Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/20/2003 HEAR SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD MARCH 20, 2003 (Prepared by Jessica Boger) Present were: Chairwoman Lydia A. Tortora Member Vincent Orlando Member Ruth D. Oliva Member Gerard P. Goehringer(absent from 2:05-2:24) Member George Horning(until 2:25) Board Secretary Kowalski (absent 11:30-12:30) Paula Quinteri (11:30-12:30) PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9:46 a.m.Rory Forrestal#5243 —Applicant requests a Variance under Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's October 2, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended December 9, 2002. Applicant proposes a second-story addition and porch to the existing dwelling at less than the code's 35 ft. setback requirement for total side yards, and less than 15 ft. setback on one side, at 1065 Saltaire Way, Mattituck; County Parcel 1000-100-1-23. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Would the board like to review the application? Are there any questions? It's a fairly simple expansion. A second story expansion over pre-existing nonconforming setback of 13.5 they need a less than a 2' variance to reach the minimum of 15'. I especially don't have any problems with this. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've been there twice and I don't have any problems with it. MEMBER OLIVA: No real questions but on the survey I noticed a big double deck on the back and I would say he has an erosion problem on the side of his driveway but otherwise as far as putting an addition on the 2nd story is no problem. 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 9:48 a.m. David and Carol Kirby#5284—Applicants request a Variance under Section 100- 242A and 100-244,based on the Building Department's November 18, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended December 2, 2002. Applicants propose to construct a front deck addition Page 2 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing at less than 35 feet from the front property line, at 905 Captain Kidd Estates, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-106-5-10. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? CAROL KIRBY: We just want to put a small front porch on the front of the house. It's just a deck. CHAIRWOMAN: It's a 7x28' deck and you're going to put you have a little niche in front of the house that L shaped niche so that 3' of the Twill be in that niche there so -you have an existing setback of 25'to the house and with the deck being put into the little niche that would bring it down to a proposed+/- 21' is that right? MS. KIRBY: That's about right. CHAIRWOMAN: It's an open deck? MS. KIRBY: Yes. No plans to enclose it. MEMBER OLIVA: I would like to make a correction on the application, you are 905 Captain Kidd Dr. I was there I don't see a big problem putting a little deck addition on. MEMBER ORLANDO: How long have you lived at this location? MS. KIRBY: About 10 years. My husband lived there for 50. MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't have a problem with the deck but I see a lot of improvements so you're just updating and improving the residence. What is the size of the deck? MS. KIRBY: 7x28. MEMBER ORLANDO: And the overhang on the house will -you don't plan on putting one over the door? MS. KIRBY: Just a small canopy, a canvas canopy just until we can afford to do more of a roof, but we'll never enclose the porch. We just want to put a little something over the door so we don't get wet when we go in and out. MEMBER ORLANDO: So you're thinking in the future a covered porch or- MS. KIRBY: Just over the door to match the existing front kitchen window and the living room window. Just a little roof thing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I live in the area and know the house very well,knew Al very well. No questions. Page 2 of 91 Page 3 March 20, 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? Do you have the affidavit of sign posting? MEMBER OLIVA: I was there Monday and I didn't see the sign posted. MEMBER ORLANDO: It was there in the window. MS. KIRBY: We couldn't put it outside because of all the snow and ice. CHAIRWOMAN: Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:45 a.m. Sang Lee Farms #5324 -This is a request for a Special Exception,based on the Building Department's August 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval which states that under Town Code Chapter 47.3A, a farm stand in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. is permitted only with site plan approval from the Planning Board and with special exception approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Applicant is proposing to construct a farm building(or structure) which will be enclosed on all sides and used as a sales area, open to the public, in addition to the existing farm stand sales area. Location of Property: 25180 C.R. 48, Peconic; Parcel Nos. 84-5-1.2 andl.3 (as one lot). CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Yes, Mr. Lee? MR. LEE: I can't remember when the last time we were here, early fall I think last year I spoke before this board about the issues I wanted to pursue at the farmstand. It was my understanding at that time that we were granted an approval so I'm not sure why I'm- CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to say this was an oversight and a fault of this board and probably not yours and a misunderstanding between our board and you the applicant because the application required a variance and a special exception however when you filled out the application you filled it out for a variance not a special exception so we acted on the variance aspect of this application but not the special exception so we'll take the hit on it if you'll share a little with us. MR. LEE: What is required at this time? CHAIRWOMAN: I'd like to make a motion incorporating the testimony and the entire record of the October 171h hearing so we don't have to re-hear all prior testimony and we can incorporate it in this hearing. Mr. Lee we had a hearing on this matter and I don't have any questions at this time. Page 3 of 91 Page 4 March 20; 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only question that comes to mind with a SE is the question of parking. Now I know you've addressed parking to a certain degree on the site plan under the SE standards that we'd like you to review one of those is parking and I need you to take great emphasis on that and the ability of entering and exiting CR 48 which as you know is a relatively high speed road. MR. LEE: Nancy in one of her preliminary drafts I don't know if it was included in the packet, there's a ratio of sufficient number of spaces per sq. ft. it actually comes behind the farm stand area where the allotted spaces would be allocated. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's just a very important issue because of the speed of that road and it's not a place where you want people to park in front of your house and attempt to walk in because you never know what's going to happen. There are other areas that you know in the immediate vicinity that you know and there have been significant accidents in that area and I think a fatality. MR. LEE: At no point would we even consider allowing customers to park on the road. Our plan was always to come off 48 and put in behind the farm stand and in the driveway. CHAIRWOMAN: This will also be subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions but of course the parking is short term, people don't spend a lot of time, it's not long-term parking there. MR. LEE: I hope the longer they stay the more they spend,but I think 10 minutes is accurate. MEMBER OLIVA: I don't see a problem with parking when I've gone by I've never seen something spread out all over the place and I wish you well. 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 9:54 a.m. Claire Tassone and Michael Nulty#5272—Applicants request Variances under Sections 239.4A.1 and 30A.3 based on the Building Department's November 7, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants propose a single family dwelling at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff or bank of the Long Island Sound, and front yard setback at less than 50 feet, at 590 North View Drive, Orient; Parcel 1000-13-1-5.1. Page 4 of 91 Page 5 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? BRUCE ANDERSON: I'm Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicants Nulty and Tassone. I have a couple things I want to hand up to you that aren't in the file and the first is the exterior elevations of the house and I'll get to that and describe them. The applicants wish to build a house on a 41,922 sq. ft. lot which has a bluff that fronts the LI Sound about 2/3rds of this property is beach and bluff. The dwelling would 1750 sq. ft. in footprint and would.include a 435 sq. ft. deck overall coverage on the property would be 5.2%. 1 submitted to you a memo on the outlining our points on March 161h and I had previously made a FOIL request to the ZBA which produced a variance that was granted for the corner lot as you come down North View Dr. to the east of the property and I'd like to hand that up to you as well because that will give you some insight to the prior zoning history to the neighborhood. We laid out our variance criteria based upon surveys we were able to obtain from the Build. Dept. which included 3 surveys we have our own obviously and then there was one additional survey which unfortunately does not show the location of the bluff so what we did was we obtained an aerial photo of the property and the reason we consider the neighborhood to be would be the waterfront lots and on that aerial I took the house and I adjusted it to 1" to 100' scale and applied that house onto the aerial and I think what's immediately obvious is this is a house that fits into the character of the neighborhood. In this neighborhood there is no house that meets the 100'bluff setback. There are houses that were built particularly on the west that are in excess in one case 180' off the road and yet those houses would be 40' off the bluff. The table that was submitted under the character of the neighborhood is a little bit conservative because it was prepared before I had that variance before me. It simply didn't come in at the time I drafted the memo and that variance relating to tax map 13-1-7 tells us that bluff setback was actually 5'not the 22' and 15' reported in the table that were significantly closer but that it was setback 23' from the road where I reported 18. What that means to us is we are essentially more conforming than 6 out of the 7 houses comprising the neighborhood. We explain to you in our memo that we could not build any house on this property without benefit of a variance because when you exact the 50' setback off the road and you exact the 100' setback off the bluff face what you discover is that you wind up with a negative building envelope so any house built on this property will require a variance. When viewed in context with what the neighborhood exists the variances sought are not substantial because they would significantly exceed the bluff setback in that neighborhood and at least among the nonconforming lots with respect to front yard setbacks those setbacks are also exceeded in this application. That brings us to the impact of the physical environmental conditions of the neighborhood. This is a house that is built essentially into the grade of the property and the exterior elevations demonstrate what that is. You come off the driveway you enter a garage that is essentially under the house which puts the driveway to the west of the property. It's done so the preserve the essential topography of the site and is therefore very sensitive design given the constraints on the lot. As you know we designed it so as to avoid regulatory process of both the Trustees and the DEC and that was done by keeping the house back from the bluff and coastal erosion hazard line which is shown on the survey. Finally I received a fax copy of a letter that was submitted by SC Soil and Water District. That is in your file. That's a letter from Mr. Tinious and it was sent to me yesterday afternoon. I did not work late last night as it was my wedding anniversary but I do want to address it today and the essential points are that the bluff in front of this house is heavily vegetated and what that means Page 5 of 91 Page 6 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing to us all is that it is stable and I agree with that. It says the survey topography is accurate. I also agree with that. It recommends gutters and liters that would empty into drywells and that also was a good recommendation and one we intend to comply with and I will be showing you a revised plan that shows that we will engineer those in accordance with the most recent requirements that some towns are now enacting as part of the clean water act and that will appear on a site plan that I will submit to you and it also recommends that some drainage control at the top of the driveway be incorporated in this plan because there's a concern of the water running off the road across the driveway into the lot and perhaps into the lot into the west. He recommends an erosion sedimentation plan which we have done before which is essentially the showing of hay bales and snow fences and that's become more formalized over the years particularly very recently in the last month as part of this clean water act amendments and reauthorization and that will be incorporated into our site plan that we will send to you. A final thing- and I also agree with this - is that no one can really predict the erosion rates along this stretch of beach but I would say this that the fact that we would be set back from the bluff this heavily vegetated and stable bluff more than we find in the neighborhood and that we are making every effort to preserve the existing topography, I believe this application demonstrates suitable protection to the bluff even in the event of a storm theoretically lapping up against the toe of this bluff. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the depth of the - from the house? MR. ANDERSON: They range from 4-16'however the exterior elevation plans that are provided are going to square off the deck. CHAIRWOMAN: That's what I see. I see what you are showing on the survey and the plans you just submitted are 2 different plans. The plans you submitted today are for a full deck the width of that deck is going to be 15'. What you are proposing to do is take the entire width, 50' width of the house and come out 15' all the way across to 39 is that correct? MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. CHAIRWOMAN: A couple of things, in the 8 years I have been on the board I've never read such a letter from Soil &Water. There are very serious concerns in the letter. The final line of the letter says the outlook for placing the house on this parcel is dim. That's pretty explicit and only maybe a short lived proposition. They are talking about not only ponding on the property because of the fresh.area that would go into the neighbors area and ponding that would go into the bluff area and the erosion rate and potential erosion rate as to other properties which were granted variances as you well know every property on the bluff is unique. MR. ANDERSON: There was only one variance granted in the neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN: Every one is unique. You have a limited ability to build on this parcel without variances however as far as encroaching as far as the 39'if you omitted the deck that would be 49'you could knock that up to a 54% decrease which would be a less than 50% variance. What you are asking for right now is a 60%variance. Page 6 of 91 Page 7 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. ANDERSON: The survey shows the house 43' from the edge of the bluff so you can't take 39 and simply subtract 39 because the bluff comes in. The house is at 43' from the edge of the bluff. CHAIRWOMAN: Because of the significant environmental problems the soil and erosion has cited with this property to the point where they actually say the prospects of building a house on this property are doomed. I've never seen that Mr. Anderson they have very strong feelings about this they are expert opinions that this board simply can't ignore. MR. ANDERSON: Well the last sentence that says is dim is not in my view supported by what comes before it previously. The last sentence about dim- dim is a very odd word anyway but it doesn't follow from the analysis that proceeds it. The second thing is if you look at the exterior elevations that are provided for you, we are talking about a deck that is significantly raised above the ground and the reason for that is it is our goal here to preserve the topography to the greatest extent so in terms of there is no foundation that extends out into the deck there are merely a set of pilings with footings to support a deck that is literally 8 or 9' above grade and again that is to preserve the topography of the site so this is a house that is filled in such a way to respect the land and the way it slopes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I suspect that some of the issues that are raised by S&W are generic to that area and that is the bluffs tend to be vertical and a little more sloped than you see in some areas of the island as I'm sure you're aware of. The issue that has come into play over the years has been the possibility of what kind of erosion would exist underneath these deck areas which are starved by vegetation because of lack of sun and that may be an issue and I'm sure you have the expertise to address this but it's an issue you may want to deal with after this hearing and give us some information on. What can we put under the deck that will not cause an erosion problem because of course the water is going to diffuse through the deck and it's going to cause some problems. The other issue is to what degree the deck could break away from the house if it had to. We dealt with that with minor situations primarily swimming pools where we do not necessarily allow the swimming pool and deck area be attached to the house and that may be something you may want to look at also just the way we produce breakaway foundations today how could you break away the deck from the house without disturbing the house in any way. I realize it's a little difficult to actually free stand a deck adjacent to a foundation of a dwelling but these are issues that we have come to with environmental issues that concern these things but definitely I think that would have some great credibility to addressing this deck issue and that's my opinion. MR. ANDERSON: As I said I only got that letter late yesterday afternoon and it's my intention to come back and also the drywells it's not a problem to integrate your questions into that plan. I'd love to have had it today but- MEMBER HORNING: I noticed the applicant is proposing town water supplies rather than a well. Do you know if the adjacent neighbors have the town water as well? Page 7 of 91 Page 8 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. ANDERSON: All the neighbors have the town water. MEMBER HORNING: So there's no issue with contamination from septics into well supply. Also I'm curious with this letter from S&W did they do any write-ups for adjacent parcels when those houses were built? MR. ANDERSON: I don't know. MEMBER ORLANDO: What are the approximate sq. footage of the two adjacent houses on the east and west side? MR. ANDERSON: I think if you look at your aerial photograph they are equal or greater than what we have here- MEMBER ORLANDO: I'd have to disagree with you because they are both ranches. I was there. I would think a house on the west side is no more than 1400 sq. ft. The house on the east side is no more than 1800 sq. ft. Quick calculations this house is approximately 3500 sq. ft. did you say? MR. ANDERSON: 1750 footprint. MEMBER ORLANDO: Living square footage over 3000? I think this house is significantly larger than it's neighbors. MR. ANDERSON: Well again we looked at the size of the neighbors. We looked at the whole neighborhood which I think we reasonably defined. I could provide you with the survey. MEMBER ORLANDO: And you are aware that the deck on the west side of the house will be approximately 10' off the ground? MR. ANDERSON: On the north side, northwest side, yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: I just see it as a- MR. ANDERSON: Far better than being on the ground, wouldn't you agree? MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't know -the height- I have young children,being on a high deck like that I get concerned. MR. ANDERSON: It's a better plan from an environmental standpoint because if you were to come to my house and see you have a deck that is a foot or two of grade that is essentially 16' wide and runs the length of the house it relates to what Mr. Goehringer is saying and that is what can you do underneath the deck that provides the erosion and runoff protection and the answer is the fact that it is elevated 8, 9, 10' above grade you could do much more with it and the actual structural contact with the ground is limited to the diameter of the supporting columns and the Page 8 of 91 Page 9 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing footings underneath them so the deck above grade I would my opinion is a much more environmentally sensitive way of providing a deck rather than something that was on ground which would allow no sunlight penetration that would cover the land that would require grating, etc. MEMBER ORLANDO: Either one is sq. ftg. covering the land but putting all that aside- what was the plan for the east side of the land with the once you remove the vegetation on that hill, you know your clients in danger of mud slides coming into their property on the east side. MR. ANDERSON: It will be stabilized with vegetation and I will put that in my erosion control plan. The idea here is when you are dealing with a lot like this you are either forced to do what someone would do is massive filling to level the property and we've seen numerous applications I've handled on that and the other approach is to try to build a house into the slope which the exterior elevations do show so you're not creating, you're not altering the topography. MEMBER ORLANDO: Since you brought that up Mr. Anderson, how much fill are you planning on bringing? MR. ANDERSON: We are not planning on bringing any fill. MEMBER ORLANDO: This house I don't think is typical to adjacent properties size wise. CLAIRE TASSONE: Hi, I'm Claire Tassone one of the applicants, my husband is here with me this morning. You are absolutely right our immediate neighbors to the right and left of us are between 16-1800 sq. ft. but the 2 neighbors that extend beyond that the house immediately to the left which is at the farthest end of the street the last parcel is in excess of 4400 sq. ft. and I know that because I actually spoke with the owner in brief when I introduced myself and a newer dwelling 2 houses to the right of us is in excess of 3500 sq. ft. MEMBER OLIVA: I reiterate everything everyone said and want to add I find it a very difficult piece of property. First of all it wasn't cleared enough that I could even get to the edge of the bluff to look down on it and it slopes down both ways into a gully in there and then only 39' from a bluff in Orient it's ridiculous I don't care what the other ones are I know that about 2 or 3 houses up a few years back one of their porches from a noreaster went over the drink and they just lost it they are very unstable I don't care how vegetated it is at the present moment and I think just 39' away from a bluff is just ridiculous. I think the house is too big for the size of the property I think it should be a much smaller house, it's 30'high, it's going to overwhelm the other houses you are sunk down in a ditch that you're going to have erosion coming the water comes and the rain comes in Orient having that I live there. I think you're in big trouble. I just don't think the size of the house is comparable to what you want to do with the size of this property and the constraints on it. MR. ANDERSON: With all due respect my job is to look at this property and apply the zoning criteria. Now it may be your position and I might even agree with that in a perfect world North View Road would be substantially south where it is. In a perfect world the houses on the west Page 9 of 91 Page 10 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing setback in one case 180' from the road and 30' from the bluff would have been centered on that lot. If I brought you a lot and where I had 210' distance between the road and the bluff. MEMBER OLIVA: One thing has nothing to do with the other I don't care what others have done. A lot of these homes were put here a long time ago when there were no setbacks and this property is unique I don't care what the one from the west and east are doing. I care about this property and the effect this piece of property is going to have on not only the applicant but the people around it and the environment in general. MR. ANDERSON: The question is whether the variance sought will result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and a detriment to nearby properties that's it. CHAIRWOMAN: You don't have this deck on the survey but you said on the east side that's 43' to the closest point for the house so with a 15' deck that would be 28' to the top of the bluff is that correct? MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. Keep in mind this is an elevated deck. CHAIRWOMAN: We need you to exactly show us this is just rough map - it would not be a 39' setback what you are asking for now is a 28' setback from the top of the bluff. We also need the erosion and sediment control plan and three we need a plan for drywells and gutters to contain road runoff and any runoff on your property, four we need a plan for the proposed deck away from the easterly side of the property because I doubt very seriously that this board is going to approve a 28' setback to the top of the bluff. We haven't approved one with or without a deck in - it doesn't happen we don't do it so I would urge you to develop an alternative plan, push the deck over to the west side as much as possible to get as great a setback as possible. That's my own recommendation,but the most important thing is to address the issues S&W raised. The depression, any overflow coming off the property-try to minimize the distance 28' won't fly. MEMBER ORLANDO: One more question, did you specify material for the driveway? MR. ANDERSON: The driveway would be pervious. CHAIRWOMAN: We have to move things along. We need affidavits of sign posting and 1 green card. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? TOM MORGAN: My name is Tom Morgan. We live at 855 Northview. We built a house,just finished up last April and there was no need for any variances because we conformed to everything. Most of the neighbors at Browns Hills which is a privately owned association with about 17 households. Most of them, all but a few in fact are weekend residents if that. They are 2"d homes and most of them although we've been in touch by phone and email are unaware of this hearing or unable to get here to voice the opinions of the neighbors about the character of the neighborhood. I was going to ask for a postponement,but that looks like it's in the works anyway until the neighbors are able to voice their opinion on it. That's all I have to say. I do live Page 10 of 91 Page 11 , March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing there I love it, I enjoy the wildlife which must have a habitat which this lot prior to it's being cleared was and when we bought this property 8 years ago at 855 we understood it was the last buildable lot and they are actually was a subdivision I believe"Stuart Johnson sold the property to part of his property or a lot he owned that he intended not to build upon to some friends who had built a house that conforms without any variances required. MARY FOSTER MORGAN: Hello my name is Mary Foster Morgan. I live at Northview Dr. Orient NY. I have an email from the neighbor of the property in question and I have a letter I've composed. For the sake of time I'll read them they are each a page. Amy and Chris Astley live to the east of the property. Amy writes we bought our property 6 years ago with the explicit understanding that the ravine-like land next to us was considered unbuildable. Although we made several attempts to buy the land from Edna Doll in an effort to preserve the land as a bird sanctuary,we were repeatedly rebuffed. We are distressed that the land is now being considered for development. The current owners bulldozed the land and it is possible to see the erosion they have already created to our property. We are most especially concerned with the irreversible damage they will cause to the delicate cliff by building a mere 40' from it rather than the 100' normally required. We are extremely worried that the health of the cliff will be so compromised that our own dwelling will be negatively effected if these owners were to abide by the setback sanctioned by the town this land would be in fact be deemed unbuildable. Thank you for the protection of the property of current landowners. CHAIRWOMAN: If you could submit a copy to the board and a copy of the other one too because we are running very, very late and we are going to adjourn this hearing. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? What is the next calendar date? May 1st 6:30, is that convenient for you Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: I make a motion to adjourn this hearing until May Is' at 6:30 pm. 10:30 a.m. Linda S. Sanford - #5217. This is an application based on the Building Department's August 20, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended January 22, 2003, in a proposal to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling: (1) at less than 75 feet from the rear lot line and bulkhead. Also requested is a new swimming pool structure at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead, and Variances under Section 100-235A(1) and Town Law Section 280-A, for a determination regarding improvements over an existing private right-of-way for sufficient access by fire and emergency vehicles. The right-of-way extends over privately owned lands now or formerly of Kaytis, and land of McDonald, from a point starting along the east side of Paradise Point Road, Southold, to the applicant's lot,referred to as 780 Private Road 17, Southold, Parcel#81-3-27.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Page 11 of 91 Page 12 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing LINDA SANFORD: As you said this is a continuation of the meeting that we had back in February. We were snowed out on March 61h and hopefully Spring is in the air. We are prepared to review again the 3D drawing of the home we are wanting to build here. We are requesting a variance to the 75' setback from the rear yard highwater mark and we did review that as you recall in the last meeting and we did demonstrate that we had about 276 sq. ft. of house in the less than 75' space the bulk of which was a porch a nonenclosed porch and Mr. Goehringer wanted to specifically look at the ROW which was the last question. CHAIRWOMAN: I just want to get a couple of things on the record here. What the board had looked favorably on was the specific site plan, I believe it was the January 20th site plan and that's a total of 276 sq. ft. without the pool and to reiterate the specifics it was 5925 to the tie line and 2765 to the bulkhead and that was the plan the board felt would be acceptable so the only issue at this point that we really need to go over is the ROW. I did go out on the ROW, I did go and look at it and it frankly it looked like it was sufficient for fire and emergency access at this point however I will defer this over Mr. Goehringer who is more of an expert in this field. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As I told you I had seen the property twice. Once in it's worse with a significant amount of snow on it and most recently last weekend. I had no problems with the ROW as it presently exists. I just want you to be aware that when you bring 50 ton vehicles in that there is going to be some enhancement that you may have to do and the board will just reserve the right to look at that sometime in the future and of course the decision will be made that it has to be continuously maintained which I'm sure all of you and all the property owners continuous and adjacent to you will do because it's a magnificently beautiful area. MS. SANFORD: We certainly agree to do that and I've already talked to the neighbors about making sure'we are fixing it after we have taken the trucks through it. MEMBER OLIVA: I went there and it's a beautiful piece of property and I don't have any problem with the ROW. I wish you luck with it. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. MEMBER HORNING: 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 Lana Pih Jokel# 5280 -Withdrawn as requested. 10:35 a.m. Geraldine N. Barton, Contract Vendee (Jane Goeller & Others, Owners) #5285 —Applicant requests a Variance under Section 100-30A.3 based on the Building Department's Page 12 of 91 Page 13 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing November 8, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes a new dwelling at less than 50 feet from the front lot line, at 5295 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-111-9-13. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN, ESQ: I have a letter outlining our position in this letter I'd like to hand out. My client is the contract vendee for the subject premises which is a one-acre parcel of property running on Little Peconic Bay we have gone before and received the necessary approvals from the town trustees and DEC and the reason we are before this board today frankly is what I call a pedestrian foot path or ROW called Little Peconic Bay Road. I don't know how many of you have gone out there and viewed the property,but road is an overstatement. Basically to the south of this property is in fact a pedestrian ROW at the water terminus of which are landings and stairs so members of the community can get down to the beach. That's all it is, that's all it's ever been. Unfortunately under our code and our Building Department's interpretation of the code, it is a road that would normally require a 50' setback from. They have determined that this property has 2 front yards. With the width of the property being 125' and a requirement of 50' setback from the pedestrian footpath and the fact that there is an encroaching building from the neighboring lot#34 it makes it virtually impossible to cite a building on this property. So the reason we are before this board today is simply to ask for relief from the 50' front yard setback requirement of the code to this pedestrian footpath and we are seeking a variance to allow us to have the nearest point of the house to the footpath of 15'. I've outlined in my letter and the application all of the criteria that the board needs to view on an area variance I think we fit into all of those and as I said we've gone through the environmental concerns and at this point we need some relief from the strict enforcement of the zoning code. CHAIRWOMAN: Just a couple of questions. The size of the lot-because there are a couple of different surveys and I noticed, it's 43000 sq. ft. The landscape plan and the Aihler survey and the plans to the BD each have the house slightly different. It's not really going to change the variance to the paper ROW,but I was trying to find out which plans are we reviewing at this point. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The architect is here and perhaps he can better address that question. MARK SCHWARTZ,ARCH: The footprint that's on the survey is more accurate than- CHAIRWOMAN: That's the survey that we should reference the 2/24 Ailhler survey. The other question and the landscaping plans would adapt to that. MR. SCHWARTZ: That just showed generally where the house was going to be but it's not- the siding of the house is not going to have a major impact on the landscape. CHAIRWOMAN: The other question I wanted to know is the owner of this property has an interest in the garage that straddles the lot line what is going to happen to the garage? MR. SCHWARTZ: It is going to stay where it is. There have been attempts to resolve that Page 13 of 91 Page 14 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing issue. There have been attempts to persuade the owner of lot 34 to allow that structure to be moved solely to lot 34 and that has not been acceptable. CHAIRWOMAN: Is that a civil matter? MR. SCHWARTZ: There is no - it is what it is -my clients entered into a contract knowing that this structure is going to continue to encroach on their property and were willing to go forth despite that knowledge. In a perfect world we would like to see that building moved but it's been there and there's no legal way to force it to be moved. MEMBER ORLANDO: Did lot 35 give them an easement on the deed? MR. SCHWARTZ: I believe at one time these lots were held in some kind of common ownership and at the time little concern was given to where that line went between lot 34&35. MEMBER ORLANDO: But lot 35 recognized that it was on there? MR. SCHWARTZ: We went into this with our eyes open that the structure was there. We attempted to talk to the current owners of our lot 35 who have been in discussions with lot 34, have attempted to resolve the encroachment and have been unsuccessful in doing so. We were told and our contract reflects that this encroachment will remain. MEMBER ORLANDO: So your deed recognizes the encroachment and - MR. SCHWARTZ: A deed wouldn't show what buildings are on the property. The deed simply traces the outline of the property but the survey certainly shows. Our contract reflects the fact that there is this encroachment. It's not a perfect solution but it's what we are stuck with and we don't have a remedy available to tell the owners of lot 34 to get their house off our property because it's been there long enough where they have obtained legal rights for it to remain. MEMBER HORNING: They have a CO on it-is that what you mean? CHAIRWOMAN: It's like an adverse condemnation. MR. SCHWARTZ: An adverse possession kind of situation. Frankly I don't know the answer to that but I believe so. CHAIRWOMAN: We were curious but it's out of our realm too, so we'll leave it at that. I don't have any more questions, Mr. Goehringer? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have not been down to look at the property. I have been very busy the past 2 days - I apologize -but I will definitely go down over the weekend and take a look at them. I will say that in the past Nassau Point has been a very interesting place. The lots have always been relatively large so we haven't had that situation exist. Most of the applications Page 14 of 91 Page 15 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing that have existed however, have existed just as your presentation Mr. McLaughlin, too close to either a paper street or they have been on specific lots that are unique in themselves and have maybe 2 or 3 front yards. In this particular case, there's no doubt in my mind for the years I have spent going to Nassau Pt. that this is one of those unique situations and since the road is not in and will probably will always remain as a footpath I have no objection. MR. SCHWARTZ: One thing I failed to mention in my presentation shows on the survey and is addressed in my letter to you, the dwelling on lot 36 which is on the opposite side of the paper street is also located approximately 15' from that ROW so we're not doing anything that the property owner on the other side of the footpath hasn't already done. CHAIRWOMAN: Any comments from the board members? MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't have an architectural drawing of the house but what is the part of the house that's 15' away? Is that a cupola type deck? MR. SCHWARTZ: No it's a one story MEMBER ORLANDO: Because it's irregular shaped, that's why it looks kind of square there or am I looking at the wrong? MEMBER OLIVA: I don't have any problem with the 15'but that bluff is in terrible shape. MR. SCHWARTZ: We have addressed the problem with the Trustees. We are planning on doing retaining walls. MEMBER OLIVA: You do want to stabilize that because everything is just going to drain down the slope of the lot. I see that part of the concrete wall that I walked down there is on your property too and just leaves have been spilled over it, it's just a concern. CHAIRWOMAN: Could we have the date on those plans for our record? MR. SCHWARTZ: Today's date 3-20-03. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? KURT KOCH: Hi my name is Kurt Koch. I live across the street a few houses down and generally I'm in favor of relaxation requirements within reason. My concerns are that I worry that in many cases these paper streets, ROW's dotted all over Nassau Point they slowly drop off. We lose them here and there because people end up putting their lawns across them then other people are intimidated about using them. I use that ROW during the summer and my concern is that I can still continue to use it and.that the 15' in terms of precedence seems a little tight for me in that I have a ROW behind me and it's different than this ROW in that it could conceivably be improved somewhat so does this mean that this could also be developed with a house 15' away. Page 15 of 91 Page 16 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing The issue here is precedent. Nassau Point has 2 types of ROW's one that is owned by the association and ones that are privately owned so are we throwing these ROW's in the same bucket now? CHAIRWOMAN: I don't think they are, but I'm not an expert on that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think title to this ROW belongs to the town of Southold. The one we're talking about. I don't know about the one you're talking about. MR. KOCH: The one questioned here is owned by Nassau Point Association. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was part of the original map. It was an undeveloped piece of the original map. It may be controlled by the association but I think belongs to the association. If there is no tax map number on it, I believe Pete Tyle belongs to the town of Southold. MR. KOCH: Then the question of how does this impact the privately owned ones, we don't know. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again you have to look at the ROW and see if the ROW has a tax map number. If it does not have a tax map number it falls within the same category that I just said and that is it is part of the original map it was recognized as the original map and it was further recognized when we had zoning changes and that is the reason why Nassau Point is one of those unique areas that has kept it's own zoning. I'm not talking about the classification of residential I'm talking about the classification of size of lot and so therefore that ROW although may be controlled be titled to the Town of Southold or else it would have a tax map number. CHAIRWOMAN: It doesn't even show up on the tax map as a ROW. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just saying it was part of the original subdivision which was what's unique about it is all of Nassau Point was done at one time many,many years ago and for it to have a tax map number it would mean that someone else owns it. In this particular case when it's integrated into the original plan in my particular opinion,but I'm not an attorney but I have control of about 4000 ROW's in the job I do and I'm just telling you it belongs to the Town of Southold. 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 11:02 a.m. Richard and Heidi Cavallo#5283 —Applicants request a Variance under Section 100-244B based on the Building Department's October 2, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants propose a second-story addition with a front yard setback at less than 35 feet, while Page 16 of 91 Page 17 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing maintaining the existing side yard total of 33.5 feet, at 775 Hickory Avenue, Southold; Parcel 1000-77-2-30. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? HEIDI CAVALLO: Hi. I'm requesting a variance to add a 2"d story addition on. My current setback is at 29.1'. CHAIRWOMAN: This is a 2"d story addition and it's 2 bedrooms and a bathroom 616 sq. ft. You have 2 front yards you have 29.1' on Hickory and you have a setback of 51 on Pine Ave. So this is essentially going to be over the existing footprint of the house just straight up. MS. CAVALLO: It's actually already 1 % stories so - CHAIRWOMAN: And Pine Ave. is the private ROW? MEMBER OLIVA: I was down there you are just building up what you have already, the setback is what you have already, you're just going up? I don't see any problem with it. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was there Sat. I have no objections. MEMBER HORNING: 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 11:05 a.m. Paul and Maureen Cacioppo #5286—Applicants request Variances under Sections 100-244B and 100-33,based on the Building Department's October 15, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants propose a new dwelling at less than 35 feet from the front and rear lot lines, and for approval of the existing location of an accessory garage in a yard other than the required rear yard, at 195 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue; 85-3-2.2. CHAIRWOMAN: Good morning, Mr. Fitzgerald. JIM FITZGERALD: This is a copy of the survey. CHAIRWOMAN: Is that the survey we have in the record? It does show the setbacks of the existing houses but that's okay, I want the board members to have the survey. Page 17 of 91 Page 18 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. FITZGERALD: There was a question recently as you may already know about whether or not the lot was recognized by the town and it turns out it is because the zoning board approved it in 1975 and apparently at that time the garage which already exists also existed when it was approved by the zoning board. The lot is relatively small to begin with and the existence of the garage on it makes the site of the dwelling a problem. We chose a modestly sized house and pictures of which I've just given you and I located it on the property in a position which would provide the maximum front and rear yard setback. You will see from the survey you have that some of the setbacks of the houses within 300' on the same side and in the same district are relatively small however they are not that small enough to take advantage of the regulation that would permit the setback we are asking for because of the average setback from the other houses. CHAIRWOMAN: Let me ask you a question because the setback you are asking for is considerably less that obviously from this survey what is already existing in the neighborhood a 22' front and an 1 F rear. Why not turn the house around? Because what you've essentially done is you've taken the house and placed the whole length of this 47'house against the 87 property line which is -why not turn it around and put it next to the garage which would be more of a unit and your variances would be half of what you are asking for. MR. FITZGERALD: I presume that could be done. The Cacioppo's are here. How would you feel Mr. &Mrs. Cacioppo? MR. CACIOPPO: I just want to make sure I understand it. MR. FITZGERALD: We are just talking about turning the house 90 degrees so the major access of the house is parallel to Skunk Lane. CHAIRWOMAN: In other words this particular size and design of the house is for a rectangular piece of property- it's a railroad house. Why not do just what would amount to traditional houses which you have similar in the neighborhood and you'd still have your garage, yes it would be in a side yard,but it's going to be in a side yard anyway. Bring it next to that and center it more in the property. MR. FITZGERALD: It can be done yes. CHAIRWOMAN: The reason I'm saying that is it would knock down your degree of variances. First of all in the rear yard and in the front yard you pick up a much greater setback. MR. FITZGERALD: You're correct. The reason it was placed the way it was is because of the architectural features of the structure we are talking about. However I certainly agree with your assessment and that would have the added advantage of having to spare both of those large trees that are on the property. CHAIRWOMAN: That picks up a lot more space in your side yard to get the side yard for privacy for use and if you're in agreement why don't we just adjourn this until April 3'and Page 18 of 91 t. Page 19 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing come up with a revised plan which would give us more space. Back front and side. 7:30 April 3'd. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? I make a motion 7:30 April 3'-d come back with a revised plan you're going to be happy with, we're going to be happy, the neighbors are going to be happy and is more in keeping with the neighborhood. 10:45 a.m. Joseph & Therese Ciampa# 5251 —Applicants request Variances under Sections 100-244, 100-239.413, and 100-33,based on the Building Department's September 16, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended December 11, 2002. Applicants propose an accessory swimming pool in an area other than the required rear yard, and additions to the existing dwelling: (a) at less than 10 feet on a single side yard, (b) with total lot coverage over the code's 20% limitation, (c) at less than 75 feet to the concrete retaining wall. Location of Property: 650 Beachwood Lane, Southold; Parcel 1000-70-10-56. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? GARRETT STRANG, ARCH: To give the board an overview of what we are presenting here and seeking from you is we have an existing single family dwelling. It was built in the mid 70's. It has nonconforming setbacks to the house and the existing deck from the stone wall that presently exists. The setback to the house is 32'. The setback to the deck is 30' from this concrete retaining wall. To the best of my knowledge when the house and the deck and the light were built back in the mid 70's by the previous owner they were all done with the necessary permits and approvals at that time and there is a CO on everything there that exists. The work we are proposing at this time for my client who wishes to make improvements to the house and make it a little bit- add some amenities to the house includes a garage addition and a front entry porch on the north side of the house as shown on the site plan. All these items are shown on the site plan. There is a minimal deck addition with steps to grade proposed on the south side of the house. We would like to increase the roof pitch to improve the appearance of the house. It has a relatively flat hipped styled roof presently and we feel that somewhat out of character with the neighborhood,but somewhat undesirable in appearance in general so we want to increase the roof pitch on the house and lastly we want to have a swimming pool with a stone terrace surrounding it on the west side of the house.. CHAIRWOMAN: Is it going to be grade level that where the patio is around the pool? MR. STRANG: The pool and the patio have to be elevated T to meet FEMA requirements. The property is in a flood plain. Minimum elevation required by FEMA is 8' and the grade is approximately 6'. We come up with 2' above grade. CHAIRWOMAN: Then the stone terrace around the pool is calculated or is not calculated in lot coverage? Page 19 of 91 Page 20 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: In m discussions with the Building Department the indicated that inasmuch Y g P Y as it was a stone terrace that would basically-be on the fill spoils from the excavation from the pool and not a deck per say. If it were a deck it would be considered lot coverage not being a deck, being a stone surface on dirt if you will it's that they don't deem it to be lot coverage and wrote the disapproval accordingly. CHAIRWOMAN: What is going to contain the elevation? Are you going to raise the grade, how are you going to contain it? MR. STRANG: We are proposing a decorative landscape stone wall around the perimeter of the terrace. Something very attractive. CHAIRWOMAN: As far as the access to the retaining wall is that also elevated or not? MR. STRANG: The access to the terrace area is by a couple of steps which are on the south side of the house again they are shown on the site plan. I can show it to you if it's not clear. There's only one entry point shown on the site plan and that's on the water side if you will. CHAIRWOMAN: The reason the lot coverage went from 27 down to what are we at now? MR. STRANG: I showed it both ways for clarification purposes so the BD as well as this board and without the stone terrace it's at 22.4%. CHAIRWOMAN: It's a lot of building for this size lot even though we are talking about terraces. Yes it's going to be raised. The pool itself in the proposed side yard is actually 15' from the neighbors property line. The terrace with the raised wall looks to be about 2 or 3'. Is that correct? MR. STRANG: Probably closed to 5'we have about 10' from the pool we could probably be a little less than that if we so choose,but I call to the board's attention that the zoning allows it to be as close as 3'to the property line as an accessory structure. CHAIRWOMAN: Zoning requires it to be in the rear yard. MR. STRANG: Which obviously isn't a option for us given the fact that we have to be 75'back from the stone retaining wall. CHAIRWOMAN: But it's within a side yard that the board decides it's not 3' or 5- Page 20 of 91 Page 21 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: Just in general, the zoning to an accessory structure is 3' off a lot line. Zoning also allows us to put it in the front yard but that's impractical and certainly undesirable. CHAIRWOMAN: As a practical matter that's very close to the neighbor's property line. You've got the terrace whether it's 3' or 5' from the property line - that's not something I personally would look favorably on particularly in view of the fact that it looks like you can move the pool closer to the house. That's just my personal comment. I'd like to hear the other board members comments on that too. MR. STRANG: Could I address this? The neighbor if you will on the pool side of the house is the community beach. It's not a residential piece of property or property that can become a residential. If we look at it realistically, a community beach is more of an encumbrance on my client because of the activity and the like that goes on at the beach than a single family residence pool might be to the community beach property. MEMBER HORNING: I was looking at the terraced area and the significance of the stone area is irrelevant, it's the placement of the pool that's important. And I can see on this lot there's not a whole lot of area to work with so I don't know if they want a pool how they could have one other than a side yard really. I don't have any comment. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know in the past my concerns have always been in closing up of side yards. Although you have raised an interesting point regarding the community beach access. Is there a possibility your client could get a letter from the association requesting that if there need be access to the waterside area to this property they would allow him access to that through the ROW? Because if you look at it, you only have 8.9' on the opposite side and with this rather ambitious plan you're not going to be able to run over anything with a stone with heavy equipment. So the only way you are going to get anything on that side of the house is through that if the board is so inclined to deal with that. If you are not successful in that, we definitely need to move the pool over closer to the house structurally as much as you could. They may have to downsize the pool. They might have to make the pool a lap pool instead of a true swimming pool maximum depth of 6 or 8'. That's my suggestion. MR. STRANG: What would be an acceptable alleyway I'll use as a term for emergency vehicle access between the property line and the terrace? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not really emergency vehicle, it's the ability to get to that waterfront for whatever reason, maintenance, anything at this point. I have to tell you that I would say that 4-6'is definitely an area that you need to that stone wall bearing in mind that there'd be no closing up on the other side and of course bearing in mind also that the association would let you certainly in a fire issue the fire department's going to use the community beach as implied access anyway. Page 21 of 91 Page 22 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: For the record presently, although it's not physically dimensioned on the drawing, the scaling is accurate. From the property line to the edge of the wall of the terrace is 6'. CHAIRWOMAN: There's a fence there now? MR. STRANG: There's a fence on the community beach property line. CHAIRWOMAN: What type? MR. STRANG: Chain link. CHAIRWOMAN: If there's a chain link fence then in order to get access, you'd have to put a gate around it. MR. STRANG: If you were to gain access from the beach side to the rear property of my client, yes there would need to be some sort of a gate. I'm not sure of the ownership of the fence, that's a question that hadn't arisen before so I haven't researched that, I don't know if it's in fact the community fence or my client's fence,but we can certainly check into that. Once again as far as a vehicle getting through 6' would be tough on it unless it was a small vehicle. It's possible we could reduce the terrace if my clients was accepting of that idea I can discuss that with them. Reduce the size of the terrace and/or shift the pool a little bit to give a bit more of an alleyway there. CHAIRWOMAN: If the fence is the property of the community and it is a chain link fence I think there is an issue of concern of access is even greater for fire. I don't see how you could possibly get any fire vehicles to the rear of this property. MR. STRANG: If we were to build out by code an actual physical structure i.e. an addition to the house I guess we'd have to be 15' off the property line since we have the nonconforming on the other side- CHAIRWOMAN: Which is the code's purpose of having the 15'minimum. I share Mr. Goehringer's concerns and I think really it's a very nice designed pool, the kidney shape,but I think you should pull it over to the house to give clearance. MR. STRANG: What would be the minimum clearance this board would look for this access- way? CHAIRWOMAN: 38'to the house. Page 22 of 91 Page 23 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: Right now it's 30' to the corner of the garage. It's 38' to the corner of the house. MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm going to interject before they close this on me. I drove the neighborhood and I didn't see any pools in the neighborhood. MR. STRANG: There are a few - I think there's a neighbor who sent a letter making reference to the fact that there are other pools on the waterside in the community. They must have pre-dated the 75' setback requirement of this board. MEMBER ORLANDO: I couldn't see anything from the roadside anyway. I personally am not in favor of putting the pool right there. I'm in favor of a 38' sideyard setback myself. MR. STRANG: 38' is far more than what the code requires, a minimum is 15. CHAIRWOMAN: I think he just said he wasn't willing to grant a variance there. MEMBER ORLANDO: This survey is busy. That's my comment. MR. STRANG: That might be because I've tried to certain things to have it read better. I think when you see it in reality it's not going to be as busy as it does when you look at it pictorially in this fashion but I appreciate your concern with respect to that. My client needs to have at least a swimming pool for recreational purposes and use of the house and also address the concerns this board may have. MEMBER OLIVA: I agree also that the pool should be moved closer to the house so you can have access right now. The garage goes under the house? MR. STRANG: That will be abandoned actually. The garage that's under the house is unusable. It's more of a utility area if you will. It doesn't really function. The new garage is forward of the house as shown and at grade level. It's not going to be subterranean. MEMBER OLIVA: That will be at 8? MR. STRANG: The garages don't have to be at 8 because their purpose is housing a vehicle,but it will be a grade that is probably at 6'. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what happens. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Garrett would you like to submit alternate plans? Even if you wouldn't like to. Page 23 of 91 Page 24 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: Even if I wouldn't like to, I'm going to. Certainly we want to work with this board and have a mutual meeting of the minds so everybody comes out happy with the results. CHAIRWOMAN: What's a convenient time? MR. STRANG: Can we make the April calendar? CHAIRWOMAN: We just looked at April and the evening meeting looks like midnight and the daytime meeting looks like all day. May 1, 6:40pm. 11:30 a.m. Nancy Carroll#5134—Applicant requests Variances under Sections 100-239.413 and 100-24413, based on the Building Department's Notices of Disapproval, dated March 13, 2002, amended August 20, 2002, and January 13, 2003. Applicant proposes additions to the existing dwelling with a setback less than 75 feet from the bulkhead and with a total lot coverage over the code's 20% limitation, at 350 West Lake Drive, Southold; Parcel 1000-90-1-21. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? GARRETT STRANG, ARCH: Again we have an existing single family dwelling with a deck on the waterside of the house. Both the house and the deck are once again are nonconforming. The house has a setback of 56' from the bulkhead and the deck has a setback of 36' from the bulkhead. The existing deck was built some time ago by the previous owner. It was built with a Trustees permit,but from what I've been able to ascertain there was no building permit secured for this. CHAIRWOMAN: You're going to take this deck down so the existing setback of the old dilapidated deck which is 36.4 the new deck is going to be increased to 42.8. Lot coverage is 20.8. MR. STRANG: Once again a clarification on the 20.8 that is with a conversation with the Building Department that was based on the lot area as described on the deed the bulkhead was built at some point landward of the actual described property line so the property area is described as 150'in depth by 100'which was used to calculate the lot area and come up to the 20.8%. We are also looking to put a 2nd floor on this house over the footprint of the existing and there is a garage proposed to be built on the front of the house,but that is not really subject to this application other than the fact that it does calculate into the lot coverage. CHAIRWOMAN: You were not disapproved for the 2nd floor addition. Page 24 of 91 Page 25 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: It's kind of a gray area because I believe when I did speak with the BD on that, they indicated- CHAIRWOMAN: It's the bulkhead and the lot coverage. Did you present the 2"d floor plans? MR. STRANG: It's been on the site plan since day 1 and I believe he made reference to the fact that it would be a structure less than 75' from the bulkhead. I think that's the way he interpreted that. CHAIRWOMAN: Are you talking about the deck addition? MR. STRANG: The deck addition,he stipulated the dimensions to that. But he also mentioned that the 2nd floor addition is over an existing nonconforming setback. CHAIRWOMAN: It's not noted and I don't want to see you come back here. MR. STRANG: I guess he thought he had handled it by saying all buildings located on lots with a bulkhead shall be setback not less than 75' from the bulkhead. CHAIRWOMAN: If it's going to be over the existing I story it's going to be into the 75' zone. It's not on paper though. MR. STRANG: He thought he addressed it by wording it this way. He was pretty careful with the wording. CHAIRWOMAN: It's a singular. He says the proposed addition/alteration is noted as being 42' from the existing bulkhead - then he says all the new work is landward of the existing as built deck addition which is 36' from the bulkhead. The Building Department has concluded that it's not a legal addition. The as built deck addition will be demolished as part of the proposed project. It doesn't mention the 2nd floor addition at all. MR. STRANG: All I can say is my conversation with him-we reviewed this application at the time so he was clear on exactly what we were looking for so he could write it accurately. And I know he was certainly aware because he even discussed the aspect of it which caught me a little bit by surprise because he even said well if you set the 2nd floor back a foot we won't even have to have it as part of the variance action. I said I don't know if that's an option. CHAIRWOMAN: We don't have jurisdiction at this point. They can write notices pretty fast over there. He references the as built deck and he references it as not legal and he makes no reference about a 2nd floor addition. Page 25 of 91 Page 26 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: If I were to go back and have him rewrite this disapproval, when would we continue the hearing on this. Is there any way to continue it later today if I get the written amended NOD? CHAIRWOMAN: We'd have to advertise it in the legals. That's the sticky part. MR. STRANG: How is the actual public notice that was prepared by the zoning board, did that snake reference to the 2"d floor? Because it's in our application. CHAIRWOMAN: It says the applicant proposes to the existing dwelling with a setback less than 75' from the bulkhead. MR. STRANG: If this board were to consider the fact that you're granting relief for less than 75' would not the 2nd floor fall into that? CHAIRWOMAN: I think it would pass because the legal notice does say proposed additions to the existing dwelling. We all assumed it was for the deck because that's what the application put forth and there's no mention of it in the NOD. Garrett, go down the BD and ask them to get your stuff straightened out one way or another and we are going to bump the last people this afternoon the legal notice would be sufficient though because it does talk about additions to an existing dwelling less than 75' and it's going to be the same relief. It will just include the house as opposed to the deck alone. MR. STRANG: So it's a matter of having him correct the NOD to include the 2"d floor addition if he deems that needed then you can continue this afternoon about what time? CHAIRWOMAN: 3:30pm. MR. STRANG: I appreciate that. I will take care of this right now. CHAIRWOMAN: We'll adjourn this to 3:30 this afternoon. 3:30 NANCY CARROLL #5134 - CONT: CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Strang, you said 2 minutes. MR. STRANG: Less if you allow me. Let me submit to you the original and 6 copies of the amended disapproval. Page 26 of 91 Page 27 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. That's fine. MR. STRANG: The BD was kind enough to amend that quickly and add reference to the 2nd floor addition which he thought he had address,but obviously we thought differently. CHAIRWOMAN: I think we can close the hearing because I think we're in business. I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 11:38 am SCOTT AND SARAH HASSILDINE #5281 CHAIRWOMAN: Resolution to grant the applicant's request to withdraw this application. 11:40 a.m. Estate of Murray Schlussel- #5259. (Continued from Feb. 61h hearing). This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-32,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 feet from the front property line at its closest point. Location of Property: 3085 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue; Parcel Nos. 1000436-2-6, 7 and 8 (combined as one lot of 62,730+- sq. ft. total area). CHAIRWOMAN: I am going to ask if we could try to cut this at the most at 12:15 so the board could have 10-15 minutes to have lunch. Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? GARY OLSEN, ESQ: Good morning, Gary Olsen attorney for the applicant, Schlussel. This is a holdover hearing from the meeting of February 6th. At that meeting the board requested that the architect and Mr. McFarland try to revise some plans as to where they want to relocate the house. That's been done and submitted to the board. The original application indicated that the house would be 26.24' from Stillwater requiring a front yard variance and the new plans said you have now show the house is going to be pushed back away from Stillwater Ave. to 31.24'. The architect and engineer from Young and Young's office as well as Mr. McFarland as well they are all here today and I believe it probably would be more appropriate for them to tell you what they are doing rather than hearing from me. BOB TAST: Good morning,my name is Bob Tast and I'm an architect with Young&Young. I think you have a copy of this exhibit which is a plan and elevations of what the house could look like situated on a property within the variance request that you have on a new site plan basically 32.4'back from the street. The house you can see is a very modest 2-story house maximum Page 27 of 91 Page 28 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing height of 35'to the ridge and the house comprises approximately 1,751 sq. ft. on the I" floor and that includes a 225 sq. ft. garage that is not in addition to the 1751, that's in addition to the 1751- MEMBER ORLANDO: So approximately 1500 sq. ft? MR. TAST: Yes and then 1379 sq. ft. 2nd floor. The 2nd floor is a little less because of some lofted space over a family room. CHAIRWOMAN: Is that open to the 2nd floor? MR. TAST: Yes. To try to get some height and interest in the family room below it. The house is basically 30'10" wide which is convenient for a house of this size the rooms as you see are not that large, they are rather modest and basically we tried to make something more or less in keeping with the community and a farm style home. MEMBER ORLANDO: How many bedrooms? MR. TAST: 4 bedrooms,master and 3 additional. The size of the master is 12.5x17 the other bedrooms are l Oxl6 roughly and the front bedroom is 16xl3. It's a reasonable size. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lydia I have to tell you, George and I don't have the most recent plan and it's not the fault of the office staff, we just wondered if you'd have another copy? CHAIRWOMAN: Just a moment. I don't have any extras in the file. Wait a second. I'll give you a copy of the BD plans because it's interesting. Any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Approximate height to the top of the ridge? MR. TAST: 30'. 1751 + 1379 sq. ft. MEMBER ORLANDO: The darkened area is identifying which? MR. TAST: The darkened area on the site plan is identifying the as a right area that could be developed without a variance. MEMBER ORLANDO: So that's the building envelope? MR. TAST: No the building envelope is beyond that because we are looking for relief on the front yard. MEMBER ORLANDO: So you're saying the darkened area is where you'd have to put the house to have no - TOM WOLPERT: Tom Wolpert from Young&Young for the applicant. The second document that this board asked us to prepare in preparation for today's hearing is this exhibit that you're Page 28 of 91 Page 29 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing looking at now and the shaded area represents the building envelope that would respect not only your wetland-setbacks but also the dimensional requirements pursuant to the zoning of this property. I think what it does is it demonstrates the impracticality of building within that building envelope and thus the need for a variance from this board. CHAIRWOMAN: You have an 8' contour that goes right through the house. That goes down to 6' right at point of where you're going to put- is this house going to be elevated? MR. WOLPERT: We are proposing a I" floor elevation of 14 and finished grade outside the building of approximately 12. CHAIRWOMAN: Where is the fill going? MR. WOLPERT: The fill would go all around the house. CHAIRWOMAN: 300 cubic yards of fill is going to go in the area where you are planning to put the house? MR. WOLPERT: Yes it will be surplus material from the excavation will be used to- CHAIRWOMAN: How much are you going to raise the grade with the fill? MR. WOLPERT: From the existing elevation of 8-12 is approximately 4'. CHAIRWOMAN: So you're going to raise the grade 4' and then the I"floor is going to be elevation 14? MR. WOLPERT: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN: So you're going to raise the grade 4' and the house will sit 4' above the- MR. WOLPERT: 2' above. CHAIRWOMAN: Another 2' above that. So when we say 30' to the ridge, visually- MEMBER ORLANDO: Probably not since you're bringing the grade up to that. CHAIRWOMAN: I think it's going to have a visual impact the other thing is this if you're raising the grade,how are you going to deal with the runoff from the rear of the property when it goes down to 6'right below there -you are right on the edge of the wetland boundary what plans did you have to contain the runoff from the raised grade that's going to be virtually on the edge of that non-disturbance wetland area. MR. WOLPERT: From the perspective of erosion concerns or fertilizers or- Page 29 of 91 Page 30 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Here's your lot right now and just by your own topographical measurements on here. You started off at 10' near the road, down to 8, down to 6, the property goes like this, you're going to raise the grade 4' tops, that's going to be on the slope and that slope directly drains into that whole wetland buffer disturbance area. How do you plan to contain the runoff from draining into the wetland area? MR. WOLPERT: It was my belief that the 40' non-disturbance would suffice as mitigation for that runoff that you're talking about. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm not sure if the Trustees addressed the elevation of the building of the structure and the plans that I saw in fact their snap was not prepared until several months after they approved it so that's a concern I have and I'd like you to address it. As far as the size of the structure, it's not a small house, it's a big house. Yes you've increased the variance to 31.24 I believe Mr. Goehringer had asked you and I asked you also to remove the dogtails in the front, you removed the dogtails on the west side, you didn't remove them on the east side. If you remove them east side that would bring you up to 34.24 because that's a 3' out from the main building. MR. WOLPERT: 3' is the dimension you are referring to yes. CHAIRWOMAN: If you removed that 3' and you do have sufficient room in your floor plans to do that because you have the living room in front and you have the play area or great room or whatever you want to call it in the back so it's a question of giving up 3' of space in either room which is not a significant thing what's significant here is that it's a sensitive piece of property the variance you're requesting is significant and I guess you have a right to build a house here but do you have a right to build the biggest,biggest house no. So we're trying to mitigate all that and we're trying to recognize the neighbors concerns. I would personally say to you what we had asked for before was to knock off that dogtail and to take that 3' off there which would give you a setback of 33.24. Mr. Olsen if you want to speak to your clients? MR. WOLPERT: We are trying to work with this board and I'm going to ask Bob Tast the architect to comment on what it is that you're requesting from an architectural standpoint. Let me see if I can address it. Presumably if this ever happens, my wife and I will be the ones there. We did remove all the doglegs on one side to push it back. If it's necessary to remove the dogleg on the living room I'm absolutely fine with that. The look that we are trying to achieve is what I'll call an old north fork farmhouse look which is a simpler look. Removing that 3'if the house has to drop down 3' absolutely appropriate again. I'm okay with that. This is a 1700 sq. ft maybe that knocks it down another 200 sq. ft. on the 1st floor including the garage. I drove through the neighborhood again this morning. It's an older neighborhood there are houses there which are literally 12/10' from the road. There are some properties that have a house, a main house, a garage an apartment above the garage it is very mixed. The new houses that are up and have been built around there have been three I think there are 2 additional going up. They are all in the 3 to 3500 sq. ft. range and if I could go back a second, when we stared this process about 3 years ago there were 3 lots in which there one house each designated for each of the lots,we Page 30 of 91 Page 31 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing purchased 2 we went to contract for 2. When we were up for the building permit that office said if you could go get the 3rd lot we would approve that so we went ahead and got the 3rd lot and I think we went back to DEC or DEP to get that all renewed. The intent is to build an attractive house that fits the neighborhood north fork old farmhouse and hopefully 1500 sq. ft. on the lst floor is not to give the the roofline was 30' at the highest point up here so there was no secret move to hide a 3 t flow oors that and removing the jog simplify the house that it's in keeping with what's in the neighborhood and what's been there. CHAIRWOMAN: Actually you're only going to be removing 69' so it's because you're the dogtails in front is 3x23 which is 69 sq. ft. so it's certainly not a couple 100. That would bring the setback to 34.24 and we may be talking about inches here,but every little cutback helps. So those are my comments, let's see if the board members. MR. MACFARLAND: I have a company that we are involved in Historic Preservations of large types throughout the US we like to look at ourselves as people that are concerned, we are not trying to do something that doesn't work. The only thing is today of course when you have all these setbacks for conservation purposes you get to a point I think that shows you've got a contemporary cylindrical house. The other thing we did is when we added the 3rd lot in consideration of the neighbor across the street we attempted to push the house up on that 3rd lot as much as possible because the waterviews are to the right of this property sort of going at a 45 degree angle. We also went back and we said look that lot number 3 which is the lot furthest to the right and half of the other lot will be forever green and the only thing that will be removed there is underbrush and saplings it can't even be used as a yard, it's permanent green space moved over to allow someone's view in terms of accommodation I'm not saying it's the end all and it can't ever be anything else but it's going a long way to try to be a good neighbor. GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ: Now that we are 20 minutes into our %2 hour I will not be more than 5 minutes because no one wants to be at this meeting with cranky people and lack of food. When we were here at the last hearing there was a lot of testimony as to why the proposed 24' setback was way out of keeping with the other nearby setbacks on nearby properties and on behalf of the Fleet's Neck Property Association including the lot owners that live immediately adjacent and opposite, they still feel that 31' is far from compatible with the neighborhood and creates the same issues that we raised at the last hearing. I jog through this neighborhood every weekend and I have noticed the houses that are going up on the small interior lots I understand why this happens they are single and separate the code does allow limited side yard setbacks and that happened. The cottages that are way far south of this property that are up close to the road are mostly bungalows that have been there since the 40's some of them probably don't even need the 850 sq. ft. setbacks that are now required and I don't think that's any justification as to what's proposed here. This is a marsh fringe and the question is can you build on marsh fringes. The only reason we are here is because the Trustees have compromised their 100'jurisdiction by allowing a 50' setback and they were only able to do that by shoving the house into what is your jurisdiction of a front yard setback and 31' is still way under what is appropriate to the neighborhood. They are still considering a house which is almost 3000 sq. ft. 4 bedrooms. They are raising as I read the map the elevation by 4 %2' over the contour in the front yard area and 6 %2' over the 6' elevation out by the water. It's 4 %2'in the front, 6 Win the rear. I'm personally Page 31 of 91 Page 32 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing familiar with the neighborhood. The properties are generally in the houses at grade of the road so this will have a huge visual impact just by virtue of that 4 'h' increase in elevation. The question is as I said is whether you can build on a marsh fringe and the snap that you have in front of you with that darkened area shows after the Trustees have compromised what the actual buildable area is. It's not big enough for a house the best that you need to do here is 43' which 4n your file you will show as Mr. LoGrande's setback somewhat to the north of this property. That's the best you would have to do. You don't have to give them a house here that comes way up to the road by creating a buildable area by virtue of a variance. That's what's creating the values here. They can't come in to you and say we are going to lose money because we are going to lose this big contract because we can't build a big house. What's happening is the only reason this issue comes up is because you are creating value by allowing any house at all here. You are creating more value by allowing and they cannot rely on that in finding a justification for a variance. It's not hardship by saying a, they can't build in what is an un-buildable area or b, they can't build a huge house because that's what they'd like to do. I note that they did offer in the event that there is something that they are going to be presenting to you that is going to be acceptable some condition of open space on the remaining property I would like you to remember that when we go further on this. If you have any further questions you would like to ask of me I would be glad to answer them. CHAIRWOMAN: One thing, let's go back to the building envelope. I think we are pretty much at 34.24 right now. I'm trying to see if we went to 43, the depth of the house on the east side is 30' and on the west side is 21' I don't know how we could cut 21 down any more to go to 43. MS. WICK-HAM: They don't have to build that far north where that 50' setback comes in. The reason it's 21' is because the marsh line cuts back at the north end. If they made the house smaller not only depth but width they be dealing with 2 F, they'd be dealing with a lot more. In other words the house would be further from the north line. CHAIRWOMAN: Still in all let's go to the other end which is 30', correct? Now we just took off a little dog tail so we are at 34 a setback of 34.24. For depth of a house that's still pretty- MS. WICKHAM: 29.8 - is that right? CHAIRWOMAN: My survey shows 30.87 -that's still pretty skinny. Right now we've knocked it down to 27 depth and that's why in reality there's no way we could go to 43 and have a 10, wide house. We only have 34.24 right now and you cut out that 3'to have 22.59 so sure we could go to 35. MS. WICKHAM: Maybe you should build a cottage on a lot like this if you're going to be allowed to build. You don't have to build a big house. I don't think it's appropriate for me to negotiate with you,but that's our position and I also wanted to remind you that from what we can tell the lot to the north of this is a separate lot and anything that's approved on this property will be precedent for that as well. Page 32 of 91 Page 33 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing ' CHAIRWOMAN: We'll take that into consideration. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? BARBARA DIFRANCESCO: I didn't have a chance to deliver this letter ahead of time but I wild give you a copy after. My name is Barbara DiFrancesco. I live at 3080 Stillwater Ave. Dear Ms. Tortora thank you for requesting further information on the proposed dwelling for Mr. MacFarland at the last hearing. I was happy to hear that you were concerned with the visual impact and also requested that the house be downsized in order for it to be a more appropriate fit for the property. I reviewed the submitted plans and I am not convinced that this represents anything that can be called a compromise. It certainly hasn't changed my opposition to this request for variance. I live in and own the house directly across the street from where this house is to be constructed. I am wondering if my next step is to apply for a front yard variance so I can construct a 30'trellis fence in order to protect my privacy and quality of life once this huge home is looming over the street creating a feeling of claustrophobia. It will seem as if he has built his home in my front yard. Mr. MacFarland stated he wanted to build a little cottage something sensitive, genteel, small at the last ZBA hearing a 2 story center hall colonial is not a cottage. A cottage as defined by Webster's dictionary is a small house consisting of 1 story. I guess Mr. MacFarland's idea of a cottage is the type built in Newport, RI at the turn of the 201h century. Compared to that his proposal is indeed, small, genteel, and sensitive. The house as depicted on the submitted floor plans as 3130 sq. ft. This exceeds the average size of new construction in America by 25%. The 63'length of the house does not account for the 18' deck which makes the visual bulk 81'long which will be setback only 31'. Furthermore, the 31' is not inclusive of the entrance which appears to be grand according to the plans. That means once you include the steps, walkways, landscaping, etc., it will pretty much be right up to the road. That is why I will feel as if it is in my front yard. This does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. If it would not be too much of an inconvenience, a visit to the site would reveal to the ZBA just how ludicrous the request is. In fact is abusing the good spirit of the ZBA. I'm affronted by this abuse. The Town of Southold already granted relief with a wetland permit. The permit was granted despite the fact that the plans did not conform to the stipulations set forth by the board of Trustees which are clearly stated in the minutes of the April 24, 2003 pubic hearing. How that happened is still a mystery. As far as the argument that Mr. Olsen keeps presenting "to not grant this front yard variance would in effect result in the condemning of this property without proper compensation to the property owner and is the equivalent of the taking" is simply not true and not a valid argument. That property in today's market would be selling for at least$500K even with a narrow building envelope. A clever architect can come up with a great plan. It has been done before, there are a number of good books available that show how this can be accomplished. Mr. MacFarland is paying$21 OK for almost 1 %Z acres of creekfront property. That's a real bargain. The property can easily be sold to someone else who would be than happy to build a special type of home that property requires. The right buyer would be delighted. If Mr. MacFarland is not satisfied with the type of dwelling that property warrants, perhaps he should consider buying another parcel. The Schlussels knew the property had building constraints when they purchased it. Is it fair to ask the community to pay for the consequences for their investment choice? Is it fair for Mr. Olsen to ask the Zoning Board to grant relief using the same reasoning they did over 20 years ago from Mr. LoGrande? Many laws, codes and things in general have changed in the last 20 years and for valid reasons. Mr. Olsen seems to be Page 33 of 91 Page 34 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing under the impression that "the reason we have a zoning board is to give people like the Schlussel family relief from the current codes on these pre-existing properties because we can't meet current codes" is this the reason we have the zoning board? What about the people who live in the community? Wasn't the zoning board in power to protect them as well? Once again, I want to state that I am not opposed to a home being built on that property as long as it is within the guidelines that have been set forth by the Town of Southold. I am counting on the ZBA to uphold the law and not grant this unreasonable request that will negatively impact the lives of the people who live in the neighborhood. Please don't let our community down. CHAIRWOMAN: Can you give it to the board secretary? Thank you very much. Is there anyone else and I'm going to ask to please keep it brief. CARL VAIL: I'll snake this very brief. My name is Carl Vail, my points are simple. The new plans show no real compromise, only T the building envelope shows why this should not be approved, the lot is substandard. The community is solidly against this. MS. WICKHAM: I'd like to make one suggestion based on your comment. Just looking at the numbers, if you start at the southeast corner of the house which is on the waterside on the south side you could within the building envelope and coming up to a 35' setback I believe put a 25x40'house, 40 on the road side 25 deep that would be 1000 sq. ft. 2 stories. That's not a bad size house. 37' setback which is in keeping with the neighborhood. That's all. CHAIRWOMAN: A couple of things here. I would appreciate if we could address the drainage problems with the increased elevation in the back whether that's drywells, gutters, drains. That is a concern because of the raised elevation in the back. If we could address that it would help us a great deal. I do appreciate you did give us the building envelope plan because it really gives us a clear idea of what's there and what we have to work with. MR. OLSEN: I've just been advised by Mr. MacFarlane that he would agree to a 35' setback, not a 31, so that's better. It also conforms with the variance that this board has also granted to Mr. LoGrande which I also indicated in my last presentation. Mr. LoGrande ended up not needing the variance apparently,but it was granted by the board. And also that was the old setback for this area, so he's agreed to a 35' setback. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Olsen what is the intent of the rest of the lot? There was some question here. Was there any intent to build anything else on the lot? MR. OLSEN: Whatever he did, he'd obviously have to get permission from all the appropriate governmental agencies. He's probably had enough but- CHAIRWOMAN: I thought he planned on keeping it open. MR. OLSEN: Let me just ask. MR. MACFARLANE: There are 3 lots. Approximately 1 1/2 or'/2 of those 3 lots- Page 34 of 91 Page 35 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. OLSEN: Are you planning on building anything else? MR. MACFARLANE: No, nothing else. We had filed with DEC or DEP whatever it is and it showed those 1 'h acres to be retained as a green land with small saplings and underbrush _. removed but forever green, no building. CHAIRWOMAN: Are there lots merged now? MR. OLSEN: No. Part of this application with the ZBA we made it clear that whatever you did would have to be conditioned on a merger. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you don't have any problems with coveting that fact that the remaining areas would remain open. MEMBER OLIVA: Not grass, landscaping,but natural plantings. MR. MACFARLANE: The other thing as far as runoff, we'll put a drywell in, we'll put as many drywells in as necessary. CHAIRWOMAN: Come up with a plan for that, give us a bullet on the C&R's that would go with it particularly in view of the merger and a very good plan on the drainage on that- I don't know if it's going to be a combination of French drains and drywells or what. I'm not an engineer, you have engineers. In the meantime, let's see when we can conclude the hearing. What is our schedule? MR. OLSEN: I like that April date. I'm getting old. This has been going on 3 years, I'm going to have to turn it over to David. CHAIRWOMAN: May 1"is the quickest we could get you in. May 1"- MR. MACFARLANE: We'll come back with a competent system on the water. Probably a combination of things. French drains are helpful. CHAIRWOMAN: 6:50 pm on May Is'. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There was a suggestion from Mr. MacFarlane that he would lower the elevation of the house. Is that correct? You'll address that issue also? MR. MACFARLANE: We're going to address that issue, take the dogleg off, take the jog out, I'm born in MA so if you don't mind it'll be more of a salt box kind of house, we'll get the house a bit smaller and try to accommodate. Page 35 of 91 Page 36 March 20; 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Come up with an alternate plan, try to for the sake of the community and for our sake get the plan to us well in advance of the public hearing so they have a chance to review and we don't have to carry this on to another hearing. MR. MACFARLANE: We'll come back with the plans, the adjustments as long as I could beg 2_ seconds as long as it doesn't lead to a 10' hop where sometimes people can drive to that so it makes it unusable. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll snake a motion adjourning this hearing until May 1" 6:50 pm. 1:04 p.m. NANCY IANNONE AND HELEN MARSHUT, LIFE TENANTS—5275. (Adjourned by agent for the applicant from February 20, 2003). This is a request for a Special Exception for an Accessory Apartment under Section 100-31B(13) in conjunction with the owner/applicant's residence in the existing single-family dwelling located at 19105 Soundview Avenue, Southold; Parcel 1000-51-1-17. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: I had the opportunity to review the transcript of the prior hearing so I've tried to in my presentation try to address all the points that were raised at the last hearing so hopefully all of your questions will be answered. To begin with the first question that was raised was compliance with 131.13 and the first issue is - is it within the principle building, yes the apartment is part of the principle building. The second issue is it occupied by the owner and rented for year round lease. It is not to be rented by summer vacationers therefore one of the questions that was posed or comments that was posed was that we were going to have ruckus seasonal tenants in there. That's not the case. It cannot be rented under the ordinance. It cannot be rented to anyone other than for year round occupancy. So you have, we presently have the person in there and he's been there for quite some time. This is a 1-family dwelling it is not less than the dwelling is not less than 1600 sq. ft. and it's a 2-story house. It is - it has occupancy of over 1600 sq. ft. The whole structure is under a CO and it's the house itself that you are converting part of it into an apartment has to be at least 1600 sq. ft. I counted 1"floor and I counted occupancy of the 2nd story as well. I can go back and tell you how I calculated it which is I just took- CHAIRWOMAN: What we usually do is take the size of the existing dwelling and the size of the proposed apartment. MS. MOORE: What I did is I took the original building permit application from '77 which had the dimensions of the house. It's in your file and it's hand drawn on the building permit application that was done back in '77 and I took the structure in this case it shows as new structure when the main house was built but it's 26 and a 12' deck and then a 32' length of the house, then it has a 1 Ox 10 laundry room area and at the time it was the existing structure was 20x20 with an additional pop out I didn't even count the additional pop out of the bathroom that Page 36 of 91 Page 37 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing was the original structure prior to '77 so taking all that into account, I took that entire measurement what I'll have to do is if you want I can after this meeting I can- CHAIRWOMAN: Just break it out by the principle dwelling and the accessory- MS. MOORE: I'll provide it for the board by letter after the hearing so we don't hold the hearing calendar up. The apartment itself 628 sq. ft. and again I took the measurements that showed on the building pen-nit and it came to 628 sq. ft. The measurement does not exceed 40% of the livable floor area of the existing building and it confonned to that. The parking issue I provided for you a site plan prepared by Mr. Bage that shows the dimensions of the existing driveway it's 54xl6. It actually can accommodate up to 6 cars withinside that driveway. There's a site plan prepared by Ed Bage it was revised on Feb. 25, 2003 and on that site plan there was the area which is the existing driveway, it's a blacktop Belgian block driveway and it measures 54' in length and widthwise it's 16' in width and based on the standard calculations he says there's space for 6 cars. In fact the driveway actually goes- MEMBER OLIVA: And you can back out in there and not have to back out into Sound Ave.? MS. MOORE: If you wanted to have a turnaround, we could provide that. It requires landscaping, I think right now for the 50 years that house has been there, it backs out onto Soundview Ave.,but Soundview Ave. is an off-street. But if you wanted it to be a condition certainly they would have no problem with that providing some kind of a T allowing a car to back up. That's not a problem, it just means more blacktop and taking away some of the landscaping that's presently there. Another condition is we can only have one accessory apt which is all that is requested. The entrance remains the same as it is today which is just a doorway that used to be the original house, the original structure there, it was designed as a garage. It's the size of garage,but there's a doorway as you go in through the doorway for the laundry room there's a doorway on the right which is a direct access into the apartment. If you go through the laundry room there's a doorway there as well, so there's a sharing of the laundry facility which is right there the center call it a breezeway,but it's an enclosure the larger 2-story house the connection between the laundry area and that is the apartment. The dwelling standards are met the exterior alterations are on the existing foundation. This is kind of an interesting history of this property. When I look back at the CO history, the apartment was the original house, I recall one of the neighbors had the same situation which was when he came out here in the 60's you built that small portion of what looks like the garage or the apartment now, that was the main dwelling and as the needs of the summer people changed and they became year round residences which in this case it was in '84 or actually no I take it back, they started construction in'77, got a CO and during that period of time their finances enabled them to build the main house so the apartment was the original main house. I'm looking at the original CO that was issued in'68. In'68 the original CO was for a dwelling that would eventually be a garage or converted back or lived in. CHAIRWOMAN: What was the CO for? Page 37 of 91 Page 38 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: The Building Department's records indicate - it says here on the CO Aug. 14, I 1968, temporary residence, future garage and storage so temporary residence was where they actually came out and lived while they were building or while they were preparing to build the larger-house. That's how it began in '63, not '68. The building pen-nit was issued in '63 and it conformed with the requirements of the law at the time in '63. Howard Terry was the Building Inspector at the time. In 1963 what is the apartment today is what was there. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm just looking at the wording- MS. MOORE: It had a CO at the time. You had to have everything that was legal. I can pull the code- CHAIRWOMAN: A building which is converted to permit an accessory apartment shall be in existence and have a valid CO issued prior to January 1984 or proof of occupancy prior to that date. MS. MOORE: What they were trying to do is take the older homes and allow this to be done. As far as CO's are concerned, they both predate the'84 provision in the code. In response to the concerns about hell raisers and summer residents and the rest, I'll just paraphrase what was said before, again this is going to be year round occupancy and at present there is a home health care companion in that part of the building right now because it never retained it's little kitchen and when you go inside it's all paneled and it looks like the original 60's apparently. Presently he's not paying rent because the concern is when you have somebody and you treat him as if he was in a separate apartment certainly if you have a problem with a tenant evicting or whatever you get into a problem with whether or not it was a legal separate dwelling area for this person to live in. So the person that's there presently is in exchange for watching over them, giving them rides, doing miscellaneous errands, he's getting room and board for free. He's living in that part of the building. What they like to do is legalize it as an apartment so they can rent the space, get some rental income from it and as a consequence or part of the reduction in the rent or part of the consideration is the watching them and helping with small errands. At this point there is not an even exchange,but they have always been very conscientious with their care and services they can't really rent it so that's why they want to legalize and now even though everything is in place, they want to make sure that it's considered an apartment and therefore if they do they don't have any violations, we don't have any illegality that would end up eventually when you try to get rid of your tenant coming out to haunt you the tenants claim they didn't have any right to rent in and therefore all the rent they have not been paying for all that time they couldn't collect anyway. That's why most people don't have a rental situation unless you have a legal entity because in the long run you end up with Justice Court issues that the tenant doesn't have to pay since it's not a legal occupancy. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's wrap this up. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? ARTHUR ZALENSKI: My name is Arthur Zalenski and I live at 19215 Sound Ave. and I'm on the east side of the Marshut residence. Now to start from the beginning,back in the late 70's our Page 38 of 91 Page 39 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing home had been built and Marshut's home had been in the process of being built and he had a 2- car garage which he lived in during the summer. Because he was there long before we were there in that garage. Late 1970's when he applied for the pennit, I spoke to the assessor Bob Russell and he brought out all the measurements and all the inforination and all and when he applied,for that, he applied for an extra room to the home that he just built. It was a 2-car garage and he applied for an extra room because on the application, it stated at the time because he wanted a relative who is going to live with theirs. All well and good. Right after that, Marshut passed away and that's been empty all these years up until about the last 2 years when they got this young man in. The point I want to bring out is this. It was a garage, not what was stated here prior showing there. What we are concerned about is this there is not one accessory apartment in the entire area from the lighthouse down to 48. There is no accessory apartments in Chardonnay Estates. Now they tell you this that they want to legalize it all well and good. They want to legalize it for rental purposes. Let's not kid ourselves. CHAIRWOMAN: Let me back up a second here just so you know what's really before us and what this board can and cannot do. A number of years ago the Town Board said we want to have accessory apartments in certain houses in the community and they said we want to have them if they meet certain standards. If they have other certain standards that Mrs. Moore just read off in the code. It won't occupy more than 40% of the main building, that it was in existence prior to 1984 and all of those standards. It's a special exception which means that if you meet the parameters in the code barring something highly unusual, it's pretty much a permitted use. It's permitted by special exception. So when you say things, and I'm not trying to be snippy, I'm just trying to tell you what we can say yes and no to. When you say there are no others in there, that's not in the code, that's not going to make any difference in our decision because that's not what the code told us to look for. This law was enacted by the Town Board many years ago and they didn't say to look at factors of are there lots in the neighborhood. I'm just trying to give you a feel of what we can say yes and what we can say no to. MR. ZILENSKI: All well and good. Let's get to the parking. If you can get 6 cars in that short driveway, I'm pretty sure you'd have to use a shoe iron to get through the front door. CHAIRWOMAN: They only need 3 parking spaces. She said it could accommodate 6, whether it can accommodate 6, the question that we have to look at is can it accommodate 3. That's what we have to look at. MR. ZILENSKI: Our only concern is this and it's a big concern. We know very much so this area here has suddenly become very interesting for the people or the young people from the city. They are looking to areas out here and if they can turn around and they start to rent these areas oh boy we are going to have the same mess that they are having down there. One can rent it, one person can rent it from the city but that's not saying how many he brings along with them. You'd spend a summer there whether they have a beach right down stairs this is ideal. This is a big concern. CHAIRWOMAN: When they leave here they have to have a year round lease that's what they have. There's no other way they can get their permit. Page 39 of 91 Page 40 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. ZILENSKI: In other words no summer rentals? CHAIRWOMAN: No weekend rentals, no monthly rentals, etc. year round only. MR. ZILENSKI: That's something to consider. CHAIRWOMAN: The Town Board did think of that and they did consider it, that's why they put that safeguard in there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Also sir, this is a special permit. In a special permit, this board has in the past revoked special permits. If a situation like that occurred, we could have a re-hearing and revoke that special permit. CHAIRWOMAN: It couldn't occur legally, right Jerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. But if for some strange reason it did occur, we could revoke the permit. MR. ZILENSKI: That's our concern right now because it's a lovely area. It's nice - the people are nice in that entire area. Homes are very nice and we just don't care to have it messed up in any way. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? JIM LIBEL: I'm a neighbor 2 doors west. I have a question. Last hearing you said you were going to send over inspectors and inspect the premises. CHAIRWOMAN: No, one of the board members said he might be interested in inspecting the premises. MR. LIBEL: Is sewage inspected? CHAIRWOMAN: Those are all issues that would be resolved by other, we don't have the jurisdiction,but yes they would. The Health Department does have jurisdiction over it. MR. LIBEL: And you said it has to be a turn around driveway? CHAIRWOMAN: It has to be a driveway large enough to accommodate 3 cars and we always put a condition in that there's no backing out of cars in the main road. MR. LIBEL: On record, I'm strictly opposed to this and there's no occupancy level on these apartments? 1-6 can live there? Page 40 of 91 Page 41 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: I think it's based on the number of bedrooms. MS. MOORE: I think it's an efficiency, it's all one room. CHAIRWOMAN: It's a studio. MR. LIBEL: Well you better check the square footage on the house because as you said the alcove in the back is a bathroom for that accessory apartment that's not part of the original house. He had that added on later which was a garage at one time. MS. MOORE: I took the square footage from the building department. MR. LIBEL: They are 2 different entireties, the original house and the accessory apartment as I understand it, correct. And they'll check before they make a decision one way or the other? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes we will. EVELYN CONDURIS: My name is Evelyn Conduris, I'm one house west of Mrs. Marshut. I oppose this completely and one of the things that I spoke with Mrs. Marshut's attorney is she said it was going to be used primarily for a home health aide and to get some rent out of it. So I said to her if you're on Medicaid and you have home health aide, you don't pay rent the agency pays you so that's where I was a little confused as far as getting rent if you're going to rent it to a home health aide to take care of these two people supposedly. The other thing, I don't know the word Ms. Moore used,but she said the driveway comes out on Soundview Ave. and there was some- that Soundview Ave. is busy all the time so if you're coming out of her short driveway you know you can have 3 cars in there,but if it's coming out, they call it humpty dumpty because of that and you've got to watch out. That's my point of view. I just feel I don't want it, I don't want anymore transients in there. She tells you one thing, they do something else,but that's up to you too. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you. NANCY POLINAR: Nancy Polinar, I live in Chardonnay Estates,just 2 houses down and around the corner. I just have one question being this is a health related accessory apartment, how does this'get checked in a year or two? Let's say they don't need a health aide, the person passes away. CHAIRWOMAN: The apartment is not specified for home health aide. In other words- MS. POLINAR: In other words, this stays as an apartment even if the house gets sold. CHAIRWOMAN: I think it's a renewable permit. MS. POLINAR: And how do they get this renewed? Page 41 of 91 Page 42 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: They go to the building department. MS. POLINAR: How do they get this renewed, do they have another hearing? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ma'am it stays with the property until the property is sold and then if the property is sold- MS. MOORE: What my understanding of the code is that it carries with the property, however, there are conditions. It has to be -the homeowner has to be owner occupied, in other words the homeowner has to be there so it can't be an investor that has a different person living in the house . and a different person in the apartment, so it has to be home occupancy and then the tenant has to be a year round tenant as well. It does run with the land, however, the constraints on it are huge. CHAIRWOMAN: I was right Jerry, it is renewed annually. MS. MOORE: I found out it is annual to the building department. MS. POLINAR: My question is if it stays in.the family and the health aide person is not needed- CHAIRWOMAN: It doesn't have anything to do with-we grant accessory apartments all over Southold Town. We are not granting we are not even permitted to even grant a permit for a special type of person that's going to be there. MS. POLINAR: This is being granted for a person who is requiring health care. CHAIRWOMAN: No it's not. That's what we are trying to tell you. MEMBER ORLANDO: That may be the intent,but we're not granting it based on that. CHAIRWOMAN: We are not granting it based on it being a health care worker or a family member or anything else. MS. POLINAR: I thought the whole thing was that it was an accessory apartment because it was needed- CHAIRWOMAN: The special exception does not have anything to do with the type of person you are renting to. MS. POLINAR: This could be used then for the family to rent to anybody down the line? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MS. POLINAR: That's what I'm against. I don't want that in the area. I'm not for it. That's all. Page 42 of 91 Page 43 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Special Exception is a permit for a use. The person they are renting to is not the subject of this permit. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? MS. MOORE: What I would suggest should you grant this application is you can just specify a _ cars won't back out because then it will give us - then the landscaper can decide what's best whether it's a turnaround or whether it's a T and they turn around. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 1:34 p.m. Duryea Trust #5202—Applicant requests a Variance under Sections 100-242A & 100-244B,based on the Building Department's July 18, 2002 and August 20, 2002 Notices of Disapproval. Applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling with front and rear setbacks at less than 35 feet, at Mansion House Drive, Fishers Island; Parcel 1000-6-5-10. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? SUSAN YOUNG, ARCH: I'm here representing the Duryea's in a project on Fisher's Island. It's • a single family house and they would like to expand it to make it larger. Originally we sent in an application to simply elongate the house but later on it turned out that the bids came in so high to change the existing house that we decided it would be better to build a new house that was approximately like the existing house. Mainly it had been covered with aluminum siding and the foundation wasn't very good, not really for a house because it had originally been a cook shack and the room wasn't oriented very well and those factors haven't come into consideration. Also the back of the house which is the portion the neighbors look on was particularly unattractive. This would be a view that I'll show you right here. The lot is narrow and irregular and if you were to put in a proper front and back yard there'd hardly be room to put in a house and the original house was oriented sort of looking to the side looking to a ROW so and that seems to be the best orientation for the neighborhood when you look out on that side, you can't see any other houses there,nor can any other houses look in so the house seems to be oriented, we've retained that orientation. The new house is only 2'higher than the original house so it's not going to be very bulky. It's built as an old house would be built because the Duryea's still want to have the feeling of the old original house. We don't feel it's detrimental to nearby properties,but it will be an improvement because this new house will be shingled and will have pitched roofs and will actually make the neighborhood look nicer. If you would consider what is technically the front yard and the back yard, the side yards, the house would fit on the lot without any zoning variance necessary. None of the proposals exceed the 20% lot coverage,but the new one has the old one was 17% and the new one was 19% so the house has been made a bit wider toward the ROW where it won't effect any other person and it is a bit of a long walk from the driveway to the house anyway, so that seemed like the proper side to expand the house. Additionally I called the property owners in the vicinity or they called me and I didn't find any objection and for our Page 43 of 91 Page 44 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing information.one of them is congressman Porter Gass from Florida and he was very cooperative. He said the Duryea's are dear friends and whatever they want to do. He's across the street and his kids live in back. His kids are Mason and Jane. CHAIRWOMAN: Who are the property owners that are directly the 1.3 acre parcel directly behind the largest expansion of the part of the house? MS. YOUNG: That's his children, Mason and Jane Gass. On the west side is Mason and Jane and that lot - they own both lots next to each other. They own actually 2 of the 4 lots we had to inform. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question? Can you describe what Mason House Drive is - Mansion House Rd., pardon me. MS. YOUNG: Mansion is a town paved road. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what's the variable width on that road, does anybody know? MEMBER HORNING: You certainly could pass 2 cars. MS. YOUNG: It's a normal sized road,not large. MEMBER HORNING: Just looking at the plans, I was wondering if there was any response particularly negative from neighbors on the rear yard proposal. Also I was wondering if in fact looking at this if they could possibly since the billing is to be proposed to be completely demolished, move it closer to the so-called parking lot that would ease up on the variance needed for the front yard on Mansion House which is a lot more significant than the common ROW driveway shared by Duryea and Gass and it would also remedy the situation a little bit of encroaching towards Gass and these other houses by relocating the building somewhat closer to the parking lot. I'm not sure what that that easement for pole line is because I think it's just an easement. MS. YOUNG: I think it's how they get their electricity I think. MEMBER HORNING: I don't think service comes in from there. I think it ends right there. It might have been an original proposed easement but I don't think it's in use nor would it ever be maybe except for underground services. MS. YOUNG: I'd have to look at a photograph, I'm not sure whether it's in use or not. MEMBER HORNING: There is a pole there. I know that. Since I work for a phone company, I know the services do come in the back side and such. Page 44 of 91 Page 45 - March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: So George, you are suggesting they move it south towards the - to get a better- MS. YOUNG: We have. MEMBER HORNING: You've got a 50' clearance before you even reach the parking lot. MS. YOUNG: The problem is there's a tree in the way, a substantial, nice tree. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The thing to do with that is cock it a little more toward the left standing in front of the parking area and crowding the rear yard a little more. MS. YOUNG: We already did make the front yard a little bit bigger as we moved it forward on the lot and I thought that it would be good to make sure the property owner in the rear had a clear view through this corridor without any obstruction and I tried to orient it perfectly. I certainly would be willing to move it over but I think the Goss's would be able to look out through the corridor because- MEMBER HORNING: What corridor are you referring to? MS. YOUNG: You see the 15.6' sideyard, it's still another 15 or 20'before you get to a stand of trees dividing the properties and they look out in that direction so that's part of the reason one wouldn't want to - the other factor is that along the road where you have the 10' or so front yard there is a tall stand of arborvitae trees dividing the property off. The trees are full grown and it makes a good buffer we would be willing to move it over a couple of feet and we'll be willing to move it over a couple of feet. I'm not sure if the Goss's would, I think it's probably maybe better not to go any farther than we have to go anyway. MEMBER HORNING: I was talking to the south. MS. YOUNG: It is already moved to the south 6'. This is a tree. MEMBER ORLANDO: What kind of tree just out of curiosity? MS. YOUNG: It may be in some of your photographs. MEMBER ORLANDO: I couldn't see it that's why I ask. MS. YOUNG: In the original house the porch ended here and the new house we moved it forward almost 5'. Page 45 of 91 Page 46 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: You're almost doubling the size of the house. MEMBER ORLANDO: Is this a total demo, are you demoing the house and starting over? MS. YOUNG: We want to build a house the way it should be built. It doesn't really matter where we dig the hole, we just try to plan it- MEMBER HORNING: What I would propose as an alternative placement on the lot is if this proposed new construction was parallel to this section of Mansion House Drive and just a little bit tucked into this bringing it down as far further down this way so it would kind of be like that. And the Goss's are here facing this corridor. The further this is away from them is a benefit to them is all I'm saying. I'm not quite sure talking to someone on the phone from Florida that they can get the real picture of what it would really be like. MS. YOUNG: Well I sent them all of the elevations and additional drawings. Not only the site plan I sent them more material so they could really see it. The thing is I kind of wish it was parallel to the driveway because that's the way it's kind of been oriented in the past. CHAIRWOMAN: The only thing is if you flip it over that way you might bring it the northeast side will be at an angle to that property line which you don't want. The only way to do it is to try it. MEMBER HORNING: I'd like to see it be less intrusive. CHAIRWOMAN: The only way to do it is to try it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At the very least, I'd like to see it 13' from Mansion Drive. MS. YOUNG: That's not a problem. MEMBER HORNING: The way to do that is to bring it closer to the existing parking lot. Again there's 50'there to work with. MS. YOUNG: And it is 5' closer. MEMBER HORNING: And if the tree is in the way you could make the house turn off to Mansion House and retain the tree. Then they would have to have- MS. YOUNG: I just don't think it would look as nice if you walk sort of to a house that is sort of angular. It's nice to walk to a house that's directly in front of you rather that to a house that's angled off. Page 46 of 91 Page 47 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Why don't you, I'll tell you what because I do share your concerns. Why don't you do a couple of things do 1)bringing it down toward the tree getting it at least 13' off of Mansion Drive and the second one angled and see where that lands you. I'm a little concerned that when you angle this you are going to do this right here and that's not even a full - George take a look at this. Here's the house you want to angle here - see where you are? MEMBER HORNING: Then you pull it down here. CHAIRWOMAN: Then look how close you are here. I'm not sure if you're going to pick up anything there. MEMBER HORNING: You're going to pick up more clearance from the neighbor, that's the only thing. CHAIRWOMAN: Why don't you do a couple of different plans, would that be good George? MEMBER HORNING: You're going to pick up a bigger rear yard -yes. MS. YOUNG: But we're not physically standing on the property so we're not visually- it may be arbitrary judgments. CHAIRWOMAN: George, would it be possible for you to go back and do an inspection and maybe Mrs. Young could meet you there and go over a couple of different scenarios. MS. YOUNG: We could stand at their house and see the picture from their house. CHAIRWOMAN: George, you and Mrs. Young are going to meet and see what you can work out. MEMBER HORNING: I'd like to get a better idea where the Goss structure is in relation to- CHAIRWOMAN: When do we want to adjourn this hearing to? MEMBER HORNING: Next regular monthly meeting? CHAIRWOMAN: We are booked, April is out so it's got to be adjourned to May 15th MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lydia you may want to take a vote on the Breezy Sound. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion adjourning this until May 15th at which time I'll have a better idea of what direction we're headed here. Page 47 of 91 Page 48 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 2:06 p.m. Theodore Martz, Contract Vendee (Owner: Veronica Delfino) #5279—Applicant requests a Variance under Section 100-244B based on the Building Department's October 18, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes a new dwelling with a lot coverage over the code's 20% limitation, at 55 Seventh Street, Laurel; Parcel 1000-126-1-18. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? CATHRINE MESIANO: My name is Cathy Mesiano and I'm here on behalf of Mr. Martz who is the contract vendee for the subject property as you know we have an application before you for relief the subject property is a corner lot located at Bray Ave. the westerly side of Bray Ave and the southerly side of 7th Avenue in Mattituck. The property is a 50x150 corner lot the zoning requires a front yard setback of 35' sideyard setback of 10 and a combined of 25 and a rear yard of 35'. Given the dimensions of the property and the fact that it is on a corner it is impossible to adhere to the code requirements when constructing a basic minimal size house. We are proposing to construct a 25x40 2 story frame dwelling with an attached 24x25 garage. We are requesting relief from the front yard setback requirement so as to be able to accommodate the 25' depth of the house. We are able to provide 2 12 %2'yards the 12 %2' front yard on 7th street and a 12 %2' side yard on the one interior lot line. That basically outlines the proposal - I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRWOMAN: Do you have the green cards? MS. MESIANO: I submitted everything I have to Linda the other day when I came in a couple of days ago. I submitted my affidavits of posting several days ago and everything I had in my possession I submitted at that time. CHAIRWOMAN: 12.5 front yard from 71h Street and 40' from Bray. And the lot coverage is 21.3%. Let's see what happens. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? CATHY CRESHON: I'm Cathy Creshon and I live south of the property in question and I strongly oppose the variance they've requested and when I purchased my home 2 years ago I was assured at that time by a member of the Board of Appeals that the neighboring wooded lot was a non-buildable lot due to code restrictions in place and on March 61h, I received my certified letter stating of this meeting that the new owners were requesting to not only build on this lot,but build a 2-story structure of according to my calculations 3200 sq. ft. This is almost 4 times the size of my 900 sq. ft. home. Not only does the proposed structure exceed the 20%building footprint,but it's also a full 2 stories high and I know of no other homes in the neighborhood that even come close to this size on that size lot. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Creshon where is your house? Page 48 of 91 Page 49 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. CRESHON: I'm on 770 Bray Ave. south of this property. CHAIRWOMAN: Lot 17 is it? MS. CRESHON: Yes. Since receiving the letter I spoke to the Building Department who relayed the restrictions previously mentioned of the setback of 35' on each street side and I not only feel this or any structure will decrease my property value it is not in keeping with the other structures in the neighborhood and I strongly request that in a town that prides itself on open space that this building not be put through. It was my understanding that the current zoning regulations were set up to protect property owners from being overpowered from this kind of aggressive building and it's for this reason I must strongly urge the ZBA to reject this or any proposal variance to adhere to the laws set up for the current taxpayer. This lot should remain as is a non-buildable lot. CHAIRWOMAN: How long have you lived on the lot next to this lot? MS. CRESHON: 2 and a half years. CHAIRWOMAN: Most of the lots are quite narrow along there. MS. CRESHON: Just to the lot south of me the lots are double sized. CHAIRWOMAN: There are probably 100 on the north end of Bray Ave. and then 50 down to 61h street, then roughly- MEMBER HORNING: It is a tiny lot. I don't see how they could build something without having a variance and I might ask another question. When was the lot created? MS. MESIANO: The lot was created - I can check my file. I can tell you we have a single and separate search and it does meet the standards for single and separate back to the required point and time and that search has been submitted to the board and let me just check and see if I have that information. This is an old filed map filed 1929. And as I mentioned there is a single and separate search on the property so it does conform to the standard set forth in the current building code as Mr. Horning mentioned and I'd like to reiterate the lot does have constraints because it is on a corner but the lot is no different in area then Ms. Creshon's lot, it's the same size and dimension- the difference being that hers is not a corner lot. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the height on this structure? MR. MARTZ: It's a cape style house the approximate square footage is 1600 sq. ft. if the upstairs is finished in the future. Page 49 of 91 Page 50 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: That's 16 with the upstairs where the gable ends? MS. MESIANO: The gable ends would be facing the road and the west. To the ridge would be 28'. CHAIRWOMAN: Would you accept a height limitation of 28 to the ridge, not including chimneys? The reason I'm asking is because it is a small lot, it is a narrow lot,but it does have constraints and to the degree the variance is requested is substantial and if it's going to be a 35' high house the impact to the neighbor is much larger. MS. MESIANO: We're not proposing that. CHAIRWOMAN: I think the board recognizes the limitations of the lot- on the other hand, I think we need to think about mitigating the impact of the adjoining neighbor. MS. MESIANO: That's why we are proposing a cape style, not a full 2-story house. We are doing this as minimally as possible a 25x40'house is not an excessive footprint for this structure. I don't know where Ms. Creshon derived the 3200 sq. ft..area that she spoke of because we don't propose anything near that. CHAIRWOMAN: This is 2 stories, not 2 'h correct? MS. MESIANO: It's less, it's a cape style house which would not give you a full 2nd story if we have a 25x40 that's a 1000 sq. ft. footprint for the first floor of the house and the additional 600' comprises the 2nd story. Please note that there is an attached garage proposed. Oh we are not proposing full living space at this time. Yes 28' limitation is fine and it's 2 stories or less. MEMBER HORNING: Does the garage have the same roofline? MS. MESIANO: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Do you propose storage above the garage? MR. MARTZ: No storage over the garage, it will be open to the peak. It will only be sheet rocked 5' out to the roof and sidewalls so the rest will be open to the ridge. MEMBER ORLANDO: Is this a spec house? MS. MESIANO: This house is being built for this young gentleman, I'd like to just present, this is Brian Hass and Mr. Hass is going to be the owner of the house after Mr. Martz constructs it for him. Mr. Martz is the contract vendee,but Mr. Hass will ultimately be the owner of the house and if you'd like him to speak,he'd be more than happy to answer any questions. Page 50 of 91 Page 51 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Not at this time. In proportion to the house, the 2-car garage seems a bit excessive, can you live with a 1 '/z car garage? It would be approximately 20' instead of 24'. MS. MESIANO: We could give up a total of about 2' off the garage, that would knock it down by 50 sq. ft., but we'd like to be able to maintain the 2 car use because we don't want to be in a position of having to put a shed up at some time. With a shed we could put up to 100 sq. ft. on the property without a building permit and we could eliminate the need for that if we could maintain a 2-car garage. We could give up 2' on the depth of the garage, still have a usable garage and that would bring it down by 50 sq. ft. CHAIRWOMAN: That would be what 22x25? MS. MESIANO: Yes. The depth would be 22, the width would be 25. MEMBER ORLANDO: You could fit 2 cars in a 1 % car garage depending on the size of the cars if you're talking SUV's you're correct. If you're talking 2 compact cars, you could. MS. MESIANO: I'm also talking about when you have a young family you have all of those large plastic things that end up in the yard and it's nice to be able to put those things away. You'd have to have an outside entrance to your basement because you're not going to be able to put anything down if you have a riding lawn mower any other large lawn equipment, if it comes down to that, we'll consider that but I don't think what we are asking for is excessive given that other properties in the area do have garages, detached garages, we are not asking for something that's out of character for the neighborhood. If we were to reduce the size of the garage and then have the need for a shed, we'd be back to the building department in a year to put up a 12x12 shed or not at all to put up a 1 Ox10 shed. If it's that or nothing, we'll take that,but I don't think that it's a major point. We're not going full height, it's on the inside section of the property. MEMBER ORLANDO: My other point is it will bring you down below 20% - one less variance. MS. MESIANO: Is the 1%that crucial? MEMBER ORLANDO: It's a concession. There's multiple variances you're asking for. MS. MESIANO: And we've given a concession in reducing the height of the house that we're entitled to. We're limiting the potential- MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't think you reduced it- MS. MESIANO: No, we're limiting the potential to -it could go to 35, could it not? Page 51 of 91 -Page 52 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Not this design. MS. MESIANO: Not this design, but we came in with a minimal design. We didn't come in with a maximum design, we came in with a minimal, reasonable size structure so as not to start at 115% and work our'way down. We came in straight forward hoping to get the benefit of having approached you in that way. I'd rather not reduce the size of the garage down to 1 & 1/2 if I did not have to. MEMBER OLIVA: But you could live with a 22x25. MS. MESIANO: Let's look at the survey. MEMBER ORLANDO: You're not reducing depth, you're reducing width. MS. MESIANO: I'd rather reduce the depth. I think reducing the depth would be wiser because it would give us a deeper driveway. CHAIRWOMAN: You're talking about, that would be- MEMBER ORLANDO: Reducing the depth, wouldn't that be more expensive to build then, you're changing the ridgeline. Isn't the ridgeline now continuous? CHAIRWOMAN: That makes sense because that.would give you another just a tad more on the driveway and if you drop that ridgeline it would give much more of a visual impact. MEMBER OLIVA: The garage would be at 24 and 23? CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? MS. CRESHON: Any houses with the garage detached or attached -the lot sizes are twice the size. MEMBER ORLANDO: Do you have a garage? MS. CRESHON: No my property is too narrow. MS. MESIANO: Seeking relief from the board would give this individual the potential to build a garage. CHAIRWOMAN: Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision Page 52 of 91 Page 53 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 2:25 p.m. Jeanne R.Kurz #5289—This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-242A and 100-244B, based on the Building Department's December 16, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes to construct a second-story addition with a single side yard setback at less than 15 feet, at 725 Terry Lane, Southold; Parcel 1000-65-1-17. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MS. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: This is actually a very straightforward application. The house is already built there. The house when it was built was at 12.9 from the property line. The south property line. The existing house, they want to put a 2nd story over what is 1-story. The 2"d story is going to connect to the existing 2nd story and this renovation is technically here because of the fact that the existing structure does not conform and therefore going up, we have to come before this board for a variance so it is straightforward it's a long day and I don't want to belabor the day -unless you have questions- CHAIRWOMAN: You're going to be maintaining the existing 12.9 side instead of the required 15 the rest of the house is already 2 stories and the side of the house that you're going to be increasing to 2 stories is property owned by the park district? MS. MOORE: It's adjacent to the park district which will not impact anyone. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I went to the site and I understand the situation and I don't have any specific questions nor do I have any specific objections. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. 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. MS. MOORE: We'd obviously respectfully request a decision maybe at the end of the meeting because they need to get a building permit and that's the only thing holding them up. Thank you. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 53 of 91 Page 54 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 2:28 p.m. John Weeper#5288 —Applicant requests a Waiver under Section 100-26 to umnerge a nonconforming parcel identified as 1000-55-3-21 from the adjacent Parcel #10000-55-3-20. Based on the Building Department's November 27, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, the parcels are merged to fonn one lot. Location of Property: West Side of Tuthill Road, Yennecott Park, Southold. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MR. MOORE: Mr. &Mrs. Weeger are here. This is a lot in Yennecott Park subdivision. We are here for a waiver of merger. The property was exempt from the merger provision until '97 Siminoy is the previous owner. They had bought it with separate deeds and unfortunately the husband passed away and the property had merged at that time. He passed away in '98 when the Weeger family purchased the property from the estate there wasn't time or the condition to allow them to come before this board for a waiver of merger. So they are here today for the relief requested. Do you have any particular questions with respect to this? CHAIRWOMAN: I reviewed the title search on it and what it appears is the merger was created by death in'98 when the husband passed away and it went into the estate. Prior to that these were single and separate lots that were exempt and on the map of Yennecott Park. I think it was lots 4&5. The improved lots 26250 - it's a merger by death. So I really don't have any questions about this at all. MEMBER GOEGRINGER: Who's the purchaser of the lot when they the Weeger's bought it? MS. MOORE: They purchased both so- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh that's where the 252 came from. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. 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 2:30 p.m. New Suffolk Shipyard#5149—Applicant requests a Variance under Section 100- 121C1,based on the Building Department's March 27, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes two sets of accessory boat rack structures in this M-II Zone District, in a side yard and at a height over the code's 18 ft. limitation, at 5775 New Suffolk Road,New Suffolk; 1000-117- 5-29.1. Page 54 of 91 Page 55 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? This is 3 in a row then. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: It's your schedule, not mine,but that's alright. Let me just take 2 seconds. I do have photographs which I want to place in the record. I also just so you have everything at one time.--I also have the recommendation in case it hasn't come over to you yet from the planning board which agrees with our location and our efforts at mitigation at site plan. So I've included that in the package. I have an original set of photographs and I have a good photocopy. We submitted as you know from your own records, we've submitted this plan to the Planning Board. We also had a hearing before the Trustees actually yesterday evening and they approved the plan so you will be getting a written perinit as soon as I get it so they had a chance to review certainly the environmental issues related to the racks that were proposed. When the racks were being originally considered and where to place them,New Suffolk Shipyard tried to place them in the least offensive location. The alternative locations would have been blocking the waterfront. The one rack which is obviously stuck into the building. I don't believe anybody has a problem with that. The rack height is 26' and it's the most safe height which allows the existing equipment which they now presently have to maneuver a place for the boats in the racks. Going any higher than that I asked Mike from New Suffolk Shipyard and he said now you get into the training aspect of the equipment and then the safety aspect of having the boats up on the racks. So the rack height is a comfortable safe rack height at least for New Suffolk Shipyard for to maintain the boats in a safe manner. I have to point out that NS Shipyard has many safety features to maintain the boats in a safe manner. I have to point out that NS Shipyard has many safety features as well as environmental features that they have implemented. They have a pump out station. They have the wash down station so when the boats come off the rack, they can be washed down and it's all with proper drainage so the marina because it's a commercial marina, it implements all of the safety measures, all the DEC recommendations. They are regulated on all sources. The dryrack system is the what is being proposed in the industry. It is what marinas are going to be faced with because of the difficulty in getting additional boat slips. It is an environmental permitting nightmare to try to get permits for additional dockage. So what you're going to be seeing is this rack system. You've seen them from other marinas and I know they've come before this board. What you're seeing are the enclosures, the most obvious one is the Port of Egypt right by Albertsons, it's very tall and it's very large. This rack system only goes to about 26' in height. It's open rack system and adjustable. It can be taken down and put up if need be. In this case it's going to be stationary,but it is the industry standard right now. What I also want to point out is NS Shipyard benefits the rack system in order to provide for additional boat storage it will generate income to the marina. Not having it obviously is going to put financial pressure on the marina and they have to grow and they have to serve their customers. The benefit to the community is they presently employ 8 local families with good salaries, benefits, the marina has 24 hour supervision. Unlike and I know the neighbor has at least in the press objected to this proposal they also have a marina next door and I think you can see from the photographs I've submitted the dock I took photographs photograph#2 is the last dock that is in the NS Shipyard. From that point forward, Mr. Withers has a marina and those docks are his. So you can see there are numerous docks that are adjacent property owner has. The house he maintains a residence in is in photograph 3 &4 shows their- that house is setback quite far from the NS property line. 200-250' and it faces his own docks. So he has actually the benefit of Page 55 of 91 Page 56 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing having a marina there but without any constraints that we face as far as a professional marina and that's why I was raising the issue of a pump out station and all of the environmental safety features that NS Shipyard has to maintain our neighbor who I presume is going to object has all the benefits,but none of the constraints. Some of the other benefits that NS Shipyard provides to the community is that there is right now a maintenance dredging permit that goes until 2007 and in the past NS Shipyard has paid for the dredging of that canal. Mr. Withers has benefited because his boats that occupy his marina are quite substantial. They are 20-30'boats. Meanwhile NS Shipyard has maintained and dredged and they've been recently requested in inquiring whether or not they'll maintain the dredging permit. They also voluntarily place the channel markers and replace the channel markers into that waterway, the canal. Each channel marker is about $450 so they have benefited the community with they're essentially doing things to benefit their shipyard,but also for the benefit of everyone who uses the canal which again Mr. Withers is a prime recipient. There are about 204 boats that as a physical count that use the canal that NS Shipyard is one of their boats. They have 68 slips and the boats that are using that canal are 204 so you can see that proportionately NS Shipyard is not the major user of that canal. All of these facts,keep in mind NS Shipyard has to do all of these things for the community and to maintain a healthy viable shipyard you have to be able to provide for the industry and to provide for the customers so these racks are just one leads to the other. You start denying these racks on the shipyards, this and any other you start impacting the industry, you start impacting the industry, you start impacting the financial viability of enterprise. And there are other ramifications. There are other effects on the community so when you're balancing, weighing the test on whether or not to grant this variance, keep in mind all of the beneficial aspects of what this shipyard does. With the specifics of the racks, we've already provided to you in written form that they're about the size of the boats that go on these racks are generally 15-20' on average, they don't exceed 25' for purposes of size that you can get an idea of what kind of size boats that are there. If I could refer to you again to some of the photographs. If you look at photo 7 that shows you what is presently on the shipyard. The area where the racks are proposed along the property line, that area is usable space. That's where they actually store some of the larger boats so it is actively used. It is actively it is not an open space that a neighbor would be accustom to open space. That area from end to end the shipyard is constantly in some form of use and being stored. The racks will provide an organized,neat, format for the storage of the boats. To an extent in the summertime at the high season you're going to have boats that are out of the slip, the people that have the slips go out for the weekend, they have empty slips in the water. You are going to have some activity so the racks in the summertime may not be full. There may be some boats there some that are not. It's going to be a transient type of use there. I don't use that term in the transient using the wrong term,but the boats that are placed there on the racks are not, some are going to be there, some are not and there's going to be activity so you're going to one of the concerns I'm sure the neighbors are going to raise,you're going to see a wall of boats. That's not true. There's going to be activity that boats are going to come off, they are going to go in the water, there's going to be some boats that don't go up, they are in and out all weekend. You may have the boat down at the slip while the rack is left vacant. I'd also like to point out that there is -we are zoned MII, MI and MII. The taxed of what the NS Shipyard that they pay are double what the neighbor pays with respect to even though he has dockage when you look at what a professionally run marina is obligated to pay, it's double. So keeping that in mind as well that there is not an equal benefit between the 2. With respect to the construction if you have Page 56 of 91 Page 57 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing specific questions about the construction, I could have Mike come up and discuss that for you. Why don't you put it on the record instead of having my reading it. CHAIRWOMAN: We need to move the pace up a little bit. MS. MOORE: Do you want to know how they are constructed or do you not care? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know how they are constructed. How do you actually buffer this? MS. MOORE: We have a landscape plan for the lower canopy. There are mature trees and I tried to show that to you in paragraph 8 and photograph 1. There is a small shed there. The rack is going between the 2 sheds on the property. You can see that there are 50 year old trees, 40 year old trees that line the perimeter of this property. CHAIRWOMAN: The rack would start off going between what and what? MS. MOORE: You see the shed there in photo 1 there's a small shed. To the west of that shed if you refer to the site plan, you'll see that the rack system is going between that shed and- you'll see that it makes sense to put them there. You'll see there's a metal shed that is behind the Alexander property and then there is that small shed that's on the water side. The rack system is going between those 2 structures. CHAIRWOMAN: If I'm looking at photo 1, the racks would be directly which parallels with the surveys, it would be directly behind where that shed is. MS. MOORE: We set it 5' off the property line in order to be able to maintain the mature trees and the landscape plans that you saw had the evergreens that will buffer that property. Keeping in mind the property next door has ample room to put landscaping in,has a marina and if you really want to not see anything could put in his own row of evergreens,but because he doesn't have to go through the site plan process or never has gone through the site plan process. He merely got a building permit at the residence to renovate the house. He's not obligated to do all the same things we are obligated to do even though we both have the same use going. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see if there's anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ: I'm representing Mr. Withers, the neighbor and I would like to be heard in opposition to this particular application. I sat here and listened with great interest to the presentation on behalf of the shipyard and I heard much being made about what a wonderful operation the marina is and I suppose by implication how fortunate we should be that we have them as neighbors and how this board should not do anything to stifle the marina business,but what I didn't hear was any good reason for granting this application. I heard vague generalities concerning the fact that the marine business needed to be encouraged but I didn't hear any hardship, I didn't hear any need. I heard a desire,but I didn't hear any want and I think it almost goes without saying that this board hears almost every day people who want things. But it's not Page 57 of 91 Page 58 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing always people who need things. Is there any justification for what they are asking for here today. Is there any justification other than the fact and of course there's no proof of this that perhaps they'll make more money. Although as I've said, there's no evidence of that before you at all. all you hear is that they want to expand their operation by roughly 50%. That's what it looks like by the numbers in terms of boat slips. They want to go from 68 to 36 more. More than a 50% increase. There's no justification for that. We've heard nothing about the traffic impacts whether it be on the creek or whether it be on the local roads in the area. The coming and the going. We are told that it's a good thing these people are transients. I'm not so sure that's not a double edged sword. Maybe in some way the surrounding neighborhood would be better off if the people weren't coming and going all the time creating additional traffic problems. Maybe everyone would be better off if the forklifts weren't groaning up and down moving in and out and sliding these boats in and out of their locations. Maybe we won't see a wall of boats every day,but probably most of the time since these people are going to come and go mostly on weekends. Basically what we have is a wall of boats and we're told the structure is 26'high and how high on top of that with boats - I don't know, we're not told that. But we're told basically that there's going to be a wall of boats and it's going to be 5' off of our line with no justification for it. I'm looking at the site plan. I hope you have the same site plan that I do and it looks like this boat rack storage is tucked right in there 5' off the line between these 2 sheds and right in front of there, there's proposed parking. For the life of me I just can't see how that's going to work. I don't know how you're going to have a line of cars parked right in front of those boat racks. I guess people are going to be moving cars back and forth all the time and all around as boats come in and go out and the forklifts are going to go in there and they are going to get access. I guess it's going to be like one of those parking lots in the city where you leave your keys and people are going to be moving your car around as they need to get in and out. And I guess if there's a problem down there, and emergency services are needed, I suppose they're going to have a fleet of employees who are going to rush out with the keys and they are going to move all those cars out of the way so the emergency vehicles and personnel can come in and deal with the problem that may exist. You're having boats up on racks with flammables contained in there. You don't know if anybody ever been a party to flammables around fiberglass and things, maybe Mr. Goehringer has, maybe some volunteer firemen have. Not a pretty sight. Emergency people have to get in there and I'm looking at this and wondering how that's going to happen. Not to mention that fact that the racks are enclosed on 2 sides by sheds and on the backside by some scrawny trees and a fence so there's no way for emergency personnel to get to 3 sides of this particular location and the 4th is going to be blocked by cars. It doesn't make any sense to me. I think it's stupid. I think it's unsafe and I just don't see how that's going to work. That impacts us as the neighbor to the north and whether we have some slips there which house only a fraction of the boats on a pre-existing basis or otherwise that does not diminish the concerns to our property. I almost heard the plea to the board that the fact that we have a mixed use somehow entitles us to less protection. I don't see why that should be so. To take up on the point that was made by board member Goehringer 5' and screening,how are these trees going to be able to grow anywhere at all. They are not going to be able to grow 30'tall. They are not going to be able to grow big and strong and thrive and screen. So now it's our problem to be able to provide the screening? A very novel approach to this problem. Page 58 of 91 Page 59 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's why I asked that question. I was aware of this plan, but that has been the major thrust and the problem with every one of these applications for boat rack storage. How do you screen it? Before we even get into the aspects of the other things you were discussing. MR. BRESSLER: I just don't see it and I would respectfully refer this board to it's prior decision involving this piece of property and I know the board has it in it's file, that would be the application appeal #3148 Ropes Marina and the issue of what use that side of the property was to be put to was an issue and it was on a violation and an application for a reversal of a violation that this matter came on to be heard before this board. A matter with which I have some familiarity. And at that time, the board determined that there should be a 15'buffer area for safety for concerns the board correctly identified at that time to my way of thinking having changed safety, his safety, his safety that's not true the only thing that has changed is the application now before the board raises even greater safety implications and I don't see how in good conscience the plan that has been put before the board meets those safety issues whether they be fire, boats falling off racks, whether it be the next hurricane and we all know that there will be one. There's a whole panoply of those types of issues. It seems to me on balance considering all of these factors, that there's really no reason that's been presented so far as to why this application should be granted. I would note one or two other things in closing first that it's been our experience in dealing with these matters that nominal size of the boat rack is rarely what you get. There's normally height on top. There's normally overhangs in the back. There's normally overhangs in the front. I have some photographs that I'd like to offer up to the board. Photograph number a shows the current state of the property line and the matter in which the marina is maintaining it's property b is a photograph of racks and it shows the overhang c is a photograph that shows New Suffolk after a hurricane d is a photograph which shows the property line and how it looks today and it demonstrates at least as to the 15' setback, that's not being complied with and photograph e is your standard wall of boats. Based on the pay ton deficiencies and the application and the issues that we've raised just now, we urge the board to reject this application. There's no foundation for it and the legitimate concerns of the neighbors in the neighborhoods have not been met by what we consider to be a and adequate site plan. CHAIRWOMAN: I do have a question because there was a prior on this decision on this marina and I am reading through it now and one of the conditions was that there be no storage within 15' of that property line. Are you aware of that, Mrs. Moore? All boats and materials within 15' of the residential area/property line be clear for safetyreasons. So in view of that I can do some research on it more,but in view of that you may want to consider amending your request because you would have to revisit that issue in terms of res judicata and also in terms of hearing what's before us today. MS. MOORE: Let me place some issues on the record if you don't mind. To begin with,Mr. Bressler well knows that it's not financial hardship that's standard before this board. It's weighing the benefits verses the impact on the neighborhood, or to the neighbor. He doesn't really address the fact that he's got a marina right next door that the house is 200' from this property line. At the time that that condition was imposed. What conditions, what the property Page 59 of 91 Page 60 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing looked like at that time since then it's been cleaned up significantly. Both the marina has been cleaned up under the management of the present ownership and the neighbor next door has brand new docks. Now whether or not the use is grandfathered it's appropriately zoned so he may have docks, that's not a complaint nor is it an issue but he has replaced all the docks with new structures that are nearer the dock that we have. CHAIRWOMAN: Can I ask you a question? Mr. Bressler did mention there's existing 68 boat slips? MS. MOORE: Presently on the property? Whatever the site plan showed. If that number is correct or not, let me look. It's less than 68, that's what I thought. CHAIRWOMAN: And this would create how many more? MS. MOORE: It's a maximum number. Why don't you come up Mike. I think what you have to address is that in a perfect world the rack system is proposed, we may be able to get in 36 boats between both rack systems. However not every boat is the same width so consequently if we're lucky we'll get an additional maybe 30 boats and again that's assuming those racks are full. There should be no additional impact on the creek, there should be no additional impact to the environment. The usage of boats in a rack system environmentally is actually far better environmentally than leaving them in water. CHAIRWOMAN: Are you planning to increase the boat slips and what is the maximum? MICHAEL IRVING: No we don't plan to increase the boat slips. MS. MOORE: We have no plans to increase the slips. This rack system will allow the movement for some of the boats that are presently there and store them on the racks. CHAIRWOMAN: The one question-the racks are 26'high. How high would it be with the boats? MR. IRVING: Depended on how high the boat is on the top rack, generally speaking you don't put the big boats on the top. Generally speaking it's the small boats on the top, so I would guess 6-8'. CHAIRWOMAN: The other question I ask is the boat storage racks are like this and the boats go across, what's the overhang on the boats? MR. IRVING: It varies on the size of the boat. There's probably 4 or 5' overhang over the racks on the larger boats. Some boats are probably going to be smaller than the rack there. Page 60 of 91 Page 61 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: I have to say I don't know how you could possibly put the boat storage racks 5' from the property line if you've got a 5' overhang and then in that 5' space have buffering. It doesn't work. MR. IRVING: It's simple. The trees that pre-exist are going to cover the upper levels. The lower levers the tree you aren't going to park in front of a boat nose. I mean that's logical you're going to offset it to the side of the rack and the intent is to obscure the rack. The boats exist there now so there should be no objection to seeing boats. It's a boat yard. CHAIRWOMAN: I recognize that but- MR. IRVING: The buildings that exist there now are less than 5' from the property line. The reason that we place the racks there are to be less intrusive to the rest of the marina. CHAIRWOMAN: I think, Mrs. Moore, you may want to review some of the exhibits that Mr. Bressler has given. If you would trade information, and the other question is pretty obvious, the question of how to -because it looks like that's backed in and even if you look at the survey here on the scale is 1" equals 40'. MS. MOORE: I have a larger scale if that would be helpful. CHAIRWOMAN: It's not going to make any difference. I don't see how you can possibly get anything between the metal building and what is shown as parking space 21. MS. MOORE: Keep in mind that this is a gravel parking area. The number of parking spaces that can be maxed out here have been shown for purposes of the site plan. The fact is that this is a marina that actually is a community marina. People walk there. They may park there, they may not park there. There is always ample room for parking and the Planning Board recognized that in their recommendation for the board. They reviewed the site plan and they realized that while the code says you need x number of parking spaces, the practical effect of this marina is that it's a community marina and that some people come in by boat, some walk over, the parking is a technical requirement but in practical effect it's never going to be used. MR. IRVING: Mr. Bressler indicated that there was a problem with parking and moving the cars. If you actually reviewed the dockage and rack storage contract, anybody who leaves a car in the marina is required to leave a set of keys in the office and that is for security reasons and if we ever had a problem we need to have access to vehicles and the ability to move them. MS. MOORE: Mr. Bressler also made an issue of the fire safety. Why don't you put on the record what you do to prevent any kind of- MR. IRVING: Rack systems, I guess you have a fireman on your board, obviously the stacking of the boats is not conducive to a fire,however, there are a lot of precautions that are taken that alleviate this problem. One of which we install and require off and on switches which is a switch that cuts out the electrical system in a boat. We also require the boats are stored in racks with Page 61 of 91 Page 62 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing full fuel tanks. It's been my experience before and I have been involved in marina fire that boats with full fuel tanks do not burn. The outside may burn the engines may burn, but you'll find that the bottom of the boat and the fuel tank remain. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? MS. MOORE: I'd also like to point out as the board knows that you have the right to amend any condition that you have imposed on a prior application. So as far as those conditions go, given the application before you, you have within your power the right to amend that condition if the circumstances today do not warrant them. So keep that in mind as well. MIKE WITHERS: My name is Mike Withers. I own the property directly north of New Suffolk Shipyard. I've owned it since 1974. A number of things that were said. I think may need correcting a bit. First of all the last time the creek was dredged I did contribute money to that dredging. That was done in order to dredge it to a greater depth to the bulkhead which is at the entrance to the creek which is now shallow again and does not allow more than 1 boat to pass at a time. Also I see down the creek from my house every day and very few boats are out for the night and very few boats the size that are being proposed here go out for weekends, they are really day boats so I disagree that the racks would be partially empty at any given time. I think there would be a lot of traffic pulling boats in and out of there. Obviously there are issues with the screening of these racks. In my opinion the racks are proposed too close because of the overhang of the boats,but it would feel for me that I would have for insurance reasons need to remove the trees that currently exist there in order to protect myself from those trees falling on the boat racks and damaging the boats or ruining the racks in case of a hurricane or storm so I would incur a great expense having to remove those trees to protect myself from liability. My biggest fear here is safety. I have adequate parking for the people in my marina. I should say that very often there are 2-3 cars per boat-people invite quests out on their boat so it isn't an issue of 1 car per boat. I've witnessed this over the years. When people are washing down their boats on my docks, very often the families, the kids will sit by that fence in the shade of those trees. I find that kind of frightening the fact that they would be loading boats on the racks. That area is also used for people to pull their sails. The idea that we would have the sound of these forklifts from early in the morning until late in the evening of these boats being constantly moved back and forth seems very damaging to the community. The fact is that the area where the boats will be removed is probably the furthest distance from the racks against my property increasing this noise considerably rather than if the racks were close by the travel lift. I think most of the other things have been touched upon by Mr. Bressler. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? LAUREN GRANT: My name is Lauren Grant, I'm president of the New Suffolk Civic Association. In that office I have received many phone calls from people living in New Suffolk expressing concern about the boat racks. They are also torn because they want the shipyard to succeed and we would like to be able to work with the shipyard in making this happen however Page 62 of 91 Page 63 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing having toured the site yesterday and seeing the amount of parking I have trouble with that. Parking is difficult in New Suffolk anyway on a good day. If you come down and see the boats going off of the ramp we have day trailers all over the place barely providing us with accessibility to the town beach. So my concerns are parking. The concerns of the residents of New Suffolk are parking. I was-told that not that many would come on a given day to use the boats and I believe that's quite true however nobody can ever really know for sure. I have concerns on safety as to the residents of New Suffolk on stories I've read about on boats and fires on these racks I was told that equipment can be installed to prevent this from happening but there still are instances where it does happen. I have a magazine with me called US Boats which goes into quite detail on fires on-boat racks. Our last concern is noise pollution and that is the noise of these forklifts taking the boats on and off to the people in the area that's just total disruption. However they live near a shipyard they have to expect the noise. But this would just enhance the noise that already takes place there. So we have parking, we have safety and now we have the aesthetics of the whole thing. I'm not convinced that trees going in there will help as a barrier at all. I was also told there was a 2"d section where a boat rack could have gone in a shipyard and that was chosen or the owner decided not to use that area. That seems to me as though that might be a solution here to take that 2nd area for the 2"d boat rack and utilize have maybe not quite as big a boat rack and put it there. Also to not use the top tier of the boat rack might help as far as looking at this thing from another angle,but putting a rack between the two sheds is a safety issue and not a good one. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Moore, is there an alternative plan to putting the boat storage racks to the north side of the property and then we're going to have to wrap this up. MS. MOORE: Let me, we had considered an alternative location,but he felt it was much more intrusive visually to the neighborhood and I can show you where it was proposed. MR. IRVING: There's an alternative place for the racks which would be along the bulkhead and faces basically to the southwest. The reason I didn't choose that and believe me it is a lot more aggravation to have go before the board for this is that on the opposite side of the creek there's numerous houses there also the entrance to the creek is right in front and visually you would constantly be looking at a set of racks instead of an open area. This entire area is all open in the summer. The reason that these racks were chosen in here is it's basically blocked in view by the the entrances you do not see them. The roadways you do not see them. The only objective person and I can understand his concerns is Mr. Withers to the north and obviously I feel better to have one person mad at me than instead of a whole team. MS. MOORE: For the record I did ask if there's room to move it forward,but he problem is that the turning radius for the equipment is hampered that way so this is an optimum location for the turning of the equipment. MEMBER OLIVA: Just 5' doesn't leave you any room for emergency equipment to get back there. Page 63 of 91 Page 64 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: If you stake this out - this here to scale with this, I don't think you could get a fork lift in there and maneuver in there. MR. IRVING: There's no designated parking in a marina and you can't have designated parking because you've got to move the equipment.around. CHAIRWOMAN: Why not take this and move it 15' off the property line? MR. IRVING: Because you cannot swing a forklift with a boat to get an adequate tack into the racks. MS. MOORE: Even without the parking. CHAIRWOMAN: Wait- if this was eliminated- MS. MOORE: If you have somebody that's using one of the boats on a rack and a car is parked there temporarily that works as a parking space but there's no sanctions. Everything is bluestone. MEMBER ORLANDO: This rack will be typically empty Spring, Summer, Fall - so it's just a winter storage rack? MS. MOORE: It's in lieu of a slip in the summer. This is becoming the standard in lieu of more docks. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's a land slip constantly being used in/out. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If I may make a suggestion, you should reinvestigate that area upon the schoolhouse creek side even to the point where if you had to park a car on the first tier underneath and you significantly screen it from the water. MEMBER ORLANDO: You have a 25'boat and you have 4'behind you- MR. IRVING: This is the only alternative for the 74-100 people we have on a waiting list for slip space. CHAIRWOMAN: Come back with something that is going to be off that property line by more than 5'because there's no way in heck you're going to tell us you can keep the trees alive in 5' or landscape- MS. MOORE: Keep in mind that we have to have people safely operating these forklifts. MR. WITHERS: The way that the property line is maintained by the shipyard is MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just for the record I'm the only person here and somebody else can stand up that can tell you point blank that I rented from the predecessors of this gentlemen, I Page 64 of 91 Page 65 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing rented from Mr. Withers and I still occupy a slip in the creek right across from Mr. Bressler so quite honestly there isn't anybody except for Mr. Bressler and myself and Mr. Withers and Mr. Irving that know this area better and I have to tell you everybody is wonderful, everything is fine,but when you start talking about the increases of the activity in this creek you have to talk about concrete specific situations-on how you're going to rectify CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to adjourn this until May I" at 7pm. You're going to come back to us with a plan to get that off the property line. FRAN PESCI: My name is Fran Peschi and I am a New Suffolk how do you call it I live there. I started summering there 57 years ago. 10 years ago we moved out permanently and I love New Suffolk and it seems to me everybody who comes, the quality which attracts them is the quality they move in and destroy. The only reason for me to speak to you is this. I would invite you the board to come to the shipyard and take an up close and personal look and make your decision. I cannot imagine how looking at pictures can help you sitting on chairs with due respect. You've been there then you know the story. We have one road in and one road out. I would like to say to you that I live 3 blocks up the hill from the shipyard and every morning at 8am I am disturbed by the noises that are happening. The summer is a zoo. The people who work there are probably gentlemen and lovely but this type of operation was never designed for this tiny little hamlet and we are a hamlet. I feel that if they don't have enough room for the new boats they want to put up on the racks they should go someplace else and build another boatyard. I would like to see New Suffolk Shipyard and what it used to be and of course that will never happen but in the meantime I think you ladies and gentlemen have to remember that we residents do have a right to a decent kind of existence there and between Legends and the boat yard, that existence is slowly dissolving and I thank you for listening. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion to adjourn this to adjourn this May 1"7pm. 3:31-4:10 & 4:25-5:55 p.m. Mary Zupa#5266 -Applicant requests Variances under Sections 100-24B and 100-32,based on the Building Department's October 30, 2002 Notice of Disapproval for construction of a single family dwelling. The reasons stated in the Notice of Disapproval are: 1) the construction of a single family dwelling on a nonconforming 75,687 sq. ft. parcel in the R-80 District is not permitted; 2) the lot is not recognized, and its use is a marina, and 3) the construction of a single family dwelling would constitute a second use. Location of Property: 580 Basin Road, Southold (Paradise Point); Parcel#1000-81-1-16.7. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? CATHRINE MESIANO: My name is Catherine Mesiano and I'm appearing on behalf of Mrs. Zupa. We are here today because we have applied to the BD for a permit to construct a single family dwelling on a lot known as 580 Basin Road in Southold. Mrs. Zupa took title to the property approximately 1 year ago. The subject property is a- let me back up - the NOD sets forth certain reasons for the disapproval. The first of which being a single family dwelling is not Page 65 of 91 Page 66 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing permitted on a non-conforming parcel on an R80 district. I would like to address these issues one at a time. The subject parcel was created as a result of a setoff that was approved by the Southold Town Planning Board January 1, 1981. The Paradise Point subdivision is a separate map that was created and filed in 1963. Seems to be some confusion as to the identity of various aspects of this property. The earlier=subdivision map of Paradise Point is a map that is comprised of 16 lots along Robinson Road that would be the north and westerly side of Robinson Road and Basin Road. If you have a copy of that subdivision snap you'll see there are lots numbered 1-16 and there are certain other areas of the map which are identified but are not lots that were approved under that subdivision. In 1981, the then owners of the remainder'of the property that being Paradise Point Corp went before the Southold Town Planning Board with a proposal for a setoff of certain properties together with a subdivision of properties known as the meadowlands. Those meadowlands was property located north of lots 13-16 that was basically a salt marsh or a wetland and the purpose of that subdivision after reviewing the files appear to be to split up that property and attach it to each of the existing lots fronting on Robinson Road that being lot 12- 1 won't specify 12 or 13 but to be attached to those lots that property was contiguous that portion of lots on the road. At the same time that that application was being entertained there was also discussion in the Planning Board file and minutes to document that and resolutions to coupled with that where certain other lots were recognized as setoff. Those lots were a portion of property at the end of Briar Lane at the basin on the westerly side of the basin a small segment of property with access from Brian Lane alongside of the first lot I mentioned on the westerly side of the canal that was retained by the Paradise Pt. Assoc. the property now owned by Mrs. Zupa and a piece of property at the end of Robinson Rd. which is locally referred to as the clubhouse. It's a portion of property not contiguous to any of these properties and I might add that our subject property is not contiguous to any of the parcels subject to the 1981 action. As a result of the 1981 determination of the Planning Board, a setoff of this parcel was approved. We refer to the Southold Town Code as far as lot recognition is concerned. If we have a lot that exists lot recognition through 100-24 of your code states that a lot created by deed or town approval shall be recognized by the town if any one of the following standards shall apply and if the lots have not merged. The first standard is the identical lot being created by deed recorded in the Clerks Office on or before June 30, 1983 and the lot conformed to the minimum lot requirement set forth in bulk schedule AA sub 2 as of date of lot creation. We believe we meet this standard and I will submit to you documents to that effect and 100-24A2 refers to the lot in question being approved by the PB again we have a resolution which clearly states that this lot is an approved lot in a setoff that was approved by the PB June 1, 1981. CHAIRWOMAN: In discussing the distinction between the setoff and the subdivision of Paradise Point you mentioned you had a lot of documentation in the record. Could you submit to this board a copy of that documentation? MS. MESIANO: These had been submitted to the ZBA and it's very concise. It was submitted to Mr. Goehringer 8-10 months ago. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's not part of this file. We need 6 more sets because this is becoming part of the file now. Page 66 of 91 Page 67 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: The board absolutely does not have this. MS. MESIANO: Everything I have referred to will be found in that set of papers. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You'rereferring to the June 4, 1984 to George Fisher signed by Henry Raynor Jr. and you're referring to lots titled clubhouse 2.75 acres and un-numbered lot on Southold bay 1.7 acres directly to the east of the inlet basin. Also an amendment to the resolution to include 17 as shown on map on May 11, 1980. This approval is subject to a 1-year review. And you're saying that is the recognition by the Planning Board? MS. MESIANO: The PB records reflect a resolution we have the minute to the PB meeting it's in the package of papers I gave you and the subject property is what is referred to as an un- numbered lot on Southold Bay 1.7 acres directly east of the inlet basin. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was referred to at all times by certain members of the community I'm not speaking for those members as the marina parcel is that correct? MS. MESIANO: That may be correct. So we've talked about lot recognition and why we believe this is a legal lot because we have a PB approval,because we have a deed dated prior to 1983. Now if we refer to the section of your code dealing with nonconforming lots, section 100- 244 the section is intended to,provide minimum standards for granting of a building permit with a principal building of lots which are recognized by the town under 100-24 are nonconforming and have not merged pursuant to 100-25. This sets forth a bulk schedule whereby lots in area between 60,000 and 79,999 are recognized with certain setback and lot coverage requirements all of those requirements we meet in our proposal. I should reiterate the fact that we're not here asking for a variance asking for a structure to be placed too close to a lot line to exceed the lot coverage to exceed heights and so on. What we propose is a development of the site that is completely within the confines of the setbacks and requirements set forth by the code. We talked about merger and we do not believe there is any merger. The nonconforming lot has not merged with any adjacent lot. The Zupa's own an adjacent property but the contiguous portion of the lot is less than 50'which is the standard set forth in your code an adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel for a common course of 50' or more. We don't abut with the lot for 50'. We are approximately 30'. And it is held in separate title. Mrs. Zupa is the owner of the properly. Mr. and Mrs. Zupa are the owners of the neighboring parcel which abuts by 30'. We believe this is a legal lot a recognized lot. It is a nonconforming lot in that it does not meet the 80,000 sq. ft.,but because of the other standards we have met, we do have a legally created lot and a lot that should be recognized. The second portion of your disapproval relates to a use issue and it is the contention of the BD that the property currently has a marina use in place and the construction of a single family dwelling would constitute a 2nd use. Bulk schedule requires 80,000 sq. ft. of land area per use and I'll refer back to the nonconforming lot section of your code because of the way the lot was created the fact it hasn't merged, etc. we are not held to that. Now I want to talk about the use. Many people have referred to the marina lot the marina and if I might digress a little bit I'd like you to think about the discussion in the prior hearing where there was a lot of energy describing what constitutes a marina and I certainly think that if that was accepted as to what constitutes a marina, that is not what exists in this community. What we have is a separate Page 67 of 91 Page 68 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing lot and adjacent to that property is a property known as the basin and the basin is an underwater land upon which there is created several structures used for docking of boats. The structures in that basin are accessed by means of a described easement that was granted in 1989 by the Paradise Pt. Corp. the then owner of the subject property to an entity known as the Paradise Pt. Assoc. and I would like to make a clarification and distinction that the Paradise Pt. Assoc. is not what one may assume it to be a homeowners assoc. There is no filing with the Dept. of State. There is no offering plan. There is not a document that constitutes this entity to be anything other than an ad hoc corp. CHAIRWOMAN: Is it a corporation? MS.MESIANO: It is a corporation. We have a copy of a certificate of corporation. It was created in 1961. But it is not a "homeowners assoc." as one would recognize with there being cooperative interest in real estate. CHAIRWOMAN: What is the date of the described easement? MS. MESIANO: 1989. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Who has to the bottom of the basin? MS. MESIANO: It is our belief that is Andros land. We have documentation from the state of NY that supports that and that is accepted title this as well. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One other quick question the easement that you are referring to that I believe the chairperson just requested is that entire area on the survey of now that you've submitted to us? MS. MESIANO: If you look at the survey if you look in the vicinity of where the property adjoins Basin Road, you're going to see a pipe or monument and there'll be a dotted line that goes in a southwesterly direction and if you'd like, I'll come point it out to you. CHAIRWOMAN: It's very visible on the survey. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anyway to get to that easement? MS. MESIANO: Yes. When you are on Basin Road, you are at the area that encompasses the easement. There is no obstruction to that easement area. MEMBER ORLANDO: That's where the fence is? MS. MESIANO: The fence is on the far side of the easement. The easement at no time has been obstructed and made inaccessible to those who are entitled to gain access to the basin. MEMBER ORLANDO: The one end of the fence is kind of where it says pipe found- Page 68 of 91 Page 69 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MESIANO: It starts at that point and extends for about 75' along the line of the easement but the area which is the subject of the easement, is and always has been accessible to those who are entitled to use the easement. There's been no obstruction and no contest as to the existence or the right to use that easement. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Only the issue of what I've seen or heard in these applications of illegal docks are a matter opinion of illegal docks are the fact that an easement exists and is construed to be legal and never been obstructed, but the construction of the docks are an issue that certain people- _ MS. MESIANO: I'll explain that. It is our strong belief that the existence of an easement across a vacant parcel to structures on an adjacent area doesn't constitute a principal use of a property. How one can contend that this is a marina we don't have racks, we don't have gas tanks, we don't have workers, we don't have winter storage, we don't have any of those things typically associated with a commercial venture. We don't have licensing. This is not a commercial venture. This is something that's sort of grown, morphed if you will. This easement we feel very strongly does not constitute a use much less a principal use of the subject property. The easement is clearly defined, the purpose of the easement is clearly defined and I am not an attorney so I will defer to Mr. Bressler,but I believe there are things in state law that preclude the perception of there being a principal use created by the existence of a ROW that would mean that every vacant lot in Southold Town upon which there is an ingress and egress easement to a dock or to a beach has a principal use attached to it and cannot be built upon because it already has a principal use. I think that's an oversimplification,but I think it's accurate. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you appear or represent or at least sit in on the Trustees hearing? MS. MESIANO: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So questions we have regarding those hearings, you'll be able to answer. MS. MESIANO: Yes. Let me just add along that vein, we have NYS DEC approval for the project, we have Southold Trustees approval, we have health dept. approval. CHAIRWOMAN: I'd like to see a copy of the Trustee approval, the maps and any C&R's, or any settlements that were made with respect to that. We want a copy of that in our file all written documentation of that. If you could take one of these wonderful maps and just because there are so many details on the maps and perhaps put in red where the easement is. It's easy to see the lines on the west side, it's not so easy- MS. MESIANO: There's a lot of information on that map and it's hard to delete any of the information. You brought up the issue of the docks. We've done extensive research on these docks and we find no permits for any docks. We find no permits for the expansion of the docks, Page 69 of 91 Page 70 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing for the construction of the docks which led us to a number of questions,but let me just leave it at that for now and say that the docks are there, under what authority we are not able to ascertain because we see no evidence of there being a site plan approval, a Trustees approval, or DEC approval, nothing mentioned in the BD and there's nothing in your dept. that gives any authorization or approval for those docks-to have been constructed or to be increased in size, repaired, replaced, etc. So how can a use that we now believe to be an illegal use pre-empt a legal principle use of a residentially zoned lot in a residentially zoned neighborhood? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's very simple. The issue is when were the Trustees established? We know when zoning was established. Did the basin exist prior to zoning? Did the inlet exist prior to zoning? Did people in the community use the docks? MS. MESIANO: I can answer all of those questions. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ: Madam Chairman, member of the board before we go forward with this particular presentation, I'd like to clarify one or two things before we go down that road. We are here today on the NOD and there are only 2 issues before the board on the NOD and I was heartened to see in the notice of this meeting that there was a comment that you were going to be limited to the zoning issues properly before the board, very refreshing and we are going to try to limit our discussion to just that point. Cathy Mesiano has gone over most capably the issue of whether or not this is a separate lot. She described to you the fact that it was by deed, she described the fact that it was approved by the PB, and the only thing I would add to that is if you go back and look at the maps it was created by the subdivision map by default,just because it doesn't have a number on it, doesn't mean it's not a lot. If you take a parcel of property owned by a person and you chop it up into little pieces and you number it 1-11 and you don't put a 12 on the last piece, doesn't mean that's not there and I think when you go back to map and look at that, that will strike you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bressler, that's a very interesting point,but this board is now arguing an issue in Mattituck where there is a tax map number and the legality of a lot. MR. BRESSLER: I raise that for what's it's worth, whether it's positive or not it may be or not be, but it's a 3rd argument. You've got 3 bases to find it's a legal lot and that's all I want to say. Moving to the issue that we are going to get into- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just explain to you the reason I am so concerned about this issue because the nature of what happened in the prior application of when an applicant came before us and we had many hearings on and I had many meetings with the community in this very room as chairperson prior to those hearings, after those hearings, during the situation that went on and it all seemed to revolve around the issue that's before us and that is this easement that exists and the possibility of getting to the easement, walking along the easement and the use of their boats if they were tied to a tie line so to speak and they were feathered out so to speak into the inlet or basin I should say and the nature of these docks that exist. Page 70 of 91 Page 71 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. BRESSLER: Let me address that in terms of narrowing the issue. The issue was that the building permit was denied because it has a marina use in place. The beginning of the particular analysis of course is whether there is a marina use in place with respect to this property at all. And I think Ms. Mesiano touched on that and that is if you look at the property and you ask is there a marina use well there is an easement and people walk to and from docks and we will concede that the docks do touch the property. You have to get from the land out to the water without getting your feet wet I guess, but except to that extent, there's no marina on this property so we don't believe that there is a marina use, nor do we believe that the existence of an easement to get to the docks which are in the basin create a marina. And if you agree with us that that's so- we're done so lest there be no misunderstanding about easements and marinas and illegalities and things like that our thrust only before this board is to get a permit to build a house. The issue before this board was not framed initially and the board need not reach if it detennines not to the issue of whether those docks are legal, or illegal or pre-existing or not existing and it was not our intention in the first instance in coming to this board to challenge an easement or to go down that road that having been said however we are here and there are disputes that are going on in the supreme court. There was a dispute that went on in front of the Trustees and now we are here but don't lose sight of the fact the only reason we are here are we want to build a house and we don't want any area variances from you. We meet all of your requirements. That's the bottom line. CHAIRWOMAN: You need to get the pool out of the side yard. MR. BRESSLER: That's not before us. That may very well come up at a later date,but that's not before us and I'm not going to speak to it. CHAIRWOMAN: Lot recognition under 124- I just want to get at your pace- either a or what would amount to c under the prior setoff. MR. BRESSLER: We have a setoff, we have a deed and we've got the subdivision map and we've got anyone or more or a combination of them. We've got a lot. CHAIRWOMAN: The 2nd one would be that it is not a marina. MR. BRESSLER: There is not a principal or primary use of the property as a marina. Let's be precise here because when you are talking about a marina if you look at the code, the definition has that concept built into it principal,primary use so that is yet another way to distinguish what is going on down there and to permit a house or residence to be there to reach out and say that to have an easement across a portion of the property to allow people to reach docks that are 99%in the basin constitutes the principal use of the property I think is somewhat of a stretch to put it mildly. So what I'm suggesting is before we even get the Board Member Goehringer's question there are any number of ways that this board could determine the issues otherwise. However since we are here and since the issue has been raised I think it is appropriate that we answer the board's questions in the event it is necessary to go that route. Now the starting point for the analysis is what's the zoning for the property and we know what the zoning for the property is - it's residential zoning. The next question we ask is if in fact the board rejects our pleas that's Page 71 of 91 Page 72 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing there's no principal use as a marina and says yeah there is then the next question is - is it a pennitted use under the zoning code and the answer plainly is no it's not as it stands today. The 3rd question to ask is okay now who's burden is it? It's not ours if somebody is going to claim that that's pre-existing, that's their burden that's plain. We'll address it, let's just keep in mind who's burden of proof that is. We satisfy-:our burden to show you it's zoned residential and if you find that it's a marina that's not in compliance. It's nonconforming and the burden is on the other side if they choose to do that- that's is pre-existing, it hasn't been expanded, it's been continuous, it hasn't been reconstructed all those things. So with that having been said I think we can turn to the exhibit. You want me to talk on the record? The first point I wanted to make- MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Zupa who has been so kind as to prepare these exhibits and if you just, we have copies of all these. MR. ZUPA: The first point I wanted to make was the chairwoman's suggestion that the area be lined in red - we will submit a survey,but this is the easement area here. The basin's down below and if you can see this area across here is the fenced area, he's referring to the upper boundary- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have Trustee approval on that correct? MR. ZUPA: That's correct. That was the first point. And Mr. Goehringer's question about the basin when it came into existence-I did an exhaustive search through Fidelity Title Co. they came back after doing the search saying there was absolutely no proof that any private entity owned the basin that the basin was navigable waters according to the state of NY the land management bureau, the department of state in Albany. This is their official map on record. They came back with the certification that this property would belong that the basin the better the basin would belong to the state of NY the Andros Patent therefore belongs to the town. The entire canal and the letter is an exhibit attached to the memorandum. This is the basin here in yellow. There is an exhibit this is the official map of the state of NY it's dated 1900. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In other words this is your professional opinion because you are an attorney after an exhaustive search from a title company they have determined this property not to be in private hands which would then be indicated to be an unknown owner as opposed to an owner of record. But basically in the town's name. MR. ZUPA: That's a correct statement of what the title company came back with. They made an exhaustive search I asked them to look at a 1989 deed by which the association claimed title by virtue of a cause that says they are title to any adjoining lands under water they looked at that. They looked at all preceding deeds going back Robinson, Cassone, and absolutely said that the dept. of state's office of general services statement that this was absolutely irrefutable by any search that they could do and that was done by Fidelity Title. Page 72 of 91 Page 73 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So this is not a hand-dug canal, this is a canal that existed for a long, long, time. MR. ZUPA: With respect to them what we've done is gone to company's that do aerial photography on a regular basis and we've-seen it go back to 1940. The dominant company that does it in this area is Aerographics. They do it for the Dept. of Environmental Conservation as well as other companies. They take these photographs from 1976-2000 these represent actual area photographs to scale showing the basin as well as the docks and the change of the docks within them, then to go past Aerographics we contacted the US Government, the US Geological Survey that maintains maps from the,US Air Force so the first map which is certified 1954 by the government shows the basin in existence, shows a boat in this corner. Again the resolution will be improved by the government when they send the updated snap but there's a boat in this corner and what appears to be some kind of a floating thing that's not attached to anything on the far side of the basin. The docks are presently in this location that the association has where this little cove is and I try to keep these all in the same proximity. In the next photograph which is also a 1959 -this photograph was taken by Lackner, Pressler, and Brata this is certified as well. That shows this floating ramp loosely in this cove with the boat over here. This photograph which was taken by the air force in 1959 in November shows this floating ramp now out in the middle and a dock in the corner but the cove is here with nothing in it. Basin in existence. The next photograph was taken by a company called Aerovision and it showed the dock certified in 1962 under construction by the association called Paradise Pt. Corp. in mindful effect the association did not come into existence until 1961. That was after the date of the zoning code which is April 9, 1957. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I just ask how did you know the association was building a dock? MR. ZUPA: Because I have papers substantiating this. The actual contracts associated with this. And it wasn't the association, it was the corporation- the owners were actually building those docks. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Was that the same corporation that owned the piece of property that your wife is now entitled to? MR. ZUPA: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: So this was under construction in 1962? MR. ZUPA: '62 construction. MEMBER ORLANDO: And the corporation was founded in'61? MR. ZUPA: The association was founded in'61. The association and the corporation are 2 different entities. Page 73 of 91 Page 74 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. BRESSLER: Paradise Pt. the corporation owned at one time the property in issue, the Paradise Pt. association was a group of people who formed a corporation in '61. The association consists of a number of residents in the area that was formed in '61. The Paradise Pt. Corporation pre-dated that and owned at one time the property over there. We never took directly or indirectly from the association.wlt_went from the corporation to a group of 4 people and then us. CHAIRWOMAN: Why don't we give the people in the audience a chance to see this - would it be an appropriate time now? MR. BRESSLER: I think so. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have any idea how long this hearing is going to take, are we going to be able to get this hearing completed by 5:30 or- CHAIRWOMAN: Yes, I just want to give people in the audience a chance to review it. Make a motion to recess for 5 minutes? 4:25 - Reconvened MEMBER ORLANDO: They started building in '62. MR. ZUPA: In'62 the documentation conforms with that the Paradise Pt. Corp. they actually were conveyed title to this part of the land the original '63 subdivision sometime in late 1960 to Hank Robinson who owns basically that entire peninsula at one time. But when they acquired this, they began construction of the docks and they do have documentation that supports that. Now this channel here Mr. Goehringer's question has always been open and I know it was kind of silly of me to expect that's shown on this map the official map which obviously a higher, larger map is on file with the state of NY. And that's over here. It shows that channel. That doesn't mean it hasn't been dredged out periodically including in 1962 when the Paradise Pt. Corp began construction of the docks. They had to dredge this out to allow boats to come in because it shoals over especially at that time without the jays that are now existing in front of the-but you can see the natural configuration of that and it matches the configuration on the official NYS map so any idea that this was dug out by man between 1900 and today is absolutely false. Point in fact I have done my own research and taken the maps back to the 1700's to show this channel. These are not official maps and they are on registry with NYS but I've taken them back and just basin is shown on these maps. MEMBER ORLANDO: And the mysterious floating dock moved again? Like Big Foot it keeps appearing and it's not- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was in that marina around 1964 with my boat. Not marina, pardon me, the basin. MR. BRESSLER: That's 2 years after this photo. What's our next- Page 74 of 91 Page 75 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. ZUPA: This is 1976 would be the next photo. The docks are at - there are 3 docks out now with what appears to be some type of a floating arrangement and it's in a different spot here a different location in 1980, it then appears a little bit different, it appears to be some construction, and again, the documentation shows that in 1984, there was substantial work done on the large dock which now exists that was added to and4here was substantial construction so it kind of matches up with what's going on in here in'88. In '93 it somewhat shows a somewhat similar configuration to the present dock, it's a large dock with fingers and an extension that was added on in the '80's and what it doesn't show because most of the photographs are taken in Feb. or Mar. of the year what it doesn't show is a dock- all of the boats in place and it doesn't show this dock over here that's the 3"d dock one of the ramps that are tied on here for the winter is move over to this far dock and the remnants of the metal dock are still there presently and that metal dock is one of the original docks that was built in 1962. That is not being used because it can't be used because there are now 3 fingers that have been built onto the larger dock. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which dock do you use down there? MR. ZUPA: I have my dock here in the corner which is parked in sideways. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, you don't use any of those docks? MR. ZUPA: No. I don't use any of them and the only location that is possible to put a dock of our own on this property and the property that Mary Zupa now owns is in the location of the dock where they have kind of a 4x20' float where they just put 2 docks and point of fact we were trying to work out an accommodation -but at any rate, that's the only other location a dock can go in. This area here is all shoaled over and the DEC and the Trustees wanted us to re-vegetate this entire area so there's no possibility of putting another dock in there. The boat we have now goes in this dock here that's parked in front of- CHAIRWOMAN: The original photos don't show any jetty there. The jetty doesn't show up until the'76 photo. MR. ZUPA: The jetties were built in 1972 box jetty. CHAIRWOMAN: Who built the jetties? MR. ZUPA: Rambo - Tom Samuels. CHAIRWOMAN: Who owns the jetties? MEMBER OLIVA: The corporation or the association? MR. BRESSLER: Neither. That's a matter of litigation in the Supreme Court. They are built in the land of the sovern Peconic Bay. CHAIRWOMAN: How many cases are there pending in the Supreme Court? Page 75 of 91 Page.76 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. BRESSLER: Currently, 2. CHAIRWOMAN: Any question of the ownership of the jetty? MR. BRESSLER: The ownership of the jetty has been raised. The right of the docks to remain has been raised. And some other miscellaneous rights with respect to the property that don't effect the issues here today. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where do we go from here? MR. BRESSLER: You ask the question member Goehringer whether or not there was some sort of use going back and you asked how do we now- BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: How much longer will it be in court, is it near a decision? MR. BRESSLER: Can't say. There is absolutely no way to know the answer to this question. Obviously there are a number of different avenues that court cases can take and I don't know one way or another with the permit process moves forward and the parties will react. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What stage are you at? MR. BRESSLER: The beginning. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So you just started. MR. BRESSLER: No,we're still at the beginning. CHAIRWOMAN: The only thing I wanted to fully understand and I would not know that unless you showed me a copy of your papers on it any matters that might pertain I mean it's your position that none of those matters pertain to any of the matters of this board- MR. BRESSLER: No. I didn't say that. I said there is an issue as to the ownership of the jetty, but that's not before you. There is an issue before the Supreme Court as to whether or not those docks are legally allowed to be there,but that's not technically or it doesn't have to be technically before you. You may reach that issue, you may not. As I suggested earlier this was given in response to Mr. Goehringer's question. It's our position that you don't need to reach that question at all. All we are seeking is to build a house and if you determine that there is no principal use as a marina then we disqualify us from doing that then the issue of whether or not- that issue is currently before the court,but that may disappear depending on what happens. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask the last question. Has any member of the community ever been stopped from utilizing the easement? MR. BRESSLER: The deeded easement, no. Page 76 of 91 Page 77 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing absolutely. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's the key issue here. I'm not the chairperson,but I'm going to make a final statement and that is that was one--of the determining factors of the last hearing process so why don't we just clear that up? MR. BRESSLER: The answer is no. The deeded easement is the deeded easement. It's there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But these people are telling me somebody was stopped. MR. BRESSLER: Well, respectfully- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're an officer of the court, you don't have to be sworn in -were they stopped or weren't they stopped? MR. BRESSLER: For using the deeded easement, absolutely not. As to other matters that are not before us, don't forget there are ongoing disputes about other issues but as to the deeded easement there is no dispute that that's a record and they can- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bressler I know you very well and you must understand one thing that people call me all the time, I don't necessarily get extensive calls,nor do I have to listen to them, because I am no longer the chairperson of this board,but it's important for me to realize what is the case. We know the case of validity of this lot, meaning is it a valid lot or isn't it a valid lot? We didn't bootstrap or handcuff or do anything to the Building Inspector to bring this issue in, so therefore it's before us to a certain degree. Now we are going to listen about the validity of the lot. So quite honestly I would just like to bring this thing to a head so we understood exactly what the story is here. MR. BRESSLER: We have no dispute as far as we are concerned over the existence of that recorded easement. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there a dispute that the easement would be extinguished in some way and these people wouldn't have permission to walk over that? MR. BRESSLER: By us? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. BRESSLER: No. I must tell you in all honesty,by looking at the survey, it's getting thin. That's an issue. That's not us. It's falling into the basin in places. But that's not us. There's no dispute with us about the existence or the ability of those people if they can physically subject to what Mr. Orlando said to use it. And Mr. Zupa can verify that. I've said it in court and I'll say it here. That's not an issue as far as we're concerned subject to what Board Member Orlando raised and that's a physical problem, not ours. Page 77 of 91 Page 78 March 20,.2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: On the turnside. You can see it on the yellow highlighted area down below. We would like to have an opportunity to - are you finished for the time being, Mr. Bressler? MR. BRESSLER: If Mr. Goehringer is satisfied-with that. If you want to hear from Mr. Zupa, he will confirm that. MR. ZUPA: Personally and as an attorney, no one has ever been challenged walking over the deeded easement area. We've clearly marked with a fence and a yellow line where the easement ends and the property which does not have--an easement begins. I have seen people pick up the line and march right in. I've seen people walk into where the house side is. I've gone back after the people were in there and found the stakes that the surveyor put in for the house site out of the ground disappeared. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that. From Basin Road to an area where the docks are, have people ever been stopped? MR. ZUPA: Absolutely not. MS. MESIANO: I would just like to conclude what I had to say and let the others get on with it. We are here to ask you to consider a reversal of the Building Inspectors decision because we do not believe it is correct. We believe that it is in error and we believe we have given you substantial information to support that contention. We further ask that this hearing if not be closed than it be closed to verbatim testimony and any further information be submitted in writing. We do not wish for this hearing to go on month after month after month. That has been our experience before other board- CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Mesiano, I'll tell you right off the bat- the evidence that was submitted into the record today including this, the board - whenever that happens the board always wants to be able to review it so we can go back and have an opportunity to ask questions - that's normal. I'm not going to try to plow through this in the next 20 minutes and think of all the questions so as far as closing it to verbatim given the amount of testimony that was entered into the record today the board members will want to go over it,review it, and possibly have questions for a future date so if you're through, we'd like to go on. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? STEVE ANGEL, ESQ: My name is Steve Angel, Esseks, Hefter, and Angel, Riverhead,NY and I represent the Paradise Pt. Association. James Spiess was here earlier with me and he's been the attorney for the PPA on some of the issues dealt with here today and he intended to be here,but he has a medical procedure that was supposed to start countdown at 3:00. He extended it to about 4-4:30 at the risk of getting his doctors mad,but he has to disappear to take all sorts of evil testing stuff tonight. Also there are members of the PPA here and the president, Mr. Barr. Mr. Barr is also present. I would since a lot has happened since we've been waiting I would request that whatever happens today that the hearing be kept open. I have not had an opportunity to look at the submission that was not in your files nor have I had a real opportunity to look at those Page 78 of 91 Page 79 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing maps. I looked at the photographs just briefly. I think it's a collateral issue, but I want to start where we left off about the easement and whether there's been a position that the easement has tenninated. I think it's pretty clear that Mr. Zupa's position right now is that is hasn't and he hasn't done anything to interfere with people using it, but I would point out to you that there is a letter in the Trustee's file dated July 29, 2002 which among other things expresses the opinion by Mr. Zupa that the Association's easement has tenninated and he has taken that position. I would like to since it became a collateral issue, I'd like to submit a copy of that to the board. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I promised the chairperson that I would be very good now, and not ask any questions. MR. ANGEL: So I'm going to get an easier ride. The Association, I guess to start out I would by saying the Association is not unalterably opposed to some additional use of the property whatever that might be. But it's our position, when I say our include me and the Association that the application before you should not be granted for numerous reasons. Most of which I think I'm going to express to you today. I think what's important is to set forth what the Association's interests, why is the Association interested in this property and interested in this application and interested in various law suits that are going on right now. Well the first and I think the most important interest of the Association is to maintain that boat basin. Whether you call it a private marina as you did in your August 1995 detennination, or you call it a boat basin for the mooring of boats for people who live at Paradise Pt. is a.distinction that I don't think is necessary to make. But that's an integral part of living at Paradise Pt. Since the inception and we have people here who go back to the late 40's of the residential improvements of Paradise Pt., even before the subdivision, even before the incorporation, even before the zoning law, that particular basin was created for this purpose and I believe that those aerial photographs which were submitted by Mr. Zupa will show that especially when hinged to an aerial photograph that I have in my file that shows that there was no such basin or canal back around 1930. So it was created for that purpose and it's important for these people to maintain that- that's an amenity that's important for their lots. Now I think at this time I should point out and I wanted to hand up to you, I have multiple copies of it though it's probably unnecessary a copy of your determination August of 1995 in which you specifically found the existence of that private marina and I think from our viewpoint it was legally established in that proceeding. I would also add to that something that I'd like to be placed in the record to make that determination of Aug. 1995 even more understandable is a copy of the minutes from your official file in that application from the first full hearing where a lot of these issues were discussed issues that are now being deposited today really weren't issues back then. I think the use of the marina basin that's been now discussed for a half hour, 45 minutes was not really an issue, it was an assumption that it was a proper use at that time and here's an extra copy of the minutes. I didn't make 7 or 8 copies of it because I didn't want to spend the money in the copier. I'm also going to put a little additional flesh on this issue of the legality or the right to maintain the boating and the mooring of boats in the basin and I have brought a copy of the lawsuit commenced by the Zupa's and in fact with James Miller against the PPA which seeks to terminate the use of the boat basin for the purposes found appropriate by you in 1995 and we believe have been appropriate since the inception of this particular project. This is a copy of a summons and complaint filed in the,just a complaint, excuse me, filed in the Supreme court of the State of NY, County of Suffolk. Mr. Bressler's firm represents the Page 79 of 91 Page 80 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing plaintiffs and,the index number shown there. Now the 2"d and most important matter for the association which goes hand in hand with the importance of the boat basin for this amenity for living at Paradise Pt. is the maintenance of access to that boat basin and some minimal amount of parking that has been used in a particular fashion by the people at Paradise Pt. and own property there since the early 50's and it's important for them to maintain that access. The 3`a important factor is this jetty because the jetty controls the shoaling at the entrance to the canal or the channel. And it has to be dredged, maintained in fact probably somebody will mention it,but the jetty has been constructed and maintained by the Paradise Point Association and as recently as last year I think they spent$40K with Steve Pawlik to repair or reconstruct it. It's also important, the 4"' issue is to maintain access to that jetty with a turnaround that's shown on the map that's been there forever. That's part of a lawsuit that was commenced by the PPA against Mrs. Zupa to establish rights over that loop road that's shown on the survey. I assume that's part of your file and then the PPA's interest is to maintain the easement, the easement Mr. Zupa told the Trustee's he believed had terminated so they can access walk along the shoreway and access their boat basin. The second aspect of what I'm going to talk about today is why I think this particular application as it's been presented is sort of inappropriate. The first part of that is that it seems to me from reading the application and there was some discussion of it today that what the applicant is seeking is to overturn that portion of your determination in 1995 that this lot was attributed at least in part to what you call the private marina. I mean there's no doubt, if you look at that 1995 determination that I submitted to you today of copies of which are in your file that you specifically acknowledge the private marina on this parcel. That raises as the Chairman knows a favorite phrase of mine, res judicata, and collateral estoppel - she's tired of hearing it, but she's not going to throw anything at me because she's a nice person. You made a finding of fact in that determination and that finding of fact was never appealed, never contested, it's out there. There has been no change in circumstances. There's no evidence that whatever marina use was there in 1995 is terminated. There's no application setoff that marina portion of use from the rest of the property. It's an attempt to put the marina use on a different parcel or somehow disregard it and I don't think you can do that as long as you can collaterally attack a determination like that in the guise of a appeal of a building inspector's determination or on a 2"d variance application. It raises true issues of collateral estoppel and as you know as my want I have made copies of a couple of cases which- CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Angel, I'm not sure how it would be collateral estoppel,because as you said it never went to court. As far as the matter of res judicata, that's one of the reasons we wanted to proceed with this hearing because several issues have been raised 124 lot recognition for example that was not made part of the prior record. I'm not saying yes or no, I'm saying that's one of the reason it is so important to review everything before a decision on that can be made, but as far as collateral estoppel it was never in the courts, and it's not in the courts before. MR. ANGEL: But once you make a determination and they attempt to attack it, they can't attack it. The concept of collateral estoppel applies to determinations made by your board. That would be my point and I think the case list supports me on that and I don't know, I've given it some thought, I don't know how you would collaterally attack that determination. I think once you make a determination that there was a private marina on this property, the only thing I could think of to deal with that from their point of view from Mrs. Zupa's point of view would be either Page 80 of 91 Page 81 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing to show that the circumstances changed in other words if the marina had disappeared the private marina that you had found in 1995 had disappeared, that would be a change in circumstances and certainly if there was a finding that you had to give credence to would be irrelevant. CHAIRWOMAN: Upon new evidence that had not-been presented prior to? MR. ANGEL: I'm not sure about that. Maybe we'll get into it. Let me nevertheless burden the record with my cases. It's the Jensen case and I won't cite it and the Fredilno case but there are full copies here, but I'll send you the cites when I get back to my office and land. MR. BRESSLER: I'd appreciate reserving the right to respond to that. MR. ANGEL: Mr. Bressler, Mr. Zupa brought up this issue of the nonconforming use of the private marina for better or worse terminology. I didn't fully expect that sort of a presentation, but I do have a photocopy of an aerial photograph which we believe was taken in or around 1930 that shows that the basin really did not exist back in 1930 and the channel didn't exist in 1930 and that as a result the conclusion would be that at some time in 1954 or prior there to the basin was dredged, the channel was dredged so boats could go in there and the testimony would be from gentlemen that have been involved with the property since the 1940's since the purpose of that was to moor boats. CHAIRWOMAN: You have the photos? MR. ANGEL: This is the basin area and this is the area where it comes up and this is just a little drain here and I think the testimony would be that before it was made into a boat basin for the benefit of the people at PP, you could actually jump across that. You couldn't bring a boat in there, there was no basin in which- MEMBER ORLANDO: That should be Cornel next to it, the wetlands there now and that's probably Reydon Shores Marina which is not open either. CHAIRWOMAN: It's very hard to, the contrast- MR. ANGEL: Is that better? Why don't I leave you this. What it was was an area you couldn't get in and it wasn't deep enough, it was improved, but it was landlocked,but of course if you look at it half of all this land was- MR. BRESSLER: It's a question of exactly whether at that time it was clogged up and got re- opened, these things come and they go. MR. ANGEL: I waited until Mr. Bressler finished his presentation- MR. BRESSLER: Almost. CHAIRWOMAN: This is the only photo you have? Page 81 of 91 Page 82 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. ANGEL: I didn't expect to fully litigate this issue today so I'd have to go back with my clients to deal with all these other issues, but that's the best I can do today. I don't know if we're. going to have time today, but Mr. Ed Boyd and Mr. John Sinning are here and they go back that far. They could explain what that map showed. They were around at the time that the basin was improved for the purpose for which it's now used. The other point that I wanted to make was I carefully looked at the ZBA application in this case and the ZBA application seeks some sort of appeal from the Building Inspectors Determination and 2 variances. The variance related to the lot which is set forth as 100-24B and a variance for the bulk schedule. Presumably based upon the fact that it's not an 80,000 sq. ft. lot there was no application to have the particular residents co-exist with the use. There was some later correspondence in the file where the applicant sought to say to you that even if you find there's a marina, you can grant us a variance to have 2 uses on the lot. I don't think that's properly presented in the application that's currently before you. I wanted to say that, that deals with this marina issue and my next point is on the lot recognition and if it's okay with you I can break and just have either Mr. Sinning or Mr. Boyd explain what happened when that particular basin and canal were created. Which one of you gentlemen wants to go first? JOHN SINNING: My name is John Sinning. I have been a resident of PP since 1949, 1 guess we were the 2nd house down there. I can remember as a 7 year old boy watching Frank Robinson and Eddy Okula dredging the basin out with a pump. They pumped the spoils, it was mud and clay they pumped it over to the wetlands to the west it probably shows on your picture. They filled in a significant portion of those wetlands. At that point, that channel going out there was probably no more than 2-3'wide I remember jumping across it as a 7 year old boy so it couldn't have been much more than that. They dredged it out for the use of the residents. It certainly enhanced the value of the properties down there having a boat basin. At that point there was also Southold Yacht Club located down on the point. That basin was also used by some of the members of the yacht club to moor their boats temporarily when they had races and so forth. Prior to that I can't testify whether it was actually closed to the bay or whether it was a fresh water pond. I know there's a fresh water supply in there and a spring in the southeast corner of it. There used to be a different type of vegetation growing there and there was fresh vegetation growing in that one corner so at some point it may have been a fresh water pond that was not open to the bay,but after 1949, I know it was always open to the bay, so does that answer your question? CHAIRWOMAN: As far as you know, it was about 1949 it was open to the bay? MR. SINNING: That's when it was physically dredged. It wasn't enlarged in size, it was physically deepened. MEMBER ORLANDO: You couldn't get a boat in- in 1949. MR. SINNING: No, not until they opened up the channel which was done at the same time. CHAIRWOMAN: It wasn't until the 60's that the association was formed. Page 82 of 91 Page 83 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SINNING: It was PP Corp. before the Association,before that it was Frank Robinson owned the property. CHAIRWOMAN: So it was just a handful of property. owners? MR. SINNING: When he died, the existing owners bought the remaining property and forined PP Corp. CHAIRWOMAN: So from your memory, from 1949 to the time the Corporation actually put in the docks, it was pretty much just for the local use. MR. SINNING: But it was definitely created for what is now the PPA. CHAIRWOMAN: The basin. MR. ANGEL: I'll move on, I'll save Mr. Boyd for another day. To the point of the next point is this lot recognition point. When I was thinking through how I was going to present this point, I thought of a- what's the word when you use opposite words? What I came up with is it is absolutely unclear that it's an oxymoron that's it. Absolutely unclear that the lot in question is a building lot. There's no doubt that by the setoff that was on June 1, 1981, not Jan. 1, 1981- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did I say January? MR. ANGEL: No, Ms. Mesiano did. There's no doubt the lot was recognized in some point in time,but I think the records, at least my interpretation of the records and certainly some members of town government interpretations of the records is that the lot was not recognized for building purposes, it was spun-off and in fact there's a memorandum in your files somewhere I think I may even have a copy of it here that was recently done by the PB, that it seemed like the purpose of the setoff was to allow a minor subdivision to be done that was ultimately completed in 1984 that Ms. Mesiano mentioned. That minor subdivision created a new lot 17 and it was necessary to spin off these lots in order to complete the minor subdivision. One of the things and I actually have a copy of the minor subdivision. It's marked up with certain tax map numbers on it. I think probably it was marked by someone in town government because I got a copy out of either this file or the file on the prior application. And if I could hand that up, you'll see these parcels, the parcels that were mentioned, the 2.75 acre yacht club parcel, what's it called, the clubhouse parcel and the unidentified parcel just didn't have lot numbers. The other ones that were going to be used for residential purposes had lot numbers. Now consistent with this, when I read the record, it was pretty easy because back in 1995, Bob Villa was on your board and Bob Villa knew a little bit about health department regulations, probably having drafted most of them and the requirements of article 6 of the Suffolk sanitary code were applicable to lot subdivisions, any lots created after November 1980 and this particular, as far as I could tell, this particular setoff was not subject to that sort of subdivision review for building purposes. I have a copy of the report which is in this file I believe from the PB dated Oct. 29, 2002 which discusses I believe the history of this parcel and certainly comes to the conclusion that the June, 1981 Page 83 of 91 Page 84 March 20, 2003. Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing approval is incomplete at best. There is a subdivision map, but that's all through the file, you're aware of that. I think 100-24&24B, it just doesn't seem to me that it's the type of application to recognize a lot that is appropriately before this board, it seemed to me that you would deal with the issues of uses and the recognition of the lot would probably be something that the PB would have to deal with rather than the ZBA. CHAIRWOMAN: We get stuck with it all the time -no one wants it. MR. ANGEL: My experience is when you make an application, that involves a lot that would be subject to a variance, it may not be Southold, I've not done too many applications recently,but my recollection is you go to the Board and ask them to identify the lot, they would then identify that a variance is necessary, they'd make a referral to the zoning board for that purpose, then you'd go back to the PB to complete their review. Their safety review, their other types of review in the particular subdivision and their health review in this particular circumstance. CHAIRWOMAN: As far as that section, that's not necessarily the case in Southold, it just isn't. MR. ANGEL: Finally, since we are here on a variance, I think I've got to address the 267B standards. We have those standards that you people know about better than I do, the applicant is entitled to a variance when he or she meets those standards. And I want to address them briefly. The first one is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. What you have here is sort of a sideways attempt to get rid of the marina use to get rid of the access to the jetty. To limit the right to get onto the jetty. The package that's presented to you is not a pure variance application with just the house on it. If the plan as expressed in the lawsuit and as presented to you in those detailed aerial photographs and the argument that goes with it is allowed to be accomplished, it will have a dramatic influence on the people of PP. They won't be able to access their boat basin for mooring of boats which has been going on since the early 50's it's that type of neighborhood change that is appropriate under the variance standard. CHAIRWOMAN: Is the bottom line in this whole application and the PPA's opposition access to the docks at the basin or access and or access over the easement to that portion of the jetty? MR. ANGEL: I think the bottom line of this application is continued recognition to the boat basin as an accessory or pre-existing use whatever you want to call it, access to the boat the way it's had in the past and access over the roadway to the jetty area pursuant to some sort of turnaround, like as shown there. Those are important things for the PPA. Those are certainly much more important than what is constructed there. Those are the important factors and the PPA has to protect it. The 2nd issue is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. The other method would be to go forward with what I believe is a proper application to finish the subdivision on the property and obtain proper recognition on the lot. Number 3 whether the requested area variance is substantial - if you even just focus on that recognition issue with the subdivision issue, the fact that this waterfront lot is that's bounded on both sides or it's a triangle Page 84 of 91 Page 85 March 20, 2003 . Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing really 2 out of 3 sides on water hasn't gone through the proper subdivision approval that in and of itself is a substantial leap by your board if you were to approve it without the proper PB, HD referrals for I wish I could read better than I do whether the proposed variance will have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, well as I explained I think the physical alterations as they are proposed pertaining to the roadway and the easement and the use of the boat basin would have a phenomenal impact and then the last one which you don't have to follow is whether it's self created and I think there's no doubt that when the property was acquired a year ago that it was pretty apparent that there were docks in the basin that there was an easement there that the zoning board had made it's determination in 1995 I think this is a picture postcard situation of a zoning self created hardship. I do have photographs from 2002 showing the basin for what they are worth. They are aerials, color aerials much nicer than the 1931 that I submitted and this is what was there at that time. MEMBER ORLANDO: What was the date again? MR. ANGEL: 2002. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Angel, we were going to go back for a second and ask you to clearly identify the minor subdivision map PP. It's a map and it does not clearly show what it is. In other words, maybe you could help us identify the significance of this. I'm missing something here. MR. ANGEL: The only purpose it was submitted was to show that the minor subdivision did show these as numerated lots. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't think that was disputed before, I think they were 2 different things. I think that's what Mrs. Mesiano had originally said - this was not part of the subdivision - isn't that what she said - it was a setoff. MR. ANGEL: I take the position that it was a setoff but it wasn't a setoff for residential purposes, it was a setoff for open space or marina purposes or just a retention for future development. I don't know what it was. I'm not willing to make that jump,but it wasn't treated as a building lot number which if you look at the original subdivision map, do you have one in your file I have 3 or 4. If you look at the minor subdivision map, all the residential lots have appropriate numbers on them the way any subdivision would because that determines how many residential units can be placed on them. That was not the hard part it was some desire to deal with this in a different fashion and that's the conclusion the town drew in those memos that are in your file. Let me get you a copy of- MEMBER OLIVA: This whole area down here doesn't have any numbers on it either, except on the tax map now. MEMBER ORLANDO: No, they have numbers 11-10-9-8-7. CHAIRWOMAN: We'd like to wrap this up in about 10 minutes. Page 85 of 91 Page 86 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MESIANO: Here's the 1963 subdivision, here's the tax map. This is the result of the setoff when the unidentified lot, our subject lot, this is the property the resolution that refers to the setoff of those properties together with this piece of property up here which is currently retained by PPA at the end of basin road. MS. MESIANO: That was an amendment to the resolution for the setoff creating this lot I don't know why we need to create it because it was already here. When it appeared that the PB was considering this as a major subdivision and at some point in time someone said we don't need to do that, we'll just set that off because it was the intention of the developer and the PB that these meadowlands lots were being created to distribute that land to the existing lots that were buildable so this was just additional area that was being attached and that was the purpose of this action and since this piece of property didn't affect that, they then changed courses and made this a part of that setoff because- MEMBER ORLANDO: Because a minor is 4 lots or less. MS. MESIANO: It is identified as lot 17,but it is lot 17 that was the subject of the setoff. You can't make this stuff up. In this memorandum package if you look in this section. CHAIRWOMAN: We don't have that package. It is not in our file. MS. MESIANO: Let's put it this way, it had been submitted to someone on this board at some point in time. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was submitted to me 9/01. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But it was not part of an application. MS. MESIANO: And in order to have it enter the record I had a copy of it that I brought in because all of the questions are answered in there. MR. BRESSLER: Is that the first thing you gave to the chairwoman? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: This is the first time the board members are seeing this, so it's the first time it's in the record. MR. ANGEL: I can attest to you that I was here at 8am as all of you know and you threw me out for your executive session. It was not in the file. I think at this point I'm going to wrap up. Our conclusion is that on the record as presented, the application that's presented in light of your prior determinations, the prior determinations of the PB and the Building staff the relief sought as against your prior determinations I don't think you have an application that you can grant relief on here as a matter of law also I've raised a bunch of other issues that go to the nature of the Page 86 of 91 Page 87 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing application, I certainly don't want to abandon them, but I also don't want to belabor the record at this point, it's getting late. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience.who would like to speak for or against the application? KEVIN BARR: I reside at 200 Basin Road in PP. I've been a homeowner in Southold since 1990. In June of last year I was elected president of the PPA. During the course of the past 9 months, the applicants have taken certain actions and have made certain representations that I think are important to relay to the ZBA. First the applicants have claimed that they own the PPA's jetty- the jetty the PPA constructed approx. 30 years ago. The same jetty that the PPA reconstructed last year at a cost of$40K. They have prevented the PPA from getting to the jetty by vehicle or by walking. CHAIRWOMAN: How? MEMBER ORLANDO: Well you can't get there by vehicle on the easement according to the survey. MR. BARR: But we have been getting therefor the last 30 years on the road to the jetty. CHAIRWOMAN: How have they been preventing you from walking? MR. BARR: There's a fence there and it's difficult, near impossible to walk to the jetty along the easement. In July, the applicant spouse made a formal written demand of the Southold Town Trustees to have the PPA's docks removed from the basin. Some of these docks have been there and been enjoyed by members for about 40 years. Were they to be successful in achieving this demand, the rights of 20 or more families would be seriously violated. Not to mention the financial loss of well over 200K per family if they could not get access the docks. As a result of these actions, the PPA convened a special meeting this past August. During the meeting the membership passed several unanimous resolutions designed to protect our property interests. These property interests include protecting the boat basin for which the PPA pays taxes each year. So he mentions the state owns it,but we have been paying taxes on the boat basin. The PPA has been paying taxes. We are also seeking to protect the PPA's docks, it's jetties, access to the bay, including the right to maintain such properties. We also voted to establish a legal fund for which to pursue events of these property rights. And it's important to note that we had unanimous vote of the membership of all of the members based on the resolutions as well as the establishment of a legal fund. And I think we provided copies of the resolutions of the board earlier. Incredibly the applicants are fully prepared to violate the property rights of over 20 family members in order to build a home in a lot that was previously ruled not a buildable residential lot. They purchased the lot with the full knowledge of the existing impediments and they have stated very clearly that they intend to eliminate the docks as I said earlier they are preventing us from walking to or driving to the jetty. And all of this in connection with an attempt to build a home. In conclusion, it's our firm belief, as I represent the PPA that the applicant's plan to build a home interfere with the association's enjoyment and use of the marina. Page 87 of 91 Page 88 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing We own the jetties and we have a right to enjoy and service them and access their and as I said earlier, we are in litigation with the applicants and I believe we have a prescriptive easement over the road which we believe makes a home on this lot infeasible. Thank you for your patience. I know there are other members who have traveled a great distance, some from Florida to speak. I appreciate it. _ .. RICHARD ZACH: I reside on PP on Robinson Road with my wife, Rain Carlson Zach at 3370 PP Road. One fine fall day last year and let me precede that by saying that I'm not a boat owner my father told me son there's 2 happy days in a man's life, the day he buys his boat and the day he sells his boat. We do enjoy going for a walk to the point and to the basin and my wife and I went for a walk and we ran across this chain. Let me also include the fact that I am a law enforcement officer but not within this jurisdiction. And when I come to a chained off area, it says one thing to me do not trespass and I no longer can walk to the jetty without taking a circumvented route through somebody else's property. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? STEVE COILER: My name is Steve Coiler and along with my wife and child we reside at 4380 Paradise Pt. Rd. although my family's been in Southold for several generations, and I've been in Southold my entire life, I've only been in PP for just about 1 year now and I think and we've left Steven Angel to make the technical legal arguments against the application you've heard today and although I'm a practicing lawyer, I'm going to give some to what Mr. Angel has stated in some words. What we have deduced from the circumstances surrounding this application litigations and so forth which have been severely taxing on all of us and involved an enormous amount of time spent to figure out whether there's an easier path than we have faced thus far is that we have found that the applicant here has manifest a consistent intent to eradicate the docks and what I'll call the marina use of the basin that has manifest in letters before as well as during and after the acquisition of this particular parcel. All of the perils of a dual use on a parcel such as this seem to rise to the surface and be glaringly obvious when there is a long term proven stated opposition of the holder of one use to the continued existence of the other use. It seems to us approaching this entire set of procedures from a defensive posture conceptually here that I feel there is no choice but to oppose this that the co-existence of these 2 uses is not really within our perception the contemplation of the applicant here at all and at every turn and procedure in judicial tribunals and in administrative agencies recently as well as going back before a lot was every up for sale or purchased by the applicant there was a decided preference and intent to eradicate the marina use. That having been said along with the comments about the fact that the marina use is of critical importance to all the homeowners there both for economics as well as just living reasons, we see nothing but potential losses in terms of property interest for the PPA from a dual use that is continued with the elevated states of making this lot one that will have the constructed residence that's proposed on it. We could conceive of different proposals and judge Patterson who's the judge for the 2 formal litigations we thought was a very bright proposal having heard all of the positions of the parties over a period of several hours cross several meetings cross several months he sat back and proposed a settlement he thought would be a fair way to balance the interest which involved drawing a redrawing the deeded line along Page 88 of 91 Page 89 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the property and having full ownership of the PPA of a park of which the docks are present all the way out to the jetty. In that situation, it would render the lot of which the house would be constructed would be no longer dual use or be argued to be dual use. The PPA had full discussion of such a proposal but I suspect it would win easy approval of the PPA members to basically have the house constructed on a parcel that's no longer dual use and have the marina protected. What I think all of us feel quite strong about is the interest of the PPA run from maintaining the land adjacent to the docks and maintaining the docks right on out to the jetty and you look at the aerial photos and you see how important the jetty's are to the continued viability to the basin. I think even those who are involved in conveying the property some years ago would say that the reason for the deeding of the easement that runs to the jetty now was specifically out of a view that it was necessary in order to protect the association's interest to have that deeded easement. The prescriptive easement we are alleging in court arises from the necessity of access to the jetty for maintenance and annual dredging and we're having difficulties right now. We are trying to get access through to do dredging for this year, it's been opposed in one of the court proceedings for Judge Catterson and we're facing a boating season that will be shortened by the inability to have the dredging preformed and already we're seeing compromise of the enjoyment of the property interest of the members as we speak because of the continuing hostilities between the PPA on one hand and on the other. In summary, and I won't describe in detail all the litigations. Essentially we have court cases a court case in which the PPA is the plaintiff that would seek to confirm the deeded easement, confirm ownerships view prevailing that it owns the jetty and establish permission to cross the property, we've got a litigation which the PPA is the defendant in which the requested relief is to eliminate the docks completely. And we've got this proceeding. We don't see having studied the '95 decision quite carefully what has changed. We feel strongly that all of this was discussed in great deal of detail by a very conscientious panel in'95 a great deal of energy was spent at the time the result of which was a very detailed and carefully written decision with explanation of it's rationale at the time._Nothing has changed. The marina use enjoyed by the residents today is every bit that it was then. We think we could prove with evidence that the marina goes way back and the usage of this set of docks pre-exists 1957 we feel basically something that was established in'95 is being re-raised for reasons that we can only attribute to an overall strategy to get rid of the marina use entirely. We know the purchase price for the property and you may care more about this was at a price that all of us believe based on experts that have told us this was a small fraction of what the property would be worth in dollars even as an empty lot, the building lot were the prior decision the ZBA to be reversed and the lot to be free for the building of a home. That much is very clear to all of us. But we don't quite see and in fact we've also offered or made it clear that we are going to offer to buy out the lot from the applicant at some agreed price that would leave him expense less for his whole endeavor here. Again out of conviction from the PPA's part it would be worth quite a bit of expense defensively to preserve what we have. That's what this is about for this association. So considerable sums have been dedicated by the members first in history the unanimous vote of all members to pursue with these proceedings. All of this to preserve the status quo. CHAIRWOMAN: If all of these matters are before Judge Patterson then I am reluctant to even go forward with certain aspects of this case which is a civil matter at this point. I'd like to review all of the court papers on this case because if this is before the supreme court as a civil matter- Page 89 of 91 Page 90 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. BRESSLER: We are certainly agreeable to having you do that but it is our position and I think you'll find upon a review of it, that it would not be appropriate. Ultimately there are issues before the court that may or may not be relevant. CHAIRWOMAN: He just mentioned that Judge Patterson had talked about a type of settlement that would redesign the easement and the PPA would have deed title and etc., if you were to render a decision at this point- MR. BRESSLER: There is no settlement on the table:and I'm not going to - I did not intend to bring it up and I do not intend to convey any of the details to you now, settlement discussions are settlement discussions and - MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are missing a big point here because this board did not in Laurel on Brushes Creek go through with an application that you are reading about with the Trustees today until Judge Catterson rendered where the ROW was okay and that is the problem we have. And that is a problem I have and I have a problem with every one of these people that have rights to that basin. Regardless of what the issue is concerning their docks. It is the same problem I had in 1995 and that is a problem. MR. BRESSLER: There is no issue as to the deeded easement- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are stopping people from getting to their property which they have an easement over you are causing a problem for me. You are not garnering my vote. MR. BRESSLER: I've not heard any evidence that anyone's been stopped other than by the fact that it's fallen into the water, Mr. Goehringer, as to the deeded easement. Now if there is an issue as to the existence of a prescripted easement, that's not before this board. That's an entirely different issue I think your remarks to me were addressed to whether or not these people could get to their docks. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They spent$40K reconstructing a jetty which now they can't get to. MR. BRESSLER: They have every means of getting to the jetty and if we're going to litigate this, then at the next section, Mr. Chairman, we'll bring in the documentation to show you how that has been accomplished or not accomplished,but if that's the way you want to go, we are happy to bring you the documentation. CHAIRWOMAN: Stop. That's a civil matter. Let's be very clear. That's not a zoning issue whether the easement gives you xyz access or how much of the easement, that is a civil matter. MR. COILER: We don't understand how this panel can judicate these issues that are before it today without a clearer picture of the legal rights of the prospective parties in this proceeding. We think it's fair to say I think everyone agreed that there are highly material legal rights concerning this parcel that are in very much dispute at great expense and at great energy today Page 90 of 91 Page 91 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing and those disputes may continue for some time. Everyone in this room will attest to that there are different counts to the 2 litigations. Each count of each complaint is highly material to the property entitlements embodied in lot 1. It seems to me, I am an attorney,but not by all means the last word on this type of legal analysis but it seems to me that it would be very difficult to make a proper judgment on an application like this without a foundation of knowing who owns what. That's vital to being able to orient oneself to access- CHAIRWOMAN: That may not play out here, they may play out in Supreme Court. MR. BRESSLER: Why don't we provide you the papers, I know you are anxious to conclude today I would rather defer my remarks to Mr. Angel's presentation to another time, and in the interim, we'd be happy to provide you with the pleadings such as they exist but we believe once you review them you will agree the issues before this board are zoning issues and that you can decide them and that's what we'd urge you to do. And that's all I've got to say at this particular time. MR. ANGEL: I agree, I'll put together a set of the papers. MR. BRESSLER: If that's satisfactory, I'll hold in abeyance anything else I've got to say and in response to those issues that were raised by Member Goehringer, why don't I hold that in abeyance until I hear from the board as to where you are going. I suspect it may not be necessary,but that's up to you. Will we be notified as to a date or can we have one now? CHAIRWOMAN: May 15, is that okay Cathy? MS. MESIANO: I've got surgery scheduled, is there any way to do it in April? CHAIRWOMAN: It's booked up. I'm very sorry. When is your surgery? MS. MESIANO: I was scheduled for the early part of May because I anticipated being here in March/April. CHAIRWOMAN: We're going to have to pick a new date, submit it, let's go over the our council, your council to review everything and then we'll have to get a new hearing date on this. I'm reluctant because I just don't see anything. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: May 1"or June 5th? CHAIRWOMAN: June 5th 7pm. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing until 7pm, June 5th 5:55pm- End public hearing. Page 91 of 91