HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/17/2002 HEAR `��
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS DEC 3.
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS
HELD OCTOBER 17,2002 -
(Prepared by Jessica Boger)
Present were:
Chairman Goehringer
Member Tortora
Member Horning
Member Orlando
Absent:
Member Oliva
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6:25 p.m.Appl.No.5185—ROBERT and DONNA M.MOSQUERA. Request for a Variance under
Section 100-244,based on the Building Department's June 17,2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants are
proposing to construct additions/alterations to an existing dwelling with less that 35'from the front lot line
and less than 35'from the rear lot line,at 370 Hobart Road,Southold;Parcel 62-3-6
(Tape started 5 minutes late)
ROBERT MOSQUERA: It would make the house look more appealing. Having the porch in the plans
made the house look very choppy.
CHAIRMAN: What's on the concrete slab?
MR.MOSQUERA: It's just a footing.
CHARIMAN: What's the purpose of the footing?
MR.MOSQUERA: Just to hold the roof.
CHARIMAN: I see. It's open-
MR.MOSQUERA: I think we would put a small slab in.
CHARIMAN: You were issued a Building Permit for the slab? I have a Building Permit#28103 issued on
2-22-02.
MR.MOSQUERA: That's the extension on our house-20x20. It's from that point that we want to come
out and re-do the porch.
CHARIMAN: Is this an enclosed porch?
MR.MOSQUERA: No.
CHARIMAN: This is an open porch. What's the elevation factor off the ground?
MR.MOSQUERA: 8 or 10".
CHARIMAN: Is there a roof on it?
MR.MOSQUERA: No. We are requesting a roof. That's why we are here.
Page 2 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHARIMAN: No screen,just an open porch. Like a typical open porch that you would find in an older
house,facing the road. Except only a small portion of is facing the road,the remaining portion is facing the
rest of your property.
MR.MOSQUERA: That's right. Only 4',it can only really be 4'wide,but it's coming out the 8"past.
CHARIMAN: That's what you bought the tresses for?
MR.MOSQUERA: They are already built. That's why they built the tresses. I didn't think it was going to
be a problem with setbacks. Like I said there is only 4'facing the street,4'wide,but that's what I'm here
for.
CHARIMAN: Let's start with Mr.Horning. Any questions for this gentleman?
MEMBER HORNING: Tell us again,on the porch,you had a building permit,or you never had a building
permit for it?
MR.MOSQUERA: For the porch,no,I misunderstood you,for the extension,we had a permit. For the
porch,we didn't have a permit for. At the time I submitted it,the Building Department told me it might be
a difficulty,so we omitted it from the plan.
MEMBER HORNING: Then you started building it anyway.
MR.MOSQUERA: No I didn't build it.
MEMBER HORNING: Have you started building it at all? That's what you bought plywood for.
MR.MOSQUERA: He bought tresses,but the only thing he built was an extension,which he has a
building permit for,which was issued on 2-24,which is between,just south of the house.
MEMBER HORNING: It's facing straight south.
MEMBER TORTORA: So is the attachment,where it says"concrete slab"?
MR.MOSQUERA: Right. That's the extension. Where it says"concrete slab",that's where they had the
berm before. If you are looking at a survey of the property,at this point-
MEMBER TORTORA: I have the survey,I'm just trying to figure out what you have. Where it says
"concrete slab",you have a building permit to do what on that.
MR.MOSQUERA: Build the extension,that's already built.
MEMBER HORNING: In theory,you can have your porch even with the edge of your concrete slab of
your new extension.
MR.MOSQUERA: When you build it(inaudible)
MEMBER HORNING: Why not?
MR.MOSQUERA: With the proposed porch,that's what I wish to do.
MEMBER HORNING: I'm asking why you need it so close to the road,or the boundary.
CHAIRMAN: I guess the question is how come it's closer to the road than the existing house?
MEMBER HORNING: Correct.
Page 3 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: Is that correct?
MR.MOSQUERA: The existing house is 4.6'.
CHAIRMAN: No. It's 7.5'to the property line.
MR.MOSQUERA: Only because,aesthetically,the front,the south side of the porch is 8'. In order to
make the(inaudible)to make the house look aesthetic,you have to make everything clean cut. Otherwise
the front of the house is going to be chopped.
MEMBER HORNING: It looks chopped now. They are sticking it out further than anything else you
have there.
MR.MOSQUERA: I am sticking it out. As you can notice,the survey shows the other neighbors to the
north of me. Their porch is also sticking out. One of them is I I' from the road. The other one sticks out—
it's almost equal,it's only 8"different than what is already there.
MEMBER HORNING: It's a 4' increase. The other department said you want it 3 ''/z' from the road,
property line.
MR.MOSQUERA: Yes. 3'/z'. The neighbors next door are 4.1' from the existing house.
MEMBER HORNING: Through the boundaries.
MR.MOSQUERA: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: Our boundary is 7.5' from the existing house.
MR.MOSQUERA: It would be 3'more than what the existing house is,which would be the same as the
neighbors house. I don't know how big their porch is,but you have a space between the end of their
property to their porch that would be identical to what mine is. The only difference is 8".
MEMBER TORTORA: You're referring to the house to the north.
MR.MOSQUERA: That's correct. There's 4.1',mine would be 3.5'. We're talking 8".
MEMBER HORNING: It looks like they have just a tiny little depth-
MR.MOSQUERA: That's the width of their house. I'm not even going there.
CHAIRMAN: Let's go on here,Mr.Orlando? I'm sorry,George,are you done?
MEMBER ORLANDO: Just to expand on that a little bit,we're assuming that your neighbors have CO's
for those front porches,we're just going to assume that. We don't know if they just built them-
MR.MOSQUERA: Those houses have been there for at least 90 years.
MEMBER ORLANDO: I just wanted to put that in there,we are assuming that they are legal front porches
with CO's. The other thing is a standard front yard setback is 35'. You're asking for over a 30'variance.
MR.MOSQUERA: Front yard?
MEMBER ORLANDO: Both front and rear,35' setbacks,you're requesting over a 30'variance.
Page 4 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MR.MOSQUERA: I guess if you add it that way,it would show that this-what we're looking to do is just
conform with what's there in the neighbors. From the end of the property,there is an additional 10-11'to
the curb. Besides the 3.5'. If you look at the main house,it would be more than 10'back. It is a wide
road,a one-way street.
MEMBER ORLANDO: It's showing 49' 5". Which way does the property slope?
MR.MOSQUERA: It slopes south,away from the main street,from north to south,one way.
MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions.
MEMBER TORTORA: Just to keep things in perspective,you're existing 2 story frame is setback 7.5 and
7.9 each from the front property line from the road.
MR.MOSQUERA: The existing house,yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: The extension is(inaudible)from the road.
MR.MOSQUERA: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: Now you want to come in and be 2 3/from the road. I've been on this board since
1985,and the time I've been on this board,I'll be very candid with you so we won't waste any time,we
have never granted a variance for anything 3'from the road. That's forsaking the welfare of the town. Yes
when houses were built in the 1800's(inaudible)considerations there were houses that were built on the
road. But certainly when you have the options that you have on this property to build that porch—you have
other alternatives.From a practical standpoint,3' is the distance from here to there. When you come along
the road,whether it's one-way or two-ways,if the car veers off,it's going to hit you. It's a liability to the
town. The bottom line is you have plenty of other options available to you,to be able to enjoy a front
porch,and to have it set back in line with the new extension without requiring this degree of a variance. If
the board were to grant you a variance for the porch of 15',we would still be giving you a 60%variance
(inaudible)because the requirement is 35',so even if the board considered 15',we're still cutting it close.
I'm trying to give you a perspective on this. We can't help what happened in the 1800's,and god bless
them. We've seen places on Fisher's Island,and on the mainland,plenty of places built right up to the
road. You have many options available. You have a large piece of property. You certainly have the option
to get it off the road,not 3' from the road.
MR.MOSQUERA: It's not 3' from the road. •It's actually 13' from the road.
MEMBER TORTORA: You're counting the road,and you can't count town property.
MR.MOSQUERA: The DEC already approved it,and I do have it on the plan(inaudible)the eastern
section up against the street. I would like to do the porch up against the house.
MEMBER TORTORA: The applicant has agreed to amend his request. The request would be for a 15'
setback to run parallel with the existing extension on Hobart Lane
CHAIRMAN: We thank you sir.
MEMBER TORTORA: We hope we helped you.
MR.MOSQUERA: In regards to the(inaudible)?
MEMBER TORTORA: The board recognizes the wetlands. We are aware of that. I don't have any
problems.
CHAIRMAN: I have no problems with that.
Page 5 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER ORLANDO: Likewise.
MR.MOSQUERA: (inaudible)
CHAIRMAN: No,you have to wait for a written decision. And please don't leave until we close the
hearing.
MR.MOSQUERA: We are all squared away with the—
MEMBER TORTORA: I think we are in good shape.
MR.MOSQUERA: I appreciate your time.
CHAIRMAN: Thanks for coming in. Anyone else like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no
hands,I'll make a motion to close this hearing reserving decision until later. All in favor? All ayes. We
will vote on it hopefully tonight,if not tonight,it will be very shortly. Thank you.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
6:41 p.m.Appl.No.5190—JOEL LAUBER. Request for a Variance under Section 100-32 based on the
Building Department's September 23,2002 Notice of Disapproval(replacing the August 14,2001 Notice),
for the reason that the zoning code restricts the height of an one family dwelling to 2-2 1/2 stories.
Applicant is proposing to make additions and alterations to an existing dwelling with a third story habitable
space. Location of property: 4090 Orchard Street,Orient;Parcel 27-3-3.13 (nonconforming size of 79,300
+/-sq. ft.in an R-200 Residential Zone District)
CHAIRMAN: We've been out to your house in Orient. What would you like to tell us about your 3rd
story?
JOEL LAUBER: It's pretty straightforward. What I can tell you about the property is the house is set quite
a way back from the road. It's surrounded by trees 40-50'high on 2 acres. I can see the neighbors-they
can't see me. When I bought the house it had quite a spectacular view of the-. Given the fact that the trees
in the area have grown in the last 25 years,it's gone. I'd like to re-capture those views if I could within the
existing footprint.We have a flat roof. It's about 1,500 sq. ft. I'm supposed to take about 40%of that,just
to put on the bedroom,which would give me the views back. The house now has a 3'—around the entire
roof so that as far as the existing structure is concerned, 19'high from the road,you can see—if we add this
addition,we would add 5',about 1/3 on the same footprint obviously. The impact is really for me. There
would be no impact negative or positive on any of the neighbors.
CHAIRMAN: Are you aware of some of the restrictions enforced on 3rd story additions?
MR.LAUBER: I'm aware that there is a 2'/z story—this house is built on slabs,and has 2 stories. I know
that we're well under the total height requirements,and that's why we're asking for a variance. I'm also
aware that a piece of property only 2 doors down from us,which would be another 200 yards down the
road,has just recently been approved.
CHAIRMAN: That had the story on it already.
MR.LAUBER: He already built it.
CHAIRMAN: No. It was part of the house. It existed.
MR.LAUBER: No,I'm talking about brand new.
Page 6 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: We didn't grant it. We're not quibbling with you,but we didn't grant it.
MEMBER TORTOLA: It didn't come through us.
CHAIRMAN: No,it didn't come through us,and that's the only way that it could come.Let me go a little
bit farther. Everything that we have granted to date has required a full comprehensive sprinkler system in
all 3 stories. That's number one. Number two,we understand your situation,but we don't know if the
water view aspect is really a plight. That's not a sarcastic statement. I'll leave that up to the board to make
that determination because we haven't really discussed it amongst ourselves because we don't until we
come to this hearing. I just need to ask you what's downstairs on the first floor in the house.
MR.LAUBER: Well the house is built,was originally built off the ground the way it was(inaudible)so
the lower level of the house,the main living area is on the second floor,the kitchen,living room-
CHAIRMAN: Like a reverse house.
MR.LAUBER: The first floor is just a home office,a bedroom,a utility room,a laundry room,and sort of
an entrance. The second floor is pretty much the living area,the kitchen,a bedroom,and a little bed. What
we are proposing to do is put a bedroom on the third floor.
MEMBER TORTORA: The elevation exceeds the limit. You said the existing house has 19'.
MR.LAUBER: Two stories.
MEMBER TORTORA: The top is 19'. Your plans measure to 29' to the top at one point and 32-34' at
another.
MR.LAUBER: 32'high?
MEMBER TORTORA: The elevations you submitted show you increase it 1' (inaudible)
MR.LAUBER: All I can tell you is two 8' ceilings and a 3'bathroom. They might be a little more than
that.
CHAIRMAN: Whatever the(inaudible).
MR.LAUBER: All I'm saying is it's a standard 2 story house-
CHAIRMAN: We were there. We know what it is.
MEMBER TORTORA: The other thing I want to ask you,on the third floor,you're going to have an open
flat roof,a deck area,what is the dome on top?
MR.LAUBER: The existing staircase,the entry stairs are going to be extended on the floor. They are
going to be arched on the top,it's architectural.
MEMBER TORTORA: Gerry,you have the full plans,what is this indicating?
CHAIRMAN: I would assume it's the stairwell that this gentleman is referring to.
MEMBER TORTORA: It's on the west elevation and it also shows up on the east elevation.
MR.LAUBER: It would only be on the front of the house. It rises above the—
CHAIRMAN: Right. It's that stairwell that you're referring to.
Page 7 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER TORTORA: One of the things that's hard for us to understand,when we first started looking at
flat roofs in terms of height—it's really remarkable when you look at a 2 story or 2'/z stories structure,as
opposed to a flat roof. The board has had experiences looking at(inaudible)
MR.LAUBER: We have a big roof on 2 stories.The pitch in the roof is higher in the front.
MEMBER TORTORA: The overall effect on this is very overwhelming.
MR.LAUBER: The only thing I can tell you about this property is it's not visible from the road.
CHAIRMAN: I had to drive down your driveway.
MEMBER TORTORA: Since it's not technically a third story,kind of an observation tower,or a non-
habitable area-
MEMBER ORLANDO: Let's back up. Wouldn't it be easier to trim your trees so you could see the water
again then to go through this aggravation?
MR.LAUBER: We're not talking about my trees. It's an entire area.
MEMBER ORLANDO: They're not your trees.
MR.LAUBER: Some are,but many are not.
MEMBER ORLANDO: The observation tower,we'll call it. The new extension will not exceed the height
of that?
MR.LAUBER: No,it's exactly the same.One way to look at it would be an extension of that tower.
MEMBER ORLANDO: And what's up there now?
MR.LAUBER: Nothing.
MEMBER ORLANDO: I also stopped by there. No one was home,but I wanted to go up there and look.
MR.LAUBER: There's nothing in there.
MEMBER ORLANDO: And the construction is at that height.
CHAIRMAN: This is a very interesting situation. You've started with this third floor construction about 2
years ago. New houses,it seems,it's assumed,if you're building a house,you're going to put it in. A
couple of people merely put them in entryways for the first and second floor,and I guess there's no
provision in the state construction code,and therefore the Building Department requires that we hire a
consultant. So,that was the reason I suggested we talk about it in the beginning. It's a little expensive to
do that. If we were to grant this,or a portion of this,I'm sure you would be required to pay for the entire
amount.
MR.LAUBER: That would be the Building Department?
CHAIRMAN: That's based upon the state construction code. We've come a long way on this,and I realize
this is somewhat upsetting for you to understand. Not to understand,I'm sure you understand it very well,
but to learn this tonight. That this is basically the case. I think what we need to do,and I think Mr.
Orlando hit it right on the head,and that was,I think we need to make an appointment on a Saturday
morning or some evening before any of this starts,and come over and see that third story room.
Page 8 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MR.LAUBER: I must say,this is no exception,a brand new house being built 2 houses,and I have a
COPY-
CHAIRMAN: We are aware of that house. The first story of that house is not a story. It's not in the
ground. A lot of the house is pilings. The one room that's downstairs is a non-habitable room. It's
basically the furnace room,and they have admitted to us;during the hearing,that they use it for an exercise
room,but that is the extent of that room. That is still construed to be non-habitable because they don't
occupy it on a nightly basis. In other words,they don't sleep there. It is a furnace room. That's why I
questioned you on what was downstairs.
MR.LAUBER: Personally,I'm not trying to point the finger at somebody else.
CHAIRMAN: Are you available Saturday,between 10-10:30? Anywhere between that range,we'll come
over and take a look. Are you available?
MR.LAUBER: What is the Building Department requirement?
MEMBER HORNING: On your plans,are you having sliding glass doors? On other approvals,you have
one requiring metal chain ladders. Are the windows up on that third floor-it's open.
MEMBER ORLANDO? No railings up top?
MR.LAUBER: You're actually sinking it in to the existing-
CHAIRMAN: I think Mr.Lauber is saying there's a membrane there that comes up approximately 3'up,
and the roof drains in the house,and then out. Is that correct? And that's what we'll see on Saturday.
That's why you have to make sure that they are clean,nothing backs up when the leaves fall in the winter.
We thank you. We'll see you between 10&10:30. If for any reason there's any change or anything,we'll
call you tomorrow. Please don't leave until this hearing is concluded. Is there anyone else who would like
to speak for or against this application? What I would like to do,ladies and gentlemen,is close this hearing
for verbatim testimony and so long as you guys go along with that. That's fine. We are going to close this
hearing for verbatim testimony,and any additional information we may request of you,you will be able to
put into the record. We will close it on November 14a`. We'll take no further testimony from anybody
standing in front of us in a verbatim sense,but we will take additional testimony if we have any requests
from you in writing or from your architects or engineer or whoever makes claims. Your name will appear
on the agenda for the next regular meeting,but merely as a right to close this out.
MR.LAUBER: I have a letter.
CHAIRMAN: We'll take that right now.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Second
CHAIRMAN: All in favor? All ayes.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:00 p.m.Appl.No.5174-ARLENE MANOS(Hearing carryover from September 19,2002 for Suffolk
County Soil&Water Conservation District reply to ZBA inquiry. Reply received September 23,2002.)
Pool at less than 100'from bluff at 2000 Sound Drive,Greenport. C.Mesiano,Inc.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs.Mesiano,we have the letter from the SC Soil&Water Conservation dated September
23,2002. It's probably one of the more favorable ones we've seen in a long time. You want to comment on
anything?
Page 9 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CATHY MESIANO: The only thing I'd like to say is in light of the letter from the Soil and Water
Conservation that we reiterate our position in that we're giving the most conservative actions we can in
order to put a small pool in the back of the house the front yard not being an option primarily because the
because the location and the driveway. The neighbors concern is the appearance of the
neighborhood. When we were here last we talked about,we talked briefly about what kind of treatment
there would be as far as the patio. Mrs.Manos had not hired an architect because she was not confident to
do that until this Board made a decision. So I have a couple of sketches that I will present to the Board.
basically we're looking for,we had proposed a 42'setback from the bluff,what we would like to be able to
do(inaudible)the comments about the excavation being too close to the foundation. I've spoken to the
Building Department they didn't see anything wrong with it as a matter of the work concerned after we
make the comment. If we gained T more off of the house whereby total setback from the bluff at 20'to the
edge of the pool and the patio around the pool(inaudible)fencing would be that required by code.
CHAIRMAN: Question is again,is it a liner pool or a gunite?
MS.MESIANO: Liner.
CHAIRMAN: Liner pool,okay. Two quick things-one of the concerns the board always has in 100'lots
of this magnitude,which happens to be a beautiful piece of property I'm just saying it's not a 2 or 3 acre
parcel where the utilities factors are going so they don't bother neighbors. What we have been doing on
these is reserving their rights on two things. We are reserving the right to review the landscaping plans,
and we are reserving the right to find out where those systems go. We learned this very,very well in
Southold down in Yennecott Park on a one-acre lot. There's going to be some time issues between the
construction of this pool and the actual use of this pool. We may be addressing the right to review next
Spring. In that particular case down in Yennecott Park,which were one-acre lots,they were required to put
the utilities in an insulated shed so they did not bother the neighbors. In reference to the 4'I don't know if
the board is willing to go the other 2,but we'll kick it around. We'll let you know in the decision. Don't
you want to say something?
MEMBER TORTORA: You hadn't shown any fencing or decking,that will all be(inaudible)
MS.MESIANO: No decking,just patio-
CHAIRMAN: Blocks or something.
MS.MESIANO: It's going to be decorated(inaudible)
CHAIRMAN: Questions gentlemen?
MEMBERS ORLANDO AND HORNING: No.
CHAIRMAN: Anything else you want to say Ms.Mesiano?
MS.MESIANO: No,I think we've covered everything.
CHAIRMAN: As you know,we've been relatively modest in reference to our reviews we have at times
come down with a hammer or a sword or a sickle,or anything of that nature in reviewing this stuff just so
you're aware of that. In placing of restrictions are.
MS.MESIANO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comment,I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until
later.
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
Page 10 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
7:07 p.m.Appl.No.5179-CHARLES SIDOROWICZ. Request for Variance under Sections 100-
30A.4 and 100-33,based on the Building Department's June 5,2002 Notice of Disapproval for a location of
a new accessory garage in a side yard area. Site Location: 3300 Cox Neck Road,Mattituck;Parcel 113-8-4.
CHAIRMAN: Charlie we are ready for you.
CHARLES SIDOROWICZ: Charles Sidorowicz,I'm here to answer any questions the board might have.
CHAIRMAN: You have a one-story garage which is an existing one-car garage,and you want to replace it
with-the size of the new garage is?
MR. SIDOROWICZ: Proposed 26'x26'.
CHAIRMAN: How close is that item to the property line?
MR. SIDOROWICZ: 6.3'.
CHAIRMAN: That bump in your property line was a nature of a court action and that bump exists,when I
say bump,I mean jog. That jog is now your property and there's no question about it and that's it.
MR. SIDOROWICZ: That's in three different courts.
CHAIRMAN: Just so the board-because there are members on the board that were not aware of that
situation,and not to bring up any problems or anything of that nature.
MR. SIDOROWICZ: We were in litigation for 19 years they finally settled this year.
CHAIRMAN: I think we can normally call that a boundary line disagreement which is what was settled in
court. Is that correct?
MR. SIDOROWICZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Height of the building? One story?
MR. SIDORWICZ: Approximately 12'.
CHAIRMAN: I have no questions-is that actually attached to the house?
MR. SIDOROWICZ: No,it's not. There's a breezeway between the garage-'
CHAIRMAN: So where it says"concrete slab"?
MR. SIDOROWICZ: Right.
CHAIRMAN: Mr.Horning,any questions for Mr. Sidorowicz?
MEMBER HORNING: In your application that you submitted you're mentioning there's a slab and the
current garage is on at least half of an existing slab.
MR. SIDOROWICZ: The plan says 24x24 and the garage is on 1/2 the deck.
MEMBER HORNING: In this written testimony here there was a garage over the entire slab at one time.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando?
Page 11 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER ORLANDO: You're going to do a complete demo. You're going to remove this single-car
garage now.
CHARLES SIDOROWICZ: I'm not going to demolish it,it's going to be removed. I've got somebody
who's going to take it.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Second,this existing slab,are you going to re-use that?
MR. SIDOROWICZ: It's going to be a 3'footing all around it. We're going to use that existing-
MEMBER ORLANDO: Go over it. Because it didn't look very level. Good drainage,but not very level.
Next year that will be a new garage,it won't be the asbestos shingles you have on there now.
MR. SIDOROWICZ: Yes it will match the house.
MEMBER ORLANDO: No further questions.
CHAIRMAN: Member Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No,we're pretty familiar with the property from the last owner. You have limited
options because of the wetlands. It's probably the best location.
CHAIRMAN: For the record,Mr. Sidorowicz,the reason for more feet is what? The reason for going
from 24 to 26 is what?
MR. SIDOROWICZ: It would be easier to put a footing around the whole foundation now,then it would
be to pick up a portion of the foundation.
CHAIRMAN: We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. I'll be right with you. Would you state
your name for the record please?
ELEANOR SIEVERNICH: I'm Eleanor Sievernich. I own the adjacent property. I'm requesting an
adjournment. My intent is to procure a response from my insurance company.
CHAIRMAN: Because of the nature of the November meeting,we are unable to postpone this to the
November meeting. We have an extensive amount of hearings on that night,and one hearing is going to
take approximately 2 hours. The best we can do is the December meeting. We'll see if the board is so
inclined to grant that to you. Is the board inclined to grant that? All agreed. We will calendar that for
December 5.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Your property is on the south side?
MRS. SIEVERNICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Anyone else like to speak at this hearing at this time? Hearing no further comment,I'll
make a motion recessing the hearing until December 5`".
MEMBER ORLANDO: Second.
CHAIRMAN: All in favor? All ayes.
7:14 p.m.Appl.No.5200-PATRICK W.LOHN. Request for a Variance under Section 100-244B,
based on the Building Department's June 14,2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing to
construct a new dwelling(after demolishing the existing dwelling), and the new dwelling will be less than
35'from the front lot line, and the lot coverage will exceed the code limitation of 20%of the total lot area.
Page 12 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
Location of Property: Corner of Minnehaha Boulevard and Wabun Street(at Laughing Waters),Southold;
Parcel 87-3-55.
CHAIRMAN: Evening sir. Would you state your name for the record?
PATRICK W.LOHN: Patrick W.Lohn.
CHAIRMAN: Mr.Lohn,would you like to tell us what you are doing?
MR.LOHN: What I'm asking for is a lot line setback,and a couple of variances on a new house that we
are going to build. The lot line setback is necessary. It's an odd situation. The only reason I'm here is that
the Building Department considers the dirt path that runs adjacent to my property as an actual road. I
believe it's called Lobom Street on the map. My family has lived in this house since 1955. It has never
been used as a road,that's as far as I'll say. It's basically a dirt path. You've been there,you've seen it.
What I'm asking for is an additional 7 1/2'to position the house closer to that dirt path,so I can have the
driveway on the south side of the property. It would be adjacent to my neighbor's driveway, and make a
whole lot more sense. Right now,along that pathway,there is my own garage,which is less than 2'from
the property line. There is another garage further down,same thing,right on it. Where I'm asking for the
setbacks to be placed,would actually put the new house further from that Lobom Street than the present
house is now by about a foot. As far as the area setbacks,they are basically one of livability,I just want the
deck to be a little bit larger,and then also,in practical terms,I'm looking fora little bit larger place for a
garage. Where the property is located now,I'm not allowed to have a space for some storages. It's very,
very tough. As far as the area,increases are concerned,compared to the overall size of the lot,they are
very miniscule,I think combined they are less than 350 sq.ft.,but again,I don't know. The lot line setback
is very important,because I will not have a useable driveway. I don't believe it would interfere in any way,
shape,or form with the character of the neighborhood.In fact it might actually improve it.
CHAIRMAN: Mr.Lohn,when I met with you and you kindly showed me the interior of your house,could
you just explain to the board the reason why you need to tear this house down?
MR.LOHN: The house is a shoddily built nightmare. It is a nightmare. Any workman that has ever done-
whether it be a carpenter,electrician,or a plumber-leaves with their mouths open. It is impossible to fix
anything there without running into a major project. It's impossible to add a second story to it because
there is absolutely no substance to add a second story on. It started as a summer cottage,and then it was
added on to. The addition is-quite honestly,I don't know how it's ever stood up for what it is. It's terrible.
It's literally falling down around me.
CHAIRMAN: You did show me the deterioration in the living room and in the dining room.
MR.LOHN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN: Of course,we didn't go into the bedroom because the boys were sleeping at that time. I did
visualize that,but I just wanted you to explain that to the board.
MR.LOHN: It's basically the same thing. Windows don't operate properly because there's no frame
properly in place in the wall to put them in at the right angle. It's an absolute nightmare. There are no
bases to build on so,that's where we are now.
CHAIRMAN: Member Tortora,any questions?
MEMBER TORTORA: Who owns the right of way?
MR.LOHN: The Town of Southold says that the town owns it. But I have,on two separate occasions,
been told by the Highway Department,because the tree that stands on the corner of Minnehaha Blvd. and
the entrance to that is on town property,has needed work,the town's Highway Dept.refused on two
occasions to come and do the work,claiming that it wasn't a street.
Page 13 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER TORTORA: (inaudible)
MR.LOHN: I paid for the tree work,and I also,along with my neighbors,paid to have it mowed,sprayed
when necessary,there's never been any maintenance of any kind done on that pathway.
MEMBER TOROTRA: I'm curious,because it's not shown as a private right of way back from(inaudible)
official map,as a street.
MR.LOHN: In effect,it's never been used as a street. There is maybe a dozen cars going up it a year.
CHAIRMAN: We're familiar with the street,because we granted variances on the Ott's and Eileen
Gallagher last June.
MEMBER TOROTRA: A couple of things,you have a small(inaudible)the total building area is 1,750 sq.
ft.is that the footprint of the(inaudible)
MR.LOHN: I'm not sure. I'd have to look at what you're looking at.
MEMBER TOROTRA: That doesn't include the deck area or the garage. I'm actually looking at the
architect's rendering that you submitted with the application. I'm just wondering because the lot coverage-
MR.LOHN: Again,what you see in front of you has been approved by the Building Department. What
has not been approved was a slightly larger deck and a slightly larger garage. The two increases I believe-
MEMBER TOROTRA: We've got to stop right there because that's not our understanding of what's before
us. Our understanding of what's before us is from the Building Department's disapproval. What they'say
the variance is for,they say you have two front yards,because they consider the private driveway also a
front yard,and they are saying the front yard setbacks are 35'from there,and you are proposing 10',that's
variance No. 1. Then they say you exceed the lot coverage(inaudible)for 20. I'm just concerned because
the garage is not(inaudible)you're actually okay as far as the garage is concerned.
MR.LOHN: I would like to make it another 80 sq.ft. larger than it is.
MEMBER TORTOLA: I see,you're total garage area is 320 sq.ft. Well,depending on what you want to
do,you could take a little bit off the garage or whatever(inaudible)the lot coverage,and the setbacks.
MR.LOHN: Right.
MEMBER TORTOLA: I really don't know what the status of that driveway is,other than it's(inaudible)
MR.LOHN: That's pretty much what it is.
MEMBER TORTOLA: A more important question I can't offer. You have some fairly obvious constraints
on this property. Is there any way that you could increase that 10'setback?
MR.LOHN: Right now,they want us to go,I think it's 17 1/2'and I simply measured from what I felt is
the property line to where 10'was,and low and behold,it's right where the present house is,so I figured it
was,really,not asking too much just to keep things status quo. You must realize the existing garage that's
there now is also going to come down. It's only going to add to whatever aesthetics there are there. That's
my feeling. Again,it's such a tight squeeze on the south side of the property the way the Building
Department has approved us that another 7 1/2 would make it very,very nice for me. It really would.
We've worked a long time on getting this where we are.
MEMBER TORTORA: (inaudible)
Page 14 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: About 32'approximately.
MR.LOHN: I'd have to look at the plans,and I really wouldn't know how to read them to tell you the
truth.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Your north side boundary where the garage is now,you're going to increase that
side yard,actually the front yard,they call it,your front yard from 2'to 10',correct? You're increasing that-
MR.LOHN: In effect by removing the garage,that is what is going to happen.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Exactly,that's what I wanted to get at. You're increasing it by 8',by removing the
garage.
MR.LOHN: Again,the present house is where the new one is going to be basically.
MEMBER ORLANDO: But your garage is 2'off the property line,which will be removed and now will be
10'away-the closest structure.
MR.LOHN: The closest structure will be 10'away.
MEMBER ORLANDO: You're increasing it by 8'. No other questions.
CHAIRMAN: Mr.Horning-
MEMBER HORNING: On your architect's rendering,what is that irregular shape with the 1/7 in the
middle of it? Approximately extending 17'from the house to your proposed driveway,what is that area?
MR.LOHN: I think it's the curved driveway. It gives the illusion of something that-
MEMBER HORNING: Is it your lawn?
MR.LOHN: Right now it's grass and shrubs. I'm sorry,I misunderstood.
MEMBER HORNING: So you could conceivably have your house pushed to the south a bit.
MR.LOHN: No,not if you want to walk off a normal driveway. Can I come up and show you what I'm
looking at?
MEMBER HORNING: Sure.
MR.LOHN: If I'm not mistaken,here's the proposed driveway,this I think was supposed to be-still even
if it was to become a driveway,from the corner of the house to my property line is 5'. You can't get a car
around the corner of the building.
MEMBER HORNING: +/-7'from the corner over. You're saying this is only 5'. I'm going on this-I've
walked it off,and staked it to the best of my ability. I mean if there was a delivery,a truck of some kind,it
would never make it around the corner of the building.
CHAIRMAN: Anything else? We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Please don't leave until
this hearing is closed. See if anybody else has any comments regarding this. We thank you for your
presentation. Anyone else like to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands,I'll make a
motion to close the hearing,reserving decision until later.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Second.
CHAIRMAN: All in favor? All ayes.
Page 15 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:29 p.m.Appl.No.5180-PAUL AND LISA HOLOBIGIAN. Request a Variance under Section 100-
242A and 100-30A.4,based on the Building Department's June 11,2002 Notice of Disapproval.
Applicants propose to enclose an existing addition,with an increase in the degree of nonconformity of the
existing garage in a side yard. Location of property: 1155 Marlene Lane,Mattituck;Parcel 144-3-3.
CHAIRMAN: Evening sir,how are you? Please state your name for the record.
WILLIAM HULSE: I'm William Hulse.
CHAIRMAN: You are the contractor for the applicant?
WILLIAM HULSE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: It is my understanding that the plan that was submitted has now been revised somewhat,
and this is going to be an enclosed room,and made part of the living area of the house. Is that correct?
MR.HULSE: (inaudible)
CHAIRMAN: It's still going to be one story,right?
MR.HULSE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions for this builder?
MEMBER HORNING: Is this livable space you're proposing?
MR.HULSE: Yes.
MEMBER ORLANDO: The pitch,it's gradual from the existing roof-and tree removal,the triple oak
trees,that's going to go? Is there going to be an entranceway?
MR.HULSE: Yes.
MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't'have a set of plans in front of me. I guess I didn't get the revised ones.
CHAIRMAN: It's still the same plan.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Is there going to be a door access on that? Or will there be an access door on the
north side. What's the total square footage of the extension?
MR.HULSE: I got 12 8`h's.
CHAIRMAN: About 300 sq.ft. I get 12 8`h's x 22 8`h's according to this plan from the lumberyard. Is that
correct?
MR.HULSE: Yes.
MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions.
CHAIRMAN: Member Tortora?
Page 16 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER TORTORA: You have your accessory garage in your side yard in a perfectly legal spot. You
were issued a building permit for the deck. You put the deck on the back of the house. The deck was in
the right place,but the accessory garage(inaudible). You meet all of the setbacks required. I have no
objections.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor or against this hearing. Seeing no
hands,I make a motion to close the hearing,reserving decision until later.
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:30 p.m.Appl.No.5184-WILLIAM SEIFERT. Request for a Variance under Section 100-242A and
244B,based on the Building Department's June 19,2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing to
construct additions/alterations to an existing dwelling with setbacks at less that 35'from the front lot line,
and less than 35'from the rear lot line,at 7145 Soundview Avenue, Southold; 1000-59-6-3
CHAIRMAN: Could you please state your name for the record?
GARRETT STRANG: Garrett Strang,architect,representing William Seifert. I would like to submit for
the board the Trustee's permit for the record. I would also like to make the board aware of the fact that we
are in contact presently with the DEC,and they are reviewing our application. We've had several meetings
with them. At this point,I've been told that everything that we've submitted to them-what you see on the
map in front of you,is acceptable to them. Basically what we are proposing there,as you can see it,on the
east side of the house,over the rear portion of the driveway is a 16x24'screen porch. It's supposed to be
setback 20'from the front property line,and obviously the requirement is 35'. I expect the board is aware
of the fact that there was a variance issued on this property when the house was built back in 1984,
allowing for a 171/2'front yard. Now,I'm not quite sure whether that setback with the structure
of the original house.
CHAIRMAN: Actually,Mr. Seifert,was quite upset with us. We sent him back to the drawing board
several times,and at certain times,that he's come,he's mentioned that to me. To be honest with you,yes,
and we know it's close. I just wanted to reflect on one thing,which you don't have to answer right now in
your presentation. Why did you choose to extend it out past the building envelope,and not bring it right in
line with the present situation?
MR. STRANG: I'd be happy to answer that,but I'm not,you mean as far as this projection out towards the
pond?
CHAIRMAN: Yes,towards the pond.
MR. STRANG: The idea there,is to have it project out there-well,number one to bring it out further back
to the front yard so that we could leave the other comer that's closer to about 20'as well. Also through that
there can be an egress from that porch along a little short walk across the back of the house to get to the
primary deck which is another of the application. That's the reason for the two-fold,
to bring it further back from the road,and second,to gain access to the walkway.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you wanted to say,or can I ask you another question?
MR. STRANG: The only other thing I wanted to address is in respect to the deck. The deck is,as you can
see,supposed to be 27'back from the edge of the water,or property line,as opposed to 35'. We originally
had wanted to do a but in discussing it further with the DEC,their preference is for an
elevated deck. They didn't want to hog the surface of this patio area on grade. They would rather have an
elevated deck. My understanding is had it been a character grade,we would have needed a variance. They
asked us to elevate it,now it's actually by the pool. That's pretty much what we have in this application.
CHAIRMAN: Let's go with Mrs.Tortora.
Page 17 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER TORTORA: To clear up the record,a variance is granted to There was a request
almost identical to what you're proposing that came before this board on March 10, 1986. At which time
the applicant applied for an accessory storage structure in the identical area that you're proposing. The
board denied it,and I'm not quite sure that we are not in effect barred by the document directly because we
hear what amounts to essentially the same application. I'd have to check with legal counsel,but I just note
that it was denied because the board at the time felt that it would be too close in proximity to the wetlands,
and it was denied without prejudice. We tried to litigate it by all these factors,but the one-story screen
porch is virtually identical to another application that was denied by this board.
MR. STRANG: That application,I was not aware of. It's the first I've heard of that. I was of the opinion
that this decision that has been rendered by this board would be 13 1/2'setback as it exists.
MEMBER TORTORA: There was another one prior to that. It's in our home file.
MR. STRANG: Sort of a secondary. This is from the previous owner,this is a new owner who purchased
the house 10 years ago.
MEMBER HORNING: Wasn't the variance denied for and the board was-we had occasion to go before
the Trustees and the DEC we were concerned about the property near the wetlands. We wanted
to get some feedback from either of those boards,the DEC and Trustees before-
(?) accessory building rather than principal dwelling?
MEMBER TORTORA: If you read through it,I would have to pull out the whole file,that's why I'm not
sure whether it was denied because of the wetlands or not.
MEMBER HORNING: Right because if it were for accessory building
MR STRANG: One of the reasons that we withheld coming before this board until we had occasions to go
before the Trustees and the DEC because of concerns with the wetlands. We wanted to get feedback from
either of those boards,the DEC and the Trustees on what their feelings were on the proximity to the
wetlands. They are supposed to have that they are in favor of,as far as the Trustees,they have
actually issued permits. And the DEC is expected to give permits,hopefully,not before long,but for
several reasons . They had no challenge,to give a brief history with respect to the
portion,the DEC really had no challenge because the majority of construction was going over an already
graveled parking area,they felt that wasn't really much more of an impact. I do appreciate your concern
with respect to the proximity to the wetlands. I follow the format of addressing the environmental issues
first.
CHAIRMAN: The only other concern I have is the fact that you're actually taking driveway area away. As
you know,it's a very difficult piece of property to park on anyway-in reference to multiple cars. That's an
issue that's a concern. Mr. Orlando?
MEMBER ORLANDO: That was my one big question Gerry. No,I'm kidding. It give the impression
there's 20'of driveway,but as you see,the grade is maybe 10',there's a moral dilemma right there. Another
question-is there going to be a slab or a crawlspace built underneath the porch,how is that going to be
constructed?
MR. STRANG: As I was proposing,I haven't gotten into the finite details yet with my client,but I would
suspect to build it as an on-post elevated to the floor level of the house,basically it would be a deck,it
would be insect-proof-
MEMBER ORLANDO: Because of the back,because the grade in the back drops off pretty significantly
also,that was why I was inquiring-
Page 18 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MR. STRANG: I would prefer not to get too involved with constructing,or excavating an area.
MEMBER TORTORA: How high?
MR. STRANG: Anywhere from 8-16" off the grade. I believe that's presently what the elevation would
be.
MEMBER TORTORA:
MR. STRANG: That is in the 80. Elevation 11 is the minimum.
CHAIRMAN: So is the case with the deck,right?
MR. STRANG: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: Except the front part.
MR. STRANG: That part is out. We're not doing anything with the front.
MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions.
CHAIRMAN: Mr.Horning?
MEMBER HORNING: No other questions.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir. I don't know if we shouldn't wait until you get some definitive answer from
the DEC,on what they are going to do.In the interim,if we recess this to the December meeting,or we
recess this to the January meeting,we would then be able to determine the issue that Mrs.Tortora is raising
about the cotta. You would probably have a definitive judgment from the DEC on what they were going to
require.
MR. STRANG: Hopefully,yes.
CHAIRMAN: Why don't we go with the January meeting. I don't know exactly what the date is.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Could we also get a preliminary drawing of the porch/deck area?
MR. STRANG: We haven't done any designs on this pending approval-
MEMBER ORLANDO: At least you can get approval on a sub-floor with the posts and the decking. You
can convince them that excavation is not the preferred weapon.
MR. STRANG: The DEC didn't seem to have an issue with it. Quite frankly,the Trustees never even
raised the question. Again,I prefer not to do excavation.
CHAIRMAN: January 9,2003. Before you leave,is there anyone else who would like to speak for or
against the application? No response. I make a resolution to close the hearing.
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:45 p.m.Appl.No.5194-CHARLES AND ROSEMARY LUSCHER. Request a Variance under
Section 100-242A and 100-244,based on the Building Department's June 16,2002 Notice of.Disapproval.
Applicants propose a second-story addition in a nonconforming location(existing dwelling)at less than 35'
from the front lot line,less than 10'on a single side yard,and less than 25'for a total side yard area,at 820
Bayview Drive,East Marion;Parcel 37-5-6.
Page 19 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: Evening sir,how are you? Can you please state your name for the record?
CHARLES LUSCHER: Charles Luscher.
CHAIRMAN: Mr.Luscher,I spent some time with you at your very nice piece of property at East Marion.
You were explaining to me,and I observed the real problem that you have with your roof,and the apparent
collapse based upon the significant snow load,that we hope doesn't occur. I do understand your problem,
and will turn it over to Mr.Horning,and ask him if he has any questions.
MEMBER HORNING: Tell us about what you propose to do then,tear down how much?
MR.LUSCHER: I'm going to take the roof off the house. Replace the existing 2x10's.
MEMBER HORNING: Rafters?
MR.LUSCHER: Roof rafters. I'd like to raise the height of the peak of the roof 7'. What I'm asking
permission for is to put a bedroom on the east end of the house. I'd like to replace one of the bedrooms
downstairs.
MEMBER HORNING: The second floor will not encompass the entire existing layout of the house?
MR.LUSCHER: I want to put a bedroom on the east end of the house. I have a small corner bedroom on
the first floor,but I have no closets. I'd like to make that corner bedroom a walk-in closet,and put a
bedroom upstairs,so if my kids come,they have a place.
MEMBER HORNING: What would be the size of the upstairs bedroom?
MR.LUSCHER: Probably 16xl6. Actually,there's no way to make it smaller because the house is
30'x40'.
MEMBER HORNING: So it's just the one room up there.
MR.LUSCHER: One room.
CHAIRMAN: Mr.Lushcer,will there be attic area?
MR.LUSCHER: The rest of it will be unheated attic area. There will be a hallway at the top of the stairs.
I required to put a hallway in there,and sheetrock that hallway.
CHAIRMAN: You told me you needed that for storage because you have a garage underneath the house.
MR.LUSCHER: No,that's for storage. It used to be a garage-
CHAIRMAN: Oh I thought I observed a garage under the house.
MR.LUSCHER: It used to be a garage under the house,by the driveway,but every time it rained the
basement filled with water.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR.LUSCHER: Part of the attic is for storage.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Will the existing footprint maintain the same dimensions as it is now?
MR.LUSCHER: No changes.
Page 20 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER ORLANDO:Front yard,side yard setbacks are all the same.
MR.LUSCHER: No difference.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Using the existing footprint.
MR.LUSCHER: I'm duplicating the cape next door. I'm turning a saltbox into a cape.
MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions.
MEMBER TORTORA:
CHAIRMAN: While you're standing there sir,anyone else like to speak for or against this application? No
response. I'm going to take this out of normal order and,because of the nature of your situation,make a
motion that we grant this variance.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Second.
CHAIRMAN: All in favor? All ayes. As soon as we get this in writing,we'll give it to you,sir.
MR.LUSCHER: Thank you.
7:50 p.m.Appl.No.5204-SANG LEE FARMS. Request for a Variance under Section 100-13,based on
the Building Department's August 19,2002 Notice of Disapproval for the reason that the farm structure
does not meet the definition of a farm stand under Section 100-13. In addition,the Notice of Disapproval
states that under Town Code Chapter 47.3A,a farm stand in excess of 1,000 sq. ft.is permitted only with
site plan approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Applicant is proposing to construct a farm building
(or structure)which will be enclosed on all sides and used as a sales area,open to the public,in addition to
the existing farm stand sales area. Location of property:25180 C.R.48,Peconic;Parcel Nos. 84-5-1.2 and
1.3 (as one lot).
CHAIRMAN: We are ready for you,sir. State your name for the record.
FRED LEE: My name is Fred Lee,I'm the owner and operator of Sang Lee Farms.
CHAIRMAN: How are you Mr.Lee?
MR.LEE: Fine.
CHAIRMAN: I've been over your place several times,and taken a look at what you're proposing. Some of
which I have concerns about,some of which maybe we can ease those concerns to a certain degree. Why
don't you start and tell us what you want to do.
MR.LEE: Just to give you a brief background,I'm the second generation. My parents and my uncle
started this in the early 40's. Over the course of time,we(inaudible)before we moved to Southold. I
moved here with one of my cousins at that time. In the early 90's we split up,and have lost contact since
then. Over the course of the years,we were strictly wholesale. I operate year round. I pay taxes for 12
months of the year,and I hope to be able to generate(tape change)our production and my production was
geared primarily solely for wholesale distribution. The brokers in Hunfs Point,Manhattan,Boston,
Washington,Philadelphia since that time I have witnessed tremendous change in the industry. Currently I
can't survive without retail of our farm operation. I wouldn't be here now if we weren't
retailing. It now comprises more that 50%of our total gross sales. That's the main reason we are here
today. We want to expand our retail operation,and we want to build separate retail shops. The trailer area
just to the south next to where we have the retail stand now is not being utilized as much I had
Page 21 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
to move that out to create space on the to put our potted plants,our herbs,flowers in addition to
selling farm produce. I guess the objection from the Building Department was that we were exceeding the
footprint 1000 square feet. We designed the farm stand addition with the help of our architect to be 1,300
sq.ft.that's 300'more. The 300 sq. ft.is important to have for support area by support I mean two 300'
refrigerators in there . The other code problems were that the farm stand was not going to be
enclosed. I operate year round I pay taxes for 12 months a year,and I hope to be able to generate as we
have in past 3 years year round by farming in the greenhouses. I heated the greenhouses and I grow
mesclun lettuces,onions,radishes,beets,scallions,many varieties of herbs,and all our cuttings that we
have for the spring production. To able to enclose it and heat it so we don't have freezing vegetables as
well as freezing farm stand help if necessary a parking lot. I don't know what other questions you have.
MEMBER TORTORA: You would like to operate the farm stand year round on a year round basis?
MR.LEE: Yes we have over the past 3 years been operating during the winter months. We operate our
greenhouses during the winter months and sell our produce during the whole year.
MEMBER TORTORA: Actually more that 50%of your sales slowly transferred from wholesale to retail.
MR.LEE: That's correct.
MEMBER TORTORA: The only question I have,I was looking at the development rights of where the
parking area is. Is parking going to be right on that line?
MR.LEE: There is one parking space that overlaps the driveway area-I actually requested input from the
Suffolk County Farm Bureau and I have a copy of the letter. They said it would be okay as long as I didn't
build structures. For parking or a display area,anything to support the retail sales.
MEMBER TORTORA: So the driveway in a sense is Rt.48 and it's back to the farm stand
MR.LEE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: It's my understanding that you were anticipating a basement in this structure and the
purpose of the basement was to do what?
MR.LEE: To store boxes,paper,bags,cartons-when we set up tomatoes our cherry tomatoes the cartons
are about 3'x3',that's just one case of a cardboard carton. I bring in 6 to 10 cartons a week for orders. We
are putting them inside the trailers that we have behind the farm stand now in the basement
lack of space.
CHAIRMAN: Your utilizing out of your existing garage in the house,is that correct?
MR.LEE: That's the current farm stand.
CHAIRMAN: I think you're going to have to give this board a significant amount of latitude in an
application of this nature because I'm not positive that the board in my estimation certain members of this
board are going to go with the plan. There may be significant modifications of this plan simply because we
really don't want to,vary the law as it exists today. We can make minor changes to that law,but we are not
going to see significant changes to that law. I could be wrong my fellow colleagues were missing
but we are certainly going to type the draft of this hearing and we are going to review it.
That's my suggestion at this point.
MR.LEE: I'm stupefied to hear that. I just need to say that I'm not-from my perspective I feel so much
pain being in the agricultural industry. I'm a straight kind of person I follow laws I understand the code of
1,000 sq.ft.for a farm stand and I feel somewhat perhaps agitated it doesn't apply to where farms stands
are in this day and age to what's changed. Many farms have gone out of business I would be one of them if
we weren't retailing right now. My livelihood,my business is dependent on being able to make some of
Page 22 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
these changes. I don't think 300 sq. ft.is unreasonable even if I were to put a basement underneath for
storage. I'm planning to move the trailers out which is where I have the boxes,cartons,poly bags and
everything else that's where we do our work. We want to create a nice appearance not only the farm stands,
but in the business and houses that's what we do. Something that Southold can be proud of. Those are all
in line with our plans and I see a negative view.
CHAIRMAN: Not a negative view. It's the fact that-it's just the degree of how far you can go from the
existing law. We are simply an appellate board. We do not necessarily change or modify laws. These are
the codes of the town and I can tell you that there was a significant amount of time spent in the construction
of this farm stand code. I was part of that,I sat in on it,I voiced my opinions on it,and we had many
farmers come in and you're absolutely correct some may not be farmers today,but that was their choosing.
Some of them sold their property and still live here,but I don't know to what degree we can actually modify
this code. To an extent of giving you 100%or 90%of what you are actually requesting,and I'll tell you the
reason why. I spent some time since this application came in looking at some of the existing farm stands
that exist some of them have space heaters in them some of them-to keep people warm in the wintertime
particularly the ones that are open to the northeast that face the northeast so to speak. Of course they are
open from I guess the earliest possible time would be some time in late April early May they exist all the
way through Thanksgiving into early December until it really significantly gets cold and nobody really
wants to stand out there at that point. That's some of the discourse that I've gotten from some of the people
that I've discussed this with. Now I don't want you to go away from here and say that I've just wasted my
money in doing this but I'm telling you we may push this to the limit. My suggestion to this board-let me
continue this down the line starting with this gentleman to my right and your left Mr. Orlando.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Thank you Gerry,for that introduction. Have you spoke to the Planning Board at
all?
MR.LEE: We met with the Planning Board before we got a disapproval from the Building Department we
presented the same plans about what direction we might be headed. As far as I know,they granted their
approval on the way the farm stand was constructed was the building too close or-
MEMBER ORLANDO: Basically they accepted your site plan?
MR.LEE: I believe that's the case.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Pending on the outcome of the Zoning Board.
MEMBER TORTORA: A letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 4 the Planning
Board feels an enclosed farm stand is a good way to encourage farms to be open year round and has no
objection to this application,however,the board notes that a farm stand is not open all year existing
on this application.
MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions.
CHAIRMAN: Mr.Horning?
MEMBER HORNING: I do have a question. The area that you're using for agriculture,what is the
zoning?
MR.LEE: AC.
MEMBER HORNING: You're aware of what uses are permitted?
MR.LEE: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: I'm curious,did you think of any ideas-let me backtrack-the existing residence-
do you use that as an office also?
Page 23 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript—
Town of Southold
MR.LEE: Part of it,yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Did you contemplate in any fashion any design plans where you would make an
addition to that,an extension of that off your residence area and incorporate enlarging the existing
building?
MR.LEE: Yes and we were not happy with the design feature of the house. We felt that by making a new
structure I don't know if you have a copy of the elevation that would be more open and presentable. The
existing structure I'd like to use as a support area,that's our plans. We can't just say that we are going to
bag,weigh,tie,bunch,rinse,and do all of the lettuce work in 300 sq.ft.of space. By removing the trailers
which I have four of as well as the flat bed area and the dock area immediately south of where the office is
then it's a lot of area that I'm giving up and we need the existing space to be able to continue to do what we
are doing.
MEMBER HORNING: I'm just suggesting I don't know this,I'm just suggesting that it might be an easier
hurdle if it was incorporated into the existing structure somehow. It might be an easier hurdle to overcome.
I'm suggesting that I don't know.
NANCY STEELMAN: I'm the architect for this project. I'd like to address that. This project has been
we've been involved with this project for a year and a half or so. Our first was the Building
Department Mike Verity adding on to the existing residence,as you are proposing. Between Mr.Kasner
and Mike it was really determined that we tried that,it was our first choice they did not accept it.
With the Planning Board,we had a work session they we very supportive of this. It is not permitted in
CHAIRMAN: Questions for Ms. Steelman?
MEMBER TORTORA: Well I'm not quite sure about
CHAIRMAN: It's very simple. Farm stands don't have basements. Farm stands are normally temporary
structures. Farm stands are usually on slabs. Farm stands are sometimes on stone floors. If I'm voting on
this application right now unless somebody hits me over the head with something it will not exceed 1,000
sq. ft. I suspect that a barn storage building can be built associated with it and that Mr.Lee can do all of
those functions that he has to do in that barn accessory building close to,next to,contiguous to,adjacent to,
this farm stand and that particular barn can have a basement in it just as the old root cellars were and the
sprout houses that existed and still exist throughout this entire town. I also suspect that the doors and I
think it's an extremely attractive structure there's no question about it and the doors shall remain open
during the entire period of time that weather permits and the doors can be closed at that particular time. I
don't suspect that this structure should have any air conditioning or any other formal system other than a
temporary heating system for those winter months when you need it. I would suspect that the system be a
hot air system and I don't care if it's gas or whatever would exist in that situation. 'I am not in any way
trying to modify things or curtail this man's operation,but I do not want to see a major transformation for
the other issue of what we see in farm stands today. I think the positive issue here is one of the issues that
the Planning Board recognizes that now I have not discussed this with the planning,nor with the chairman
as a fact this farm stand is off the road which I think is a very positive step a very,very busy road as we
know. That's the way I look at the application I wouldn't reduce this by just brutalizing your magnificent
plan,Ms. Steelman,but just from the availability of looking at what farm stands really exist and sitting in
on those meetings during the period of the time that we've reconstructed this law. That's my suggestion.
CHAIRMAN: Ms. Steelman wants to say something first.
MS. STEELMAN: I'd like to speak-
CHAIRMAN: To me.
Page 24 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MS. STEELMAN: The issue of the basement is not an issue with the Building Department because it's not
specific to farm stand code that they not have a basement. The concern that they have primarily was the
cooling system,that's the code,the cooling in the summer for the types of produce that they have and also
that it was not open on one side that was the other concern. From my understanding the two issues that
require a variance the other issue was exceeding 1,000 sq. ft.that was really the heart of the issue. The
basement was also in addition to storage
CHAIRMAN: I have no problems with the 1,000 sq.ft. of retail space and I have no problems with the
systems going on the outside of the building or any other place other than the basement because I
don't think farm stands should have basements. That's just an opinion.
MS. STEELMAN: That's not it's not stated in the code that you cannot have basements-
CHAIRMAN: No,it didn't say it was,but if you want a decision out of this board and if somebody asked
me my opinion that's my opinion after reviewing this application. That's not cut and dry most people
know me that I'm not steadfast.
MS. STEELMAN: There's one more point I would really like to make and it is a little more personal,
mainly because it involves the mechanics in Southold Town and what has been allowed for
wineries are still open-ended the wineries as agricultural means have been able to use it for retail,have
actually been . I think in this situation you have far too many restrictions 165 acres
that they are trying utilize whereas the wineries are able to sell many other things besides their
wine,and I think that there should be a balance. I'm not trying to encourage I think it might be worth
looking at when you start to see the uses.
MEMBER HORNING: Is the farm stand the only outlet for retail produce on a farm in an ag zone? Is that
what you are saying? That's what code says.
MEMBER TORTORA: The barn could not do it.
MEMBER HORNING: You could not have an accessory building-
MEMBER TORTORA: Barn with retail sales.
MEMBER HORNING: I needed verification on that.
FRED LEE: I don't mean to take up a lot of your time,but I had to say a couple of things about what you
said before. Out of all of the farm families that I personally know everyone that sold their farmland didn't
sell it for a profit,they sold it because they could not farm any more. If I could do a support function 175'
away,November it's raining,October I can't expect the women that work with my wife to carry
bags of lettuce baskets and a box 75-100'feet away and consider that sufficient production
retail lettuce packs for vegetables.
CHAIRMAN: I wasn't suggesting that,I was suggesting 1/3 closer.
MEMBER TORTORA: I can't determine the assessment of the need for a variance.
CHAIRMAN: But you are the first to say when a variance becomes a use variance.
MEMBER TORTORA: What make an issue
CHAIRMAN: Ms. Steelman I just want to make a comment regarding your situation about wineries. I
disagreed with the Town Board at the time. They took a special exception criteria away,and the special
exception power away from this board in the granting of wineries. That's one of the issues I've always
disagreed with. You are absolutely correct. Mr.Lee let's go on and see if there's anyone else who'd like to
speak. Mr.Wickham I see has his hand up. Thank you for the presentation sir.
Page 25 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
THOMAS WICKHAM: My name is Tom Wickham. I'm a farmer in Cutchogue. Several weeks ago I
stood before this board to urge you to turn down an application. Tonight I'm here again this time to
recommend granting the request for a variance. The legislation governing farm stands written just a few
years ago is,in my opinion,not a realistic approach to regulating farm stand structures. While I'm sure it
was well intended,I do not believe 1,000 sq.ft.is a realistic condition. The new language refers to,
approvingly,farm stands on the back of truck and trailers a nice touch perhaps for some,but hardly for a
modern business to live with. I might add that our business began,off the back of a truck after WWII. If
we were to continue at that level,I would not be before you tonight. This legislature refers to keeping farm
stands in an unfinished state,unheated and open to the weather on at least one side. But farm businesses in
order to survive need to operate as many months of the year as possible. Can you imagine trying to attract
paying customers into a freezing,windy structure? Town policy recognizes the importance of farms and
farm industry it's in every one of our documents. It is the center of planning for this town. That policy
should not be construed to limit the farms still utilizing life existence. The successful farms are the future
of this town. That requires us to consider farming as a business. Farm stand structures need to have
reasonable size and convenience to meet the needs of the present and the future. The active farm stands
already in existence far exceed those restrictions. I believe the variances requested by the applicant are
actually quite modest. They are keeping up with the farming environment,and they are critical to the
success of this operation.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes sir,can you state your name for the record?
ROBERT VANBOURGINDIEN: I'm Bob VanBourgindien,I've known Fred and Karen for many years. I
would like to see this board look positively on his request. The reason being as he said agriculture has
evolved over the years,I've seen agriculture evolve rapidly over the years also. I think this board should
look positively over this application,and at the same time review the farm stand law that was written just a
few years ago. It is in dire need of updating.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes ma'am,kindly state your name for the record please.
PRUDENCE HUDSON: My name is Prudence Hudson. I manage the farm stand in Cutchogue, Sang Lee
Farms,and I must say and really reasonable in terms of the kinds of requests that have been
before this board. We try to keep the farm stand open as late as we can every year,and by January it is
miserable. People are getting out of their cars,they come into that farm stand as fast as they can and they
get out of there as fast as they can. As far as working there,it is really uncomfortable. It is not another
building going up. We want to be in agriculture. This is what we really want to do. right next
to the parking lot,people bring their so he doesn't have to have another building to put up just
for storage and it's right there,it's convenient he could continue to operate a farm stand and be attractive to
the public we need help.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes-
GERRY WOODHOUSE: My name is Gerry Woodhouse. I grow wholesale in Orient and I am a
consumer of products from Sang Lee Farms,and in my opinion,Sang Lee,like Wickhams Farms,is
representing the best that we have to offer here on the North Fork. Recently I was with a woman who said
that the best thing about Sang Lee was that she could go in there with her eyes closed and buy anything and
know that the quality was absolutely outstanding,and to achieve that kind of quality that required that the
people who are producing our food and growing it have the best possible environment to do their work. I
trust Fred and Karen as growers to know what's best for them to survive to produce the kind of quality that
they are known for. With a farm like Sang Lee,there is no reason for us to shopping at farm stands. When
you go to many of the farm stands out here,they might have open sides,they might not have basements,
but I guarantee the majority of the products that many of them are selling are not grown by the people who
are operating those farm stands right in that area. Here you have an example of people who are doing the
best job that they can to provide us with the best possible food that we can have. If there is any way that
you can grant this variance,knowing that there needs to be some change in Town Code,I urge you to do
SO.
Page 26 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Anyone like to speak against the application? I have to ask that question,
don't get mad. Seeing no hands,any other questions for the board. Seeing no hands,we'll make a motion
closing the hearing reserving decision.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Second.
CHAIRMAN: All in favor. All ayes. What that very simply means,Mr.Lee,is that we will get together
and discuss this. I have not voiced my opinion on anybody other than what you asked me tonight and we'll
go from there. It's a deliberation process.
MR.LEE: one way or the other
CHAIRMAN: Very soon,within the next couple of weeks. Thank you. We have 62 days,but we never
take 62 days. However we did take 62 days recently on an application down on Peconic Bay on a large
white bird.
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
8:30 p.m.Appl.No.5189-SHIRLEY KRAM AND KRAM FAMILY TRUST. Request for a Variance
under Section 100-242A, 100-239.413,and 100-24413,based on the Building Inspector's May 6,2002
Notice of Disapproval. Applicants propose a new accessory garage with a setback at less than 35'from the
front lot line,and to construct new additions and alterations to a dwelling in an existing nonconforming
location,with setbacks at less than 75'from the bulkhead. Location of Property: 100 West Lane,Southold;
Parcel 88-6-12.
JIM FITZGERALD: We need the garage. The alternative of course is not to put it in the front yard,but to
put it in the rear yard. I think with regard to the garage,you ought to consider the fact that the right of way
under the Angel Shores subdivision is a common area and there's no development. In addition the area
surrounding where the garage is proposed is a conservation easement extending at least a 100'from the
property line,any development,clearing what have you in that area. Any construction that would take
place on the privately owned properties immediately adjacent to the Smith property would be more than
100'away, and it would be shielded from the garage by the existing trees in the right of way which can't be
cleared.
MEMBER TORTORA: Where is that conservation easement?
MR.FITZGERALD: I have a copy of the portion of the subdivision map and a portion of the C&R's which
shows the location of the easement and the common properties which are treated in the C&R's. The green
represents the area in which development is not permitted,and the blue in the middle of all that is the Kram
property.
CHAIRMAN: This is the nature of a minor subdivision?
MR.FITZGERALD: What?
CHAIRMAN: This entire C&R issue regarding these 4 lots.
MR.FITZGERALD: Those lots are part of Angel Shores.
CHAIRMAN: They are a minor subdivision of Angel Shores or what is part of the total subdivision?
MR.FITZGERALD: Part of the total-it is covered in the C&R's which are part of the subdivision map.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are you-do you have something else you'd like to say?
Page 27 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MR.FITZGERALD: No.
CHAIRMAN: I'm a little concerned about the issue this may be a one or two story house. If it's a 2-story
house,we need to see what the 2nd story is going to look like.
MR.FITZGERALD: The point of that was to cover as much as we could. They are not sure what they
want to do at this point. The tendency is from the information it would be 1-story we have a preliminary
drawing of that. We would be willing to classify that it would be 1-story if that would make the board
happy.
CHAIRMAN: You're going to give us the drawing?
MR.FITZGERALD: I could show it to you,I only have one copy. The proposal includes the entire
footprint of what we're requesting approval for if it is just for this-what's across the back is not included.
CHAIRMAN: What is across the back? Just the deck or-
MR.FITZGERALD: No,it's part of what we would propose as the building envelope.
MEMBER TORTORA: The Building Department disapproved this map? It says this map is dated-and
I'm very concerned about this-this map is dated after the notice of disapproval was written. This map was
dated June 19d`-the notice of disapproval was written the month before-
MR.FITZGERALD: The only changes that were made were editorial,there were no substance changes.
MEMBER TORTORA: the Building Department.
MR.FITZGERALD: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: Is there a CO on the deck?
MR.FITZGERALD: I don't know.
MEMBER TORTORA: The reason I'm asking is you're using that as the existing line to the house is 42'
and this survey says single family house but we don't have anything in our files that actually shows where
that was determined the 42'.
MR.FITZGERALD: I don't know-it never came up.
MEMBER TORTORA: The other thing that gave me a little concern is in the Notice of Disapproval,I
noticed the lot coverage with the proposed construction is 7%and your plans note 19.14%-that's a big
difference.
MR.FITZGERALD: It is.
MEMBER TORTORA: I have no idea how they came up with 7%lot coverage when your plan is 19%.
MR.FITZGERALD: It is indeed. I've been over it a number of times.
MEMBER TORTORA: Third question is can you get that garage closer to the house?
MR.FITZGERALD: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: How much closer?
Page 28 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: 3'what can we do here?
MEMBER TORTORA: About the easements,how much closer can we get it? Your
driveway is going to come in from here presumably? It's going to come in like so. How much closer can
you come to the house?
CHAIRMAN: What do you want 1Ox10?
MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know what the plans are and you're asking what he can do.
Recess 8:20 p.m.to 8:30 p.m.
Motion to reconvene.
JAMES FITZGERALD: Make it 10 feet between the house and the garage,which would make it 13 feet
from this property line,but I think it would have to stay at 3 feet.
MEMBER TORTORA: You need fire access for vehicles. No matter what,you need fire access; access
for fire vehicles to come. If you're going to make it over here I think you're at 7 so you need to be able to
do this if you have to do this.
MR.FITZGERALD: 14'and what-
MEMBER TORTORA: That's the conservation easement.
MR.FITZGERALD: The requirement-
CHAIRMAN: Well the fire vehicle is never going the get behind it because a fire vehicle today needs
about 13-16'to make the turn but I'm just saying to fight a fire you need at least 5'from the property line.
You've got to be able to work on the building on the property that's the problem. You're going to go 10
and 5? You go along with that good. 5 off the west property line and 10 from the-
MEMBER TORTORA: 10+3 would be 13 and 5.
MEMBER HORNING: Minimum of 10.
MEMBER TORTORA: Can you work with that?
MR.FITZGERALD: Yes if it's okay from the standpoint of the fire equipment access.
MEMBER ORLANDO: That will work.
CHAIRMAN: The garage is how many stories?
MR.FITZGERALD: One-and it's only 20x20 which is allotted size to the property line.
CHAIRMAN: You can have the plans back.
MEMBER HORNING: Mr.Fitzgerald the line of hedgerows that are cedar-are they mature or young?
MR.FITZGERALD: Very mature.
CHAIRMAN: Pretty closed in,too.
MEMBER HORNING: That's what I was suggesting too-5'is minimum there because from the property
line those things must take up 5'now.
Page 29 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
i
MR.FITZGERALD: It would work at 3'because it's staked and-
MEMBER ORLANDO: This piece of property,there's no tree removal on that one-that has to stay as is.
There are dead cedars in there.
MR.FITZGERALD: The trees would not thrive after the garage went up in that area. It would be very
close.
CHAIRMAN: Anything else?
MEMBER TORTORA: Front yard setback is 13 on the proposed garage and 5 on the property line?
CHAIRMAN: Mr.Fitzgerald we could use a copy of this-if you could bring a copy down. Anyone else
like to speak? Please state your name for the record.
SUSAN KALIN: My name is Susan Kalin. He owns the tree lot that is adjoining this property
I know there's
CHAIRMAN: That's why we changed it.
MEMBER ORLANDO: It's 5'now.
CHAIRMAN: 5 and 13.
MS.KALIN: Oh 5 and 13. It's supposed to be 35-
CHAIRMAN: It depends upon what you've determined. It depends upon which way the driveway comes
in and what the Building Department determines. I will never second guess what the Building Department
determines. I have to tell you. That's the story. That's not a sarcastic statement,that's a pragmatic
statement.
MEMBER TORTORA: Which lot are you?
MS.KALIN: I'm 4-
MEMBER TORTORA: Number 42? Or you're adjoining lots 42 which is on the west-
MS.KALIN:
MEMBER TORTORA: I know where it is now. It's on back,I'm trying to see-
MEMBER ORLANDO: And that right of way basically is not developed.
CHAIRMAN: No.
MR.FITZGERALD: Conservation easement is on the west side.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
MEMBER ORLANDO: So you own lot 41&42?
MS.KALIN: Excuse me?
MEMBER ORLANDO: You own both lots 41&42? Two lots you own?
Page 30 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MS.KALIN?
MEMBER ORLANDO: You have them all.
MEMBER TORTORA: Isn't that going to give you with that conservation easement the way it right angles
up there. Isn't that going to give you-
CHAIRMAN: Come up and look at this. This is all conservation you can't build in any of that green area.
What we are doing is moving the garage back and over.
MS.KALIN: So it's going back 13 here and then over another 5.
CHAIRMAN: A total of 5. You have to provide enough access to get between the house and around from
the opposite direction and that's this direction. All we are doing is moving it down and over. Over a little
and down. You have to provide access around here for fire emergency vehicles. Thank you. Anybody
else like to speak? Hearing no further comment,I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision
until later.
PLEASE SEE MINUTE FOR RESOLUTION
8:50 p.m.Appl.No.5181-THOMAS SAMUELS AND NANCY STEELMAN. Request for a Variance
under Section 100-242A, 100-33,based on the Building Department's June 13,2002 Notice of Disapproval.
Applicants propose to construct additions and alterations to an existing accessory building located in a
nonconforming front yard location(rather than a rear yard),at 7090 New Suffolk Road,New Suffolk;
Parcel No. 117-6-7.1; (former CTM Nos.7 and 4 combined as one).
CHAIRMAN: You had me going for that driveway in you house for a little while,but I came down on
Sunday morning and you guys must have been at church.
MEMBER ORLANDO: The dog greeted me.
CHAIRMAN: Then I turn around and I said they do have frontage on Fanning Road. But it was
interesting coming down the driveway. Very nice.
THOMAS SAMUELS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: What would you like to do here?
MR. SAMUELS: I'd like to explain very briefly my situation where the house was built in 1840
approximately and the barn was built about the same time. About 1960,and a second floor was put in
creating a front yard on that side and . Because that barn in what is considered the front yard and
the side yard there is no way to add to it without a variance. I think it's the interpretation in the
code that an accessory structure is not to be built in a front yard,defined in the building phase,all the way
to the road. I can understand that the front yard 50'setback means. This building would be 100'from the
road. I feel it's in your capacity to look at the code,at some point you look at that front and side yard
situation particularly accessory building gives you no end of trouble.
CHAIRMAN: We've been asked to look at it with the building envelope and create a building envelope
which includes off the primary structure and all accessory structures and thereby once the building
envelope is created,as long as we didn't go and breach the building envelope you'd be allowed to do that.
We're just having trouble with wording.
MR. SAMUELS: I'm just hereto answer your questions.
Page 31 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: The barn is how many stories-the addition rather?
MR. SAMUELS: It is one story
CHAIRMAN: 1600. I have no objection to it. Mr.Horning any questions?
MEMBER HORNING: I have no questions.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando.
MEMBER ORLANDO: The existing barn-also when I was there you must have been at church also-but
I took the liberty of walking around. The existing barn-is that going to stay in tact? On that one side.
MR. SAMUELS: The foundation won't stay the way it is. It will be restored in a more beautiful state.
Beautiful meaning new storage.
MEMBER ORLANDO: New storage. You're the architect who drew this up?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs.Tortora.
MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any questions except-do you have access to Fanning?
MR. SAMUELS: I have access to Fanning. There is a driveway. We have a gate there and we use it
occasionally,but our primary driveway is . It has been-that's why we when the
former owner used that certainly we have access.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Tom. We'll see if anybody else has any objection and have a good evening.
Anybody else like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no hands,I'll make a motion closing the
hearing reserving decision until later.
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
8:54 p.m.Appl.Nos.5181 and 5230 as Amended-MARTEM MANAGEMENT(A.MARINAKAS).
Location of property:East Side of Stars Road,East Marion;Parcel No.22-42-20&28 (as one lot).
Applicant requests Variances for a tennis court,based on the Building Department's April 2,2002 Notice of
Disapproval,to locate a tennis court structure: 1)at less than 5'from the lot line(s),(2)in a yard other than
a permitted rear yard,and(3)with a lot coverage over the code limitation of 20%,and(4)based on the
September 20,2002 Notice of Disapproval for fencing over 4'in height,Section 100-231.
PATRICIA MOORE,ESQ: Good evening,I'm here on behalf of Mr. &Mrs.Marinakas who are here this
evening so hopefully we can finish up our hearing. I submitted a-to the board members-a landscape plan
and a site plan that we prepared for your review and all of the issues I think were raised at the last hearing
were answered either by way of the site plan or by letter which identified the specific questions and I have
it now which parallels the letter that . Very quickly the site plan has the location that
the building code itself . The material is an asphalt material not in a pattern I think that
determines the asphalt is a quieter material than stones
MEMBER ORLANDO:
Page 32 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MRS.MOORE: One of the questions that were raised outside we did have the landscape
pictures from the landscape architect and what he tried to do is incorporate a mixture of materials,one is
the fence itself is a black vinyl fence which has . He contacted the Planning Department to
make recommendations as far as the plants and the locust trees and the local cherry trees and
dispersed with 2'high arborvitae so it will be low visibility and then trees for the higher visibility. I think
the answers-
CHAIRMAN: You didn't receive this letter from Mr.Bombadiere?
MRS.MOORE: That's the list of questions-yes. My letter was in response of his letter was a list of items
that were raised at the hearing
CHAIRMAN: Did you ask if the sub-floor of the tennis court-
MRS.MOORE: Well only if you're in -he's not actually building it-
CHAIRMAN: Could you ask him to tell us where he has constructed one so we can see this composite
material that they are using.
MRS.MOORE: I could-here you are.
CHAIRMAN: Manny,we recently granted a tennis court lot somewhat smaller than yours and then at a
discussion with the gentleman who owns the company who was constructing it-you have any idea or
could you contact this company and ask them to get in touch with us so we could see what the composite
material looked like?
MANNY KARAVANIS: One of the things is
CHAIRMAN: Is it actual asphalt?
MR.KARAVANIS: It's hot asphalt.
CHAIRMAN: It's hot asphalt. That's what the problem is. It's not a composite. This is an actual asphalt
court?
MRS.MOORE: 1.5" asphalt and 6 layers each hot asphalt. 2 coats of c-o-l-o-r-n-t,a brand name
MEMBER ORLANDO: They just built the driveway.
MRS.MOORE: Pardon me?
MEMBER ORLANDO: You just described the driveway.
CHAIRMAN: Can you let us know where they built one and ask if we can take a look at it or something?
MR.KARAVANIS: One of them is a 10'tennis court company the other is east end.
CHAIRMAN: You don't know which one you're going to use?
MR.KARAVANIS: Probably the east end.
CHAIRMAN: That makes it easy then. Ask him if we could take a look at one that's already constructed.
MRS.MOORE: They are located in Jamesport.
Page 33 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
! CHAIRMAN: I can close the hearing,and before I make a decision I can take a look at what-
MRS.MOORE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN: What about drainage?
MRS.MOORE: We showed on the site plan there is a drainage detail-let me see where it is-here it is
18"wide by 10"deep perimeter includes gravel drainage.
MEMBER TORTORA: What's the lot coverage-do you know-with the reduction from the tennis court?
MRS.MOORE: I'd have to have a surveyor recalculate.
MEMBER TORTORA: Can you have it re-calculated. Mr.Marinakas? Excuse me,I am terrible at
names,universal-all across the board. I don't make any exceptions. Let's talk about what amount 2.5'
from the property line.
MRS.MOORE: Keep in mind the fact that he owns both parcels.
MEMBER TORTORA: He owns lot 23 and lot 21?
MRS.MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: You own both lots,23 &21?
MRS.MOORE: Yes the original proposal put the tennis court on lot 23,and lot 21 is a different
corporation ,but it's the same family.
MEMBER TORTORA: Same owner?
MRS.MOORE: Yes same owner.
MEMBER TORTORA: This lot,this tennis court would be visible from lot 21,it would be visible from lot
22,and it would be visible from Stars Road. Is that correct?
MRS.MOORE: Well the intention of the landscaping was to shield the visibility of lot 21 and Stars Road
is landscaping is on the side Plus what he has on his own property is berms and a lot of dense
shrubberies in the entrance.
MEMBER TORTORA: What is the purpose of putting the landscaping along the lot line of 21 if it's your
lot?
MRS.MOORE: Because somebody asked for it
CHAIRMAN: Because it's an undesignated lot.
i
MRS.MOORE: It's got grass and trees on it.
CHAIRMAN: That's what they are requesting.
MR.MARINAKAS: 18 trees.
MEMBER TORTORA: 18 trees? Let me ask you a real simple question-you would not even be here
except for 25,why don't you just move it east 2.5'?
MRS.MOORE: No. Accessory structures in a side yard
Page 34 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER TORTORA: A proposed accessory tennis court partially in the front yard and side yard
required set back of 2.5'. Yes you're right on the priors,as far as the setbacks,you're talking-
MRS.MOORE: The building is pretty close to the road,so the landscape architect after he looked at this
and re-considered it's not 2.5'toward the end of the tennis court,and angled it a little bit because of the
dimensions of 2.5 but because he owns the 2 adjacent properties and to try to keep the tennis court away
from Stars Road,he's pushing it as far back as he can without overlapping the property line. Yes if you
want it near Stars Road,that's not a problem.
MEMBER TORTORA: What's the distance of lot 21?
MRS.MOORE: That is 5'from the property line.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's not a very big stretch.
CHAIRMAN: I think it's 5 and 5.
MEMBER TORTORA: I'd be willing to do away with one of the variances,frankly.
MRS.MOORE: That's fine with us.
MEMBER TORTORA: Can we amend that right now? To a minimum of 5',there's no variances required
on that.
CHAIRMAN: Anything else? You're going to give us lot coverage and you're going to give us where a
court is constructed so we can take a look at it.
MRS.MOORE:
CHAIRMAN: We need to know where the tennis court is so we can take a look at this material.
MEMBER TORTORA: What conditions
MRS.MOORE: 184-110,I'm sorry add 5 in the back.
CHAIRMAN: 2.5 more.
MEMBER TORTORA: You are at 2.5.
MRS.MOORE: Close to 90'.
MEMBER TORTORA: At the closest point to Stars Road-
MRS.MOORE: You want exact or-
CHAIRMAN: You can give us that when-gentleman over there,any questions?
MEMBER HORNING: We discussed the fact that there would be no lighting there at all.
CHAIRMAN: The fence is 9'in height proposed? 8'black chain link
MRS.MOORE: Right.
MEMBER ORLANDO: I believe Mrs.Moore addressed all of our previous concerns.
Page 35 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: So you're going to get that for us and we will go from there.
MRS.MOORE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? Yes sir.
RAY BOMBADIERE: Hi. I'm Ray Bombadiere. I'm on Stars Road. I wrote the letter-
CHAIRMAN: Anything that has not been answered. I'm not answering any questions any more. Every
one of those questions should be directed to us and they'll answer them if we don't. Because I'm not
answering them anymore.
MR.BOMBADIERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN: The answer to your questions Mr.Bombadiere,or give us the questions rather that you need
answered at this point.
MR.BOMBADIERE: That hasn't been addressed.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR.BOMBADIERE: Any question that hasn't been addressed I can ask?
CHAIRMAN: Sure,you can ask any questions,I'm just saying that I'm not answering any questions for the
board when there's a consultant or an attorney-
MR.BOMBADIERE: First of all I'd just like to say as far as the trees that were planted,they were really
no more than bushes. I have a few pictures here and you can barely see them. We're very concerned about
this. The members of the association you see this white,you get an idea that not much really is
done there. It was addressed,but I'm not sure to what degree. After the trees were removed from these
three lots,there's been more-
CHAIRMAN: Did you see the plants? The most recent plants-why don't you do this,rather than put you
on the spot-let us continue our hearing. We will go out and make some notes on the plan and bring the
plan back in and we'll reconvene.
MR.BOMBADIERE: This is a revised plan showing drainage?
CHAIRMAN: Supposedly it is.
MRS.MOORE: I can point it out for him.
CHAIRMAN: We'll recess for about 20 minutes-I don't want to put you on the spot. Write all of your
questions down that you have and count the-we'll get the answers for you.
MR.BOMBADIERE: Okay. Can I have the plan now or do I have to wait?
CHAIRMAN: That's the only plan that belongs to this file so I'd like you to review that plan.
MR.BOMBADIERE: I have a few more questions.
CHAIRMAN: Sure go ahead.
MR.BOMBADIERE: As far as the time of usage-
CHAIRMAN: They haven't gotten to that yet.
Page 36 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER ORLANDO: The daylight hours.
MR.BOMBADIERE: We at the association on Stars Road are very concerned about how this is going to
change the nature of Stars Road. Everyone wants to make sure that this some members are
dead set against it. But we are concerned about the noise,we are concerned about how it's going to look
especially after the trees are cleared-it seems to mean so much to Stars Road. Everyone is very concerned
that the addition of a tennis court is going to look a little awkward there-
CHAIRMAN: Wait a minute Mr.Bombadiere.
MEMBER TORTORA: at the board meeting on Stars Road as well as the adjoining
properties-
MR.BOMBADIERE: That's a correction they were talking about Tuesday-
CHAIRMAN: No. That's why we want you to review the plans.
MEMBER TORTORA: That would be written as it is with all how you direct your concerns
because I know you have concerns.
CHAIRMAN: We are not going to address them,counsel is going to address them. I'm tired of being a
sounding board for people who have constant questions. I have no problem with your questions sir,but I
need to know each one that has not been answered so that we can have counsel answer them. Please go
outside and write the questions down and submit them to us we will then submit them to counsel.
Hopefully she'll answer those questions. She can't answer 10 questions tonight if she doesn't know the
answer to them.
MR.BOMBADIERE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN: Don't leave with that site plan because it's the only one. We'll recess for 20 minutes.
CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen I need a motion to reconvene.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Second.
CHAIRMAN: All in favor. All ayes. Mr.Bombadiere we are ready and waiting to hear what you have to
say so we can wrap this up and go on to the next hearing.
MR.BOMBADIERE: We looked at the plans,they look nice. We are concerned about the material-
CHAIRMAN: They are going to tell us where a court is being constructed,we are going to ask the owners
permission to go look at it. If you so choose to think that you would like to go or since you are a president
of the association maybe that can be arranged,alright I am very simply going to hit a couple of tennis balls
on it and that is the extent of my thing.
MR.BOMBADIERE: Do you want me to bring my racket?
CHAIRMAN: No. That's basically the situation at this point. The time of play-as to how early in the
morning. The board has the right to place reasonable restrictions,and we will discuss that issue. That's all
I can say.
MRS.MOORE: 7 a.m.is early enough for this. Do you want to make a schedule for whenever?
Page 37 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: I can't wait until the Town Board re-reads this transcript here. No one has determined how
much boing this court is going to create,and when we find out how much boing this creates then we will
tell you what time the starting time will be based upon-
MRS.MOORE: Are you serious? I don't know really how to respond to that. We have a problem with the
boing level because I think it's reasonable to pinpoint the of asphalt or some other deposit
materials. You can't legislate so specifically-
CHAIRMAN: I disagree with you 100%in a residential district,and we did legislate in the last one.
MRS.MOORE: If you are in a special perimeter,I don't believe-we are going to argue over asphalt.
CHAIRMAN: Let the Supreme Court make their determination. I don't care.
MRS.MOORE: If the asphalt court doesn't create a problem with the board,we hope that-
CHAIRMAN: What do you think I'm actually going to do,I'm going to have somebody throw the ball on
the court and I'm going so see at what degree,at what distance I can hear that ball. I'm going to take that
circumference around Mr. &Mrs.Marinakas'court,and I'm going to say is that reasonable at 7 a.m.in the
morning. That's what I'm going to ask,that's what I'm going to determine. That's the engineering
possibility based upon an evaluation.
MRS.MOORE:
CHAIRMAN: That's the norm. That's the reason these hearings take so long.
MRS.MOORE: Are we ready to-
CHAIRMAN: No. We have one more question.
MANNY KARAVANIS: My name is Manny Karavanis,I just want to clear up a few things.
CHAIRMAN: I may stop you mid-way,we'll tell you if we do.
MR.KARAVANIS: You said a black vinyl fence. You would still be able to see through it or is it like-
MRS.MOORE: Yes.
MR.KARAVANIS: Because I've seen it where you can't see through it.
CHAIRMAN: There's two processes you can use on that. In other words,you can put up wind screen or
you can use slats.
MR.KARAVANIS: Slats you can't see through,right?
CHAIRMAN: One statement at a time.
MRS.MOORE: My interpretation is more that you might want to see through it than have the physical
barriers that's why we're providing the different levels of vegetation.
CHAIRMAN: Which have to be continuously maintained. We're suggesting a drip system on those for
irrigation purposes.
MR.KARAVANIS: I just want to thank Mike and his wife for coming. Some of these things could have
been resolved had discussions been said and courtesies months ago so we would know-it's a shame we had
to get to this point. Nevertheless there is concern about the closeness of the road and how it's going to look.
Page 38 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
It's amazing a bunch of people get upset about the yellow line that was put-Stars Road never had a yellow
line,it was outrageous-a yellow line on Stars Road the Department of Traffic-and also at one time they
were going to add some lighting I understand on Stars Road. Then they reduced the speed limit to 35mph.
It's a beautiful road. It comes to credibility in things. I think Mike is a man of his word,he's going to do
what he says. I respect his right to build his tennis court,but we want it done very tastefully. It will be
done,this was my concern,and I wanted to make that statement.
CHAIRMAN: You'll give us that information. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the
hearing pending we receive that information-and the inspection.
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
9:23 p.m.Appl.No.4942-BREEZY SOUND CORP. Request for a Special Exception under Section
100-60B(4),for permission to establish new 68-unit motel with motel office,pool house for motel guests,
and motel-manager's apartment,on 7.13 total acres in this Resort-Residential(RR)Zone District. Location
of Property: North Side of C.R.48 (a/k/a North Road)(opposite San Simeon Nursing Home),Greenport;
Parcel 45-01-2.1.
PATRICIA MOORE,ESQ: We have a fellow who is building a-
CHAIRMAN: While you're putting this up-I hate to bring this issue up but I think we should just allow
everybody to take a look at this and digest it in the audience for the people who would like to see it for
about 2 minutes here. Would everybody please feel free to come up-we've been patiently waiting for
long period of time and-
MRS.MOORE: I've provided for the board a memo with regard to the criteria for the special exception,
with the interest of time and the hour of the evening. I set forth all of the standards that are our obligation
to you and I just want to remind the board that the special exceptions prohibit use as far as the zoning code
is concerned and the presumption that it will not adversely affect the neighborhood given certain reasonable
conditions and all of this criteria will be set forth in the zoning code. Having said that,I have this evening
with me I have the principles of Breezy Sound. I also have Kevin Walsh who is the engineer-he can
address any of the site plan issues the board may have any questions on and he's also provided for the board
a color rendering of the site plan so you can see the amount of and the amount of vegetation
that this site has on it. We have-if you recall the history-certain variances you've seen if you were on the
board-the history of this property is that in the 80's and'89 it had a building permit,and construction was
started. The issue of whether or not it's a use permitted to add kitchenettes became something
that the board at that time felt that the special exception and the site plan all levels need to be addressed at
the beginning. That is why we are here before this board special application with the same
number of units the design has been improved upon in that it was reviewed environmentally by Chic
Voorhis and his group with respect to the top of the bluff the Trustees deemed a wetland area that was
in the front and the town said these people with the buffer-a natural buffer-that too was added
to the site plan and would obviously all be done by
and Kevin Walsh here. We have addressed all of the issues that were thoroughly addressed and
denied were reviewed again presently and before the site plan,at least the Planning Board staff has had
reviewed along the way and it has been a fact that it is involved in a special exception. There has been a
great deal of review. We've had two bites of the apple producing this application-here we are the second
time around. I'd be happy to address any one of the points that are listed in the special exceptions listed by
criteria,again I could go down on the line to each of the standards,but it seems to me that they are only
testifying as to what they faxed us. That's why I've provided for you a Do you have any
particular questions?
MEMBER TORTORA: Do you have public water?
Page 39 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MRS.MOORE: We have public water-we have both. The application fees for the water and sewer and
both . Then they received a credit report. It ended up in litigation. The litigation-the
settlement at this point-in fact I have a letter from Suffolk County Waters-it's ready to be wrapped up.
The Water Authority doesn't want. They both want to simultaneously sign off. The health department is
reviewing the sanitary calculations,the sanitary requirements. We are dealing with them with respect to
the different alternatives that are available to us.
MEMBER TORTORA: The criteria that is in the code,so what I would like to do,I'd like to calculate how
many units are being submitted at a ratio of 6,000 sq.ft.of land area as opposed to 4,000 because I believe
it's an obstruction of Town Code that you need 6,000 sq.ft. of land area without water and sewer.
MRS.MOORE: But we have it. We have it. Water and we also have the availability of sewer. Keep in
mind I met with Planning a long time ago and said Valerie sewer,is it Village of Greenport Sewer or is it a
system? She said it's a system it's not sewer with village hookup you would need alternatives to the village
-there are alternatives to hooking up with the village. That is the way it is,public water and sewer,and we
are addressing them and have both.
MEMBER TORTORA:
MEMBER ORLANDO: Waste water treatment plant?
MEMBER TORTORA: We couldn't get a positive number we could fix in that 6,000 sq.ft. I don't want it
to come back in number.
MRS.MOORE: I understand their criteria.
MEMBER TORTORA:
MRS.MOORE: The Health Department is looking at this as a special float and the number of units
available based on the tour whether it's different alternates-there's chromoglass which is a very good
alternative right now. Chromoglass system is a self contained system approvable by the Health
Department. That is the same calculations as connecting the interiors of the lines and popping it into the
Greenport sewage system. Those two alternatives are equal to code and the sewer calculations.
MEMBER TORTORA: We need to have proof that it is going to happen before we give the special
exception. That's a requirement.
MRS.MOORE: I understand what you are saying,I've been in touch with them for a month,I should be
getting some paperwork-it was expected today-I might have it tomorrow which is from Greenport.
There's also right now the Health Department issued a variance for the chromoglass system,we are
pursuing both because Greenport while they want us to hook up,they want-how much was the number,a
million-up front no questions asked give them a certified check and they'll give you an availability letter.
That's a lot of money up front. Rather than what has always been the house was a payment schedule at
least to hook up. No,they want a million dollars up front and that imposes a real difficulty for anybody,
any existing facility that wants to hook up to sewer or new facility that wants to hook up to sewer. That is
something under special permit for these conditions for sewer because that's how our number calculations
come up with cost,what our calculations are based on. Again,it is whatever the Health Department
approves whether it's a plug-in to the building or its and that has not been decided because
right now the regulations with the Health Department are in the process of being revised to allow the
I think they are going to have to re-issue the engineers in the month of November. That is a
very serious possibility and while the chromoglass system is a half a million dollars improvement,it was
not a million dollars and you can work out the construction plans.
MEMBER TORTORA: a system,you'll have to address that.
MRS.MOORE: I don't know how to address it other than-
Page 40 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER TORTORA:
MRS.MOORE: You can see the number of minutes to 58 because I just did the calculations for the
revision,the minutes are 47 based on that 4,000 number. I did it in my computer but I didn't write it down.
The number you give us is 58 is contingent on the sewers. If you don't get sewers,whether it's chromoglass
or connection to Greenport we have to come back to you,and they understand that. That's how they got
their building permit initially.
CHAIRMAN: In 1991 we-actually prior to that we went through a SEQRA process-we started with 77
and ended up with 66 or 67.
MEMBER TORTORA: 68.
CHAIRMAN: Well one was a I think what Mrs.Tortora is saying is they've given a fair
amount of time while you're working this out,you can tell us what you will finally come down to what you
will reduce the number of units to.
MRS.MOORE: We will not come down below 58. 58 was-you guys cut them back-to the point where
they'd have to stop the process because it wasn't financially-
CHAIRMAN: We didn't stop-
MRS.MOORE: No,the economy-
CHAIRMAN: The paper process.
MRS.MOORE: Well,the paper process,now we've done the paper process again and through the paper
process 58 has been justified again. So you have-it's not healthy or acceptable. They have reached a
bottom line number from 89 in building historic connections and chromoglass and engineering everything
is down. The number of units hasn't been increased-you haven't asked for and given the Village of
Greenport's blackmail on the part of the sewer,you couldn't ask for the maximum. They came in,said
listen,we've got the standard,we can't reduce it down any further,that is the bare bones. It is a 7 acre
parcel. We just got today the letter from the SCWA with the exceptions to verify-
CHAIRMAN: We're also here to discuss the issue of-what shall we call it-efficiency?
MRS.MOORE: It makes it a-it's a resort motel-the point of the motel is to what the use has to be. It's
not,again,it's to be used by other motels in the area,whether they were resort motels or otherwise-you
call up any motel in the evening and there are little kitchenettes that are available because that is the going
thing. That is what people's expectations are. When you travel and I travel-that is almost an amenity as a
bathroom would be in your room. You need to have a kitchenette to make it available to families to be able
to be there 24 hours a day or even just for people on a fixed income who don't want to go out to a restaurant
every single night or you may go out to dinner,but not to lunch,that's the basic consensus we have that's
why we are here. Otherwise they couldn't go down there with the special permit without the permits and it
would take a number of months and all of the reviews and other stuff.
CHAIRMAN: Who is here to discuss the size of the unit and to discuss the size of the kitchens?
MRS.MOORE: Well,we can discuss the size of the kitchens. Do you want the square footage?
CHAIRMAN: No,I want you to tell me if there's an engineer here who can tell us-
MRS.MOORE: Yes. We have a specific unit-I think it was-it has a little half a kitchen unit. It has a
little stovetop,4 burner. There was a photo included early on.
Page 41 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: We had the same discussion with Henry Raynor in 1991. They are a little more neuveau
riche at this point,but I want to discuss the size of the unit in relation to the size of-
MRS.MOORE: The size-
CHAIRMAN: When I say the size of the fixed unit that goes into-no,the unit of the motel.
MEMBER ORLANDO: The room.
CHAIRMAN: Yes,the room.
MRS.MOORE: The room is 600 sq.ft.
CHAIRMAN: The room will be 600 sq.ft.
MRS.MOORE: The total is 600 sq.ft. I have the interior layout as part of the package.
CHAIRMAN: I need it in the record.
MRS.MOORE: It is in your record in the packet.
CHAIRMAN: I understand that but I need it in the verbal record.
MRS.MOORE: Okay,orally. But understand that your record consists of all written documentation,my
bottom line-
CHAIRMAN: All those people that aren't here that are going to read this record,I mean it's part of that
record.
MRS.MOORE: There is the kitchenette included as part of the living unit. It consists of a living area and
two bedrooms. All together it cannot exceed 600 sq.ft.which is the same way the code read before,maybe
9 without a building permit on it,actually the applicant's plans were the same ones we used. The architect
provided the certification to that effect,and it's still good. There is in fact,depending on the
unit,some are 599,others are a little over 600,but they seem to comprise 89-600 maximum.
CHAIRMAN: Is that considered a suite?
MRS.MOORE: I guess that's how you market it. It's the living area where you have the television.
CHAIRMAN: But each unit will have 2 bedrooms. There will be no units that will have less than 2
bedrooms.
MRS.MOORS: No,actually what happens is the rooms have connections,so you could actually rent a
room without the kitchenette and the rooms attached to it. So there is some flexibility. That's the makeup
of the units. If you went there with your wife,and you do not care about a kitchenette,you would possibly
rent one room.
CHAIRMAN: You could be excluded from the kitchenettes.
MRS.MOORE: You could be excluded.
CHAIRMAN: You have to come up and we need to swear you in,sir,so would you stand up? Can you
raise your right hand? Firstly,we want to know who you are.
BYRON CABOT: Byron Cabot,I'm the owner of the property west of-
Page 42 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: Do you solemnly swear the information you're about to give,us is the truth to the best of
your knowledge?
MR.CABOT: Yes I do. The question I have is when she mentioned that the rooms may be adjoining,does
that mean that you have 2 apartments making the total square footage from 600'to 12,000'?
MRS.MOORE: No.
MR. CABOT: Or 1,200?
MRS.MOORE: No.
CHAIRMAN: Just a minute,this question is to the board.
MRS.MOORE: Fortunately we have the architect with the plans. Their way to describe it is that the living
area has a 5'wide kitchenette right in the center. Then it has a bedroom with a door and a separate
bedroom with a door. That is the one unit. There is no-
CHAIRMAN: Do you think the architects reduce this to a plan minded situation as far as-so that we could
put this up on a board in here and everybody could understand it?
MRS.MOORE: You're looking at a well dyed thing,and I'm not criticizing anything,it's probably been
photocopied a few times.
MRS.MOORE: This is actually an original blueprint.
CHAIRMAN: I want to be able to visualize this up here,I want these people to be able to see it.
MEMBER ORLANDO: You want a blow up of a singular room with a kitchenette.
CHAIRMAN: Yes,and let's see how the movements go,let's see how everything works out. Let me just
tell you this gentlemen. You think that we are kidding around,we're not kidding around. This is where the
breakdown of communication was in 1991. I've been here since 1980. 1 don't know if I'm going to exist
past year 2002,but I'm telling you if you want to sell it to us let's get it down and let's get it down now.
Let's get it so we understand what the story is,what the movement of the walls are,who gets what,and
where it goes,then we will all be able to make a decision. We are one member less tonight,and I'm sure
this member who was a Town Board member wants to see the movement,and we want to be able to get it
down right.
MRS.MOORE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN: In the interim,we will have any other specific things that you are getting approvals on,and
we'll set a date now for a final hearing,and we'll have everybody else understand it at that point.
MRS.MOORE: I'm not sure I understand(inaudible)
CHAIRMAN: Well that's one request that we just had.
MRS. MOORE: That's okay. They are still coming up with things.
CHAIRMAN: I just like to set the ground rules in the beginning because then we know where we are
going.
MRS.MOORE: As I understand it's an internal layout of single units.
Page 43 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER HORNING: I'd like to ask a few questions before we jump to audience. In the written
submissions here you're citing several motels in Southold Town that have so called kitchenettes in them
and you wish-to your knowledge is that all there are?
MRS.MOORE: Is that it?I don't know if that's it,those are the ones I called. When I called to say,can I
rent a room with a kitchenette,the answer was yes. Personally I called most other hotels in the area that
would be comparable to what we have here. Could I call all of them?I could,but-
MEMBER HORNING: I was just curious because I'm interested in the percentage of kitchenettes as a
percentage of the total room in these facilities and in the facility that you're proposing. In other words 68
units,how many kitchenettes?
MRS.MOORE: 68.
MEMBER HORNING: 68,okay,because you were just saying there were rooms available without
kitchenettes.
MRS.MOORE: No,no,no. In the complexes,there is a living area,with 2 separate rooms attached to that
living area. Could you separately use them and say you have a family,2 separate couples. One has a
bedroom with a kitchenette because one is always going to be attached to the kitchenette. The other one
could be a separately rented room. It's designed in that way that it could have some flexibility.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Two separate access.
MRS.MOORE: It has-
MEMBER ORLANDO: People can come in and out without connecting-
MRS.MOORE: Ideally,if it's a family that comes in,they are going to want the kitchenette,presumably,
you're not going to want to have your kids sleeping in the same room with you,you're going to have use for
a second bedroom.
MEMBER HORNING: If I understand it correctly, 100%of the 58 600 sq.ft.units will have kitchenettes.
MRS.MOORE: Exactly. The way the code reads is that each unit,motel unit will have the kitchenette.
MEMBER HORNING: I've stayed in many rooms in the Townsend Manor,and none of them have
kitchenettes,except one that I accidentally ended up in. I was just curious because,they may have 10%in
their facilities.
MRS.MOORE: Right. Keep in mind that they all added kitchenettes I guess without the Building
Department because I couldn't find record of it at the Building Department. So they presumed it to be a
permitted use and an alteration to the existing resort motels that this applicant has been asked to submit a
special permit and specifically include(inaudible).
MEMBER HORNING: I have a quandary with that myself because I don't read the code. I can't read into
the code and concur that kitchenettes are allowed in resort motels.
MRS.MOORE: I would disagree completely. If you read the definition of transient motels vs.the
definition of resort motels,transient specifically says no cooking.
MEMBER HORNING: That's correct.
MRS.MOORE: While resort has no such indication.
Page 44 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER HORNING: What I read on it is resort motel calls for available for use as sleeping quarters on a
daily or a weekly basis.
MRS.MOORE: Yes
MEMBER HORNING: On a transient,they make it available for sleeping and living quarters,but no
cooking facility. I see it as kind of a mystery there. Sleeping and living in the transient one,with no
kitchenette,but no sleeping in the resort motel with no mention of anything else.
MRS.MOORE: That does not make sense. You're reading it a certain way but there has to be some logic
in how it's read.
MEMBER HORNING: The logic mystifies me.
MRS.MOORE: Well,could it have been more clearly addressed?
CHAIRMAN: We have another question here from Mrs.Tortora.
MEMBER TORTORA: Actually,I'm going to play devil's advocate. The real bad guy here. If you talk to
people in the business,the motel business is it's washed down,closed up,-I mean they do a
booming business during the spring,summer,when we get into the fall months and the dead of winter
Here we have all these units with nice little kitchenettes in them-what's to stop them in the
dead of winter from just being rented out as apartments or any other use. On a limited time basis-
MRS.MOORE: I honestly don't think the code allows that because on a weekly basis a motel use is not a
dwelling. A dwelling is year-round habitation. We could covenant-the owners are very willing to
covenant the maximum stay. Be it two weeks is the maximum stay for a vacationer. They have no
objection to that. That's what they want this for which is the board entered it. I would disagree with you
that I think that's even in the description,and yes,February is a lousy month to be on Long Island. But
aside from,I mean you also have holidays,you have Christmas,you're going to have the Peconic Landing
facility that has a huge amount of members in it and have a lot people that have families that are going to
want to come out and stay. We're going to have to have something,I think it's going to generate a demand.
The Christmas trees that are sold all over-our season is now almost year-round because of the wineries. I
would say that it's not necessarily the summer season,the fall season alone. I think it has extended into
everything but into the winter in terms of seasons. At this point they would be willing to close down
January,February,and March?
CHAIRMAN: Wait a minute. We need to know who the gentleman is who spoke.
MRS.MOORE: I'm sorry,this is Ken Tedah and Neil Esposito.
MEMBER TORTORA: I want to get this down for the record because I don't want to-. Is it our
understanding that you plan to close it for around three months?
MR.ESPOSITO: January,February,and half of March.
MRS.MOORE: About March 15`n.
MR.ESPOSITO: I would say about March 151n
MEMBER ORLANDO: That's basically the winter.
CHAIRMAN: Let me swear you in. Do you solemnly swear the information is the truth to the best of your
knowledge?
MR.ESPOSITO: Yes. One of these is built out in Amagansett called the Hermitage-
Page 45 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: I know it well.
MR. ESPOSITO: I built it back in'83-'84. They all have little kitchenettes,individual units,but they have
to rent them out for the new season and in January,February,and half of March the units are drained,the
complex is closed.
MRS.MOORE: Same thing at the North Fork Motel.
CHAIRMAN: When the North Fork Motel was granted I sat on this board,which was in 1981,and it was
the nature of the first lawsuit I was part of.
MRS.MOORE: I know that as well.
CHAIRMAN: And every one of those units did not have kitchenettes. They have kitchenettes now. You
know what that is,that's a subterfuge. Because of the way the law is written. That's my opinion on the
whole situation. And they are 275 sq.ft.approximately because I measured number 27 twelve times.
That's the one we used-
MRS.MOORE: That place is still doing quite well,and I've recommended several people who bought and
sold there,and it is an affordable way of coming out and visiting.
CHAIRMAN: No question about it,but they were not granted by this board for the sole purpose of having
kitchenettes. I'm just telling you,I'm making a general statement.
MRS.MOORE: I understand that the courts though rule as far as the ownership and you were told that you
had to-
CHAIRMAN: It's like getting 10 year by acceptance.
MRS.MOORE: Anyway.
CHAIRMAN: Any other questions from the board at this point?
MEMBER ORLANDO: I just wanted to clarify,so you're basically closing for the winter. Have you done
a traffic study?
MRS.MOORE: There was an environmental impact statement,everything was addressed.
MEMBER ORLANDO: So,there would be a light put out there?
MRS.MOORE: In fact the state,we met with the county and what they did was they located an entrance
directly across from San Simeon for safety,and that was their recommendation.
CHAIRMAN: There was also the condemnation situation which occurred in my office which caused-I'm
not part of that plan sitting on the board-the widening of the roads.
MRS.MOORE: They had that in mind.
MEMBER ORLANDO: You can rent a room there without a kitchenette?
MRS.MOORE: Yes. The way I see the layout,you can rent a room separately from-
MR.ESPOSITO: We do have a brief,simplified version of the room sizes. To answer your question,the
average living room is 16xl4 with a 5 or 6'kitchenette stuck in the corner. The bedrooms are
approximately 12x10.
Page 46 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: Do you understand what I'm requesting so that we can understand-
MR.ESPOSITO: I have one and I think it's in my files.
MRS.MOORE: I'll look in my file before I leave-
MR.ESPOSITO: Because it simplifies a version of a unit.
MEMBER ORLANDO: And the 300 sq.ft.living room includes the kitchenette.
MRS.MOORE: Yes.
MR.ESPOSITO: It's just a-
MRS.MOORE: It's a pop-out kitchenette. This is a quarter unit,it has a living area,here is the
kitchenette. This is one room,and you can see that you could block it off,and you could have it used
separately,then the other is connected. So it gives a little flexibility on the-
CHAIRMAN: I'm just waiting for the simplified version. For the people that are here,and the people who
know me,I'm wearing this hat because the lighting in this place has destroyed my eyes,and it's really
starting to get to me at this point. I apologize,very shortly I'm not going to see anything. I think we have
to get into any comments in the audience at this point and pick a date for the recess,and give us the
movement that I'm requesting at this point.
MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask one more question? Again,the 68 two bedroom unit-a bedroom could
be rented without the kitchenette supposedly. Is that correct?
MRS.MOORE: Yes. Keep in mind that the number of bodies in those rooms stays the same. If you have
two rooms,you could have one person renting one room and one renting another one.
MEMBER HORNING: 68 units-you could call it a 136 room hotel-could you not?
MRS.MOORE: We did not intend it to be that way. It is the same square footage that is-the units,the
600 sq.ft.unit is broken up is such a way it gives flexibility to a family or to two couples that come
separately. It is not an intention to rent 100-whatever double is-it is the same square footage with the
same number of bodies that could max out a 600 square foot. So square footage wise,it is identical. We
wanted to design it in such a way so as not-
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak for or against this project? Jack
I'll be with you in one second. That may not be here in a future date which we have not set yet. I have a
case in mind,but I will,now I'll let Mr.Levin. Mr.Levin,would you like to come up and say something,
sir? Mr.Levin,I've known you for many,many years,but I haven't-
JACK LEVIN: My name is Jack Levin.
CHAIRMAN: I have to swear you in. Do you solemnly swear the information you are about to give us is
the truth to the best of your knowledge?
MR.LEVIN: I'm very much interested in the procedure this application. This is 67 kitchens
obviously. The sunset motel is adjacent to the east. They had the unfortunate incident of losing a building
by fire a couple of years ago and they asked to re-build,they said you can just replace what you had
-there's kitchens in the 8 rooms. People from the town came down,and thought they would
do us a good will-if you eliminate the kitchens,you won't need a permit. At that point in time,we had to
get outside help to get this permit-I don't know why we had there were two kitchens,they
Page 47 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
were only being replaced. As far as this project,it is very rare,they are not motels,they are condominiums
or apartments right there,
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak at this point? Go ahead. I need to know your
name.
BRUCE GARATANO: Bruce Garatano,I'm the owner of the Blue Dolphin Motel.
CHAIRMAN: The new owner?
MR.GARATANO: I am the owner and proprietor of the building.
CHAIRMAN: Do you solemnly swear the information you're about to give us the truth to the best of your
knowledge?
MR. GARATINO: Yes. My concern about this project is the fact that what the impact will be on the rest
of the community on the rest of the motels,on the rest of the B&B's in the area. They are proposing 68
units and now telling us they can break these units up into 100 and something units. I think this is
something that the board should seriously consider their way out and their use for the property. It seems
that there's an ulterior motive,and I just would like the board to review this and make sure they are doing
the right thing.
CHAIRMAN: I trying to understand the break-up,and that's what I'm trying to do at this meeting.
MR.GARATANO: The break-up is that they,by their drawings,by their renderings-is that they are
going to condo co-ops,going from-if you have two rooms in these apartments,that houses 4 people,that's
4 people per unit in 68 units. That's going to impact our community immensely-the local businesses,the
local B&B's,the rest of the motels in the area. I would hope that you would not allow a Holiday Inn type
atmosphere here in Southold Town.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR.LEVIN: Can I add just one more thing? The impact of the traffic on that highway,thousands of cars
going to Orient,back at the curve there at the entrance is one of the most dangerous curves in Southold
Town,from Orient to Mattituck. That would create havoc.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
BYRON CABOT: I was just going to speak my support for Jack. I think one of the big problems with it,
it's being presented as a motel,and I think Jack runs a legitimate motel,and from the description of this
project,discussing the normal understanding of a motel,and how a motel operates. This is basically a
timesharing unit that the developer wants to get his money and get out. I don't think this is
going to be a positive contribution to this community. I don't think that the Town of Southold would be
interested in monitoring this sort of thing. They say they are going to shut down in January,February,and
March. What are you going to have police-how are you going to enforce this sort of thing? I know you
said and under,but nonetheless-
CHAIRMAN: In covenance,but can I just have your name for the record please? The information you're
about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge?
MR. CABOT: Yes it is. I would like to know,I don't know of any motel that is 600 sq. ft. anywhere that
I've ever stayed in. A hotel that I've stayed in was basically 12x20.
CHAIRMAN: That's why I asked if it was a suite or not.
Page 48 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MR.CABOT: Suite,or apartment condo. I mean,how do you break up 2 bedrooms to support 2
individual families with one door?
CHAIRMAN: You have to wait until we get to the next process,and that's how the whole thing flows. We
are going to put it up on the board,and we are going to learn and understand that. That's the best I can do
for you at this point. Remember that these hearings usually end up being preliminary hearings,and then we
get into a final hearing situation. We are always generatingquestions and the questions are inputted
questions from the audience. They are questions that are inputted by the individual members of this
committee,or this organization. At no time do I ever want to see anybody sitting back and not wanting to
ask a question when there's an issue here. The issue is I'm not going to review this blueprint that I can
barely see from here at this point. I want to see it plain,I want to see it nice. I want to see it as an example
of which one of these units go,with surrounding units so that we understand how this whole thing comes
together. Thank you. Miss Moore?
MRS.MOORE: We will provide you with eventually with,I know I have in my file that I've highlighted
for the Planning Board actually at one point and the code allows 600 sq.ft. It's
not our intention to double anything or increase or whatever. This will work it out so that it works
and we have no problem with that. That is the intention here.
CHAIRMAN: We weren't indicating that was your intention,we're just saying we need the input.
MRS.MOORE: I'm not trying-
CHAIRMAN: We are in court. It's fine.
MRS.MOORE: It's a good observation,and certainly we'll address it and it's not the intention here. We're
following the code-
MEMBER ORLANDO: So it won't be like,I'm sorry.
MRS.MOORE: We are following the code,and it was designed with that in mind. With the same code,
for purposes . We thought this was a one year process to re-activate the site plan and
everything has taken three. They have used the same architectural plans that were approved,and building
permit from 1989. We'll take those and show you how it's laid out and if you need to see how it's laid out,
we'll show you,and if you need us to close off a door,we can do that. There's flexibility.
CHAIRMAN: We have one more question.
MEMBER ORLANDO: So you will not be following the Amagansett suit by individually selling them?
MRS.MOORE: That is a possibility that what happens is,you can buy,as an investment so you have
individual investors buying a unit. They must participate in the motel aspect of it. So in other words,if
you buy a unit as an investment,you may use it for a week or two weeks,but aside from that,it must be in
the rental pool as a motel use. It's a form of ownership.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Who maintains it after it's been purchased?
MRS.MOORE: The association of owners actually monitors it to be so that's how we survive
all the economic cycles,because you don't have the developer who builds it,I mean he may end up keeping
it,but let's assume that the developer isn't making money,the economy goes bad,and it just doesn't work
out. The individual investors are going to want to secure their investment and the other members are also
going to walk out to their investment and be sure the facility is used in it's nature as a resort motel. It
cannot change it's use-just to be used for 2 different things. You can own it as,my parents have bought
time shares and this is not a timeshare,but as an example,you can buy a time share and you know you're
going to have one week or two weeks time use of the facility,and you can carry it on,and sell it to your
children and grandchildren. But the use remains the same. It is going to be used as a resort motel and no
Page 49 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
variation of ownership,whether it's owned by an individual or owned by individuals,it doesn't change that
use.
CHAIRMAN: Do you have to file for with the Secretary of State to create a-
MRS.MOORE: Depending on how it's owned,you'd have to-anytime you-even a line of subdivision if
you have a common road,you have to file some kind of-there's always a state regulation anytime there's
money collected and it's overseen.
CHAIRMAN: Before Mrs.Duffy who would like to speak in the back would like to get up. I am going to
request and I'm sure this is not going to be. Cap is not going to sit too well with this,but I am going to
request an adjournment to January 9th. We have no other time. We are so inundated with hearings in the
later part of this year. I don't know what to suggest here.
MRS.MOORE: Keep in mind we've been waiting many months to get to this point,and we have to get
back to finish the site plan. We are not done yet,and if we keep waiting,the economy is going to take,and
we'll be back in the 80's all over again.
CHAIRMAN: We don't want that to happen.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Don't say that.
MRS.MOORE: None of us want that,but that's always the fear that you know,here we've waited three
years through a very strong economy,just when we finally get to the point of making a decision. If you
could at all put us as the last hearing of the night or whatever-
CHAIRMAN: Preliminarily,I'm going to go with January 9,2003. We can change that at any time,and
I'll let you know what's available and how the calendar looks for December 51h,but as of right now,we are
on February's schedule,or actually we are in March of 2003.
MRS.MOORE: I filed it 3 years ago,it shouldn't take this long to get through the special permit.
CHAIRMAN: I understand,but as of right now,it will be January 91h unless we can grab some additional
time.
MRS.MOORE: Maybe you can schedule a special meeting.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs.Duffy,do you want to say something? I know you are an elected official of this town.
I've known you for many years,you are a gent from-
DARLENE DUFFY: My name is Darlene Duffy,I'm not here as a member of the Board of Assessors,I'm
here on a personal level. My family owns the Silver Sands motel. I just want to ask how many bathrooms
are you going to put in?
MR.ESPOSITO: Two bedrooms,two small bathrooms.
MRS.DUFFY: So we are talking 68 units . I think that's really important,I was thinking there
was a motel there for a while, when you're talking co-ops and condos,as I remember,so it just
seems a little strange.
CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MRS.MOORE: I'm so happy that rest of the hotel/motels in the community embrace another project that
they have. The use is what-there is no question about it-it is what it is,and that's what the code says. We
operate it that way. Nobody watches over these particular motels to see if people rent for a day or a week,
or a year,or whomever they choose to rent to. As far as an assessment goes,a condo is assessed as rental
Page 50 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
unit. However it's owned,the courts have said ownership is not of the criteria in which you are reviewing
this application,it's the use. We came up with some other covenant where ownership means under the state
law-that would not be the deciding point,it's the use,the motel use. To call it anything else-
CHAIRMAN: I need you to understand one thing ladies and gentlemen. This is a preliminary hearing.
We need to get on with the schedule. I don't want to restrict you. Mr.Tedali,you want to say something?
MR.TEDALI: The units,if someone could go out to Amagansett and look at the permits there.
Individuals out there own their own units,like investors,like myself,I want to buy a unit for$150,000 and
you want to buy a unit for$150,000.
CHAIRMAN: Hold it,hold it,hold it.
MR.TEDALI: Now listen,have an open mind. You cannot use your investments,you owe$150,000
down,and you have no right to use that unit as an investment. The management company rents your unit
out. Let's say at the end of the year you made$21,000-from an investment point of view,that's pretty
good. People who invest in these units will actually get a check at the end of the year. It's something
positive. The ownership is insignificant. If somebody owns a unit,and it's in that rental pool,they take
care of it. It's not like if I own the complex,I rented out all 68 rooms with contract subs,what should you
do? You'll get anybody to rent it,but when you have 68 owners and they have bylaws to follow they just
cannot rent it to anybody for 2 or 3 months. They can't do it because there's going to be covenants of how
long you can rent out the unit.
CHAIRMAN: That's similar to the Montauk Manor,isn't it?
MR.TEDALI: It's done quite a bit. There hasn't been a new resort motel in Southold in 7 years. Three
years ago,we were going to re-institute half-acre lots,and that's through zoning,you could only do half
acre lots. We submitted,and the Planning Board said no,we want your motels. We were happy to do half
acre lots,but they said they'd like to have the motel,and if you could go out from Montauk,and look up
some of the eastern ones,too-you know I bring up the Hermitage in Amagansett,it's run beautifully.
Individuals have responsibility to maintain that unit after the season. They go look at it,the furniture has to
be replaced,they replace it. The ownership it deceptive,the people invest in these kind of deals now,it's a
form of investment for them,better than the stock market.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mrs.Duffy,do you want to say something else?
MRS.DUFFY: I just want to say one thing. I didn't mean to insult Mr.Tedali,but I don't know, 136 motel
units on 7 acres is a lot. It's interesting because,I might buy one of these because I know what he's talking
about-it is a good investment. I understand about the ownership,you know. But when you call it one
thing and it's something else,it's a different thing. And I don't know who's going to monitor it,because
people aren't living there all year. I don't care if they live there all year.It doesn't matter to me. The only
thing that the town really has to understand that it's not rented out on a year round basis,or lived in by a
family. What you want to avoid is kids being raised in there and going to school from there. If they are
going to be taxed like a rental unit,it is not taxed like a home. The Board of Assessors,who I'm not
representing tonight for co-ops and condominiums. They have to be taxed as a rental unit like a
hotel room. You aren't taxed like a resident in an individual home,600 sq. ft.is a pretty big unit. It's 2
bedrooms,you could put a small family in it,and the way things are around here,you can squeeze quite a
few people in 600 sq.ft.the way it goes now. I'd like you to be mindful of that.
CHAIRMAN: That's why were we interested to find out if they were required to file with the Secretary of
State,because that is the key to the shutting of the motel down during the winter season.
MEMBER TORTOLA: Couldn't that always be changed?
CHAIRMAN: I'm not an attorney,but I think it's difficult.
Page 51 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MRS.MOORE: If you're open a certain number of months a year,and you're closed for the winter.
CHAIRMAN: That was the key to that question.
MRS.MOORE: We want this to be an investment for someone,but it is not to be a dwelling for anyone.
We do not want it to become a dwelling. We do not want to have families living there. Any children in the
school district should not be placed for permanent occupancy.
MEMBER TORTORA: Could you give me some information if I want to buy one of these units?
MEMBER ORLANDO: Literature.
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm very curious,in Amagansett. Do you have information?
MR.TEDALI: We built it 19 years ago,and I'm completely out of it,but yes,they'll give you the
information.
MEMBER TORTORA: Just submit it to the board so we can review it.
MR.TEDALI: This is somewhat common nowadays with-
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm familiar with it,I'm want to see how you offer it in writing,etc.,as a point of
reference. Fair enough?
MR.TEDALI: Got it.
MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: I need to take a question over here,Mrs.Duffy. You know if you use the microphone,you
need to be sworn in. You solemnly swear the information you're about to give is the truth to the best of
your knowledge?
NEIL ESPOSITO: I have been part of the Hermitage as the first president to the Board. We opened it as a
twelve month operation. After a year we found out it was not insulated enough to expand the weather,so
to speak,or go without heat. The board itself voted to close the buildings. The buildings become drained
after New Years Eve. They still do it,and I'm still an owner,and I still participate. The rentals are very
high . They are good through September. They take them down after that,and they
(inaudible)and it opens always in time for the Saint Patrick's parade in Montauk. That's when the season
opens in Montauk,and it's maintained by the professional managers and a board of directors who look out
for the welfare of the units. If you have a or pictures now at this point giving placement,they
are having the systems replaced. It's not that it's run down,it looks as good as when it was built. The
people who originally bought there are now selling for three times what they were originally sold for as
investment units. In high season,the open front units rent for$4,200 a week.
CHAIRMAN: I need to close,recess this hearing at this point. I appreciate everybody's information and
questions. I'm suggesting a recess for Clara until the meeting of January 91h. If there is any change on that
we will advertise it,and that is what I'm offering as a resolution ladies and gentlemen.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Second.
CHAIRMAN: All in favor? All ayes. We'll let you know if there's any changes. Thank you. While we're
setting up for appeal#5182,we are running out to get some water we'll be right with you.
10:38 p.m.Appl.No.5182-R.W.R NIGER. Request for a Variance under Section 100-242A and
100-244,based on the Building Department's April 22,2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is
Page 52 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
proposing to construct additions/alterations in a nonconforming location(existing dwelling)with a front
setback at less than 35'and a rear setback at less than 35',at 3500 Lighthouse Road,Southold;Parcel 50-2-
1.
MR.FITZGERALD: The house that he is renovating,and there is no room inside. It's a relatively small
house,it's on a lot that's not buildable. The setbacks are very small. What-we are proposing is to add a
small extension. It does not extend beyond the existing concrete path or the existing eave overhang to the
house.
CHAIRMAN: Any comments regarding the letter from Soil and Water Conservation regarding the parcel?
MR.FITZGERALD: I'm sorry,you received a letter? I know what's him name made some comments
about the house next door.
MEMBER TORTORA: The letter from Soil and Water Conservation approves that all of the plans are
different than what they are proposing. When I looked at this. All of these new additions that they are
proposing,the 2°d floor,the sun room the one-story addition to the side-none of these are part of this
application. Is that clear? I think when Soil and Water Conservation looked at it Gerry,actually the only
thing we are looking at is this tiny,little-
CHAIRMAN: I see what we are looking at,but it affects the entire piece of property. I'm just saying the
entire piece of property-you are missing my point-this is a free evaluation for the homeowner to deal
with. That's all this is. We very rarely,unless we have a very high hazard erosion situation imposed. The
last time we dealt with it was the end of Oregon Road on a piece of property that belongs to a lady by the
name of Mary Murphy. The rest of it is pragmatic criteria that the person should use when they are doing
things that they wish. That's the reason why-it's a standard situation. I am very simply going to ask you
that question. And if you don't have a.copy,I'll give you a copy.
MEMBER TORTORA: Are you finally making an application?
CHAIRMAN: Again we're only giving you this to give to the homeowner. So when another variance
application comes in,we build on that.
MEMBER ORLANDO: What are we here for tonight,Mr.Fitzgerald?
MR.FITZGERALD: This little proposed thing right there. That's all we are looking for.
MEMBER ORLANDO: This is a sketch for a hot water heater? For what?
MR.FITZGERALD: For the house.
MEMBER ORLANDO: The kitchen is here,and the bath is here.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the
application? Seeing no hands,I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later.
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
10:40 p.m.Appl.No.5182-RAYMOND AKSCIN. Request for Lot Waivers under Section 100-26 to
unmerge: (a)a vacant parcel of 20,000+-sq.ft.referred to as 1000-89-2-5.2,(b)a vacant parcel of
20,000+-sq.ft.referred to as 1000-89-2-3,and(c)an improved lot with 1.6+-acres of land remaining
referred to as 1000-89-2-5.1. Based on the Building Department's April 12,2002 Notice of Disapproval,
corrected September 25,2002,the properties have merged under Section 100-25 due to common ownership
with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983. Zone District:R-80 Residential. Location of Property: 105
Page 53 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
and 265 Orchard Lane,and 1800 Cedar Beach Road,Southold;Cedar Beach Park Map Lot Nos.25,27 and
28.
CHAIRMAN: We are ready to start.
KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN,ESQ: Good evening,my name is Kevin McLaughlin. I'm the attorney for the
applicant. This is an application for a waiver of lot merger. My clients have owned all of these lots since
the early 1950's. They sold the middle of the three half acre lots on the road front in 1955 to people by the
name of Reed who have subsequently built upon that parcel. The large parcel,lot 28,is also improved.
Lots 25 and 27 are vacant. Our clients entered into contracts for the sale to separate buyers of lots 25 and
27 and in doing their title search and single and separate search. It came to everyone's attention that the
seller who asked for the lots has merged by operation of law into the 6-acre lot,lot number 28. Basically
we are here before this board this evening to have those lots be separated into 2 separate and single lots. As
I said my client has owned these for over 50 years. They have paid taxes on these lots. A separate tax bill
for over 50 years. They've always intended these lots to remain separate,and not being sophisticated in the
laws of merger as most people are not,never realized that by having them in common ownership they
would have ever merged together. I've provided you in the application with all of the criteria for granting
this waiver. The lots in the area,most of which are similar in size we're not going to increase the density of
the neighborhood,and for all of those reasons we're asking the board for a waiver of that merger.
CHAIRMAN: What about the letter from the Town Trustees?
MR.MCLAUGHLIN: I read the letter from the Town Trustees-to be blunt-I think it's irrelevant for this
evening. Let's assume that you grant us our waiver of merger. Before we do anything,we still have to-on
either of these lots-we still have to satisfy Trustees,DEC,the Building Department,the Health
Department as to whether or not we can improve either of those lots. There's another attorney sitting in the
audience this evening who represents one of those lot owners before the Town Trustees,and it's my
understanding that there's substantial difference between what their experts say is a condition of that
_ particular lot which is lot 25,and what the Town Trustees can indicate.
MEMBER TORTORA: 25 is lot number what on the town tax map?
MR.MCLAUGHLIN: 2.3. But that application is still pending before the Town Trustees. The issue
before the board tonight is much more limited to whether or not we should grant this waiver of merger,and
it really doesn't have anything to do with what the Town Trustees or the DEC or any other board may do on
any application before it in the future.
CHAIRMAN: There is some degree of correctness to what you said. Except that you are saying that
automatically,the purpose of immerging them is for the purpose of the code construction of building the
one family house. Hopefully that would be what we would hope to do. I think of all the un-mergers that
we have done-the objective was to do that.
That's the reason I asked you the question. We could have done this in an hour. I think that there is a
degree of credence from,in another 10 acres say,which says that they can do-they don't say exactly which
lot. They construe this one lot,I'm going to take it as lot 15 as being significantly riddled with wetlands.
We've had similar cases like this. I'm just saying to you I accept what you're saying,but I think there is
some degree of interest in looking into that aspect.
MR.MCLAUGHLIN: That aspect will be thoroughly explored by the DEC. It may come to the point that
the contracts we have for the sale of these lots are contingent upon the obtaining of certain permits to be
able to use them for the purposes for what they want. If we don't get approval from the Town Trustees then
it would be likely that that person would opt out of the contract. But that is an issue for that board to deal
with. Whether or not the piece of property has wetlands on it and if so,what is the impact for being able to
build on it.
MEMBER TORTORA: One of the things we look at when we look at requests for unmerged lots is we
look for some indication that we are indeed recognizing original lot lines as lots that were carefully
Page 54 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
maintained in single and separate ownerships. That's basically when you ask us. When I come up with
here in reviewing this partnership,it is essentially since 1950 and in the 60's a lot has never been single and
separate. They should merge-they should merge the minute you went to one of these . This
was 1971. There was no effort on the part of the owners to place them in single and separate ownerships,
but it was jointly owned by the two for all of those years. Now,in 1971,when the town went to one-acre
zoning,they were automatically . For more than 32 years,they were merged. What you are
saying to me is these people did not know to put them in single and separate ownership. That's number 1,
number 2,yes whether there are wetlands on that property or not,is a factor for this board's determination.
It's written right into the law. It's written right in the criteria,page 126.
MR.MCLAUGHLIN: 1 don't agree.
MEMBER TORTORA: Well it is.
MR.MCLAUGHLIN: I don't agree that whether there's wetlands on the property is part of the criteria.
MEMBER TORTORA: Environmental factors is not part of the criteria?
MR.MCLAUGHLIN: I don't believe whether or not there are wetlands on'that property is part of the
criteria. As far as the town ownership,in fact as you look through the material that I sent you,there was a
time,not until 1992 when these lots were not held in town ownerships. There are two,but they're
accidents,there's Raymond and there's Raymond J.,the middle name is Jay,they are father and son. There
was a time when these lots were weeded out separately. You can also see that in 1965,that middle lot was
sold with the sole intention of holding these lots by the Senior Mr.Akscin,basically as an investment so in
these years,he would have something to be able to sell. Separate tax bills on these lots. Yes,by operation
of law,I agree,these lots have merged. Otherwise,I wouldn't be standing here in front of you tonight
asking for the un-merge. In a perfect world,if everybody would have known what lot mergers meant,of
course they would have checker boarded all these lots,and nobody would ever have to come before you.
As this is not a perfect world,I'm sure you get applications all the time for waivers of lot mergers simply
because people aren't that sophisticated to know that by owning what are separate maps on the subdivision
goes back to 1927,that's just a%z acre lot and it was an approved subdivision,that it someday is going to
merge into another lot,even though there's a lot in between that's been sold to someone else because it
happens to have a county boundary.
MEMBER TORTORA: What's the reason on the 1989 tax map-if you look at a copy of a 1989 tax map
merges lot 5.2 with 5.1. There is no distinction between(inaudible)the'89 tax map. I know what you did
in the separation. But in the years before that,they won. The other factors related is,one of the factors is
these are 20,000 sq.ft.lots. I looked around the neighborhood,and they are not substantially the same,
they are substantially smaller than most of the lots in the area.
MR.MCLAUGHLIN: is 20,000 sq.acres.
MEMBER TORTORA: This is one lot-
MR.MCLAUGHLIN: If you down all Orchard Lane,there are small lots down through there.
MEMBER TORTORA: I come up with 1.1 acres, 1 acre, 1 acre,I don't see one lot in here for 20,000 sq.
ft. This is the criteria we have to go off of,we are supposed to go off of. The fact of the matter is that
aside from the lot in between was those trees. There were no other 20,000 sq.ft.lots in the immediate
district. I've got a copy of the tax map right here. You are completely wrong. I don't see it. It is
substantially smaller than the majority of the lots.
CHAIRMAN: I need you to state your name for the record.
Page 55 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
RAYMOND J.AKKCIN: Raymond J.Akscin,I'm the owner of No.27 on the local tax map. Lot 29 and
lot 30,when did you sell those lots? What year was that? That was after'65. Those are all separate lots.
They are only 2 quarters of an acre if that.
MEMBER TORTORA: You don't have those lots anymore. We have tax maps.
MR.MCLAUGHLIN: Those two lots were sold to one man who built his house on 29. He sold his house
on lot No.29 along with No.30. That man who has his house on No.29,Frank Laterri,he just sold that lot
two years ago,and they built a house on it. And you're telling me that wasn't merged? No one has ever
had any statement or any notice of that these things were ever merged. I can't believe it. This is an outrage.
It's like all these years. It's like an investment,it's like a savings account. You are paying on this,you get a
tax bill for each lot,you get a bunch of them. You pay,you pay,you pay. Now comes a time when you
want to go. You need the money for something. You go,you are told you don't have that to sell anymore.
We took it away a long time ago,we just forgot to tell you.
MEMBER ORLANDO: The town's not required to notify everyone when your lot is merged.
MR.MCLAUGHLIN: Why don't they send one tax bill then? Why is it separate tax bills? They give you
a false impression,like they are single and separate.
MEMBER TORTORA: There are a lot of people who own several lots,and even if they are all merged,
they get separate tax bills. I can see where it could get confusing.
MR.ASKCIN: That should answer your question why did we think they were single and separate.
MR.MCLAUGHLIN: Plus the fact that they did sell off,when they originally bought these lots,they
bought 25-30. They sold off 26,they sold off 29,and they sold off 30. They continue to get separate tax
bills,they continue to pay those separate tax bills every year,so they would have no reason to suspect that
lots 27 and 25 which are divided by 26,which they sold and improved upon,would ever have merged.
And merged with a lot that's 1.6 acres.
MEMBER TORTORA: I know,and that lot that you say is 1.6 acres,actually when you look at the 1989
Suffolk County Tax Map as being 2.1 acres.
MR.MCLAUGHLIN: Correct me if-I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying,but I suspect my
clients never went and looked at the tax maps to see if these lots had merged. They had no idea that they
would merge. Or why any reasonable person would understand that.
MR.ASKCIN: I also think that's your fact that you said it was 1993 or something that lots 27 and lots 25,
they came to me at that time. My parents wanted to do estate planning,and they turned these two lots over
to me,I had title to both of them,and I was paying taxes on both of them. About a year or so later my
mother became sick,and she was worried for her health,and she said she wanted the lots back. Turn the
lots back to them. My mother died. My father said,look you take one of these lots. Turned the lots back
to me again. That was in like'95-96-number 27. That's why you see all of these lot changes.
CHAIRMAN: All we can tell you is that we will look at it.
MR.ASKCIN: I'd like to say one thing also. My father here lived and worked here his whole life. I've
worked here the last 30 years in the nursery business. We've donated a lot of stuff to this town. We've
never asked for anything from this town,and we're really disappointed to have this come upon us like this
because if someone had said hey look you better go down and change all of this,they are going to merge,
of course we could put different initials in it or something like some of these people do,but we never
thought that the town would do anything like this to us. If you look out here,there's trees that were donated
to the town. The family donated at least a hundred trees around this whole town.
Page 56 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER TORTORA: Mr.Askcin,do you know the strange thing about it is some people think that this
is a result of some new law. But it isn't. This has been in the town since,actually, 1967 You
know that Mr.McLaughlin.
MR.MCLAUGHLIN: That may very well be true-
MEMBER TORTORA: It certainly is.
MR.MCLAUGHLIN: But this town perpetuates all codes by sending out individual tax bills,they let
people-why would anybody-I've never gone to a cocktail party where it's been the subject of
conversation-oh gee,I'd better check and see if my lots have merged. It's not something the average
person thinks about. It's something that sneaks up on unsuspecting people. That's why this board is given
the power to unmerge lots when it's clear that the purpose of ownership of these lots is not to let them
merge where there's a large lot and two little forks coming out to another road. You know,a lot that they
owned,sold in the middle,and a couple of other lots that were sold off during the years. That is our
purpose in coming here today. I understand the lot merger. I understand what has happened here. But that
doesn't mean that this board doesn't have the ability to undo an injustice.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. We accept your statement. Gentlemen,any questions? No. Yes,ma'am in the back.
Please come and state your name.
HELEN FINNIGAN: My name is Helen Finnigan. I'm actually . I understand that there is a
merger issue,and there is a wetland issue. If we deal with
CHAIRMAN: Anyone else like to say something?
PATRICIA MOORE,ESQ: I just happen to be the attorney for the other lot,number 25.
identify the wetland highs,it is our understanding that there is a substantial portion of the property that is
buildable. The trustees are not in a dispute and Rob Herman-he doesn't understand their
disagreement with them,but he's getting a second opinion from a professional,whether he's somehow or
another identified with it or there's arguments to be made by somebody bias.Certainly . In all
fairness to Mr.Askcin,the properties are sticking out like a fork,and it really doesn't make sense to have it
merge to the fathers house behind or to both merger and it was dissected by a property that was
sold. Certainly we are in favor of the waiver of merger and the issues with respect to the wetlands,we are
dealing with the Trustees. En-consultants the DEC will come out and verify his lines because
En-consultants is one of the foremost experts. Rob Herman is one of the people I trust most,with his
expertise of the wetlands. If you can't trust his opinion,the next best thing is the DEC.
MEMBER TORTORA: If you are familiar with that part of the code in the waiver of mergers that we have
to review-
MRS.MOORE: Yes the environmental issues.
MEMBER TORTORA: They maybe we would submit some other point of reference as to why.
MRS.MOORE: Well I'll check with Rob to see if he's able to get us some second opinions as far as the
wetlands. If it's not buildable,I guess nobody will be able to-
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm confused,what have you applied to the Trustees for?
MRS.MOORE: We put in a building envelope for a house. We located everything as you would with any
construction on a lot. As part of the application to submit,you have to flag the wetland line,and determine
the-
MEMBER TORTORA: It's not a lot yet.
Page 57 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MRS.MOORE: Pardon?
MEMBER TORTORA: It's not a lot.
MRS.MOORE: We weren't aware that it had merged until it had been,there was some kind of survey-
some kind of single and separate. In this instance the single and separate had the survey very quickly done
and flagged so we were one step ahead of it and we kind of held off doing anything further until the waiver
of merger got resolved. Obviously we don't want to invest any more money on a parcel that got denied the
waiver of merger. Here we are,we can't go any further. Everything is happening at the same time. I will
testify that we've gotten a second opinion on the wetlands.
MEMBER TORTORA: a separate file.
MRS.MOORE: Funny you should make a copy of that.
CHAIRMAN: It looks like a copy. We won't close the hearing until-we'll close it at verbatim,and close
it at the next regular scheduled meeting.
MRS.MOORE: When's the next meeting?
CHAIRMAN: November 14`". Anybody else?
MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN: Quick one,George,we have to get going.
MEMBER HORNING: Mrs.Moore,what's the chance that you could provide for us the lot sizes of those
7-8 lots on Cedar Beach Road across the creek from the 2 parcels?
MRS.MOORE: I think you want to have the chance to-he'd be happy to do that for you.
MEMBER HORNING: And the ownership,of course,too to see if they are merged or whatever the status
of them.
MR.ASKCIN: In order to do that I'd have to run title searches on all of those lots.
MRS.MOORE: You could only go back as far as the owners presently,because if you have 2 parcels,
sometimes the successors on that have merged,and then you get one tax bill,or it's rare that the assessor
identifies that.
MEMBER TORTORA: On Orchard,on Cedar Beach,across the road,that's only showing up as one,
there's only 3 lots on that-the dotted lines,George,they are old structure lines,not lot lines. There are
only 3 lots on them,they are all 1-acre lots.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay,my question's answered.
CHAIRMAN: Again,we will close the hearing to any verbatim,closing it on November 14'h
MRS.MOORE: I'll give you a copy of our survey on that house(inaudible)provided that our wetland line
is a direct line.
CHAIRMAN: Okay.
HEARING CLOSED TO VERBATIM
Page 58 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
11:11 p.m.Appl.No.5032-LISA EDSON. Request for Variances under Sections 100-32, 100-231 and
100-235A.1,and New York Town Law Section 280-a,based on the Building Department's July 5,2001
and September 20,2001 Notice of Disapproval concerning: (1)a retaining wall proposed at a height
greater than the code limitation of 4'along or in a front yard area,(2)proposed deck construction with a
zero setback from the front yard line,and from the private right-of-way,at its closest point;and(3)a
determination as to minimum specifications at the base of a Private Right-of-Way,(land owned now or
formerly by Mary Kirsch referred to as 87-5-24),to establish standards of improvement for safe access by
fire and emergency vehicles(applicant's lot does not have direct frontage on a town street). Location of
Property: Extending 450'over a Private Right-of-Way,commencing at a point on the north side of
Bayview Road(9326), Southold;Parcels 87-5-25 &24.
CHAIRMAN: Mark,are you rolling with this one?
MRS.PATRICIA MOORE,ESQ: This is mine.
CHAIRMAN: Oh,Pat you're doing it,I'm sorry.
MRS.MOORE: That's okay. I wasn't there on Saturday,I was out of town.
CHAIRMAN: Yes,I was there with Mark. We crossed each other's paths then we met each other
sometime,soaked.
MRS.MOORE: We are sort of in an unusual situation here that in the access to the property requires
approval,but the Trustees actually directed us on how they wanted the road improvements over that right-
of-way. They had each of you review an application that had a design that they very much liked. When we
were at the Trustees,actually Rob Herman and I were working together on this. Rob had the engineer who
had to find another road for access similar to this,and it's designed as another group of properties the
applicants have designed in Southold. So the testimony and engineering with respect to these
improvements,so I would ask that you include the access with the improvements which are really
expensive and over-the-top and not something that the applicant really wishes to do,but which the Trustees
really recommended and the applicant agreed with. It's more than just a standard driveway,it's
significantly different. The other issues are the state funds some right-of-ways that are on this property that
were created when the subdivision was created. These right-of-ways,there is an access right-of-way which
gives access to this property as a driveway access. Once the right-of-way extends from the property line
down to the ,it is a limited access driveway in that-excuse me,20'right-of-way which gives
the 2 property owners on the north,on Main Bayview access to the dredged canal. At one point in time,
when the subdivision was created,it was imagined that there might be a boat basin or some improvements
down in the dredged canal,but given today's environmental laws,that's not likely. It's going to be used in
it's natural capacity. And the access to the right-of-way is going to be down to the dredged canal is going
to remove notably natural-I guess those property owners would have a very minor mulch on it,so it would
allow us to take a boat down on a trailer or something. But really you cannot go down there by vehicle
because the car would be stuck,and you probably couldn't fit any pervious material on that right-of-way
because the DEC and the Trustees would never allow that. While we have to maintain setbacks from that
right-of-way,the right-of-way is really no more than a pedestrian access down to the dredged canal. The
same goes with the access-there is a 20'right-of-way that runs along the width of the property-that too is
access for the two northerly beaches to get across and if they were to go and-let's see,the westerly part,
the ones who cross over and get access to the walkway down to the canal,they could cross,they would
have a right to cross Lisa Edson's property. But again,because of wetlands and setbacks,you cannot put
any kind of pervious material and create any kind of significant,drivable aspect. Let's see,another issue
that has come up,quite frankly,the retaining wall around the sanitary systems. The sanitary system walls
are not generally considered structures. I actually-at the time that we were doing this application,Ed
Forrester had left and Mike Verity had come in. Things were in flux at the Building Department. I thought
it was better to be safe than sorry that this wall around the sanitary be considered a structure for purposes of
setbacks,so that it would be included here since I was coming before this board anyway,I wanted anything
and everything possibly you could consider to be included. What we included was the sanitary wall that
Page 59 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
goes around the sanitary system is setback-unfortunately it can't be pushed away from the right-of-way
because that is the location of both the Health Department and the DEC has determined as the appropriate
location for the sanitary system and the wall around it. Any sanitary systems on this property require some
form of retaining wall to protect the water here.
MEMBER ORLANDO: That retaining wall is sub-surface correct?
MRS.MOORE: Both are sub-surface areas,some protrude above the surface,and in the cross section acre-
MEMBER ORLANDO: It's insignificant,it's a couple of inches.
MRS.MOORE: No,no,no,-it's 5'-5-5 %i.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Above surface?
MRS.MOORE: It's above,yes. It's equivalent to a mounded system.
MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm looking at the other side final grade.
MRS.MOORE: Sanitary system here with the brown waters that we've had.
MEMBER ORLANDO: The finished grade on the other side,I'm reading they are filling it in.
MRS.MOORE: Yes,they are filling it in. Now keep in mind that the house is going to be on piles and the
elevation,the house is going to be actually above the sanitary system. Houses in this area,again,just like
Mary Kirsch's house and any house that will be built on any other parcels have to be elevated because of
the flood zone. Sanitary is 5 %z'from grade on grade on average and the sanitary floor is at I'm going to say
11. You're looking at a height at 6'above the sanitary wall. That's where the finished grade is.
CHAIRMAN: Can we go back to the for a minute?
MRS.MOORE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN: Are you referring to this right-of-way access for subject property was improved with 2" of
crushed bluestone over 12" layers of 1 %" stone and let the storm water runoff?
MRS.MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: What is the maximum width on that?
MRS.MOORE: The width of the right-of-way-it actually encompasses to the entire width of the right-of-
way because the driveway is in one area when you look at the dimensions,but the drain system has to run
adjacent to the improved surface,so there are actually drainage drains that run-you can see the drainage
rings that are drawn in. There are drainage drains that run the width of the right-of-way,so within the legal
limits of the right-of-way,is a drainage drain that is 4x8 diameter so 5'of drainage then the balance of it is,
oh here on the cross-section map up here on the top where it says Main Bayview Road,up to the right of
Main Bayview Road.
CHAIRMAN: The problem that I have is,and we'll leave it at that point-
MRS.MOORE: Take a look at the question you're asking. You have a 10'portion,then you have 8'
system drainage,and-
CHAIRMAN: When you look inside,looks like 12'to me.
MRS.MOORE: Yes right,20'altogether. And that's the width of the right-of-way.
Page 60 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: The trucks are 11'6"-fire and emergency vehicles. That is tight.
MRS.MOORE: That's what,I mean,that's what the Trustees wanted. They wanted the drainage in,and
we had to put some in. We only have 20'to work with.
CHAIRMAN: If you go with 12,you're going to have an over-cut on both sides. You have to have a 3'
over-cut on both sides to allow-
MRS.MOORE: The legal limit is 201.
CHAIRMAN: You are going to have an over-cut on the one side. Because if you don't do that,you will
never get fire insurance. And that is the story.
MRS.MOORE: Okay. Well,we have 10,excuse me, 18'of width-
CHAIRMAN: You've created the over-cut by the draining.
MRS.MOORE: That's right.
CHARIMAN: But that drainage is going to have to withstand a phenomenal amount of weight.
MRS.MOORE: I'll make sure the engineer is aware that you have to be accessible to emergency vehicles.
CHAIRMAN: And I'm not referring to just an ambulance,I'm referring to the fact that you've got to get a
pumper down there one way or another.
MRS.MOORE: Right,I was referring to a fire truck. And a fire truck goes down there and damages some
drainage,trying to protect the house.
MEMBER ORLANDO: They make separate,different precasts for load bearings and non-load bearings.
They are obviously load bearing.
CHAIRMAN: From my understanding,they have to withstand a minimum of 11 or 12 tons. Most of the
trucks weigh about 18 now,loaded with water. As long as you get one truck down there,that's what you
have to do because that truck is going to be the truck that's going to see the fire.
MRS.MOORE: I'll be sure to let him know this.
CHAIRMAN: What we are going to have to do is make it subject to review by the Zoning Board after the
right-of-way is in. This could take-what?-I want to look at it because it's going to be a forerunner for
what we are going to do for future stuff.
MRS.MOORE: You are certainly entitled to look at it if-
CHAIRMAN: Somebody will look at it,it may not be me. Somebody may opt not to look at it. The
normal specifications are the drainage and what you had given us on 11-16-02,what I just read to you. Is
that correct?
MRS.MOORE: This is what the Trustees approved. In fact it was also reviewed by the Health
Department. I'm hoping somebody along the line looked at it for strength.
CHAIRMAN: The right-of-way is nothing. You are creating this. It's just a right-of-way. Anybody else
have any questions for Ms.Moore regarding this application? Yes,are you Lisa?
MARY KIRSCH: No,I'm Mary Kirsch. for months-
Page 61 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: The new house?
MS.KIRSCH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: The house that we mistakenly thought was this house in the beginning,and we didn't
understand the map.
MS.KIRSCH: The octagon house.
CHAIRMAN: I watched the entire construction of that.
MS.KIRSCH: I just want to discuss the entire proposal of the Edson's.
CHAIRMAN: Proposal of what ma'am?
MS.KIRSCH: The building package. Right now,you're accepting retaining walls 5'high. They are
proposing 9'high-
MRS.MOORE: No,5'. And that's not a structure.
CHAIRMAN: That is a structure.
MS.KIRSCH: It's considered a structural part of the whole building package.
MRS.MOORE: We are here because we've called it a structure for the sake of the Building Department to
be sure it's included,but the Building Department doesn't consider retaining walls and sanitary walls
structures. Maybe code will change eventually,but for right now it's not.
MS.KIRSCH: Okay,and the new stuff that the Health Department depicted could be put in that particular
place.
MRS.MOORE: Actually the DEC specifically,the location of that sanitary system has to be there because
of a very-a piece of wetland-that is actually a finger you can see it there. It is a measurement of 100'of
sanitary,it has to be 100'from a wetland,and there is a wetland,significant wetlands on the property,and
on the adjacent properties,but the closest point is that finger that protrudes toward the Edson property.
That's what we have to base our location on.
MS.KIRSCH: The reason why you have to do that is because the building package is too long. If you
eliminated or scaled down the house or the deck,or get rid of the pool,it would be a totally different thing.
That would be a possibility. Right now when you add the square footage of the house,the pool,the deck,
and this above ground septic system,it comes to over 7,000 sq.ft. I mean,we're not talking about a modest
house,we're talking about a huge compound,a house on pilings,deck,there's nothing in the whole area
according to Corey Creek. I know,I was raised on Corey Creek. You don't see anything like that,it's
totally out of character.
MRS.MOORE: I just want to clarify,the of the house and deck and pool is. is not
considered in lot coverage. The square footage of the house and pool and decking is 4,700 sq.ft.to be
precise. You cannot consider the sanitary system as lot coverage or the habitable space of the house. You
have to maintain the sanitary system requirements and this is where it's recommended it be located. It got
Health Department and DEC approval for the sanitary system at this location.
MS.KIRSCH: You insist on keeping the pool and the deck and etc. It's a very sensitive area,extremely
sensitive,and all of a sudden you don't have to comply with front yards,side yards,any kind of setback-it
just doesn't seem appropriate.
Page 62 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: It's a very unique piece of property,there's no question about it.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's not what this notice of disapproval is about. In fact,the Building
Department has already reviewed this-it's defined as zone. That is-for Southold Town-that's the lowest
height-most of them are up around 16. That's not unique-for a lot this size,that's not a lot in comparison
to what's normal in Southold.
MS.KIRSCH: As far as the wetlands?
MEMBER TORTORA: As far as the retaining wall. The Building Department does not even consider
them structures. They must need-you don't even have to get a building permit for these a retaining wall in
Southold Town. Period. End of story. That's not,I mean,maybe they will in the future. You can look at
retaining walls all along Long Island Sound. You can look at retaining walls in between people's
properties,and go out and ask them,did you get a building permit for this? Did you have to get a special
exception? Did you have to get a height variance for this? And the answers are no. There's a retaining
wall 20'tall not even two blocks from my house. What I'm trying to say is let's stick to the real issues.
CHAIRMAN: Do you want to review the issues regarding this and comment on this after the next hearing?
MRS.MOORE: We are going to have three hearings together. She is very familiar with the process,the
Board of Trustees. There are at least three hearings at the Trustees office. The uniqueness of this property
is evident from the survey. The setbacks,as we said,the retaining wall is really not a structure,you can
take it out of the equation,but again,I did it very conservatively,and not knowing how the Building
Department was going to rule on something like that at the time the Notice of Disapproval was issued. The
house is not oversized,it's relatively modest. The decking and the pool is usable space around your
property because if you look at the natural buffers that have to be maintained here,you only have 25'
beyond the actual building envelope. If you see the survey,you have a 50'natural buffer,non conservative
buffer,from the wetlands. That's a regulated area,and the Trustees and the DEC have prevented us from
doing anything without permits. Then it's marked as a 75',excuse me 25'beyond the distance that's non-
disturbance buffer. So Lisa Edson has actually limited her area of activity-to a very small area of this
parcel. It's a reasonable application given the size of the property. Remember this property is double the
size of Mary's property. There's two lots in the front in comparison to the one lot that these applicants
have.
CHAIRMAN: What else did you have to say?
MS.KIRSCH: Around this retaining wall,in the area of this right-of-way which I own,you will be cutting
down trees,not because she wants to-
MRS.MOORE: You were at the Trustees hearing. This was their idea not ours. Yes definitely,there is
landscaping around the retaining wall. She doesn't want to see it any more than anyone else wants to see it.
It will be landscaped and if you want to put a condition on the variance that there should be landscaping
materials around the sanitary walls,she would do it anyway. It's certainly not a problem. The driveway is
where their house is,so there's really not a lot of room that we cannot block the right-of-way that goes
down and gives access to the dredged canal.
MS.KIRSCH: I will be using the right-of-way as I go down to the beach.
CHAIRMAN: You have to-
MRS.MOORE: She has a right to use it,it's part of her deed conveyance,so certainly she has a right to
use it,there's no intention of blocking it and it also limits our ability to landscape it too,because you can't
block it. Mostly around the house and the property has natural vegetation, and again,there's no intention to
clear anymore if it's not 25'of the building envelope.
CHAIRMAN: We reserve the right to review the landscaping,which we do all the time.
Page 63 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MS.KIRSCH: If you come out and look at the landscaping,after it's been built,and you suggest certain
things. I'd like to make a point that making sure the drywells don't some kind of fire. That I
think is really important.
CHAIRMAN: That's why we mentioned that-
MRS.MOORE: I'm going to check with the engineer to make sure that-what is it,the casing?
MEMBER ORLANDO: Pre-cast,load bearing.
MRS.MOORE: I'm going to check with the engineer for load bearings. Because you don't want to-
CHAIRMAN: Any other comment? Hearing no further comments,I'll make a motion closing the hearing.
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
11:31 p.m.Appl.No.5193-MAINTREE CORPORATION. Request for a determination authorizing a
change of use from an'adult residence'home to a'tourist'home for overnight guests(sometimes referred to
as a country inn)for under Sections 100-31 and 100-241,based on the Building Department's June 27,
2002 Notice of Disapproval. A prior variance(#990)granted a change of use from multiple residence to an
adult rest home in 1966. Location: 25500 Main Road,Orient;Parcel 18-6-10.
CHAIRMAN: Guess what,Mr.Lark,we finally got there.
RICHARD LARK,ESQ: I have here with me tonight two of the principles of the applicant Maintree
Corporation which(inaudible)The Orient Inn. The application that you have is fairly well complete. I'm
just going to comment on some of the points. I'm not going to read the whole thing because I'm assuming
you've all read the petition and the exhibits and I'm hopeful that you have seen the property and gone
through the building. If you haven't you know the invitation has been extended to you and is still open
until you make your decision. Like I say,most of the stuff that I think is self-explanatory,however,if
anybody has any questions on it I will when I get finished be glad to answer them. I want to start on
definitions though because the Building Department in the Notice of Disapproval got all hung up on
definitions. When they went in on the building application what you do there they use the word'country
inn'and they got all wound up on what an inn was I can understand definition problems because this very
board back in 1966 this property was before it as I'll cover the history on it they just merely request a
nonconforming multiple residence which it really isn't but that's the way they treated it because that's what
the code said. The reason that we are really here is the Building Inspector is exactly correct the use section
says whenever there is a change it has to come before the Board of Appeals and he was quite proper in
directing with his Notice of Disapproval with that I highly agree you got into definitions here early tonight
I know you dealt with them in the past this application becomes somewhat frustrated with them because
what is it? Is it a hotel? Hotel is defined in our zoning ordinance. You heard it tonight they mix them
together,hotel,motel,resort,and transient also boarding and tourist houses I noticed the notice in the paper
in the thing called it a tourist house by definition in the code that's any building other than a hotel. You
just go round and round with this definitional problem. The point I wish to make in this application,and I
want to cover non-conforming use from a legal point of view I think its very relevant it doesn't really matter
what you call it whether you call it an inn,a hotel,a motel,a tourist house whatever it really,really doesn't
matter in the final analysis. It is a non-conforming use. It always has been a nonconforming use ever since
zoning was adopted by the town in 1957. Both in the earlier code and in the code we have now,to go from
one nonconforming use to another you have to go the Board of Appeals. The main difference in the early
code when they were here in'66 it was a higher classification. They use a different form of language.
They call it now the same or a more restrictive nature now if that isn't a tongue twister,but in fairness to the
code drafters,a lot of codes enlightened modern codes in the country use that exact language because when
1 was researching the nonconforming use problem how do you go there what criteria what standard does the
Page 64 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
board use that type of thing which I will get into in a moment and I was surprised that they used that
language and they dumped the higher classification language which all the earlier codes had virtually all
the earlier codes had okay so simply put that's what we're here all about the along the property
prior to zoning the widows bat is branded as a tourist home mainly during the summer months and in the
fall season. Then when the application came in it was confronted with the board in'66 they wanted to put
in a rest home and the board decided after hearing all the factors that changing to a nonconforming use
would be okay and their they were really dealing with our old traditional special exception categories
which we don't have now the special exception thing has been changed in our code it's not the same as it
was with all the 12 factors that the board had to go through and based on that they said and considering
how it's going to be regulated and considering the need for the community at that time they said it was a
higher classification then they made their determination and went on. What I don't think anybody really
understood is who controls it and I think that's something that this board wants to take under consideration
but when I researched the thing on the nonconforming use and what kind of standards to use when you go
from one change to another it became a real challenge as to what to look for and what not to and I came
away with some interesting conclusions. Provisions in those codes would flatly prohibit change they have
found people who study this that the where you don't find any change at all first of all by background when
the municipality adopts a code and they decide this should be residential,this should be industrial,this
should be business and so on and so forth the varied classifications there's obviously parcels buildings
anything in there that don't conform to what they visualize as the master plan. They call them
nonconforming uses courts and planners have historically said we want to get rid of those but because of
our constitution of the United States(tape change)What happened with that when you get to the
philosophy of it is that they found that not allowing any change because communities do change it became
these nonconforming uses were not became the responsibility the neighborhoods became when that wasn't
the intent at all. The enlightened view where you have a rigid prescription of any change involves the
hazard that the effected use may sicken but not die which is what happened to the gas station that they tried
to eliminate but just stayed there. You follow me because it didn't become economically viable. The one
that comes to mind in Riverhead across from the Elks we used to have one of the original McDonalds
places called Ricky's and it was a gold mine,but when it died it became a harbinger for dope trades because
of the neighborhood what happened that's what happened with these nonconforming uses to enhance the
community rather than to tear it down because even an abandonment-the alternative change is prohibited-
may result in a vacant nonconforming structure which is useless for its intended purpose,but too sturdy to
condemn if this was the case and too large or inadaptable to convert to a profitable conforming use so
ordinances would permit change to a more restrictive use such as Southold Town are more realistic and are
more to court with the attainable ends of zoning which is what you guys are here for this more restrictive
use they assume the more restrictive use will be less incompatible and the change will better the
neighborhood. It reduces the hazard of potentially decaying uses and increases the opportunity to make
more economic and a less deleterious use of the land if it's in a business such as we are dealing with here
you want it to succeed because if it succeeds and is profitable it will enhance things rather than have it go
bust parenthetically the adult rest home got into problems not because of the building or it's layout or
anything else but because it was controlled by the NYS Dept.of Health New York State,not Suffolk
County and the Dept. of Social Services ala Medicare,Medicade and things like that. They ran into some
accounting violations that really kind of put them out of business. It wasn't the building or anything else it
was like we've seen in our corporate in the last 6 months of this country. That's what
really shut them down it was the abuses of the finances of the operation especially the people in the
Medicare/Medicade were paying for some of the seniors that were living there. Not the care,the care I
understand from Laura who gave you an affidavit was always excellent that was never the issue.It was the
money.
MEMBER ORLANDO: It was the Worldcom and the Enron.
MR.LARK: You got it. It wasn't the care of the people. In fact the owners did a good job. They were
able to disperse all of the 19 people in there when the hammer fell because of the economics of it. But
anyway,back to the-I think the whole idea in the nonconforming and using of the physiology of the least
restricted use is to permit a change where the new use is less injurious to the area here we have you're all
familiar with it the residential area in say Rt. 25 there in Orient. Whether a proposed new use or is less
injurious or involved in more than just a simple examination of the basic classification of uses that's why I
Page 65 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
was getting into the definitions it requires rather an estimate of the effect of the proposed use in relation of
the area where it is to be maintained. And the key there,what to watch is the new use is it more compatible
with the neighborhood than the old use. That's really what they are getting at when you study the writers of
this area of nonconforming uses and so on and so forth. That really becomes the criteria that you use in
your opinion as to that corporate language'more restrictive nature'you know what the heck is that. I
submit to you what the applicant will tell you tonight and what is in the petition. What they have done
there and what they propose to do is definitely going to have less impact or if you would more restrictive
nature than what was existing there when the adult rest home was in operation and the Board of Appeals
and you're given your copy of that decision and you can look at the analogy and what they had to go
through then and they were using a little bit different standard and I don't think you can use the same
criteria but an interesting thing happened when it comes to regulation and I think you should be aware of
this because it was a real education to me when the town said okay you can do an adult rest home the
jurisdiction to run the rest home came out of the State Department of Health,not the county the state they
regulated they said what they can do what you had to put in when you see the metal stairs in the back
there's a fire escape that was required by the State they dictated all the things they said they want the
kitchen over here because you see I gave you all copies of all the CO's and all the Building Permits you
have there. They dictated the whole thing. When the-Ms.Turtorra and Karen Voss bought it,they were
under the impression that the Health Department,the county was involved and one of the first things they
did-they went to the County to find out what the requirements would be to turn this into-if you would-a
country inn,an inn,a hotel whatever you want to call it. And they were shocked to find out that yes as
soon as the adult rest home ceases,and then you lease it out to an overnight transient guest or what have
you the hotel type concept you've run out of room the county does give jurisdiction if you have more than
10 bodies in there at any one particular time you know 10 people renting the county controls it. What they
are interested in is when you read their regulations they are into the food servicing how your kitchen is run
and all those health requirements for food preparation they are really big on that and they are also then big
on the waste water management as we all know and of course water supply and so on and so forth.
Curiously enough they weren't that interested in fire safety and stuff that I thought that they would be
interested in. You have to go through this laborious,confusing labyrinth of bureaucracy if you are more
than 10,and they make a classification-I forgot what the number is if more than 14 or 15 that's even
different-then you go to waste water management before you can come back-it's really involved. If
you're under 10,they don't care,they don't care.
CHAIRMAN: 10 or under.
MR.LARK: 10 or under they don't care.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's 10 or under rooms?
MR.LARK: No,people. They deal with people. As it's totally ludicrous when you consider what the
industry who deals with rooms-you know how many hotel rooms you have,how many motel rooms you
have,how many boardinghouse rooms you have,they deal with people. 10 or under they don't care.
MEMBER ORLANDO: How many bodies can this place accommodate?
MR.LARK: We'll get to that. Oh, a lot of bodies. We'll come to that with what they want to do with what
they did. So what Joan and Karen did was interesting. They said okay we want to make this something
really special. Let's not get involved with going forward with all of this improvements and all this other
stuff. Let's restore what was there because with the adult rest home they did a lot of modifications which
were not in conformity with the original design of the house. They put up different walls and stuff like
that. What they did is they brought the building back to it's original pretty much it's original type of
situation and they kept it 10 or under. The county would check with them,what have you got in there,how
many,so on and so forth and as long as there was 10 or under they really didn't care what they did. And it
was only when they went to the town because they realized they had to start conforming to the ADA all
these other laws that have come into effect with the handicap and believe it or not in the adult rest home 2
bedrooms back to back they share common showers and common toilets with separate entrances and there
Page 66 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
was room where you could make each one a shower and have a vanity and a toilet so they wanted to put in
effect another bathroom.
MEMBER TORTORA: Kitchenettes?
MR.LARK: No,no kitchenettes. So anyway,the Building Department said no we're not going to allow
you to do that. They're not going to let you put in a handicap ramp. I went down there with the Building
Inspector because the handicap ramp that was in there with the adult home is like a slide. I said this can't
be. He said I know-get before the Board of Appeals,get your use variance,I realize you should have the
this handicap ramp and all of these things. I took him through the building just to make sure there was
nothing else that is was missing on fire safety and anything else. He says everything else is pretty much-
the electrical has been modernized because the state insured in all-the state believe it or not was more
concerned with the fire and safety aspect than the county was. So the whole thing with when they went
with the adult home,when they changed the original house a little bit it was all geared towards that type of
operation and so,like I said,it was a real education. So I said what are we feeling? They had approved by
the state 19 full time people there 365 days a year,3 meals a day,and to show you how this gets crazy,the
state loved the kitchen because they designed the kitchen for them-the state health department-the county
health department said if you get more than 10 people in here,we don't like that kitchen,we want you to do
triple sink,you know this,all the other types of things. It gets to be a real zoo.
MEMBER TORTORA: How many people and how many rooms are you proposing?
MR.LARK: They would like to have 10 rooms. A total of 10 rooms,that's what they are proposing and
they have to do some work on some. That's correct.
MEMBER TORTORA: They want 10 guest rooms.
MR.LARK: 10 guest rooms. That would be a good way to put it. Right. That will take them over the 10
people obviously.
MEMBER TORTORA: I just want to get some real,solid facts in.
MR.LARK: Okay.
MEMBER TORTORA: There is a kitchen in the facility that will be used?
MR.LARK: No,in the rooms,no. There's a central kitchen,yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: What will the kitchen be used for?
MR.LARK: Well,right now,it's just used to do breakfast which is nothing more that coffee and rolls.
MEMBER TORTORA: Continental?
MR.LARK: Yes,continental type things. They would like to have an accessory-I have to call it a
restaurant with it. When you look at the floor spacing and everything on it and the expertise that they had.
It could not accommodate safely more than 60. 1 looked around for the criteria that some other codes used
when they have a hotel,if you would,for lack of a better word and they use it about six to a room. Now
you are talking seatings-six seatings to a room for an accessory restaurant. That's what they kind of
figured. I was talking to them and I said could you get 60 there and they said oh yes we can fit that in very
handily because what they've done-they've opened this up to the community on occasion-like the
historical society is had meetings there when they couldn't use Pokatuk Hall or someplace like that-they
have had other types of meetings like that there. They just wanted not the food but to see what the seating
and the tabling would be and with the bed and breakfast and everything,they feel that that's not going to be
a problem,changing any of the configuration of the building-so that's another use that they would want is
Page 67 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
an accessory-the other one would be eventually in time which makes a lot of sense in the back to put a
swimming pool. They would like to do that.
MEMBER TORTORA: Let's tackle one of these big monster problems at a time.
MR.LARK: Okay.
MEMBER TORTORA: The accessory restaurant is that part of this application?
MR.LARK: Well it depends on how we are going to do definitions,and that's what I'm saying to you. If
you call it a transient hotel,yes it's right in there,you can have that. If you call it a boarding house or a
tourist home,they allow food accommodations-it says so in the definition. That's why I thought I would
come and tell you everything that they want to do in the future. If you've been there you see what they
have there today and see if it could be encompassed in this more restrictive use if that's what you find-we
are relegated that we have to do that under the code.I'm trying to follow the law here. You just can't open
the door here,you know we have to stay within the restrictions that we have here. So yes,the code does
provide for that now is it more restrictive than it was before,yes 365 meals three times a day it is because-
MEMBER TORTORA: Say that again.
MR.LARK: In the adult home,they serve 3 meals a day 365 days a year for the seniors and there was 19
people there.
MEMBER HORNING: Yes,
MR.LARK: And this is not going to get anywhere close to that. That just can't be because this business,
you've heard so much about this hotel/motel business,but it's clear and they have their records here. You
take Monday,Tuesday,Wednesday,there's nobody there,you know the weekends of course there is.
MEMBER TORTORA: The problem is we're probably not going to be able to close this one up tonight.
It's going to take some thinking.
MR.LARK: Yes it is.
MEMBER TORTORA: The problem you're into is this-that a restaurant,the minute you say 60 seat
restaurant,there is no limit on the hours or open to the public. Will you be serving lunch,breakfast,dinner.
I'm just thinking out loud here.
MR.LARK: Do so,because I've gone through the same agony.
MEMBER TORTORA: Then you do 600 and you come up 180 and that's much more than 10 people.
MR.LARK: Right. The restaurant is primarily,if granted,it would be an accessory to the people who are
staying there,obviously breakfast and lunch-
MEMBER ORLANDO: Not open to the public then?
MR.LARK: Well,it is open to the public-
MEMBER ORLANDO: Unless they are staying there-
MR.LARK: If I'm staying there and I invite you to come have dinner with me,that's-I understand the
dilemma. I went through this. You can't just limit it-the only people who can eat there have a ticket who's
staying there. You see that,it's the dilemma you have with that. I don't know how to handle that,I'll be
honest with you.
Page 68 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER TORTORA: In a B&B,the B&B food is only for the people staying there. This is not going to
be the same thing.
CHAIRMAN: Well,that's what they proposed.
MEMBER HORNING: The code doesn't exclude people going there as I understand-
MR.LARK: No it doesn't.
MEMBER TORTORA: A restaurant is a separate use.
MEMBER HORNING: It's allowed though.
MR.LARK: It's allowable yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: But not in this-
MR.LARK: My point is that it existed before-in effect you had a restaurant because they were feeding
these 19 people-
MEMBER TORTORA: A private restaurant.
MR.LARK: Yes,private restaurant. The help and them,they are the only ones who basically ate there.
That's correct.
MEMBER HORNING: Mr.Lark,was this premise the owner occupied?
MR.LARK: It could be it hasn't been it is in the sense when anybody stays there,one of the owners is in
the building 24 hours. They've done that right in the beginning for obvious reasons. They wanted to make
sure-this is a fledgling thing and they wanted to make sure they had control. One of them is there all the
time when there's anybody staying overnight. That's true.
MEMBER HORNING: Like in a B&B,the owner is there-
MR.LARK: Well it's part of the house,yes.
MEMBER HORNING: In a tourist home the owners are there.
MR.LARK: Well,it's their home,it's a requirement.
MEMBER HORNING: But in this case-
MR.LARK: It's not a requirement. Basically that's all they are asking for and then of course,like I say,
they used the facility for when people got cut short and they couldn't do-like the historical society wanted
to-the church group was another that used the parlor and the stuff to have a little meeting because they
couldn't get-
MEMBER TORTORA: We need occupancy,is it two couples,one couple-
MR.LARK: This is Karen Voss,one of the owners and Joan Tototoro,one of the other ones,and her
husband,Howard couldn't be here tonight. The question is the rooms,how many people,so on and so
forth.
MS.VOSS: The rooms are set up for two people per room.
CHAIRMAN: You want to exceed that 10,is that what you're telling me?
Page 69 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MS.VOSS: Yes,we're trying to go for 20 people in 10 rooms.
CHAIRMAN: How many rooms did I see when I was there?
MS.VOSS: You saw 5 in the front and 1 in the back. They were open as guest rooms
CHAIRMAN: I saw a total of six. Plus your room down stairs in back of the kitchen. That would be 7.
MS.VOSS: There's another room on the 2nd floor in the back which isn't open yet.
CHAIRMAN: That would be a total of 8.
MR.LARK: There's 8 physical rooms as we exist. As we are today. 8 distinct rooms.
CHAIRMAN: Well,they'd have to use the 3`d story then.
MR.LARK: You'd have to. Without changing the blueprint of the building,you'd have to.
CHAIRMAN: I thought you wanted to use the Yd story for your own use.
MS.VOSS: One of the things we were thinking of doing if a room wasn't renting then we could use that
room-part of the 3`d story is unused-it's very large-and it could be broken up into a smaller area.Which
with two rooms that we're considering for the 3`d floor do not take up the entire 3`d floor,probably not even
half of it.
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm going to ask-because of the late hour I would like you to give us a one or two
page outline of what you want,number of guests per room,number of desks per room,number of
bathrooms,one kitchen with a 60 seat accessory restaurant whatever you want to call it,you total hours of
operation-5 months a year, 12 months a year-2 meals a day,3 meals a day-think it through. Because of
the late hour,but I do want to give this a lot of thought and there's also a woman patiently waiting here.
CHAIRMAN: The other issue is alcohol. That's another issue.
MS.VOSS: I don't think-if we do open a restaurant,I think we need to apply for a permit-
CHAIRMAN: I think you have a problem with that because it's a wood framed building.
MS.VOSS: In other words,those are things we need to look into.
MEMBER TORTORA: Give us a vision of what you want. That's what I need to have because I don't
have that clear in my head right now.
MS.TOTOTORO: Can I give you
MEMBER TORTORA: You can,but at 12:04 a.m.,I'm not going to promise any of-it's not going to go
very far.
MR.LARK: I don't blame you,it has been a long evening. We could.do that.
MS.VOSS: Would this have to be presented at another meeting?
CHAIRMAN: No.
MEMBER TORTORA: I'd really prefer to see it in writing so when we have the next hearing I have a
chance and the board members have had a chance to look at it-
Page 70 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MR.LARK:
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes,right.
JOAN TURTORRO: I'm not sure-
CHAIRMAN: We need your name,dear.
MS.TURTORRO: I'm Joan Turtorro. The contract a restaurant as a roadway,the concept is;a
rear country inn and people come to the inn also as beautiful place to stay,a wonderful place to eat,and if
they choose to eat,they can eat there. Many people who come to Orient-there are very few places to eat-
they have to go traveling a long distance to eat dinner and even lunch. What I'd-what we'd envisioned is a
country inn where you have lodgings,there would be food for you and that is the feeling you have of what
we'd like to accomplish-not a roadside-you know-if people were served-we're serving people who
want to go away for a weekend will come to Orient,and many of our guests do to visit friends,to go to
affairs and to have a pleasant stay and to feel they have a little bit of a home independent of their family
and friends. It's a very,very close community feeling. We want to keep that.
MR.LARK: I do understand what you're saying about the restaurant. It could very well be after they've
thought this out that it hasn't been because it really hasn't been a really subject on it that it could be in the
neighborhood of-for lack of a better word-a private restaurant-in other words you have to be staying
there or if you invite me,you're staying there-you follow what I'm trying to say-you invite somebody
over. I did find this out in passing. A large amount of people who stay there are visiting people in Orient.
They are there for a reason. It's not a destination per say it is for a lot of them go to the wineries it's a lot of
people visiting people.
MS.TURTORRO: You know as well as I do,Dick-
MR.LARK: You can't police it.
MEMBER TORTORA: A,you can't police it and B,you can't say okay,we're just taking people from here.
MR.LARK: I went through that analogy with them,and that's why I said what would it support and that's
when I started to look around and 60 seems to be what criteria it is that they use if you have 10 rooms-60
seat restaurant-stuff like that. Not that it's used all the time. We got stopped because they wanted to put
in two things,the handicap and these bathroom showers so they have private-these two rooms upstairs
that's why they are really pressing not to delay it too long,but I realize that we have to look at the big
picture also.
CHAIRMAN: Well we have to do it in stages.
MR.LARK: We don't have to do it today. That I don't mind if you think that would be the better way to
go. I never thought of that,but I know what you're saying.
MS TURTORRO: How can you give us state approval?
CHAIRMAN: You stated it as a B&B. That's how you stated it first.
MEMBER HORNING: But that's only for a certain number of rooms. What is the use now,Mr.Lark?
MR.LARK: It's like a B&B in a lot of ways. Then the Health Department gets involved-they haven't
done that they've tried to stay clear of all that. So they've limited it to 10 people.
MEMBER HORNING: I don't see how they can use it for anything except for a residence if it's not an
adult home and it's not then given a special exception.
Page 71 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
I
MR. LARK: That's why we are here. We are in limbo right now.
CHAIRMAN: What we should do is give you a special exception for a B&B temporarily-not tonight-but
that's what we should give you. Then when the situation evolves that you want to go farther then we have
further hearings on those aspects of that.
MEMBER TORORA:
MEMBER HORNING: It is an allowable use in a residential zone though. It's owner occupied that's the
problem.
MR.LARK: If it were non-conforming in that sense it would not be necessarily-
CHAIRMAN: I didn't mean B&B in the pure sense of the word. I meant B&B in the pure sense of what
we are seeing now and the way you're operating. I'm not really saying that it needs to be a special
exception it may be a convertible use variance. That's really what it is. In other words we're reconverting-
MR.LARK: We are getting sophisticated. I know what he's talking about.
CHAIRMAN: The re-conversion of an adult home to a status that is similar to a B&B.
MEMBER HORNING: It was a tourist home wasn't it?
MR.LARK: It never was.
MEMBER TORTORA: Way,way back.
MEMBER HORNING: Wasn't it a tourist home that went to an adult home?
MS.VOSS: It was a private residence then a tourist home
MEMBER TORTORA: Let's give it some time to think about it so we can through what a tourist home is-
go through all the possibilities.
MR.LARK: Yes if you can come up with something better than I could-that's why I said definitions you
have to stay away from-you could go crazy with it.
MEMBER TORTORA: The most important thing is an outline of your plan. Then we can look at the
code,we can look at the concern areas,and we can get back to you.
CHAIRMAN: Are you shutting this down for the winter?
MR.LARK: No.
CHAIRMAN: You're going to continue. The only way to get around the whole thing is the use variance.
It's the only-
MS.VOSS: I'm sorry what?
CHAIRMAN: The use variance. That is really the only way to get around it.
MR.LARK: A use variance.
MEMBER TORTORA: You aren't going to get one.
Page 72 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: Why can't you get one?
MEMBER TORTORA: How many use variances are given in NYS every year?
CHAIRMAN: A handful. There's a chance.
MEMBER TORTORA: You can apply for attorneys fees from your variance.
MR.LARK: It's all numbers.
CHAIRMAN: Let this young lady speak. State your name for the record please.
DARLENE MCGUINNIS: My name is Darlene McGuinness. I'm the neighbor I don't have any problem
with the inn. I think they are doing a very good job with the B&B and it's very nice and everything like
that. The only thing I'm worried about is I really don't want to see a restaurant there. I don't want to see a
barroom there and everybody that lives around me is residences. It's not any kind of-
CHAIRMAN: I know that.
MS.MCGUINNIS: That's the only thing I have to talk about. I don't want that to happen.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The question is whether or not to recess this.
MR.LARK: You want this business plan type thing for lack of a better word.
MEMBER TORTORA: If you give us a specific detailed-
MR.LARK: When do you want to recess it till?
CHAIRMAN: We'll recess it till December 5 h. But I'm not positive we're going to be ready then. We
have a very huge schedule on November.
MR.LARK: Their intention is to have a-the handicap thing they can live without for awhile,they should
have it as you well know because of public accommodation,but it's the bathroom thing that really screwed
things up there.
CHAIRMAN: What you have to tell us is what you preliminarily want to use in reference to the amount of
rooms.
MR.LARK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN: Then we can determine that aspect of it again,preliminarily.
I
MEMBER TORTORA: Just prioritize them on your list.
MR.LARK: Okay.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's easy. Let's look at the whole thing-prioritize where this falls into a zoning
category. Lets hear the concerns,the restaurant in a residence.
CHAIRMAN: It isn't going to happen.
MEMBER TORTORA: It isn't going to happen.
MS.VOSS: What about just feeding our guests period?
Page 73 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: I think that's an issue there. By the time you got done with the Planning Board on site plans
with a restaurant. I'd hate to see what that property would look like.
MR.LARK: I don't think they ever envisioned that it would be open to the public,you know with the
thing. It was just mainly as an accommodation to the people there. Apparently what's happened is a lot of
the people staying there say"where can we eat?" There's nothing,well there's a couple of places fairly
close,but not that close.
MEMBER TORTORA: The way Suffolk County Health Department look at it,the way our zoning code
looks at restaurants is very
MR.LARK: Yes see that's the problem.
MEMBER TORTORA: The way the health department looks at it-that's the way all down the line.
CHAIRMAN: You guys are still on a well right?
MS.VOSS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: We'll go to December 5`h.
MEMBER TORTORA: Basically the health department finds it sanitary?
MR.LARK: They don't care as long as it's 10 or under bodies.
MEMBER HORNING: Well-a restaurant?
CHAIRMAN: You're asking for more than that?
MR.LARK: Now they know they have to go to-I was getting into that-what's going to happen if we get
into this hotel status from the county definition or point of view-they are going to be running the show.
It's like the state ran the show for the adult home.
MEMBER ORLANDO: They'll dictate everything.
MR.LARK: Exactly,better word than I had. They dictate everything. They tell us where you can do,
when you can do and so on and so forth. I'll give you an example-when I was talking to them
preliminarily trying to understand the mindset,the guy says to me,you know that metal stair you've got
going back as a fire exit out the second floor in the back-first thing we're going to make you do is take that
down. I said for what reason-he said,we don't like it. I said what do I put up? Well we'll tell you at the
time. I don't like that. Which makes no sense to me. The state dictated the metal and where it went and so
on and so forth. So that's the kind of harass that they are going to get into once they go above 10. But
economically they can't stay at 10 forever because that's a losing proposition from a dollar and sense point
of view.
MS.VOSS: It would help us to have showers-people like to have their own showers-they have a
problem sharing showers. First step showers.
MR LARK: So we're going to get the use approved-it's the trick(inaudible)that's what's going to happen
here. I don't mind you doing it in stages if you think that's the way we've got to go here.
CHAIRMAN: We've got to do it in stages.
MR.LARK: Because that way it's not going to grow.
MEMBER TORTORA: If it can work.
Page 74 of 74,October 17,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
I
MR.LARK: I'm not against the concept because-
MS.VOSS: We can't pay for everything now anyway.
MR.LARK: They have to get so many permits to get out of where they are right now-it's tremendous-
the financial investment it would take. Just to get beyond the next step.
CHAIRMAN: I make a motion to recessing it to December 5 h. We'll take the first step at that point.
MR.LARK: We'll try to get you within the next two weeks-is that fair enough? Has everybody seen the
building so that when we're talking about this it makes sense?
CHAIRMAN: I want to see the 8`h room.
MR.LARK: What room?
CHAIRMAN: The 81h room on the 2nd story.
MS.VOSS: It's the same size as the one that's in the corridor.
CHAIRMAN: At the end of the corridor,as if I was going upstairs,it's the other one-it's the one I'd be
going upstairs it's the one to the right of that at the end of the hallway.
MEMBER ORLANDO: You were there,I wasn't.
MS.VOSS: If you go on that 2nd floor and go towards the back of the building,it's next to small room-to
the left of that-the same size.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I just want to mention a few things to you-we start to make a decision on a
crazy I think we can make a motion on that right now-I believe that's Lydia's is it not? Lydia
you want to make that motion?
MEMBER TORTORA: Motion to approve it.
CHAIRMAN: Second. All in favor? All ayes.
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
Prepared from tape recordings
By Jessica Boger,Transcriber
DEC °" 3