pavlak. My
office is located at Main Road, Cutchogue. At the outset, I'd would
like to make it clear to this board, that the vacant lot in question
is a recognized true lot, created by the Southold Town Planning
Board on March 12, 1970. It was a recognized valid non-conforming
building lot, under the Southold Town Zoning Code, section 100-31
until December 26, 1995. When the minor sub-division was approved
by the Southold Town Planning Board in 1970, the zoning code
allowed quarter acre's parcel sizes. This lot is .58 acre's in size.
Florence Pavlak has been the sole owner of this vacant
parcel, since April of 1985, and has owned no other contiguous
property in her name alone since 1985. The description contained in
the Deed conveying the vacant lot to Florence Pavlak recorded in
Liber 9807 Page 375, dated April 19, 1985 gives the exact description
for the vacant parcel approved by the Planning Board, and none of
the lot lines are different or modified from the lot line shown on
the approved minor subdivision map. The applicant. is not seeking to
have the Board of Appeals change or modify the lot lines approved
by the Planning Board.
There was never any intention on the part of
Mrs. Pavlak, to abandoned or give up this vacant lot as a building
parcel. In fact, in order to protect this lot as a building parcel,
the title was transferred solely into her name in April of 185. At
anytime from the approval of the Planning Board in 1970 to December
of 1995, when Section 100-31 was removed and replaced by a new
Section 100-24 and 100-25 and Section 100-244 was modified, the
Building Department upon application of Florence Pavlak or any
successor in interest of Mrs. Pavlak, would have granted a building
permit. I have verified this in talking to the Building Department
myself.
The lot as well as the house parcel, were in separate
ownership on the effective date of the new local merger law.
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that there was and could be
no merger when the new law was enacted, since Mrs. Pavlak owned
no contiguous property as of the date of the new merger law. The
new merger law retroactively, makes buildable lots, that were in
single and separate ownership, prior to December of 195
unbuildable, without first applying for a waiver of merger from
the Zoning Board, despite the fact that up into December of 195, the
Zoning Code in Section 100-31 specifically permitted the Building
Department to grant building permits for non-conforming lots created
on a minor subdivision, approved by the Planning Board prior to May
20, of 1993. It is respectfully submitted that in situations such as
this, this new merger law contradicts the prior zoning code.
Page 50 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
• Southold Town Board of Appeals
Unfortunately, the present local merchant law, adopted in
December of 195, which discontinued the former allowance of
non-conforming lots on a subdivision, which remains in common
ownership, does not contain provisions which allow the Building
Department to vary from the strict language of the code, and
therefore a Notice of Disapproval was issued by Gary Fish of the
Building Department. Again, I wish to stress to this board, that up
into the enactment of Section 100-24 and 100-25 in December of 195,
this lot which has been owned in single and separate ownership by
Mrs. Pavlak since 1985, would have been granted a building permit
for the construction of a single family residence, pursuant to
Section 100-31. In fact, a building permit would have been issued
whether or not Mrs. Pavlak owned any any contiguous property,
which in fact she has not since 1985.
Although I do not agree that there has been any merger of
the house parcel and the vacant lots, since they were both in
separate ownership, from the effective date of the new merger law in
December '95, the new law does permit the Zoning board, if in fact
there is a. merger to waive same and sets forth four criteria that the
board should consider in determining whether or not a waiver of
merger should be issued. The waiver application submitted by Mrs.
Pavlak, . and already before this board, addresses each of the
criteria.. I will briefly summarize why I feel the board .should issue
a. waiver, based on the standard set forth in your '( )
First: There will be no significant increase in the
density of the neighborhood. The granting of a waiver will simply
recognize, that the vacant lot can be built upon for one house, which
is hardly a significant increase in density. There are presently
houses also, on either side of this vacant parcel.
Second: The law is consistent with the size of other lots
in the neighborhood. In a review of the Suffolk County Tax Map
reflex's that, Lot 4.1 immediately to the Northeast of the vacant
parcel, is consistent with the size and shape of Mrs.Pavlak's lot.
As is 5.1 to the Southwest, and the vacant lot is generally in
keeping with the other lots in the area, such as on Knollwood,
Woodcliff, Westview Drive and Mayflower Road. In an effort to
show lots of similar size and shape of the Pavlak lot, as it
approached from the South, going North on Grand Avenue, I'm
submitting as part of this application, colored ' Tax Maps designated
as Exhibit 1. I have highlighted in pink ink, on the Suffolk County
Tax Map, those lots on the East and West side of Grand Avenue, that
are generally in keeping with the size and shape of the Pavlak
parcel. I have highlighted in orange the Pavlak lot, and I will
submit that Exhibit to you right now.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
GARY OLSEN ESQ: A review of the highlighted Tax Map, shows
that there are a fair number of parcels on Grand Avenue,
approaching the Pavlak lot, that are in character and consistent
with the size and shape of Mrs. Pavlak's lot. Said Tax Map speaks
for itself, and in effect to save time, I will not take the time to
Page 51 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
read each of the blocked and lot numbers on the map, and the size of
each parcel.
Third: The waiver will avoid economic hardship. As stated
in the application, Mrs. Pavlak believing that her lot was
buildable, and could not be subject to any merger law, since she
owned no contiguous parcels in December of 195. She entered into a
contract through a Real Estate Broker, to sell the lot for
$50,000.00. The purchases obtained the services of an Attorney,
applied for a mortgage which was granted, obtained a Title search,
made application to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services,
which approved his parcel for construction of a single family
residence. The board has a copy of the Health Department approved
survey, in the file. They installed a test well, at the request of
the Health Department. Obtained the'services of the builder, for the
preparation of plans, only to be advised by the Building Department,
that it could not, because of the strict language of the new local
merger law, adopted in Decemberof 195, issue a building permit.
Furthermore, based on the belief that her lot was a valid
building lot, and that the closing would take place shortly, Mrs.
Pavlak purchased another parcel of property in another State,
utilizing her own funds, but with the expectation, that the funds
would be replaced with the proceeds of the sale of the Mattituck
parcel. A failure on the part of this board to deny a waiver of
merger or to grant a waiver of merger, would result in obvious sever
economic hardship to Mrs. Pavlak, and to her purchases.
Fourth: The fourth and last criteria that the board should
consider, in determining whether a waiver should be granted, is
whether the natural details and character of the contour and slope of
the lot, will be significantly changed by the granting of the waiver,
and whether or not there will be substantial filling of land, which
would affect flood areas. It is respectfully submitted, that the
granting of the waiver for this specific parcel, will in no way
change the character and slope of the lot. Since there are no
environmental flood areas near this property, any filling would not
effect any nearby flood areas. A personal inspection of the
property, reflects that it's basically flat, with the Southerly
portion containing scrub and tree growth, and the Northerly portion
is clear and mowed. For all the reasons stated in this presentation,
as well as the application, I respectfully request that the board
grant the waiver of merger, if in fact a merger has occurred.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Olsen. Mr. Villa do you have any
questions of Mr. Olsen?
MEMBER VILLA: No, not at this time.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No
Page 52 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora.
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
MEMBER. DOYEN: No.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor
of this application? Is there anybody that would like to speak
against the application?
MR.. JAMES COHILL: Good evening. My name is James Cohill
and I own a 15 acre lot, North of Lots 5.1 and 5.2. It is
inconceivable to me, that the Board of Appeals would even
entertain this bazaar petition, that is so contrary to the zoning
position of the Town Board, the Town Planning Board and the
citizens of Southold. The reason giving for the petition, appear to
have been created by a spin Doctor, with little regard for
neighboring properties, and with no respect for what nearby
residence have gone through, to obtain properties with some degree
of privacy and distance from neighbors. To quote from Southold
subdivision of land, Chapter A 10611, Declaration of Policy,
Paragraph C, that all proposed lots will be so laid out, and of such
size, as to be in harmony with the developing pattern of the
neighboring properties.
Here's what I find particularly offensive about this
petition. It is presumptuous. That is, it presumed that because the
owner of the house on less than an acre of land, wants to violate the
two acre zoning law and effecting the Township, we should care
about the investment and money that he and a perspective purchaser,
has spent to date. It is not the public's concern, and it is
insulting to our intelligence. What is more surprising, is that a
local Attorney, very knowledgeable in these matters, along with a
prestigious real estate firm, would mislead the potential purchases
of part of this, less than one acre parcel. It is most unfortunate
that Mr. & Mrs. Abendee have been led to believe that they can
build on this nonconforming property. We are very sorry that they
have invested dollars. They were very poorly advised.
The petition states, quote, " The density would not be
increased significantly since tax parcel 5.1 already contains a
resident". Well, this statement is a falsehood because the resident
mentioned that if the waiver is granted, would now be sitting on a
tiny one third acre parcel, next to a half acre lot with a house,
which is next to a cottage type house, also on a half acre. This is
a kind of density which East End people have struggled to avoid and
we point out, that although the petition declares Board of Health
approval, the density is life threatening. In the space of about 100
yards, there is a football field, you would be giving approval to
four different septic systems and wells. This is not what the Town
of Southold was all about.
Page 53 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
In fact, I talked to the Health Services in Riverhead, and
the person who signed this survey. When I asked him about the 100
feet showing wells and septic systems, very vaguely positioned on the
map, which is not what I consider a true radius map. He had
presumed from a letter from Mr. Olsen, that these lots had been
singly owned since 1970. He didn't know that they had been
married. I think this had been misrepresented to the Health
Services, and when I asked further what the health services approval
indicated, I said, did it indicate publicly water, and he said, not
that he knew of.' I said, do you know where the septic systems are,
and all the other adjoining properties. They are so densely bunched
there. I really didn't get very specific answers, and I think you'll
see in the petition, that you really don't know where other cesspools
are located in the area.
A second danger to the well being of Mattituck residents,
would be another driveway in this limited street frontage. The
Zoning Board of Appeals may not be aware, that the Planning Board
has gone on record, that a public hearing many years ago, that there
should be no more approval of driveways on Grand Avenue. It has
become too busy a thoroughfare to quote Dick Ward and Valerie
Scopaz directly. For us to allow any more driveways which
resulted from bad planning. That's a quote, and when I subdivided
the 19 acres North of these two lots, Dick Ward had originally had
outlined how I could go about it. After several years of submissions
to the Planning Board, I finally got it all right and submitted it,
and they had hired Valerie Scopaz who said, well that's bad
planning. There will be no driveways on Grand Avenue. I was on
the open long section of Grand Avenue, where the visibility had not
been. Not this crowded curved area, where little kids could get hit
so easily.
Bad planning is the reason that the Southold Town
Planning Board permitted this illogical subdivision back in 1970.
With Lot 5.1, with no backyard and Lot 5.2 next to it. Since 1969
when it was purchased by the current owner for $14,500.00, he and
she have enjoyed a .93 acre piece of wooded property. If we were to
believe the petition, that it is their intention to move to North
Carolina, have a bulldozer clear lot 5.2, to jam in another house, as
is done in Shirley and Mastic. The petition states that a lot is
consistent with the other lots in the neighborhood. This is a
falsehood. If we look at a proper radius map, which has not been
presented with this petition, you will see Lot #4.1, is the only
exception to proper zoning. That's the lot that's to the Northeast'
of these two lots. The petitioner is forced out of the area, more
than a quarter mile away to identify other small lots. The average
lots surrounding the Pavlak's two lots is 4 and one half acres.
A third criteria states, the petition is whether the waiver
will avoid economic hardship. We just heard from Mr. Olsen about
economic hardship, and we respectfully submit to this board, that the
only economic hardship will be to the adjoining neighbors, who will
find this excessively increased density, will depreciate the
Page 54 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
investments they have in properly zoned properties. We challenge
the owners to prove economic hardship. They stand to reap the fully
deductible $125,000.00 from it's sale. I'm an Associate broker out
here, and as our understanding of a retired Mattituck school teacher,
is among our most fortunate citizens in terms of retirement. When
you combine the wife's retirement Social Security with her husband's,
it's quite a stretch to talk about severe economic hardship to the
owner. As we have indicated, the economic hardship to the potential
purchaser, is a direct result of misrepresentation by the sellers.
In summary, the applicants do not meet the first three
criteria, which have been misrepresented in the petition. Therefore,
the Zoning Board of Appeals must reject this application, to divide a
property held in common ownership from July 1, 1983 through April
18, 1985. The property on which the Pavlak house is situated, is
less than an acre, and to permit it's division into one third and one
half acre parcels, would be irresponsible of this board, and
inconsistent with the zoning directions of other Town Boards. It is
obvious that the April 18, 1985 conveyance of part of the property to
Florence Pavlak, is motivated by the monitory desire to create two
nonconforming lots, out of one nonconforming lot. The size
requirement in this neighborhood is 80,000. square feet. Why should
the Pavlak's be allowed to violate our zoning laws. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: I have to have the public's indulgence here. We've
been going here for approximately two house, and before I complete
this hearing Mr. Olsen, you'll have plenty of time to rebut this.
I have to take approximately a four minute recess and I apologize,
ok. So I offer that Ladies and Gentlemen.
MEMBER TORTORA: Make it five minutes.
CHAIRMAN OK. (After recess)
CHAIRMAN: I just want to give Mr. Olsen, while it's fresh in his
mind. Yes Madam, could you state your name.
DENISE KING: My name is Denise King and I live close to where
John Pavlak lives. I don't know what size house is being planned
to put there, but the lot is smaller than this room is. I really, I
don't know what Mr. Olsen said, but if you go down along Grand
Avenue, that there's quarter acre lots. There are half acre, if not
bigger. I live on Green Court which is a cul-de-sac, and there are
least builder acres or quarter acre lots. There is the new
development that is going on Mill Road, and across that Mr. Cohill
did sell. They are building along there. There is a small little
house next to Pavlak's, and then in between that, there is that
little piece of land. I really don't know what size house that is
planning to go in there. I can't see a house going in there. As it
is, where I live, we ended up getting a road in back of my house.
Now I have a road in back of my house and a road in front of my
house, and that wasn't supposed to go through, but somehow it did
It's getting to the point of, the board or whoever decides that,
Page 55 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
• Southold Town Board of Appeals
they're going to change their minds, because well, it suits this
person's needs. If we're suppose to have acre lots, then let's
leave it at that, and if it's going to be an economical hardship with
Pavla.k's, then they could sell their house with that land and make
it as one, and keep it as one, and not have it divided. If they can
do that, then I would love to take my house down, and put three
houses on my lot, and then I would be very happy. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Why don't you just take a look at this thing Mr.
(unfinished sentence) .
DENISE KING: I did see. I did see what was there.
CIAIRMAN: No, no, no., Take a look of when Mr. Olsen
submitted.
MR. JAMES COHILL: Can I take a look too.
CHAIRMAN: Sure. In fact, what I'm going to do Mr. Cohill is
this. Is it Ms. or Mrs. King.
MR. JAMES COHILL: Cohill.
CHAIRMAN: Cahill.
MR. JAMES COHILL: Cohill.
CHAIRMAN: Cohill, excuse me. While both of you look at this, if
you have anything else you could add.
DENISE KING: Can I keep this?
CHAIRMAN: No.
DENISE KING. Oh.
MEMBER TORTORA: She can get a copy of it. You can have a
copy of it.
CHAIRMAN: You can get a copy of it.
MR. JAMES COHILL: I would like to show you this. (Changed
tape)
The Planning Board they rejected it. Ray Jacobs, Valorie
Scopaz, and Dick Ward, no driveways on Grand Avenue. I think
the Town has to speak with one voice to people like her. A level
playing field and I don't think it's level right now. I mean, if
this is approved. OK, thank you.
MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask you a question? What size lots
are you proposing and where is your plan?
MR. JAMES COHILL: I'm not proposing any lot.
Page 56 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER TORTORA: No, but (unfinished sentence) .
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: What is the plan of then?
MR.. JAMES COHILL: What?
CHAIRMAN: What are the size of those lots?
MR. JAMES COHILL: This is History.
CHAIRMAN: Oh.
MEMBER TORTORA: Oh.
MR. JAMES COHILL: This is History. This was rejected by the
Planning Board.
MEMBER. TORTORA: Oh I see.
MR. JAMES COHILL: Because they didn't want any driveways on
Grand Avenue.
MEMBER TORTORA: I see.
MR. JAMES COHILL: And that's minutes of a meeting of your
Planning Board.
MEMBER TORTORA: I was under the assumption that you had a
pre subdivision. I was trying to locate it, and find out where it
was.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: When was this, five years ago,
did you say?
MR. JAMES COHILL: It's a lot directly North of all this. I have a
15 acre lot North of.
MEMBER TORTORA: I see.
MR. JAMES COHILL: I'm one of the ones North of this Property,
and this was approved in 1992. It took seven years, you know,
between Health Services and the Planning Board. Alot of fun and
games, but they really turned it down because they didn't want any
driveways. It was too dangerous to put driveways on a Main Road.
They were quoting Ray Jacobson on that, and the most dangerous
spot on that road is right where this house is. I have to emphasize
that the lot they're going to built on is not the problem. The
problem is the lot size of the house that's going to be remaining.
The Pavlak house is going to be a .tiny little plot there, with no
back yard. --It's ridiculous.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Page 57 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER. TORTORA: Also for the record Mr. Cohill, so that we
can look at the surrounding area. Your 15. 3 parcel acre is also
R-80 zoned.
MR. JAMES COHILL: R.-80 zoned, right. The whole area there
isR80.
MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olsen, I did find an extra one of these. Would
you mind if I gave it to this nice lady in back of you?
MR. GARY OLSEN: No, not at all.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. It was just the one you had looked at was
marked up, and I apologize. Ok, hearing no further comment
I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision
until later.
MEMBER VILLA: Second.
CHAIRMAN: All in favor, aye.
9:38 p.m. Appl. No. 4418 - Michael Milligi and North Shore Neon
Sign Co. for RAYMOND REALTY CORP. and MICHAEL'S
PONTIAC-CADILLAC OLDS. Based upon the June 16, 1996 Notice
of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, applicant is
proposing to remove the existing ground sign and in lieu thereof, is
requesting a variance under Article XX, Sections 100-2051)(7) and
100-206B for the placement of a new ground sign which will exceed 24
sq. ft. in area, and be internally illuminated. Location of
Property: 42155 Route 25 (Main Road) , Peconic, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel ID #1000-75-1-14.
CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of, we inspected the sign. We know
where the existing sign is, and we have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How
are you guys tonight?
MR.. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: Pretty good. My name is Michael
Collolucci and I'm with North Shore Sign Company, and I'm here
with Michael Milligi, the owner and operator of Michael Pontiac on
Main Road Southold, actually Peconic. Basically, what were looking
for here is to replace an existing sign. A sign that has been in
existing some 30 years. The size of the current sign is
approximately 48 square feet. We have a six foot by six foot sign,
.with a two foot by eight foot sign, mounted on the top. I'm going to
'hand this card to you, so you can get a nice look at it. Basically,
a new sign is again, the intent is to replace this sign. Now, the
new sign is slightly smaller in square footage, and equivalent in
height. I would just like the board to know a couple of things. I
was here personally before this board ten years ago, 1986 for Herb
t
Page 58 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Wells regarding this facility. We were asking for a, quite larger
sign than what we're asking today.
There were also some other signs on the lot at that time.
There was a Subaru sign on'the roof, which has been removed since
then. This board obviously, not the same members. I don't
remember and you don't remember me. But this board did indicate
that the existing sign, they thought was adequate, and they thought
that if anything, Mr. Wells should maintain the size of the existing
sign. General Motors came to me some 10 years later with the new
owner in there, asking me to get a variance for a larger sign. I
told them listen, we were here 10 years ago. You probably
don't know, but I know. But I would recommend that we don't ask
for anything larger and that we maintain what we have. This sign
that we're asking for happens to be, the smallest model sign that is
available to the dealer. I have a brochure that will show you that.
There isn't a. smaller sign that we can basically give to Mr.
Milligi, without him going out and purchasing a sign on his own.
Again, I will hand this card out. This should help a little bit.
CHAIRMAN: Now this sign is 20- feet high. Is that correct.
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: Yes, it's 20 feet to the top, correct.
MEMBER VILLA: The existing one?
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: Is 20 foot to the top as well.
CHAIRMAN: But the other sign, the sign that exists now, is larger
than this sign.
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: Yes, in square footage it is, yes.
MEMBER VILLA: It's going in the exact same location.
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: Well actually, we would remove the
pole, cut the anchor bolts at grade, .and fill it back in with some
dirt. We will not be taking concrete out of, the ground and supports.
We will be putting it directly next to it, whether it be on one side
or the other. The idea is to keep it in the same spot. As far as
our setback, we did bring this before the State. I have a letter
here from them. I don't know if that would mean anything to you.
The State is indicating that, they don't have a problem with it
basically, as long as it's not on State property. The street
right-of-way is some 11 feet from Mr. Milligi property line. We
were going to set this back five feet, from the street right-of-way,
which means that, the sign will in turn. be setback some 16 feet from
the pavement, which meets the Town code by an additional foot, I
believe.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
Page 59 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
• Southold Town Board of Appeals
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How far it is from the property
line, 11 feet you said?
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: Five feet from the property line, and
16 feet from the pavement.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: I also have some photos of the
facility from 10 years ago, if you would like to see again. There's
a sign on the roof.
CHAIRMAN: No, no wait.
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: A Subaru sign.
CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr. Doyen any questions?
MEMBER DOYEN: No.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa?
MEMBER VILLA: No.
CHAIRMAN: Ok
MEMBER VILLA: ( ) do. The existing sign, is that
illuminated?
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: Yes it is.
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MEMBER VILLA: There was no mention.
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: That's pretty common, I mean, you
know. Signs are in general, I think. The people would take it for
granted.
CHAIRMAN: We'll take it and give it back. Can we keep this for a
little while?
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: Yes, certainly.
Page 60 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
• Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: OK, all right. Any idea of what we can get in.
reference to a distance to the building? I forgot to mention that to
Mr. Milligi when I stopped by one day, so that we get some
placement. You have to give us a placement, either to the
(unfinished sentence) .
MEMBER VILLA: It shows 15 feet.
CHAIRMAN: No, no. To the East property line or the West
property line. I don't care which one.
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: We actually, we have drawn on the
site plan, I believe, 210 feet from the one side, or 150 from the
other.
CHAIRMAN: OK, and you'll, will you let us know exactly what it is,
after you cut it off, so that we know exactly what.
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: If you'd like, I could spray paint the
actual dimensions of the foundation on the ground, so that, I mean.
That's what we normally do before we excavate it. I will go out
personally, and draw the lines on the pavement, because when we
come in with a back hoe, it's a fairly decent size pole, about four
feet °deep.
CHAIRMAN: Pole, yes.
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: By four by six. It's completely
engineered to withstand 150 mile an hour wind load. They're
maintained by General Motors. They come to clean it once a year.
If the face break's, the face gets replaced. If the sign is half
illuminated, it gets maintained. If the dealership closes or goes
out of business, the sign leaves as well. If the dealership changes,
most likely, this facility has been here for many years. The only
General Motors facility in the area. I'm sure it's going to be there
for a long time.
CHAIRMAN: OK
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI I was wondering about, how bright
is the sign?
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: In wattages it's actually, there's are
six, six foot lamps inside the sign. The actual wattage would be
considered, I believe. It drawers 3.8 amps, which means in wattage
would be about 110 times average, would be about 420 watts. Which
again, it's entirely illuminated.
CHAIRMAN: How does that compare with the existing sign?
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: It's basically identical.
CHAIRMAN: OK, all right, good.
Page 61 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
• Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER VILLA: Are they on a timer by any chance? Do they go
off?
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: Yes, they will be on a timer, and
obviously when he closes, they will be going off. That's something
that you can put in the minutes.
CHAIRMAN: Ok
MR. MICHAEL MILLIGI: They won't be on all night, I can assure
you of. that.
MEMBER VILLA: So when you close for your daily operation, it
would basically go off or shortly after.
MR. MICHAEL MILLIGI: We close at 7, and they would probably go
off around 8:30 you know, and in the Summer months, it probably
won't be on at all, because it stays light later.
MEMBER VILLA: So you don't have any objections to that kind of a
condition, that it be say, shut off at 9 O'clock or something like
that?
MR. MICHAEL MILLIGI: Not at all.
CHAIRMAN: While you're standing there, is there anybody else that
would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? OK,
hearing no further comment. Does anybody want to offer a
Resolution? We'll incorporate the sign wattage. Do you want to
incorporate anything else?
MEMBER TORTORA: The hour's of illumination to, when the
operation is closed.
CHAIRMAN: He just said it, approximately an hour or a hour and
one half, it goes off.
MR. MICHAEL MILLIGI: We're talking about 9 O'clock
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: I'm sure the hour's vary sometimes
too, you know. If it's a Friday night, maybe stay open an extra
hour.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: ( )P.M.
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: I'm sure this facility is not open as
other facility's are.
CHAIRMAN: 9 p.m. OK, Mike.
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: Sure.
MEMBER TORTORA: Is that reasonable?
Page 62 - September 19, 1996.
Transcript of Public Hearings
• Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. MICHAEL COLLOLUCCI: Yes, I think so.
CHAIRMAN: All right. Who wants to offer that. You want to offer
that Lydia, since you did it?
MEMBER TORTORA: That's fine, yes.
CHAIRMAN: OK, I'll second it.
9:48 p.m. Appl. 4412 - Bruce Anderson for ROBERT
HOLLEY. Based upon a July 24, 1996 Notice of DIsapproval
issued by the Building Inspector, applicant is requesting a variance
under Article 111A, Section 100-30A.3 (100-244B) to locate proposed
addition with a front yard setback at less than the required 40 feet,
at 1085 Bay Shore Road, Peconic Bay Estates, Greenport, NY;
County Parcel ID #1000-53-3-13.
CHAIRMAN: I have a copy os a survey produced by Roderick Van
Tyle pc, dated January 17, 1996, indicating the proposed deck
and proposed addition area. A copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Bruce, how
are you tonight?
MR. BRUCE ANDERSON : I'm fine, how are you?
CHAIRMAN: Good thanks, what can we do for you?
MR. BRUCE ANDERSON: I'm going to hand up my confirmation
poster.
CHAIRMAN: Oh, great.
MR. BRUCE ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental
Consultant with offices in Main Street, Bridgehampton, representing
Barbara and Robert Holley who own a parcel of land on Bay Shore
Road in the Town of Southold. The Holley's are seeking to
construct a 8 foot by 22 foot addition, and a 8 foot by 12 foot
deck. Both the addition and the deck are extensions off of the
house. The addition would be at it's closest point 27 feet, from the
nearest property line. Where as the deck would be, 29 feet from the
nearest property line. We're talking about a lot here that contains
22,800 square feet. It is located in an R-40 zone. The lot is a
preexisting nonconforming lot, having been created prior to zoning as
part of the map known as Peconic Bay Estates. This map was
actually amended to put what was originally two lots into one. So
truthfully, these lots when they were originally created, each
contained approximately 11,400. square feet.
We did receive a Notice of Disapproval from the Building
Inspector, and that has been entered into the file. That's dated
July 24, 1996. Also, you should understand the property is
burdened by wetlands, Title Wetlands. Part of these wetlands were
actually created by the client, and if you look at the survey shown
Page 63 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
on this, you will see that they expanded the wetlands line
Northward, is a result of plantings, he planted. Technically, and
this lot is a corner lot. However in reality, the road that extends
off of Bay Shore Road shoreline, doesn't really exist. It is well
vegetated. There is a thick line of vegetation that separates this
parcel from the neighboring parcel, on the other side of the road, to
the East. And because this road, and also there is no expectation
whatsoever, that the road will ever be opened by the Town because
it really serves no purpose.
Finally, if you go down the side view. I've seen a
boardwalk that was constructed on this road. I don't know the
details of how that was done. But it is apparently a boardwalk used
by the community, and that extends out across the marsh onto a sand
spit out on Pike's Creek. The deck we're talking about here, is
quite small. We're talking about 96 foot square deck. The addition
is also very small, and that totals approximately 176 square feet. I
could show you a picture of the house, as it show's here, and then
on the left-hand side, is where the addition will go. Provided we
have your blessing, of course.
I also want to show you the exterior elevations that we have
drawn on here, that indicates that the addition that we're
contemplating will be the same type configuration in color,
exterior, interior, that is the existing house. This is a one-story
ranch house, and I think what's proposed here is actually quite
reasonable, quite compact, and as I will show you later, as I move
on. It's something that we feel we meet the standards set forth in
seeking any area relief. Finally, if anyone has been down there, I
did not measure this. You'll see the house to the East is located
clearly less than 50 feet, and probably less than 40 feet from this
road. Now I did not measure that, and I do not have a survey on
that. When you go down there and look at it, I'm sure
you'll see, just as I did. And the significance of that is the house
next door obviously, has treated that side yard boundary as a side
yard even though, because it is technically a road of front yard.
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. BRUCE ANDERSON: The variation that we're asking for is not
substantial, in that the additions are quite small, the deck is quite
small. As a practical matter, they probably should be treated as a
side yard. And if that were a side yard, the distance described by
zoning would be 15 feet. So, we're roughly twice what the side yard
would be in any event. We do not anticipate any impact or
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, would
object to nearby properties, because what's proposed is obviously in
character with what's there. So ' obviously, they manage the house
quite nicely. I think that it's something that the community will
certainly have no objection to, and may in fact, be proud of.
The( ) sort by the applicant cannot really be achieved in any
other fashion, then what's proposed. And that has most to do with
.the interior floor plan, which was submitted some time ago. The
Page 64 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
essence of that is, the floor plan is such that the obvious expansion
of any addition, would be towards the side. Finally, we're not
talking about a practically difficulty here that was self created.
This is a lot, singly and separately owned. It is what it is. It is
of the size it is. It is of the configuration, that it is. No fault
or no creation, on the part of my client.
The second major thing here is, the hardship that we're
talking about, is in fact unique as I said before, because of this
road, this paper road that doesn't really exist. In this board I'm
sure you deal with corner lot variances. I'm sure you deal with
corner lots all the time, and typically when you do, you're talking
about two real streets. Well, in this case it's really just one
street, and as I said, there's no expectation of that road would be
open anytime soon, or at all. For many reasons that I have given.
Finally, the variance that we're requesting would not change the
character, the area, would not effect the environment of the area to
any extent whatsoever. We're talking about putting an addition over
a. lot area. We have received all the requisite environmental
permits.
There's absolutely nothing about this structure that would
effect the environment in any negative way at all. And so for those
reasons, I think we request the variance. The project is a .very
small project. I do not disagree with the Building Inspector and his
issuance of his Notice of Disapproval. I think he had no choice but
to give us that notice. But of course, that compelled us to come
here. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. I'm not
aware of any objection whatsoever, among any of the adjacent
neighbors, nor of anyone living in the general area. Thank you
very much..
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Bruce. Does anyone have any questions of
Mr. Anderson?
MEMBER VILLA: Yeah, I don't see. Do you have the distance from
the structure to the wetlands? You say, observe high water mark,
and I don't see any anywhere. The wetland is approximately 50
feet.
MEMBER VILLA: Now you have a proper bank and you have a lower
bank, and you've got (unfinished sentence) .
MR. BRUCE ANDERSON: I'm judging it from the wetlands line,
which is determined by the vegetation.
MEMBER VILLA: Now in all cases, that's not necessarily the high
water mark.
MR. BRUCE ANDERSON: No, the high water mark is substantially
sea weed, that are up.
MEMBER VILLA: Right, what is that there?
Page 65 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Which line is the?
MR. BRUCE ANDERSON: I'm afraid I don't have a scale with me, the
exact distance would be somewhere in the area of 100 feet.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's 50 feet from the title wetland
flags.
MR. BRUCE ANDERSON: That's correct.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK.
MR. BRUCE ANDERSON: As I said, we do have the Dec permits,
and the Trustee permits, and they were submitted with the
application.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Does anybody else have any questions of Mr.
Anderson?
MR. BRUCE ANDERSON: And finally, the addition that we speak of
is in fact, further away from the wetlands, than is the existing
house.
CHAIRMAN: Because of the nature of the angle of that house.
MR. BRUCE ANDERSON: Correct
CHAIRMAN: OK, while you're there Bruce, let's see if anybody
else. Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody against? Ok,
anybody want to make a Resolution?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I move that we grant it as applied.
CHAIRMAN: I'll second it. All in favor, aye.
10:00 P.M. Appl. No. 4419 - WILLIAM A. HANDS, JR. Based
upon a Notice of DIsapproval issued by the Building Inspector
dated August 29, 1996, applicant is requesting: (a) under Article
XXIV, Section 100-244B, and Article XX111, Section 100-239.4B,
variances for reduced setbacks in the front yard , northerly side
yard, total of both sides, and setbacks from bulkhead for proposed
new dwelling, and (b) a waiver under Article 11, Section 100-26 for
this lot consisting , of 22,500+- sf.. as created by subdivision and
1983 deed. Location of property: 960 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient,
NY, also known as Lot #2 on the Map of Willow Terrace, Section 1;
CTM #1000-26-2-21.
CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick Van
Tuyl pc, dated May 21, 1996 indicating the North side yard of 15
feet, and the South side yard of 15 feet, the setback to the high
water mark at 75 feet and the front yard setback of 35 feet.. I have
. Page 66 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding property in the area. Mr. Hand, how are you tonight?
MR. WILLIAM HAND: Good, thank you. Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm
over here because I would like to build a house in this development.
The house is situated in line with the other homes in the area. It
is drawn 75 feet from the high water mark. However, I am under
the understanding now, that the bulkhead supersedes the high water
mark. The houses that were built there previous, were built prior to
the bulkheads being put in. There was one house built in the early
170, and they put a bulkhead in, and in the ensuing years you has
wash on both sides, because of that bulkhead. Then the rest of us
joined in, and put bulkheads in, basically to protect our own
property.
CHAIRMAN: What do you want to tell us about the setbacks?
MR.. WILLIAM HAND: Well, the house is drawn with 15 foot sideline,
which this was originally, this parcel was originally set up as a
half acre lot, because the deed was submitted after June 30, 1983, it
went into one acre zoning, unbeknownst to me. I bought this
property prior to that, but we didn't have a closing date until
August. Evidentially June 30, is the magic number in there.
CHAIRMAN: August of that same year?
MR. WILLIAM HAND: Yes. I had a contract with Mr. Douglas in
April of 1983, but the closing date was not until August.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You mean June, June 30. June
right, your deed is dated June, no.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: I think my deed is dated August, Linda.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Ok
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, 8-12-83.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes 8-12, ok sorry.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: OK, all right. Do you want to continue Bill, or do you
want somebody to see. Everything is here.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: I really, I thought I submitted everything.
CHAIRMAN: Good, good.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: I didn't bring a Lawyer or anything, so.
CHAIRMAN: Let's go with Mr. Villa.
Page 67 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER VILLA: I was there on the 16 at 2 O'clock, and the water
was right up to the bulkhead. It was up on the bulkhead, it wasn't
just lapping on it.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: Right.
MEMBER VILLA: So that would appear to me, to be your water line,
at most times.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: I would say that, that would be extreme. But
the high water mark has changed since 1983. There is no question.
MEMBER VILLA: So basically, you're showing 75 feet out into the
water.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: Well, I'm showing, the surveyor is showing 75
feet to the high water mark, from 1983.
MEMBER VILLA: And it's about 55 feet to the bulkhead.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: I don't have a scale on that Sir, but.
MEMBER VILLA: OK, roughly, I scaled it off roughly. My other
question is, your garage shows it 30 feet deep.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: I believe it 28 by 24.
MEMBER VILLA: Well ok, I scaled it, but I scaled it like 30 feet.
So 28, ok. That's part of your problem, you know. If seems that
if you designed a house, a different kind of a house, you could fit
it on. better than what you are showing.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: Well, you can do it two ways. First of all,
from a personal standpoint, I don't happen to like the looks of the
garage that you look right at, with the doors facing. So the idea
was, to put the garage doors to the side. We did not have the side
yard to make the turning radius, to come in the side. So what we
proposed was, to have the driveway come in front of the house.
MEMBER VILLA: Yes, to have your driveway, as your front yard,
sort of like a courtyard or something.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: Like a courtyard.
MEMBER. VILLA: But does there have to be 28 feet. That's a pretty
good size garage.
MR.. WILLIAM HAND: Well the garage is more important to me than
the living room, but.
MEMBER. VILLA: Because that's distracting,
1. Your setback from the road.
Page 68 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
2. your setback from the water, because it's making the
depth of the house considerable.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: Well.
MEMBER VILLA: Well, that's sticking out.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: I mean, because of the narrowness of the lot
Mr. Villa. It's kind of the only place you can do it, unless you
make a one car garage.
MEMBER VILLA: I don't know what your design looks like, but it
just appears to me, that you've compounded your problems by your
design.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: Well, I can't put it on the side of the house.
MEMBER VILLA: I realize that.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: It has to be in front. If I slipped the garage
over more in front, than you'd have something that looks like a box,
and to me that's not attractive.
MEMBER VILLA: Well, you look at it, and you're basically looking
for variances from both sides and rear.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: You're correct. If I am considered one acre
zone.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I .have no questions.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora.
MEMBER TORTORA: Well, the only question that I have is, we're
looking at two things here. First, before we look at the variances
for this side, we're looking at the issue in the Notice of
Disapproval, that the lot didn't meet the 40,000. square feet
minimum, at the time it was created. So that's the first issue we
have to look at, and then we have to look at the side yard from a
distance to the bulkhead.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: That subdivision was approved in 1969.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: Mr. Douglas made some lot line changes in
there, and a couple of the lots that he did not sell until later, he
never changed the deed. Consequently, when I bought a lot in that
development in 1969. I lived down the street from him on the other
side. I didn't worry about the details, because the waterfront was
too expensive in those days. If I would have bought it then, I
Page 69 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
would have made a much better purchase. What happened was, that
I contracted the sale in April 1983. I had no knowledge of the June
30 date, and for whatever reason, we didn't close until August.
Therefore, that's what throws me into the other zoning, even though
the entire area down there is half acre zoning, half acre lots.
MEMBER TORTORA: So, we're looking at a difference of really
(interrupted) .
MR. WILLIAM HAND: I can show you if you're so interested. I can
show you a map of Willow Terrace, that was given to me way back
then. It shows the whole area, that being brought out in half acre
parcels.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: This is the original homestead. This is my
lot, I live here. They are all half acre. This is his section two,
which recently, something has been done with. But these are all
original, known as half acre parcels. If it's any help to anybody.
CHAIRMAN: I just want to see that.
MEMBER. DINIZIO: I'd like to see it too.
CHAIRMAN: We'll give this right back. Yours is the one with the
X on it, lot #3.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: Lot #2.
CHAIRMAN: Lot #2.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: I don't know what the X's are for.
CHAIRMAN: And that conforms right to the (unfinished sentence) .
MEMBER TORTORA: That's what I was going to ask. The size of
your lot is 100, because they're two different figures on it.
CHAIRMAN: It's 100 on the road.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: 100 on the road, 130 I believe on the water,
and the two sidelines are (unfinished sentence) .
CHAIRMAN: 183.69, 187. This may not be accurate. (Changed tape)
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's a little over a half acre,
about 22,000 right.
MR. WILLIAM HAND: Yes about . 52 acres.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, 22,500 square feet. Bob, is that figure of 55 feet
accurate to the bulkhead at the closest point, or should I scale it.
f
Page 70 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER VILLA: That's not scaled off.
CHAIRMAN: Do you want to scale it, or did you do it?
MEMBER. VILLA: I scaled it off. That's what it shows.
CHAIRMAN:" OK.
MEMBER VILLA: It's about 20 feet from the bulkhead, to the high
water marks.
CHAIRMAN: High water marks, ok.
MEMBER VILLA: That's what it's showing in 1983.
CHAIRMAN: All right.
MEMBER VILLA: And then, high water. You have a file map to get
it. It's under water all the time.
CHAIRMAN: Yes. OK.
MEMBER VILLA: So it's actually about 35 feet from the file map line,
out into the water, to the bulkhead.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
MEMBER VILLA: So that those distances on the sides, should be
short that distance.
MEMBER. TORTORA: So what's the distance from the house to the
bulkhead.
CHAIRMAN: 55 feet at it's closest point.
MEMBER TORTORA: 55.
CHAIRMAN: Yes. 55 at it's closest point, and of course the
Northerly side 'is farther away because of the way they ( ) the
bulkhead.
MR. WILLIAM HANDS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
MEMBER VILLA: Now if this is granted, will we be having an
application coming in a couple of years for a request for a deck in
the backyard, or what have you. We have this all the time. We
grant something and then they come back and ask for more.
Page 71 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: What he's saying is, I don't mean to speak for you, but
we would appreciate that any decks that you have be ground level
decks, you know. You have enough slope and enough elevation, that
you don't have to grab height to get view.
MR. WILLIAM HANDS: No.
CHAIRMAN: Do you know what I'm saying? Alot of people have to
grab height.
MR. WILLIAM HANDS: We have stoops planned now and basically
sliding doors.
CHAIRMAN: Is that what you're saying? I didn't mean to speak for
you.
MEMBER VILLA: Well what I'm saying is, if you have a ground level
patio or deck, that doesn't fall into the code, but then you come
back into here and you're asking for a deck, you know. Most
people come in and say, I want to be able to sit on the deck, and go
out another 20 feet. So instead of being 55 feet from the bulkhead,
you're 35 feet.
MR. WILLIAM HANDS: No, no I don't want that.
MEMBER VILLA: That's what I'd like to eliminate if possible.
MR. WILLIAM HANDS: Right.
MEMBER VILLA: So you don't have any problem with that.
MR. WILLIAM HANDS: No.
MEMBER VILLA: So there would be no raised decks in the future.
MR. WILLIAM HANDS: When you say raised decks, I'm not sure I
understand what you mean.
CHAIRMAN: Anything above eight inches.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Ground level Jerry. They go by
(interrupted) .
MR. WILLIAM HANDS: I mean, we want to put, like outside the
sliding door, you want to put a stoop of some type.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You're allowed 30 square feet of
stoop area.
MEMBER TORTORA: That wouldn't be a deck.
MR. WILLIAM HANDS: OK.
41
Page 72 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of'Appeals
CHAIRMAN: And anything that we're referring to, anything that was
in the area of ground level.
MR. WILLIAM HANDS: Right.
CHAIRMAN: Right, you know.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: They're strict about a ground
level, is ground level.
CHAIRMAN: I know. Ground level is ground level.
MR. WILLIAM HANDS: Right.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK.
CHAIRMAN: I mean, you don't slope it up to ground level, it's
ground level, and that's it.
MR. WILLIAM HANDS: I understand, I understand.
CHAIRMAN: OK, while Mr. Hands is standing here, is there
anybody else that would like to speak in favor? Great, we'll give it
back to him. Do you want to copy that Bob or do you want to.
MEMBER VILLA: What's that?.
CHAIRMAN: He wants that subdivision map back.
MEMBER VILLA: OK.
CHAIRMAN: Does anybody want to speak against?
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Ok, I think I have a copy
anyway. Yes.
MEMBER DI.NIZIO: I've seen it.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You've seen it, ok. There you
go. I know how valuable that is, those old maps.
MR. WILLIAM HANDS: Well who knows, right.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, that's right, History.
CHAIRMAN: Does anybody have a specific objection to this?
MEMBER VILLA: Have them put the conditions in.
CHAIRMAN: OK.
MEMBER VILLA: Ground level deck or something.
r
Page 73 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: OK. Grant the application based upon the fact, that
the applicant not come back for any raised decks, on the water side
of the property. That at least one side yard remain open at all
times, so as to gain access to the water side of the house.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: What do you mean remain open? I
just need a little description of it. Do you mean no trees, no
bushes, no fences?
CHAIRMAN: Well, no trees, no bushes on one side of the property,
and not come back with additional variances, that would close up the
side area.
MR. WILLIAM HANDS: Right.
MEMBER TORTORA: What about addressing the lot creation
CHAIRMAN: Addressing the lot creation?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: The applicant was in contract, he mealy didn't close,
that's all. All right. Who wants to offer it as a Resolution?
MEMBER TORTORA: You just did, I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN: All in favor, aye.
10:13 p.m. Appl. No. 4420 - PHILIP J. CARDINALE, ESQ. for
LINDA FESSMAN as TRUSTEE. Based upon a Notice of Disapproval
issued by the Building Inspector August 28, 1996, applicant is
requesting a Waiver under Article 11, Section 100-26 concerning the
parcel 26,500+- sf, identified as CTM #1000-115-6-1, which has
been held in common ownership with another lot, CTM
#1000-115-6-2, after July 1, 1983. This property is located at the
corner of the Main Road (18400) and Cardinal Drive, Mattituck
Estates Filed Map, Lot #5, at Mattituck, Town of Southold, CTM
#1000-115-6-1.
CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey, again prepared by Donald
Malm, indicating the corner nature of this piece of this property,
which fronts on Main State Road, Route 25, and the entrance to
Mattituck Estates. It is the lot on the Easterly side, and I have a
copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding
properties in the area. We're ready.
MR.. PHILIP CARDINALE ESQ: My name is Phil Cardinale and I'm
here on behalf of Linda Fessma.n, who is in Hawaii, which is where
I'm certain we all wish we all were. I want to hand up the affidavit
of posting. I'd also like to shorten my comments, by adopting Gary
Olsen's comments. The general comments are about five pages of
comments, that he made prior to addressing the Pavlak's specifics,
J r
t
Page 74 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
in application 4418. Specifically, as regard to the issues of
whether in fact, there is a technical merger that has occurred here,
rather than, because this is the identical situation. This is a
situation where there was a filed map, which a building permit would
have issued anytime before December 26, and now we're coming back
because of the wording of the new section 100-26.
I'd also refer the board simply to the reasons beyond that,
technical legal reasons why I don't think a merger occurred. Even
assuming that, you are inclined to think a merger did occur here. If
you look at the application, I believe that this is the, as I stated
there, that this lot is on a subdivision map approved by the Southold
Planning Board in 1965. Inadvertent merger is alleged to have
occurred during the short period between 7 and 183 and 427-84 when
both the subject lot and the adjacent Suffolk County Tax Map Lot
#100-115-6-2 were held by the same party. This party as per the
property card, held title from 11/29/76 by two separate deeds,
incidental, at Liber's 816370 and 816374. A building permit was
incidentally, in fact issued in 1987 to the other lodge. Assuming a
technical merger in fact occurred here, this would appear to be the
exactly the kind of case with current labor provisions, are designed
to remedy.
This is a situation where in practical difficulty, and
unnecessary hardship would result, should a waiver be an
inadvertent merger not be permitted. It should be noted that the
subject lot is .58 acres and is actually larger than many of the lots
in the area, and on the filed approved subdivision map. It is also,
incidentally larger that the lot which it's alleged to have merged,
and which received a building permit in 1987. If you look at the
criteria and the statute, specifically the way it would not result in
significant increase, in the density of the neighborhood. I think
that's apparent, simply by looking at 'the map, meaning the tax map.
That the waiver would recognize the lot as consistent with the size
of the lots in that neighborhood. That's obvious, you're looking at
the tax map.
The economic hardship issue, I'd address this way. Linda
made a mistake. The people that bought this lot in 1985 the
Stephans and Linda, they were friends of Linda Best, and she gave
them a. mortgage for about $40,000.00, which they never paid. She
had to go through a foreclosure and took title back, and that was
about $65,000.00 in this. She isn't under contract to sell, and this
problem arose, while one of the applicants made out an application
for a zoning permit. And finally the fourth criteria, the details
and contour of the slopes of the lot, will not be significantly
changed at all. There will not be significant filling of land, and
it's also clear, if you know the lot, you know it's an upland parcel,
just off Main Road. In addition to what I said, I have nothing
further. I wanted to resolve Gary's remarks, in regard to whether
there really was a merger. I don't think there has been actually,
and I believe I'd like to adopt. There is a staff memo in this, in
,r a
' Page 75 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
your file. I'd like to refer you to that reasoning and also about
that. If you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN: Lydia, do you have any questions of Mr. Cardinale?
MEMBER TORTORA: You said the lots were merged for a short
time.
PHILIP CARDINALE ESQ: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: For how long?
PHILIP CARDINALE ESQ: For exactly 7/1/83 to 4/27/84. The
adjacent lot, the people that Rengepis, that if you look at the
property, owned the lot from 176 and they deeded. out the parcels,
which is also to have merged in 184, on 4/27/84. And then this
instant parcel, was deeded out in '85.
MEMBER VILLA: So from '85 to now, they have been in separate
Deeds, in different names.
PHILIP CARDINALE ESQ: Yes, in fact when the Rengegis took it
in 1976, he took it in separate deeds. He took each parcel by
separate deeds.
MEMBER VILLA: But were they in the same name.
PHILIP CARDINALE ESQ: They were in the same name.
MEMBER VILLA: Well that's (unfinished sentence) .
PHILIP CARDINALE ESQ: Right, so that's a distinction without a
difference.
MEMBER VILLA: Right.
PHILIP CARDINALE ESQ: But what isn't a distinction without a
difference, because I think of Gary's remarks that. Since you had a
statute that allowed this lot to receive a building permit, up to
1995. To say that, now as of '96 it is not buildable, is
effectively a retroactive law. So I would suggest, I haven't yet but
I'll mention it to Laurie Dowd when I speak to her. That they look
at the statute, to try to put the exceptions right into the statutes,
because you're going to see alot of these. You're seeing two
tonight.
MEMBER TORTORA: We're seeing quite a few of these.
MEMBER VILLA: Yes.
PHILIP CARDINALE ESQ: Yes
.r
Page 76 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER TORTORA: They did have the exceptions in the Law,
prior to this, in an enactment of this Legislation. That's what
they took out.
CHAIRMAN: Well, we're going. to try to fast track some of this
stuff.
MR. PHILIP CARDINALE ESQ: Right.
MEMBER VILLA: So basically, when you say that you can prove and
you've done so by deeds.
PHILIP CARDINALE ESQ: Right.
MEMBER VILLA: That they were in separate deeds, prior to
January, or whatever it is, of 196.
PHILIP CARDINALE ESQ: December 26, 1995.
MEMBER VILLA: Right.
PHILIP CARDINALE ESQ: And therefore one could argue, that
there has been not technical merger, although there was merger
under your language of your statute. That's why we're here. But
lets assume that you fail to grant relief in one of these instances,
ok.
MEMBER TORTORA: This is not an identical case to the Olsen's
case.
PHILIP CARDINALE: How so?
MEMBER VILLA: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: Because the size of the lot, the others were
not, I think they were held in single and separate ownership.
PHILIP CARDINALE: The Olsen case, the deeds out, were 185
too...
MEMBER. VILLA: But basically (unfinished sentence) .
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's very similar.
CHAIRMAN: Very similar.
MEMBER VILLA: A better way to approach it to say, a legal transfer
of the deed took place, prior to December 26, 1995.
PHILIP CARDINALE ESQ: Exactly, and you're going to have many
of those. If your a ( ) 1995 is the big issue. But even if
you don't address that technical issue just on the criteria, since
this law is so large, relative to the surrounding area, and since
L e
n Page 77 - September 19, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
this certainly would be a tremendous deficit of financial hardship
for, you could grant relief on the criteria, which I would ask that
you do, and the rest of it is just really comment, and you can't
interpret. It is something that I noticed, and I know that Gary
noticed, and I'll mentioned to the Town Attorney that, If they
precede to pass these all onto you, you're going to be here very late.
MEMBER TORTORA: I know.
PHILIP CARDINALE ESQ: The could exclude those between 183 and
'95, which would have been giving building permits by virtue of
100-31, at the Building Department level, so you wouldn't see those,
and then you'd see all the others.
MEMBER VILLA: Well, there's another way of tackling that. We'll
have to address that.
CHAIRMAN: OK, any other questions of Mr. Cardinale, unless Mr.
Hands wants to speak and Jo Ann. I don't see any (unfinished
sentence) . What do you want to do on this one Gentlemen, Ladies?
MEMBER TORTORA: Let's take it when we take the other. Let's
take a vote the same time.
MEMBER VILLA: Let's discuss all of them so that we address them
together, all right. Let's recess it and discuss.
CHAIRMAN: OK, let's recess it.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No, you don't want to recess it.
CHAIRMAN: I don't mean recess it, I mean close the hearing, yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: Close reserve.
CHAIRMAN: Close reserve, ok. One second.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Bob made the motion to close it.
MEMBER VILLA: Yes.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Who wants to second it?
CHAIRMAN: All in favor, aye. REC',' IVED AND FILED BY
" Prepared from tape recordings by Noreen Frey". THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
DATE Q-J >> I.9, , HOUR J
v
Town Clerk, Town of Southold