Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/16/2003 HEAR SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD JANUARY 16,2003 (Prepared by Jessica Boger) Present were: Chairwoman Lydia A. Tortora Member Gerard P. Goehringer Member George Horning Member Ruth D. Oliva Member Vincent Orlando Board Secretary Linda Kowalski(present 9:30am- 11:45am & 1pm-4:30pm) Secretary Paula Quintieri (present 11:45am-lpm) PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9:30 am Appl.No. 5215 -RONALD CASSARA. (Carryover from December 12,2002). This is a request for a variance under section 33 &239.4,based on the Building Department's August 22, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for proposed additions at less than 100' from the closest bluff line(east&northeast of dwelling), and demolish and build new accessory extending closer toward the easterly bluff line, and at less than 100' approval of a nonconforming setback at less than 100' from the bluff along the LI Sound and for an accessory building proposed in an area other than the required rear yard. Location of property: 30185 Cabot Woods Road,Peconic 73- 4-1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? TOM SAMUELS, ARCH: How are you this morning? Congratulations to you Lydia. I submitted yesterday, hopefully not too late,revised site plan for Cassara, showing that 40' setback from the bluff that you discussed at the last meeting. CHAIRWOMAN: If you give the board members a moment to review that because we do have so many last minute things coming in. We are showing 40' fi-om the top of the bluff on the north side. What's the closest setback on the east side Tom? It's kind of hard to see here. MR. SAMUELS: I would say it's 25'. CHAIRWOMAN: And we have the garage that will be moved over a full 20'. MR. SAMUELS: Is that something that you wanted on time? CHAIRWOMAN: We had discussed that since it's complete rebuild. Page 2 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals,Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SAMUELS: Right. In other words, the garage wouldn't meet the sideyard setback because it's in the front yard? CHAIRWOMAN: I'm trying to see where you are going to be now. If you move it back, MR. SAMUELS: I guess that would be considered a front yard, therefore it needs to be the side yard because it's an accessory apartment in the front yard. If it has to be it can be I mean it's a little tight there with other things,but as you see there's lots of side areas so if it needs to be 20'. CHAIRWOMAN: You'd probably have to be a little bit to the southwest,but I think we can meet that. I don't have any questions,Member Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: It's as far back as you can get it? MR. SAMUELS: It is. MEMBER OLIVA: I went up there yesterday and looked,I'm so leery about bluffs I really am and it's not in terribly good condition. It's a beautiful spot and I just worry about people's safety frankly. MR. SAMUELS: What is the condition of the bluff? Was there a response from the Soil and Conservation folks? I'd be interested. CHAIRWOMAN: We do have that on the record, do you have a copy of that? MR. SAMUELS: I don't. Maybe 40' seems close,but our sense is that that bluff is not eroding and hasn't, we just met the 40'that was mentioned at the last meeting. CHAIRWOMAN: I can give you a brief summary. They did a sight inspection and the bluff is heavily vegetated overall toe of the bluff on the beach many glacier and cobbles which offer some protection does appear the height does not appear high tide reaches the toe of the bluff stonn tides may reach, but there's no stabilization present here on either side of the bluff that has been cut downhill they are only cut about 4' from the bluffs surface, they are suggesting that they should be cut down at the bases. It's standard procedure as you know and root system left in tact. Several trees along the right top of the bluff should also be cut down. MEMBER ORLANDO: They are saying it's basically in good shape,just the drainage needs to go into leeching pools. MR. SAMUELS: Right. MEMBER ORLANDO: That would enhance the erosion. MEMBER OLIVA: There's also that gully there. Page 2 of 128 Page 3 January 16 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing ` MR. SAMUELS: That's actually the high point, or the line of the bluff is the high point then it slopes back away from it and the further the house moves away from the bluff actually the lower the land is and it's actually in a way interrupting natural even this location is interrupting natural drainage that goes into-that ravine so we need to grade around that sort of carefully in order to make sure that,that's another reason we'd like to leave it closed tor the bluff edge so it's not even lower on the site and therefore more in a hole. MEMBER OLIVA: I do understand what that can be because that can erode away. CHAIRWOMAN: Do you have any questions Member Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: No. CHAIRWOMAN: Member Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: No. CHAIRWOMAN: Member Goehringer? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRWOMAN: Anything else Tom? MR. SAMUELS: No, other than the 20' if we need to. CHAIRWOMAN: And we will incorporate the conditions of soil and water within the decision which is kind of standard operating for you. MR. SAMUELS: If I assume you do approve this if you could just refer to that setback from this on the east side so the building department doesn't assume you mean 40' from that line everywhere because otherwise, they would. CHAIRWOMAN: We'll specify. MEMBER ORLANDO: Tom, I'm going to assume you're going to move the garage further souththen? MR. SAMUELS: It's going to have to move further south then otherwise it's going to be in front of the house. i Page 3 of 128 Page 4 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: I just want to take one quick look at something on the building plan. Actually it's the same location. Is there anyone 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. j PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION *:*** 9:38 am Appl.No. 5261 -HENRY SANTACROCE. This is a request for a variance under section 244A,based on the Building Department's October 30, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning an "as built" deck addition, a portion of which is less than 50' from the rear property line. Location 2520 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue 104-2-12. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? HENRY SANTACROCE: As built deck built about 4-5 years ago. What happened was that I learned I would need a building permit for this so I applied for a building permit and learned it was too close to the back. It's about 3/'s of an acre and I guess it needed 50'. I don't have 50% One of the corner decks is 33'5". CHAIRWOMAN: That's the closest point? MR. SANTACROCE: That's the closest point,right. Then they told me I had to come here. I'm here requesting a variance for the setback in the backyard. One of the reasons why I'm requesting a variance is that my house is situated so far back on the property when I purchased it and the corner of the house, they tilted the house so they could I guess view the water and that corner of the house itself is even closer to the back line which is 28'6". The only exit out is onto the deck area of my backyard. This is an open deck 14x30'. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning, any questions? MEMBER HORNING: Tell us again how you happen to build it without a permit? MR. SANTACROCE: f thought it did not need a building permit if it was not attached to the house, in other words, freestanding and then I read an article in Newsday about how many __peopbz.were having.difficulty_getting their.decks..What.I_did then-wa-s I_asked my neighbor.Pat._ down at the building department, do I need a permit for this? I'm not selling my house, I'm just doing this on my own to get this squared away. She said if I walk on it, I'll need a permit. That's what I did. There's no ulterior motive, there's no neighbors in the back that complained to my knowledge. MEMBER HORNING: It certainly looks attached. MR. SANTACROCE: What I meant was the boards were attached to the building itself. I didn't do that,but- Page 4 of 128 Page 5 January 16,'2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: It butted right up to it,but not- MR. SANTACROCE: That's what I did. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have no intentions of enclosing this at any time or putting a roof on, screened in porch, or anything like that? MR. SANTACROCE: No. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bearing that in mind I have absolutely no other questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Santacroce,what do you do for a living? MR. SANTACROCE: I'm a police officer. MEMBER ORLANDO: Coming into compliance is a everyday thing for you. . r, MR. SANTACROCE: That's why I'm here today. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: My remarks would be the same as Mr. Goehringer's that you would not enclose it in any way or screen it in and remain open to the sky. Perpetuity I'm going to put that in the decision. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone 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 1 ater. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:43 am Appl.No. 5184 - WILLIAM SEIFERT. (Hearing continuation from 10/17/02) Request for Variances under Section 242A &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 than 35' from the front lot line and less than 35' from the rear lot line. Location of Property 7145 Soundview Ave, Southold 59-6-3. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Page 5 of 128 Page 6 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing GARRETT STRANG,ARCH: Good morning, Garrett Strang representing William Seifert. CHAIRWOMAN: At the last hearing we were a little concerned because we noted that there had been 3 prior decisions on this property and we wanted to check to see what the status of those was. To see we weren't really duplicating a prior variance and the upshot of it was that in 1986 the board had denied an accessory a 12x20'detached accessory addition at a 25' front yard and I believe the other one was 35'from the edge of the pond. At the time the board had cited environmental reasons closest to the wetland and the fact that there had been other priors on the property. As you know the ZBA had also granted a prior setback of the dwelling and I just want you to clarify something. I do note on the survey that the setback on the dwelling at the closest point is 17.5. MR. STRANG: That's correct as built. CHAIRWOMAN: So there's already encroachment on our prior condition. MR. STRANG: I thought the 17.5 was what was granted in the original variance when the building was built. CHAIRWOMAN: Not according to the records we have. The records we have show that the board had granted a 20'setback. It's possible that the encroachment, the little porch area entryway was added later. I don't know. MR. STRANG: Yes, I'm not exactly certain I wasn't involved with the project when the house was built or transpired at that time with respect to that,but I did note that the survey showed a 17 lh' setback and again it's to the front covered porch area,portico. I'm not sure if the building department considered that exempt under that 30 sq. ft. situation or whatever I don't know what the deal is with that. CHAIRWOMAN: On the rear yard line is 27 the closest on that elevated deck around? MR. STRANG: 27 is actually to the steps, the deck itself is a little bit further back than that. CHAIRWOMAN: I see on the west side where it says proposed elevated deck it says 26 and then you see 27 and it juts out a little bit. MR. STRANG: It's 26 to the steps, it's 26 from one set of.steps from the edge of the flagged wetlands. That was for DEC dimension. To the actual pond, it's 28'in the northwest corner and it's to the steps and it's 27 midway between there and the proposed porch that we asked for. And again those steps would probably take off a foot or two to increase the distance by another foot or two to the actual elevated deck surface itself. CHAIRWOMAN: My only comment is that the proposed addition is extremely similar to what was denied before on the grounds of environmental concerns and it's very difficult to go back and say well here we are 20 years later and we're not concerned about the environment. Page 6 of 128 Page,7 January 16,2003 _- Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing i MR. STRANG: I can appreciate that and I guess that's one of the reasons that I did in concurrence with this board go before the DEC and Trustees to see where they stood on this issue. Both felt that the screen porch being an elevated porch on posts and the fact that it was essentially being the majority=of it was being built over an existing gravel driveway felt that the environmental impact was negligible and accordingly were granted permits. We've gotten permits from both the DEC and the Trustees to do what's shown here. The deck in question was actually the original proposal that my client preferred was to have a terrace of grade which wouldn't have even required an action but that aspect before the board but the DEC said they'd rather have it elevated and not have any additional hard surface on grade. CHAIRWOMAN: Because of the flood zone? MR. STRANG: They just felt it was better environmentally to have elevated decks so water can percolate through the deck surface and drip through the ground to have a hard surface where the water will run off so with that understanding we propose it as a deck by the time we came to you since that was the preference by the DEC. CHAIRWOMAN: I'd like to see if the board members have any questions. Ms. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: None. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We originally and I may have said this in the record before sent Donald Dennis back 2 or 3 times during the prior hearing for the construction of this house and we told him at that time to build us a house that would fit within the confines of the property,just so you are aware of that situation. Regarding this particular project which I'm not saying is diminimus in reference to it's environmental situation but I understand why the DEC is requiring what is being required and I think that's a positive step. The only concern I have not as inuch with the project as where are the people going to park? There is very limited parking there and by the construction of this you are taking away some of the parking from that driveway area. I mean it's the type of situation where if you blink you buy the house and you have to know where the driveway is. I don't foresee that you could accommodate more than 3 or 4 cars if you built this project if that,but we know the situation and I have to tell you that maybe the board would consider something a little less than you are proposing,but environmentally if you have those 2 agencies I don't have any major objection to the construction. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: No questions. Page 7 of 128 Page 8 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anything you'd like to add Mr. Strang? MR. STRANG: If the board is entertaining an alternative relief with respect to the porch or the possibility of reworking the drive_�ay to provide more parking I'm sure-I can make that happen. I don't think the owner would have objection to that, the only concern I would have with respect to that is what the Trustees or the DEC would have to say about increasing the parking area although it is a stone driveway, it's impervious surface so it will drain,but I can't speak for them until I take it back to them. They had no challenge or I shouldn't say they had no challenge they reviewed it and granted us approval for what has been submitted,but there was no representation at that time there would be a change in the parking area. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there something we could do without changing the plans that have been approved by the Trustees and DEC? MR. STRANG: The only obvious thing I could see is the parking were to move to the east somewhat to provide some additional parking which brings it closer to the easterly wetlands,but probably no closer than the 48' wetlands to the northeasterly corner of the screen porch. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't know if that's desirable. MR. STRANG: But it may allow someone to pull in and park facing easterly then as opposed to pulling in forward. CHAIRWOMAN: Would you like to submit an alternate plan for that and we can close the hearing to verbatim and then we will close it officially on February 6t'after you submit an alternate plan for the parking. MR. STRANG: Showing the parking change- I can do that certainly. MEMBER ORLANDO: Also I just want to remind the board, the plot plan is deceiving, the driveway looks like a lot of room but it's on a 30-degree angle. 1vIR. STRANG: It's not marked from the road. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's on an inclination. MR. STRANG: The driveway is quite flat at that point. MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't recall that. I recall driving up to it. It's not at grade with the road I don't believe. I believe it's higher elevation. MR. STRANG: I don't think it's that much. I don't think it's as steep as you may recall. I'll take another look at it. Page 8 of 128 Page;9 Jan6ary16, 200'3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing _ MEMBER ORLANDO:' I'll take another look as well. MR. STRANG: Because I recall it being pretty level as you pull in there. The grade next to the house east of the driveway is elevated and there's a retaining wall there with stone decorative landscape wall and some plantings and the like to the west of the driveway and the land falls off to the east of the driveway the land falls off a little bit as you go toward the wetlands,but I believe that driveway is relatively level. Unfortunately there's no topographic data on this survey that would help. MEMBER ORLANDO: I'll take another drive by. CHAIRWOMAN: We will close it to verbatim and could you have that plan to us one week prior to February 6`h so the board can review it. An alternate parking plan. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:55 am Appl.No. 5248-EDWARD V.WERTHNER. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244,based on the Building Department's November 20, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning a new single-family dwelling,under construction, for the reason that a portion is less than 35' from the front property line. Location of Property: 180 Private Road#12 "Windy Point Lane", Southold; Parcel 1000-78-6-3.3 (2 and 3.1 combined). (Setback to bulkhead meets code 75', confirmed by Building Dept.) CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: Good morning. It's nice to be here when I'm awake. Just so you know I don't want to go into the nitty gritty details but see the size of this file? This is the Werthner file from the time he went to contract to purchase this property to today. This property has gone through DEC, Trustees, and Health Department. It started out as 2 separate lots, Broshota owned the property and it was 2 lots. Mr. Werthner bought it and merged it and it's 1 house on a combined parcel of the subdivision. What occurred is Mr. Werthner after all was said and done he is the general contractor on the house he is building the house himself and he hired a mason to pour the foundation and when the foundation was poLired; it was properly staked, the surveyor had properly staked everything, the mason accidentally misread the stakes and put the foundation too close to the road. What was to back up a little bit we have an average setback from the road because of the location of all the other homes in this neighborhood. The average setback originally if we took into account right next door is a garage, a large garage that has got space above it it's a 2 % car garage, larger than the house itself is only at 15' from the road. The road is actually a 50'ROW, but the opening, the opening of the road actually allows for another 20' of front yard to Mr. Werthner and some of the other property owners along the same side of the street. We originally thought there was a front yard setback of 26 but as it turns out, because we can't use the garage, it was a front yard average setback of 33.7. So we had an average setback of 33.7. When the foundation was poured, it was poured at 32.7 it was 1' off. That would not be too significant except for the fact that this house has a small porch on it. It's a Page 9 of 128 Page 10 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing relatively simple narrow house because again it has to be setback from the wetlands. I asked Mr. Werthner to get for me the drawings of what the house is going to look like and you can see and I'll send it to the board the extra 6'8" of porch is what brings the setback to the application number. I'll go back to my files. You can see that this is a relatively simple case,but it has a little porch that's the only unique ar�bitectural feature. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the date on the plans? MS. MOORE: This is the plan they got the Building Permit for. The date on the plans done by Donald Neck, I'll give it to you so you'll have it. There's got to be a date on it. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there a reference number on the plan? MS. MOORE: Well the Building Permit. I think you have a copy of the Building Permit in your file. That Building Permit was obviously stopped. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The date of the plan that states revision is July 20,2002 DRK consulting engineers. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I see the plan? CHAIRWOMAN: Continue. MS. MOORE: The circumstances here really we had the option of removing the entire foundation and starting over over this small deviation which would have been a hardship for him in 2 respects one is certainly the cost it would have been 10-15 thousand dollars to remove the foundation and pour a new foundation with no assurance that we could get any of it back from the mason, they make boo-boos but try to get money back that would be difficult, it would result in litigation and quite frankly that's not a lot of money for litigation costs,it would have been all eaten up in legal fees. More importantly in removing a foundation, it results in affecting the soil condition and you end up with the compaction that's affected and you end up with cracks in the foundation so any time that you contractors are often faced with this situation, you really think twice before tearing up a foundation because it never works well the second time. You have a lot of activity witli a bulldozer and to get a contractor to really do a great job on compaction, it's a challenge and given the great cloud that he's had over this property, we knew that if anything could go wrong, it would go wrong. Given those 2 important reasons, it has created a hardship that the Building Department in consultation with Mr. Werthner said listen go to the zoning board, it's a relatively reasonable request the character of the neighborhood, homes are much closer to the road I ask all of you to go down Windy Point Lane and you'll see for yourself, this house actually looks out of keeping with the rest of the neighborhood because appears to be 50' back from the road, not because you have 20' of road and then you have the extra 30', some feet of setback. Visually, it does impact the neighborhood and we would hope that given all the circumstances, even though it was self-created hardship in that it occurred by mistake he was the contractor,he was not the guy who poured it and unfortunately he has to deal with the circumstances. Page 10 of 128 Page 11. January 16;2003 " Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Okay,what I have here is the building permit was issued for the house it was not issued for the porch foundation and that was based on the average setback on the same side of the road per code not across the street per code. The setback that was approved with the building permit was 33.7. That did not include the porch,though. MR. WERTHNER: Because of the calamity of errors that was happening, and I needed a place to live. MS. MOORE: He's homeless. He sold his house and is renting from place to place. MR. WERTHNER: I'm renting on a month to month lease with somebody right now. What I said,the building department said well why don't you apply for a variance for a later date for the porch this way at least you can in and get yourself organized, get the house built and then proceed in that fashion. I went and had a surveyor get me that average setback from the other homes. MS. MOORE: I'm just showing you that across the street is relevant in that you are going down the street and you are looking at both sides of the road. We did not use across the street for the average setback rule,but as far as the character of the area,my point was that both sides have very close setbacks to the road. CHAIRWOMAN: Essentially,what would the setback that you would be looking at? 25'? MR. WERTHNER: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN: The only comment I have is that based on your own information and based on your own expert testimony, you've stated that the average setback on that side of the street is 33.7 and so the foundation obviously 1' errors occur. The board has never taken a hard or unforgiving line on such a thing, however, the porch would be forward of the existing setbacks on the road - on the same side of the road. Let's see what the board members have to ask. Mrs. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: Does the porch have to be 68",could it be just a little bit smaller? MR. WERTHNER: I talked to the carpenter people and they said we could take a foot off which I think could maybe make a difference, 26' setback. MEMBER OLIVA: I know you're constrained because of the wetlands in the back that's why you're 75'. MS. MOORE: The error has been to the benefit of the environment and that we pushed away from the back. The DEC and Trustees would be thrilled. MEMBER OLIVA: It's an old Trustees permit though. Page 11 of 128 Page 12 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: No it's current. MEMBER OLIVA: You've got a current one,because all the information I have here is from 1987. z MR. WERTHNER: 20011 think. There should be one there. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: The original proposal,the whole house did fit on the property with no variances correct? MS. MOORE: Yes. The only thing that would have required a variance would have been the porch because it would be encroaching a little into the foundation area. MEMBER ORLANDO: Which is an afterthought. The Building Department suggested separating the two to make it reasonable to expedite the- MS. MOORE: Because they recognize that we it took a long time to get to this point. They were trying to be accommodating, reasonable. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Although the building department takes that line rule of one side of the street if you were to take similar figures and take an average of the opposite side of the street I think you will find much different measurements. MS. MOORE: Closer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. So if you are willing to go at 26' Mr. Werthner, I don't have any objection. MR. WERTHNER: By all means, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: When you say you can make it 5'8" and drop the foot. CHAIRWOMAN: It's at 25.8 now? MS. MOORE: It's 25.9. I did it back at the office. 32.7 plus 6.8. Page 12 of 128 Page 13 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Okay let's see what develops. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment for or against this;application? Yes,would you come up? PATRICIA STEGNER: I'm Patridia Stegner. I live at 470 Windy Point Lane. I own this private road that's in question. He's abutting-my property. It's a 50'road by about 479'long. I pay taxes on that road. I don't understand how this all came about. I thought he was 70' away from the water and that would have given him 35'from this private road.and with the porch I thought he was taking the porch out and it comes to like you're saying 25/26'. It's right here. I don't understand they are blaming the foundation man,but it's right here, all these measurements are here and I don't understand how he didn't have to go for a variance before and I was never,we went through a one Trustee meeting and we never were notified of any second meeting and at that time,Mrs. Cook here had a question and we thought it would be brought up again and we never were notified a second time and I don't know if you want to look at this. MS. MOORE: What survey does she have because it should be 75'to the wetlands. CHAIRWOMAN: I believe this is the same survey that's in our I believe what we are looking at is the North Star survey. MEMBER ORLANDO: It looks like the survey submitted to for the building permit. CHAIRWOMAN: The survey that you presented does show a 75' setback from the wetland however the survey does show a 26' setback from the ROW. Really what are your concerns as a neighbor what are your primary concerns? MS. STEGNER: Whether it's a private road, or I thought the rules were 35' setback and I feel that it's going against the rule number 1 and when I came in here I thought it was 2 %' I'm not going to tell him to take up his foundation for 2 1/2'but now he's putting the porch back on that side,he's got plenty of property on the side that he could put a porch that would-he's getting that much closer to our road, and meanwhile I've never been taken into consideration on on a lot of things that have been going on when it's my road and I had 2 trees taken down, we need access to the property, but when they put the wall up we didn't realize it right away, we figured well we have a cherry tree left that blocks the sound and light from the main road and gives us a little more privacy and a number of drainage issues. I've got 2 nice bib trees that will help with that. They had cut around the roots of the cedar tree and it toppled over in the wind so they really weren't taking any of my property into consideration. MEMBER ORLANDO: So you are saying the cedar tree was on your property? MEMBER OLIVA: It's on the road. MS. MOORE: It was on the road. CHAIRWOMAN: You're concerned that they may have alternate area. Page 13 of 128 Page 14 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. STEGNER: We're concerned that that portion of the road was an area for drainage, sound and lights from the main road all that was you know- MEMBER ORLANDO: Was there an association? MS. STEGNER: We are all good neighbors and you know we help out. MEMBER ORLANDO: If there was an association, I thought they would help with the taxes on the road. MS. STEGNER: No. MEMBER ORLANDO: You carry the brunt by yourself. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ma'am how wide is the actual pavement on the road or the- MS. STEGNER: I guess we maintain- at points it's 50', but where Mr. Werthner's property is it's about 16-20'. Like I say we kept it more rustic because trees and shrubs help with drainage and it also helps to buffer the sound of the cars on the main road and it gives us more privacy. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you think in front of the applicant's property the width of the road is approximately 16-20' -is that correct? MS. STEGNER: The width of the road by his property is 50'. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm talking about the paved portion. MS. STEGNER: It's not actually paved, it's a gravel road about 16-20'. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I concur with that 16-20' it meanders back and forth. The ROW is about 50'. Therefore, that leaves 30+'to be divided on both sides of the property is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN: No, it's her property. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand it's her property, but they have a ROW over it. CHAIRWOMAN: They have a ROW over it,but they don't have rights to- MS. STEGNER: Even with the ROW, I never was consulted until the bulldozers go in and he had planned a circular driveway originally and no one was saying Mr. & Mrs. Stegner can we do this even when they put the foundation I was under the understanding we would have some input and we are really ignored. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I'm trying to determine is that from the paved portion of the road to the applicants property you have basically 15'thereabouts- Page 14 of 128 Page 15 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. STEGNER: About 30'I guess. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of what we refer to as ROW that is unpaved is that correct? MS. STEGNER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against the applicant? Yes? DONNA COOK: My name is Donna Cook I live across the street from Mr.Werthner's property. I have concerns for and against it over there. I know Mr. Werthner is having a hard time I know he's really trying to keep things in compliance and get things going you can see from the stack of his paperwork over there. On the other hand I know my neighbors a long time and what's going on over there it seems like a real big lack of communication here. She does have 50'of road that she pays for. We were just talking about how many of it is not how much footage is not gravel road. At this point there's no trees there, it's just a big puddle so basically the whole 50'is just becoming road now and she's kind of getting the feeling that that's what's going to happen instead of having that big area that was all trees and bushes to attract all that water and allow it to seep back in without running towards the back of the property is no longer there and with the original plan she's afraid it's going to become part of Mr. Werthner's property to deal with as you will because that's what they see going on right now. I kind of feel for both parties here me being stuck in the middle I did kind of grant Mr. Werthner in order for him to get his Health Department permits I allowed him to purchase my well to get me on public water so he could get his Health Department permits. We're still waiting to get done with that deal it was supposed to be closed last January but Mr. Werthner's come across a lot of problems and he hasn't settled with me as of yet. I'm not afraid that he won't, so we've just been kind of going through the motions here but everything is starting the hang and it makes everybody in the neighborhood a little nervous. We just want the board to be aware that there are a lot of changes going on the property that should be at least discussed with the neighbors in the area especially since she owns the property that someone should knock on her door and go hi do you care if we knock down some trees or put my driveway here or whatever. Basically at this point there's been so much changes going on there on Mrs. Stegner's property that there are no trees there. There's one tree left there. I kind of feel for both parties here and I hope that everybody could kind of get together and come to some mutual agreeable thing here, at least to be able to speak to each other. I think that would be nice. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this hearing? HOWARD LUDECKER: My name is Howard Ludecker I reside at 370 Coke Dr. in Southold. I also have a property on Windy Point Lane. Can I address another concern with this property? From the time the bulldozers have come in the property has been seriously flooded. A concrete retaining wall was put in which simply contains the water. I don't think the water has been drained for 2 months. I'm really concerned about an adequate septic system on that particular Page 15 of 128 Page 16 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing property. I've been visiting that spot since the 1950's it has always been very wet, washy point at the head of the canal we used to hunt turtles in there. I was really surprised the building permit was issued for this particular property and my main concern living on Corey Creek as we do that there'd be serious environmental impact if the septic system is installed and then doesn't function properly. I would invite the board to visit the site,it's a huge ice skating rink now. I think there's been irreparable environmental damage at a very critical location and I would just like the board to review this whole development project. That's all I have to say. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? PETER MITSHUTSKI: I'm Peter Mitshutski, I'm the neighbor right next door to Ed's property. I think everybody has said what their concerns are and I think maybe there should be a little more communication between the builder and the people in the neighborhood. However, I think at this point, any improvement that he makes to the property is an improvement in the neighborhood. I think maybe that ought to be.considered by the board. And that's about it. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. Ms. Moore. MS. MOORE: I just want to address a few of the complaints. To begin with I know I don't want to be combative with Mrs. Stegner. I know I've spoken to her a couple of times she's called me, I know Mr.Werthner's tried to talk to her. The ROW by law she owns the underlying road however we have to get access for construction purposes to get access to the property. She has the ability to separate the road, give it to or sell it to an association, create an association,have an association take care of the road so she's not burdened with the exclusive cost of it. That would be my advice to her,but she wants to keep it because she's attached to one of her properties to increase the acreage on her property. When I looked at the assessment rolls when I was giving the certified mailings I noticed that there had been a transfer to give the road to one of the lots. So it actually shows as an acre or whatever the acreage is -it's sizable compared to what the actual lot is. It's a benefit to her to actually have the road. But she does have to live with the consequences of owning the road which is having a ROW, others having a ROW, others having a ROW to cross it and use it for purposes of construction. As far as the flooding, the foundation was poured, the retaining wall for the sanitary system which was all engineered and approved by the Health Department was placed and then it started raining and snowing and we could not do anything. The Building Department said stop what you are doing and you stop what you are doing even though the consequences of stopping it the consequences are the property looks like hell and it doesn't look good right now. The water has frozen and you've got ice everywhere. It is not his doing, it's by compliance of the rules and the order of the Building Department. As far as environmental effects, this was reviewed very carefully by the DEC, very carefully by the Trustees, and the Health Department. We public water came in, people, Mrs. Cook wasn't connected to public water. We had to offer to pay for her connection to public water ever though she was doing a renovation and is in the process of doing a renovation, we caught her just before she had applied for a building permit and the Building Department I guess if she had said my sanitary's fine or my depending on the size of the addition, may or may not have had to go to the Health Department. But had she gone to the Health Department, she would been required to go Page 16 of 128 Page.17. January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board.of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing to public water. This way she actually got the benefit of our paying for her hookup which is not an insignificant cost,it's about$3400. Again,we have complied with all environmental rules and all procedures. CHAIRWOMAN: The trees that have_been cut down, are they within her 50'ROW? MR. WERTHNER: There were no trees on her property cut down because I told my contractor that. There are 2 trees that feel down in a northeaster back in December. It was probably due to some of the excavation,maybe some of the roots were cut. Other than that, there's reeds, there's loads of poison ivy which I have scars from coming in contact with. It's a real kind of a jungle there, it's kind of a mess. These 2 trees that fell were dying anyhow,they were entwined with poison ivy and other roots going up to the top. If anything it's going to be an improvement what I can see and as far as the septic systems, I was told it was probably going to end up costing $10,000 because I need 5 pools and I have to take out a tremendous amount of soil and replace it with that. And you know something funny, I never know that they owned the property until Mr. Stegner came out because we went out-does the map say she owns it? No. It's 50'ROW road. I never knew that was her property. And when they came up and asked me this I was totally taken aback. I was like oh my god how can this possibly be can somebody own a piece of property in front of my house when her house is 300' down the road, she's that far from the corner of my property. I'm going like how did I get involved in this. I couldn't believe it. MEMBER ORLANDO: Mrs. Moore, not to interrupt, we have a huge agenda today. Is it possible for you guys to update each other in the hallway and talk about it maybe negotiate, reimbursements, natural screening. MS. COOK: Actually I had another comment please if someone would care to listen for a few minutes, I would like to be able to address that. My building permit was issued before they applied, and if Mr. Werthner was not aware that Mrs. Stegner owned the road why did Mrs. Moore send her a notification of the zoning board? We also have pictures of the property where the trees came down the roots were cut it was green we have pictures in the summertime the whole thing was green it was not dying they were well aware that the property was owned by someone else. We did speak with Mrs. Moore, she said it herself at the board meeting way back when he was first trying to buy the property he didn't even own the property yet. She knew Mrs. Sterner owned the road, she discussed with Mrs. Stegner and her concerns about the road. The property floods always. It did not just start to flood when they started construction. It has always flooded and that's why came to the meeting to discuss flooding problems at that time and retaining walls and issues of drainage which is why the road isn't supposed to be touched. It was the only little bit that we had left that accumulated a lot of water from the road now it's everywhere. So all of these issues were brought up. This is news to me. About my well I own 2 pieces of property. They did not notify me when we had the 1"meeting because they notified Mrs. Stegner. They said well her property abutted his so they didn't need to notify me because mine's on the other side of it, but they did. The well that 1 offered him is not so 1 can hook up to public water, it's so I'll never be able to use the water on my 2"d piece of property which has another building on it. So I did not give up the rights to the well that I am using. I'm going to continue to use my well. I am not hooking up to public water. I am allowing them to purchase Page 17 of 128 Page 18 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing that well from me because I was going to hook up to it in the future when I was done with my own construction. All I did was allow him to purchase the well so that instead of hooking up that 2nd one in the future at that point I would need to hook up to public water. There were no favors done here and everyone was well aware of what the situation was in that area before this property was purchased and I just wanted to make that clear to everybody. CHAIRWOMAN: Because we do have a very heavy agenda, let's- MS. COOK: The other thing is that the contract was supposed to be done with this well last January. The money was supposed to be released to me at the time we closed on the property and none of that has taken place a year later. Now I'm starting to get a little concerned about what's being manipulated in the area. I was comfortable 10 minutes ago, now I'm a little concerned. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll cut right to the chase. The property that the trees or anything that was cleared on her property please submit a plan for reconstruction on it. Please submit a plan for re- construction on it. Please submit a plan to this board to prevent any further flooding as far as the new encroachment into the area at 26' as I said before by your own testimony you have stated the existing setback at the road is 33 you're asking for a variance down to 32. You obviously have other options for a proposed garage. A certain amount of this is neighborhood dispute, a certain amount is very legitimate concerns which the board has not been aware of until this time. The ROW is her ROW. Yes you have access to the property,you do not have access to disturbance of anything in there. If you are aware of that now please make some sort of arrangements, submit those arrangements,work together and submit those arrangements to the board so the board can make a conclusion that a grant of this variance will not impact the community or be a detriment to under the standard. Is that okay? MS. MOORE: That's fine. We can provide what would be a landscape plan for the road area. CHAIRWOMAN: A reconstruction plan for any areas that have been- MS. MOORE: Keep in mind that before it was bramble and there were some small shrubs. CHAIRWOMAN: It doesn't matter what happened. It matters that it was someone else's property. We are going to adjourn this hearing. Anything else? MS. MOORE: No, I'll just give you the restoration plans. CHAIRWOMAN: To prevent further flooding and no further encroachment on the private ROW. This hearing will be adjourned until 6:30 February 61h MS. MOORE: It will just continue to look the way it does then because we've just delayed the hearing. Just so you understand,we can't touch the property. Page 18 of 128 Paue,.19 January'16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. WERTHNER: Not for nothing,but the improvements have to be done and I still have 3 bulldozers in there. When I spoke to your husband,Dan- CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Werthner,Mrs. Moore,we- MS. STEGNER: I'm not against Mr. Werthner building, I just feel that- CHAIRWOMAN: We understand that and between now and when this hearing is adjourned on February 6a'at 6:30,Mrs. Moore and you and Mr. Werthner the neighbors are going to work out a plan to reconstruct that area to protect it to prevent any further flooding. We'll see you then. 10:33 am Anpl.No.5227 CHARLES &MAUREEN BUCKEL. This is a request for a variance under section 33,based on the Building Department's September 16,Notice of , Disapproval. Applicant is proposing to construct an accessory swimming pool in an area other than a rear yard. Location of property: 2695 Little Neck Road, Cutchogue 103-10-2.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? CHARLES BUCKEL: I have a couple of things to deliver to you. CHAIRWOMAN: Do you have homework? MR. BUCKEL: I'm a teacher and my students are probably glad that you are holding me up here. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Are they original affidavits? MR. BUCKEL: They are original affidavits I was supposed to bring to you for the postings and the mailings. Those are the signed receipts, those are the pictures that were requested. CHAIRWOMAN: We'll pass this down the board. Tell us a little bit about what you plan to do. MR. BUCKEL: I think I have a peculiar situation. I have a rather strange shaped piece of property and by definition I have 2 front yards. Although when we bought the property we thought we did. It goes for 450', but because there is a small dirt road in the back called Rosen Road, it's an undeveloped road. In fact it's only on paper, there's no road there at all. I'm trying to put a swimming pool in my quote backyard and I haven't got one. What I'm requesting is I guess to have my backyard redefined somehow or another. CHAIRWOMAN: We have a request for a variance to locate the accessory swimming pool in an area other than a rear yard. We had reviewed this and what we see is 2 front yards,by code. MR. BUCKEL: I understand, it seems a technicality. Page 19 of 128 Page 20 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: This is for a 20x4O'inground swimming pool and what I notice you've got almost 361' from this paper road which would otherwise be considered your rear yard. It's more than 61'from the side property line. I don't have any questions. Let's see if the other board members have any. Ruth? MEMBER OLIVA: No,I understand his problem. MR.BUCKEL: It's a unique situation I think because of the way the property was subdivided. MEMBER ORLANDO: This is a 2-acre lot not to be subdivided in the future,no plans for that? MR. BUCKEL: That is correct. MEMBER ORLANDO: This is just ironic, 2 front yards. MR. BUCKEL: Yes,just because of the way they laid the property out in order to get 3 lots out of the 7 acres. MR. OLIVA: Did you know about the paper road? MR. BUCKEL: Yes it's on my survey and I knew it was there although when I visited the property, I think it was part of the subdivision plans initially probably to allow access to the other houses on the water,maybe on a later date,but it's a peculiar situation I understand. Had I connected the pool to the house it wouldn't have been a problem. I don't want the pool that close to my house and I don't want that much decking. I want to open my options for maybe a sunroom later, so I just wanted to have the pool in the backyard. MEMBER ORLANDO: There's no plans in the future to unmerge the lots that were originally from a subdivision. MR. BUCKEL: That's not possible. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: This paper road, that's why you're sited for the front yard? MR. BUCKEL: That's correct. That road in the back is just put on the surveys at the time the 3 lots were subdivided. My property happens to span from Little Neck Road to that paper road. It's odd, I have a huge back yard, I'm trying to call it a back yard. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. Page 20 of 128 Page 21 Jaruary'16,2003 ' Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On the survey which you submitted in reference to the pending pool-what is that 8 %2 strip reserved for possible future road? MR. BUCKEL: Good question, I think that's standard because I see it on the front yard too. Reality is it's never going to happen I think the town just reserves the right to.have a little ROW there so they can widen Little Neck Road and Strosen Road at a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a cardinal situation that we normally see in Nassau Point. You are several miles away from Nassau Point, so I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone 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 10:37 am Anal.No. 5263 -JOHN & LAUREL KIRMISH. This is a request for a variance under section 244,based on the Building Department's October 24, 2002 Notice of Disapproval to make additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at less than 15' on a single side yard setback, and less than 35'for total side setbacks. Location of property: 15955 Main Road, Mattituck,parcel 115-1-6. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to,speak on behalf of the application? And we do need the affidavit of sign posting. DON FEILER, ARCH: I have that. I'm Don Feiler, I'm the architect for the project. CHAIRWOMAN: Good morning. MR. FEILER: The Kirmish's are here if there's anything I can't answer. I think it's a pretty straightforward issue. There are 2 requests for the existing house. It's a 3-bedroom 1 '/z story house built about 1958. This house is pre-existing nonconfonning now with the new setback distances. When it was built it was l 0' side yard total of 25 on the west side that's one of our l.7, we're extending the existing setback- CHAIRWOMAN: That's 11.6 existing and you're proposing with a 1-story addition that will bring it to 11.7. MR. FEILER: They are on a slightly angled location there it would give us 1/101h of a foot more than the minimum amount - 11.6. This is an addition to the front bedroom. There's one bedroom on the first floor, two bedrooms on the second floor. There's really no alternatives to add on to this addition, no other places to go except towards the front yard. Let's see, relief there is 3.3' request to the new setback minimum of 15' on the west side the existing side yard is 28.7. We are requesting an eight foot addition to that side into the sideyard it would give us 207. The Page 21 of 128 Page 22 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing problem there is our total setbacks need to add up to 35'. This would give us 32.3' - that's a 2.7' request. We are allowed in that space a 5.3 addition. Our request is 8'and that's 2.7'relief of that. CHAIRWOMAN: What are the total side yards, 32.1? MR. FEILER: 32.3. CHAIRWOMAN: I have 32.1. Essentially, there's no change in the degree of nonconformity on the east side, on the west side the proposal you will still be conforming if you consider that you are supposed to have 15' on one side and 20'on the other. There's no increase to the degree of nonconformity. There's a decrease in the total side yards of+ or- 3'. Let's see what happens. Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: He's really constrained unless you go way in the back. You have one of those bowling alley lots and have an existing house there. MR. FEILER: We tried alternatives and designs which just don't work. It just doesn't happen. This is a 1-story addition on both sides. It's a 1-story addition on the west with 8'of dining room and also wrap around porch which would be open so the dining room that space is 8x12 living space addition and the porch would wrap around meeting the same side yard. I think as the photos illustrate it's an appropriate design and the scale and the character. It's the lowest in scale house along the whole stretch on the Main Road I don't think we are overdoing it and I'd like to stress one thing that this addition on the east side the 8' dimension is the real size that we are needing there and we don't need 4 or 6' and we're asking for 8. We are asking for 8 and that's what we are hoping to get approval for. Anything less than an 8'porch would be useless so it wouldn't be any good to us. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: Does the new extension encroach on the existing driveway, or does it look like it just comes shy of it. MR. FEILER: It's still about 6' - the driveway is still about 14 ''/z' from the hoLise now, so it'll be about 6 %' from the house. MEMBER ORLANDO: It does not encroach upon the driveway. That was my question, no other questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: You said you explored alternative plans such as- Page 22 of 128 Page 23 Jarivary116,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. FEILER: Such as a smaller additions to make it work with a 5' allowable on the east side. It's hardly useful at all especially with a porch on that side. It's really a walkway, a big open walkway and it is probably out of scale that type of undersized porch. MEMBER HORNING: For example you could put that on the north side? MR. FEILER: That's a design we explored,it's still not an acceptable or workable situation with the kitchen and everything else that's going on and roof lines and everything else that's going on into this house. It's really the only natural alternative. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know the house very well, I go by it many times a day and I have to tell you that the plan looks pretty acceptable. I think you did a good job. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone 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 10:45 am APPI.No. 5253 -RITA M. JONES. This is a request for a variance under section 244B,based on the Building Department's October 16,.2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions/alterations to the existing dwelling,portions of which will be less than 10' from one side yard setback and less than 25' for total side setbacks. Location of property: 1335 Island View Lane, Greenport 57-2-15. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? PETER STOUTENBURG: I'm Peter Stoutenburg, the agent for Mrs. Jones and here to take any questions. We did get a letter from a neighbor. I don't know if you have a copy, I made one for you if you didn't. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes we received it. MR. STOUTENBURG: I tried to get a hold of Mrs. Jones this morning after I picked up the letter to see if it would be okay with her to get a copy of the plans if the board felt it necessary to show the neighbor what she's proposing. Since we weren't filing for a building permit until we got your approval, we don't have a complete set of plans but we have a little elevation of what this one story addition would look like. CHAIRWOMAN: It looks like you have a L-shaped house and you're trying to square it off. That's a 1-story addition because you already have a- are there any questions, Mr. Horning? Page 23 of 128 Page 24 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Peter,in the plan,pugi-ng a reverse gable and it's still 1-story. It does not go any higher than the original ridge of the house. Is that correct? MR. STOUTENBURG: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Will that intrude,I know it's exempt but will it intrude into the side yard at all? MR. STOUTENBURG: It matches the existing overhang. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in all it's a fill-in situation. MR. STOUTENBURG: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone 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 10:49 am Appl. No. 5240 - SCOTT & JULIA OSLCR. This is a reddest for a variance Linder section 242A, based on the Building Department's October 9, 2002, amended December 16, 2002,Notice of Disapproval, concerning proposed additions/alterations to the existing dwelling, portions of which will be less than 15' from the side property line, and less than 35' total side yards, on this 25,003 sq. ft. nonconforming sized parcel. Location of property: 2145 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue 111-7-3. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MR. OSLER: My name is Scott Osler. My wife wants me to give you the certified mail receipts from people we sent letters to. Before these were sent we were trying to be proactive and we went to all of our neighbors and we reviewed all our drawings with them, and they reviewed it Page 24 of 128 Page 25. January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing and said they have no problem with it. She hasn't returned this I don't know if she's in Florida or she's not back, do you need this? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Madame chairperson I had a long discussion with Mr. Osler sometime ago regarding this application and I don't know if he wants to go into the entire situation,but these people have been run around. CHAIRWOMAN: I kind of read through the record. Essentially you thought that this did not need a variance and then apparently what happened is you decided to do a whole new foundation there. MR. OSLER: I think there was a big miscommunication. We went to the Building Department and explained to them what we were doing. We had a preliminary plan. The house we are talking about originally I believe it was a ranch with a detached garage. The previous owner attached the garage with a roof and made it a breezeway between the house and my garage. There's no foundation,there's no footings, there's nothing under there. We are now a family of we have 2 kids and we just converted a master bedroom into a living room, so we are living in very tight quarters. We are trying to give ourselves a living room so we can get some space. The idea was to just take down the existing garage and breezeway and build a big family room in it's footprint. We went to the Building Department and explained all this and because we are going to dig down for footings anyway,we are going to put a basement there. CHAIRWOMAN: Will that be a full basement over the 22x29'new addition? MR. OSLER: Yes right now it's just a slab and we are going to put a basement under there. At first the Building Department told us we might need a variance and our draftsperson told us we might need a variance, so we applied for one in June. Then I got a message on the phone from someone in the'Building Department saying hey, I've got good news, you're building on the same footprint you don't need a variance. So we went with our plans and brought them in the middle of September. We gave them in took no exception except that now we have a deck and they said hey the deck is inside the setback so you need a variance for the deck. I said forget it I'll take the deck off and we will apply for a variance at a later date because we wanted to get this thing going so we could build through the wintertime because as everybody knows, rentals during the summertime are prohibitive. That was the whole intent. When we re-submitted the drawings with the deck crossed out, the Building Department said you know we have to apologize, we didn't grasp what you are doing here, you do need a variance. CHAIRWOMAN: What apparently triggered it is the fact that you are demolishing that part of the building and you're doing all new construction putting in a frill basement. MR. OSLER: It's an increase in nonconforming. The house is what you are calling an existing nonconforming. Page 25 of 128 Page 26 . January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Exactly. What I'm showing is a 22x28'new addition that would be setback 4.6'from the property line. MR. OSLER: Do you have the most recent survey. ;I mean what you said is right. CHAIRWOMAN: What you are saying is roughly drawing a line that would be 15', it would be part of the new addition and part of the proposed new deck that requires a variance. MR. OSLER: Is that 15' from the property line? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MR. OSLER: Right now we are 4.6 basically we are 10'inside that setback. CHAIRWOMAN: You are planning on demolishing the whole part of the building. MR. OSLER: We are going to take the whole 22x29'down. MEMBER ORLANDO: Which is pre-existing. MR. OSLER: Yes. That's the breezeway and the garage and we are taking it away. MEMBER OLIVA: You just want to put a basement underneath it. MR. OSLER: We are going to put a basement underneath and build in the same footprint. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what happens. Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: No, I think he explained his problem. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: 1VIr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I had as I said a long discussion with Mr. Osler on the phone, I've been to the property twice. I understand their problem. If there is not a major complaint from the neighbors, I will go along with the application. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: Is it feasible to give us more of a setback such as 8'? Page 26 of 128 Page.27 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals.Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. OSLER: We were asked that and what, I think you have our drawings,the staircase that leads down to the basement is really only able to be along that wall that is closest to the setback and we are just trying to keep that room as accommodating as possible where a couple of couches and a TV set. Right now we are hoping We can do it as is. Is it feasible? I guess I should concede that it is. But we are already living in a cramped space and we are trying to make it as big as possible because that would also make the basement that much smaller. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone 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 10:52 am APPI.No. 5250-J& C BRADY HERZOG. This is a request for a variance under section 244B and 239.4B,based on the Building Department's October 15, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions/alterations to the existing dwelling with: (a) a front setback at less than 40', (b)proposed rear yard setback at less than 35', and (c) less than 75' from the bulkhead at it's closest points. Location of property: 250 Williamsburg Drive, Southold 78- 5-8. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? JIM FITZGERALD: My name is Jim Fitzgerald. This is another one of these situations where we are trying to make improvements in a situation that is left over from the old days apparently when there weren't any significant zoning restrictions. The existing house is relatively small and owners are interested in making it into a full time house by mainly adding a master bedroom which is the addition on the front of the house adding an attached garage inside of the house and a deck in the rear. The problem arises from the fact that the ROW from Williamsburg Road runs through the middle of the property and the house was originally built very close to the existing canal. As a result of those 2 things, the additions that we are applying for a variance for. The additions are not unreasonable and the change in appearance of the property will not be significant from the standpoint of the visual impact on the front/road side of the property, the only addition will be the garage. There will be vehicles parked in that area now so 1 think that will be an improvement as far as the neighborhood is concerned. I think the property on paper is certainly large enough to support the house we are suggesting and as I said the problem lies in the front of the house and the fact that the- CHAIRWOMAN: It is difficult to hear, and we won't pick it up in the transcripts. I understand your problem with the ROW. We need to do some housekeeping. The NOD states that the existing dwelling is setback 30'. That does not show on the survey that you have shown us. Is that - in your statements you indicated it was 33'. What is the setback from the ROW? MR. FITZGERALD: 21'. Page 27 of 128 Page 28 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: The setback from the ROW? MR. FITZGERALD: On paper yes. CHAIRWOMAN: The edge of the ROW,what is the setback? MR. FITZGERALD: 21' j MEMBER HORNING: Is that from the proposed- MR. FITZGERALD: To the proposed addition,it is 4l'to the existing structure. I CHAIRWOMAN: It doesn't add up to what's in front of us. MR. FITZGERALD: In what sense?i CHAIRWOMAN: We show that the distance from the edge of the ROW according to the NOD is existing 48, correct? MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know, Pd have to look it up. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm trying to confirm it because all of the figures in this particular application of what you have and the Building Department and the plans we have in front of us are all different. That's why we are trying to get a clear record. MR. FITZGERALD: The application to the Building Department was based upon a project plan which I drew without the benefit of having a current valid survey if we start on the basis of a survey that was done many years ago and had obviously certain discrepancies which I noted but none of the sort we are talking about now. CHAIRWOMAN: The survey was updated after the NOD was issued. MR. FITZGERALD: This survey was done after the NOD is what I'm measuring now. CHAIRWOMAN: It still doesn't show the distance of the ROW. It is estimated at 30'. I'd like to see that on the survey if we could.'The proposed 53x12' deck on the survey you're showing a setback at 21' at the closest point to the bulkhead, is that correct? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes it's correct) as far as I know. I trust the surveyor. CHAIRWOMAN: You have an existing setback at the closest point of the house of 33'. You now want to be 21' from the bulkhead. Let's see what happens. Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: Does the deck have to be in that position because it's not a level setback. I was there, it just drops down. Does the deck have to be that wide could it be at another part say I Page 28 of 128 Page.29. . January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing on the other side of the house instead of being right against the-because it drops off here,you just have no room whatsoever and you are asking for a fair amount of a setback from that bulkhead. It's only 21' and it's supposed to be 30 or 35'. To me that's rather extensive. Is there any way of putting it on the other side? w, MR. FITZGERALD: I think we tried that. JOE HERZOG: I'm Joe Herzog one of the owners. The house runs not parallel with the canal it's slightly tilted to put the deck on what I assume is the side we're adding to you really wouldn't add to the view at all. The whole idea is getting the view of the canal and going down to the creek. We'd be looking at the neighbors house,we'd actually be much closer to the neighbors house which I think would be opposed by the board as well because we'd really be right on top of the neighbors house. CHAIRWOMAN: The bottom line is you're asking for a considerable variation in the code. The code is a 75'requirement you're asking for 21'. What we are saying to you is what else can you live with or where else can you place it. MR. HERZOG: It's difficult to place it any other side of the house than that. A couple of points I'd like to make is I know I've met a couple of people on the board last night. I don't know if everybody got to see the house. Both neighbors on both sides of me and neighbors across the canal from me this doesn't it conforms with the distances they have from the canal after it's completed. So it's not anything more or less either front or back from the house, closer to the street from the neighbors, it's no further from the canal than the neighbors are. Aside from that you could perhaps shorten the length,not the width, not the depth of it. But rather than coming to the end of the house as proposed to the beginning of the garage addition,we could possibly shorten that up by 12-15'which would again because of the tilt of the house would bring it further away from the canal by a couple of feet. Rather than being a 53' deck, it would be let's say a 38' deck. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is an issue in reference to the deck itself but the issue here is how is it going to actually change in elevation of what we see that's there now? In other words, how is this deck going to specifically impact your property when it is built or when it may be built? What is the elevation factor above grade and what can you give us to show us that so we can understand what the change is going to be? That's one of the difficult things that we have- I'm not speaking for all the board members,but certainly for myself when we go and see these changes from a patio area to a deck area and we know why people don't like patios because it brings dirt into the house and so on an so forth. And we know the reason why people like deck areas, but if you can show us that we'd have a better understanding. MR. HERZOG: We can describe it to you now if you'd like. l Page 29 of 128 Page 30 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We also have a better understanding of what change that would effect from an environmental standpoint by placing 3'piles in and creating a deck on the back of the house as opposed to the patio area. MR. HERZOG: Right now it's all grass and it's a mess. It brings dirt in. We have a dog,it makes a mess. I'd love to have a deck, it would be a lot cleaner in the house. But in terms of elevation of the deck,behind the area that's going to be renovated is going to be 12" above ground level. Staring from that point to behind what is now the living room let's say 17'from the far end as you recall, I'm not talking about the short end you're referring to but the far end where the renovations are going to be will be a foot above grade then it would step up to probably no more than 18" to meet the level of the foundation because the one section the 17'I'm referring to is a slab then it steps up to a short foundation that's 18" so the deck height would be about 18" for say 18' and 12" for 17'. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't you show us that in the way of a drawing it would help us out tremendously. Number 2 if you are only talking about that elevation and that elevation only,you are not required to have any railings or anything around it from the Building Department. Therefore I don't foresee that there is going to be a major drastic change with the installation of the deck at that elevation level. I'm not sure the board is aware of that. Most of the decks we grant are 3' and up. What you are basically doing is creating graphs for wood in this particular situation. The drainage aspect doesn't really change except that because it doesn't get vegetation from the sun. Is that correct? MR. HERZOG: That's correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As for the distances that were mentioned before it appears that you are the owner of the ROW in front of the house. MR. HERZOG: That's correct the ROW plus 10' on the other side of the street. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So if we were to take those distances and we were to subtract the 50' and whatever the distance is on the other side of the street those are the figures that I think Mr. Fitzgerald was coming up with. MR. HERZOG: 1 believe those numbers were from CHAIRWOMAN: We've really got to move fast today. I'll talk fast. Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: The majority of the proposed additions I don't have a problem with. My one concern was the northwest corner which you've basically addressed. If you could move it back 38 the width, the length 38' that would work for me because the northwest corner was close to the plateaus you have of brick. If you brought it to 38 that would work for me. CHAIRWOMAN: What are we talking about? Page 30 of 128 - 15' Page 31 January 16,'2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. FITZGERALD: I think Mr. Herzog said he would shorten it. MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm assuming you're shrinking it to the south. You are shrinking it to the north. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's get an exact number. How much are you going to be taking off? MEMBER ORLANDO: You were thinking 38 going from the south to the north correct? Because the plateaus that were built there. That would reduce the setback significantly. CHAIRWOMAN: We are talking about 1208 here. What about 10? It's a significant drop in the standard. MR. HERZOG: To reduce the depth from 12 to 10. CHAIRWOMAN: You are asking for a very large variance. MR. HERZOG: I understand but I want to make it a useful deck as well and if you put a 6' table with chairs on both sides of that, that allows 2' on each side,there's no way to get past the table if you put a table on the middle of the deck. CHAIRWOMAN: We have approved a couple hundred of decks in the last couple of years and we've approved a number of them at 10'. MR. HERZOG: They may have been used more as a porch than as a deck. I just ask you consider it. CHAIRWOMAN: Is that something you could live with or not? MR. HERZOG: I'd be difficult to live with. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes or no? N1R. HERZOG: I'd say no. I couldn't put a table on the deck; it wouldn't make sense. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? MR. FITZGERALD: If you look at the photographs in number 33 you see where the stake is and that's the extent of the deck and it would be at the level - MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what I assumed and that's the reason I further questioned the applicant regarding this. We are talking width and depth right now but I'm just saying elevation factor and I'm saying there's not a major change because the house is relatively low. Again you're trading grass for wood. Page 31 of 128 Page 32 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: Would the possibility of moving your proposed garage so it was more toward the Williamsburg Drive than maybe the existing house rather than being lined up right with it on the canal side. MR. HERZOG: What would we be accomplishing by doing that? Keeping it further from the canal. Then you have the issue of being closer to the road which is- CHAIRWOMAN: Which is preferable. MR. HERZOG: By how much you say? 2'? MEMBER HORNING: No I would say 10 or 15'. MR. HERZOG: That would be totally out of proportion with the house. MEMBER HORNING: It would? It would be attached to the house. MR. HERZOG: It just wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing. It's not getting any closed to the water than the house is so I don't see where the benefit would be. MEMBER HORNING: Well it is getting closer to the water. On the survey it looks like it's getting closer to the water. MR. HERZOG: If I moved it 2' forward it would be further from the water from the house and it would still be aesthetically pleasing. CHAIRWOMAN: I think what he is saying is you are planning on having a proposed addition that is here for a variance right now and he's saying why not move the garage in line with the proposed addition since both structures need variances and that way it would it further away from the canal. MEMBER HORNING: Yes. MR. HERZOG: You're saying in line with the other addition on the other side of the house? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MR. HERZOG: I'd have to have an architectural rendering to understand what it would look like. MEMBER ORLANDO: It would be a lot more expensive because right now he's following the ridge line. It would increase the addition 2 fold Page 32 of 128 Page 33 January 16;2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. HERZOG: You'd have to have reverse ridge line at least to make it look anywhere near decent. It would be a pretty good expense. MEMBER ORLAND: George,what if he shrunk the garage 25-227 MEMBER HORNING: That would be helpful also. CHAIRWOMAN: You're talking about reducing the width of the garage? MR. HERZOG: This is the type of thing where if I did that I'd have to put a shed up on the property. It's for lawnmowers and things like that. MEMBER ORLANDO: When you stay within the ridge line of the house, it's less expensive. Once you start jogging, everything becomes more expensive. CHAIRWOMAN: 23'instead of 25' for the garage. MR. HERZOG: This isn't something I'd have to provide a new survey and architectural design for? MEMBER ORLANDO: Not for us but the Building Department. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? MR. HERZOG: Can I bring signatures or people,neighbors who are very supportive of this because it will upgrade the neighborhood. MEMBER HORNING: Have them write letters. CHAIRWOMAN: Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 10:55 am APPI. 5246-NAMROG HOLDING CORP. This is a request for a variance under section 244B, based on the Building Department's October 2, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed second-story addition and porch addition,portions of which will be less than 15' at its closest point to a side property line. Location of property 1935 Laurel Way, Mattituck 121-4-22. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Page 33 of 128 Page 34 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: I'll do it very quickly because this is a very simple application. The existing house is a one-story house they want to place a second story on the one story right over the top of the one story. The only change to the original footprint is a tiny little covered porch that is on the left hand side of the survey. _. CHAIRWOMAN: Is that a 0 lot line? MS. MOORE: The porch probably. It's a common property it's a family compound. Mr. Gorman owns the property that is at the 0 lot line and Namrog is just Gorman backwards. The other family member owns the other house. CHAIRWOMAN: There is no plan to demolish any of the existing one-story? MS. MOORE: No. I have the builder here. Any plans on demolition? No. MS. MOORE: Just right over top lifting the roof and putting the 2nd story right on top. CHAIRWOMAN: The proposed porch the board is generally not in favor of creating a new area of nonconformance and the odds of getting a new porch approved at 0 lot line are generally about 0. MS. MOORE: Well keep in mind that a stoop is not considered a setback onto a side yard an encroachment onto a side yard. This is merely a roof over a stoop so that's why it seemed a minimal request. I understand you're zero lot line concerns but here you still have the stoop that's there, you just have instead of having it open to the air it will be have a little covering over it. CHAIRWOMAN: No. Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: I was there. Except for the covered porch otherwise. MS. MOORE: You can live without the covered porch, I think we tallied about that. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: I also visited the site I just want to make a comment that once you put the 2nd story addition it would not even exceed the neighbor to the left, his ridge, correct? MS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: This lot is downward of the neighbor. Page 34 of 128 Page 35 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular,Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: This is really the most appropriate, to put a 2nd story is the most appropriate environmentally as well because the property is sloped and you really have no where else to put it without MEMBER ORLANDO: I would probably never find this place ever again. No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms. Moore you said that the Gorman family owned the house to the east which is the closest encroachment and with respect that the overhang on this house will not encroach any further that the overhang? MS. MOORE: Correct. The eves on the house are going to be maintained,just higher. They will be on the top of the ridge of the 2nd story. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And any roof drainage will be put into a storm drain or something? MS. MOORE: As a matter of fact, the Trustees condition was to put drywells and I have the surveyor Young&Young did the survey. Eventually I'll get surveys that show drainage. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what happens. Is there anyone 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 10:58 am Appl. 5233 - JOSEPH J. SNELLENBURG. This is a request for a variance under section 31 A, based on the Building Department's September 20, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, concerning applicant's request to amend BP fl28632-Z for a proposed bathroom addition in an accessory garage building. Location 1935 Old Woods Path, Southold 87-2-21 CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? PETER STOUTENBURG: Unfortunately Judge Snellenburg was going to handle this himself, but he's in the hospital at the moment. Whatever I can do to help with questions I did go the Health Department on his behalf when the town requested that he come to you about the bathroom. The Health Department has granted a permit for a new system on their suggestions we had thought we'd tie it in with the existing house and they said they'd prefer a new system. I do have a copy of that if you want it for your files. Page 35 of 128 Page 36 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: I'll just go through this real briefly for the record. You got a BP to demolish _ the existing garage. You also obtained a BP to construct a 22x37.4 accessory garage then you amended to permit to include a half bath in my view and got cited by the BD for a second dwelling unit on the property. Is this a%2 or full bath? The plans show a commode and a sink. MR. STOUTENBURG: That's all on the 0 floor. It's 5x5, it's a%2 bath. There is an outdoor shower as part of this,but that's- CHAIRWOMAN: In the bath itself is there a bathtub? I.didn't see any room for it. MR. STOUTENBURG: There's no room. CHAIRWOMAN: And upstairs will be used for? MR. STOUTENBURG: I think that's why the judge had planned on being here. He's retiring and that's where he's moving his professional belongings. CHAIRWOMAN: Is this going to be heated? MR. STOUTENBURG: Yes heating& air conditioning on the 2nd floor only the bases of garage and storage area. CHAIRWOMAN: I just want to get this '/2 bath full bath-there is no plans for a%bath,there's no plans to make this livable quarters. MR. STOUTENBURG: He lives by himself in a house with lots of- CHAIRWOMAN: Yes he does. I assume you have no problems if this board put conditions in the approval if they were inclined to grant one that this not be inhabitable space now or in the future. MR. STOUTENBURG: I assume he wouldn't. I can't really speak for him because I haven't spoken since he went into the hospital, but I'm assuming that would be the case. He has no plans that I know of. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: The upstairs of the garage is just going to be an office for him. MR. STOUTENBURG: I guess he's semi-retired at the moment,but he's planning on retiring and moving his files and all the stuff that pertains to being a judge and a lawyer. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. Page 36 of 128 Page 37 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: Do you know if the applicant had any ideas to demo the existing garage and build a new structure attached to the existing dwelling?- MR. STOUTENBURG: No plans of doing anything to the existing house, strictly to replace the garage and increase the amount of room. I believe there are 1 or 2 small utility buildings there that are now not on the site because they were a part of the original demo permit that they are sort of tool shed things that are now going to be incorporated in the structure. CHAIRWOMAN: That was in the record. Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've been to the site. I've spoken to the judge and I think quite honestly he has a substantial amount of files that he wants to move we've done it before and it's like a library situation and he wants to be able to preserve those files and that's the reason for the heating and air conditioning. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what happens. Is there anyone 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 11:37 am Appl. 5232 - OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS (owner JunIze). This is a request for a variance under section 165C,based on the Building Department's September 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval for the proposed installation of equipment related to a public utility wireless communications antenna to be affixed on an existing monopole. Location of property 21855 CR 48, Cutchogue 96-1-19.1 CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? LAWRENCE RE, ESQ: Good morning my name is Lawrence Re, laNv firm is NVlundley, Vfeade, Nielson, and Re 36 N. New York Ave. Huntington. This is an application for a variance to permit Omnipoint to install 3 equipment cabinets within the rear yard setback. Briefly, Omnipoint is licensed by the FCC to operate a personal communications system here in Suffolk County and throughout much of the US. Ominpoint strides to provide reliable service throughout it's license coverage area and at present in the northern part of Cutchogue and surrounding areas there is a lack of service, a service deficiency. In order to eliminate this service gap, Omnipoint needs to establish an antenna facility. We've reviewed the Town of Southold Code and we see that the town encourages co-location on existing towers wherever possible and we've investigated the existing tower that exists on the property in question and it works on an engineering standpoint and so Omnipoint proposes to affix it's antennas on that tower and to install it's equipment on the ground adjacent to the tower. That tower was installed Page 37 of 128 Page 38 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing pursuant to 2 actions to this board a variance and a special use permit that was granted a number of years ago and I have copies which I can submit. Recently, another carrier,Nextel made a similar application and it was granted just a few months ago and I'd like to hand up the 3 decisions if I could. I could hold on to them and bring them up all at the same time. CHAIRWOMAN: If you'd like to bring up everything at the same time, that's fine. MR.RE: Our predicament is very much like Nextel's in that the layout of the property is such and the location of the tower is such in the northwest corner of the property and it makes all the sense in the world to install the cabinets next to the tower and that results in the setback variance and we believe that by placing the equipment in that location it will not have a negative effect on the surrounding area will not effect property values and will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. I saw that the board recommends that we submit reports written testimony wherever possible so I have the affidavit of Nicholas Balzano who is here he is the radio frequency engineer for Omnipoint and his affidavit deals with why the site is needed and we also have coverage maps that show the service gap in the area that will be covered by this site. I also have the affidavit of Michael Lynch he's our appraiser and the report indicates that this will not have a negative effect on property values. We also have the visual resources report by DMS consulting and we have a report prepared by Sinetics that shows that the antennas in question are not exceed the FCC limits even when taken into consideration the other antennas on the monopole and approved, and with the boards decision I'd like to hand up all of these documents as exhibits. I have with me this morning if the board has questions,Neil McDonald from the firm of William Collins Assoc. that prepared the plans and Nicholas Balzano the radio frequency engineer, Michael Lynch the appraiser,Lou Cornaccia the FCC specialist and Donna Marie Stippo who prepared the visual analysis. If the board has any questions of any of those witnesses. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm not sure they do, frankly this seems like a straightforward application as you say the town's telecommunication law encourages co-locations. Just to confirm you are proposing 12 antennas mounted on 3 t-arm frame at approximate height of 90'mounted on the existing monopole which is 105' so you are going to be somewhere in the middle. MR. RE: Verizon is at the top and Nextel has been approved below the location chosen. CHAIRWOMAN: The antennas are approximately 6' in depth. MR. RE: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN: The equipment is going to be 1 Ox20 C high? MR. RE: No it's 3 cabinets and each cabinet is 6'3" high 4'5" wide and 22" deep. They are individual cabinets look more or less like a refrigerator. CHAIRWOMAN: The concrete pad is 170 and with the chainlink fence is another 3'which is 7 to 10 to 17 to 20. Correct? Page 38 of 128 Page 39'- January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. RE: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN: And that would leave you with an existing.-rear yard setback of approximately 10'. This is an existing situation and the Towris"telecommunications laws specifically allow for this type of facility and in fact encourages it. As far as the audience is concerned they are here for a setback. A setback for the antennas and a setback for the equipment pad building. Whatever the 3 little cabinets are going to go on. Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: I don't have any questions. MEMBER ORLANDO: In following suit with Nextel who was here a month ago we will require natural screening on the southeast corner because Nextel will be providing that for their boxes so you'll be required to screen on the southeast side. MR. RE: Would you prefer that we work with your office as far as the layout of the screening. Or how do you want to work that. Because our office also represented Nextel and- MEMBER ORLANDO: We'd like to follow suit. If you're planting arborvitae,we'll continue with arborvitaes or whatever the natural screening. I don't think the landfill will require screening on that I don't think they'll complain,but on the southeast side as you drive by that road it's a vacant lot so if you could just screen it. CHAIRWOMAN: If you could provide us with a screening plan that will work with the Nextel. Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: No questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My questions are always quite different than everybody else's and of course everything I say is not derogatory, it's pragmatic. If we were not to grant the variance you simply could not put the antenna on the monopole. My question is what is the effect, do you have anybody here who could tell us the effect of the antenna on the monopole and the loading aspect of it and what effect that might have in reference to a failure of the monopole. MR. RE: We had a structural analysis of the existing monopole. While I'm fishing for it I'll bring up Mr. McDonald to answer questions. NEIL MCDONALD: I'm Neil McDonald, I'm with William Donalds architects located at 10-1 Technology Drive, Setauket,NY. Just to cover your question before we proceeded with the application Voicestream or Omnipoint moved forward with the structural analysis based on their antenna done according to the EIATIA 222F standards which is the telecommunications standards which is the telecommunications standards for analyzing towers, monopoles and takes into account the wind criteria the actual wind loads on the antennas the aerodynamics of the structure and any kind of radio ice that may occur and all of the findings in the report which was Page 39 of 128 Page 40 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing submitted by Paul J.Ford I believe was the engineering company found that it was in accordance of the requirements of EIATIA standards. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the pole rated for? MR. MCDONALD: 85 mph wind velocity and with the %Z" ice brings you down to about 78 mph. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would happen if the pole faltered? MR. MCDONALD: There's been no known failure of a pole where it falls over. If there was a situation where a pole was erected that didn't comply with those standards perhaps you may have a situation where a pole would bend because essentially what happens when a tower starts to bend it's aerodynamics change and the effect of the wind on a bent structure would be less than a vertical structure and we may not have a situation where it would fall or collapse. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what we saw on September 1 la'with the WTC where it actually tear dropped down if you had a significant bend or if you had a significant ice storm with the ice on these antennas at the very worst, the top of the pole would bend down and could actually bend down and meet a portion of the pole. MR. MCDONALD: The dynamics of the WTC were much different because the strength of the steel was effected by the heat mainly by the fires so here you're not going to experience these conditions where the steel is weakened. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But that's why they built it that way so it didn't take out city blocks as opposed to this situation where it is very simply just going to bend. Is there a maximum load that an antenna of this nature can take in reference- MR. MCDONALD: The actual antenna itself? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this monopole at max now? IVIR. MCDONALD: No it's not. There's still reserve capacity. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone 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 **=r-** 11:45 am APPI. 5259 -ESTATE OF MURRAY SCHLUSSEL. This is a request for a variance under section 32,based on the Building Department's September 24 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed dwelling with a front yard setback at less than 50' from the Page 40 of 128 Page 41 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing front property line at it's closest point. Location of property 3085 Stillwater Ave., Cutchogue 136-2-6,7&8 (combined as one lot 62,730 sq. ft. total area) CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on.behalf of the application? GARY OLSEN, ESQ: Good morning,my name is Gary Olsen. I'm an attorney having my offices in Cutchogue and I represent the applicant. Let me commence this first I'd like to thank the board for having the meeting in the morning and I know you're trying to clear the calendar out so that's great. CHAIRWOMAN: It helps keep us awake too. MR. OLSEN: Let me commence by making it clear that approval of this application we understand would be conditioned on the applicant merging 3 tax parcels into 1 parcel. The tax .lots in question are district 1000-136-2-6,7&8. Currently the lots are in 3 separate ownerships in the Schlussel family and 3 separate tax bills are being issued 1 for each parcel. The property that is the subject to this application are lots 80, 81, 82, 83 &part of lot 84. Map of section 2 property of MS Ham. The total area of the 3 combined lots is 1.14401 acres or 62,730 sq. ft. and has frontage on Stillwater Ave. 270'. Tax lot 7 & 8 are presently under contract for$170K and tax lot#6 is under contract for$40K. Rudoph Bruer in Southold is the attorney representing the buyer. The applicants have obtained approval from the SC Dept. of Health Services, the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation and the Southold Town Trustees. I do have copies of the approvals and I'd like to hand them into you today. The final approval from the Trustees was conditioned that there be a 40'non-disturbance buffer, gutters, and dry wells as depicted on the Young&Young survey dated January 30, 2002 and revised June 27, 2002. The location of the proposed house was necessitated by the requirements of the Trustee approval requiring that the house be setback away from the wetlands area thus forcing it closer to Stillwater Ave. This is an area variance to locate the house 26.24' from Stillwater Ave. rather than 50' as required by the current Southold code. The benefit to the applicant if this variance is granted is obvious. The applicants contract of sale to Mr. MacFarlane who happens to be present today is conditioned on obtaining the necessary approvals from all applicable governmental agencies having jurisdiction over this property. As stated before approvals have been obtained from the SC Health Dept. the NYS DEC and the Trustees. The last governmental agency is the ZBA. Failure to grant this application would render the property which is currently under contract for a total of$210K value for the construction of a single family residence. It is respectfully submitted that the granting of the variance would not adversely effect the health, safety, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the community. It is respectfully submitted that there will be no undesirable change by granting the variance to the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties. Most of the properties on Stillwater Avenue are presently approved and I have check the records with the Southold Town Trustees as to which parcels are improved and which parcels are still vacant and I have made a list of same. I've also made a copy of the SC Tax Map and have colored in yellow the presently improved parcels on Stillwater and the subject property is highlighted in pink. The purpose of preparing this list and highlighting the tax map is to demonstrate the current character of the neighborhood which is largely currently improved with one-family dwellings and accordingly the granting of the variance would not change the Page 41 of 128 Page 42 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing character of the neighborhood and I'd like to pass out what I just referenced. I also wish to point out that the ZBA under appeal#2854 granted a front yard variance to Michael A. LoGrande effecting tax parcel 136-2-4. Mr. LoGrande's parcel was also located on Eugene's Creek and is currently improved with a single family dwelling 1-lot north of the subject property. Mr. LoGrande's approval was for a reduced front yard setback from the required 50'to 35'. As this board was aware, since the 1981 approval of the LoGrande application the Trustees jurisdiction has increased from 75'from the wetlands to 100'. I respectfully request that this board use the same reasoning to this application that it used in the LoGrande application. The proposed house would be located approximately 150'from the southeasterly property line which borders tax parcel# 136-2-9. That parcel is a narrow piece which is vacant and is used only for dock purposes. Property to the northwest is also vacant and is designated as 136-2-5 and the tax bill is being assessed to Michele B. Bonjourno and others care of the Lorraine LoGrande. It would be. my assumption that said parcel is being held separate from the parcel which was the subject of the LoGrande variance application here before and referred to in order to prevent a waiver of merger of both LoGrande parcels. In light of the restrictions imposed by the DEC,the Health Dept. and the Trustees the benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other method other than making application to the ZBA for a front yard variance. It is respectfully submitted that the variance is not substantial and there will be no substantial detriment to the adjoining properties and the applicants difficulty cannot obviated by a method feasible to the applicant other than a variance. The granting of this variance would result by permitting the construction of only one residence on all 3 tax parcels and accordingly there would be no adverse effect on available governmental facilities and just as a side I should mention that when this process started I don't know how long it's been but it seems like 2 or 3 years ago applications were made for tax lots 7 & 8 and not including tax lot 6 and approvals were granted by the DEC and the Health Dept. for lot 7 & 8 and at the request of the Trustees,they asked us if we would consider including tax parcel lot#6 as well and both Mr. McFarland agreed that we would revise the applications and include all 3 tax parcels also I believe there are old approvals from the Dept of Environmental Conservation approving each tax parcel as a valid building lot. So basically what's happened is we have agreed that we will not try to get 2 houses or 3 houses what we want to do is we have agreed that all 3 lots will be merged into one. There will be one house on all 3 tax parcels. The variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. All of the environmental issues on building on this creekfront property have been addressed by the Health Dept., the DEC and the Trustees and all have approved this project with proposed house location. It is respectfully submitted that the difficulty was not self created by the applicants, but was created by the imposition of conditions of other governmental agencies to make sure that the wetlands are not adversely effected. As this board is aware under Section 267B 3-C of the Town Code provides for balancing concept whereby the zoning board shall grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. To not grant this front yard variance would in effect essentially result in the condemning of this property without proper compensation to the property owner and is the equivalent of a taking. The environmental concerns have already been addressed by all the other agencies that I've discussed and we have approval. The fact that we are asking to push the house further away from the wetlands and a little closer to the street is necessary to ensure that there is no disturbance to.the wetland areas. Also I should mention that Page 42 of 128 Page 43, ....:. . January`16;i 03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting'Public Hearing this property has been on the market for a while before it went under contract for Mr. MacFarlane. And I know people across the street and basically people across the street and maybe some other people on the block don't like the idea that a house is going up because it will either block their view or they are concerned about the wetlands.They are suggesting that the town take this-over. Well the town hasn't bought this property and this is privately owned property and it's valuable property because it's creekfront and if the people are opposing this are concerned about it the answer is obvious. They could have purchased it. I received several letters from your office that you have received from neighbors and it seems to me that the gist of letters is that this should be protected because it's on wetlands. I actually have an aerial photograph here every other lot as you can see is improved with a house. This is an old built up area. Most of the houses on Stillwater are located in a position today that when they were built, you basically could do what you wanted but you couldn't do it today. I don't think by granting the front yard variance it's going to any way change the character of the neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN: Are you submitting the aerial photo? MR. OLSEN: Actually Mr. Wolpert of Young&Young came in with an aerial photo and I think he would probably like to address some issues to the board as well. One of the letters that came through was someone who checked out Mr. MacFarlane on the internet and was referencing what kind of company he's running and so on and there's also a reference that the seller here is a developer. The seller is not a developer. The seller is a private individual such as you would be that's trying to sell a piece of property and here we are now. We are here because the other agencies are requiring 40'buffers and so on forcing the house forward. I didn't know that before a person could buy in Southold that their qualifications or their personal business had to be checked out on the internet. It just doesn't seem right to me but that's anyway, that's what happened. And the concerns in the letter are basically environmental people like things to be way they have always been but people don't want to pay for it. The environmental concerns that are raised in the correspondence have all been addressed. There's no impact to this creek by this house going onto this property provided we get our variance. We have to get closer to the road than what the town code currently requires but that's why we have a ZBA. I believe also there was some correspondence regarding the size of the house. Mr. MacFarlane is here as well as his engineer but the house that he's going to be building is the house that he agreed, the size that he agreed with the Trustees was 1460 sq. ft. for the house and a 2 car garage. That's the footprint. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't have plans for a 1460 sq. ft. house. The plans I have the existing footprint is in the neighborhood of 2000 sq. ft. If there's a mistake an error of submissions, I'd like to know it. MR. OLSEN: Including the garage it's 1860. This is how it was submitted to the Trustees. By today's standards, the footprint for a 1460 sq. ft. house is not a big house. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's get the record clear. The plans drawn by Young &Young survey prepared November 71h, 2002 last amended November 19, 2002 indicate a building with a total width of 37 total length of 66'including a garage it is a detached garage. There are some little L-shaped cutouts in there. What are the measurements? Page 43 of 128 Page 44 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. OLSEN: 1860 sq. ft. including the garage. CHAIRWOMAN: And we have a full 2nd story on top of that, correct?_._ MR. OLSEN: That's right. CHAIRWOMAN: Could I speak to the architect? Some basic questions about the floor plans. THOMAS WOLPERT: Thomas Wolpert with Young&Young. I'm an engineer,not an architect. My partner Bob Task drew this plan. He is an architect and unfortunately he's not present but I will try and answer your question. CHAIRWOMAN: So we have an 1860 on the lst floor and 1860 on the 2nd floor? Because you are showing a master bedroom over the 2-car garage. MR. WOLPERT: I would say that would be correct. CHAIRWOMAN: What is the height? You have a mean height between the ridge and the eaves from natural grade of 35'. MR. WOLPERT: That's the note that is indicated on the bottom of this plan,yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Is this a 2 or 2 %2 story house? MR. WOLPERT: I'm not sure, I think it's a 2-story. CHAIRWOMAN: I would like to see site elevations on this and also like to know the exact height to the ridge and if there's any fill proposed to change the natural grade at that level. I think you can handle that. MR. OLSEN: Yes we can produce that drawing. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't have any further questions at this point. Mr. Olsen. MR. OLSEN: For your sake fortunately I'm finished. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Olsen I have about 4 different plans of the survey but we're working off of the January 30th, 2002 plan. CHAIRWOMAN: No Jerry, August 13th, 2002. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're not referring to house plans, we are referring to survey. MR. OLSEN: August 13th is the one approved by the DEC. Page 44 of 128 Page 45 ,Januaky'16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: That shows the 40'buffer zone and a front yard setback of 26'. MR. OLSEN: That's right and we had to go back to the DEC because originally we got approval for just tax lot 7,& 8 and when we agreed to include tax lot 6 we had,to go back again to get their approval. That survey is dated August 1 P and was approved on November 25th by the DEC. CHAIRWOMAN: Do all the board members have floor plans? Because I have extra copies.. MR. OLSEN: As far as the height and so on obviously we have to comply with the Southold Town Code Building Standards. The basic issue is we need the front yard variance because the Trustees wanted us back away from the creek. CHAIRWOMAN: All of these things will be taken into consideration when we are granting a variance. The request for variance is quite substantial by code as you are aware of. Whatever the reasons are it is still substantial. One of the things we do take into consideration is the height and the appearance and the width of it. The visual impact to the community,that's not unusual that's why I asked, and that's why it's important for me to know. MR. OLSEN: We will get you the information. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before Mr. Olsen leaves,we are talking about the survey that shows 26'26.24', correct? MR. OLSEN: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay is there anything else Mr. Olsen? MR. OLSEN: Not from me I think Mr. MacFarlane would like to say something,is that alright? CHAIRWOMAN: Certainly. ROBERT MACFARLANE: My name is Robert MacFarlane just a little earlier today I was able to read some things that were in letters that I wasn't aware of perhaps I can set the record straight just briefly. I am the CEO for a company called Homes for America Holdings, we create, build, renew, among other things historic structures throughout the US in an environmentally historically sensitive matter. Generally these are large sites urban revitalization we are doing one in Hartford now which is almost a million sq. ft. and is being rebuilt in accordance with national park standards. The reason I mention this is because we are sensitive. Sensitive to neighbors, neighborhood groups and sensitive to the local laws that govern that piece of property. I also sit on a committee at Pace University. That committee at Pace University being one of the largest universities in the US specializing in environmental law. Part of that committee is to look at environmental laws,how can we make them more sensitive and at the same time how can we respond to the needs of today. These are things that people read on our website- I cleared the website up. It's who we are, sensitive. One of the items that wasn't brought up today is we Page 45 of 128 Page 46 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing started 3 years ago and again at that time there were 3 lots, 3 previously approved houses on 3 lots. We combined 2 and we were fine we got past all the environmental issues. The Trustees asked could you do 3, fine we went back,we were able to put 3 together-but in the process of moving the house,moving the house in accordance with whatever the governing bodies required, we also we sensitive that a neighbor or neighbors wanted to keep the property exactly the way the property was before. If you look and it isn't on one of the documents that you have, you'll see that 1 %2 of the lots are remaining in green space. What we agreed on is we would just remove underbrush and saplings so in trying to keep sensitive to a neighbor we said okay a lot and a half will be retained in green space. We weren't able to and at.the same time have this request we weren't able to say gee let's have a private and personal condemnation of the Schlussel property where they paid taxes for 27 years,but we tried to with sensitivity,with acknowledgement of who neighbors are we are trying to balance the entire structure and again if you look there is a property building line which should be on one of those plans. That property building line and part of the permit process says and I don't know if it's lot 7 & 8 or Y2 of lot 7 and all of lot 8 or if it's all of 6 and Y2 of 7,but there's a lot and a half which is retained as green space. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much Mr. MacFarlane. What I'd like to do if the board agrees is hear all the comments and we can come back for questioning. Is that alright? MR. MACFARLANE: Chairperson can I just mention one other thing? In terms of the house if the board needed a sketch of what the house looks like- CHAIRWOMAN: Elevations. MR. MACFARLANE: Absolutely because the house would be a little cottage. I'm sensitive to it it's who I am it's who my company is and we are sensitive. We are not talking some glass structure there. We are talking something sensitive, genteel, small. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ: Excuse me, my name is Abigail Wickham of Mattituck. While others are speaking, may I look at the 2 submissions 1\/tr. Olsen gave you? CHAIRWOMAN: Certainly. BARBARA DIFRANCESCO: Good morning,my name is Barbara DeFrancesco. I'm an adjacent property owner. I live directly across the street of the property that is involved. I delivered this letter to your office yesterday and I would like to read it for the benefit of everyone sitting in this room. I would like to make it known to the ZBA that I am vehemently opposed to the request for variance for the following reasons. One, the request is not "reasonable". It is excessive. A, Mr. Olsen states in his application "the house is a reasonable size". A reasonable size in Fleets Neck community is less than 2500 sq. ft. which is on the high end of the average size of a new home being built in Southold or across America today. The application shows Page 46 of 128 Page 47 January,I6, 2003 . Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing floor plans for a home almost twice that size in bulk. B, Mr. Olsen states in his application "it is only 24'beyond the required distance the LoGrande dwelling is closer than 50"'. The LoGrande home according to the survey in your file indicates a 73' from the property line. That represents a T variance. Mr. Olsen is asking for more than 3 times that amount,'24'which is the amount being requested is,the depth of a ranch home common to the area. This amount not only represents relief of the existing law of almost 50%. It represents a variance of a whole house. This is not reasonable, it's excessive. C,the applicant has already been granted relief for his wetland permit,now before you there is another request asking some more relief. An inquiry has been sent to the Board of Trustees regarding the size of the dwelling because it is not consistent with the size that Was voted on by the Trustees at the public hearing on April 24,2002. The size of that dwelling was clearly stipulated and recorded in the minutes of that meeting. Mr. MacFarlane who is the potential buyer of this property and for whom these plans have been drawn up is the CEO of a company called Homes for America Holdings, Inc. On their webpage the company is described as "a high-growth financial investment company generating immediate profit and reliable continuous cash flow in specialized real estate transactions focusing on the acquisition of undeveloped properties with prime potential using minimum equity investment on that same page Robert MacFarlane describes himself and his partner as "entrepreneurs with over a billion dollars of real estate transactions in their combined resumes". He is well versed on the leeway that can be granted through zoning boards and aware of the procedures involved to gain such approval. He does this for a living across the US. Four years ago when I purchased my home I made a decision based on several different parameters. One of those was the feel of the neighborhood. This application is wholly inconsistent with the feel of the community. It grossly exceeds legal parameters. I have also evaluated the impact these lots would have on my property when and if they were ever developed. I felt comfortable with the zoning laws the town of Southold had in effect and felt that I could trust that the feel of the neighborhood would not be adversely effected if the property were to be developed within the guidelines of the existing law. I am not asking you to deny anyone the right to develop that property or to build a home provided they stay within the legal limits and follow the law,but to grant relief to a landowner in order to maximize his investment is unfair to all the taxpayers in the Town of Southold. There is a moment of time in any design process when a conscience decision is made. The person can do one of 2 things, either operate within the law or out of sheer arrogance take the law into their own hands and work outside of it because they know they can. I am asking the ZBA to take a firm stand and enforce the existing law and not grant relief for this unreasonable request. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? CARL VAIL: My name is Carl Vail, I'm an adjacent property owner to the west. CHAIRWOMAN: So you're in-between the LoGrande property- MR. VAIL: I'm 3230 Stillwater so I'm directly across from the property. I'm on the other side of the street. I only have 4 copies of this letter but I'll give it to you and read it as well. Dear Ms. Tortora and board members we request that you deny the application to build with insufficient Rage 47 of 128 Page 48 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing setbacks for the following reasons, one as an adjacent property owner the value of our property, would be reduced by granting a 26' setback. The plans which the applicant;has submitted are for a large 2-story home which would loom over the street. In a neighborhood,of more modest homes most with setbacks of 50-100'if the applicant applied to build a home more in keeping with the community his setback would not be required. Two,the permit from the Trustees fails to note that it required a house no bigger than 40x5O' or less be built. This stipulation was part of the motion the Trustees voted on. It is a requirement which these plans do not meet. I believe 37x66 doesn't equal 40x5O but anyway- CHAIRWOMAN: Mr.Vale,that's one of the things we are trying to get because there are so many juts in that footprint we do want confirmation on the survey. MR. VAIL: Trustee Foster to quote "I'll make a motion to approve the application with a non- disturbance buffer increased to 40' and the new plan to be submitted showing a slightly smaller dwelling 40x50 or less and non turf on the water side of the house. This motion was carried and the applicant is limited by it. Finally,I'm forced to bring up an unpleasant subject and I want to apologize for bringing this up but it is an issue to me. Linda Kowalski through her businesses Document Permits Consulting and Permits and Grafting has been actively applying for variances on this property for the applicant to the SC Board of Health and also the Southold Town Trustees. Can we expect a fair hearing on this matter from this board when the secretary is working for the applicant. Please see enclosed copies of correspondence which verify this. Respectfully Carl and Liz Vale. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: We will take note of what you said if you feel there is something improper, you need to bring that to the attention of the ethics board. In all fairness Ms. Kowalski is not here present to make a comment in defense of herself so I'm not going to comment on it. MR. VAIL: I've included copies of correspondence from her. You guys have to be the judge of it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think you just have to Mr. Vale of course I know you quite a while, I feel you need to be aware that of course we are aware that she has this business but she's a non-voting member of this board. She does not vote. I understand your situation and I Undel"Stand what you said, but she has no impact on this board in any way. In my opinion I have worked with her for 20 years or there about. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? PETER BELL: My name is Peter Bell I have delivered one of these to each of you along with that is a letter that I've sent you also, I'm not going to repeat the letter. I gave one to each of you. Did you get the letter? CHAIRWOMAN: No, you don't have to repeat the letter. Page 48 of 128 Page 49 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. BELL: I own 7 lots on Stillwater Ave. I have houses already in front of me. I have no objections to the houses in front of me. What I do object to is a house being built on property that is not possible to be sustained because of the nature of the wetland. I'm talking about east creek because east creek is part of an estuary that goes into Peconic Bay_,..My concerns are strictly almost always environmental. I don't oppose a house being built-there but it should be built within the confine and character of the neighborhood. This morning I went down Stillwater Ave. there are 10 houses each one has a 50'variance that's on my side of the street. CHAIRWOMAN: Each one has a what? MR. BELL: A 50' setback from the house. On the side of the street that this gentleman wants to build a house there are 15 houses with at least 100' or more setback and there are 5 with 50' setback. This proposed house is going to sit out like a sore thumb. It's higher than most.of the houses in the neighborhood and you know you live in the neighborhood you expect the neighborhood to stay reasonably close to the values and standards of the neighborhood that's there and I don't think we are out of order or so far out so far radical when you can see wetlands building moratorium approved. So what we are saying is that this particular East Creek is already polluted with some kind of a toxic metal because you can't even take shellfish out of that. What it needs is nourishment. It doesn't need more development. So we're saying that we want you to particularly take into to consideration the character of the neighborhood, the sensitive part of the area that the gentleman wants to build in and if you would take a look you know go down Stillwater Avenue and look you would see what we are talking about. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes sir. TIM WACKER: My name is Tim Wacker. I'm at 595 Track Ave. I'd like to beg your pardon for the way I'm dressed I'm in the middle of my workday. There were a couple of comments made first by Mr. Olsen then by Mr. MacFarlane that I'd like to address. Mr. Olsen said that denying the variance would render the property un-developable. I think that's probably wrong. I think 1 or 2 of the board members and certainly the entire Board of Trustees have viewed this parcel and you can see the lot is clearly developable without this particular variance, you just build a smaller house. To put things in perspective I might be wrong, but not by much. This bench is about 26' long and that's the distance from the house to the road and then you have to put asphalt and car accommodations in there. Several times the point was made about no environmental impact. There will be environmental impact just by nature. There's going to be landscaping surrounding the house this size and landscaping by it's nature hardens shore line. Woods are much more permeable than lawn etc. The PEP has recommended that the town take steps to avoid hardening the shore lines and they refer to bulkheading specifically but this is clearly a hardening the shoreline I digress. There was another point that Mr. MacFarlane made that they are going to be doing this tastefully and I suspect that Mr. MacFarlane would not be here and would not be making the money he's making if he's not doing a good job on the houses but I live in a cottage. My footprint is under 800 sq. ft. that's 2/3"d,s of what he's proposing here. A house with 1400' footprint on this parcel is not a cottage by definition. It's a good sized house. It is not going to be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood just a trip there will determine that. And lastly, I see that Mr. LoGrande is here,he's a neighbor of mine, I've known Page 49 of 128 Page 50 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing him awhile I have a concern that if this variance is granted will Mr. LoGrande then have an opportunity to seek similar relief from this board and thus increasing the problem,not complicating it, it just makes it worse. Would you be setting a bad president for this immediate area and one other point of.view if you would please Mr. MacFarlane had said that there's a lot and a half that will be-only underbrush and sapling clearance. When the houseis built and it's sold what is to stop a continuation of more clearance you know you push your lawnmower 6" further every time you mow your lawn and before you know it you've got a lot and not a lot and a%a there's no way to prevent that from happening. It happens, it's happening all around the town you speak with the Trustees that's one of the problems. People get in,the house is built,the permits are approved and then the real landscaping starts and landscaping as attractive as it is does have an adverse environmental impact when you are talking about pesticides, fertilizers in such close proximity to the creek so I think that this application needs -there are several concerns in this application to be addressed. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? We do need to wrap this up. ROBERT METALIA: I'll be very brief. My name is Robert Metalia. I live a 2900 Stillwater Ave. That's across the street and a little bit north of the property in question. I'd just like to add my 2 cents so to speak. Adopt the same arguments that have already been brought forward. 20 years ago when Mr. LoGrande obtained a variance you are talking about a 15'difference than the required amount. Now the variance requested is 25'roughly or twice the amount of what the code requires. I agree with the others that it would be harmful to the rest of the neighborhood. Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I still have not asked Mr. MacFarlane a question. RAY HUNTINGTON: My name is Ray Huntington, I'm a resident of Fleet's Neck and VP of the Fleet's Neck property association. You have a letter I believe that we forwarded earlier and we have made 4 points. Those points I'll briefly go through rather than read the letter but the first point we made was that approval of this application would enhance the value of the property for the applicant but it would degrade the value of property of the surrounding neighbors. Secondly we said that the application appears to be for a house that's much larger than that which we will discuss with the Trustees. You've already pursued that so I won't detail that. In addition to that we have talked about that 3"d point was the 50' requirement and the 25' variance being asked for. In the area we surveyed the 10 surrounding homes. We found that the average setback was 99'. We believe that the ZBA's role as a review board but to approve this much of a difference would be the creation of new code virtually. It's an invention of new numbers. It is not an interpretation of the code. 4th point is that this is a very special site. It's one of 57 parcels in the PEP that meets all 4 of the criteria that they enumerated. It's on the PEP critical lands list. The list identifies 125 acres out of a total of 66K in the Town of Southold listed because of it's importance. The house is shoehorned into this lot. That's an expression that I use just to try to convey the notion that we are really putting more into this spot than it can handle and it's done within a couple 100'. It's really an excellent job of engineering I have to admit but you understand the vigarities of flagging wetlands and so on and encroachments that can occur later. Page 50 of 128 Page 51 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing This is really very, very tight. The approval on the variance here would set up a new weak link for all the other parcels on the PEP critical lands list. Some of those parcels, several are on Fleet's Neck. I want to add to the letter this that Mr. MacFarlane is a contract vendee on this application. This is not a hardship case. This is a business and he does itawell. It is a calculated attempt to raise the parcels market value by finessing his way past the tow Ys standards all our standards. We want you to know that we support you and what you are doing. It's very important we want to stop the erosion of the Town Code. The pressure of review boards has become a cottage industry lately. It's becoming routine to see article 78's when an application is rejected. We want you to deal with the situation. We want you to know that we intend to see it stopped and we want you to know that you have our support and whatever it takes to do that. I'd like to ask for now that you ask to listen to Gail Wickham who we've retained as our attorney in this matter. ABIGAIL WICKHAM,ESQ: Thank you I will be brief. My name is Gail Wickham of Mattituck representing the Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association which I understand represents 180 families in the area. I will try not to repeat some of the questions but highlight some of the concerns that I have on this application. 26' as you said is very substantial a house of that size would loom over the neighborhood. This is an established neighborhood on a well traveled road and it would be a detriment to nearby lots, create an undesirable change and adversely effect the neighborhood as restricted by standards No. 1 &4 of your area variance criteria. The nearby lots do contain houses that are far back.. Mr.Vale's house is 66'back. Mr. Bell's house is 50'back. Mr. LoGrande's I had understood was 43',there is some discrepancy there. The code if you may remember originally provided for a 35'setback in a residential zone. The town thought that wasn't enough and increased it quite a number of years ago to 50. But even the houses built many years ago in this neighborhood are as I mentioned generally further back and there was a reason that this particular property was not developed until now it's just too small. The applicant is really trying to establish 2 benefits by this variance. The first is the ability to build a house in the first place and the 2nd is to build a big house if the lot is buildable. Let me start again. Without a variance I don't believe the property is buildable because if you have 50' from the road and 50' from the wetlands, there's not enough room. If the lot is buildable with a small variance from your board then it has value, considerable value because it is waterfront. So you are by your variance creating value on this lot as Mr. Huntington mentioned. To allow a big house as the applicant wants will create tremendous value which isn't there. So he's only looking for this Niariance to create a huge value that doesn't already exist because a big house equates to big money. Further you are looking at a 66' length which when you have a shore front yard setback further amplifies the impact. The front yard variance should be reduced considerably the length should be considerably reduced if in fact you feel this should be allowed to be a buildable lot. Now the fact that the Trustees put a permit on this property was governed by their evaluation of it's proximity to the wetlands and it's footprint and they pushed it back towards the road leaving you in this position. So there's an inherent conflict between your 2 boards and what they are allowed to do on their property and their approval should not in any way be construed as a comment that this is an appropriate place for the house. You have to look at whether an adequate front yard setback on this property would result in a no from the Trustees and therefore it's not a buildable lot. The fact that there are 3 lots being merged really should not give the applicant the bonus points he's looking for if you look in the tax map that Mr. Olsen Page 51 of 128 Page 52 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing, submitted there are number of properties that have combined 3 filed map lots. So it's not unusual in the neighborhood specifically on section 136 tax lots 11, 14, & 15 all have 31ots. Tax lot I'm sorry sectionl37 tax lot 16.1 has 4 lots and lot 15 has 4 lots. So that's not unusual and those other 2 lots on the file map given the closer proximity of the wetlands to the road probably would render them un-buildable in any event. I would love it on some of my other applications if you granted variances because other people had done things or because it would create an un- buildable situation but then we wouldn't have zoning so I hope you will seriously consider this application. I have here and if I could have permission to submit them after the hearing 7 copies I have copies of Mr. Vale's survey and Mr. Bell's survey. He didn't mention but he lives diagonally across from the street. If I could give you 7 copies showing their setback. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Before the board members have any questions Mr. Olsen I am looking at this survey, I'm looking at the 50'wetland boundary setback boundary and the 50'nondisturbance zone and I'm trying to see if where your building envelope is. Your building envelope meaning. the envelope which you are permitted by Town Code by the restrictions,by your approvals, and I'm having a rough time seeing it, I'm seeing a- MR. OLSEN: I don't think it's on there. As far as if the house had to be setback 50' from the road what that would do is that what you are talking about? CHAIRWOMAN: Customarily known as the building envelope which means what you would be permitted if you adhered to the code the 50' setback in the front and if you adhered to the 50' setback to the wetlands and the 40'non-disturbance zone. Visually what I'm looking at is- MR. OLSEN: We could get the engineer to do that,but it's not on the survey that was submitted. The building envelope for this particular house was developed in concert with the request of the Trustees. That's how it got where it is. But if you want to see a building envelope meaning the current setback requirements front yard rear yard side yards I'm sure we could have- CHAIRWOMAN: Along with the Trustee approval and their restrictions. What I'm getting is I can visually see that the building envelope is very limited. It looks like you are at the limit with this size house as going any further toward the wetlands at all. MR. OLSEN: Not to interrupt you but we can't go closer to the wetlands cause this is what the Trustees approved. CHAIRWOMAN: There's a 2-car garage on the bottom I suppose you could cut that down to a 1-car garage that would pick up 5' and bring you up to 3124 you've heard the neighbors concerns. We are all familiar with this. It's an 1860' footprint on the house. It's not a small house. MR. OLSEN: The footprint for the house is 1460 and then there's the footprint for the garage which is another 200 sq. ft. Page 52 of 128 ig',r 7 Page January 16, 2003 -- Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: It's an attached garage so the overall footprint is 1860. Mr. MacFarlane is acknowledging that. I really want that clear in the record. MR. OLSEN: We already said it's going to be a total of 1860 including the'garage. The downstairs living space-uf the house is 1460. 11 CHAIRWOMAN: What we are going to do is adjourn this hearing to February 6a'at 6:40. The board members have questions at this point and we'll get the board members questions and then we are going to adjourn it- MR. OLSEN: Can I just make a brief comment and reply to what the people have said in opposition or basically it boils down to I represent the Schlussel family I do not represent Mr. MacFarlane. I don't care what they call Mr. MacFarlane if he's developer or what. I represent the property owner and they are the ones if this variance is not granted they are the ones that are really going to be hurt. They have owned this property a long time,they have been paying taxes on this property. They are under contract we are working with Mr.MacFarlane but my real duty is to the Schlussel family and that's who I represent. As far as all the comments and letters that have come in and so on they all addressed environmental issues which have been addressed by the DEC and the Trustees and we have approval. The other thing is they are talking about the average setback. This is an old developed community where the houses were built before zoning and as I said before most of the houses where they are now the.town would cry out in horror as to where they put the houses. The reason they are setback more than 50'from the road is because most of the parcels are long narrow pieces and guess where the houses are right plunked down on the creek because everybody/nobody in their right mind would but a waterfront parcel and put their house up 50' from Stillwater Ave.they want to be down where the view is. That's why we have the situation with the other parcels. Somebody suggested I think it was Mr. Wacker that he lives in a house that's 800'well that's wonderful but guess what today you couldn't live in an 800'house the town code wouldn't allow it. The town code still is 850 sq. ft. for a minimum size of a residence. But nobody today would especially with the price of property would want to build a house that small. Mr. Vale is referring that he is an adjacent land owner. He really isn't an adjacent land owner he lives across the street. And quite frankly part of the reason the house we've combined 3 lots and the house is where it's proposed to be built is because of Mr. Vale. I know he did not want his view blocked he didn't want to buy the property because he's expensive, but he didn't want his view blocked so he's been before the Trustees every step of the way. The house where it is now really helps him rather than hurts him because it's been pushed closer to Mr. LoGrande's property. Also on Stillwater there's no uniform sense to the community. This is an old pre-existing zoning community some houses are close some houses are further back;but it's not like it's a community where all the houses are complying with today's zoning. The reason we have a ZBA is to give people like the Schlussel family relief from the current code on theses pre-existing properties because we can't meet the current code. That's why we are here because it is a balancing act as I said in the beginning of my presentation. MEMBER ORLANDO: I think you've expanded past your brief period. Page 53 of 128 Page 54 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. OLSEN: I think I did too but I've got to get it on the record. And I'm going to forget that's the problem. Also Gail Wickham mentioned that the old code was 35' setback now of course it's 50 when this property was developed it was 35' and then the town code went up. So if it was 35' we're not even looking for a 9'variance. Anyway that's it. CHAIRWOMAN: We were supposed to break at 11:30, it's now 12:50 we have another set of hearings coming in at 1:00 and the board members need a break. It will be adjourned until 6:40 February 6th you are going to present us with an elevation plan and exactly where the fill is and any other things the board will require at that time. MR. OLSEN: Do you want also the plot,the building envelope? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. Board members any questions,Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: Not at this time. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have a question for Mr. MacFarlane. Mr. MacFarlane can I ask you a question regarding the plan? The chairperson reflected on this but you basically standing in front of the proposed house you have the 2 major jogs that protrude towards Stillwater Avenue one of which is a garage one of which is a bedroom if I'm not mistaken when I reviewed the plan you don't have to go back to that issue-the house could be flattened a little, could it not? MR. MACFARLANE: I left Tom Wolpert's office this morning and this reminds me of the old joke where the man when in for the suit and the tailor said hold your hand this way sit like this go like that bend over and he did all that and now they said the suit fits perfectly. We got all kinds of jogs because we got pushed here tugged there. Could these lines get straightened out? Sure absolutely I'm not trying to build the largest house in the neighborhood. I want to build it in the middle. CHAIRWOMAN: I think what Mr. Goehringer is saying is what you'll hear right across the board is can you cut it back? MR. MACFARLANE: We are going to do that and I thank you very much. I look forward to seeing everyone again on February 6th and we are going to take a hard look at that squash this thing down and we'll see what we can do with it. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: Are you building this house for yourself? MR. MACFARLANE: The answer is yes sir absolutely I have 13 grandchildren hopefully if I ever get approval to build this house 1 year 2 years 5 years later I'll make friends with my Page 54 of 128 ..Page 55 . January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing neighbors if I don't I have plenty of children, grandchildren to visit me. The answer is the house is being built for myself solely my wife was born in Italy- solomente. '�.. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: Again I have the same reservations as other people. I admire you're keeping some of lot open and I am very sensitive to the wetland and you are constricted but I also would like to see the house shortened because it will make a big effect. MR. MACFARLANE: I will take into consideration the height so that the height is within bounds and then back some. CHAIRWOMAN: We are going to adjourn this to February 6`h at 6:40 pm at which time Mr. Olsen is going to show us elevation plans the building envelope and possible suggestions to cut that front yard those little dog tails out of there so we can see how far back we can get I recognize you have a limited building envelope I also recognize the community has legitimate concerns that need to be addressed and once again the variances requested here can be quite substantial. I make a motion adjourning this to February 61h at 6:40 pm. 1:34 nm Anal. 5262 -JAMES FALLON. This is a request for a variance under section 30.A.4, based on the Building Department's September 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool proposed partly in a side yard rather than entirely in the rear yard. Location of property 3050 Fairway Drive, Cutchogue 109-5-14 & 16 (as 1 combined lot). CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? JIM FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald here for the Mr. Fallon. It's another case of a house being located in sited in a strange way on the lot. It's my understanding that this is the first house built in the subdivision it was built I think by the developer and I guess he thought he wanted to look out on the golf course. Anyhow we would like to build a swimming pool as is shown in the project plan which also gives the dimension of the pool from the various property lines also includes a fence which 1 believe is not a matter of concern. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask him a question Lydia? CHAIRWOMAN: Just a moment,because we just pulled all these files in. I'm sorry, continue. MR. FITZGERALD: I was done speaking, want me to say it again? CHAIRWOMAN: No it's apparently straight forward application for you have conforming 41K sq. ft. lot 18x36 pool and it would be 20' at the closest to the south property line. Let's see if the board members have any questions. Ms. Oliva. Page 55 of 128 Page 56 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER OLIVA: No. I was there. MEMBER ORLANDO: The justification for not putting in the back yard is why? They want to look at the golf course you say? MR. FITZGERALD: No I was commenting on the way the house was cited on the property which the front of the house is the architectural front of the house is facing one of the rear corners of the lot. MEMBER ORLANDO: Right,but they couldn't put the pool directly behind the house? MR. FITZGERALD: Well it would still be on the side yard. MEMBER ORLANDO: Because there's not much of a backyard setback on that one corner. I guess the northeast corner after you put-it's 20'to the pool? And I guess this surrounding patio blocks- MR. FITZGERALD: MEMBER ORLANDO: The fence is close to the back. MR. FITZGERALD: But that's okay. CHAIRWOMAN: They are required by law. MEMBER ORLANDO: I was just wondering if they could if you looked at possibly putting it there. I was just wondering if they thought of any avenues besides putting it in that corner. You are saying they have thought about it. It doesn't change the variance it just changes the setbacks to adjacent lots that's all. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question I have of Mr. Fitzgerald is what kind of decking are they proposing around it which would then further limit the side yards. MR. FITGERALD: 1 think what they are proposing NVrould be something that would not hirther involve- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it would be like a brick patio or something like that,brick or stone or something of that nature? So if the board is so inclined to grant this application and if we granted 20' there isn't any reason we would have to worry about that then? MR. FITZGERALD: That's right. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On the fact that the decking is not going to be raised around the pool. And there is no intentions of the applicants placing that in this location and there is no intention of the applicant enclosing this in any way right? Page 56 of 128 V _ j,'n f • Page 57.;..,,;.;. January 16;2603 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. FITZGERALD: No I am sure he would agree to that requirement. MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone 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 1:40 pm Awl. 5260-SPIROS &IRENE PAPADOPOULOS. This is a request for a variance under section 30.A.4,based on the Building Department's October 21,2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning a gazebo proposed in,an area other than the rear yard. Location of property 565 Inlet Lane, Greenport 43-4-34. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? SPIROS PAPADOPOULOS: I wasn't prepared to make a speech however it all started about a year and a half ago. I have 4 grandchildren and they were asking me to build them a dollhouse. I'm not a carpenter and I'm not able to build a dollhouse. The next best thing I found was I saw a gazebo which I'm still puzzled why a gazebo is illegal or violates any zoning. CHAIRWOMAN: It doesn't if it's in the proper location in the yard. The proper/legal location in the yard is the rear yard. MR. PAPADOPOULOS: We want something for the kids to play in the rear yard besides the point I have the swimming pool and the cesspools there. I only other place I have are 2 front house and I didn't know it was illegal in the first place. CHAIRWOMAN: How did you happen to come here? MR. PAPADOPOULOS: Someone came and told me I was violating the local laws. CHAIRWOMAN: Somebody from the town? MR. PAPADOPOULOS: Yes and he knows the property it's a 2 side front and he says you have to apply for a permit and they are going to deny it and then you have to ask for a variance if you're going to keep the gazebo. The gazebo doesn't have a foundation. It doesn't have anything it's just put on the ground so the kids can enjoy themselves during the summertime if they are here. Again as I said before I just can't see what harm does the gazebo do to anyone. The town or the people around it besides the point that the neighbors do not object but I just can't see a minor thing like that to take your time and my time for a gazebo. Anybody who hears about it laughs at me. Page 57 of 128 Page 58 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: It's actually the first time we have heard this. I will say to you that we have never granted permission for a structure similar to that in a corner lot in that location when you have other areas that you can put it in. The object of the code is to leave the front yard.open. You are a corner lot you are on the corner of Manhasset and Inlet so the obvious question I would have for you is why not put it in the rear yard? MR. PAPADOPOULOS: As I said before the rear yard is a swimming pool and cesspools. CHAIRWOMAN: But it's only a 10'octagon. MR. PAPADOPOULOS: I don't have the 10'. MEMBER ORLANDO: It would probably still be in his front yard. MR.PAPADOPOULOS: Either way it's in the front yard. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: Can you show us on a map how it is not possible to have it in your rear yard? I think I saw a swing set or something back behind the fence. MR.PAPADOPOULOS: No sir, there is the swimming pool which is covered already because the children are young and I'm afraid my grandchildren might drown in it and the rest of the property is about 15'the cesspool is there. Then you get the fence which is the rest of the yard in the front. MEMBER HORNING: Is that the fence which fences off the pool? MR. PAPADOPOULOS: Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll pass on this one. MEMBER OLIVA: I can't see from the survey main; NN,hich street does your house face? MR. PAPADOPOULOS: Both. The main entrance is on Inlet Lane and the gazebo is more than 25' from Inlet Lane or Manhasset Avenue. MEMBER OLIVA: I'd have to look at it again. I don't see how you can't move it in the back here. MR. PAPADOPOULOS: Fine. CHAIRWOMAN: Ruth are you requesting we adjourn this? Page 58 of 128 Page 59 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? CHRISTINA SERIANAS: I think it enhances the place. We and all of the neighbors have no objection to this. We think it's very pretty. MEMBER OLIVA: It's just a matter of code. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion adjourning this hearing until 6:50 February 6th 1:47 um Appl. 5229 -Estate of MARIE HILLER. This is a request for a variance under section 26 to unmerge 2 merged parcels, one being the northerly(vacant 123-3-2)portion containing 18,447 sq. ft. of land area proposed for a future dwelling, and the other being southerly 31,031 sq. ft. portion(improved 123-3-4.1)based on the Building Department's July 19,2002 Notice of Disapproval determining that this property has merged due to common ownership after July 1, 1983 (May 1, 1983). Location 125 & 165 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck (described land). CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? GARY FLANNER OLSEN, ESQ: Good afternoon my name is Gary Flanner Olsen and I'm the attorney representing the applicant, the estate of Marie T. Hiller. The applicant is seeking a waiver of merger under Section 1000-26 of the Southold Town Code for tax lots 1000-123-3-2 & 4.1. There's currently a 1-family dwelling on lot 4.1. Marie Hiller and Raymond A. Hiller as husband and wife purchased part of tax lot 4.1 on February 171h, 1954 as husband and wife in Liber 3664 pg. 125 from Al & Julia Schwicker being p/o lot # 1 and p/o lot#2 being part of Maratooka Farm bungalow sites filed in the SC Clerk's office on May 7"i, 1914 on file# 19. On November 9"', 1962 Raymond & Marie Hiller purchased a parcel fi-oni William & .liunc Barker in Liber 5267 pg. 85 which became p/o lot 4.1. Marie Hiller purchased tax lot#2 on June 30, 1970 in her own name obviously in an effort to keep it in single and separate ownership in Liber 6770 pg. 397. Raymond A. Hiller predeceased his wife Marie therefore resulting in a merger of tax lots 4.1 and lot 2 by death. Following the criteria set forth in the town code for a waiver of merger we respectfully request that the board grant the waiver for the following reasons. One the waiver will not result in a significant increase in the density of the neighborhood. This is a residential community with homes on the majority if not all the surrounding tax lots. I have submitted a list of all the surrounding tax lots which list the sizes and whether or not each lot is built upon. I'll hand that into you now it appears from what I've done that the only vacant lot in this area is tax lot#2 which is the subject of this application. Accordingly, the granting of the waiver will not create any significant increase in density. It's only the one lot. The waiver Page 59 of 128 Page 60 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing would recognize a lot that is consistent with the size of lots in the neighborhood it is evident by looking at the tax map of the surrounding properties as well as the list that I've submitted that this lot is consistent with the size of many of the surrounding properties. Three the waiver will avoid economic hardship. This lot is significantly more valuable to the owner as a separate lot as opposed to 2 lots being merged-,into one. We have an appraisal from Peter W. Kren which was done for the state tax purposes and I intended upon submitting it to you. I know we made copies and I have a feeling the copies are back by the copy machine in my office but I will get it to you. In any event the appraisal shows that the properties being sold together as merged lots have a current value of$785K however the value for the lots being sold separately are$660K for the house parcel and $445K for the vacant parcel therefore the economic loss of the applicant loss to the applicant should the waiver not be granted is$320K. CHAIRWOMAN: The appraisal says the approved value the value of the approved lot is $600K. MR. OLSEN: 660. CHAIRWOMAN: And the value of the improved lot- MR. OLSEN: The unimproved lot is 445. CHAIRWOMAN: And what is the size of the unimproved lot? MR. OLSEN: 18,447.59 sq. ft. according to the survey of Stanley Issacson licensed land surveyor or 0.423 acres. By the way, on that sheet that I passed out to you a couple of minutes ago it does have what all the other size. What the lots on the street are as far as size. Another thing the board should consider is whether or not the natural details and character and contours of the slopes will significantly be changed or altered in any manner and it will not be. There will not be a substantial filling of land effecting nearby environmental or flood areas. Accordingly I feel as though we have meet all the criteria mentioned in Section 100-26 of the Southold Town Code and respectfully request that the board grant the waiver of merger as the board has consistently done on similar applications. I have also submitted to the board a letter from Denise A. Whelan who is the owner of tax lot 123-2-2 indicating that she has no objection to this waiver of merger application. I have also submitted to the board a letter from Edna R. Tonneson owner of tax parcel 123-2-1 also Indicating that she has no objection to the application. Both the Whelan and Tonneson parcels are directly across the street on Bungalow Lane from the subject property and I have requested that Rob Herman of EnConsultants also speak on behalf of this application. He is here to address the environmental issues concerning this application. ROB HERRMANN: Good afternoon, my name is Rob Herman with the firm EnConsultants located 1329 N. Sea Road Southampton. What Mr. Olsen asked me to do from a perspective of environmental consultant was to examine a survey prepared by Stan Issacson that would depict the subject parcel or the parcel for which the parcel is being requested to see what that parcel would look like on it's own and see whether there would be some other non-conformities created for other agencies because even if this parcel is allowed to be unmerged if you will by this board ultimately the applicant would be stuck with the responsibility of obtaining a building permit Page 60 of 128 Page 61 January'16, 200S, Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing prior to which it would be necessary to obtain permits from the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation,the Town of Southold Board of Trustees and the SC Dept of Health Services. So with my coordination Mr. Issacson prepared a plan showing a proposed residence with an attached garage a driveway providing access from Bungalow Land and a proposed sanitary system.-This is not necessarily meant to indicate what the Hillers would in fact construct on this property if the variance were granted,but only to show an example of what could be constructed on the property and whether it would conform. I will hand 6 copies of that map up to you so you can follow as I speak to those matters. Notwithstanding the issues of wetland or Health Department issues that would have to obtained as of course always important to look at whether a dwelling could be constructed on the property that would conform with the towns building and zoning regulations. If this were granted a waiver of merger it would exist as a single lot under zoning as shown on the survey as a.423 acre lot or 18,447 sq. ft. so you would look to the portion of the zoning code that provides the setbacks for an undersized parcel or pre-existing undersized parcel and that would require a front yard setback of 35'minimum side yard of 10' a total side yard of 25' all of which this proposed dwelling would conform to. The rear yard setback of 35'is essentially a mute requirement as a much greater setback is required in the rear due to the presence of wetlands. The wetlands as the board knows is regulated not only by the town Trustees but by the NYS DEC. Because of the elevations present here specifically elevations above 10' above mean sea level it is my belief that the NYS DEC would grant a tidal wetlands letter of nonjurisdiction to all of this construction because you have greater than 10% slopes from the elevation 12 seaward it is my guess based on experience that the DEC would terminate their jurisdiction not at the 10'elevation but at the 12'elevation. Regardless all of the construction that's depicted here would be out of their jurisdiction and if a permit were required it would only be for any associated clearing that would occur below the 12' contour and I don't believe that any such clearing would be necessary. We do know that the town trustees are in the process of enacting a moratorium on wetland applications so it would be a matter of 12 months. According to what I understand before an application could be heard for this but based on my experience with the trustees and what their with chapter 97 of the town code and what their policies they do require as a standard a that sanitary systems or at least the leaching portion of the sanitary system which is the cesspool be located a minimum of 100' from their wetlands and that structures meet at least the state's requirement of a 75' setback from the wetland boundary. This proposal would achieve both of those setbacks in effect placing the septic system actually beyond the trustees jurisdiction under chapter 97 of the town code. It is probably possible that we also 1nCILldC the septic tank outside that I00' range this is Just soniething drawn Lip by TvIr. Issacson he is not a professional engineer in the habit of designing sanitary systems so I'm sure that if a PE looked at this the entire system could be designed beyond the 100' setback. The only other permit that would be required before obtaining a building permit would of course be a health department permit so we have to look at what the feasibility is of placing both the well and sanitary system on this lot. The placement of the drinking water well is shown up on the southwest corner of the property adjacent to Bungalow Lane. As I expect on this property the 150' separation requirement would be in place from adjoining cesspools. This proposed well would be an insufficient distance from both the proposed cesspool and from the cesspool to the north. However I don't anticipate there would be any problem obtaining variance approval from the Health Dept. because the well is so significantly up-gradient of those pools. Rendering of those pools ability to contaminate the proposed well impossible. In other words would Page 61 of 128 Page 62 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing have to flow upstream against gravity in order to effect the applicants proposed well which only leaves the proposed cesspool which would be an insufficient distance from the well to the south. Normally when there's a proposal for a non-conforming separation between a septic system and a t neighboring well that's existing before a variance is approved by the board of review the Health -P'Dept requires that the applicant contact the adjacent land owner and ask them to relocate or deepen that well in order to mitigate the nonconformance. In this case the adjoining property is owned by the same family who has of course indicated that relocating their well accordingly would not be a problem. Therefore,just in summary again this proposal is not exactly what the applicant would wish to undertake it does show that if this parcel were unmerged and stood on it's own it could very easily meet all of the requirements that the state DEC of the town trustees though it would not meet the standards of the health department. I do not suspect that getting variances from those standards would be a problem at all as they are routinely granted for situations like this where a well is located up-gradient of cesspools and again the well to the adjacent property to the south owned by Hiller could easily be moved to Bungalow Lane and also positioned upgrading the proposed cesspool. If the board has any questions on any of those comments, I'm happy to answer them. MEMBER ORLANDO: Not a question but a statement I just want you to be aware that Southold Town does not I should say is not in habit of recreating undersized lots. That's why the merger is there. So we would be re-creating an undersized lot and the town's not in the habit of doing that. That's why these things are in place. MR. HERRMANN: Right and I understand that's what Mr. Olsen is here to argue. I think he just asked me to speak to the board so the board would understand that it would not be creating an untenable situation with respect to other agencies. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Olsen I just have a quick question. In looking through the title search these lots were originally part of an old subdivision. However it appears to me and from your own testimony and from.the title search that lot 4.1 was kind of re-created we borrowed a little bit from Sally and we borrowed a little bit from Paul on the other side to end up with what we have as improved lot 1 now and pretty much the same thing is true with the lot 2 am I understanding that correctly? MR. OLSEN: Yes. Part of 4.1 it was a combination of a piece that %N-,is purchased from Schwicker and part was purchased I think another 50' strip was purchased from Barker and it was originally the part from Schwicker was lot 4. I spoke to Jack Sherwood about this the other day and he said that when they got the extra parcel from Barker an extra 50' they renumbered it 4.1. CHAIRWOMAN: So as far as the original subdivision lines from review they haven't really existed for almost 50 years. MR. OLSEN: Like so many others in the town. People just long time ago did things. I should mention that the vacant parcel Mrs. Hiller has when she passed away has 2 children. Suzanne Smith who happens to be here today and a daughter Barbara Weathers and Barbara wants to Page 62 of 128 Page January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing build on the vacant parcel and as far as my handling of the estate,it's important to me to know whether the board will grant this because it really substantially effects what I have to report in my state tax return as far as value and there's tremendous value in the lot and also my experience in these waiver situations particularly when it's by death. Obviously we are trying to protect the single and separate ownership by putting lot 2 in the husbands name and the rest in Mrs Hiller's name and the husbands name. My experience with the board is that these waiver of merger applications are almost routinely granted. That's all I have to say. CHAIRWOMAN: Ruth. MEMBER OLIVA: Not at this time. MEMBER ORLANDO: I made my comment. MR. OLSEN: I think Mrs. Smith would like to say something before we close the hearing. The other thing is if you don't grant it this piece is going to be an oversized parcel compared to all the others. If you look at that sheet that I submitted it shows you what the size of some of the other parcels in the area. Tax lot 2 would be keeping in generally in size and shape of the others on the street. MS. SMITH: Part of the real thrust of our case is the fact that we want to keep part of mom and dad's property in the family. The smaller piece of property would be better for us to be able to build a home for my sister to have. She lives out of state and this would be where we both grew up and we both are very anxious to keep part of it in our family. For our whole family's use to keep the whole piece it wouldn't be desirable. It would be a little too much of a hardship for us to keep it because my husband and I live in Cutchogue we don't feel it necessary that we have to move to Mattituck but this piece of property would be something that we would extend on. The Schrickers were a part of our family as well. That was an aunt and an uncle so in actuality the property has belonged to the family for a long, long time and we would just like to continue that ownership. CHAIRWOMAN: You would like to build on the un-improved lot to keep as a family. MS. SMITH: Exactly. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nothing at this time. MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? ADAM GROSSMAN, ESQ: Good afternoon chairwoman and members of the-board. My name is Adam Grossman and I'm an attorney in Riverhead.and I think I've seen you all not too long ago. I was before this board. I'm here on behalf of adjacent property owners who own property Page 63 of 128 Page 64 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing on the other side of the vacant lot. My clients are Walter and Mary Cain. Mary Cane is here today and their parcel is located northwest off of Maratooka Road directly adjacent to the vacant lot on the other side. My clients actually asked that I appear here today not to state that they are ' opposed. I'm not here to state that;they opposed to any use of this vacant parcel but they are '--'concerned about what the use is going to be for the parcel and they wanted to make certain that whatever this board's determination was that the provisions of the town code and state law whatever it is that would be the criteria which I believe would be the town code provisions are applied by the members of this board in determining whether in fact it is appropriate to grant the waiver application. Just a couple of comments after listening to the attorney for the application and also the environmental expert. The first thing I want to mention is that I as an attorney in Riverhead tend to be careful with any clients that come to me for any work dealing with sharing adjacent properties. I've had clients in this situation where they want to do one in a single name and another in 2 names and I advised them against it whenever possible. I mean nobody wants to end up having to be in a situation like this and certainly my clients don't believe that was anyone's intention. But I will tell you that I try to avoid any clients of mine having to deal with this type of an issue and perhaps if way back that was addressed more fully the applicants wouldn't be in this position. The other thing I just want to mention although I know it isn't part of the criteria that you are looking at but I think it's worth mentioning is the business of the health department approval which is not in your jurisdiction it's out of your hands it may be that the environmental expert is correct that they will be able to get a variance it may be that they are not able to get a variance. I'm not sure but I think the issue of the proximity of the cesspool and the water supply is certainly of concern to the applicants and also to my clients to have a cesspool directly adjacent and a water supply and don't want to have their property adversely impacted by whatever it is that's going to be done with this parcel. Besides that my clients don't want to be negatively impacted particularly by a structure that ends up requiring further variance relief. And I know the attorney for the applicant did not indicate in any way that they intended to do that but my clients would be concerned if it turned out that a few months from now or actually when the moratorium expires this all gets delayed but at some future date when they decide to build presuming this board would grant relief that the applicant would be requesting further variance relief from this board. I think my clients would be very concerned if that were to take place. Other than that we just ask that you follow the revisions in the code, the criteria for the waiver applications to the letter and that also you consider the impact that this application is going to have on my clients who are right across from the vacant lot just as close as the applicants improved parcel is. CHAIRWOMAN: Your clients Cain would be lot 1? MR. GROSSMAN: I'll give you the street address they are at and I should be able to give you the tax map number as well. They are at 1645 Maratooka Road and on the survey it is directly adjacent to the northwest. It is lot 1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Page 64 of 128 Page 65 January 16,'2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. HERRMANN: One point for clarification for the speakers comments his question and this is very important dealing with the health dept. it requires a 150' separation between a proposed septic system and adjoining wells. The only adjoining well which would not be maintained a conforming separation distance is the one on the Hiller property which is again a developed lot w it's within the same family so there would be no variance required for this cesspool with respect to any property that's outside of the Hiller's family and again the Hillers obviously have the ability internally to move their well around accordingly. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion closing this hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 2:15 um Aural.No. 5235- CAROL A.PEARCE. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244B,based on the Building Department's September 16, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed addition and alterations to the existing dwelling,portions of which are less than 40' from the front property line. Location: 470 Dogwood Lane, East Marion; 38-5-2. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there someone here who would like to speak in favor of that application? We have to say goodbye to our Fishers Island member who is going to spend about a half a day traveling to get back to Fisher's Island. JENNIFER GOULD, ESQ: My name is Jennifer Gould. I'm here today representing Carol Pearce. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at her application yet but what she would like to do is put a 2 story addition on to her house and she received a Notice of Disapproval because it encroaches just slightly into the front yard. The setback by code is 40', and if you have a copy of her survey you'll see that the southwest corner of the proposed addition in conformance with the setback but because of the radiance of Dogwood Lane as you go east it takes her a little bit out of conformity so we are asking for about a 4'l0" variance to do this addition. Her lot is just a little bit over 20,000 sq. ft. 608' over which puts her into the 40' setback rather than the 35' setback and you may wonder why the addition is here rather than not further back on the property and it's for a couple of reasons. When she first was designing, she was going to put the addition on the back of her property because as you can see she has a lot of property in the rear. However when she got the plans drawn they realized that their septic system and the cesspools were in the back so that they could not cover those up. Also on this westerly side of the property, she has a bathroom window and a kitchen window that would be covered up if we moved any of this further back, you know another 4'back so we could conform with the code. It would also involve the removal and replacement of propane and fuel tank lines and as I said in the beginning it's a very diminutiveness request, it's less than 12.5%variance over the code. Do you have any questions? CHAIRWOMAN: I did I thought we did have a letter in the file a neighbor was concerned about this, I believe you do. We did have a letter of concern on this and the letter of concern simply was it's going to create from the adjacent west property owner. Page 65 of 128 Page 66 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. GOULD: I don't see where there would be a problem for the westerly neighbor because as .you see the corner of the proposed addition is 40.2'back. Also I know that Ms. Oliva had a chance to go out and look at the property. If you look at the curve of the road all the houses even with this addition,the front of their property will be about even it's not like we're sticking out..in' front of either of the neighbors property and there is no side yard issue here,we're in conformance with the code. CHAIRWOMAN: The letter is from Charles Cromack. MS. GOULD: I don't have a letter but I understand he's the westerly neighbor. CHAIRWOMAN: They're concerned because they are going to lose their view from their existing house and I understand they are concerned about not moving it back 4' from the property line. It's going to be less than 10'. It's going to block their light and I'm sorry you don't have a copy of this letter in here,but they are concerned. MS. GOULD: I'm familiar with the area,but their view, they must be talking about their side yard view which would mean their view from across the Pearce's property and the property on the other side of the Pearce's is totally landscaped and they won't lose their view of the landscaping because you can't see that house it's totally treed in. It's the Dunbar home, so their _ view in front is a vacant lot. CHAIRWOMAN: They're concerned because the addition is a 2-story and it would be a detriment to the property mainly because the curve in the road will make a significant impact on the front of our property. It would be extending your structure from your backyard to within a few feet short of the front yard. I'm very sorry you don't have a copy of the letter. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's photo's with it too. MS. GOULD: Do you want to take a look at it like I said the 40' is 40'. So they are talking about 4' in a very small portion of the overall property we're not talking about 40' all the way across. CHAIRWOMAN: The only other thing I was going to- MS. GOULD: The other thing I wanted to bring to your attention if you look at total lot coverage even with the addition, it's plus or minus 11% I mean they have a 1-story home they are basically making a 1 %2 story home because the addition is only over the new proposed garage it's not like they are making a mcmansion and totally bringing up the whole house. This is one side of the house. If you've been out there, the house is very tiny and they are just hying to make it like more of a regular size house not anything huge. CHAIRWOMAN: I understand. Would the board members like to wait until Mrs. Wickham has a chance? Page 66 of 128 Page„67 January I6,`2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I also would like to suggest that Ms. Gould and Ms. Wickham get together after the discussion and see if this can-there can be some discussion on this that maybe should be taken care of. '- MS. GOULD: Be glad to. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Wickham? ABIGAIL WICKHAM,ESQ: Let me just briefly try to clarify Mr. Cromack's concerns as stated in his letter. My name is Abigail Wickham. I represent Mr. &Mrs. Cromack who own the adjoining property to the west lot 181 on the map of Gardener's Bay Estates section 3. On a 20,000 sq. ft. lot the setbacks are small to begin with under the code and when you reduce them beyond that it does have a significant impact. It creates a more substantial effect than it would on a normal size lot and I think that is primarily our concern that it would affect the neighbors and their property. It has a particularly significant effect. While I agree it is a fairly small variance the curve in the road actually amplifies it because of the way you come around. It protrudes more into the front yard more than you would visually understand from being in the highway itself. You notice on their survey, their property line doesn't begin until beyond that gravel insert and particularly as Mr. Cromack mentioned, it is a 2-story addition and the garage and a new garage and driveway would be located on the Cromack side of the property. It is unclear what the benefit is or the difficulty they are avoiding by asking for this relief because all they would really need to do is just move the house back slightly. They wouldn't need it and I don't think it would do anything more than block one window. I certainly understand why they want to expand their house. It is a tiny house as many are in the neighborhood. But a big 2-story addition with a garage driveway on this side, the neighbors would just appreciate if they could- look at their plans again to see if they can conform it. CHAIRWOMAN: Are you asking for more time on this? MS. WICKHAM: We are asking that they- we are making a statement that they really don't have a need for a variance. This isn't a situation where you should have to grant a variance and it doesn't significantly impact them if you don't. I'd be glad to speak to the school and see if we can discuss it among out clients if you Nvould like to give us a short recess, but other than that, I think that's our position. CHAIRWOMAN: Would the board like to recess this hearing until- MS. WICKHAM: She and I could perhaps write to you and submit our results of our communication. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. GEORGE PETER: My wife and I live in the property southwest of their house which is if you look at the map just where it says Dogwood Lane that is our back and side yard. My wife and I Page 67 of 128 Page 68 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing recently got two variances to put an extension on the back of our house which would be extended into our backyard which would be opposite because there's a kitchen and dining room and the dining room quite large would be facing Dogwood Lane which would be right looking into the Pegrce's yard. I see no obstacle to me sitting in my dining room with the extension they want to.. put-on their house which is out of necessity because most people might think it would be an 3=,:: eyesore,but I feel it's perfectly reasonable because there's enough distance and growth and vegetation on both sides of Dogwood Lane to block out anything. I'm in favor of their plan and approval. I hope you give it to them. CHAIRWOMAN: Would the Board like to grant a 20 minute recess? MS. GOULD: Could I just say one more thing while we are talking about view? I forgot to mention this before,but this whole side yard between the Cromack's and the Pearce's is landscaped with evergreens. I know they were recently granted but eventually they are going to be more than 6-8'high the view is going to be trees between them and they are not going to see the addition anyway so it's not an issue of light or anything else because there's already,it's totally planted along the line between the two houses. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion to recess this hearing for 20 minutes until 2:40, excuse me 2:45. 2:57- 2:58 pm PEARCE (CONTINUED) CHAIRWOMAN: I make a motion to re-convene. We recessed the Pearce hearing until 2:45. It is now 2:57. MEMBER OLIVA: Do we have an agreement? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ: Unfortunately, no I spoke to my client and regarding the shrubbery issue that was mentioned, Mr. Cromack pointed out that the shrubbery on his side is kept trim. If you look at the view looking west photo in your pamphlet that pretty much says it all. The higher shrubbery is actually on his side of the line and he does keep it trimmed and the new shrubbery on the applicant's side are very small and it just wouldn't address a 2-story home unfortunately. The cesspools in the back and the propane tank on the side wouldn't be affected at all he (eels with a slight re-orientation of the property backwards. That is our condition. JEN GOULD, ESQ: As Ms. Wickham stated, there is no compromise. We are talking as I said in the beginning diminutiveness 4'. I know you have these pictures in your packets, but I'll just give them to you again. It shows the shrubbery between the two yards. Ms. Wickham said her client's evergreens are taller than ours, ours are 6' they are going to grow her client's are now about 16'. CHAIRWOMAN: The photos we are looking at are the Cromack property - Page 68 of 128 Page 69 Jlarjuary`16,�2003 . Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. WICKHAM: You are looking at the Cromack property. The jogs are totally blocked out by I would like to add the fact that I do like the fact that you are having daytime meetings. °CHAIRWOMAN: So do we,we are actually awake. Do the board members have any =� questions? I'll make a motion closing this hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 2:27 pm Appl.No.5256- CHARLOTTE DICKERSON. This is a request for Variances under Section 100-239.4 and 100-33C,based on the Building Department's September 3, 2002 Notice of Disapproval,for: (a) a proposed new location of a dwelling,replacing the existing building,with a setback at less than 100'from the top of the bluff of the Long Island Sound, and (b) a proposed accessory building in a side yard area. Location: 4630 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic; 74-1-35.51. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? ALAN DICKERSON: I'm the other half of the Dickerson family. My name is Alan Dickerson, her husband. Unfortunately she's in the hospital with surgery today. She couldn't be here,but we became very interesting in buying this small piece of property as it belonged to my mother's family, the Vail family up on the sound and they had a half a dozen small summer cottages there. We bought this one summer cottage that we could enjoy strictly during the summer. We have installed a bulkhead below,we got the permits from the Trustees and the DEC and we finally got the bulkhead installed so the possibility of further erosion to the embankment should be mitigated. We want to keep the bungalow exactly as it is and move it back to it's new location behind the coastal erosion zone line and that's the reason for the two permits. Once we move it back then the little storage building to the east becomes the need for a variance because it's in the side yard and not the rear yard any longer. That's the only comments I can make about-we want to continue it's seasonal usage not make it a year-round bungalow or anything like that. We are going to keep it un-insulated and strictly use it during the summer and use as much of the dwelling as we can without improving it hardly at all. CHAIRWOMAN: You have an existing setback of T from the top of the bluff and you are proposing a setback of 24. The east part of that main building has been demolished. It's gone, it's history. MR. DICKERSON: It demolished by itself. It was built on wooden posts and the termites got into the east end and we started to try to reinforce the floor and the entire bungalow and the entire bungalow and the east end kind of fell down around us so we had it carted to the dump. But we intend to put it back in the same shape, same square footage and same floor design. CHAIRWOMAN: That's the real question here because quite honestly the board is very reluctant to consider a 24' setback at the top of the bluff. I don't recall approving one in the years Page 69 of 128 Page 70 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing that•I've been on the board since 1995. That L-shaped part that you want to re-construct that comes out 4'of what's left of the existing bungalow. Since both sides of the existing bunalow, what's left of it and the L-shape that you want to reconstruct and still maintain that 4'-if you simply lined them up you would go from 24 to 28' setback. You have an existing setback to the south-property line of 28'. If you moved-it-back another 8'we would now be at 36'which would ix, be a lot more palatable than 28'particularly in view of the fact that you're going to have to reconstruct that L shaped part anyway. MR. DICKERSON: That's true. CHAIRWOMAN: The other question that's obvious is are you sure can move that? MR. DICKERSON: I think we are going to move it pieces after talking to a builder. CHAIRWOMAN: I was saying to myself I don't know how you are going to move that without- MR. DICKERSON: We saved all the wide boards in the main part of the structure and stored them in that little storage building to re-install them when the construction is finished. We want to put it on cement piers this time instead of wood posts so it isn't quite as susceptible to termite damage as it was before. CHAIRWOMAN: I recognize it's a difficult lot. It's a flag lot. It has very long driveway and a very limited building envelope,however if you were to simply line up the reconstructed L-shape part with what's left of what we'll call the main building for lack of other words and then move the whole thing back 8',you would end up with a setback of 36' from the top of the bluff as opposed to 24. MR. DICKERSON: My immediate thought would be to reverse the L shape and have it go south instead of north. CHAIRWOMAN: That's another option. As long as it's on the same line as the existing building which would leave you a setback in the rear of approximately 20' to the property line. NIR. DICKERSON: You'll notice there's a utility pole there that we are tr %in- to worl: around because we called LIPA and made an arrangement to have an engineer come out and look at moving the pole back to the property line to the south,but by the time we got done it was going to cost over$5000 just to move 1 pole. We are trying to work around the size of the lot and everything else. CHAIRWOMAN: You just bought the lot a couple of year ago? MR. DICKERSON: Yes, 2000. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see if the board members have any questions. Mrs. Oliva? Page 70 of 128 Page 71 January 16 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER OLIVA: I get a- for your own safety and health I really have a problem putting anything close to that bluff. I looked at the bluff and I have been part of a study done by the town for erosion control. And even though it is bulkheaded below you have sandy soil and I know you put the beach grass in there,but those sandy bluffs have a tendency to wash out even, from the top and I would prefer to see you-get back as far as possible from that bluff and-36'berms the absolute edge, I'd like to see you back even further. I understand you do have problems with the property line,but I'd like to see you as close to the ROW as possible, frankly. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions,you answered my question in regards to a footing or a foundation you are going to put it on concrete pillars. MR. DICKERSON: Of course that depends on the building department if I can do that,but that's what I'd like to have. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dickerson as you know we belong to the same club in Mattituck, it's called the MFD and I've discussed this with you to a certain degree both prior to and after the inspection. You had told me that your wife and yourself spent in excess of$50K rehabbing the bluff. MR. DICKERSON:-With the insulation of the bulkhead and the required amount of sand brought in from off site was the way the DEC required that we bring the sand in off site and put down in front of the of course plane the beach grass and the plantings there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because of the beach grass replenishment and because of the fact that I'm sure that you're going to continually work on that bluff because you don't want it to change I can understand why you want to place it in the position that you want to place it in, I unfortunately only have one vote. Whatever the board intends to do in reference to a minimum setback from the top of the bluff will be something that we are going to deal with. Unfortunately you have to move the house so whatever that manipulation is in reference to footage and whatever way you have to manipulate the house is the way \-vc are going to end up with my fellow board members. MR. DICKERSON: Once the vote is taken by the board here will they give me the opportunity to come back with another plan locating the house in a different way like the madam chairman mentioned the L shape at the end if I reverse that would I have to come back for another variance hearing or how would that? CHAIRWOMAN: In other words, if something like that were agreeable to you, you do not have to come back. If you can get it back so that it would be 36' from the top of the bluff, that's the variance that would be granted. No you would not have to comeback. Let's see what happens. Page 71 of 128 Page 72 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Mr. Angel? STEVEN ANGEL, ESQ: My name is Steven Angel, Essex,Hefter, and Angel in Riverhead. I represent the owner of the property I guess--in connection with this lot to the south where the ¢� setback would be. The setback relief, it's Florence Wicks and she owns that large parcel of farmland that abuts the applicant's property. She couldn't be here, she's a bit infirmed, she's in her 90's. Her great-grandson is here with his mother sitting right behind me. I got involved in this only a couple of days ago because Florence Wicks is represented by a lawyer in Nassau County whose son I know and he's also fairly elderly and he's also having surgery so I got involved on Tuesday and here I am. I looked at the application that was sent out in the mail by Mrs. Dickerson and to some extent it was a little misleading to me. It shows the relocation of the cottage as a fairly large structure and I went up there yesterday and it did not look like the survey that came in the mail. Half of it was missing. I came over here and I found out that the file reflected that half of it was missing. I also looked at the existing cottage and I have 3 photographs that Mrs.Wick's great grandson John took and I'd like to submit them. I think what we have here is really an application to sort of move a building envelope. I'm not too sure that this structure has much functional utility as a cottage the way it is today. At the risk of being fresh, as you know, I know a lot about abandonment of structures and this one looks closer than the last one I was on. I don't think Ms. Wicks or her family are opposed to the use of the property,but I think what we have here is -I think what you are dealing with is an application to construct a house on a nonconforming substandard lot. Now I recognize that the applicant has put a substantial amount of money or it's predecessor has put a substantial amount of money in there. I looked at that bluff and that wasn't constructed for free,but what we have here is a situation I think where we have not just really relocating a building which is in existence. What we have really is a full blown variance application where we can see what the impact is in the neighborhood and perhaps your concern is the bluff and that's an important environmental coastal concern. Our concern is the proximity to our property, I think we are talking about relocating at least in the applicant's eyes a portion of a structure that doesn't exist- I don't know how you do that,but what I think would be appropriate at this point is rather than an action is that perhaps you could get a revised plan showing actual setbacks what is proposed to be constructed in light of your comments and in light of my comments and then perhaps we can go fi-om there. That would be my suggestion. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Angel I actually agree with you what we are looking at is an application for a building envelope. That can be established- I mean I understand his predicament-my first question to you would be would your client have an objection to a foot on that south property line because your client is directly south of that ROW, correct? MR. ANGEL: I can't say she wouldn't have an objection, let's put it that way. I met with Mrs. Wicks yesterday and actually it was sort of an unusual meeting because I looked at the application that 1 got from her lawyer which just showed the survey and I was trying to convince her really that moving an existing house from the coastal zone line, that sounds like a good application to me and she was arguing with me, and I went up there and looked at it and I Page 72 of 128 Page'73 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing realized that I had to come here today because it wasn't as simple as the paper indicated. I don't know the answer to that question, I would have to speak to her. CHAIRWOMAN: How far is her house from the ROW? =z. MR. ANGEL: %'s of a mile. Her house is right down on the road. That property is a 70 acre parcel that is being studied for development and other purposes by I believe the Peconic Land Trust right now,isn't that correct John? CHAIRWOMAN: I appreciate your concerns,I couldn't agree with you more. What we are doing here is establishing a building envelope because as I mentioned to Mr. Dickerson if the house falls down,you're going to reconstruct it. I'm sure you didn't spend$200K to keep a little bungalow that could fall down. What you're looking for is a footprint. I think that's clear, I think we are all clear on that. If you would like to re-submit a plan outlining your proposed house showing that 20'rear yard setback and a 36'setback to the top of the bluff,is that something you would consider? MR. ANGEL: It's something we would consider, I just can't commit, it's not something, I met Mrs. Wicks yesterday for the first time, she's represented by a gentleman named McBride who I'm doing a favor for who in fact had surgery this week. He's from Nassau County. I just can't commit her to anything. I think one of the things Mr. Dickerson should consider is when they deal with your particular concerns,they should consider the impact on the property that's close to them perhaps by landscaping or location of the house. I don't know, I don't want to, I don't know how to even judge that. CHAIRWOMAN: Landscaping for how many feet away? MR. ANGEL: I have no idea. I don't want to make a suggestion that would bind her at this point, I'm just raising issues that I was able to identify yesterday. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Dickerson. MR. DICKERSON: I have one comment before I pursue the variance permit, more than a year ago, I wrote a letter to Mrs. Nicks offering to buy 8110's of an acre from our southwesterly portion of the lot all the way down to the south boundary of our west bound property line and I offered to pay her a fair price, whatever the appraisers would put it at,put for all the legal expenses and do whatever so it wouldn't cost her anything, and I never had the courtesy of a response to that letter because I felt then I would have enough property to move the house further back, but the present situation, I can't do that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? Mr. Dickerson I just had a thought of looking at this. If you actually took that shed and moved that back farther and put that building a little kiddy corner in that troth area going back down further to the east and south,you could achieve the same situation without affecting Mr. Wicks family and working out a situation here. But again predicated on the fact that this is just a seasonal dwelling and you know some years Page 73 of 128 Page 74 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing later you may want to change or the Wicks family might want to sell you something at that point. But I think you could work that out simply because you are moving places anyway. That's just my opinion. I think we should give you some time to work some conformities out back with an AB plan MR. DICKERSON: I would like to work out something. CHAIRWOMAN: If you'd like to -that's fine. Why don't we do this,what we are looking at is a minimum 36'from the top of the bluff, try to hold a 20 on that south property line. Why don't we adjourn the hearing until February 6th that will give you some time to come up with a couple of alternative plans because once we approve something,we don't want to see you here 3 years from now. If you want to convert it to a full-time house, that's fine. MR. DICKERSON: We don't have any interest in doing that,but we'd like to. CHAIRWOMAN: If you do,we don't want to do double work for you. Does that sound reasonable? Let's just give you a time on February 6a'it would be 6:50. MR. DICKERSON: And you'll send some type of notification to me? CHAIRWOMAN: No,you're getting it now. 6:50 and you'll come back with some alternate plans. Make a motion to adjourn the hearing until Feb. 6h at 6:50 pm. (recess) MEETING ADJOURNED 2:58 pm Appl No. 5236- PETER& SONIA PANAGOPOLUS. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-239.4A.1, based on the Building Department's September 30, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed dwelling at less than 100' from the top of the bluff of the LI Sound at its closest point. Location of Property: The Strand Way, Pebble Beach Farms Lot 122, East Marion; Parcel 30-2-70. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? PETER PANAGOPOLUS: I'm Peter Panagopolus, I'm the applicant for lot 122 on the map of Pebble Beach Farms in East Marion tax map #30-2-70. We are building a home and just after the surveyor put the stakes down we realized that we were going to be at the beginning of our home west right adjusting to our lot. In other words we are going to be way towards the road completely all alone away from a line of homes to our west and also on our lease which will explain - our concern is that if we did build to the angle in other words the home on our east if we are going to build right back here which we have 110' or better from the bluff. Since the lots are so narrow and the home on our west has windows and decks I cannot control. People sitting on their deck can view us because we are going to have a glass door and windows, they can view Page 74 of 128 Page.75 . January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing us so-easily and there are times sometimes you get up at night,we have small children and even ourselves,we are going to have to have constantly closed curtains or might as well build a wall. CHAIRWOMAN: It's a narrow lot,Mr. Panagopolus, you are proposing a setback of 75'from the top-'of the bluff- MR. PANAGOPOLUS: Or we could go 85', I'm flexible in other words,what I want to do is align even not exactly, a little forward so they cannot see us really. CHAIRWOMAN: You don't want to be behind everybody else. MR. PANAGOPOLUS: So they can see us, it would defeat the purpose,they can see you even if they don't want to,they just turn around and see inside your home, so if we can align with the other homes on the west. I understand 2 lots to our east,the next adjacent lot to our east lot 123 is a vacant lot which the man who has lot 124 owns it-he is not going to build there,he bought it purposely so no one else will have my problem. At this point our stakes align with his home yes,but we have to take under consideration that at that point 2 lots away from our west the bluff curves inward actually we are supposed to be farther out so this way even though by looks it looks that's not aligned,but actually by bluff measurements it will be a line and also will be aligned with our west. Another consideration I have small children like 6 years old, almost 8 and almost 10 and I really don't like even though my wife likes.the view of the bluff I don't like it. Small children I just have a feeling them playing towards the bluff, I'd rather have the house moved forward a little bit,more room to play on the road side, this way they'll be a lot safer. Now I do understand,yes I could put some trees there and block it off,but I do realize it would be a great injustice if I did that because as the bluff curves in the house on our west would not have the view now we can see to our east it's a perfect view of we have our home moved forward toward Rocky Point Road- MEMBER OLIVA: Excuse me Mr. Panagopolus,but when you say forward, do you mean the house closer to the road or the bluff? MR. PANAGOGOLUS: Closer to the bluff. CHAIRWOIV[AN: Than 75'? MR. PANAGOPOLUS: No, I put 75'because I have 110'right now where the stakes are, so I believe between 80-85' I'll be able to get close enough to align with the homes, but not exactly, even if I'm 5'it's okay because our side because if you look, you will not really be able to see inside our home. CHAIRWOMAN: The photos in the property, the home to the west looks to be about 80' but that is with a deck addition, that's not to the home, it's with a deck addition. The home is set back considerably more. I think one of the things we have to consider because we see it so frequently is that what you're proposing is the house. At some point in the future you may consider a deck. Page 75 of 128 Page 76 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. PANAGOPOLUS: We have a deck. CHAIRWOMAN: On the proposed house? MR. PANAGOPOLUS: We don't need it really but the engineer, architect put it in. CHAIRWOMAN: That's irrelevant. MR. PANAGOPOLUS: Because our 110'what we have right now is from that deck that we have it's a 4 or 5'deck. CHAIRWOMAN: If we said 85'from the top of the bluff you would not be interested in coming back for another variance 2 years from now for another deck? MR.PANAGOPOLUS: No,my wife, she's young a little bit and the children,that's for their sake,my concern is the viewing with the neighbors,that's all. As I said if I put trees, it's okay, but then I'll block their view eastward with because it's the best view they have. If they look straight,they have to see, they see the water about%'s away towards Conneticut,but if I don't block it with trees they will have beautiful view, even if I was right aligned with them. And as I said,right now I measured there's 110' or better from where our stakes are. I asked Mr. Issacs why would he-he said well you've got to be safe. There is room really. For 20 years we are here we live in Orient and I'm familiar with Pebble Beach,we haven't seen any erosion, yes the water came in a couple of years ago and messed up the stairs a little bit,but that was it all the years I'm there. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what happens. Mr. Goehringer, any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No 85' seems to be a relatively good number. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: Yes I was up there and you do have a beautiful view and if you don't block because your neighbor to the east is actually the way the bluff curves in is really set back a little further than you, so 85' seemed perfectly acceptable. MR. PANAGOPOLUS: You have all the records, 85' will bring us closer? CHAIRWOMAN: From your Issac's survey it will bring you 10' closer to the road. MR. PANAGOPOLUS: In other words, 10' I'm trying to visualize- Page 76 of 128 Page,77 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: 10'landward of what you have proposed on the survey. MR. PANAGOPOLUS: So if you take from their deck- ?„ CHAIRWOMAN: From the survey you submitted to us. MR. PANAGOPOLUS: I'm trying to see how they can if they view us even. CHAIRWOMAN: You would be in line with the house to your immediate west. MR. PANAGOPOLUS: Since we have 110'on the bluff now if Mr. Issac's brings it to correct numbers- CHAIRWOMAN: It's a question of simply moving the house back 10'on the survey,that's all. MR.PANAGOPOLUS: In other words, 85'you will consider? CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what happens. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 3:10 pm Appl.No. 5242 - GARY &LETIZIA BLOECKER. Request for a Variance under Section 100-244 based on the Building Department's September 30, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions/alterations to the existing dwelling with a proposed front yard setback at less than 35', 1145 Gillette Drive, East Marion; 38-3-4. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? GARRETT STRANG, ARCH: Yes I believe you have it correct. Garret Strang for the applicant, repl'csellting Ll]e Bloeckers. We have as you can tell front our application, 1ve are looking for front yard relief, we have existing relatively small single family one story home on a small lot that goes from Gillette Dr. it has 2 front yards. The house was built in the mid-70's at that time it was placed right at the 35' setback from Gillette Dr. which is the minimum. My clients are in need of making the house a little more in keeping with their family needs, larger so they need to add a master bedroom and bath since there's only one bath in the house now and they also want to put a 2-car garage since there's only a 1-car garage and convert that one-car garage to two and to try to make the house look a little bit more in keeping what's going on in the neighborhood and this house is very 701sh they want an open front porch on to accomplish that as I said the house is built with a 35' setback we want to reduce that front yard to 30' to accommodate not only the open porch but also the forward part of the garage because the master suite will be built behind the garage and if we were to be granted that relief we would still have Page 77 of 128 Page 78 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the 2nd front yard or the rear yard if you will will still be 49'which is far beyond the 35' and our side yards are in excess of the required 25 being a total of 39. We think the relief that we are seeking is minimal given the fact that part of the 22'of that is garage that is solid with the garage doors facing_the street,but the rest of it across the front of the house is an open porch although roofed over,it's open and unclosed. We hope the board is willing to entertain this application •II` and answer any questions you may have at this time. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm looking at the site plan and it's showing 35 to the front of the bay window. I assume it's actually 37 to the house. MR. STRANG: It's about 37 to the house presently. CHAIRWOMAN: Ironically it's about 35 to the bay windows,bay windows are exempt,but somehow they end up showing up on a site plan or survey. Go figure it. It looks like an L shape wrap around addition. Essentially what we are going to see is a 7'reduction in the front yard forward of the existing house. MR. STRANG: That's correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask a question, and the porch is T? MR. STRANG: The porch is going to be 7'in depth so we have- a part of that is because of the bay window and once you take out for the railing and everything you want to be able to at least walk past that bay window without having to squeeze past it. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. It looks logical for this scenerio. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: Did you look at the setbacks of the other properties in the neighborhood on the same side of the street? MR. STRANG: On the same side of the street, the house - well I did the houses immediately next door. The house immediately to our south, or as you face the house to the right is set back further than the 35' - that's probably newer than our house is and immediately next door is a brand new home which is just recently built and that looks like it's 35-38' set back from the road. I didn't have a survey, but just going by line of sight so the two houses on either side are set back a little farther than we are presently. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what happens. Is there anyone 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. Page 78 of 128 ia' nu' ary 16, 2003 003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 3:15 pm Appl.No. 5237-VASSILLIOS &MAUREEN SPELEOTES. This is a request for a variance under Section 100-244B,based on the Building Department's August 7, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed deck additions with a proposed front setback at less than 40' and proposed rear yard setback at less than 50', at 115 Sound Drive, Greenport; Parcel 33-4-60. CHAIRWOMAN:, Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? VASSILLIOS SPELEOTES: I'm Vassillios Speleotes and the reason for this application is what I wanted to try to do we had a fire this past spring and wanted to basically rebuild the house and with the addition of my 4th child right before the fire and we needed some room added to the house and as you can see the property's like almost a diamond shaped property and I have like 3 front setback conditions. What I was trying to achieve is just squaring off the front of the house the existing portion of the bedroom already is at 3 5'setback from the road and what is was trying to do is square off the house by adding a front deck there. CHAIRWOMAN: A 2-story deck on Sound Drive? MR. SPELEOTES: That's one part of it. On the rear I know there's a 50' setback condition however there's already areas of the house you can.see that encroach upon that. What I was trying to do is possibly add a rear deck in and if permitted be able to bring it as far to the edge of the garage to also create a squared off effect there. The one that's set 19'back from sunset. CHAIRWOMAN: It's kind of confusing because the survey did not match up with some of the figures on the notice of disapproval. It's possible the survey was done after the notice though. The deck addition, you have an existing setback of a rear yard setback of 37.2 correct? With the 28x 12' deck that would bring it down to 3 0.3, is that correct? MR. SPELEOTES: With the additions that I'm requesting my lot coverage would still be under the 20%. CHAIRWOMAN: N/Jr. Gochringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I spent some time looking at the house. It was a major bum you had there. Sorry to hear that. I don't have any particular problem with your application, sir. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: Just by reviewing this as you stated you're squaring off some of the jobs in the house to acquire more room. The proposed deck is covered or open? MR. SPELEOTES: Covered. Page 79 of 128 Page 80 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: That's the front one and the rear? MR. SPELEOTES: No the rear one is going to be open. CHAIRWOMAN: That's the 2-story. ak, MEMBER OLIVA: You're adding a 2nd story to increase your bedroom area? MR. SPELEOTES: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what happens. Is there anyone 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 3:18 p.m. Appl.No. 5182 -RAYMOND AKSCIN. Hearing Reopened by Resolution of the Board adopted November 14, 2002. 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 and 265 Orchard Lane, and 1800 Cedar Beach Road, Southold; Cedar Beach Park Map Lot Nos. 25, 27 and 28. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN, ESQ: Good afternoon, Kevin McLaughlin, I'm here for the Akscin family. As you indicated this is a reopening of a hearing we had back in November at which point we presented our application to re-separate two 20,000 sq. ft. lots from approximately a 1.6 acre lot provided you with our rationale at that time that these, my client has paid taxes separately on these two lots for many; many years that there's a lot in-between which they sold off some time ago and the single family home has been constructed on there. We have contracts on both of these lots, actually contingent upon us obtaining the necessary waiver of merger and for other applications and we are back here to address any questions that the board may have. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. McLaughlin we had discussed this application with legal council and it was our feeling that we would not look favorably on this application in terms of a waiver of merger-for a number of reasons that all go right to the code. The lot appears to be substantially smaller than it would be creating lots that would be smaller than those existing on the neighborhood by very nature of the contract. On lot 3 the contract calls for the seller to provide 2000 cubic yards of fill under of statutes and under the provisions we are supposed to examine under the waiver provisions one of them is there will not be substantial filling. We believe the Page 80 of 128 a Page.81 January 16;:2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing land on lot 3 is wetlands-not developable. We could go the 9 routes and get expert testimony in here. We don't believe you have a sufficient building envelope there. We can go the 9 yards on this one. A larger issue or equally as large on this issue is the lots were all in common ownership from at least.1958-1992. Rather than go the knocking yards on it why we did reopen the hearing �. is some of the board members suggested a compromise. And the compromise Would be rather than 3 lots including the wetland lot,that you create 2 lots which would involve area variance on a minor subdivision and the board feels this would be far more palatable,would help your situation because of the economics involved which you had stated previously. The board is not unsympathetic to your clients concerned,but the board is very concerned about creating a lot that is clearly wet as a developable lot. Even on the survey submitted with the wetland lot it doesn't show a building envelope,we never got any proof in the record that a house could be built on it. It doesn't show a building of 18 or 1600 sq. ft.which the contract of sale is contingent upon. There are a number of ROW's in those contracts that all involve further degradation of what we believe is a lot that is what we believe is environmentally sensitive. If the lots had not been merged for as many years,perhaps it would be different,but in fact from at least 1958-1992 it was all one lot under the law. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I don't believe that's correct. Those lots were deeded out separately and were deeded back into the applicant and his deceased wife but that only took place fairly recently. They had been separated. In any event,I'm a little confused as to what the compromise that may be being proposed. Would it not be possible for this board to grant a waiver of merger as to the other lot. The one that you don't have a difficulty with as far as the wetlands as opposed to going back- CHAIRWOMAN: That's why we are reopening it, there's nothing hard and fast here. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You indicated something about doing a lot line change in a minor subdivision as the other possibility would be to grant a waiver of merger as to the other lot- CHAIRWOMAN: Lot 5.2? MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Yes from lot 5.2 to 5.1. CHAIRWOMAN: That is certainly another possibility on condition that lot 5.1 merge with lot 3. Is everybody following me here? MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, that's what we talked about exactly. CHAIRWOMAN: In other words, what we'd be doing is we would grant a waiver of merger on the corner inland non-water lot. On the large improved lot that's on condition that the large improved lot would merge with the wetland lot. Are we on the same page? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask the sq. footage of the lot that's on the corner of Orchard. Page 81 of 128 i Page 82 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. MCLAUGHLIN: 20,000 sq. ft. CHAIRWOMAN: That would palatable,it would be.. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: Only for a 5 minute recess-to discuss with Kevin because the lot rf that you're excluding is the lot that my client has been in contract with for a long time and has gone through a lot of expenses to try to get the,permits before this application actually got to you. I want 5 minutes to discuss the options with'Kevin so that in all fairness to my client. CHAIRWOMAN: We understand,it's not hard and fast,if that will work for you,that's fine with us. If it's a minor lot line change subdivision,that's fine with us. Two lots,no building on the wetland lot. MS. MOORE: Okay, I understand what you're goal is. HELEN FINNIGAN: My name is Helen Finnigan. I'm the sister and sister-in-law of the people buying lot 2. I just wanted to ask you had mentioned ROW's and there are ROW's in their contract. On that contract are you suggesting those ROW's would be not permissible? CHAIRWOMAN: The ROW is for access to the wetland lot, is that correct? MS. FINNIGAN: They have access to the water through the- CHAIRWOMAN: The concern on the access is was there a building on the wetland lot. If it's a footpath for you to go to the water, that's not a concern. Our number one concern is the wetland lot. MS. FINNIGAN: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN: Do you want to recess it until 3:45? Motion to recess until 3:45. 3:45 AKSCIN (CONT.) MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I have had an opportunity to review the proposal with my client and would lie be agreeable to the waiver of merger as to the corner lot which is 5.2 from the large 1.6 acre lot which is 5.1 which would be then merged with the wetlands lot which is lot 3. CHAIRWOMAN: Very good. Sometimes things work out. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Sometimes they do. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you both for coming in. Board members have no other questions? I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 82 of 128 Page.83 Jarivary''16 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 3:21 pm Appl.No. 5220-VINCENT & PETRA BENIC. This is a request for a Variance under Section'100-231,based on the Building Department's July 1, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning the:height of a proposed fence which will exceed the code's height limitation of 4'. z�. 1375 Pine Neck Road, Southold; 70-5-39. . CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? VINCENT BENIC: Good afternoon, I'm Vincent Benic, I'm the owner of the property. I am requesting permission to build a 6'fence in my front yard. Just to set up the plot plan,my property is approximately 100'wide,it's 422'long on one side and about 450' on the other side. My house is situated all the way to the rear of the property which is approximately 350' away from the street. My neighbor,therefore the entire 350'is considered to be a front yard. Also in the back I have a wetland situation where in reality my rear yard is only about 20-30'. My neighbor to the left is his house is about 75'from the road and his rear yard is about 350' and what I'm requesting is to provide privacy as well as to provide just some visual as some lawn equipment and things like that on the lawn. I'm requesting a 6'high stockade fence. CHAIRWOMAN: What is the length of the fence? MR. BENIC: About 180'. If you could look at the survey that I submitted, it would go from the back of the neighbors garage all the way to the 100'wetland area. The reason for this is it's been a very difficult situation the neighbor in the past year every time my kids or I go out everything is scrutinized and at this point I have no choice but to put up the fence. CHAIRWOMAN: So it's a good will privacy. Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: So the stockade fence is really running along this side of the property. MR. BENIC: That's correct. My neighbor has the right to put up a 6' stockade fence on either side of the property and I wish to have the same right 6" or a 1' from his right. Basically it's something I think is absolutely necessary at this point. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehrinber. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Although we haven't done too many fences recently sir the proverbial question is what side of the fence is going to be your side, the good or the bad? MR. BENIC: Whatever you wish, it really doesn't matter to me. I can put the good side to the neighbor or my side. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How long have you owned this property, sir? MR. BENIC: A little over a year, about 15 months. Page 83 of 128 Page 84 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me get this straight, if you put the good side up and your neighbor chooses to put a fence up then you could turn your side around with a good side to your side? MR. BENIC: Or I can put a fence that would be good on-both sides? MEMBER ORLANDO: Have you discussed with your family natural screening? MR. BENIC: I have put in about 25 six-foot high evergreens along the front part of the property. About 1/3 of those trees are dying. It could be due to the fact that there are just too many trees on the side, it could be the drought this summer. I spent a great deal of money to no avail. They are dead. MEMBER ORLANDO: I think purchasing a fence that's common on both sides so everyone gets a nice look. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone 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 3:33 pm APPI.No. 5231 -NANCY ROSS & OTHERS. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244B,based on the Building Department's September 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed new dwelling, after demolition of the existing building,with a front yard and rear yards at less than 35', less than 10' on one side yard, and less than 35' for total side yards. Location of property: 3350 (Town House#115) Park Avenue, Mattituck,parcel 123-8-22.2. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? DIANE HEROLD, ARCH: Good afternoon I'm Diane Herold, I'm the architect with me is the owner Nancy Ross. I'd like to cxplain briefly why we need to demolish the house and why the need to build a new house. NANCY ROSS: Hi, I'm Nancy Ross and I own the property with my sister and both of our husbands. We bought it 2 or 3 years ago from my father who's owned it for many years and I've been using the house every summer for 23 years. It's a very small 1-story dwelling in complete disrepair and it's on a very oddly shaped lot. It has very small setbacks right now and what we are proposing to do, what we hope to do is keep the existing footprint in addition to squaring it off in certain corners and raise it up and add an additional story because my sister has a family and I have a family and right now we are very crowded using this house during the summers. It does get very extensive use during a small part of the year and no use at all during the rest of the year. Any questions? Page 84 of 128 Page-85 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: You've got a tough situation on this lot because of the- MS. HEROLD:. Can I just present a few pieces of information that might answer some of your questions? ¢_' I also wanted to show you that%there are other houses in that area that might jeopardize that. But I wanted you to be aware that this is the house currently inside the we are proposing the same kind of relief line that's fairly low. This would be the same side- CHAIRWOMAN: The side view where you are proposing to square off the property,where you've got that 5'setback there because I know it's a tough piece of property,but you are going to demolish the existing house, is there any way we could get the 5' setbacks on the property line? It is going to be a brand new house. I know you have a lot of difficulty with this because of the dirt road here. MS. ROSS: The dirt road is now the front yard and we've gone through a lot on another case determining that Bungalow Lane is not the road anymore the battle road is now I think if we are granted our other variances we would be more than happy to make that deck parallel. CHAIRWOMAN: Which would get us how far off that property line? MS. HEROLD: I would be willing to keep the existing setback to the house and we would continue that for the deck. CHAIRWOMAN: Minimum of 7.6? MS. HEROLD: I believe so, yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Does that sound workable to the board? MEMBER ORLANDO: Are you thinking pivoting the whole house to run parallel? MS. HEROLD: No, I'm just going to cut an angle into the deck. I don't want to move the house because right now the neighbors the one house to the west is actually over into our property line and the other house belongs to Nancy's brother so we don't want to antagonize him. So we thought the best thing to do is keep the house right where it is. MEMBER ORLANDO: He has the wooden deck to his house, the wooden walkway? MS. HEROLD: Actually we don't have beach access so we have granted as long as the family keeps the property they have access over that walkway to the beach. Once they sell it to another family that access would be denied. That's the purpose of that wood walkway, for the Ross' to cross over other Ross'property to the beach. MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's a ROW as long as the family owns the property. Page 85 of 128 Page 86 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: I_Was down there,you do have a problem. I think if you do as Ms.Tortora said,if you take that in";make it 7.5'it would be more acceptable. -- MS. HEROLD: That's fine with us. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the major problems we have done there,Diane,is the fact that none of these properties have 280A access. This property was not denied for 280A access and as you know there's a very well traveled road that goes in front of this cottage and as you mentioned the neighbor across the way has a significant encroachment,not a huge encroachment. So anything that you can do to keep this house away from that traveled road is I think a real asset because as those house get larger down there and as our fire equipment gets bigger,there's going to be scuffing as we proceed to take this fire equipment down there and I'm not speaking about the MFD because I'm only a fireman for 35 years, I am an ex-captain, I am not presently in the captain's realm and I can tell you that eventually there will be a denial for 280A access down there and that road will be improved significantly one way or another. CHAIRWOMAN: The dirt road, Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. It is less than marginal now, so from an architectural standpoint, there is no doubt in my mind what you are doing is pretty neat and of course knowing what you did over at the Oaklawn bridge you are used to working on smaller parcels at times. I'm just warning you that whatever you can do to keep it away from that dirt road is going to be for your benefit. MS. HEROLD: It's interesting you bring that up because if you look at the one site plan that you submitted I believe it was yesterday or the day before my sanitary system is going to be going right alongside that road and I'm going to have to put a retaining wall about of about a foot and a half out of the ground to retain the sand to get the distance from ground water so we basically will be establishing the south line of that road so I don't know how that's going to impact what is going to happen but I don't have. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Go as low as possible. MS. HEROLD: I'm trying to actually I've filed with the Trustees which we gave you. I'm working with the DEC and the board of health on the sanitary system. I'm trying my best but it's also something where the sanitary has to be a certain distance from wells and we're not even conforming to that. We do have a tight site. We are trying to improve. We have to upgrade our sanitary system and we definitely have to improve the house. Once you do a new house, you do have to go back to all the different departments that are involved. Page 86 of 128 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember this may not effect your house,but in general if through a 280A situation we request every property owner on that road to raise that grade up a foot and a half which may occur because the road is subject to flooding. MS. HEROLD: That would be fine because it would not bm-problem.with our sanitary. MEMBER GOEGRINGER: Try and keep it as low as possible because what's going to happen is that wall is going to dictate what type of nurturing is going to be done to that road. MS. HEROLD: That's why I'm bringing it up since you mentioned it. I wasn't aware that they were thinking of widening that road. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm telling you that right now we could go to the building department and tell you you need 280A because the road is marginal. And that's the situation it has to be elevated because the sand blows in there in the wintertime and actually covers the road. MS. HEROLD: I only get to go down there in the wintertime. Does the board have any other questions in light of that? CHAIRWOMAN: No, let's see what happens. Is there anyone 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 3:47 pm WILLIAM LOIS. Appl.No. 5258 as to 58105 North Road, Greenport, referred to as Parcel 44-2-9, and Appl. No. 5257 as to 57875 North Road, Greenport referred to as Parcel 44-2- 8. Variances are requested under Section 100-231,based on the Building Department's October 28, 2002 Notices of Disapproval concerning fences proposed with a height over the code limited 4'when located along a front yard. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MS PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: Dr. Lois owns the house parcel and the adjacent vacant lot. He wishes to place a fence along N. Road that is a scallop type fence. I gave you a diagram of it which means the center of the scallop fence is 4'6" and the posts are 5'. On the side yard similar 6' fence would go along the length of the side- CHAIRWOMAN: Of the improved lot or both the improved and the vacant lot? MS. MOORE: Both lots. Page 87 of 128 Page 88 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: So it's going to go on the improved lot,the 6'would go on the westerly side, nothing in-between the=21ots,then the 6'would continue on the easterly side of the vacant lot. Thank you, so it's a U. What's the total length of the fence? 7 MS. MOORE: The length of both parcels-with the both parcels which- CHAIRWOMAN: Is it going to run con-currently as one piece? MS. MOORE: Yes, there might be a break there a gate or whatever,but yes. I believe the vacant parcel is 200.36 and the improved parcel is 100.18. MEMBER ORLANDO: So the fence is not going to run beyond the front of the house. MS.MOORE: Correct,you can't go along the back because of wetland issues and setbacks. Eventually he will have to deal with fencing in. I think his ultimate goal will be for a pool and at that time he need to make an enclosure,but the DEC,Trustees, everybody goes first with respect to the locating of a fence. And that would not really impact you,you don't have the issues that we dealt with here are front yard,height of the fence and extending the 6'up to where the front yard fence begins because there is no structure there at present. CHAIRWOMAN: It's going to run parallel with what is consistent with the front yard then? MS. MOORE: Well it's going to go along the property line,but it goes fence to fence it will connect. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Looking at the fence specifications, it's good on both sides so we don't have that issue and it's straight on both sides and scalloped in the front is that correct? MS. MOORE: Yes, it's a side straight,with some architectural detail. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: No I was just looking at that myself because I thought you said scalloped on the side as well. MS. MOORE: I did, I apologize, I remembered scallop,but then I see I gave you the diagram which was the squared on the sides. MEMBER ORLANDO: And that's a 6' fence. MS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. Page 88 of 128 Page.,89.. January 96;2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER OLIVA:-�No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Secrift no hands, I'll make a motion closing-thehearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 3:51 pm Appl. 5265-NORTH FORK BANK/SUFF CTY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-103C based on the October 22,2002 Notice of Disapproval to construct additions and alterations to an existing nonconforming building. The proposed total linear frontage following the proposed construction will be 360+- linear feet, and the code limits the frontage of a single structure to not more than 60 linear feet of frontage on one(1) street. Location of Property: 8885 Main Road,Mattituck,Parcel 122-6-22.1 CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? JOSEPH FISHETTI,P.E: Good afternoon,Miss Chairman,my name is Joseph Fishetti, I'm the engineer for North Fork Bank. The bank has made a commitment to stay in Southold in their Operations Center and as you know North Fork is growing,requiring the addition which was presented to the Planning Board recently at a public hearing. The existing bank building is over the 60'required size. I think the Notice of Disapproval you got an amendment to that notice. It seems the building department didn't take into account the loading dock on the right side and the total size of the building. So the building right now is going to add around 34'which will take the total building size as 388'4". We had a public hearing with the Planning Board and we're in the process of going to final next month and we are looking for approval on the building with you. CHAIRWOMAN: The depth of that building 123, the new addition? MR. FISHETTI: It's 120' depth by 60'. It's 64'because we need the other 4' for shoring of the existing building that was a little discrepancy In the plan that I originally submitted t0 You. CHAIRWOMAN: It's showing 124. MR. FISHETTI: That's the 120+T addition. CHAIRWOMAN: The only other question I really had is on the ZBA, this is probably an error, but let's make sure it isn't. On the ZBA application it said a total of 3 floors. MR. FISHETTI: It's a basement plus 2 floors. CHAIRWOMAN: It is still a 2 story addition? Page 89 of 128 Page 90 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. FISHETTI: Yes. It should have said 20,000 sq. ft. on 3 floors,but that includes a basement. MEMBER GOEHRINGER You're actually taking out the buiming that's there? MR. FISHETTI: No,if you guys did the inspection,it's the little grass area on the west side. It's pretty much that whole grass area. MEMBER ORLANDO: No more picnic tables? MR. FISHETTI: We are building around the picnic tables. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't know what you are working with the Planning Board with the screening aspect on that side of the building,but I would hope that the neighbors that are over there that you come up with some screening regarding this. The neighbors came to the first planning board meeting. I took them aside outside,we staked out my original design which actually came up to our property line and we really, I really was pressed for doing designs and 1. didn't go out there and look in the corner so when we staked it out we realized we were really close to the existing neighbor. What we did was the plan that you have here that I submitted to you shows the curve area to being the widest part towards the northwest 176" so I moved it 17' what we are going to do along that side is plant screen plantings 4' on center 6'high which is what he requested so the curb area along the west side in essence is exactly where the asphalt is right not and the parking we changed from perpendicular parking to parallel which is exactly what's there now. We try to work that out with the neighbors and that was part of the Planning Board's requirements, screen planting along that west side. CHAIRWOMAN: You've had an initial hearing or a public hearing with the Planning Board? MR. FISHETTI: I had a public hearing. Right now they are waiting for you to finish up before the final hearing in November. We have health dept. approval, we had architectural review approval, and that's all we need is your approval on the building with as you know this was done for strip shopping centers. This was the original Bohack in the late 60's. It goes back, so this building is much better than what was there and we are keeping it. It's kept very well. It's meticulously kept as you know and they should be happy the bank is there instead of the Bohack. CHAIRWOMAN: So the screening on the west side will be addressed by the Planning Board? MR. FISHETTI: Yes. I have a submission to them 6' arborvitae, 4' on center staggered, so that's going to be a nice planting buffer. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: The bank is continuously maintained? Page 90 of 128 Page 91 January 16;2003 ' Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. FISHETTI: The bank is always maintained. We just had a neighbor on the east side she couldn't wait she has a--problem with the screen plantings that were planted when the bank first came there and they've gotten a little bit high and she was complaining about it and Mr. Butkovich is right here VP and he's going to take care of it. The bank meticulously maintains the building. MEMBER ORLANDO: I just wanted to clear up one thing so I'm sure. The survey staking the northwest corner that's almost in that lady's front door that says proposed- MR. FISHETTI: That was the old stake the new one now is 17'to the west of that which is pretty much the existing asphalt. MEMBER ORLANDO: And that's where the screening is going to go, or the screening is going to go where the old stake was. MR. FISHETTI: It will go along the buffer area right now. Yes, that's correct. We have 17' there, so what I staked out on that corner was the property line. Now we are 17'in. It's existing, we're not changing anything. MEMBER ORLANDO: I actually had to go look, I was like what is that stake doing over there? MR. FISHETTI: And I didn't look at it,in essence,we were doing the designs for the building- MEMBER ORLANDO: So the property line for the bank actually must have a ROW for the road. MR. FISHETTI: Yes it's an existing ROW for them to go over the road. As you see they go over our property. They have a ROW. MEMBER ORLANDO: And how far will this screening go up to? MR. FISHETTI: It's only going to go up to adjacent to the 2-story it's not going to continue down to where it is. MEMBER ORLANDO: About the telephone pole, about that depth in. Is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: Does the Planning Board have any other concerns because the building is so wide and we have in the code and you have 1 00' wide. MR. FISHETTI: No the Planning Board has no problem with the building. Page 91 of 128 Page 92 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what happens. Is there anyone else.in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 3:58 pm Appl.No. 5225 -ROBERT & CELIA SWING. (Carryover from December 12,2002) This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244B,based on the Building Department's August 22,2002 Notice of Disapproval, concerning the nonconforming setback location of"as built" additions and alterations at less than 10' on a single side yard and less than the minimum requirement of 25'for the total side yards. Location of Property: 445 Island View Drive, Greenport; 57-2-27. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? -ROBERT SWING: Good afternoon. I'm Robert Swing and along with Celia we own the property of 445 Island View Road, we've owned it for 32 years. The building was constructed in 1952,presently we have a pre-existing nonconforming side yard that was there when we purchased the property. To this point we talked to some of our neighbors regarding what we'd like to do and we've had no objections to it. There have been variances granted in our area for very similar situations. I'm here with Frank Notaro who is our architect. CHAIRWOMAN: I think some of the confusion came in last time because the notice of disapproval which we all tried to match the notice of disapproval from the building department with what we are seeing and we said this doesn't match. You've got an amended notice of disapproval it makes it a lot clearer and also the plans are much clearer on what we are proposing to do now it's basically a complete renovation with a second story which would maintain the existing side yard setback of 6'5 on the west and 11.1 on the east. Is that correct? MR. SWING: I believe it is, yes. CHAIRWOMAN: I think we have a much clearer idea than when we tried to look at this before. At least.I do. Let's see if we have any questions. Member Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: No. CHAIRWOMAN: Member Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Member Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I had no questions before. Page 92 of 128 Page 93 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone 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. - ,EASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 4:02 pm Appl.No. 5252-PATRICIA&JOEL PERLMUTH. This is a request for a Variance under Section 244,based on the Building Department's October 9, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed front addition at less than 35'from the front lot line at it's closest point. Location of property: 420 Mill Creek Drive, Southold 135-3-45. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? JOEL PERLMUTH: Good afternoon. We are looking for your approval to build an entranceway deck stoop as they used to say in the Bronx based on a 5x6x9'new construction. As you can see by the documentation submitted by our architect that you have in front of you which lays out the front view close up elevation with the staked stoop. CHAIRWOMAN: The only question I had here and it is somewhat confusing-this is for the 4x8 stoop in the front? MR. PERLMUTH: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN: The plans note a 33' setback it says in the notice of disapproval,but I know you already have a building permit for certain additions. MR. PERLMUTH: That is correct but the permit as well as you can see by the plan itself by the garage, which is to the right of the stoop that is proposed, existing is setback not as far as the proposed stoop. CHAIRWOMAN: The confusion is the disapproval says you have an open building permit for additions with a front yard setback of 37 where is that where are those additions? MR. PERLMUTH: There is no additions to the house as composed. There's nothing we are adding to the house except for the front stoop and we built a rear deck. I don't understand,we are not building another garage. We are not building a new wing, etc. I think you can- the survey document which you also have based on the footprint of the house is the exact existing footprint. We are adding nothing except a new back deck and the front stoop as we are asking for the plan. I don't know what that confusion is. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't either. I understand, it's just probably an error, and it's probably just a stoop. Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where are you getting this 33' setback? Page 93 of 128 Page 94 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals'Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: It's on the notice of disapproval. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I,get 11. a_ CHAIRWOMAN: I know so do I, that's why I asked him. If you read the disapproval it says he has an open building permit for additions at 37' and we can't find that anywhere. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as we concur with the 11 we're okay. CHAIRWOMAN: I think that's the answer. Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: None. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just need a footage on the record-what the distance is for the new porch to the property line. MR. PERLMUTH: Yes, if you look at the documentation right there it's 11'. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Exactly I l'? MR. PERLMUTH: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what happens. Is there anyone 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 MINUTyyEy. S FOR RESOLUTION 4:07 pm Appl. 5245 - GARY GERMS, as contract vendee (Thomas & Annette Jordan, owners) This is a request for a variance under Section 244B,based on the Building Department's October 9, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed new dwelling with a front yard setback at less than 40'. Location of property 1680 Brigantine Drive, Southold 79-4- 25. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Page 94 of 128 .Page 95 January 16, 2003 Southold;Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing GARY GERNS: I'm Gary Gems what I'm looking for is front yard relief on this property. I'm looking for like 25' front yard. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm fairly familiar with the property. Is this a brand new house? MR. GERNS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Have the Trustees reviewed this proposal? MR. GERNS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: And you have a Trustee permit for? MR. GERNS: I can give you a copy of it- CHAIRWOMAN: I'm not sure if we have a copy of it,just a moment. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I think we called and we asked for it. MEMBER ORLANDO: What did they give you relief for? MR. GERNS: For the rear yard setback. MEMBER ORLANDO: From the wetlands to the house-that's their jurisdiction. CHAIRWOMAN: 50'buffer zone. This is merely a copy of the survey, it's not a copy of the Trustee approval. It's possible, we've been very busy, I'm sorry. I guess the question I have is it's very hard to tell without the edge of the wetlands is why can't you move this back to a more conforming location- it's a brand new house? MR. GERNS: I can't go back any further the DEC wants me to put a fence up at 50' they aren't giving any relief at all, or the Trustees. So I really can't go back any further. In fact the DEC wants me to put a chain link fence up. CHAIRWOMAN: It's very hard to tell because we do not have anything showing what the Trustees approved or did not approve. That 25' setback that you are requesting to Brigantine Drive, is that including this proposed covered porch? MR. GERNS: That's to the porch. CHAIRWOMAN: It's to the porch or to the house? MR. GERNS: 25 to the porch, 30 to the house. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it's a 5'porch? Page 95 of 128 Page 96 January 16, 2003 Southold Town;Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. GERNS: Right. MEMBER ORLANDO: Are you building this house for yourself? MR. GERNS: No. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I think what was dropped off the other day was a questionnaire that was missing from your submission also you gave a copy of a map with it,but the Trustees permit is usually 3-4 pages. We didn't get that. The girl on the phone said she wanted the survey that was stamped- BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We need the whole thing. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm reluctant to close this application until we actually see a copy of the Trustee permit. We simply don't have time to review it now. We are going to have to adjourn it until the board members can really look at this and all have copies before them. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You have to give us 7 copies of it tomorrow, we'll make it part of the record. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well the pages associated with the permit. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The conditions and the map and the permit. MEMBER ORLANDO: If this meeting is adjourned, you may want to think about a new house plan because the average setback in that neighborhood is about 35', so you are well ahead of all your neighbors and this is a brand new building so you have the opportunity, you know instead of a 2-story colonial, maybe a 1-story ranch shorter, or something. The reason I say this is because you are not building it for yourself to live there, you are speculating or you are building for someone, so now's the chance to be creative. Otherwise you are very close and you're not conforming to the rest of the neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN: Ruth. MEMBER OLIVA: I agree with Mr. Orlando. CHAIRWOMAN: Jerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A house is 28' wide plus the 5'porch which puts it at 33, I think with some manipulating on the rear of the house you may still be able to hold the - by dropping the width of the house, the depth of the house down a little bit and giving a little more setback, I think you may be able to gain a couple more feet and we would appreciate if you would do that. Page 96 of 128 Page 97 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Because you are building a very substantial house so close to the street, it's going to be overwhelming. MR. GERNS: If I took the porch off the house that would make it 30. MS. OLIVA: I think we still would prefer to see it back more. You are still going to be out of line with the other houses which are fairly well set back. MR. GERNS: I'll be 5'out of line with the house next door. MS. OLIVA: If you could skew it a little more,you have it directly across,just turn it a bit and reduce it slightly. MR. GERNS: If I take the porch off,I'm reducing it 5'. CHAIRWOMAN: What we are saying is we're not inclined to look at this favorable so please come up with a plan to reduce the front yard setback that will be more in keeping with setbacks in the area. The property has limitations,however it's, you know that when you purchased it. We are going to adjourn this hearing until 7:10 pm on February 6th. Before we do that I would like to ask if anyone in the audience would like to speak either in favor or against the application. BILL KELLY: Bill Kelly, I would be the neighbor to the north of the property which I believe is lot 57 and my concerns were the issues that you've addressed. I just want to go on the record as . saying that I took the liberty of plotting out a house on that property that would conform with the parameters that were given by the Trustees as well as the parameters that are set forth in the zoning code and you know in reference to the porch issue,beyond the front yard-the code clearly reads that you would be required to grant them a 35' front yard setback in lieu of the 40' setback and the code also reads and I'm sure you're aware of it that as far as the porch goes, they would be allowed a 6x8'porch that goes beyond the 35' setback. Beyond that, the 35'has been set. Our house which is adjacent to it and we had to deal with the same issues that they have, and we managed to make it conform to the town code as well as the Trustee code as well as the DEC code. So it would be important to me that the same parameters that we had to deal with would be the same parameters that they had to work with. Indeed you can clearly build a 1250 sq. ft., 1400 sq. ft. house which has a 2-story would be 2800 sq. ft. - so that could be built on the property within the parameters that are set by the code. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Didn't we have a variance on your application? MR. KELLY: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What was your setback? MR. KELLY: 35'. CHAIRWOMAN: The code is 40 in the area? Page 97 of 128 Page 98 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. KELLY: The code for a lot less than 40,000 or 20,000 sq. ft. is set at 40,but then there's a section in the code that also reads that any plot plan subdivision that's been-established after 1957 allows it to go back to what the setback was at the time of that. And when I did mine I researched and I found that 35'was,*hat was allowed at the time that subdivision was done. It's pretty much without question, 35'would be allowed. Anything beyond 35'I would definitely be opposed to. I've built 2 houses on that street and I've lived on that street for 17 years, and incidentally both houses that I built I had to deal with wetland issues and front yard variances and I've always referred back to the 35'rule and everybody in that neighborhood has as well. There's not one house built in that neighborhood after 1968 when the subdivision was done that's less than 351. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? KEN POLIWODA: Yes,I'm Ken Poliwoda, I live on lot 59 directly across from this property and I make a request to this board that you limit the 40'from the front yard setback and I don't have so much a problem with the 5' addition porch to make it 35'which would be in line with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. If they should be seeking a variance, it's possible through the Trustees as well as the DEC. I realize that lot.57,Bill's he has a 35' setback from the wetlands, it's not a pristine wetlands at all. It's a swamp. I'm very strict with tidal wetlands and I believe in 50' should be maintained from tidal wetlands,however, this doesn't even hold water 6 months of the year. I'd really appreciate maintaining the characteristic of this neighborhood, hold 40' allow a T porch. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Anyone else? Okay you will come back to us with a revised plan and 5 copies of the Trustee approval. You will be back to us on February, 61h at 7:10 pm. Thank you very much. I'll make a motion adjourning the hearing. 9:23 p.m. Appl.No. 4942 -BREEZY SOUND SHORES. (Continued Hearing) 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: It's no longer morning. I'm sure everyone is tired. This is an application that you are very familiar with. You have seen it this is the second, at least the second time around and for some of you, Jerry at least that was on the board in the 80's it's probably the fifth time around that he's reviewed this. We are at a point where we have, let me step back. In the time since our last hearing, we have actually settled with the water authority and actually have water settlement which I'll submit to the board. So we have the public water. The special permit as you know the criteria are that this is a permitted use subject to conditions. The conditions that this special permit maintains is the minimum parcel size is we have 7 acres, Page 98 of 128 Page January 16,2063 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the number of guest units is based on the water and the sewer. We have.water, sewer,we have a choice at this time. We have a letter, actually it came in very late. We have been negotiating with the village,they've been negotiating for years, I came on and was dealing with Mr. Kron and he had promised me a letter=or something evidencing that it was being resolved,that the litigation dealing with the sewer because they had given,Mr. Tedaldi hadsactually paid into connection to sewer paid into the water and nobody was giving him any credits for those payments and that led to litigation which ultimately has been settled. The water will credit him a certain amount for what he's paid in the past, sewer doesn't credit, I'm sorry,not at all and they are charging 11 thousand per unit. Given that it's almost with construction everything, it's about 1 million dollars just to connect to Greenport sewer. We are considering alternatives which is the chromoglass system and it's a community system considered by the health department the equivalent of the sewer connection. But for the record,I have sewer availability as well so that you can have both assured this project is subject to health department approval. One of the-we will connect to one or the other, either the Greenport sewer system or a self-contained system that is approved by the health department. Both meet the criteria of the conditions for the special permit. The third condition is no music, entertainment,loudspeaker systems. There is no entertainment here on this property. It is a resort motel with a pool. That's it. We can certainly live by that type of condition. The final criteria is that the unit shall be 600 sq. ft. to remind you he's got a building permit with the exact same plan in 1989 the building department reviewed it. The town agencies reviewed it: It meets the 600 sq. ft. criteria. We are using the same design scheme-it meets the 600 sq. ft. criteria. This was an issue that was resolved and addressed through the SEQRA process because as you recall the Planning Board is the lead agency. The Planning Board through Chic Voorhis had us do a supplemental environmental review addressing concerns from the past as well as any new concerns. The Planning Board reviewed the site plan in it's final form and what remains in that approval process is this board's special permit with kitchenettes. You are the last piece of the puzzle before the Planning Board can act on the site plan. Let me give you the 2 letters for your records. The sewer letter is not signed because the Village of Greenport sent me a stipulation a contract that says you pay 750,000, we'll send you this letter. I said we're not paying you anything until you know we have all our approvals at the minimum. I've used the letter as an example that we have the ability to settle. We will have sewer as a back up to the Health Department. CHAIRWOMAN: One of the things we have left off; it seems like a month ago. You were going to give us a flyer from the - MS. MOORE: We sent that, you don't have it? That was sent within a week after your request. I don't know that I brought it with me because it's already in your file. It was from the Hermitage and I actually sent you the brochure with a letter of description and the Hermitage shows units with full kitchens, dining rooms, it's a much larger facility, but maintained in the same way that this facility will be maintained. MEMBER ORLANDO: Was it a tri-fold? MS. MOORE: Yes, as I recall it was a tri-fold. Page 99 of 128 Page 100 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I don't recall getting it, it's not in the file. MS. MOORE: I can't imagine where it is, I hand deliver things usually. I'll get it again, I have a copy in my file,my file, given what.I had to carry today, I couldn't bring my whole file. CHAIRWOMAN: We wanted to get a clarification on units themselves. The capability into separating them into two units. We want to- MS. MOORE: Well in my letter,unfortunately,my letter says that we will covenant or we will agree that no unit will be rented separately from,rather than as a whole unit. I have the plans actually with respect to square footage, I had sent that to you as well in that same letter. Three pieces of exhibits came with that letter to you,but I have here the architect or somebody highlighted for us, let me just take one and pass it around. To begin this is the same plan where they got a building permit in'89 you are looking at a center unit and an end unit. The yellow being at least on my sheet,the drawing that's on a horizontal design has the end unit and then the central unit. There is a door if you look at the unit that shows in pink straight on 12'or"by 10. I think that's the only door that would give access to the hallway. It was recommended I think that door was put on there for emergency egress as well to assure anybody getting out in the event of fire. I think it's best to covenant that we won't rent the units independently then to eliminate a door for safety purposes,but we could certainly, I mean that's up to you. We could eliminate that door, it's not a structural change to the design. CHAIRWOMAN: So the pink ones are essentially two bedrooms 14x14, six living rooms, 2 baths and an open kitchen. MS. MOORE: Right. It's pretty condensed. The Hermitage I believe when they find the paperwork is large kitchen, dining room, living area. KEN TEDALDI: Ken Tedaldi, it's probably close to 750-800 sq. ft. These are approximately 550-575, I think if you look on the bottom you will see that. MS. MOORE: They range handicap vs. center units, but they all range under 600. C1AAIR\N/01v1AN: Essentially you are proposing to offer the units for sale. Con-ect? The units will be sold- MS. MOORE: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN: They are going to be sold for people to use on a seasonal basis. Are they also going to be subleted? MS. MOORE: It's an investment property that the person as I understand the covenants would be you buy this unit, you have a right just like anyone else to use it for two weeks maximum I think and then the rest of the time it's in the rental pool to be used as a motel. People don't buy it as a second home, they buy it purely as an investment property. Page 100 of 128 Page 101. , January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER OLIVA: It's like a time share. MS. MOORE: Yes,New York doesn't really have time shares because it's difficult through the AG's office creation. Other states--are much easier in creating time shares,but it's very similar. MEMBER OLIVA: I'd be interested in having the Planning Board's comments. MS. MOORE: It's gotten full site plan review and it's gotten SEQRA review through- MEMBER OLIVA: But we haven't received any comments,I'd like to hear what they have to say about it. MS. MOORE: But it came from them. It came through a coordinated review through them. The problem is we keep going back and forth between the two agencies and nobody makes a decision. MS. OLIVA: I just want a letter. I don't want this whole thing blown up. I just want a letter of what their concerns were and what they would like to see. MS. MOORE: You can ask for anything you'd like,however,that was all addressed in the SEQRA process and that all came from the Planning Board and let me assure.you every concern they had was put into the SEQRA document. The concerns were from the beginning setback of the bluff,where that line was because the line had deviated so much since the 80's, so we went back and did a whole environmental with Chic Voorhis, we addressed the line and where the setback was,parking, drainage. We got a wetland permit from the kettle hole that had created over time. That too was addressed and through the Trustees, you know the permit from the Trustees but it came through the Planning Dept. with respect to the whole plan. MR. TEDALDI: That's on file I think you just go over down the hall and make copies. MS. MOORE: It was a very through review, we came to you at the tail end of the project and most importantly when it first came to you in the 80's you had said go to the Planning Board to get approval for the kitchenettes, not you per say, but the zoning board at the time which is why we ended up going to the planning board because the site plan review had not addressed kitchenettes as an issue so that's why we went over there addressed kitchenettes the SEQRA review the kitchenette is not considered a sanitary flow issue, it's a very minor use for health department reasons it's a small deviation from it's original submission. I hate to see this project delayed any, further because now we are on time frames. Trustees have given us a permit, we don't want to have to get extensions of permits there's a moratorium and we are delaying the process even further. If you have any concerns you can look at the Planning Board file or I'll share anything I have in my file with you and we are really at the end. And as I said, the Planning Board looked at it first. Page 101 of 128 Page 102 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. TEDALDI: Seems to me you people should have seen it first,right? It doesn't work that way because for some reason we did all our work, all the engineering- '= MEMBER OLIVA: We need to co-ordinate,in other word I'd like to see what the Trustees had to say,what the Planning Board had to say, and have it all- MS. MOORE: I think it's already in your file. The Trustees permit's in the file,the Trustee permit's for the wetlands is in the file and the Planning Board the SEQRA negative desk was sent to you to get to this point,maybe 8 months ago. We've been waiting to get to this point, it was in the summer when the Trustees finally gave us the approval and that was after the SEQRA review was done so we've been at this some time. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: Are we still going with closed from December to March? MR. TEDALDI: Yes. From January, February,March,we'll just close it down. MEMBER ORLANDO: Are you opposed to covenant restrictions? MR.TEDALDI: Not at all. MEMBER ORLANDO: Oh,you are. MR.TEDALDI: No, we are not opposed. MEMBER ORLANDO: For some conditions, not to subdivide- divide up the units. MS. MOORE: I think I gave you the language in my letter which was we will rent the units as a whole rather than partition. MR. TEDALDI: The owners really have no say. They just own the unit as an investment, it's run as a resort, they'll have a manager. If the unit's not rented for that week, it's not rented. MEMBER ORLANDO: The manager just needs to be educated on covenant restrictions. MR. TEDALDI: He is. CHAIRWOMAN: Are you talking about the letter that we don't have? MS. MOORE: Yes the letter I don't know where it is. I'll go back and copy it. CHAIRWOMAN: Copy the letter,while you are doing that if you could when we look at this we can bullet that it will be open, closed, XYZ, and put them in the form of conditions if the board is inclined to look favorably on this application. Page 102 of 128 Page 103 . January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: Just so I don't miss any,I'm sorry. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't know if it_would be C&R's. If it would be C&R's or if it would be conditions. MS. MOORE: I think it would be a condition of the special permit. That's how I would expect it to be. CHAIRWOMAN: I just want to get the facts. Jerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions,Lydia. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? BYRON CABBOTT: My name is Byron Cabbott. I own the property that's on the western border of this property. I have a general statement that I'd like to read in front of the board. Although there are specific issues that need to be addressed, for example the use and the configuration of the basement potentially designed as additional units are expanded accommodations. The location of the pool which is along our property line and the consequenting noise and lights which may interfere with our natural enjoyment of our properties parking, sewage, etc. The fundamental question is whether a time sharing real estate investment vehicle with kitchenettes should be permitted on the north fork. Of all the uses of this property whether it be houses, condominiums or a conventional motel, this use is the most devastating both environmentally and to the community at large. Such a real estate investment structure would permit encourage groups of individuals whether they be families, couples or friends to use these units as an economically convenient base from which to invade and crowd all the facilities which our community has to offer. It's beaches,parks, libraries,medical and police services with limited responsibility, actually just of a financial responsibility for the community at large. By it's very nature, the goal of time sharing is to provide it's investors and/or users with maximum rental income at all times which leads to overcrowding. One individual or one investor who has a 2-week slot and I realize they have covenants that try to control these things, but these are very difficult instruments to control and they rely on the integrity of the management. For one individual to conceivably rent one of these units for a 2-week slot and invite his 3 or 4 friends to share the rent with him and they could use that as a base. Because this isn't Florida they wouldn't be flying to one of these units, they'd be driving, you'd have additional parking problems. It should be kept in mind that at the height of this season as many as 272 people that's 4 people per unit may be occupying a 7 acre lot with 300+' of beachfront. In addition to the inherent detrimental characteristics of time sharing such units would be grossly unfair to the existing motels without kitchenettes and would put pressure on them to convert to a time sharing format. It would also be unfair to the local real estate interest and the summer rental market since 68 units available for 2-week periods amount to 1224 rentals which would weaken the market for local residents and realtors who supplement their income through periodic summer rentals making it more difficult for them to afford to live on the north fork. Finally time sharing would Page 103 of 128 I Page 104 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing do little if anything to solve the real need of the community to provide a place to stay overnight for the weekend visitor and it would invite by example other developers to propose similar- schemes compounding the problem. For these reasons, time sharing should not be permitted on the north fork. Another alternatives alternative is pursued. Whether it be condominiums or. houses or a conventional motel. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. Do you have anything further? MS. MOORE: No I don't unless you have questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Just re-submit that letter with the south fork information and bullet what we've discussed as potential conditions. Is there anyone 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 4:40 pm Appl No. 5222 -ROBERT &BARBARA HOLLEY. This is a request for a variance under section 33C,based on the Building Department's August 28,2002 Notice of Disapproval for construction of an accessory garage with a front yard setback at less than 40'. Location of property: 1805 Bay Shore Rd., Greenport 53-3-13.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? ED WILLIAMS, BLDR: My name is Ed Williams,builder. I'm the proposed builder of the proposed garage,but Bruce Anderson was the consultant handling the thing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He was out in the hall before, Ed. MR. WILLIAMS: He was? I didn't see Bruce. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's go to Ms. Gallagher. Why don't you try to find Bruce, in the meantime, we'll go to Eileen Gallagher. 4:41 pm Appl No. 5244 -EILEEN GALLAGHER. This is a request for a variance under section 31B(13) to establish a proposed Accessory Apartment in conjunction with the owner's residence, at 1575 Minnehaha Blvd. Southold 87-3-51. EILEEN GALLAGHER: Hello, I'm Eileen Gallagher and I'm here to request peirnission to put an accessory apartment in my residence. CHAIRWOMAN: This is a one bedroom apartment over an existing garage? Page 104 of 128 Page„1.05 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. GALLAGHER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: I see the apartmerit.is going to be about 726 sq. ft. are you-able to show us off street parking on this? MS. GALLAGHER: Yes,I submitted a survey which shows that there are 6 spots for off street parking. CHAIRWOMAN: The survey indicates there are 2 driveways. MS. GALLAGHER: There's a parking area which is 3 spots. There's a driveway which leads to my garage which is 2 spots and then there's a driveway around the front of the house which is where the original garage was which was.the sixth spot. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How are you? MS. GALLAGHER: Fine Jerry,how are you? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was over to the house and I think I missed you, I didn't make an appointment,but one of these days I'll just stop by on the weekend and take a look at it. Let me just tell you what one of the minor concerns was and I think we overstepped that concern and that was one of the criteria's to the apartment was to have a CO prior to 1984. Now we know that you reconstructed the house. We are not raising the issue anymore. I had a CO, a pre- existing CO for the older house. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We know that you put a new addition on,but we are not raising that issue anymore. That was the only issue, it wasn't necessarily a concern of mine, it was how the law reacted to that. And I just don't think you can take the whole situation and carve out something and say some of it might have been old, some of it new- there's no issue there and I didn't raise it, it's just an issue. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: It will be a one-bedroom apartment above the existing 3-car garage, correct? MS. GALLAGHER: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: That was my clarification. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. Page 105 of 128 Page 106 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER OLIVA: You don't have to put any new fittings under the garage if the garage is there? CMS. GALLAGHER: The space over the apartment right now is unfinished. It.was constructed =as part of the renovation and on the building permit that I had for the construction it was indicated to be unfinished storage, and it's still unfinished so if I get permission I have to construct an apartment up there. MEMBER OLIVA: And that garage is attached to the house? So it's one principle building. MS. GALLAGHER: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When we look at this,Eileen,we are looking at those windows that are above the garage. MS. GALLAGHER: Yes,there's windows facing the south and the west and the north. The only part that would not have windows is the part that is attached to the main house. MEMBER ORLANDO: So to access the apartment you have to go through the side door of the garage then up the stairs. CHAIRWOMAN: Any questions from the board members? Is there anyone 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. I see no problems with this, I've reviewed the code and I think you've met the code. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION HOLLEY (CONT.) CHAIRWOMAN: Did we find Mr. Anderson? MR. WILLIAMS: No, but if I can be of help. CHAIRWOMAN: We have a proposal for an accessory garage, are all 4 of those lots now merged? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: The lots have been merged sir? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes to my knowledge they have been. We have the Trustees permit. We have a DEC permit. Page 106 of 128 Page 107 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: I see you have a significant amount of environmental constraints on the property, the wetlands. Now that garage is going to serve a dual the driveway to the garage you'll use the same driveway to the single story house? MR. WILLIAMS: Not really. The driveway they have now just goes straight into their property. They would have to enter and exit through their existing driveway anyway. CHAIRWOMAN: The garage doors are going to be facing to the side of the property? MR. WILLIAMS: They would be facing the driveway. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't have any further questions,Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What utility would be in the garage, Mr.Williams? MR.WILLIAMS: What utility? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Electricity. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, electricity. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No water,no bathroom facility,no heating? MR. WILLIAMS: No. No insulation, no heating. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Strictly a storage building to be used in concert with the house? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: Nothing on the half floor up above the garage MR. WILLIAMS: Storage. MEMBER ORLANDO: The no-turf zone, was that put there by the Trustees or you put that there, DEC? MR. WILLIAMS: I assume the DEC, I'm not familiar with that part of the application. But we have the DEC permit, we have a Trustees permit that was issued the Trustees permit was issued back in May of last year. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mrs. Oliva. Page 107 of 128 Page 108 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER OLIVA: How high did you say the garage is going to be? MR. WILLIAMS: It's about a 9' first floor wall and then 2' floor wall,but it's no higher than the - town code is 1510. .;�. L-V�- CHAIRWOMAN: Is.there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Any further board questions? MR. WILLIAMS: May I ask for a vote? CHAIRWOMAN: There's about 30 people ahead of you. MR. WILLIAMS: When would the vote take place? CHAIRWOMAN: Hopefully within the next 3 weeks. We'll get to it as soon as possible. I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 4:50 pm Appl.No. 5150-T. & A.LAOUDIS. This is a request for a variance under section 30A.3,based on the Building Department's September 29, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed carport addition to dwelling which is proposed at less than 50' from the front property line. Location of Property: 405 Kimberly Lane, Southold; 70-13-20.35. CHAIRWOMAN: Hello, Ms. Moore. MS. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: I have Mr. Bohn here who you recognize from last time he's the architect on this project. This project is probably a headache to you as it is to everyone else who's involved in it. The whole project has not changed dramatically since it's original inception just little tinkering back and forth had caused the problem along the way. When the plan was submitted to the building department originally it was just so voluminous and so complicated that they didn't realize that there was a roof overhang. The portico is the carport in layman's terms the carport. The sanctions or the foundations for the carport were poured and when the surveyor came in they showed the setback that was not in conformity because when the building department didn't realize that that was encroaching into the front yard it didn't get included into the variance. So here we are after the fact after the house which is essentially the caretakers house. It's 3 bay garage with living quarters above it. In a sense when they first came to me it was supposed to be so we could avoid variances because to put a garage on a separate piece of property requires a variance because it's an accessory structure without a principle structure so we put the living quarters above it. Obviously went through all the processes of health department and such and low and behold we didn't avoid many variances anyway. The building is now the garage is built so you can see it's quite tall. Architecturally it's not designed without that portico. Page 108 of 128 Page 1.09 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing WARREN BOHN: The portico is designed to help reduce the scale of the face of the house facing the street as you can see it steps down and creates 2, actually 3 dormer peaks which the :.,_cars drive through as a gate entrance. The gatehouse into the property and the compound and it helps reduce the mass in relationships to the low roofs that also circulate around the�north side and the street side of the building. CHAIRWOMAN: This is for the front yard setback of 27' correct? MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: If we could possibly to make this as short as possible,where is 27'on the drawing? MS. MOORE: 27'is at the end of the overhang. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's on a corner. CHAIRWOMAN: And the foundation is poured for the 3-car garage? MS. MOORE: The 3-car garage is there. The portico,the sanctions you can see on the cross- sections, this little drawing. The foundation poured to hold up the structures- MEMBER OLANDO: They are within 50'. CHAIRWOMAN: Right now what we are looking at is half of the portico that is non- conforming? MS. MOORE: This is just the carport because the building itself is conforming,but you have to go and see it, it's not very attractive right now because it is just a tall building without architectural integrity on the street side. MEMBER ORLANDO: And this will soften it up. MS. MOORE: This will soften, bring it down and bring it in line with the main house. And you can see the portico actually lines up with the breezeway so it all flows together. CHAIRWOMAN: Actually what happened was the yard was not measured from the ROW. It was measured from the property line, 20' error. Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. Page 109 of 128 Page 110 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On the handout you just gave us Mrs.Moore, I'm seeing 32'2" is - thavactually the distance to the property line? = - MS. MOORE: Yes, 32.2 is the distance from the property to the overhang. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To the closest portion of the overhang. MS. MOORE: 47.8 is to the street,not the property line. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right,to the street. CHAIRWOMAN: Where is the 27 that shows up as indicated on the other plans that we have in our file? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think that's accurate, that's why I asked the question. Let me just say,Mr.Bohn that if there's any change on this,please let us know. MR. BOHN: Absolutely. MEMBER ORLANDO: You need a variance for 18' or 1710". CHAIRWOMAN: That's why we need a clarification. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It looked a little close to me at 27, that's the reason why we came up with the 32, I thought you were more accurate. MS. MOORE: I'm taking the numbers from our professionals. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone 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. You V-vill get us those figures. MS. MOORE: Yes. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 5:13 pm Appl. No. 5051 - CLIFF AND PHIL'S LOBSTER HOUSE. (Continued hearing from February 28, 2002). (This hearing is limited to New York Town Law's standards pertaining to Use-Variances and Zoning Board's evaluation, questions, and/or request for information pertaining to a reasonable financial return on this property.) Based on the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval issued November 13, 2001, amended/updated Page 110 of 128 Page 1.11.., January 16,2003' Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing October 22, 2002, applicant requests zoning determinations for: (a) an Interpretation under Article XXIV, Section 100-243 to Reverse the Building Department's determination which states 'that the proposed addition/alterations to an existing restaurant establishment is not permitted in a 'Residential R-40 District, or alternatively a Variance authorizing the proposed addition to the., -existing restaurant, a nonconforming use in a nonconforming building; and(b) a setback variance is also requested under Section 100-244B for an addition to the existing building which will be less than 40'from the front property line. Location of Property: Corner of the east side of Kenny's Road and the south side of North Sea Drive, Southold; Parcel 1000-54-5-22. CHAIRWOMAN: We had a request by this board to re-open the hearing on Cliff and Phil's Lobster House specifically to address the standard and limited to the strict standards of NYS town law for use variance standards. The purpose of this is for the board to be able to ascertain what a reasonable rate of return is similar to NYS town law. We have reviewed some of the financial data that you have presented to us. The bottom line is that as you know we have to be able to make a determination. The determination is based on some kind of basis as to what is reasonable. That rate can be established by you by providing us with sufficient information to make that determination,however, failure to provide enough information for us to make that determination is a denial. I don't think there's any dispute of that. I think Mr. Tsunis will agree with me you've given us case law which would substantiate everything I'm saying. The other area of Town Law that we would like you to address is that for each and every permitted use, including conditional use in the district that the property cannot yield a reasonable rate of return. That issue has not been addressed. The purpose of this hearing is solely to look at the economic issues. As far as determination of dollars and cents proof cost of the property paid, all carrying costs. I'm telling you what is standard operating procedures so you are aware of it. Value of the property expense, carrying charges,taxes, encumbrance, annual income derived from the property and evidence to the purchase price. For the benefit of those of you who are here we have had very few use variances during the last 7 or 8 years and this board has set a very clear standard that must be met in accordance with NYS town law. We have made no deviations from that and that's we expect so I'm asking you as the applicant to provide that information to us along with tax returns or any other information that you can to meet the criteria. You are a well versed attorney you know exactly what I'm saying. GEORGE TSUNIS, ESQ,: Thank you madam chairman. Good evening, my name is George TSUnis, I'm an attorney with the law firm of Rifkin Radler, EAB Plaza, Uniondale, NY. I'm \-ery cognizant this board has been here since the early morning and I will try to be concise and brief. For many years and you are right it is a very difficult standard. For many years the courts have confided to the board a delicate jurisdiction and one easily abused. I know you are cognizant of that Madam Chairman. Upon a showing of unnecessary hardship, general rules are suspended for the benefit of individual owners and special circumstances, special privileges established. The standards are unnecessary hardship and if it is exhibited, a variance can be granted. What the courts have said is when general restrictions create this hardship and the criteria are met, that there is an obligation by this board to grant the privilege to the applicant that promotes equal justice. There are 4 criteria for a use variance. Criteria No. 1 is to demonstrate that the applicant cannot realize a reasonable rate of return that is done by competent financial evidence what we call dollars and cents. You also have to show that each and every other use in the zoning Page 111 of 128 Page 112 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing designation cannot yield that reasonable return. And I'd like to start with that. I turn your attention to your own Town Code in an R-40 district the permitted uses are in an R-40 a single home. The applicant purchased this parcel for$300,000. There is currently a mortgage with a principle amount of$250,000. The mortgage amount every month is$3,200 a month. There are several'factors that also should be considered. Real estate taxes,upkeep,maintenance>=d what =r� not. If you combine all of those things,it costs several thousands of dollars to maintain the property even if you don't open up the door to the restaurant. Doesn't matter if you close the restaurant, 3,200 for the mortgage, about 600 for the taxes for the maintenance for the clean-up. You're talking several thousands of dollars. I know we all have mortgages on our own homes and not a lot of people are able to pay that on a single parcel. What's also burdensome on this application and the courts speak to this. When there are substantial improvements on a property and there is,there's an established restaurant that's also something that this board must take into consideration when fashioning a decision. When there is a situation when a property falls into a state of disrepair that's also something you have to take into account quite simply if a restaurant is not profitable and I will attempt to demonstrate that,there is not a lending institution that is going to continue to lend money on that and an ongoing business concern simply cannot be an ongoing business concern if they don't realize,not a profit, I mean this restaurant has been in the red for the last three years,but a reasonable rate of return, Madam Chairman I've looked at many cases as to what that reasonable rate of return is and the only thing that I've come up with is that it's really the discretion of this board. You also in the zoning designation are allowed to have many of the uses in the agricultural conservation district. Except for children recreation camp, a farm labor camp, a veterinarians office, an animal hospital which are not permitted. You can have a library, a museum, an art gallery. Now please keep in mind before I read the uses that are permitted in the agricultural conservation district that this property is roughly half an acre and I think some of these uses once I mentioned them it's just not practical or feasible to put this type of use on a half acre of property. Field and garden crops, vineyard, orchard farming, maintenance of a nursery and seasonal sale of products grown on the premises, the keeping, breeding, raising and training of horses, domestic animals, fowl,but we don't meet the I0-acre requirement,barns; storage facilities, greenhouses and other related such structures and the retail use of produce in a building owned by the town of Southold or a school district, a park district or a fire district. I don't believe there is anything here that would realize a rate of return. Certainly not all the things I mentioned other than a house. Now the house is a possibility. The house has possibility. I mean clearly all the other strictures in that neighborhood, all the other uses are homes, and you can say well why wouldn't the home work? Well number one, the applicant paid a very pretty penny for it. Number two, there are costs established in knocking this restaurant down, doing a clean up,permitting, soft costs, constructing a house, ripping up parking lots, not to mention that there needs to be and the courts were specific about this a type of amortization about the monies that are put in. Courts are loathe to punish applicants who in good faith have made investments to further their business. It would be extremely difficult for the applicant to now say, you know we put money into air conditioning, carpets, windows, drapes, glasses, cutlery, and to say all that money is for naught. So to put one home on there would not meet the standard of having a reasonable rate of return. I turn to your attention the briefing booklet that I gave you the last time we met where I have a real estate expert, Andrew Stype do an analysis of the homes and the prices in that area. On page two he spoke about inland lots. And although the prices are rising, or they have in the last couple of years, an inland lot according to our Page 112 of 128 Pagel 13, January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing recognized professional who gave you written testimony,which you have, sold for$75,000 to $1,45,000,in'02 it sold for$130,000 to $205,000. Clearly these are well below even the most expensive inland lot sold in 2002 according to Mr. Stype would not be able,my client would be unable to receive his investment back. And that's just the purchase price,that's not talking about alhthe other things you have to do to make this into a buildable lot. We talked about dollars ands` cents proof and I have provided you with 2000,2001, and 2002 fiscal year profit and loss statements by a certified public accountant. You have that. I'm also,if you'll indulge me I have a copy of 1999,2000,and 2001 tax returns for Cliff and Phil's Lobster House, Inc. We have shown to provide dollars and cents proof by certified financial statements done under oath and affirmation by a certified public accountant but now 3 years of tax returns. I tried to do as much research to provide this board with a justification to grant this application. There are cases that I've read that spoke about a zoning board of appeals may grant a use variance on the ground of unnecessary hardship where the land is incapable of yielding a fair return on a nonconforming use which this is because of obsolete or dilapidated improvements. Clearly if you look at this establishment it's been there since the 1950's it's an old establishment I said we should be under whelmed by it's exterior and it really needs to be improved. In our neighboring town,East Hampton, there was a case years back where the applicants land was improved by a barn that was so large as to render impractical it's conversion to a single family residence and the courts have said where it's impractical to put a single family restaurant. Whether it's a barn or whether it's a restaurant that's in need of improvement, the relief was granted. There was also a case where there was a variance to build a gasoline station in a residential district where the land was incapable of producing a reasonable rate of return from a residential use because the improvements which were ancient and unusable for residential purposes. I think you might all agree it is less than ideal if the applicant would have to knock down an existing restaurant where it would be far cheaper to improve his existing restaurant so he can build a home. And I think we've also shown that he's paid too much money and has too much invested to do that and receive a reasonable rate of return. Madam chairman I have mentioned that this is a very difficult standard. But not an impossible one, not an impossible one. There are many things that need to be taken into consideration. The amount of the mortgage, the amount of the improvements, the expenses, the maintenance, the income,but at the end of the day, it should not be concluded that zoning boards of appeal act with incomplete fidelity of the requirements imposed by the statutes and the courts. Evidence supports the conclusion that the stringent judicial standards may become quite modest limitations when they are redefined by a board with it's own notions of it's functions and powers. You do not need to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a heavy burden, but not within a reasonable doubt. What I'm saying is in special circumstances when a lack of reasonable return a uniqueness argument a character in nature of the community argument are there, it's perfectly within your discrection to grant the application. Early cases speaks about the fifth and the fourteenth amendment to the constitutions where if an upzone which has happened here which people can call confiscator or a taken and I'm not here to argue what was done to this property. But when those circumstances exist there is a safety valve that was put into the law that granted this board wide discretion and powers to fix it. And I'm not asking to create a new restaurant. I'm merely asking for a modest expansion to comply with ADA, to have a waiting area, to have a modest expansion of which you have the power to limit as well so my client can realize a reasonable rate of return. On top of that,the by-product will be a much improved restaurant. When instead of a square looking building, you've all seen the Page 113 of 128 Page 114 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing plans, it's beautiful. It's more country-esque, there's dormers and peaks and it's very nice. I'll tell you what else. Your own town board envisioned for a nonconforming use an expansion for up to 30% and this was past very recently. I know you have to make the application to the Planning Board,but if you have a building that's aesthetically pleasing that's more within the traditional notions'of what a building should look like in Southold and if you have extensive landscaping �= and that's something you can require us to do as a condition,you get a 30% expansion and there's no discretion. As long as you make it look more Southold-like and you put the landscaping in, there's a 30%expansion rate. Your own Town Board envisioned that. So I think you're clearly within your powers to do that. The uniqueness argument is the second argument. The leading case on that is Douglas and all that says is - and that's a safety valve-that this particular situation can't be like each and every one. So you don't have mass hysteria where they say oh my god they expanded a restaurant over there. This property is going to become a restaurant and that property is going to become a restaurant. It basically says as long as there are not a lot of them, in this case this is the only like situated property it's the only one that could be a restaurant so you are not going to have any president that any other restaurant or any other commercial enterprises are going to be built in the area. This will continue to be the only one and we meet that argument. The third argument-the third criteria is it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. I think this proposal makes this more in keeping with the character and nature of the community. All one has to do is look at the existing building and look at the proposed building and clearly what we are proposing at tremendous cost and expense to ourselves to for . which I think for which I think we need a little commercial component or benefit from so we can pay for this. This will be a building that is more residential,more traditional looking. I think that this proposal makes this more in keeping with the essential character and nature of the community. When we discussed the last criteria,the self created hardship, courts have held that where money was spent in good faith on a permitted use which was no longer permitted it is proper for the board to consider this fact not withstanding the hardship was not created. These cases have been heard all over the state and I will acknowledge Mrs. Chairwoman that this is a difficult set of criteria to meet and I respectfully submit it you don't grant it on this application where the applicant has been there for 50 years. It's been the subject of an upzoning and that there is substantial aesthetic improvements, a set of covenants and restrictions a brand new air conditioning system that doesn't go bzzzzz. If you don't grant it here where there are special circumstances very unique special circumstances where there has been an inequity, where would you grant it? I thank you very, very much for your indulgence and this concludes my application and chicf. I'm here to answer any questions that you or staff or the neighbors may have. 'Thanl< you. CHAIRWOMAN: Would the Board Members have any questions at this time? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have any questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: None. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Chairwoman I have to tell you that at 6:00 I have to leave. Page 114 of 128 .Page 115.._y January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Fire? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, another meeting. CHAIRWOMAN: The figures that you mentioned as far as the carrying cost,the precious cost, those figures, could you bullet those on one page? MR.TSUNIS: I'm sorry I didn't hear you. CHAIRWOMAN: Could you bullet those? MR. TSUNIS: Certainly, I'll send that to the Zoning Board office next week. CHAIRWOMAN: Sometimes it's very hard to go through 25 pages of hearings if something's lost, it's better to have it in writing. MR. TSUNIS: I was only here for two hours I understand. CHAIRWOMAN: We will review this data. Would council like to add anything, opposing council regarding the financial data? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: Yes. Knowing how you just set up your file, I've set up a third memorandum. With all due respect,the only thing I learned today was the price of the property. Everything else had been previously submitted and now I know what he paid for the property which is $300,000. The evidence that's been presented so far just does not substantiate the burden of financial proof of the and it has to be proof of lack of reasonable return which is substantial. The fact that the property was $300,000 when he bought it about the same time, now that I know the price. About the same time, Ross's restaurant was for sale up on the North Road. And-at that time that restaurant was going for at least$200,000 more and the reason for that is that Ross's is the old restaurant now it's O'Malleys. The difference is that up there, it's a permitted use. The restaurant, the size of the restaurant they are pretty comparable but up there, it's where it can stay and it's where it can grow. There are no limitations. Here the price was reflective of the fact that this is a non-conforming property with a non-conforming use and the limitations are severe. And I know it's very hard as an applicants attorney most of the time to say this but a use variance should be impossible to get because it is the equivalent of the Board acting as a legislature. 'If the Town Board had wanted to make this a permitted use, it had the opportunity to do so since the 50's. This property has been zoned residential since it's inception since zoning came in effect. The evidence that has been presented in prior hearings as personal testimony as well as your records, your zoning records. Zoning right from the beginning this is a residential neighborhood. This became a pre-existing non-confonning use. Nobody is asking them to close it down if they were to close it after a certain period of time it would be abandoned. That's the nature of a non-conforming use. I just don't but it. The Board has very restrictive law. It is almost treatise-like in the volumes of the cases that have been reviewed with respect to use-variances. They just are not allowed. On a rare occasion, this just doesn't get it. Page 115 of 128 Page 116 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing The property owner when they bought this piece he was already an operator of the business. I believe he had been operating for a couple of years,it's never been disclosed exactly how long. But he bought it knowing how the business ran. Presumably you don't buy a business unless you know very well how much money is coming in. He negotiated the price,bought it for$300,000 and now is asking the community to allow him to now only rebuild,but to expand and also more gym importantly and more offensively it's to expand the bar and that is something that is truly not permitted in this area. You are talking about a small bar area with a few bar stools that is clearly accessory to the existing restaurant. What he's proposed is essentially the equivalent use to a restaurant and the bar that could stand alone on their own. Slow times in the winter when.people are a little depressed they want to go drink. They are going to generate their revenue in drinking. In the summer when there's plenty of visitors,they can generate their business with food service. They provided a financial statement. We had our accountant look at the financial statement. They provided an updated financial statement-it's the same as the other only actually it shows less loss. Over time they have been doing a wonderful job with their restaurant. They have been generating a lot of business and from the neighbors that were there through the wintertime because we have a lot of year round residents there,the business has been doing very well. The restaurant has been active and it's been generating a lot of support in the community and a lot of growth and that's wonderful. That's good for them. The other argument that just doesn't make sense to me is that they have not disclosed how much it's going to cost to do this major renovation. If they are saying that buying the property for$300,000 with a mortgage of 250 and the business that exists doesn't carry the load are you telling me that a renovation that has to be more than$200,000 I know what I want to my little house to put a stupid little bedroom on the 2nd floor and that common sense tells me that you're going to look at a renovation that's going to be substantial. The theory if you build it,they will come,well that just doesn't hold water when it comes to a use variance. You don't substantiate your lack of reasonable return by offering to build a whole new building at a significant expense. The numbers just don't add up. And the theory just doesn't add up. The ZBA is constrained and I know you struggled with this for years because it is a difficult emotional problem with a use that's existing. Certainly the restaurant no doubt it's existing and our hearts go out to them and I think everyone here, if they didn't feel so strongly one way or another would say geez you know too bad they're not in a commercial zoning district because nobody likes to be the bad guy and say no including the Zoning Board. I know you all want to try to come to compromises. But this just doesn't hold water. This application if you do the wrong thing you may get sued by the applicant but most assuredly each property owner here has a right to sue on their own and challenge your granting of a use variance because the law is so clear with respect to they are so clear they are presumed denied. It has to be such a great burden to show that there is no way that you can generate a reasonable return. It just doesn't make sense given that it's a self-imposed hardship. He bought it the way it is and it's doing quite well creative accounting can sometimes come up with the numbers you want but the facts speak for themselves they are busy, they have a lot of patrons that frequent the place. Secondly, yes there are uses that would be a reason to convert this to you do have a restaurant, but it wouldn't be that difficult to convert this to a residence I mean you have the kitchen, the living area, it's not that hard and given the price of$300,000 let me tell you the prices are crazy right now I saw today in my office a potato barn that is selling for$300,000 and that's something that you know what are you going to do with a potato barn in the same condition. The number is actually quite reasonable and thank goodness for all of us that the property values have gone up Page 116 of 128 Page 117_ January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing because again it undermines the theory that there is no financial reasonable return. They could sell the property tomorrow and make a very good profit. This is a waterview property I mean it's 4 not waterfront but it would be ranging in the equivalent of a waterfront property because there's nobody.-around you can see out to the water. Put a nice 2nd story residence and you have a tbeautiffil view. No other houses around you blocking your view so again it's a very difficult-- burden and the law is so complete when it comes these issues. I went back and I didn't photocopy all the cases that I sighted because it would just be volumes to present to you. If you see a case that you want to read specifically you just write to me either Mr. Tsunis or myself will pull it up and we'll send it to you. But you can look at the treatises on use variances it's all there. There's nothing unique and as hard as it is I know it's just very difficult and I'm sure that any good lawyer that had represented them on the purchase would have told them how difficult it would be when they bought this business. Live with what you have,you'll do fine. Just don't go looking for these expansions. It puts the community at odds. Just with respect to numbers,Mr. Stype did not do a very thorough financial statement or appraisal with respect to this property but he does say in his statement that the prices range in 2002 from$130,000 to $205,000 for vacant land. I know from my phone calls because it's very difficult to find appraisers that haven't somehow or another been involved with this property at one point or another. But they've given the information anyhow which is that they are on Lake Drive there were 3 vacant lots and each of them sold for$145,000 now one of them is back on the market for sale for$190,000 that's a vacant lot and they are little % acre lots. Prices are escalating. The house two doors away is a house that sold for$675,000 it's only a 2-bedroom house. It's very nice and modern but 675,you know you can renovate again you can renovate this restaurant put a beautiful house there and.do quite well. We're not suggesting that they sell this property and turn it into a house it's their decision but it does not constitute a financial hardship to say the only thing we could do I guess is keep it as a restaurant. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've sat here for 22 years and I've sat through a lot of variance hearings, but no one has ever said to me that the granting of a use variance was legislative and I'm going to tell you the reason why and I know it's your opinion and I respect your opinion. MS. MOORE: I think in the treatise's that's the way it's described. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well the difference is and this is the difference the number one niost use variances are granted with conditions and number 2 it we have a substantial destruction of the building through some sort of means, hurricane, electrical storm, or just a fire which we are certainly not encouraging to happen the property reverts back to a use variance or does it revert back to the zoning? It reverts back to the zoning. MS. MOORE: Correct. So it eliminates the use. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Therefore, it's not legislative. MS. MOORE: I'm not sure I understand your analysis. Page 117 of 128 Page 118 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER.GOEHRINGER: It may relate back to the use,but more than likely it's going to zoning on the use. MS. MOORE: Okay well but the zoning on this property is residential. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MS. MOORE: So when the board grants a use that is not otherwise permitted under the zoning ordinance that's why the courts say be very careful because it is the equivalent of legislating. That's the way it's presented by the courts. You are now putting a use in the zoning code which the Town Board and the planning principals that's why it's called legislating. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On a parking lot yes. MS. MOORE: On any use. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, on a parking lot yes, on an improvement no. In my opinion. MS. MOORE: Well in any case we still haven't met the burden here. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anything you would like to say in rebuttal to that? MR. TSUNIS: Yes. With all due respect the board here is not granting a use the board is granting a nonconforming expansion of a use that's already existing. It's been existing since 1950. It's not granting a use. I'm not taking a vacant piece of property, asking for a use variance to construct a restaurant. That would be something greater. That would be introducing something foreign or new to the community. I'm merely asking for permission to renovate a restaurant and do a mild expansion of a restaurant that has been there before the homes were there. Ms. Moore by her own admission said there was a lot that was now appreciated to 190,000 that's still 55% greater than what my client paid and you still have to factor in all the improvements, all the startup costs. The cost of continuing a restaurant and all the cost to knocking it down and creating a lot that's suitable for the construction of a home. To take a commercial premises and now convert it into a home it's not feasible. There was a question, actually a statement concerning the cost of renovating this establishment Iortuitously for the applicant her husband is a contractor and I just don't think he's going to profit from it. This family is a contractor who can do this relatively inexpensively. I don't think that they would get into this without analyzing exactly how much it would cost without being able to go to a bank and saying look we can finance this thing so we can improve it so we can bring in new carpets and create a more beautiful building and landscaping and the bank's going to say but only if you get some sort of commercial financial component that's going to allow you to make a profit because the place is too small. Furthermore the court is very, very clear on this intrinsic scientific data. I heard a little about this and in my travels I've done that and I assume this intrinsic scientific data. Someone stated something about a restaurant on the North Road okay that's sort of similar in size and what not and so on and so forth. That's not the way decisions are based. We've given voluminous documents cases, memorandums of law,pictures,photos, Page 118 of 128 Page 119 January 16,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing layouts, sketches,professional testimony from a recognized real estate expert. My good friend and learned council Ms. Moore is correct. They don't give a lot of these out. But what we were able to do is to go into the cases and find the exceptions the circumstances where you do give them out.I.know I've checked with the Town Attorney,Mr. Yakaboski you've granted seven in the last 28„years. So you do give them out when you meet the criteria. You give them out under special circumstances. CHAIRWOMAN: Do you know when they were? They've got to be prior to 1995. MR. TSUNIS: I have no idea. He said seven in the last 28 years. I can affirmatively state that. I don't know when they were issued or what the cases are,but- CHAIRWOMAN: There haven't been any since I've been on the Board. MR. TSUNIS: And let me conclude by saying this. You are not granting a use. You- CHAIRWOMAN: It's an extension of a non-conforming use. MR. TSUNIS: The use is already there. CHAIRWOMAN: Let me ask you a question. What do you estimate would be a reasonable rate of return? MR. TSUNIS: I think a rate of return needs to be at least something that you can achieve in a municipal bond or a treasury bond that's probably in the neighborhood of 5 or 6%. That's really my opinion and my opinion really means nothing here. CHAIRWOMAN: 5 or 6% of gross? MR. TSUNIS: The capital you have invested in it. CHAIRWOMAN: Excuse me, I didn't hear that. MR. TSUNIS: The gross. CHAIRWOMAN: 5% of gross. MR. TSUNIS: I think we are also, it's a little different here Madam Chairman, this is not a straight real estate deal where you put your money down. The owners work in here so there's also their sweat equity to contend with. They can go and be a chef at another restaurant or be a manager of another restaurant and bring in a paycheck so I think what you have to factor in what I think you have to factor into your analysis is what their sweat equity is worth too and one final comment before I sit down. The last time we were here we introduced people who talked about what type of establishment this has been and this has been for many,many years and I think and you are allowed to use your own analysis and personal opinions on this I think you've probably Page 119 of 128 Page 120 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing all gone there at some point in time and I think what you'll probably realize is it's a place where you can get a.steak and a glass of wine and a salad- CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to cut you off right there because we treat everyone equally and tl hearing was solely for the purpose of addressing the financial standards of that. - MR. TSUNIS: The attorney for this family restaurant will sit down now. CHAIRWOMAN: You are going to provide that information to us,that bulleted list? MR.TSUNIS: I'd be delighted to. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would specifically like to address the reasonable rate of return under NYS law? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could I just address the public? I sincerely apologize about having to leave here,but I have to go to a meeting which is only given at this specific date and specific time and I will read the transcript from this particular point on and I do apologize to the Board for that. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you Jerry, goodnight. MONROE SONNENBORN, ESQ: Madam Chairman it's not solely for the reasonable rate of return,but it really goes to the appropriate- BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Please use the mike. Can you state your name? MR. SONNENBORN: My comments go to reasonable rate of return but before you get there what I think has been ignored is this applicant hasn't satisfied the legal requirements of a use variance so that there are many other issues before you get to reasonable rate of return. I would like the opportunity to address them. For example, BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Excuse me, could you please state your naive? MR. SONNENBORN: Monroe Sonnenborn. I have a home which I've owned for nearly 23 years diagonally across from the restaurant. I'm an attorney permitted to practice in New York. What really troubles me here is we're starting sort of at the very end of the process. The applicable legal rule is that a use variance cannot be granted if the quoted hardship is self- created. That's the holding of decision in holey cemetery vs. ZBA a copy of which is attached to a memo which I will submit and by the way the case itself is cited in Southold Towns rules governing use variances in paragraph 1D. The holding of that case is that a variance will not be granted to someone who purchased property with prior notice of the zoning restrictions. Here at least one of the principles worked at and was closely associated with the restaurant for a substantial period prior to purchasing it. The principals were thus certainly aware that the restaurant was located in an area that was zoned residential before they purchased Page 120 of 128 Page 121 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing it: That limitation was also without doubt reflected in the reduced purchase price that they have to pay for the restaurant the relief that was apparently intended to be conferred by section 100- 243 which,is where you find the 15% and 30% expansion,which by the way are not as of right, they are aVthe discretion of the Zoning Board. But that section of the zoning law was enacted for co nerciaPusers such as those on the North Road who were subsequently affected by a change- in the zoning law which opposed limits on their existing operations. Contrary to the applicants prior representations to this board, I do not believe that there has ever been a change in the zoning for this property. There has never been an upzoning. It was always residential period full stop going back to the beginning of time. I believe it was always on residential and in any event it is certain that the present owners have never been affected by any change in the zoning of their property. In addition in this case there has already been an expansion of the kind permitted by section 100-243 in 1984 the restaurant's owner obtained permission to increase the nonconforming restaurant use by expanding the building by 350 sq. ft. from 2231 sq ft to 2581 sq. ft. According to the present application the size of the existing building is 2860 sq. ft. which indicates that since 1984 an additional 279 sq. ft.has apparently been added illegally to the building without the approval of the zoning authority. My guess is that when there was a fire in 1989 when they re-built the restaurant there was self help to the tune of this 279 sq. ft. In any event, 15% of 2231 sq. ft. is 335 sq. ft so that the total permitted use of the building after a 15% expansion would be 2566'. 30% of 2231 sq. ft. is 669 sq. ft. so that the total permitted size of the building after even a 30% expansion the maximum allowed by the law would be 2900 sq. ft. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to have to stop you because we've had a number of hearings on this and it simply would not be fair to all the rest of the people in the audience. This hearing was advertised and has really strictly been limited to- MR. SONNENBORN: This goes to the-before you even get to reasonable rate of return- you've got an application that is basically beyond the contemplation of the law and the law that this is under at the most would have allowed a 30% expansion, this restaurant at 2860 sq. ft. where you are dealing with a maximum of 2900 sq. ft. means the very most that you could grant them by the way of a use variance under the statute is an additional 40'. Moreover to get that permission for the 30% expansion,they would have to satisfy all the maximum-they could not exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage. They would have to comply with all other setback and area requirements and they would be subject to a variety of remediation measures and there is no legal basis \vhatever for -r.u1ting a second use variance to the same property. What I'm really addressing is you know to talk about the financial impact it comes very late in the day. The point is that this application which requests a 1418 expansion of the restaurant from 2860' to 4278 sq. ft. is a request to expand the restaurant by approximately 50%. That's illegal on it's face because the section under which this whole matter would be governed 100-243 does not allow any expansion greater than 30% and this nonconforming use has already had an expansion of nearly that maximum 30%. CHAIRWOMAN: Sir, I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying or agreeing. The point is that we have had testimony very similar to what you have given at the other hearings. This hearing was specifically advertised and the legal notice was given specifically limited it to Page 121 of 128 Page 122 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing information on the financial return at the request of the Town Attorney. Now to re-open this hearing and to go through all of the standards of law-I'm aware of the standards of law. 1VIR. SONNENBORN: With all due respect,I don't remember these arguments having been F made-anywhereAn the record. CHAIRWOMAN: As far as the percentages on the expansion? MR. SONNENBORN: Yes and in terms of tying together the expansion that this restaurant has already had and seeing what a 30% expansion would mean. I sat in on the two prior hearings now I can speak on the financial hardship,but the point is before you get to the notion of hardship it's important that as a matter of law the applicant doesn't even get there and none of these arguments to my knowledge certainly they weren't made during two other hearings that I attended and in terms of reasonable rate of return as I understand it,there's nothing that even guarantees a profit but they could given real estate values in Southold sell this property for residential use to the extent that you are looking for reasonable rate of return on a business. If you took a 5%rate of return on a$50,000 investment,it's like$2500 because they have a $250,000 mortgage. So what they are basically saying as I understand it is they are entitled to a profit of$2500 a year because that's the investment on their capital. The point is that's there's nothing in the law that guarantees them a profit. They could sell this property and come out alive. Moreover the financial information that's been submitted as I understand it at least up to now has not been certified by an independent CPA who's audited the books moreover as I understand it the financial information reflects that substantial salaries have been paid and that may very well have been salaries that were paid for the principles. Therefore that would absorb a great deal of the profit. Even when you get to rate of return, they could sell the property and make out well given what's happened to real estate values in Southold and the requirement of the rules is that they demonstrate by competent financial evidence what their rate of return is. The burden is on them and as I understand it, there are now many existing holes in what has been presented but my point is a lot broader of that which is you can't grant something that isn't allowed by law and before you even get to the issue of return the applicant has to satisfy various other standards. I am not a zoning attorney. This is not what I do with my life and because of my concern about owning a home and having the neighborhood change I undertook to do some research and what was stunning and what was stunning to me was the presentation that has been made by the applicant really doesn't address �a,hat I think is the governing law and if the governing law is in the best of circumstances not as of right but at the discretion of the zoning authority you get a 30% expansion we're basically there and I don't know why that hasn't come up because I have standing as a homeowner in the neighborhood I did undertake to try to ascertain what the legal standards are which you know there are other things that you are required to consider for example it's important that the applicant could permissibly conduct it's proposed business of a large bar or saloon elsewhere in Southold Town. It's very important in a zoning structure if the town allows this purpose somewhere else then there is somewhere else than there is less reason to grant a use variance. In addition, you are also required to look at the neighborhood in which this business is being conducted. You are required to balance the requested use variance against the rights of the existing homeowners in a manner that is fair and accords substantial justice. On this point, it is important that many of the at least 50 or 60 Page 122 of 128 Page 123 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing homeowners,on Kennys Road and many more on Leighton Drive, Lake Drive area, Soundview Ave. and the,Horton's Lane area has extensively renovated their homes in reliance of the residential character of the neighborhood and the limited size of the nonconforming restaurant. Fifth,the Board is also required by the rules that affect the character of the neighborhood and the: healt14-safety,-and welfare of the community and since so many people have spoken about-this, I'm really not going to dwell on it,but you are required to take notice of the fact that many residents engage in recreational activities such a biking,jogging, and walking. The roads there are narrow and not well lit. CHAIRWOMAN: Sir I'm going to have to- all of the previous testimony-we've had much testimony from the neighbors who have expressed concerns about the character of the neighborhood and who've addressed those concerns. All of that is on the record. We simply can't go back and re-open it up to that again we don't even have the legal authority. The legal notice is very clear. I appreciate your concerns,but the legal notice specifically says and we are acting on our attorneys advice and we are going to follow it to limit this to the financial data. That is the purpose of this hearing. MR. SONNENBORN: You don't think you can take notice for example there had been a great deal made of the desire of the restaurant to work with the community and the whole history of what happened with the proposed restricted covenant. You feel that's outside the scope of this? CHAIRWOMAN: That's on the record now. That's all in the record. Everything that- all the prior hearings, all the concerns that the residents have expressed in the past. They are all in the record right now. It's not a question of us taking a look at them-we are taking a look at them. MR. SONNENBORN: But what's not in the record is there has been an exchange of proposals and I don't know that it's in the record that for example the response to the communities request to limit the number of bar seats what they are asking is to go from 10 to 24. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes we have all that all in the record. Yes we do. Mr. Sonnenborn stood up the last time and said he wanted restricted covenants discussed. He said he wanted to gather all attorneys and discuss these covenants. Everybody submitted them and the board has done nothing about it. MR. SONNENBORN: I don't think you have in the record what the response was. MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't think parties have agreed to any C &R's. MR. SONNENBORN: It's revealing because the notion is you've been presented with a request in the form that this is really a family restaurant and then when the community responded and said okay let's discuss this what they were visited with was a request for a bar stool increase of 140% closing times on Friday and Saturday of 2am which is hardly consistent with a family restaurant. Closing times Monday through Thursday of I am so all I'm trying to say is that while a great deal has been presented about the desire to run a family restaurant, that's not really what's Page 123 of 128 Page 124 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing going on here and;forgive me if it's in the record I certainly will stop,but you know there has been no opportunity it seems to me to put the results of those discussions in the record as of yet. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Tsunis could you- MR. TSUNIS: I'd like permission to submit the- CHAIRWOMAN: Absolutely, fine. MR.TSUNIS: On December 5 h,via Fed Ex,we sent 6 copies of the covenants and restrictions - one for every board member,you should have a copy of that. They we formatted in proper form and there were 10 C&R's, they spoke about exterior lighting,hours of operation,parking lot stripes,landscaping, employee parking, limitation of deliveries, soundproof HVAC, filters and exhausts for potential cooking odors,limiting the amount of dinner seats, and bar seats. The amount of square footage- CHAIRWOMAN: We have that on record. Was there a written response by you,Ms. Moore? MS. MOORE: My memory is that he did not send it to me. I found out from one of the property owners in reviewing the file that it had been submitted to the Zoning Board. In turn I actually had submitted our proposed covenants directly to him at Rivkin and Radler with a copy going to you so that you would know what it was that we were sending to him. Unfortunately I have not - been given the courtesy that I- CHAIRWOMAN: Your proposed covenants came after his? MS. MOORE: I don't know when his came date wise because again I wasn't given a copy until somewhat later. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Their letter is dated December 5th and your letter is dated November 20th, MS. MOORE: Thank you. My letter is November and his is December. But nothing came to me. MEMBER ORLANDO: That's what the comment was at the last hearing that Chainnan Goehringer had suggested we send C&R's to each other and work it out come to agreement of C&R's. MS. MOORE: Exactly and we sent ours to him but he didn't respond to our C&R's, he in turn executed draft C&R's for the board to look at ignoring anything the community might be concerned with. CHAIRWOMAN: We have copies of both. Page 124 of 128 Page 125 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. TSUNIS: Not only is it your decision and I submitted it to you and quite frankly you can ignore mine and you are permitted to put all reasonable conditions on any grant so you can come up with one set that's more intrusive but I did have a conversation with council on proposed limitations and'C&R's and I can tell you that the approved, I believe it's going to be futile by her own admission she doesn't think she can get all 9 of her clients to agree on a set of C&R's some are more reasonable than others. She has nine clients all of which want nothing in their backyards so there was a conversation had I've deduced that it's futile to continue,but the board is the one that the C&R's were submitted to-she now has a copy, I'd be happy to give her another copy. CHAIRWOMAN: We just checked the minutes,I think we left it the way Mr. Orlando recalls that the chairman said we would not discuss it at another meeting because we specifically closed the hearing that night. MR.TSUNIS: Let me state this,whatever C&R's this board finds fair and necessary to protect the character and nature of the community are ones that this applicant will agree to. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay,board members, Mr. Orlando, any questions? MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. MS. MOORE: I just have one point with respect to Ross's restaurant I do want to have a chance to get from the town records the price that was paid for Ross's. I do recall it was a high price,but just knowing right now what the price is,in all fairness with the applicant I do need to provide it in writing and I just don't want to be precluded from sending it to you. It's a matter of public record. MR. TSUNIS: Perhaps you'll have ample opportunity to get that. This client has undergone, our first meeting was in February. It has been three applications in 11 months-there is a public notice requirement it's not even permitted to be submitted. It's clearly not something that can be part of the record,but as reasonable as a person as I am, let's close the record and let's leave an exception for her to submit it this week but I don't want to keep this open please it's simply not fair after 3 hearings in 11 months. CHAIRWOMAN: Will you be able to get your information to us within the next week, Mr. Tsunis? MR. TSUNIS: Yes much of it is in our memorandum of law which was submitted but I will give you a bullet sheet early next week. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay so what we'll do it we'll close the hearing tonight to verbatim testimony and then close it a week from Monday. Are you disallowing any further comments by anyone even those pertaining to economic J`, hardship? Page 125 of 128 Page 126 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: :No we're not disallowing them, I'm just trying to get a date when the attorneys,Monday,January 27th? Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to question of reasonable rate of financial return on the property? I have a question. Could you please clarify what it is that will occur on January 271h please? CHAIRWOMAN: That's the date that both attorneys have to get their submissions in by. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Excuse me but we have to have every speaker give their name before they speak. PATRICIA POPPE: I just wanted to know what was happening on January 27th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I don't do the transcript,we give it out to another place, they are not going to know who you are. MS. POPPE: It's just that there are so many people here from Kenny's Beach, they would like to know what is going on. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to -your name sir? CONSTANTINE GEORGEOPOLIS: Constantine Georgeopolis 1330 N. Sea Drive. Firstly I'd like to respond to a number of comments that Mr. Tsunis made. He mentioned that his client only seeks a modest expansion, that's deceiving, and he also.said that his client only wants a mild expansion,but yet the declaration that he drafted which his clients signed and submitted to the board reflect an expansion of bar seats to 24. I was there this afternoon and I counted 9 bar seats. This is not a modest or mild expansion, it's a very significant expansion because 24 bar seats means that if there was 1 standing patron for every bar seat, you'll have 48 people in there and if there are 2 standing patrons to every bar seat you'll have 72 people in there. It's a significant expansion. I'm simply responding to Mr. Tsunis's comments. I did not hear this evening, something that we all heard in February and November and that is that it's his clients intention only to continue to operate and I quote a family style restaurant but maybe that's because the declaration and covenants were tiled which are substantially contrary to the operation of a family style restaurant. If you will permit me Madam Chairlady I need 1 minute to explain to you where the funds are going to come from for this expansion. CHAIRWOMAN: What do mean where the funds are going to come from? MR. GEORGEOPOLIS: In terms of realizing a profit in terms of the economic necessity. In terms of the profit and loss and I suggest that I have an answer for that. I need 1 minute. Every Saturday and Sunday from early Spring to late Autumn we see the north road filled with visitors and motorcycles and when one goes to Claudios, one sees merrymaking, all the young people drinking,motorcycles, everybody having a grand time and I believe the intention here is to tap into that market. That's where the money is going to come from to pay for these expansions. Page 126 of 128 Page 127 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing They can't they are losing money now and they are going to expand it and they are going to pay for those expansions and they are going to realize a profit from a family style restaurant on this basis -I don't believe it. I CHAIRWOMAN Thank you sir,we've got to really limit it, one more time to what was 1; advertised, the financial data regarding a reasonable rate of return. It has to be limited to that, we've gone way off base now. LESLIE WEISMANN: My name is Leslie Weismann, I'm a resident of Soundview Ave. in Southold, I'm a professor of architecture and planning and I'm a consultant to the department of justice in Washington D.C. in matters dealing with 504 compliance of Americans with disability act. I have nothing prepared,but in sitting in the audience and listening as both a property owner and neighbor, I'd like to know how many of my neighbors are here in disagreement of granting this expansion. How many people are here? I'm going to address some of the comments that deal with rate of return. CHAIRWOMAN: Madam, I'm going to cut you off right now. I've tried to be very patient about this. This is what this hearing's about. Both of the attorneys recognize this going in.We are going astray. MS. WEISMANN: May I address- CHAIRWOMAN: All of these comments on board we talked about the degree of expansion. We have listened to many of your concerns, we are aware of those concerns. We are trying to do our job very diligently. MS. WEISMANN: It's difficult for an architect to listen to an individual talk about what is more Southold-like in order to create a better rate of return. The type of restaurant that is there at the moment actually looks remarkably like the massing and the footprints of an awful lot of small dwellings in that area that have been there for a very long time. I really doubt that any of us in the neighborhood would object to creating a better appearance to the facility a facelift of some sort, additional compliance with ADA does not require an increasing number of square footage they already have a zero threshold on the building. They don't need ramps. No one is going to disagree that if it makes a better- rate of return for a very decent person, the people who owrl this restaurant live here, they are respected. It is very difficult to be put in contention with someone who is not a disagreeable individual who has a right in fact to do a reasonable business, but when that business puts hardship on our community, then there is not a reasonable answer in order to proceed on the same basis that the applicant has applied for. If you try to create a greater rate of return through expanding the number of seats and so on which is the argument, for every seat there is a parking code. We have a ''/z acre parcel. CHAIRWOMAN: The board is aware of everything you are saying. We have the statistics, we have the site plan, we have the recommendations from the Planning Board. We are aware of these things. We are aware of what you are saying. Page 127 of 128 Page 128 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. WEISMANN:. Then let me conclude by simply saying that an informed board, and I know you are who are empowered to act of the good of the community should I hope consider the feelings of this community. I won't talk any more about it because you've asked me not to and you've heard more than enough. I'm sure the facts are fairly clear to you all and they are very clear to us-as well and I hope that this board will have the courage and the responsibility and the ethical mandate to act with integrity within the purview of the law and to use reasonable judgment as people who represent us. You are our board and you represent our community and we hope that you will in good reason recognize that our rights as property owners living in a residential neighborhood must be respected and protected and not put in contention with the , rights of one individual who made an economic decision a number of years ago. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion closing the hearing to verbatim and we are going to get that information in by the 27t'' Any additional comments by the 27a' All in favor? All ayes. Thank you very much for coming and we'll take into consideration everyone's concerns. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 128 of 128