HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/01/2003 HEAR Uv
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS
HELD MAY 1,2003 -r
(Prepared by Jessica Boger)
Present were:
Chairwoman Lydia A. Tortora
Member Vincent Orlando
Member Gerard P. Goehringer
Clerk Paula Quintieri
Absent were:
Member Ruth D. Oliva
Member George Horning
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6:43 p.m. Claire Tassone and Michael Nulty#5272—(continued from 3/20/03) 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 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, 590 North View Drive, Orient; Parcel 1000-13-1-5.1. Resolution to
consider applicant's May 1,2003 request to withdraw this application.
CHAIRWOMAN: The applicant has decided not to pursue this particular plan so I will make a
motion to accept the applicant's request to withdraw the application.
Page 2
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
6:45 p.m. Joseph & Theresa Ciampa#5251 —(continued from 3/20/03) 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: I'd like to just pass up for.the record a few pieces of information.
One being a copy of a Trustee permit and approval and the other being just an observation that
we made with respect to the neighborhood. I photocopied the tax map and what we did is mark
where we could see by observation from the street lots where it appeared there may be
swimming pools.
CHAIRWOMAN: We have a new plan from you correct?
MR. STRANG: Yes subsequent to the last meeting as per your request.
CHAIRWOMAN: The trustee, there's just 1 copy?
MR. STRANG: Just 1 copy yes.
CHAIRWOMAN: We now have the house at 15?
MR. STRANG: We've pulled the pool itself back as shown on the plan and as discussed at the
last hearing. It's now 15' from the property line and the terrace that surrounds the pool is now 10'
from the property line. There should have been 7 copies of that I thought, yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Have we determined if the patio is at ground level?
MR. STRANG: The existing grade is approximately elevation 6. Femur requires that the
construction be elevation 8 so the terrace and the pool is elevated to we're showing 8.25 we
could bring it to 8 even but we're factoring a little bit of safety there if will.
CHAIRWOMAN: The original plan was 15 on the pool right?
MR. STRANG: The original plan was 12 I believe. What we've done is reduced the size of the
terrace.
CHAIRWOMAN: So you haven't moved the pool at all.
Page 2 of 37
r � Page 3
May 1, 2003 '
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MR. STRANG: The reason we hadn't moved the pool is if you look in the cover letter, you'll
find the pool as it's shown is and as it exists 7' from the building so we really couldn't shift the
pool over so what we did was reduce to pick up the extra space that you wanted between the
property line. We reduced the terrace size so we could give the 10'between the property line and
the terrace.
CHAIRWOMAN: And you didn't think about an indoor pool?
MR. STRANG: We could put a roof over it if you like.
CHAIRWOMAN: So the difference is not in the location of the pool the difference is in the size
of the terrace that surrounds the pool.
MR. STRANG: As-it is it's really tucked in there pretty tight. We wish we had the ability to
place it elsewhere but we don't unfortunately given the nature of the lots it's relatively shallow
and the house exists so.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What does that give us for lot coverage?
MR. STRANG: The lot coverage is minimally reduced when you factor in the square footage
that we took out I don't even know that I calculated it because it doesn't have that much of an
impact so that's what it was. It may go down to 10's of a foot.
CHAIRWOMAN: Did you include that in your packet? Because it is a raised patio.
MR. STRANG: According to the BD because it is not "construction" a deck as they said is their
definition it is not considered in lot coverage because it's a stone terrace. It's not included in the
calculation.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Even if it is raised?
MR. STRANG: I discussed it at length with them and said is it on grade fill or dirt? I said the
excavation spoils are going to be placed around the pool compacted and we'll place a stone
terrace on grade.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We'd have to remember that for future situations.
CHAIRWOMAN: It doesn't stand with Miriam Road.
MR. STRANG: I made it a point to be perfectly clear with them when we filed our BP so the
disapproval could be written properly and in fact what was given to them was the lot coverage
with and without the terrace. They said the terrace isn't included because it's not is it a deck it's a
stone terrace-
Page 3 of 37
Page 4
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: The reason we are asking is because we had another application about 7
months ago with a raised patio and the BD at that time included it in lot coverage because of the
very reason that it was raised.
MR. STRANG: I've had experience with the BD that depending on what day of the week it is
depends what the determination is.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Generally you'd want to raise it a little bit I don't mean this one but
in general even on flatter property for the sole purpose of the fact that you really don't want
standing water on it if it rained and the water didn't diffuse through-
MR. STRANG: Well you'd want a little pitch to it.
CHAIRWOMAN: They didn't do anything with the steps -that wasn't in the lot coverage?
MR. STRANG: No. The only thing that deviates from the site plan that you have and the site
plan they have is now we've reduced the terrace.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anything you can do to this plan to be very blunt to cut down the total
lot coverage on this?
MR. STRANG: We've looked at this from every which way and we've done certain things for
example and I think this is a major mitigating factor in our case if you recall the property the
property has an asphalt driveway in a circular configuration as shown here in dotted lines
because we are removing it as a hard surface and replacing it with a pervious surface so that the
impact environmentally if you will is being lessened I know that doesn't address this board's
issues with respect to physical lot coverage from the way you look at it but we are trying to
mitigate the lot coverage if you will from other perspectives.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Just one comment on the tax map showing identifying the pools.
MR. STRANG: What I believe pools from my observations.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Of the 12 houses on Beach Lane there are no waterfront-
MR. STRANG: I couldn't tell because I couldn't get to the waterfront side although there was a
correspondence that this board received that this board there was a copy of correspondence that
came to this board that I received from a neighbor that made reference to the fact that there are
other pools that exist on the waterside.of houses now if that in fact is the case they were
obviously put in long before DEC had jurisdiction because they had as we do in this case a
bulkhead that takes DEC out of jurisdiction but they still would have had to address either this
board or at the least the Trustees to get permits to get a pool. I don't have a boat so I wasn't able
to go on the waterside to observe if there were pools obvious on the waterside of other homes.
Page 4 of 37
Page 5
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against
the application? Member Goehringer any thoughts?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to ask you if we went with a 2.2 lot coverage over
you want to give us a figure or do you feel that is going to be adequate enough if the board is so
inclined to grant this application?
MR. STRANG: So alternate relief for 22.2 as opposed to we can work to that yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you can see here and I'm not speaking for the chairperson we
have a limited board tonight. So I'm not sure if we'll vote tonight but in general you feel it's
around 2.2-
CHAIRWOMAN: You have 22.4
MR. STRANG: We have 22.4 but that was the original and I did not bother to modify that
because the we are talking about 10's of a percent in reduction because we calculate the reduced
terrace size but I am comfortable in accepting the 2.2 over not to exceed 2.2% over.
CHAIRWOMAN: Any other questions? I'd like to make a motion to close the hearing reserving
decision to later.
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
Page 5 of 37
�'
May 1, 2003 Page 6
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
6:55 p.m. Estate of Murray Schlussel#5259—(continued from 3/20/03. 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. 1000-136-2-6, 7 and 8 (combined as one lot of 62,730±sq. ft. total
area).
CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application?
DAVID OLSEN ESQ: I'm here for the applicant tonight. We've been going through this process
for well over 3 years on this property and we've already received our permits and our approvals
from the SCHD, from the Trustees, from the DEC. The last time we were here the board asked
for some modifications to be made to the plans, which have been done and submitted to the
board. Bob Task and Ron Fuel are here tonight as well as the proposed owner of the property
who's under contract to purchase it, Robert McFarlane. As you are aware, this zoning board has
already approved a 35' setback to the neighboring property, the LoGrande property. We are
asking for the same setback, and do you have any questions? I would also like to add we have
merged 3 tax lots willingly into 1 parcel to build this one house.
ROBERT TAST, ARCH: I'm with Young &Young in Riverhead. If I could show you this
colored site plan a copy of which you have as well. At our last meeting, there were several items
that you asked to be addressed, and I'd like to go over them, if I could, and touch on them 1 by 1.
The first issue was the setback from the street. You requested that the building be setback 35'
from the street. And on the site plan in front of us, you'll see that's been done. Just to point out
this color, and what the color represents, of course, the blue is the water line. The wetlands is
indicated by this beige tone the 40'undisturbed area is indicated by this green. The darker green
represents the area that will actually be disturbed as part of the construction. And I should point
out that that area represents only 19% of the total lot area, and, in fact, the house represents only
3% of the total lot area so you see it's quite minimal. But in any case, we have setback the house
from the street the 35'that you have requested. That means making the living room and family
room a little smaller to a 13'wide room. The second item was the reduction of the building
footprint in terms of area. And building area has been reduced from the 1751 sq. ft. to 1684 sq.
ft. So the building has been reduced in size basically by knocking off that jog that was in front
of the building in the living room. And making the living room a reduced size as well as the
family room reduction in size. So we reduced the house footprint area of 1751 sq. ft. to 1684 and
actual living space of 1211 sq. ft. We've also tried to make the house simple and clean looking
in keeping with the North Fork farm type home. So you can see it's a very clean, simple, fagade.
The P item you requested was to consider the grade at the rear of the property behind the house.
What we've done there is we've indicated on the drawing you have now. That the grade change
behind the house is roughly a foot/foot and half above what is existing. So it's very minimal and
you can see that on the rear elevation where the existing grade is somewhere around 6-7 '/z we're
holding an elevation of 8 at the back of the house. So it's very little disturbance to the back of
the house and towards the protected area. The protected area does not get impacted at all with
this change, or actually this clarification. And then the 41h item you requested was storm
Page 6 of 37
�r Page 7
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
drainage or the idea of taking some water from the site. You look at that site plan again you'll
see that we provided 2 drywells that will take the runoff from the roof from the driveway and
most of the landscaped area in the front of the house. In addition there are 2 yard drains that are
located in the back of the house that will take any ponding, unusual water in that area and
distribute them to the drywells. I can point them out to you if you like.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the impact when the rain hits the deck is going to just burst
when it hits the deck. I'm sure it's the deck so that rain water will also be collected in the storm
drain. You gentlemen want to look at this, and lady? You want to give them a copy of the
house, too sir, so they can digest all the plans.
MR. TAST: I'd be happy to answer any questions on that. But basically we looked at the 4
items you mentioned at your last hearing. We think we've satisfied each of those. And really to
the best of our ability present this response to all the items.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm talking generically, of course, what we normally have in
situations such as this is when the board grants the application, then a person, either this
applicant that you're representing, or subsequent applicants come in and then they want a lap
pool or something of this nature. This site really doesn't lend itself for that kind of future
expansion. In other words we are fixating on a specific footprint for a specific use. That use is a
2 story house with rather a large deck on the southeast side and that's the extent of the entire
improvements apart from a bluestone driveway or whatever type of ground cover the applicant is
so inclined to put in front on the house. But that's it it's maxed out at that particular point based
upon the very fragile nature of this particular piece of property. Am I correct in understanding
that? I'm not asking you to answer for the applicant but I know-
MR. TAST: I'll have the attorney for the applicant answer the question.
MR. MCFARLANE: What we propose there is what we are requesting. And if there are
restrictions forever that that's it, it's absolutely acceptable. I just ask the board to be mindful that
1/3rd of the property has been sequestered as a green belt. I think we said at the last meeting
someone asked I think one of these board members asked "would you be planting grass there"?
And we said "no, the green belt". We have the ability to remove underbrush,but we would plant
it with vicaminor, bearberry, ferns. It's a green belt. And the reason the house has been moved
to one area as much as it is allowing that green belt,was not to impede anyone's view. So
they've got clean view. The deck is there. In fact, I thank you for pointing out the deck. The
deck is probably the only part of the house you can go outside. Again, the house and disturbed
land only represents 19% of these 3 lots. I'd also like to commend the board. I looked at this
tonight with my wife, and I said I felt comfortable. Probably the most environmentally friendly
house in that neighborhood. The neighborhood is predominately an older neighborhood. There
are a lot of long, narrow lots where it's all grass and the house is put virtually on the water. You
have the proper setbacks we brought it back 35' and willingly provide for 1/3 of that area to be
permanently into a greenbelt.
Page 7 of 37
Page 8
Dyl/�206
Ma
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: The footprint on the new plan I"floor footprint shows an area of 751 sq. ft.
That's after you took back 3'. That's the same footprint you were showing on the last plan we
looked at.
MR. MCFARLANE: I apologize for that. The area is 1600, and I have drawings that show that
old information was left on the plan inadvertently.
CHAIRWOMAN: We seem to have misplaced the - this is the new one?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We build upon this in other words this is not the board is so
inclined to grant this. This is the final plan that we will deliberate on. We build upon this for all
future areas that have significant environmental concerns. I can remember back in the mid 80's
where we did a dye study on a pond, a brackish pond, in Mattituck. And the study was so
involved that we had to have several engineers interpret the study. And we, of course, had to
violate some C&R's within a subdivision at 50'because of environmental reasons, and because of
the DEC we filled it 30'. We had no other choice. The house is only 22'wide, so it's a building
lot.
CHAIRWOMAN: On the plan you are showing the depth setback from the house. On the
survey you are showing it flush with the house.
MR. MCFARLANE: We have it showing back a little bit on the plans just to keep it off the
corner. I think it would look better,but basically the deck is as shown on the plans.
CHAIRWOMAN: The setback on the deck is what in footage?
MR. MCFARLANE: The deck is setback an additional 3' from the front of the house.
CHAIRWOMAN: So the deck is setback 38', is that correct?
MR. MCFARLANE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN: I was reviewing all the Trustee files and looking through this to try to kind of
see a history of it and apparently you originally came in with a 30x60'house. Does that sound
right? 30'wide-
MR. MCFARLANE: It's possible. I think the original house had a number of pieces jutting out.
I think it was you that mentioned could you cut this back, and I said sure.
CHAIRWOMAN: According to their minutes, and I have no idea it was 30x60 which would
have been a 1600 sq. ft. footprint. And then they said we'll approve this as long as it's no bigger
than 40x50 or under 2000 sq. ft. Here we are. And now we have a 63'long house.
MR. MCFARLANE: With the garage, and it's 26'wide with two 13'wide rooms.
Page 8 of 37
r0. e _ Page 9
May 1, 23
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: Actually, it's almost 28' wide.
MR. MCFARLANE: 26' inside.
CHAIRWOMAN: We're not in a good position here because the Trustees have pushed you all
the way forward. I recognize that in order to build a house you need the minimum width and if
you can't meet the 50' setback unless you're going to have an 8'wide house. On the other hand it
is a 63' long house, which is a substantial structure. You have made some concessions here I just
want you to know, right off the back, that the front stoop, if that exceeds the 36 sq. ft., it is not
included anywhere in this variance. That's one comment. The next comment is that I don't see
that's it's necessary, the deck, to be that close. I think you can get at lease 43'back on the deck.
That's a large deck.
MR. MCFARLANE: I'm sorry, 43'back from the road?
CHAIRWOMAN: Correct. I scaled it this afternoon. That will leave you a decent deck. And
when you consider the house is 63' and you add on another 18' in decking, and it is going to be a
raised deck correct? Then I think we have to get that deck back. And we also have to provide
screening in front of the deck.
MR. MCFARLANE: The landscaping plan submitted, in fact we brought a landscape architect
here this evening in case there were some questions as to the kinds of materials used. I'm sorry,
can I go back to the deck? You're asking that the deck be 43'back from the road. Is that what I
understand? And the width of the deck, I think there was a recommendation there.
CHAIRWOMAN: We had wanted to scale it back. You've got it at 18'now. What I'm really
concerned about is the magnitude of the structure at 63' long.
MR. MCFARLANE: What would make the boss happy?
CHAIRWOMAN: Me?
MR. MCFARLANE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN: 25x60, no more.
MR. MCFARLANE: The exterior dimensions of the house 25'x60'. What is it now?
MR. TAST: 63.9x27.10'
MR. MCFARLANE: And the width of the deck?
CHAIRWOMAN: We'd like to see the deck cut back to no more than 12' in width.
Page 9 of 37
Page 10
May 1, 20 , 3
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MR. MCFARLANE: I would beseech you for 13'. I find 11 gets tight, 13 gives you room to put
a 4 8" round table and some chairs and spread it out a bit.
CHAIRWOMAN: What we are talking about, and this is me, you may be able to do a better sell
job with somebody else. I'm saying maximum 25'wide deep, maximum 60' deep. The deck has
to be setback at least 43' from the road. That will give you a setback on the principal structure of
a minimum of 37'. So that's that. Let's go to the height. This structure you have 30' to the top of
the ridge as measured from the lowest point of the eves at the front of the building. How much is
the property going to be raised above grade?
MR. TAST: You'll see the contour elevation 10 runs approx. through the middle of the front
yard.
CHAIRWOMAN: We talked about that the last time.
MR. TAST: We are proposing a 32" above grade.
CHAIRWOMAN: So the total height of the structure will be about 32'. Is that correct?
MR. TAST:
CHAIRWOMAN: And then T above that. So if we're looking at the scrum xray we are going to
see 32', right?
MR. TAST: When it is complete, it will be 30'. We are providing fill,but that's the front of the
house because we have to get to the garage.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you're going to retain that in some way. Changing the subject
again, Mr. McFarlane when we discuss swimming pools the only thing we didn't discuss was
retaining walls. So you're going to have some minor retaining walls on the driveway side. And
the rest of the house will be out of the existing grade. We'll assume the existing grade at least
around the rear of the house anyway.
MR. MCFARLANE: It could be very indigenous to the area. The 25x60 is appropriate. It
doesn't, is it a little tight? Sure but it's appropriate. The 37' setback is appropriate. The 13'wide
deck is fine. When I was here a few times ago,people had looked up a company website, and
pulled information on the company. If they did, it was clear that one of the things as a company
that we do is we are involved in sensitive sights in the city centers, historic villages one of them
in fact about to become and national park and urban national park.'So we, and I am particularly
sensitive to environmental issues. I don't want it if it doesn't look good. I don't want anything
that doesn't fit the neighborhood. And I thank you very much. I think the plans you have in
front of you particularly the site plan is a vast improvement then what it was a long time ago.
Maybe I shouldn't say this. It would be nice if every property had it like that in the
neighborhood but 25x60 again, a 37' setback and a 13'wide deck is fitting, appropriate. And if
that would be acceptable to the board, I would appreciate it.
Page 10 of 37
Page 11
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: That would be 1500 sq. ft. footprint. 25' is the minimum you can build a
house. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the
application?
ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ: I'm here on behalf of the Fleets Neck property association
(FNPA), which if you recall, felt very strongly that this is really not a buildable lot because
without the substantial variance occasion by the Trustee decision, a house cannot be built within
a reasonable envelope. However, given the boards inquiry of the applicant's alternate plan, and
we do appreciate the attempt to reduce what was clearly an oversized building, I'd like to address
a few items as to the specifics you have just discussed. The FNPA feels very strongly that a
setback of less than 43' from the front yard street line is not necessary in order to build an
adequate sized house here. That is the setback that is in effect on Mr. LoGrandes lot, 2 lots to
the north. The lot immediately to the north is vacant so any setback you impose will be a
precedent for that lot. All of the lots to the south have a setback of considerably more than 50'.
And in any event there are other lots in the neighborhood that are also going to be effected by
this decision. The lots across the street have setbacks in keeping with the 43'. Mr. Ball, I
believe,has a vacant lot across the street from his house where this decision will have a
precedent. And there is a lot on the west side of Fleet's Neck, which the owner, it's a vacant on
the creek, which the owner has attempted to either secure permits or obtain purchase by the town
tax map 110-1-7.1, which has a marsh fringe on a very small buildable area that this can
precedent. So, I really, we appreciate the board's attempt to restrict the size here but we want to
give you that information to consider,what the precedent will be.
CHAIRWOMAN: It is a difficult situation as we all know. The real problem here that in our
experience the known width of house that can be built is 25'wide. You cannot really build a
house less than 25'wide, and heat it properly, and cool it properly, and live in it properly. And
in order to meet a 43' setback, this house would have to be 19'wide.
MS. WICKHAM: I understand that. But if you look at the plan, the actual 50' line of the
Trustees is several feet away from the proposed front of the house because of a bay window and
other setback issues so there is some frontage, some footage there that could be employed. I'd
also like to point to the board that there is sufficient buildable area to build a small house and
that is not going to be a problem in terms of value or practical difficulty. There's a piece of
property again in Fleets Neck that recently changed hands. It is on the west side of Fleets Neck
tax snap 103-13-6. I'd like to give you the Assessors card. That is a piece of property containing
a 1 story 1600 sq. ft. house. It recently is on a 6.5 acre piece of property. There is no
bulkheading. The water depth, at low tide, is about 3". It sold for$775K in December. So you
can build a small house on this property with a reduced sufficient front yard, and a single story,
and not lose value even if you took several hundred thousand off that price because the view is
different and that property,when it changed, did not have this type of restriction. You still have
huge value there, and I think that's important. I'd like to give the board this property card, which
shows the deed information.
CHAIRWOMAN: The house you're showing us, though, is 33'wide.
Page 11 of 37
Page 12
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MS. WICKHAM: In that area, yes, I think it could be more than 35'.
MEMBER ORLANDO: He's going to chop off 3' so it will be up to 38.
MS. WICKHAM: 3' off the last plan? The plan he has in front of you is for 35' setback.
CHAIRWOMAN: He's got 27.8. And we told him the maximum width of 25' and as I say 25 is
the minimum width that even NYS building will not really allow you. So it will be very close to
38. 1 don't know how to push it any further, or it's no longer a house.
MS. WICKHAM: Or he could go up to the 50' line.
CHAIRWOMAN: Right now we've got him at a footprint of a 1500 sq. ft.
MS. WICKHAM: With another 1500 on top of that, it's a big house.
CHAIRWOMAN: That's including the garage on the 1st floor.
MS. WICKHAM: But even that plan, which he submitted, that you've since cut down, he
mentioned 1684 which is now down to 1500. That 1684 included 1665 on the 2"d floor so he's
planning a full 2 story house, and that's a big house. If I could address a couple of other
concerns you've mentioned the fill on the elevation. We'd like the board to consider what trees
will be removed from the property. We'd like the board to consider a limitation on front yard
accessory structures. You mentioned certain structures,but being a waterfront lot you would be
entitled to certain possibly, certain street side accessory structures. I want to be sure your
structures include-
CHAIRWOMAN: Even if he wanted to put up he'd still have to reach a principal setback.
MS. WICKHAM: And we'd be concerned about future coverage of the deck in terms of a roof
or walls and what specific greenbelt restrictions would be applied.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't know if we're in the position of what future plans the
greenbelt-
MS. WICKHAM: You're in the position of granting a variance from the code and I believe
again, I'm not your council, that there could be conditions on it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't you give us a for instance?
MS. WICKHAM: First of all, some of the things he was willing to do, it would not be grassed. I
asked that removal of trees be addressed. Ground cover-
Page 12 of 37
Page 13
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Give us and we'll submit it to the applicant. And we'll
close the hearing to oral testimony, and so we know what you're referring to. Is that alright?
CHAIRWOMAN: We've come a long way from where we started. And it's a very difficult
situation, as you know Mrs. Wickham. The grant to the variance goes to criteria in the code and
the criteria in the code is detriment benefit. Is there an alternate way?
MS. WICKHAM: I don't think there's a detriment to not being able to build a 2-story, 3000 sq.
ft. home. That's our position that it doesn't have to be that big.
CHAIRWOMAN: We'd have a tough time limiting him to one story when the code allows 2 and
a half.
MS. WICKHAM: The code requires 50'though, and that's my position that if you're going to
allow certain things, I think there can be restrictions. Some of which you have done and we very
much appreciate that.
CHAIRWOMAN: We have tried to do the best we can.
MS. WICKHAM: He certainly has designed a nice looking house. That is certainly not the
objection, it's the size.
CHAIRWOMAN: It would be good you have concerns about he greenbelt and the landscaping.
You could write those concerns to us and cc him, or even talk to him about it, and come to a
meeting of the minds so your needs are addressed, and we don't have to come back here and go
through that again.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you can kindly give council a copy of-
MS. WICKHAM: I will send it to him first, get his comments and-
CHAIRWOMAN: Is there someone else who would like to speak in favor or against the
application?
CARL VALE: We have a letter from the Trustees stating that any additional fill to this property
would necessitate an amendment to the current Trustee permit.
CHAIRWOMAN: When did this happen?
MR. VALE: It was sent to you earlier from Mr. Krupski. So it may be premature to approve
this application until they've amended this application before the Trustees.
CHAIRWOMAN: Did the Trustees look at these issues? Because the original map submitted to
them showed the 300 cubic yards of fill on it.
Page 13 of 37
Page 14
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MR. VALE: I don't know Mrs. Tortora. I just have that letter that was addressed to Mr. Wetzel
by Mr. Krupski, and that's what he states.
CHAIRWOMAN: That's one of the first things I noted in the plans. And I assumed the Trustees
had been well aware of it since it's been in all of the plans. But apparently, no?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're raising the question of any fill. Is that correct?
MR. OLSEN: We are here for a setback variance. The reason we are here is because we need
less than 50' from the property. That's the point of the ZBA to grant relief in cases where it's
needed or else we wouldn't be here. We will also have to meet all the requirements, which have
been laid out by the Trustees as well as the DEC, and the Heath Dept. We will also have to get a
building permit so everything will have to be met. We understand that. Ms. Wickham was
talking about setting precedent. The ZBA set a precedent already of 35'variance for the house
next door. She mentioned that the lot next door to this lot is vacant. That's also owned by
LoGrande. It's a different family member,but it's also owned by LoGrande. Ms. Wickham is
fairly new to this application. We've been doing this for well over 3 years. What I would like to
achieve tonight is to find out exactly what needs to be done so we can wrap this up in a fairly
shorter time frame. I don't want to come back here every time, and have another complaint, and
something else added to the list. And then we have to wait another month or 2 to get back on the
calendar.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The suggestion is very simple. I have to read the letter and it's
subject to and that is you may require a re-application, or a re-definition of the application. And
if we make a decision that there is no filling unless the Trustees approve it then that's basically
the situation.
On the applicants display it shows the LoGrande's property 40' setback, and we just now refer to
LoGrande having a 35' setback. Am I missing something?
CHAIRWOMAN: Apparently what happened was the ZBA granted Mr. LoGrande a setback of
35' a number of years ago but he did not build a house 35'. He built it at whatever it is, 43'. So
that's what happened.
So we're not talking about an actual building that's 35' from the road. We are talking about a
building that's 40' from the road. So a precedent is not 35'it's 40'right next door to the
applicants plan to build.
MR. OLSEN: I disagree. I believe the precedent is 35', which the ZBA approved a setback of
35'. We're not even asking for that anymore. We've already agreed to make it 38'. However the
idea here isn't to build the smallest house possible,which is essentially not livable in. Again
we've merged 3 lots here. We've done everything that every jurisdiction has asked us to do and
we're just asking for some reason.
Page 14 of 37
Page 15
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
I live in the neighborhood. As I said before the board, all the houses south of this have 100'
setbacks. Every one of them down the road has 100' setbacks. Now if LoGrande is 43' where
does the 45' come in? I assumed the town, when they said there should be a 50' setback, went
into the whole rigaramole of why 35'wasn't good. It should be changed.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We understand what you are saying. But I think, and I'm not, Mr.
Olsen is here, and what he is saying is that when the ZBA makes a decision, regardless of what
the house is at this point, that particular decision of 35' goes with the land. Regardless if it's Mr.
LoGrande or if it's somebody else. And I'm not speaking for Mr. Olsen. But we're telling you
that if the board granted 35' there is a 35' setback precedence of that particular piece of property.
What occurs in the next LoGrande property is exactly what's up to the board, and what the
pleadings are, and what's decided on. If that family member intends to build,but what we are
saying is very simply there is a precedent at that 35'mark, regardless of how he built the house.
That's what we are saying, not to confuse you.
You ought to consider what the effect is on the neighborhood. If you have a 40' setback, in
actuality, where the house begins at 43'. Now you begin with 35'. It's different, and the size of
the house itself.
CHAIRWOMAN: First of all, we are talking about 38'. Second, it's physically impossible for
him to have a 50' setback because he would have a 12'wide house.
Nothing should be built in the wetlands at all. That's how I feel. That land is so valuable to the
town. That's my position.
CHAIRWOMAN: We understand what you are saying.
MR. OLSEN: I hear arguments. And I move it closer to the water, and further from the street.
The same neighbors were saying "push it towards the street" at the Trustee's hearing. And now
we are back here again. This is privately owned property, not a community park. This is
valuable land.
You could build a house, and it could be sold for who knows what. And it's also valuable to the
town because it and I'm not here to argue.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against
the application?
RAY HUNTINGTON: I think our attorney addressed many of our points. I thought I might
reinforce with this little overlay where you can see this is the earlier plan, and this is the footprint
of the current plan, which you have new drawings on where the sq. ftg. was changed. But town
code allows house within that shaded area. Now the house we have proposed is more outside
that shaded area and we have been saying that this is not buildable. And when you see the extent
of a variance in this way I think one would have to agree it's not buildable. So the 25' wide
Page 15 of 37
Page 16
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
house may be in practical in dimension, but it's inappropriate because this property shouldn't
have any house on it.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against
the application?
MRS. MCFARLANE: I want to thank the board and community and everybody who's worked
on this project for 3 years. And I want to tell everybody I'm at fault. Three years ago I fell in
love with Cutchogue, with this piece of property, and never in farthest dreams thought it would
take this long to build a house. And I can assure you my husband, and my question is, had we
been told what was needed to build a house that would satisfy the community, the board,
everyone, and it's taken 3 years, I can assure you that my husband would build a house the
neighborhood would be proud of. That the environment, the gardening, excuse me, my native
language is Italian. And I get a little emotional because this house would mean a lot to me. And
I was actually looking forward to inviting everybody to a nice Italian meal. And I would like to
ask everybody to help me decorate since they now see the plans. Anyway it's been hard for me
to sit here after 3 years and hear people so strongly against the building of this house. We want
to build a house that will be the pride of the neighborhood. That if anything,would make the
entire neighborhood happy to come by. And it would raise everybody's property values. But we
plan to live there, and build a house the community can be,proud of. I thank you very much and
I hope whatever deliberation is made is the right one for everyone involved.
CHAIRWOMAN: We are going to close it but I think we'd like to, Ms. Wickham,you were
going to outline your concerns to us and copy them to Mr. McFarlane. And Mr. McFarlane
you're going to see if you can address those concerns.
MR. MCFARLANE: Just be mindful,if you would, when we filed the alphabet soup, some of
the DEC change in the community, I think it was the DEC that we said to them. And it's part of
the filing that the 1/3 buffer would be agreed on. They allow saplings and underbrush. There
was not to be grass. There was to be a forever green. And what I would suggest to Robert is we
lift that and be very specific if we are saying fern do we mean ostrich fern? Whatever the
specific fern is, whatever the ground cover is,we spell it out.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you know what that is why don't you give a copy to Ms.
Wickham so she can react to that and we are not going back and forth.
CHAIRWOMAN: Any action we will take will be of course as far as I'm talking about the
Trustees. I guess they are going to reopen that question. The next meeting is June 5th. Is that
sufficient time? We will close the hearing to oral testimony and written until June 5th' We
would appreciate if they were handed in prior to that date as possible so we have ample time to
review it.
MR. MCFARLANE: What we are going to be writing to and corresponding to,how the property
and the greenbelt is going to be used and described. What I'm concerned about is do we start a
whole new bunch of paperwork where we get a letter saying it should be, and I get another letter-
Page 16 of 37
Page 17
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: No, Ms. Wickham has concerns. She is going to give you a list of those
concerns or a letter of those concerns. You have already agreed to do certain things according to
the DEC. You're going to provide her with that information, correct? That's the first thing. So
she can take a look at that, assess that, and then determine if her clients needs are met. She will
then send you a letter and say this is okay, this isn't, etc. And try to work out as much of an
agreement as possible. What you don't work out, the board will.
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
Page 17 of 37
Page 18
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
8:00 p.m. New Suffolk Shipyard #5149—(continued from 3/20/03)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-I I Zone
District, in a side yard and at a height over the code's 18ft. limitation, at 5775 New Suffolk Road,
New Suffolk; 1000-117-5-29.1
CHAIRWOMAN: The NOD is for height in excess of 18' and less than 25' from any lot line.
PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: We'd be okay on that side if they measure from the lot line because
we have 20' from the schoolhouse creek the only issue is whether or not they'd consider the
bulkhead a setback that we'd have to come to this board for. We own up to where the property
line tie line is.
CHAIRWOMAN: The tie line is that jagged line there. That would be okay the 2 outstanding
issues would be whether the bulkhead is going to fall under that. Maybe can finish this up today
with respect that those applications will go back we'll trust the board will have a memory of our
alternative plan for the 3r tier since we have DEC and we have Trustees we can go to the PB talk
to them conceptually about this location while we have to back to the DEC and ask their
permission to put this alternative rack here and also deal with the issue with BD so we think it
might go faster and simpler if we just come back to you with whatever variance because if the
DEC says we don't like it here and we want it someplace else maybe it's not here so we'll go with
we withdraw our application for the variance for rack a for the height variance so the only issue
you have to deal with is the setback to the property line and address whether or not that condition
is even applicable in either location.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Rack a will only be 2 tiers high in either location.
MS. MOORE: Either location will be either the property line for sure and not to exceed the 18'
is our accessory structure height so we wouldn't be back here on that.
CHAIRWOMAN: A you're going to withdraw the height variance request-
MS. MOORE: The original rack that runs along the north property line adjacent to Withers.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Notwithstanding what you've just said you are going to go to the
BD and ask if the alternate rack a at the schoolhouse creek portion where you own to the tie line
which is underwater land is within the 75'restriction and therefore are they going to cite you for
that?
MS. MOORE: I think the question I'm going to ask the BD is whether the bulkhead that is
landward of that tie line whether it's considered the bulkhead that provision of the code the 75'
setback from a bulkhead whether it applies in this instance and so if they say yes I will be before
this board requesting a variance for a setback presumably if the DEC says I think strategically I
have to make sure the DEC is going to allow us to put it here. If they say yes or if they move us
Page 18 of 37
Page 19
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
around we'll come back if we need to come back whatever the final location of the 3rd tier where
it's being relocated because we are really talking about those boats we've lost by reducing the
height along the north property line.
MEMBER ORLANDO: How many boats are you going to lose by 1 tier?
5 or 6 boats.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that worth it to go through all the gyration to wouldn't it be more
logical to go with original a 14' and then b at 26' and then eliminate 2nd day.
We'd like to get approval on the 2 tiers and then 3 tiers by the building.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason I ask that question is I don't want to come back to you
at another hearing without the issue of setbacks on the schoolhouse creek side within their
opinion.
MS. MOORE: What I'm trying to avoid is a continuation of this hearing because it's not so much
you guys because it more site plan issues location setback to the bulkhead is mostly applicable in
residential structures and setbacks for warehouses and sanitary systems and that are going to go.
When you are talking about a marina which is all surrounded by water and bulkheading
presumably you're going to have accessory structures closer because that's the nature of a marina
so it may or may not be applicable to get that answer from the BD that could take some time but
more importantly the DEC has looked at the rack a location the original rack a they like that
location it is not doesn't effect there's no drainage issues nothing because there's a structure on
both sides of it and as far as the DEC is concerned it's really not an environmental it doesn't
effect the environment here we try to relocate it in another location they might have other issues
they'll be looking at drainage and those type of things. The relocation may or may not be worth
his time money wise to go through the process and the DEC may say you know we don't like it
here we recommend you put it on the other side or they say how about relocating it more here in
the center than where you proposed it and that measurement is going to change so they're really
going to be the lead I think because of environmental issues they are the stop and go of where
this would go and then after that the BD will determine whether or not we have to come back to
you or not for setbacks.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How high is the building under the eaves on the side you are
putting the rack? You don't have to answer me now,just before the end of the meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against
the application?
ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ: I've listened with great interest to the presentation this evening as I'm
sure you did. It seems to have taken on a chameleon like nature tonight it looks like we are
dealing with something more than just slightly different here. The notion that rack a can
somehow be bifurcated creating a substantially different plan with respect to this marina is a very
Page 19 of 37
Page 20
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
interesting one. One would think in the first instance that if there were concern about the
neighbors and the neighborhood that a suggestion such as moving rack a would naturally come
to mind and indeed when we look at the proposed plan we see an alternative site for rack a down
by the bulkhead that looks just like rack a up by Withers all the way down to the 26'height it
looks the same so the first question that comes to mind is if we are embarking on a project that
involves removing a tier of rack a why don't we do what the plans suggests and look into moving
rack a if we are going to require or seek the approval of the dept. of environmental conservation
and the Trustees for the placement of what must have been described somewhat tongue and
cheek as a temporary structure I think these things are far from temporary if you are going to
look into putting the structure there then why don't we look into putting the structure there in it's
entirety that relieves the necessity for any sort of a variance with respect to side yard up by Mr.
Withers that's now gone. What else is gone is the noise the forklift activity and all of the
attendant dangers that go along with it over by that line. They are now moved to an area where
they are minimized. Now why do I say that well for 2 reasons first of all it's away from any of
the neighbors so in terms of noise and other aspects the effect is greatly attenuated and secondly
in looking at this plan it appears as though the ramp to put these boats in is very close to the
alternative location for ramp a this to me seems like a logical place to want to keep your boats
nice and close a lot less forklift and it looks like a good place to be and indeed if there's going to
be an inquiry made, let's make the appropriate inquiry. The other thing that strikes me about this
particular aspect of the application is it somewhat cart and horse. You were told the DEC is
somewhat driving this application and the DEC had no problem with that. Well if we are going
to go back to the DEC then go back to the DEC and ask them about this. If they are going to do
the driving and they find that to be satisfactory you don't need variance relief and of course one
of the criteria is there some other way to accomplish this well there may be. I think put another
way then to come before this board well that's what DEC has approved doesn't answer the
question. That might be one thing the DEC approved it may not be the only thing they approve
and we've all been around long enough to know that sometimes you go to somebody first and
you get an answer and it's not really the right answer and sometimes you have to go back after
coming to the second or third board and circle the wagons again so it seems to me that almost all
of the objections that we have are going to be diminished or muted by an application that moves
this to another location. Another benefit from that is that now all the boats are in one place
instead of having them in 3 separate locations about the property so it seems to me in looking at
this thing as a whole that there's no reason why this alternative site should not be considered as it
shows right here on the plan as a true alternative site.
CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Bressler I just wanted to one thing I just think it's going to end up one
way or another if it's move because you asked about the NOD you're talking about accessory
structures from 131 such buildings shall not exceed 18'in height in lots containing in excess of
79,999' such buildings shall be setback no less than 20' from any lot line so it's not just the rear
yard it's a question of being the side yard it's the lot line.
MR. BRESSLER: And what I'm saying is by making the suggestion not only do you have a 20'
issue here you will have another 20'issue down there and you may get rid of your 18'issue or
you may not I don't think the board and certainly I don't have a clear understanding of what the
total height of 2 tiers with 2 boats on top is going to be but what I'm saying is you don't get a net
Page 20 of 37
Page 21
May 1; 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
gain in terms of required variances when you consider what you just mentioned and the height
requirement.
CHAIRWOMAN: The only thing you may get is if they back the plans for where the particular
set of storage racks now if they put all of those down on Schoolhouse Creek that would
definitely by 3 tiers so you would be in for a height variance.
MR. BRESSLER: So if you split it now you have one height on rack B and two 20'variances if
on the other hand you don't split it and you move it, you're back to the same height and 20' so
what I'm saying is there isn't really a net gain maybe you change the character of the application
that's before you and in addition now you spread out the boats and you leave some all the way
across the property away from the entrance ramp and all those things all I'm suggesting is that we
don't have enough gain.
CHAIRWOMAN: The only thing I'm concerned about it is I was looking through the file trying
to remember yes this would be less of an impact to the neighbors but if you place a 3 tier storage
rack right on Schoolhouse Creek as you're entering Schoolhouse Creek I think if we had that
plan reviewed by the Planning Board I think they would be dead against it.
MR. BRESSLER: When you say entering Schoolhouse Creek this is actually at the deadend of
the creek. You really don't see that as a practical matter until you come around and what you'd
see would be these racks which apparently with respect to certain of the buildings are not going
to be any larger and the metal storage building we are told is 35'high and there's another boat
storage building down there. I'm not saying that other boards may not have input what I'm
suggesting by making all these comments is I don't think we've had a full and thorough
examination between all of the different jurisdictions to consider all of the different alternatives
and there are alternatives here which in many ways may be superior and I think I may be guilty
of this sometimes representing applicants you get set going down one road and you make your
application and you keep going and at some later stage you find out that there are other avenues
that need to be explored and I think that's the general thrust of my comments in that regard.
CHAIRWOMAN: What I'm concerned about at this juncture and sometimes this happens when
you get into alternative plans. The neighbors that are here are concerned because of the noise
and the visual impact where it's located on the north side of the property. This is the plan they
have reviewed and looked at and anyone who's been interested in this plan has seen. What I'm
concerned about is if we start to focus on a new location on Schoolhouse Creek that perhaps
people who had come in before and said I don't have a problem with it now have not had an
opportunity to see this. The reason I say that is that happened to us recently very recently and I
found it disturbing so I'm not sure everybody may say that's wonderful let's put it on
Schoolhouse Creek that's everybody in this room.
MR. BRESSLER: I don't disagree with you and I think contrary to the suggestions that have
been made I don't think this is the end of it tonight for that very reason I don't think that people
should be deprived of the opportunity that you just eluded to I think this an important issue I
think based on the numbers the capacity of the marina is being expanded by 50% I take note of
Page 21 of 37
Page 22
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
the fact that agencies have considered this to be environmentally superior to other alternatives I
note in the same breath however that it's slipped up so you're really not comparing a boat rack
system to a docking system unless of course the applicant is suggesting there will be a removal
of those structures from the creek in preference to these boat rack structures but of course that
isn't the proposal of the applicant it's quite simply to expand the marina by 50% and that's what it
is and regardless of who the neighbors are or what they do or however much fingerpointing there
may be in that regard nothing changes the underlying fact that this is a simple application to
increase the capacity of the marina by more than 50%that's what it is and I think like I said
before I think given the location of the ramp and all of the other things it bears a slightly more
thorough examination the last thing I think I'd like to say is having some involvement with the
previous matter involving this property I respectfully disagree with the characterization and I
think those members of the board who were part of the board at the time can withhold their
recollections to see whether the ruling in that case was so limited in it's scope regardless of how
it arose it seems to me that the ruling is what it is and that the reason for it was sound at the time
notwithstanding the fact we were on the other side but it was sound at the time and it's sound
today and nothing changes the fact that we are still dealing with 20'today so my suggestion is
that if there's going to be an effort by the applicant to reasonably meet what we consider to be
legitimate concerns that there be a full court press in that regard and you look at all the
alternatives and then come back and give everybody a full and fair opportunity I think then the
board can make a fully informed decision. And I know other people would like to speak who are
not here.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Irving could you come up and look at the survey? Could you
describe the metal storage building? And tell me where the doors are on the building. The
question I have is how come and this is not sarcastic, you really didn't attempt to put racks in
front of 79, 78, 76, and so on?
MR. IRVING: Because this area is narrower than what it looks like and you can understand you
are going to make a swing with the machine this here is a service shop so often on the cement the
boats are being worked on so this would be a dangerous area to put racks on.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So this portion we refer to as the lazy L in a swimming pool, what
is this part of the building?
MR. IRVING: There is a very small garage here, there's just general storage this is a boiler room
and you'll see there's a wall that comes here over in this corner is a RPZ valve for the water
system and over in here is also the access to the water.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there's no way of running that rack system through the building
in anyway.
MR. IRVING: No I don't think it would be feasible. I will say originally from the old drawings
and permits I've seen there is original wood structure which they had a permit that was approved
for-
Page 22 of 37
Page 23
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Even if you got 2&3 to raise it above?
MR. IRVING: It would be too high. This drops down considerably from the main building.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know what I'm saying, you couldn't put rack 2&3 above this?
MR. IRVING: It would be constantly smashing the building and pulling boats in. This is an
alternative area here but I will take you that I work often with the DEC on a board I sit on and
from an environmental standpoint this is not as attractive as this.
MS. MOORE: Keep in mind that the DEC may not have such an objection to one rack as they
would to a 3 rack system the environmental effects are the boats and that's their concern.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only concern about the Schoolhouse Creek side is the obvious
look, visual impairment.
MS. MOORE: The reason we suggested there's going to be need for variances because of the
way the code is written and you are at a marina that takes from end to end some form of storage-
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bressler just asked the question how high I think you really
have to go down to Strongs Marina and look at them because they are there and that will give
you an example of how high they are because it has to be a maximum of height to accommodate
a specific kind of boat.
CHAIRWOMAN: It depends how deep the drop is outside the boats are. I figured they could go
up about 34-36'. That's what I figured.
MR. IRVING: That's what preceded to take off the top rack I'm not trying to start a war with the
neighbors,but that's one of the requirements
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was why I wanted to know how high the side of the building
was that the racks are definitely going to go under the side of the building on rack B.
MR. IRVING: Yes they will.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But you have to go down to Strong's it's a prime example of it and I
think you will see there is substantial strengthening in these things because there's a phenomenal
amount of weight. There's also a wind factor so both of the ones both at Port of Egypt which are
enclosed but there are some outside ones and Strong's are prime examples of what we have.
MS. MOORE: From a visual, it's much better.
CHAIRWOMAN: There's no question about it. The minute you get into a 3 tier go to Strongs
go anywhere you want you have a potential for a
Page 23 of 37
Page 24
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MS. MOORE: And we are sensitive to that and that's why we and no offense-
CHAIRWOMAN: I understand the DEC is not going to look or may not look favorably on the
Schoolhouse Creek location but quite frankly I think a 3 tiered rack on the creek 36'high would
be a visual blight.
MS. MOORE: It's not appropriate and Eric is correct,putting them on both ends is a difficult it
will create more work for them and to the extent that Michael has agreed to split the job up this
way I give him credit because he's trying to address the concerns and the primary concern is as to
the 2 types of variances the side yard variance verses a height variance we all can agree that a
height variance is certainly more intrusive than a setback variance particularly when you own a
marina where again you have storage and dockage you have activity from end to end.
CHAIRWOMAN: Let me ask what to me seems like an obvious question but I'm sure there's a
really good answer I'm missing. Why can't you put the boat storage rack where you have the
parking and put the parking where you have the boat storage?
MICHAEL IRVING: Where, on the north property line. Because the easiest way to think of it is
if you have a tractor in front of you and you have to come in here and maneuver and make the
swing you wouldn't be able to do it unless you keep this as close to that property line
unfortunately as possible that leaves you enough room here to come in with your vehicle and
safely swing and set the boat in.
CHAIRWOMAN: What's the width of the section?
MR. IRVING: The way to visualize it you can raise and lower the bar heights so if you
have a higher boat in the bottom you can raise the bar and put a smaller boat on top
CHAIRWOMAN: And the 76 width is an add on?
MR. IRVING: There's separate sections here and I'll look back in the notes there are 2 28'
sections and a 25' section.
CHAIRWOMAN: The width of this is two 28' sections, the depth is 14.
MR. IRVING: The 28' sections will allow you if you have the appropriate width boats to put 3
boats in that section and the 20' could allow a maximum of 2. That doesn't mean that you would
have these full because you may have a wider boat in the 28' section and you might have-
CHAIRWOMAN: I guess there's no way to stack them back to back because of the overhang.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Irving you're putting in boats about 22'long what's an average
beam of 22'?
MR. IRVING:
Page 24 of 37
Page 25
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MEMBER ORLANDO: For a stall you could put 3 boats on there comfortably.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you the real question. These boats you are racking may
or may not have trailers so you will probably get a winter storage out of those so therefore there
will be no relief in reference to the ground storage with the rack system.
MR. IRVING: If you put in a permanent system you'd have to utilize the square footage or you'd
be losing money.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I thank you for that. That's a fair answer and I appreciate that.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against
the application?
FRED ENDEMAN: I'm a part owner of the property across from Mike Withers on Schoolhouse
Creek I've been sort of hanging around the shipyard all my life almost 53 years so I know it very
well I know Mike, I do business there I know it's tough to make business in a small boat yard up
to now they've done wonderful improvements the gravel parking the new storage shed really top
notch good looking yard and they've kept the old buildings up nicely too. Visually these boat
storage racks are I think just atrocious as you know from Port of Egypt the boats are this size and
the racks with the overhangs are quite a bit bigger. In terms of parking I think there will be a
crowding problem I think boats will be getting launched early in the morning and coming in later
at night and it will be the worst time of day for the extra noise and traffic. There's a limited
space in the yard and the rack B is the one that really makes sense it's right up against the
building and there's a notch in it but anywhere else in the yard would be a visual problem I think.
Along the creek there's a very nice view from the road and they'd be very evident. Even though
it's the end of a creek it's a nice little venue to look down into the east and this would block the
view from almost everywhere. I know you have to make money in a shipyard, I think there's
better ways to get bigger boats in or to make it more of a full service yard I just hate to see the
move to the boat rack system. I don't have a home nearby but the property I own we loan to the
Civic Assoc. for picnics and there's even been a wedding there and it's an awful nice view and I
hate to see it destroyed by the boat rack system and I wasn't able to make the first meeting when
I found out it was too late so I sent a letter to the Town Board I don't know if you got it. It was
written by myself and the other owners of the property. But if you can dig it up it will basically
it's a visual and crowding problem.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against
the application?
CORIN DOUBLEDAY: Hi I'm Corin Doubleday and my husband Jake Doubleday and I just
want to point out even though Mike Withers property adjoins the shipyard our house is actually
the closest house to the shipyard and we've on the north side where the A rack will be. About 75'
from that property and I also agree with Mr. Endemen I don't like the racks in general. This one
definitely is going to effect us the most but 3 tiers high, it's just enormous and I also have
Page 25 of 37
Page 26
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
concerns about putting 36 boats in that creek which is full you can't get a slip anywhere in the
creek, it's always been full and adding that amount of boats and people and cars I just can't see
how you can do it without impacting the whole neighborhood and of course especially us we live
right next door.
MR. IRVING: Constantly everybody refers to the Port of Egypt racks. These racks are nothing
in comparison to these racks and the board can certainly go down and take a look at them. They
are a 4 tier enclosed system, they are a monstrous rack system. The intent here is to provide to
the community reasonable dockage in that 13-19' size range. We have an active waiting list for
60-70 people looking for dockage not all of those are in that size range,but there's a good 20-30
people a lot of them are local people that would fit into that rack system.
CHAIRWOMAN: Rack A what is the height of the 2nd tier?
MR. IRVING: It would be 13.4 you'd have 2' at the bottom before your 1st wrung your barb for
your first set of boats and then the top bar would be at 13.2 there would be 11.4 inbetween.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the boat on the 2nd rack would be at 13.4 to the keel of the boat.
CHAIRWOMAN: Can we have a copy of this for our records?
MS. MOORE: You have it, it's been submitted a couple of times. Does that answer your
question?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, I just wish you could cut into the other area.
CHAIRWOMAN: I personally would hope that you could stick to 2 tiers. I recognize all the
environmental reasons why you are trying to keep boats out of the water, I've read it, I've seen it
I've seen all the pros and cons but unless they are tucked away they're visually very outstanding
and they do have an impact.
MS. MOORE: I think we agree if we do stick to rack B that is the logical place for the 3 tier
because it's already touching the building and so far everybody's been in agreement with that
location. I'm not sure are we in agreement?
CHAIRWOMAN: If you are saying you are going to limit to 2-
MS. MOORE: But you're not including rack B in that because that one has to be 3. We can't
reduce down that much.
CHAIRWOMAN: As Mr. Bressler said there's a lot of ifs we have to go down roads for. One of
them is-
MS. MOORE: We've already agreed that rack A we've withdrawn our request for the 3rd tier but
I want you to remember in good faith,we've reduced it to try to locate it to take the same number
Page 26 of 37
Page 27
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
of boats assuming it's financially feasible for them but to find an alternative location so when
we're back to you possibly on setback variances that you recognize that's in an effort to address
the neighbors concerns.
CHAIRWOMAN: What would be the number of boats that you would place on the 2 tier rack,
rack A?
MS. MOORE: Keep in mind it depends on the size of the boats because you could take 3 small
boats or 2 big ones.
CHAIRWOMAN: But I though you had initially talked about one tier holding 5 or 6 boats.
MS. MOORE: My concern is if you write it into the decision you lose a lot of flexibility. We
can give you a max number but you may have a demand for it by his customers for 20' size boats
or you may have a demand for the 13' size boats so the number there that area is going to have
the boats and the demand that the supply demand is going to dictate how it's going to be filled so
I'm concerned.
MR. IRVING: I see what you are getting at you just want to see what the volume of boats is in
there. We've gone around so many times I'm not sure if there's 2 28' sections or 3 28' sections,
but basically you would have maximum 12 there and an additional 4 on the 20' section.
MR. BRESSLER: I'd still like to know how high it's going to be when the boats are on top to
say we're going down to 2 tiers and we don't need a variance I respectfully disagree.
CHAIRWOMAN: The 1"tier would start at 13'.
MR. BRESSLER: But then you'd have a boat on top of that.
CHAIRWOMAN: I know but the BD won't consider that a structure. If that's the result that
comes out of this let me just say we're not content with that finding we think if there's going to
be storage there over the winter that's not a proper interpretation. That may not be before you
now, it may be before you at some other time.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bressler, can we just clear this one thing up -the ladies and
gentlemen that you represent, are they opposed to rack B against the building?
MR. BRESSLER: No, we're not objecting to rack B.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't we just deal with rack B and let you go back and deal
with the DEC? Then we will be able to go back through a period of time and see how this rack
system works so we can deal with other aspects of it.
MS. MOORE: Because you are asking an enormous expense of the client. We have DEC and
we have Trustee and our only once we are done with you we are nearly done with the site plan
Page 27 of 37
Page 28
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
process because we have a pre-existing marina and the fact that we are there for site plan is
minimal at best because we don't have a parking issue we don't have anything here. We don't
have drainage. If these are truly little metal boxes for the storage of the boats they are already
stored on the property so we are not changing anything other than the configuration of the
storage of the boats. We've already conceded and given up a great deal by moving the structure
away addressing the issues that came up last time we gave more of a setback from the Wither's
property line we still are going to do the landscaping the vegetation there so that area is going to
be on our side, we'll be vegetated I do want to put on the record the issue of the Wither's property
that I want to make sure you're aware of it so again going back to that 15' setback they were
trying to Mr. Bressler was trying to apply it to the Wither's property and I want you to see I have
2 site plans here coming from the Planning Board office. Wither's had come in they have the
house that's all the way to the north they have 5 or 6 docks that are shown here that is certainly
not the number of docks that are presently there. What they had to do was in '97 they got site
plan approval for the reconfiguration of their parking lot and they changed the access to go closer
to NS Shipyard, they reconfigured the parking lot provided parking for the marina and the BD
interpreted as far as the building permit went they were able to renovate the house because as a
residence it didn't require site plan however when they realigned the parking area they had to
come in for site plan approval and the docks they did some construction and renovations to some
dock maybe add a dock and they reconfigured the parking so I have some site plans here and
you can see that the property line between Wither's and New Suffolk is a parking lot is an access
point it's a gravel ingress egress to the parking lot. The commercial parking that goes along with
commercial boat slips is adjacent to the NS Shipyard so as far as a residential use which with that
condition imposed again it goes along with the reasoning in the'80's for the Miller Roake
controversy it did not apply then to Wither's and certainly would not apply to Wither's now
because it's the residential use and the residential use is all the way at the north. The commercial
use which was site planned and recognized as a commercial use is the area adjacent to NS
Shipyard so I do want to put that on the record and I have the PB site plan resolution.
CHAIRWOMAN: I do think we have the photos of the driveway.
MS. MOORE: Do you want a copy of the records from the PB for your file?
CHAIRWOMAN: Is that an extra set?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN: The other thing is could we get a copy on the prior on the decision on the
other piece on Alexander.
MS. MOORE: The Roake decision is 8-17-83 the transcript is appeal#3148 and it is 7-28-83
the transcript is from your own file. Paula copied it for me. If you like I can give you this so
you can read it I can always get it back from Paula after you've copied it.
CHAIRWOMAN: I just want to say one thing with the withdrawal of the plan for the 3rd tier the
height variance issue on Raffe is gone so we're down to a height variance on B rack which there
Page 28 of 37.
Page 29
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
is no objection to and we're down to a setback variance on the north side and those are the only
remaining issue at this point. Let's talk about the landscaping plan, has everyone reviewed that?
MS. MOORE: The plantings are the same that was presented to the PB.
CHAIRWOMAN: I have a copy here and some questions about it. You're proposing to plant
eastern red cedar 10-12'high with a chain link fence. What's the distance they'd be set apart?
MR. IRVING: The round circles shaded in are existing trees so the concept behind them was to
set those inbetween the tress to alleviate any looking at bows of boats and that kind of thing
because your screening is up high the existing trees that are there so you'd have to try to hide the
bottom half of the racks.
CHAIRWOMAN: And this is the plan the PB approved?
MS. MOORE: We haven't yet approved it but they've reviewed it.
MEMBER ORLANDO: According to the scale it looks like they are 10' on center
approximately.
MS. MOORE: Yeah they are going to go inbetween the other trees so it's just approximately.
MR. IRVING: The concept is to screen so they won't be-
MR. BRESSLER: The plan as proposed is going to create the screen that I think is contemplated
by the board I heard there was a concept of a canopy that sounds to me like it might be deciduous
tree which provides screening and all except during the times when the leaves are out how big
are these cedars going to be when they are planted?
MS. MOORE: 10-12' and the structure is 13.
MR. BRESSLER: The visual impact of this structure is going to be calculated by the board the
last time at least 82 thirds of the height calculation at least 22/23'if you figure 30 something.
CHAIRWOMAN: No, if you start at 13 let's go back what's the maximum height?
MS. MOORE: They are sitting in cradles.
CHAIRWOMAN: This is what I'd like comments from the neighbors on.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My 23'boat in there standing next to it with it on the ground so the
boat is 6'high. The bar is straight and the cradle is in but when he's saying 13.4 he's talking to
the bar not the cradle so it's above that. Think of a 12' Christmas tree. This is recommended to
go under a canopy of locust.
Page 29 of 37
Page 30
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MR. BRESSLER: What I'm suggesting is slightly larger trees because you're going to have on
the onset 19-20'when you start putting boats there.
MR. IRVING: What kind of trees, what height, let's go.
MR. BRESSLER: I'm not a landscape expert-
MR. IRVING: I'm shocked.
MR. BRESSLER: I want trees that are going to screen 19-20'. Basically you're going to have a
tier of boats exposed. That's what you're going to have.
MR. IRVING: But you already have boats there.
MR. BRESSLER: Not where they are now.
MR. IRVING: Sure there are.
MR. BRESSLER: You have boats 13'in the air?
MR. IRVING: I have sailboats with keels easily 13'.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Pat maybe when you speak to the landscaper find out the growth rate
per year, P or 6"per year. So if you put a 14'tree in, in 2 years it will be-
MR. IRVING: I think the real gist of the thing is the boats are higher than the racks what are we
talking about,would you rather look at trees or some boats?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only difference is the boats leave and then come back again in
the fall.
MR. IRVING: No they don't because I use the lot area there and I try to open up the marina for
the dock people.
CHAIRWOMAN: Let's get everything on the record.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're still trying to measure additional traffic not only internally
within the marina but as the neighbors have mentioned on the creek itself and that's the situation
so I'm still trying to determine that. I have to tell you we have a gentleman here from the east
end of LI named Frank Flynn who came before us innumerable amounts of times he would tell
you this is an increase in use and he would tell you that you need more of this and more of that
and more parking and this and that and he would go on and on. We understand it is an existing
marina and we understand there is a maxim that you can deal with an existing marina. I am still
trying to understand this impact and I'm a boater. I love boating. I am trying and none of my
Page 30 of 37
Page 31
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
statements are meant to be derogatory toward you or your marina because it is a beautiful marina
and I just I'm still trying to measure this impact and it's very difficult,for me to understand.
MS. MOORE: Jerry if it will help you what did the DEC tell you because I think it's an
interesting point he made.
MR. IRVING: The DEC that was there was very cooperative to us more than I thought and I
indicated boats handled by an independent marina then to have them in people's yards
and houses and is there going to be an increase in traffic, yes there is, there's going to be more
boats up and down the creek. Is that detrimental? No because it provides vitality to the existing
marina and that's what that marina needs creating 100 slip spaces give or take a couple as it
exists now it doesn't and as is mentioned here in the article of service we are full service. I have
3 mechanics. I have a re-finisher. I have a rigger. I have 3 yard guys and that's what that marina
needs but it makes no sense until we have all the numbers together and the dockage is a very
important number. Without those extra dockage then you look at the numbers and you look at
what you have to put out on the upkeep and cost of the marina and it's not worth it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is not a use variance,but are you making money?
MR. IRVING: Yes but you need those to make it reasonable. But without those extra boats in
the marina the service for new boat sales without the extra dockage then it doesn't make much
sense. As far as the neighbors and everybody who is concerned quite frankly anybody else that
comes in knows marina management looks at the facility look at the docks that are available,
look at the growth extension that is available there and they'll go
CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to interrupt you a lot of times what happens especially when with
the PB they will approve your landscaping plan, correct Mrs. Moore?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN: In this case if we approve it, if we approve a variance what we would
actually say is it would be subject you won't get a CO until the landscaping plan is in. You won't
have a rack. You won't have anything there until the landscaping plan is complete. The reason
why is sometimes that gets delayed so it would be contingent. The CO would be contingent on
the landscaping plan being submitted.
MR. IRVING: The landscaping and setup has to go in first once the racks go in you can't go
back there to landscape so I don't mind that but what I would mind is doing the landscaping
which I personally might feel is more than adequate and then having the board tell me okay this
is what we want 15'redwood trees and Duncan spurs-
CHAIRWOMAN: No we would approve a plan and it would say-
Page 31 of 37
Page 32
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MR. IRVING: I would submit a plan to you and if you would approve it and I would put it in
and you would come down and say okay you did what you said you were going to do I'd have no
problem with that at all.
CHAIRWOMAN: This proposed plan that I assume the PB has reviewed it?
MS. MOORE: Yes, they reviewed it. What they did with it I don't know.
CHAIRWOMAN: Do you want to improve on this plan at all?
MR. IRVING: The placement of those tress as you see in the plan are not necessarily as an
architect designs them with 10' centers they may be staggered you may have 2 trees close
together to cover a valve in the area and then another space because you have regular hard wood
tree there and then a couple more close together.
CHAIRWOMAN: What we are really looking at is a nice visual screen.
MR. IRVING: The reality is I don't need Mr. Withers calling every 2 days and complaining
about the boats. I'm going to put them in as best as I can with the most accurate screening.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question Madam Chairman is where do we go from here?
MR. BRESSLER: I want to comment on one thing Mr. Goehringer was questioning about and
that was an issue I raised the last time and it's the end of the record and that was the
characterization of type of variance this is. Nonetheless I think the issues that were raised are
relevant and I think a total failure of proof in that regard is amend the application on that type of
issue.
MR. IRVING: I didn't follow that.
MR. BRESSLER: I raised this the last time, Mr. Goehringer raised it tonight about the dollars
and cents and Ms. Moore has stated you don't have to do that you don't have to make any
showing I respectfully disagree with respect to that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you give us any case law on that?
MR. BRESSLER: I would be pleased to submit something on that particularly based on
response to your questions.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know my situation I'd like to try and get every rock in place
before a final determination of closing the hearing occurs. That's what I'm concerned about here
I still see unrest and we have this issue of what, I'll answer the question for you Lydia, what's
going to happen with this other rack that's over on Schoolhouse Creek side and if it's going to be
denied or disapproved if it is.
Page-32 of 37
Page 33
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: It's not before us, there's no application or NOD.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it will be before us.
MS. MOORE: Only when I know it's been approved by other agencies because it may not be in
this location it may be 10'back or-
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that so you're just dealing with rack A in it's original
position now as applied before us.
CHAIRWOMAN: There is no alternate, nothing is properly before us, nothing's been properly
noticed the whole 9 yards.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Therefore we are only going on rack A and it's original position.
MS. MOORE: Original position but reduced in height because this no longer needs a height
variance. That portion has been removed from your consideration.
CHAIRWOMAN: If it's a 10' setback there's no height variance on that. Rack B there's no
change because there's no objection on rack B, so that's what's before us, there's nothing else
before us.
MR. BRESSLER: Let me just say that with respect to the height there's the question that's been
put to me and my client that there's no objection on B with respect to the height of my client to
say there's no objection to rack B may overstate the case because there were other people here
who spoke who had objections to the density and the additional traffic and all the other issues
that were created so I didn't mean to create a false impression by saying with respect to that
particular narrow issue and my client that there was not objection on the record from other
people or to other issues that they be created by the entire plan so I just want to make sure that
everyone considers the full record with respect to-
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's why I asked the question.
CHAIRWOMAN: I had taken your comment from before if you remember and since it was
stated again I wanted to make clear just what the extent of that particular comment meant and I
hope I clarified that.
MS. MOORE: We understand there is general objections to racks and to additional boats.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is one more particular issue and that is the drone of the motor,
at what time are the racks going to be utilized and so and so. We have residential property
around this and that is what the concern is. In other words, I want to make sure no stone is
unturned.
Page 33 of 37
Page 34
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MS. MOORE: I understand that but what you're almost to the point of ignoring is a functional
full-service marina here that is a permitted use. I understand you want to try to address every
single possible concern-
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me explain why that's a possibility because they are not using
those functions ordinarily on a daily basis at this present time.
MS. MOORE: Yes they are.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But not in the location you are proposing.
MS. MOORE: Yes in the exact location.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is the reason Mike, I asked you to tell me where the doors
were and so on and so forth.
MR. BRESSLER: The issue is volume, Mr. Goehringer, you will increase by 50%the volume
so even if he says well there's a boat there or even if he says we have a forklift now it's
increasing by 50% and I think the point is well taken you can't argue with that. That has to be
addressed.
MS. MOORE: I will respectfully disagree with that point,but it's his opinion and we'll allow
him to express it.
CHAIRWOMAN: Where does the 50% come from?
MS. MOORE: I don't know.
MR. BRESSLER: Based upon the number of slips they have and the number of racks they are
adding it's actually more than 50,but I discounted it because they have some single storage.
MRS. DOUBLEDAY: It's not in use the way they say nothing's changing. These boats go in the
water in the morning come out of the water. That's 2 trips everyday. None of the boats now do
that. They go in in the Spring they stay in the water. You're not having a forklift running
around. Now they take them out they work on them and put them back in. But you are talking
about 36 boats moving in and out of the water with a forklift could possibly be every day. I
know it's going to be Sat. and Sun. so you're increasing the use a lot. Yes they use the forklift
now but these boats can only be moved with the forklift. Every one that's there now stays in the
water and doesn't get touched by the forklift until it comes out in October.
MS. MOORE: I understand her point but we seem to be moving this hearing into a use variance
criteria as if this was not a permitted use.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No we're not doing that.
Page 34 of 37
Page 35
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MS. MOORE: But in a sense you are because this is MI, MII all the uses we are talking about
the intensity of the use is not an issue when you have a permitted use at the property.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I could not agree with you more Pat if we were talking about the
Port of Egypt because the it's surrounded by commercial property except on the Willow Point
side.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry I still disagree that Michael Withers is a commercial property. It is M1I
zoned and it operates a commercial use by the BD's determination by the site plan it is a
commercial use.
MR. BRESSLER: There seems to be a misunderstanding as to whether or not the use is
regulated and I only suggest to the board that it clearly is not so. There are height limitations as
structures on the property. This clearly has an impact on intensity of use. There are setback
limitations. This clearly has a consequential limitation on intensity of use necessarily so you
can't be within so many feet therefore you can't use it for that. You can't be more than this
number of feet high therefore you can't!have a building or structure and use it which would
create greater intensity for the record here that there is not such a clear demarcation between the
use and the area variances. Area variances by their nature impact usage and how do we know
that's true? Because if it weren't true they wouldn't be seeking to increase by such a great
percentage and have to come before you for area variances trying to use parts of the property and
their air which they were not allowed to use because if they didn't request those variances the use
would be down. I think that's the last thing I want to say about that.
MS. MOORE: I won't teach you the law, I think you know it already.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you're going to give us some case law on this and you're going to
give council case law and us?
MR. BRESSLER: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN: We're going to close this to oral testimony.
Does this board have jurisdiction over the aesthetics of the racks?
CHAIRWOMAN: Generally that's something the PB handles. If we handle it, we're pretty
tough and we usually do screening. If there's site plan involved, usually the PB does screening.
If we have shall we say very particular concerns and it involves a variance then we will-
The context of my question is it seems to me was dimensions and I'm very interested in
the aesthetic aspect of this and they are-effected by the design of the racks, the positioning,but
also the operation of the racks has an aesthetic impact on the balance of the shipyard,the motion
and the summer parking of cars and winter parking of boats, are all of those things within the
jurisdiction of this board?
Page 35 of 37
Page 36
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: Parking is not within the jurisdiction of this board on this and the only reason
that I have expressed a lot of concern about this landscaping is because I'm concerned about a
really sufficient buffer on anything we approve and the neighbors. Nonnally the PB would
handle that though. I think Mrs. Moore would tell you that our buffering is generally a lot
tougher than PB's which is why we usually take it if we feel it's necessary. We are going to close
this to oral, you are going to submit case law regarding intensity of use-
MS. MOORE: Dollars and cents criteria.
MR. BRESSLER: As to dollars and cents on this particular case given-the nature of the case and
the testimony.
CHAIRWOMAN: Dollars and cents in terms of town law 267B as amended to-
MR. BRESSLER: Just how it has impact to the answers given here tonight.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember that when that happens we go back to council so it
takes a little bit longer when we deal with these aspects.
CHAIRWOMAN: What's the deadline for written? Eric,how long? Our next regular meeting
is May 151n
MS. MOORE: Can you have it a little sooner so we can respond?
MR. BRESSLER: No absolutely not.
CHAIRWOMAN: But you will have it to us the Friday before the 151n
MR. BRESSLER: I don't know if I can do that.
CHAIRWOMAN: Monday before the 151h.
MR. BRESSLER: I was counting on 2 weeks.
CHAIRWOMAN: Well the 15th is our meeting so we would like to-
MR. BRESSLER: I'll get it to you as quickly as I can before then. I've got a trial scheduled
before then.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we'll move it to June 5th
MS. MOORE: Keep in mind this is really an irrelevant point and we all know it. There is no
dollars and cents criteria with respect to area variances. It's practical difficulty. We all know
that the treatises are complete with respect that the law change the state law. He's just blowing
Page 36 of 37
Page 37
May 1, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
you know what up my you know what. I just think it's a tactic to delay. We need a variance
from you and then we have to go to the PB for site plans.
MR. BRESSLER: you see what the standards are and you look at the various factors-
CHAIRWOMAN: Just give us the case law, give us the memorandum by the 151n
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
End of Public Hearings.
Page 37 of 37