HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/17/2005 HEAR 1
2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING' BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
3
4 --------------------------------------------X
5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H O L D
6
7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S
8
9 --------------------------------------------X
Southold Town Hall
10 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
11
November 17; 2005
12 9_.: 30 a.m.
13 Board Members Present
14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
15 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman
16 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
17 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
18 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member
19 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
20 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney
21
22 23 [ORMUNAC
24
t
25
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to call to
order our regularly scheduled meeting of November
3 17, 2005, and ask for a resolution stating that
all our applications have a negative declaration.
4 (See minutes for resolution. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is for
5 John and Barbara Condon on Sigsbee Road in
Mattituck. Yes, sir?
6 MR. CONDON: Good morning, John Condon.
What I'm proposing at my home in Mattituck is to
7 put a front entry porch in and I 'm asking for a
variance, on the setback requirements . The porch
8 is 6 ' 4" .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . By about 11' 511 ,
9 right?
MR. CONDON: Right .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Actually I was down
there, and I think it makes a very nice addition
11 to your house. It' s a very nice house . You' ll be
a little bit closer, 32' 7" to the stoop . Jerry?
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
objections .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no
14 objections to it . I have a question or two. Your
house now existing is pretty much the standard
15 setback on Sigsbee, which Member Goehringer lived
and was born and raised and knows that place
16 backwards and forwards now. The only thing is I
don' t want to set a precedent in the neighborhood,
17 if you ever did enclose that as part of the
dwelling. I don' t know if this is my decision to
18 write, but I' d just like to put that in so it
doesn' t become part of the dwelling. So no other
19 questions .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to ask
20 you further is, since it' s an attractive house; it
is in fact closer to the curb, though,, than almost
21 all the other houses on the street, and it is
taller than the other houses, which is perfectly
22 legal . The question is how you would justify
getting a variance given that it would aggravate a
23 condition which already makes the house the most
conspicuous one on the block?
24 MR. CONDON: Well, I think it actually
makes the house a little more attractive, better
25 curb appeal . Right now the existing steps that
were put in when the building was constructed was
November 17, 2005
3
1
2 basically to enable us to get into the house
without having to -- it was a legal step in,
3 essentially. And over the years, we just didn' t
have the time and energy really to put a proper
4 porch there .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There' s an
5 incentive now?
MR. CONDON: Oh, yes, there is . My
6 daughter' s getting married, and she said she
didn' t want a picture in front of that house
7 without a front porch.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One of the
8 consequences of the approval of this would be that
the other houses would presumably be free to apply
9 to make their houses equally curb attractive by
extending further, closer to the curb as yours ;
10 would you have any problem with that?
MR. CONDON: I don' t have any problem with
11 that .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And I don' t hear any
12 problems with the neighbors .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly if you
built the porch only four feet you wouldn' t need a
14 variance . You' re 39 feet now and you could go
four feet . You haven' t offered any compelling
15 reason why you need the two more feet?
MR. CONDON: The only reason was that my
16 son lives next door, and we designed a porch for
his house, and this porch is going to be the exact
17 size, and the nice part about it is that you can
put a chair out on the porch. If I make it
18 shorter than that, it' s going to make it very
cramped, and that was the whole reason we went for
19 the variance .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Appearances are
20 appearances, and you' re going to be setting not
necessarily a precedent, I mean other people are
21 going to want that two feet, and they could apply,
and I'm not one usually to do this, but I'm
22 wondering if you could cut it back a little bit
and just use it as an entryway instead of a deck?
23 What would be the hardship?
MR. CONDON: Two feet is two feet .
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: One way or another
you can have it or you couldn' t have it . I' d like
25 to know your reason for wanting it .
MR. CONDON: Only because if it was cut
November 17, 2005
4
1
2 back two feet it would be very crampy and it would
not allow for someone to sit out on the porch.
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You want to be able
to sit out on that porch?
4 MR. CONDON: Right .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you saying that a
5 four foot wide porch would not allow room for a
chair and someone to walk by?
6 MR. CONDON: Not comfortably sit there .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: _ Most people don' t
7 have legs that are four feet in length.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just
8 mention something to the Board, .please?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sigsbee Road was
developed in the late ' 30s and many of the houses
10 were constructed prior to zoning. I'm just
mentioning to the Board, yes, it' s true that in
11 the immediate vicinity of Mr. and Mrs . Condon' s
house you do have that 35 foot setback, but the
12 entire block is a multiplicity of setbacks; some
of which you may see with no rear yards at all, so
13 that they tend to sit back farther and some are
closer to the property line, particularly as you
14 get closer to Peconic Bay Boulevard. So I'm just
mentioning that and that' s food for thought
15 also.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Jerry. Any
16 other comments? Is there anyone in the audience
that wishes to speak on this application? If not,
17 I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
18 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Mr. Kosmynka on Commerce Drive . He wants to make
20 a storage building.
MR. KOSMYNKA: Good morning, Mrs . Oliva
21 and Members of the board. My name is Martin
Kosmynka. I am the contract vendee and the
22 applicant for North Fork Self Storage . I am here
to request permission to allow a manager' s
23 assistant unit apartment for the purpose of
security and management at the proposed public
24 warehouse facility that I'm proposing in front of
the Planning Board. The subject premises is
25 located at the industrial park situated at what
will be 50 Commerce Drive in Cutchogue . It is
November 17, 2005
5
1
2 zoned LI .
The project currently has the following
3 approvals : The Town of Southold Architectural
Review Board, the Cutchogue Fire Department,
4 Suffolk County Water Authority tap off letter, the
Suffolk County Health Department, the only thing
5 left on the Health Department is for me to file
covenants and restrictions and I couldn' t do that
6 until I see how this turns out . Also there has
been an a negative dec on the EAF, and I've had
7 six workshops with the Planning Board on this
protect .
8 This applicant complies with all variances
and requirements and will not prevent the orderly
9 and reasonable use of the adjacent properties or
the properties in the surrounding area or impair
10 the value thereof . Nor will it alter the
essential character of the neighborhood because
11 the proposal will be an accessory use to the
allowable use of the LI . The manager' s unit will
12 not be visible from the outside and will only be
used by the manager of the public warehouse
13 facility. The manager' s assistant unit will not
prevent the orderly and reasonable use of a
14 committed or legal establishment use in the
district whereof the manager' s apartment is to be
15 located or to be permitted or legally established
use in the adjacent district .
16 Trust me, I had some help with this one .
The safety, the health and welfare, the comfort
17 and convenience or order of the Town will not be
adversely affected by the manager' s assistant unit
18 apartment and its location. The manager' s
assistant unit will allow 24 hour security to the
19 public warehouse, as well to the other businesses
in the industrial park.
20 The hardship is unique to our project and
to all self-storage facilities because of the
21 manager' s unit is an industrial standard. A
self-storage facility is an allowable use in the
22 LI district, and the manager' s unit is not
addressed by the code currently. I believe years
23 ago it was addressed by the code and I do believe
that Jim Grey, Jr. had approvals at one time for a
24 manager' s unit back in the late 180s .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you' re not
25 before us here to ask for anything to do with the
storage? You' re here just for the accessory use
November 17, 2005
6
1
2 of the apartment?
MR. KOSMYNKA: What I sell is security,
3 onsite manager lives onsite and that' s my
business .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I see it' s a single
5 bedroom, so I assume there' s no more children.
MR. KOSMYNKA: Generally as a rule it' s a
6 retired person. Quite honestly, my manager' s a
paraplegic, he' ll be the one there . He' s a single
7 guy, he' s a 50 year old man.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Say we put a
8 condition on there that the person has to work for
you.
9 MR. KOSMYNKA: Without a doubt . That' s
the only reason why he' s there .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There' s a concern,
and I 've been involved for quite a few years, that
11 people can live in these things. We just want to
avoid that . I think you want to avoid that . We
12 made it that the person living in that apartment
has to work .for you. You wouldn' t have any
13 objection to that?
MR. KOSMYNKA: I totally agree with you
14 and agree with your first statement, some
facilities, some people do try to live in there .
15 I will not allow electricity inside the unit . Our
units don' t allow it .
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You won' t have
lighting in any of the units either?
17 MR. KOSMYNKA: Only in the hallways, but
not the unit itself, because of that one problem.
18 They' re not supposed to work in the unit . It' s
strictly for storage .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s up to the
Town to enforce, if you don' t mind that?
20 MR. KOSMYNKA: No, without a doubt .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions .
I support the restriction.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Mr. Dinizio
23 answered my question, and it was the same thing I
was going to ask. It would be hard to find
24 someone dedicated to do that position before you
built the structure, but obviously you have
25 someone in mind.
MR. KOSMYNKA: I've been in the business .
November 17, 2005
7
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree so it
doesn' t get subbed out to some other person as an
3 apartment . Not that that' s a bad thing, but you
are committing to this statement that you want
4 someone to live there who will be the manager,
which is a nice security.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It concerns me
6 why it has to be 900 square feet, 902 I think?
MR. KOSMYNKA: I don' t mean to be playing
7 this thing about my manager being in a wheelchair,
but it' s a one bedroom, and I gave him an office,
8 a private little office, a study, whatever you
want to do. It' s actually -- it' s designated. as a
9 one bedroom by the Health Department standards
that' s what I showed him and then the other one is
10 an office for the manager and then, just a living
room, kitchen area. Square footage, it' s cheap to
11 give him, and I didn' t want to make it cramped to
be honest .
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only reason
I ask you that question, the minimum square
13 footage in Southold town for a residence is 850
square feet, unless it' s been changed. If you
14 were to build basically a two-story house, it' s
750 square feet, then you would put either one or
15 two bedrooms on the second floor . To layout a
nice, well-rounded, small, quaint, one bedroom on
16 the first floor, it gives you a living room,
dining room, full kitchen, and a very nice
17 bathroom and possibly a little mudroom in the
back, and I just wondered why you went up.
18 MR. KOSMYNKA: Again, I have a roll-in
shower designed in it . The guy is in a
19 wheelchair, you can' t get enough room for having
your life in a wheelchair. The design is a
20 roll-in shower, I allowed for him to have a washer
and dryer in the facility, there' s no intent to
21 put multi people in this unit . If you feel
strongly, I' ll cut it down but the reason behind
22 the 900 square feet --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, if you need a
23 wheelchair, you certainly need wider doors than
normal .
24 MR. KOSMYNKA: It' s designed for a 36 inch
opening.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think you hit
the key right there, the issue of office; in other
November 17, 2005
8
1
2 words, the office you' re providing him is part of
the square footage, and that is the office he' s
3 going to be using to run the facility?
MR. KOSMYNKA: No . That' s his office . My
4 feeling is I'm on the computer, most people have
designated room for a computer. This guy' s got a
5 roll-in shower, wheelchair he needs, he' s got an
everyday wheelchair. Just part of the --
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Will the office be
used by other people besides the manager?
7 MR. KOSMYNKA: That' s correct, there' s an
assistant manager there too.
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One of the rooms in
the apartment is an office, correct?
9 MR. KOSMYNKA: Call it a study.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think the issue is
10 not what your intentions are, I don' t think anyone
has any doubt of your intentions, it' s just that
11 if sometime 30 or 40 years from now someone who
has different intentions were to occupy it 'and
12 were to find that it was very useful to have a
place sufficiently spacious so that people with
13 different intentions could use it more
elaborately.
14 MR. KOSMYNKA: But it would be going
against what Mr. Dinizio wants me to put in there .
15 It would be illegal .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As long as the person
16 was an employee of the self-storage warehouse .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It may be self
17 evident to everyone but I think it would help the
record, but I think the legal basis for this is
18 that this apartment use is accessory use to the
main use, the industry standard you said; can you
19 explain briefly why it' s industry standard and why
you need a living space accessory to the operating
20 business?
MR. KOSMYNKA: I sell security, people are
21 putting in their life long possessions . This is
how the industry sells themselves .
22 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So you need
somebody on the premises at all times; is that the
23 justification?
MR. KOSMYNKA: Basically. If there' s a
24 conflict, I' ll make the thing 800 square feet .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to
25 understand that we don' t have too many of these
come in. So we' re learning to understand -- I 'm
November 17, 2005
9
1
2 learning to understand why you chose that square
footage . I think you clearly explained it to us .
3 I have to tell you, if there was any question
about your integrity or anything of that nature,
4 we would bring that up, there' s no question.
You've come before us many, many times
5 particularly on your own residence . The issue is
it' s a learning curve . Particularly the extra
6 study and the ADA situation which is basically
what we' re learning about .
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment on
that, I don' t want to restrict this thing to just
8 a single guy. If you have a husband and wife team
that want to work there, I don' t want that to be a
9 restriction, and honestly, if they have a child,
again, I can live with 1, 000 square feet, and I
10 don' t think we should be looking at it in that
respect . My thought was I didn' t want it to be
11 separate of the business itself, if the father is
working there, that' s his livelihood, and that' s
12 what makes it affordable to live here, that' s
fine, and if they' re putting a child in school,
13 that' s fine with me also . I just wanted to be
open with the fact that we needed to tie it
14 together with the business . Be honest with you,
1, 000 square feet is not a lot of living space and
15 even a single man might have someone come for a
visit and might want to put him in there for a
16 day, and I don' t think that should be restricted.
A person can have a friend, maybe they have a
17 wide-screen TV and want to put it in that room.
But they have to live their life, they can' t just
18 stand up and go to bed.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t know
19 where you' re getting the 1, 000 ; it' s 902 .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Can I ask you something
that is really not within your purview, but in
21 your discussions with the Planning Board, I 'm just
interested in the landscaping around it, which we
22 have no jurisdiction about . But it' s a beautiful
road and you' re coming up to an industrial piece
23 of property, the landfill you can' t really see
from Route 48 . I'm just hoping that the Planning
24 Board required some extensive and high
landscaping; do you have any knowledge of that?
25 MR. KOSMYNKA: You can see from my
photograph, there' s 100 foot buffer from 48 to
November 17, 2005
10
1
2 where my facility is going to start .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you do have
3 landscaping?
MR. KOSMYNKA: Yes . There' s restrictions
4 on a bunch of stuff there . They' re very in-tune
to this whole park going on there, and the
5 Architectural Review Board has been very, very --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good, I don' t have any
6 problem.
MR. KOSMYNKA: Also the Health Department
7 restricts me . I put the application in for a one
bedroom apartment, so I'm confined to what I
8 submitted to these folks, and in how we designed
the system.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
the audience that would like to speak on this
10 application?
MR. FOSTER: Good morning, Artie Foster,
11 I 'm an adjacent landowner in there, and I just
recently applied for and received a site plan for
12 Lot 5 , and now we' re actively engaged in using
that land. We have equipment there and we have
13 things there, and I would love to have security
down there . It' s very dark there at night and it
14 would certainly help the whole community.
One thing I wanted to say in reference to
15 Mr. Simon' s comments about the fear of certain
things happening, you know, I don' t think we can
16 make decisions based on what we think or speculate
may or may not happen down the road. If you ride
17 around this town, there' s all kinds of things
going on that shouldn' t be . And certainly if it
18 is in the site plan that there are certain
restrictions on the property, and the site plan is
19 violated, well, there' s ways to deal with that as
well . We have a code enforcement officer that is
20 in charge of doing things like that . So I would
not want to make a decision based on the fear --
21 the sky may fall, you never know. But I am
totally in support of this, and I would urge the
22 Board to approve this . I think it' s very
important to the little community that we have
23 down there in reference to security purposes .
Thank you.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Foster.
If there' s no other comments, I' ll make a motion
25 to close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
November 17, 2005
11
1
2 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is
Mr. Sznurkowski, down on West Shore Drive for a
4 garage .
MR. SZNURKOWSKI : Good morning. I have an
5 application in to erect a one and a half car
garage on my property on West Shore Drive . The
6 reason being we really don' t have a garage . We
have minimal storage .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was down there and
you showed me what I thought was your garage,
8 which is really a very small work area, and you
want to tuck that garage right into the side of
9 your house there?
MR. SZNURKOWSKI : That' s correct .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And it' s not very high
because you don' t want to block your upstairs
11 windows?
MR. SZNURKOWSKI : Correct .
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have a
boat in the yard?
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . This is the one in
Raden Shores . You' re thinking West Lake .
14 MR. SZNURKOWSKI : It' s a pie-shaped
property, it narrows down towards the roadway, and
15 parking is quite difficult and we have no place
for storing very many things .
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as the
Board feels that this lady and gentleman can get
17 to the front or rear yard of their home with the
eight feet, which I suspect they can, then I don' t
18 have any objection to it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . It' s
a unique pie-shaped property there with the water
20 on the one side so you can' t go that way, and then
you' re converting your existing garage into living
21 space, correct?
MR. SZNURKOWSKI : When we bought the
22 place, they apparently took part of the room and
made a den area and the rest of it' s a very small
23 storage area.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So it' s not
24 actually a working garage . The garage door is a
facade?
25 MR. SZNURKOWSKI . No.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you' re making a
November 17, 2005
12
1
2 single-story garage?
MR. SZNURKOWSKI : For lawn mowers and
3 chairs and things to be put away for the winter.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a matter for
clarification, you describe it as a one and a half
5 car garage, long enough for one and a half cars
but the same width for one car?
6 MR. SZNURKOWSKI : Penny Lumber calls it a
one and a half car garage . It' s wider than the
7 one car garage .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The depth is the
8 standard garage depth?
MR. SZNURKOWSKI : I believe it is .
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Which tucks in nicely
with the corner of the house .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in
the audience have any questions or remarks on this
12 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
13 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Passaro, Deer Foot Path in Cutchogue .
15 MR. CONDON: John Condon representing
Mr. Passaro. This particular case involves
16 existing construction. It was constructed several
years ago, includes a deck that protrudes into the
17 rear setback for the property. The setback in
that area is 50 feet from the rear yard and this
18 one is approximately 36 feet from the rear yard.
It also involves an accessory structure, a storage
19 shed that is located in the side yard. So the
applicant is looking for a variance on the setback
20 requirements as well as the side yard use of the
accessory structure .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right, they' re
as-built . Yes . I believe he wants to sell the
22 house .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Hence the for sale
23 sign.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The barn or
whatever you want to call it, that was put in the
25 side yard by putting on the deck. Before the deck
was constructed, that would have been the rear
November 17, 2005
13
1
2 yard where is it is right now.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: True .
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just a little
unclear, are you going to add to that barn?
4 MR. CONDON: No, it' s already there .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because if you look
5 on the plans, it' s one side and then the addition
was put on but that was all done already.
6 Everything that' s done exists; you' re not going to
do anything but sell the house?
7 MR. CONDON: Right . He needs a C of O for
the structures .
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Basically the deck
made the barn in the side yard. It' s five feet
9 off, there' s plenty of room there .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No questions but
I' ll leave Jerry to make his final comment .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
13 problems with the deck at all . But if we placed
in the decision that we don' t have any particular
14 objection to the storage building being in its
position as it is now, however, if it became
15 significantly deteriorated, he' d have to move it
back to a conforming location. Do you have any
16 objection to that?
MR. CONDON: The shed is a typical storage
17 shed, there' s a company on the North .Road. It
does not have a footing in the ground; it
18 basically lays on top of four by fours .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what I
19 was thinking. I' d rather not see it reconstructed
there because it' s not in a conforming location,
20 but it can stay for as long as its useful life,
that' s what my suggestion would be .
21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I think if it' s
moved five feet it would be conforming.
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Jerry let me down,
I didn' t say my comment because I thought you' d
23 say it . The deck should remain open to the sky,
that' s your line, Jerry. I don' t want to take it
24 from you.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Hold on, so listen,
25 we' ll put the barn/shed must be removed to a
conforming area if the building deteriorates to
November 17, 2005
14
1
2 non-useful .
BOARD. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In other words
3 it can' t be added onto or reconstructed; if it' s
lost its useful life it has to be placed in a
4 conforming location.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It can' t be added
5 onto, they' d have to come before us anyway. But
if they can' t use it anymore because they' re
6 falling through the floor it can' t be replaced in
that area.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just have to
move it five feet . And as Mr. Condon said before,
8 I know he' s an engineer, the point in question is
there may come a time where it reaches the end of
9 its useful life .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
10 close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
11 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Simon Caudullo on Seventh Street in Greenport .
13 Good morning.
MS . TOTH: Vicky Toth, I 'm here on behalf
14 of the property owner, Simon Caudullo. He' s
applying for a couple of variances for an existing
15 dwelling. It' s come to light that back in
February of 2004 this Board granted an unmerger
16 from this property. In reading the decision, it
showed that it was the belief of this Board that
17 this lot was merged with the lot on the corner,
which is not the case, it' s a separate parcel . It
18 stated in your reason for your approval of last
year' s unmerger that the property to the north of
19 the. subject was one parcel all the way up to Front
Street .
20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I have the file in
the office, we could talk about that tomorrow or
21 later, that' s not what' s before the Board today,
right?
22 MS . TOTH: No. I'm just stating that
there' s actually two parcels there . There' s this
23 cottage that is on the parcel presently. I did
speak with the property owner in the rear of the
24 parcel . He has no objections at all to what is
being proposed here . He was actually surprised
25 that it had to go for a variance because it was a
building structure that had been in existence for
November 17, 2005
15
1
2 as long as he could remember. The property to the
north has no CO. The property that is behind the
3 subject has a pre-CO. And I'm sure if you were
out at the site, the project to the south is
4 currently under construction. As far as the
location of the existing deck on the parcel, it' s
5 been in existence -- there' s always been a deck on
that and yes, he did build it to where it' s a few
6 feet closer to the road, but as you can see on the
parcel directly joining to the north that has a
7 deck that' s even closer to the road than our
parcel .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The house has basically
been rebuilt?
9 MS . TOTH: They did a renovation on the
inside .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And new shingling on
the outside?
11 MS . TOTH: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s built .
12 MS . TOTH: It' s pre-existing.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' re talking
13 about the new work?
MS . TOTH: I wasn' t involved when they
14 were building or redoing the construction and
renovation, and I think there was a
15 misunderstanding when they applied for a CO for
the property, and the building inspector went out
16 there and said it' s uninhabitable, there' s no
kitchen or bathroom, and I'm assuming the property
17 owner at the time misunderstood that to mean make
it habitable . So he completed the renovations,
18 when in reality they wanted him to apply for
variances to complete renovations .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I peaked in the
windows, there is a little kitchen in there .
20 MS . TOTH: I have a set of as-built plans .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I need it for the
21 file when there' s a decision, I would like to
refer to those . Thank you.
22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s part of the
disapproval, that' s why you' re here .
23 MS . TOTH: Correct . I ' d like to further
state too, that the size of the this lot makes it
24 impossible for any type of home to meet the lot
coverage area. I was out there . I went through
25 the whole property. It' s very well maintained.
It' s very clean. The job they did was very well
November 17, 2005
16
1
2 constructed. Everything is to code and you can
see as the as-built plans show you, everything is
3 to code .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It looks good. Jerry?
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What can you
assure us regarding this property that nothing
5 will be constructed in the future without a
building permit?
6 MS . TOTH: Currently the property is for
sale . I 'm sure you saw the for sale sign there .
7 As far as anything being built without a permit in
the future, I cannot guarantee that because
8 whoever purchases the property they would be the
people that would be responsible to apply for a
9 proper permit if they did decide to make this
larger.
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm actually
offering this statement to the Town attorney, and
11 not putting him on record, but if this Board
placed reasonable covenants on this property and
12 asked the property owner to file those covenants
along with the deed in the county clerk' s office,
13 I think the Board would then go down on record as
saying that' s it, you won' t do anything else .
14 We' re taking a structure that was a structure,
that still is a structure until this Board renders
15 it to be a dwelling, and we' re placing it in the
possible guise of being a dwelling. The history
16 on the parcel is that it was a -- and I 'm sure
you' re correct in what happened in reference to
17 the situation -- and my concern is not the most
immediate but what' s going to happen in the
18 future .
MS . TOTH: I guess too, you have to look
19 at the area. They' re building a brand new house
next door, and it' s surrounded by two-story
20 dwellings . Actually in my opinion if they did put
a second story on this it would at least bring the
21 square footage up to conformance of Town code .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They can knock
22 out the second story on this without a variance in
a weekend.
23 MS . TOTH: There could "be restrictions put
on the property that no further renovations,
24 additions or anything be performed without prior
approval from the building department .
25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That' s
existing law already.
November 17, 2005
17
1
2 MS . TOTH: I don' t know if it' s legal that
you can do that.
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They can' t do a
thing on this property without a variance .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Sure they could.
They would have to come before us with an
5 as-built .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Jerry wants to
6 restrict them to something they' re restricted to
already. If they applied for a building permit to
7 put a second story on that building, they are here
before us .
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not
interested in the second story; I'm interested in
9 a second addition.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In any case they
10 would need a variance . They' re 23 percent over
lot coverage already. If they put a stoop on this
11 house, they' re before us . So I mean, discussing
restrictions is crazy. I' d like to see them put a
12 second story.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not
13 discussing restrictions . I am discussing
covenants in a deed. There is a major decision or
14 difference between those two things .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But it' s
15 unnecessary, Jerry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it ' s also
16 unnecessary to have a habitable structure in front
of you which is not a habitable structure .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Jerry' s initial
18 question was to ask the applicant to put a
restriction on the house requiring they get a
19 permit before they do it; that was the initial
question, correct, Jerry? I don' t think you can
20 stop someone from building a second story
overnight .
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We have a structure
that doesn' t conform to the 850 square feet and we
22 would like to have people living in at least 850
square feet but on this house, we' re going to say
23 to this house, no, you can' t have 850 square feet .
That doesn' t make any sense at all .
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is not a
house until this Board rules it to be a house .
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree . But don' t
hold them back, don' t say you have to be
November 17, 2005
18
1
i
2 restricted to what' s not conforming to the code .
If the person wants to bring it up to the code,
3 well, that' s better don' t you think?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:< Jim, there is a
4 vast difference between 850 square feet and what
this house represents at this time . And that is
5 it, it' s probably less than half .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 470 .
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s low.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All I am asking
7 for is a covenant on the deed which says there
shall be no further construction.
8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You mean expansion?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What if they wanted to
9 come up? Jim' s right, they have to come before us
anyway, no matter what they do, Jerry.
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's fine, but
the history has been, although it may be a
11 subsequent owner, unfortunately there have been no
applications before any boards .
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That' s what Jerry' s
initial question was, is there something we can
13 put in place to require them to get a permit
before they build. I don' t think there is .
14 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You can
require whatever you want in way of covenants, but
15 if you' re duplicating whatever' s already in the
code or what' s in the law it really doesn' t add
16 very much. If you wanted to limit what they could
do in the future to the property, sort of on the
17 merits, you could certainly do that . It would be
a policy decision on yours whether you wish to
18 hamstring the property that way. There may be
ways to make the property better, and if you are
19 restricting that, you may be doing something you
don' t wish to, but that' s up to the Board as a
20 policy decision as to what they want to see done .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I was going to ask
you what exactly is the square footage?
23 MS . TOTH: Just under 500 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 470 I thought I saw,
24 Jim.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s with the
25 deck, right?
MS . TOTH: According to the Building
November 17, 2005
19
1
2 Department it' s 335 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s without the
3 deck?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s without the
4 deck. But the 375 is what the Town would count as
livable space . A house has to have enough rooms
5 inside heated, 850 square feet . So it' s 375 ,
right?
6 MS . TOTH: If you' re including your deck.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you' re including
7 your deck I thought it was more.
MS . TOTH: I figured out the square
8 footage by the as-built plans, I show the dwelling
as 364 . 89 , and I show the deck at 175 . So that' s
9 actual figures right from the plan.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So the 364 is
10 livable space and the deck is 175 . All right . I
have no further questions other than the place has
11 been fixed up pretty nice . ;
MS'. TOTH: They did a nice job, but he
12 should have done it correctly.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s the crux of
13 our problem, that' s what Jerry' s talking about,
the enforcement .
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There needs to be a
stricter as-built code .
15 MS . TOTH: I agree . Unfortunately your
hands are tied. People can go do whatever they
16 want on a weekend, and you have no control over
it .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, you do . It' s
just the Town chooses not to take that avenue .
18 That' s all I have .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The owner has to
19 ask if the building permit' s required before they
do the work.
20 MS . TOTH: That too, I agree . Ignorance
is --
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No excuse . Is there
anyone in this audience that wishes to speak- on
22 this application? Yes, ma' am?
MS . DUNBAR: Good morning, Board, I 'm Jill
23 Dunbar. I just want you to know that I agree with
Mr. Dinizio . It will be greatly enhanced, most
24 people who are looking at it want to make it a
bigger structure . They don' t want to do anything
25 wrong, they want an 800 square foot house, like
Dan Finney' s that' s being built next door.
November 17, 2005
20
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there
anyone else who would like to speak? I' ll make a
3 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
4 (See minutes for resolution. )
--- ----------------------------------------------
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is the
Cheryl Hansen Revocable Trust on Elizabeth Lane,
6 Southold. Yes, ma' am.
MS . HANSEN: Hi, I'm Cheryl Hansen and I'm
7 requesting to put a two-car garage on the
property. And I was denied the first time because
8 the configuration of the property does not allow
us to put the garage in the rear of the house . So
9 the only place we can put it is where we have it
erected.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s the one where
all the boats are now. Okay, Jerry, you go
11 first .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Hansen, how
12 close is that to the property line of your
neighbor?
13 MS . HANSEN: I think it' s five
feet . That' s a, cousin of mine, very good cousin.
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How high is the
garage?
15 MS . HANSEN: I came down yesterday. I
think we changed it to the most 16 . The reason I
16 had it 14 . 5, but the slope in the ground, it' s
going to be the same size as the house, it will
17 not be any higher.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s really not
18 attached to the house except for that stoop?
MS . HANSEN: That will go, that' s just a
19 little attachment that was put on that had the
gas, propane tanks in there .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So I would
suggest placing to the Board the normal
21 restrictions, that it only be used for storage,
and it will only contain the utility of
22 electricity?
MS . HANSEN: Yes .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Did I understand that
25 the distances from the canal which requires a
variance is not in fact not as close to the canal
November 17, 2005
21
1
2 as the corner of the house is?
MS . HANSEN: Yes, it' s 71 feet back. You
3 can see the house jets out in the front there, and
that' s maybe 13 feet more . So it still conforms
4 the line of the house, sets back 13 feet from the
line of the house .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to speak on this application?
7 (See minutes for resolution. )
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken. )
8 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
9 Ellen McNeilly for a dormer. Miss McNeilly.
MS . MCNEILLY: Good morning, Madam
10 Chairman, and Members of the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to
11 tell us? You' re just putting a dormer up. I see
you 'have a model there, show it to Jerry.
12 MS . MCNEILLY: This is what the house is
currently. This is what I received a variance
13 for.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what you
14 had the excavation for?
MS . MCNEILLY: Exactly. I made an error
15 literally. We were still discussing, which is why
we had these two models, as to how we were going
16 to do this, what we liked. So it was either leave
it the way it is, which looks as if a chomp has
17 been taken out of it or put a second bedroom.
Well, there is already two bedrooms in the house .
18 There' s one small one back here, and a larger one
here (indicating) . The question was if we made
19 _.that into a hallway and then put another bedroom,
making this a hallway and closets and this one
20 another bedroom to match the size of that one, the
house would look more balanced and wouldn' t be
21 looking strange in my opinion. This is the
amount, four feet in from here that is past the
22 setback. The setback is 5' 3" here, 6 ' 4 " there,
which was your I think original comment to me at
23 that point . So this is the amount that would
exceed:
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only
objection I have, or the only concern I have is
25 water runoff and the only request is that gutters
be installed on that side and dry wells . It' s the
November 17, 2005
22
1
2 only concern I have .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It does make your house
3 more balanced.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell
4 you that it is so impressive to see a model .
MS . MCNEILLY: Dry wells and gutters .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Expanding on
6 Mr. Goehringer' s, is there room for your dry
wells? You' d have to plumb it into the back?
7 MS . MCNEILLY: I don' t know, can it not
be?
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to go four
9 feet away from the house, but you can go to the
side .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the audience
wish to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll
13 make a motion to close the hearing and reserve
decision for later.
14 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
Montauk Bus Service on Commerce Drive in
16 Cutchogue . Yes, sir.
MR. RUSSO: Good morning, my name is Eric
17 Russo . I 'm with the law firm of VanBrunt, Juzwiak
& Russo with offices at 150 Main Street in
18 Sayville . I 'm representing Montauk Bus Service,
Inc . , at 556 Mastic Beach Road, Mastic Beach, New
19 York, who is the proposed tenant at the subject
property if approvals are received from the Town
20 of Southold and a contract vendee of the subject
property. The property owner is the Tide Group,
21 Inc . , at 275 Cardinal Drive in Mattituck and the
property is zoned Light Industrial District
22 according to your code under 100-140 . It ' s vacant
land at the present time and it is the newly
23 formed North Fork Industrial Park.
The property is at 115 Commerce Drive in
24 Cutchogue, and it' s about 1, 095 feet northeast of
the corner of Corporate Road. It' s 1 . 083 acres in
25 size or 47, 166 square feet . There is Suffolk
County Water available to the site . The water
November 17, 2005
23
1
2 main has just been brought down through that area.
We are presently making application to the Water
3 Authority. There are Suffolk County Health
Department applications pending for the sanitary
4 design. We have just received comments from them.
We are in compliance with Article 6 . We have also
5 made application for the above-ground 5 , 000 tank,
which is proposed for the bus fueling at this
6 particular location. We anticipate approvals on
all those applications as the process continues .
7 We are seeking today a special exception
under 100-141 B6 for a proposed bus terminal use
8 and related building areas . There is a building
proposed on the site of approximately 3 , 000 square
9 feet . It' s 50 by 60 in size . The property' s
situated on what will be an improved, dedicated
10 and maintained Town roadway. And we also affirmed
of all statements that we gave to the Planning
11 Department and the Zoning Board in our application
relating to this particular application.
12 We are in compliance with parking. We are
in compliance with lot coverage according to the
13 code and landscaping. With me today, I also have
Terry Elkowitz, of the firm of Freudenthal & '
14 Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc . who will run
through the 16 criteria that you have outlined in
15 your code, which are the considerations and
matters which this Board must address as it
16 relates to health, safety and welfare and criteria
for granting a' special exception.
17 I, with the request of the applicant,
obtained a traffic report, which we had prepared
18 by RMS Engineering. I have a copy here for the
Board, went through an analysis of the buses and
19 the parking on the site and the traffic
considerations that would be inherent with this
20 application.
There are proposed 15 drivers, one
21 mechanic, on supervisor which will be utilizing
this facility. Hours of operation are 6 : 00 a .m.
22 to 4 : 30 p.m. The bus drivers will arrive at 6 : 00 .
Buses will leave approximately at 7 : 00., and then
23 they will return again between 9 : 00 and 10 : 00 , and
they will be back between 1 : 00 and 2 : 30 in the
24 afternoon to take the vehicles from the site and
then return the buses between 4 : 00 and 4 : 30 .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What are the buses
going to be used for?
November 17, 2005
24
1
2 MR. RUSSO : For the Mattituck School
District, Madam Chair.
3 I have a letter here and copies for the
Board, which was provided by Kenny Aldrich, the
4 superintendent of schools . This is the original
letter for the record. And the letter basically
5 indicates that Mr. Mensch, John Mensch, who is the
president of the company, has been retained with a
6 contract with the Mattituck School District to
provide bus service here and the contract took
7 place for the 2005-2006 year, commencing as of
July 1, 2005 .
8 Presently the operation is being situated
on school grounds, they' re not on at this
9 location. But he is supporting this application.
In this he was of the impression that there would
10 be a temporary office here at the time . However
that application after discussion with the Town
11 attorney was modified. We've decided to go
through with a full commercial site plan
12 application, secure a building permit, then get a
CO, and then bring the buses to the site . It' s
13 our hope that this process will be completed' in
time and the contract will be extended and this
14 will go forward for next year as well .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Does that
15 exhaust the capacity of the site? Or if you got
contracts with other schools is there extra room
16 to fill up more of the site?
MR. RUSSO: In this particular location
17 it' s just for the Mattituck School District .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But is there
18 excess capacity on the site?
MR. RUSSO: We only have 16 buses, we' re
19 proposing 15 at this particular location.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Those are all
20 used in the Mattituck district?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They' re going to be
21 dedicated towards Mattituck.
MR. RUSSO: This particular location will
22 be exclusively dedicated to Mattituck.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: My only
23 concern is if the Mattituck contract used up, for
example, half the capacity of the site, then we
24 would have concerns about future impacts that are
not addressed here .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And they' re all going
to be kept outside . There' s no building to house
November 17 , 2005
25
1
2 these buses in?
MR. RUSSO: That' s correct . If you have
3 look at the site plan that we presented to the
Planning Department, the rear of the property, it
4 is shown on the site plan that we have a buffer
planting presently around the perimeter with the
5 entrance at the end of the street there . And once
you come onto the site you will first pass the
6 parking that is required for the drivers, the
supervisor, the mechanic, and then behind that or
7 I guess to the left is the fueling pump, and then
behind that is where the buses are stored.
8 This is a copy of the traffic report . I
have taken the liberty of highlighting what I
9 provided two additional ones, which basically
indicate that they evaluated them in light of
10 traffic standards, and there is compliance and
that there would be no impact as related to that
11 particular --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Where are the buses
12 currently being stored?
MR. RUSSO: In the school district
13 grounds .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Where is that
14 property?
MR. RUSSO: Just east of this property on
15 the other side of the dump .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s just a barn.
16 MR. RUSSO: If there are no other
questions of me at this time, I' d like to have
17 Miss Elkowitz come forward. She' s appeared before
this Board on numerous occasions to testify and
18 just run through the points as they relate to your
code . We also have the engineer available, James
19 DeLuca from Riverhead, if there are any questions
about the site or its design. But we won' t go
20 into that because that' s more appropriately held
for the Planning Board should this Board grant
21 special exception.
We also did have the ability to review the
22 comments that were received at around quarter to
5 : 00 last evening from the Planning Board chair,
23 where they outlined what the concerns were as to
this application and four points . But as to those
24 particular points, many of those requests that
they were seeking, we haven' t made that
25 application because if this Board doesn' t grant
this special exception, we would not necessarily
November 17, 2005
26
1
2 make those applications . But I'm sure if this
Board should grant it, we can apply and address
3 all of those concerns that are outlined.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just one other
4 question, what type of landscaping are you going
to be doing on this property especially facing
5 Route 48?
MR. RUSSO: If you look at the site plan
6 before you, it shows that we have perimeter
landscaping, the perimeter landscaping indicates
7 on the plan that we are required to have 25
percent landscape coverage . We' re showing 29
8 percent . At the moment what is being proposed is
in compliance with the code in terms of the types
9 of plantings that are there . There is a 50 foot
buffer that runs from the rear of the property to
i0 Deep Hole Lane, which is the requirement as part
of the subdivision, and then there is land behind
11 that . If the Planning Board at the time of the
site plan asks us to augment that, we' d be happy
12 to do that, and we' ll address it during site plan
review.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm really concerned
being that Route 48 is really still a very
14 pleasant road to drive with the open roads and
what have you, and this is really our first
15 application for the use of that light industrial
piece of property. And I would like to see that
16 it is properly screened in so that it would be
hidden from view because I'm sure people don' t
17 want to look at a lot of buses or a lot of storage
buildings hitting them in the eye, as you can' t
18 even see the landfill, which is completely
screened-in. So I would hope that the other
19 people in that piece of property would follow
suit .
20 MR. RUSSO: We understand your concern and
it also will be addressed as part of Miss
21 Elkowitz' presentation, but we do not front on the
County Road out there, and if there are not other
22 questions at this time, I' d like Miss Elkowitz to
come forward.
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Before you run, a
quick question on your traffic study, I beg to
24 differ on your traffic study, although you didn' t
do it . I can' t see how it' s not going to increase
25 traffic in regards to County Road 48 when all the
buses are coming back typically at about the same
November 17, 2005
27
1
2 time . I don' t think there'-s enough turning lane
to make a left, which would be going eastbound
3 which would be turning north to get back into this
section. You' ll have five buses stacked up on 48 ,
4 which you' ll leave the turning lane now you' ll be
on 48 . Because they all seem to congregate about
5 the same time . They all drop off around the same
time and they all come back. And they have no
6 light, so now you' re subject to trying to get the
buses through to make your left-hand turn and
7 going north to get back onto Commerce . I see that
being a major problem.
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No because the
entry to that development is halfway up that road.
9 MR. RUSSO : Your concern is on the County
Road, but once again, these buses are going to be
10 out there making their individual routes . They' re
going to be going out approximately the same time,
11 but depending on the length of the route, the
return time is going to be different .
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I drop off my
children every day of school, and all the busses
13 seem to leave within a minute of each other.
They' re all going to go back to wherever they
14 congregate . So they are all going to eventually
get there and with the North Road getting busier
15 and busier, I see them stacking up there on 48
trying to make a left-hand turn, which is going to
16 be a hazard for them, luckily there will be no
children on board, as well as the other people .
17 MR. RUSSO: I would like to introduce to
you Mr. Mensch, who is the president of Montauk
18 Bus . He can address that question for you.
MR. MENSCH: The schematic right now the
19 way it is right now, whether it be the morning or
the afternoon, the high school is first, then the
20 elementary is second, basically once you complete
your elementary school the majority of the buses
21 would be coming back west along 48 because that' s
basically the population, the way the routes have
22 developed. True, there are going to be some
buses, but basically you' re not going to have that
23 many buses stacked up there .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In other words, you' re
24 saying they' re coming further east to Cutchogue
and then making the turn perhaps at Cox Lane at
25 the light and coming down.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t see in the
November 17, 2005
28
1
2 letter any future to put a light up at that
intersection.
3 MR. RUSSO: In order to address the light,
it would have to be a recommendation from the
4 county that they would want to see a light at that
particular location. If you recall, this is an
5 industrial subdivision that has been developed
here within the town, one of the few industrial
6 subdivisions that the Town has created, and at
this point that will have to flow as the
7 development within the subdivision ensues . It' s
not something with this one particular use, and
8 with the town, you have the landfill there where
they' re doing the wood chipping and processing.
9 Right now the traffic there at that location is
diminimus .
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The reason they
stopped that left-hand turn going north into the
11 landfill, because people were getting killed
there . It' s a bad intersection. Now you' re
12 making buses trying to make that same turn, which
are three times longer than a car. I have a
13 concern for safety.
MR. RUSSO: I can have Mr. Muller, who
14 prepared this traffic report, if you would like a
more detailed response, I can have him go into
15 that for you.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did they actually
16 speak to the county in regards to this?
MR. RUSSO: What would happen normally in
17 the site plan process when we go to the Planning
Board and are looking to address the site plan
18 approval, the County would receive a copy of this
application and Suffolk County DPW and the County
19 Planning Commission would be notified and be able
to respond to whatever those concerns are and they
20 would be addressed in that process .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also, sir, it would not
21 hurt, we have a transportation commission here in
the Town, and you can ask the Town Clerk for the
22 chairman' s number to run it by the transportation
commission might be a good idea.
23 MR. RUSSO: Certainly.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Also, what is the
24 day to day operations here on this site .
Obviously the buses going back and forth, the
25 mechanic on site, fueling up at night or in the
morning. What about washing the buses? Are they
November 17, 2005
29
1
2 going to be washing the buses at the site?
MR. RUSSO: I' ll have Mr. Mensch mention
3 that because he' s presently running bus operations
further up-island from this area, in the
4 Mastic-Shirley area, in the Hampton Bays area and
in Ronkonkoma.
5 MR. MENSCH: As part of our Board of
Health we have to put a holding tank basically,
6 which is constructed out of a slab and then
basically the wash water, the soap, detergent goes
7 into that then we have to have that trucked away.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you have a
8 holding tank for when you wash your buses?
MR. MENSCH: Yes, you can' t let it run
9 into the ground. It' s illegal anymore so as part
of our Board of Health permit we have to include
10 that .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So you have a
11 containment area where you wash your buses and all
the grease, dirt .
12 MR. MENSCH: Which goes into a box
basically. You have to have a licensed contractor
13 come in a pull it out . And I believe they take it
up to Bergen Point . You have to have it
14 registered. The DOT will be required to come in
there bi-annually to inspect the buses, inspect
15 the facility and record that . Everything from
batteries to oil, you' re limited to what you can
16 do on that facility.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : What about
17 lighting; are you going to put around the clock
lighting, are you going to have large lights?
18 MR. MENSCH: Yes, sir, and I guess the
applicant that was before us is going to have
19 security right next to me with the storage .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We do have a lighting
20 ordinance too to make sure they' re shielded
because we don' t want people driving up Route 48
21 and suddenly be blasted.
MR. RUSSO: Mr. Orlando, we do have a
22 copy, our engineer, James DeLuca, did bring with
us today a copy of the type of lighting that is
23 proposed for this application, which would be part
of the site plan review. It is in compliance with
24 the Town code requirements and it' s down lighted
and would not have any infusion restrictions as it
25 relates to beyond the site . And it would all be
self-contained. If you want a copy of the spec, I
November 17, 2005
30
1
2 can provide it for you. I have it with me if
you' re interested in seeing it .
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Please .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Orlando, I
4 just want to mention something. Originally this
was, the original proposal said Mattituck School
5 District, it' s of course, Mattituck-Cutchogue
School District and for everybody' s benefit
6 Sunrise Bus decided not to, very simply, service
Mattituck-Cutchogue School District, which is why
7 I suspect this nice gentleman is here . However,
with the idea that mentioning the aspects of the
8 traffic study, I just want to tell you that the
major renovation in Mattituck-Cutchogue School
9 District, although we have a major renovation
going on in the high school, was the East
10 Cutchogue School . And that East Cutchogue School
does lie just east of Cox Lane, where there is a
11 traffic light on the Main Road and there is a
traffic light on County Road 48 . So even though
12 it may look like most of the traffic is going to
be coming from the west, there will be a great
13 variety of buses coming from the east also. And
they would probably, if I was a bus driver
14 certainly go down Cox Lane and take the liberty of
enjoying that particular route coming back from
15 the east to the west . So yes, you' re absolutely
correct there will be stacking in the west going
16 east making that left turn, but there is also
going to be a huge variety of no stacking using
17 the left-hand turn lane on Cox Lane coming back.
And hopefully the study will indicate that . Or
18 whatever Mr. Muller intends to say regarding that?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: All right, I 'm not
19 sold on it yet . Safety is an issue, safety of
these people that could be in this accident . So
20 we have a great -concern. Also this is a big
venture for a one-year contract. Is there
21 multiple years on this?
MR. RUSSO : Yes, there are .
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How long has
Montauk Bus been servicing Mattituck-Cutchogue?
23 MR. MENSCH: This is our first year. We
have been in business for 35 years, servicing 19
24 different school districts .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So if this one year
25 comes up, and they choose not to renew you, you
would have to go elsewhere with these buses?
November 17, 2005
31
1
2 MR. MENSCH: That would be correct . But
basically we would not want to renew the contract
3 if we could not properly store our equipment
because of the cost of fuel, it' s quite expensive .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re doing a
major build-out ; you' re buying this piece of
5 property, correct?
MR. MENSCH: That' s correct .
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So you' re committed
to this, so whether you service
7 Mattituck-Cutchogue or Rocky Point, you' re going
to be servicing someone .
8 MR. MENSCH: We' re going to be here for a
long time . If this is approved we will probably
9 extend this contract five more years .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But is it up to you
10 or up to the school to extend it?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Why are you having all
11 the buses outside, if it snows what happens?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They close school .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not with two inches,
but enough that your buses have to get in and out
13 what have you, slushy, icy conditions and you
don' t have any cover for the buses?
14 MR. MENSCH: We operate approximately 350
school buses on eastern Long Island and none of
15 them are garaged. We just have to have people
clean them off . It' s too expensive to put them
16 inside .
MR. RUSSO : With that, I would allow with
17 your permission, to proceed with Miss Elkowitz .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I just want to add a
18 comment . I share Mr. Orlando' s concern about the
traffic, but it isn' t clear to me that this is
19 within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of
Appeals . I am glad that there are other agencies,
20 which will presumably, if they are doing their
legally mandated jobs, attend to those things
21 themselves .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It should come up with
22 the SEQRA process with the Planning Board. Yes,
ma' am?
23 MS . ELKOWITZ : Good morning Madam
Chairman, Members of the Board, for the record my
24 name is Terry Elkowitz . I'm a principal of the
firm Freudenthal and Elkowitz Consulting Group,
25 with offices at 368 Veterans Memorial Highway in
Commack. I'm just going to put up in front of you
November 17, 2005
32
1
2. an aerial photograph. I'm sure you' re familiar
with the site, but as I refer to what' s
3 surrounding the property, it might be helpful to
have this . I also have hand-outs of aerial photos
4 just for the record.
As Mr. Russo explained to you, I 'm the
5 lucky one who gets to go through the 16 criteria
set forth in your code with regard to the granting
6 of a special exception permit . But I would just
like to very quickly go over the character of this
7 neighborhood. Mr. Russo has explained to you that
it is within an improved industrial subdivision.
8 It' s zoned LI, to the west are undeveloped
properties immediately within the subdivision,
9 followed -,by agricultural uses . To the east is
undeveloped property within the overall
10 subdivision. This goes to a question of
Chairperson Oliva, she was asking about the
11 buffering that we were going to have along CR 48 .
There is another parcel of the subdivision between
12 this property and CR 48 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know that .
13 MS . ELKOWITZ : What my client is proposing
to do is to fence his property and also put
14 evergreen vegetation along it and obviously
whatever details that the Planning Board would
15 like, the applicant is willing to comply with the
vegetation requests .
16 To the north is undeveloped property, a
recharge basin, the composting facility; as you go
17 further north there' s a tiny strip residential,
and then the landfill that the chairperson
18 identified.
Immediately to the south is Deep Hole
19 Lane, which provides access into the subdivision
and then there is agricultural land.
20 Now the first criterion that you are
supposed to require and we are supposed to comply
21 with is that the character of the existing and
probable development of uses in the district, and
22 the peculiar suitability of such district for the
location of any such permitted uses . I have just
23 testified to you that this is within an approved
industrial subdivision. It is going to be
24 surrounded by industrial uses . It' s in the LI
district . So I respectfully submit to you it
25 would not alter the established character of the
area.
November 17, 2005
33
1
2 The second is the conservation of property
values and the encouragement of the most
3 appropriate uses of land. Again, given the
surrounding uses, we don' t believe it would
4 adversely affect property values .
The third is the effect that the location
5 of the proposed use and the location at entrances
and exits may have upon the creation or undo
6 increase of vehicular traffic congestion on public
streets . All of the access is going to be
7 confined along Commerce Drive, which is the
internal access and certainly we heed
8 Mr. Orlando' s concerns with regards to the
operation of CR 48 .
9 The next is the availability of adequate
and proper public or private water supplies and
10 facilities for the treatment, removal or discharge
of sewage, refuse or other effluent that may be
11 caused or created as a result of the use . You
have heard that Suffolk County Water Authority
12 will supply water. We will have an onsite
sanitary system that in all ways will comply with
13 Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code .
The depth to groundwater is in excess of 44 feet,
14 so there is adequate leaching potential on this
site .
15 We also will have solid waste collected by
a private carter and as Mr. Mensch explained to
16 you any waste oil or waste material from wash down
will be handled by a licensed hauler.
17 The next is whether the use or the
materials incidental thereto or produced thereby
18 may give off obnoxious odors, gasses, smoke or
soot . The only emissions are those with typical
19 bus start ups, and there are very stringent
regulations with regard to bus emissions that are
20 promulgate by New York state . Mr. Mensch is
required to comply with them and there are
21 bi-annual state inspections of his buses .
The next is whether the use will cause
22 disturbing emissions of electrical discharges,
dust, light, vibration or noise. There will be no
23 electrical discharges, dust because it will be
paved, or vibration. With regard to light, Mr.
24 Orlando, that was a question I asked myself, and I
have been assured that the lighting will be fully
25 compliant with the Town of Southold and will be
shielded so you will not have a diffusion of light
November 17, 2005
34
1
2 off the subject property.
With regards to noise, Mr. Mensch is also
3 required to comply with the Suffolk County
standard, which I learned about by doing this
4 project, that you are not permitted to idle buses
for more than five minutes .
5 The next criteria is whether the operation
and pursuance of the use will cause undo
6 interference with the orderly enjoyment of the
public of parking or of recreational facilities .
7 There are no public parking or recreational
facilities in the vicinity of this site .
8 The next is the necessity for a tuminus
surface space parking, as I have explained to you,
9 it' s going to be completely paved.
The next is whether a hazard to life, limb
10 or property because of' fire, flood, erosion or
panic may be created. It' s not in a flood zone;
11 the building will comply with all building code
requirements, and with regard to panic, this is
12 not a site that is going to be highly occupied.
It' s certainly not residential, it' s only
13 employees .
The next is whether the use or structures
14 to be used therefore will cause an overcrowding of
land or an undo concentration of population. And
15 as I explained to you, the only people that will
be on the site are the employees .
16 The next is whether the plot area is
sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the use
17 and reasonably anticipated operation and expansion
thereof . Mr. Mensch has already explained to you
18 the issue . This is not an expansion sort of
issue. These buses are specifically for the
19 Mattituck-Cutchogue School District; no other
operations will take place on this site .
20 Moreover, I' d like to point out to you that the
plot area is more than sufficient . The limit of
21 lot coverage in the LI zone is 30 percent, and we
are proposing 7 . 5 percent .
22 The next criterion is whether the use to
be operated is unreasonably near to a church,
23 school, theater, recreational area or other place
of public assembly. There are none in the
24 vicinity of the site .
The next is whether the site of the
25 proposed use is particularly suitable; I think I
have testified to this with regard to the
November 17, 2005
35
1
2 character of the neighborhood several, times .
The next is whether adequate buffer yards
3 and screening can and will be provided, as we have
explained there' s a buffer along the front, and we
4 will put buffer vegetation along all of our fence
lines .
5 The next is whether adequate provision can
and will be made for the collection and disposal
6 of storm water runoff sewage, refuse and other
liquid, solid or gaseous wastes . With regard to
7 storm water runoff, we are going to install dry
wells as there are calculations on the plan. As I
8 have explained to you the depth to groundwater is
approximately 44 feet . So there is adequate
9 separation between the bottom of the dry wells and
the water table to allow the proper filtration.
10 And sewage is obviously on-site sanitary in
accordance with Article 6 , and again, solid waste
11 will be collected by a private hauler.
The next is whether the natural
12 characteristics of the site are such that the use
may interfere with them. The property has
13 basically successional vegetation on it, and there
are no wetlands . It' s in an approved subdivision.
14 The soils are suitable, as I have explained
several times, the depth to groundwater is
15 sufficient . So I would respectfully submit to you
that this will not adversely affect any natural
16 resources in the area.
So basically I would submit to you that
17 the granting of this application would comply with
all the requirements of Sections 100-263 and 264
18 of the code which set forth the requirements for
the granting of the special exception.
19 If you have any questions, I' ll be happy
to answer them.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only concern
21 I have always had is going number one, meaning
this Board going number one before any of the
22 Planning Board aspects are completed -- and, in
fact, it' s questionable to you Miss Elkowitz and
23 to Mr. Russo -- we have had in the past to reopen
these applications to add some different
24 situations that the Planning Board may have
thought of or the possibility that the Zoning
25 Board may not be totally overjoyed with the entire
screening aspect . In the past, in applications
November 17, 2005
36
1
2 that don' t concern special exceptions, we have
reserved the right to enhance the screening, so
3 there may be issues that we may be discussing with
the Town attorney between now and the time we
4 actually vote on this application or the
Chairperson, I'm not putting her in the hot seat,
5 say we' re holding it in abeyance until such time
that you have further meetings with the Planning
6 Board regarding this application -- I don' t
know.
7 MR. RUSSO: The memo that I addressed to
you was the memo that we received last evening
8 late in the day as to the Planning Board' s
concerns . All of the applications that are cited
9 in there -- there were four points pointed out in
the memo -- all of the applications are in
10 process . We did not, as I indicated, file the
Planning Board application in its .totality because
11 we weren' t clear whether or not this Board would
be granting the special exception, and to incur
12 those expenses without knowing that we were
allowed to proceed is why we didn' t go there . If
13 this Board wanted to grant the special exception
knowing that it could go forward reserving the
14 right to come back or review it again, we would be
happy to consent to that .
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
say this to you in general . I am a resident of
16 the Mattituck-Cutchogue School District . I have
never taught in the Mattituck-Cutchogue School
17 District, I hold a teacher' s license to teach in
any school district in the state of New York, and
18 I am certainly not adverse in any way to this
application, but I only have voiced those concerns
19 that I just mentioned.
MR. RUSSO: And recognize that the prior
20 operator of this particular bus service to the
community passed away within the last 12 months,
21 which is another reason the school district turned
because of the situation to try and bring in
22 another operator to immediately help out . It' s
not the largest school district out here and it is
23 an effort and with the costs incurred to try and
maintain a bus service, this is the reason why
24 they came and went to a reliable company that was
working in several other areas with 35 years of
25 experience to attract them out here, who would
make a commitment to improving what is going on in
November 17, 2005
37
1
2 this particular school district and in the
community, knowing the reputation of that
3 particular company. So I hope that would help
you .
4 I also have for you, which I will pass up,
just the Health Department status, because we are
5 processed and we did receive that, and Miss
Elkowitz' resume an expert to qualify for the
6 testimony under 100-263 and 264 . If there are any
other questions, I ' d be happy to address them.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions .
8 I've raised my concerns .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No other questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I think that
granting this special exception as applied for
11 wouldn' t be adverse to anything against the town
and that this is probably the only place in town
12 that you could have a bus terminal . They simply
just aren' t allowed in other areas . As far as
13 screening, requiring additional screening, I
understand these are yellow buses and they' re not
14 going to look the best, but I 'm sure they' re going
to be kept clean. And in all honesty, they' re
15 yellow buses, we' d probably have to have 14 or 15
foot trees to hide those buses, and I think that' s
16 a burden we shouldn' t be imposing on an industrial
area next to a landfill, next to a storage place
17 and whatever else is there, Tom' s place, which is
grinding stumps and everything else . So I would
18 like to see this Board grant it as applied.
I just have a question concerning the use
19 of this. Say that the contract falls through,
would there be any -- could this be, and maybe you
20 would have to describe it to me -- like the Omni
over in- Southampton where you have passengers,
21 people coming and boarding buses at this building
you have here and shipping them off to
22 Pennsylvania or what have you?
MR. RUSSO: If you read your code section
23 under 100-141 it describes your land use
regulations and outlines all the uses that would
24 be permitted. When you look at the criterion
here, it says that it' s truck or bus terminals for
25 garages, parking facilities and loading docks . It
does not indicate that it could be a
November 17, 2005
38
1
2 transportation terminal in which people could come
and have to be able to park their car or be
3 dropped off and then in turn go from that point to
points west .
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t think that
transportation terminal is defined in our code .
5 MR. RUSSO: No. But I would certainly
indicate that if someone came to the Town of
6 Southold, if the bus transportational facility was
terminated for whatever reason, whoever was going
7 to move forward and try and invest in acquiring
the property for a different use, would have to
8 come into the Planning Department, the Building
Department and discuss what that proposed use is
9 and seek a change of use or a site plan amendment
to accommodate that . This parking on the site is
10 strictly related to the size of the building, to
the number of employees that are coming to and
11 from. This is not a use that is going to generate
visitors to the site . Even the school district if
12 it came would only come on an annual basis or
semi-annual basis to inspect that everything' s in
13 order, and that they' re getting adequate service .
This is not something whereby you would have other
14 than employees coming there or people who are
coming in for interview.
15 So my response to you would be that they
would have to be back to the Town, not maybe
16 necessarily to you, but to the Town to seek a
change of use and modify whatever' s going on on
17 the site .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t see that in
18 our code, honestly. I think once we grant this it
could be a bus terminal . But that' s not for you
19 to guarantee us, that' s for us to clarify.
MR. RUSSO: I think that' s something you
20 would have to discuss with your legal counsel and
Town attorneys .
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Say in our decision
we place something like that, this is for school
22 bus use only.
MR. RUSSO: That' s fine. It wouldn' t be a
23 problem for the applicant . It' s a concern, it' s a
meritorious concern and I don' t believe that would
24 be an issue .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You could
25 limit the grant or the permit or the exception to
the use as applied for.
November 17, 2005
39
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t want it
restricted just to Mattituck. I don' t want us to
3 say it' s just for Mattituck, and it benefits them.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They could go
4 to Greenport .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I' d like to see
5 them come to Greenport . I grew up with Mr. Brown,
and I knew them very well, competition is good.
6 It' s nice to have another place. That' s what I 'm
trying to get at . I don' t want to restrict them
7 in any way, that' s what this is for.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
8 the audience who would like to comment on this
application? If not, I' d like to make a motion to
9 close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
10 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------- -----------------
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Barton and Pat Johnson, Bayview Drive, East
12 Marion. Is there anyone who would like to speak
on behalf of this application? For a demo and
13 reconstruction of a home .
MS . STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman, Samuels and
14 Steelman Architects . I will be very brief on this
one . We have received a Trustees permit for this
15 property. I have a copy for your file, if you
would like it . Basically to give a very brief
16 overview on this application, we are seeking a
variance because we are encroaching within the 75
17 feet of the bulkhead. There is an existing house
currently on the property. It' s approximately now
18 59 feet from the bulkhead. We have basically
maintained this house, the new house to be in that
19 same general area. We' re not encroaching any
closer to that area. The house was built, the
20 original house was built approximately the end of
the 1940s . It' s been a very long time . It' s a
21 very dense community. A lot of the houses are
very close to the bulkheads . The adjacent
22 neighbor' s house is 47 feet off the existing
concrete wall . So we' re looking for relief on
23 this, but we don' t feel like we' re creating any
additional problems in that area. If I can answer
24 any questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm familiar with the
25 area, they are all bunched together. Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. It looks like,
November 17, 2005
40
1
2 what is that an outdoor shower on the property
line?
3 MS . STEELMAN: Yes, that' s all going, that
is all part of the existing house.
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s all I have .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions at this
time .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I saw the site . It
7 is a unique piece of property. I can see why
you' re going to cock the house logistically
8 wise . I was trying to get an idea as I was
looking at it, the old versus new, but it seems
9 the majority of the new house will be seaward side
of the existing except for that one little corner.
10 MS . STEELMAN: Yes . One little corner and
we' re 70 feet on the far corner on the southeast
11 side .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It says new
12 terrace, and that' s consisted of a grade, pergola
above it?
13 MS . STEELMAN: Right on grade, no pergola,
no structures other than just that little terrace
14 that is seaward of the house .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s on grade of
15 the patio, and it' s a total demo .
MS . STEELMAN: Yes . On grade with the
16 patio and a total demo.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions .
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Footprint will be
slightly different? New foundation?
18 MS . STEELMAN: Yes, new foundation, the
house is so old, it doesn' t make sense to reuse
19 the foundation.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was to the •
site, I personally would have centered it more on
21 the property, but you' re not denied for side yard
so there' s nothing we can say about that .
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think the grade
kept them seaward because of the topography of
23 that one .
MS . STEELMAN: Right . It' s a good almost
24 12 feet same the high point of the site to the
bulkhead. And we' re really. trying to keep it in
25 that same general area otherwise we' d be
excavating further into that hill .
November 17, 2005
41
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to comment on this
3 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
4 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
Michael Zevits down on West Lane for a new
6 house . Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
7 Environmental Consulting for the applicant,
Michael Zevits . I 'm just going to pass up two
8 items here and work through this as quickly as I
can.
9 This is an application that seeks variance
relief in a number of areas to accommodate a 1, 260
10 square foot house with a front deck. We' re
seeking a variance from Little Peconic Bay Road.
11 We should be 11 feet off that . There is a 50 foot
right of way that comes across the property to the
12 north. The lot is an approximate half acre lot .
And there' s a variance of 29 feet from the front
13 porch to the 50 foot right of way.
What we' re doing in this application is
14 we' re trying to treat Little Peconic Bay Road as a
side yard. The Little Peconic Bay Road is
15 actually a gravel driveway, and the 50 foot right
of way you see there is really where the actual
16 access to the property is and that also is a
driveway. This is part of a four lot development
17 that was created and held by the Zevits family.
Adjacent to the property and to the west is a
18 developed parcel of similar size with a similar
house on it that was built by his brother Joseph.
19 And behind it is another dwelling that is really
the Zevits family house . I've given you an aerial
20 photograph that shows how they set up . The design
on this is to try to create space between the two
21 Zevits brothers so that the family house that sits
behind it will maintain the view it' s always
22 maintained.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : They don' t get
23 along?
MR. ANDERSON: They get along great . And
24 the lot behind it will actually go to the Zevits'
sister, who has no plans to develop it at the
25 present time and may not for many years perhaps,
but this is a four lot division, if you will .
November 17, 2005
42
1
2 It' s created by the family and it will be
maintained in the family, I can' t say forever, but
3 for as long as it possibly can. It was I believe
purchased in the ' 60s for that purpose .
4 There is one affected neighbor, and I
handed up a letter from that affected neighbor who
5 expresses no objection whatsoever. And it' s
important to note that as the side yard of 11 feet
6 that we' ll call it the eastern lot line, that we
wish to treat as 11 feet and encroaching all the
7 way into Little Peconic Bay is heavily vegetated
with cedar trees and that is why there' s really no
8 real visual impediment in doing what we' re asking
do . I had Michael approach his neighbor and make
9 sure that there be no objection and he procured
that letter and I've placed that into the record.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Whose right of way is that and
why is it there?
11 MR. ANDERSON: That right of way belongs
to the Zevitses, and it' s really just a grassed
12 area and there' s a driveway that comes in and just
splits off to the various houses . It' s just their
13 access, access the property to the west . There
really is no access whatsoever from Little Peconic
14 Bay Road nor will there be in the future because
all the four lots enjoy that access . That
15 actually runs to the west and eventually hooks up
with the I guess it' s called the Esplanade, which
16 is the main entrance into Angel Shores development
also to the west of it . The driveway is probably
17 14 feet wide gravel, and it served the community
well . No plans to make it any larger, improve it
18 anymore than it already is improved. Again, the
whole point here is to do a coordinated
19 development among the Zevits family so everyone
can be accommodated.
20 That in a nutshell is our case .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you' re counting that
21 right of way really as your setback to Little
Peconic Bay Road; you' re counting on that 10 foot
22 to add another foot for the setback to Little
Peconic Bay Road?
23 MR. ANDERSON: Right, it' s 11 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? Vincent?
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So according to
your survey and according to your explanation,
25 that right of way is only on that one lot?
MR. ANDERSON: You speak of the 50 foot
November 17, 2005
43
1
2 right of way?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: 10 foot?
3 MR. ANDERSON: The 10 foot right of way
was a pedestrian right of way theoretically for
4 the back lot, which has never been used and never
will be used because it' s maintained in the
5 family, and the family just walks down to the
beach. And we have kids involved, and we have no
6 plans to clear it or do anything with it .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But as you said in
7 the future you can' t predict what will happen, so
Lot 2 , we' ll call it, that' s their right of way to
8 access the beach, if it did change hands .
MR. ANDERSON: Right . By the same token
9 they' d be buying into an existing set of facts . I
highly doubt that this will ever be broken up but
10 theoretically it could, and if that were to
happen, whoever were to purchase the back lot
11 would be purchasing under that set of facts, and
in any event would be able to walk down Peconic
12 Bay Avenue to the bulkhead there .
The final thing that I haven' t mentioned
13 is the deck would be set back from the bulkhead at
63 feet, but that really refers to almost to what
14 is really a bulkhead return, if you will .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s where the
15 access for the stairs were.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes . But those stairs
16 really come off of Little Peconic Bay Road.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is there any reason
17 why they couldn' t shift that house further to the
west, they' re all family?
18 MR. ANDERSON: They' re trying to
accommodate, all the family members are working
19 together, often times you ask me will alternative
relief be acceptable, and the answer is it will .
20 This is just an ideal layout for this development
for this family, and my thinking on it was,
21 although self-created, the real person who would
be impacted would 'be the adjacent property owner
. 22 on Little Peconic Bay Road. So what I said to the
applicant was, if that affected property owner
23 voices no objection, then I 'm prepared to make an
application. If there is going to be an objection
24 then I think the application would be
significantly weakened.
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because they are
putting their driveway furthest west as you can,
November 17, 2005
44
1
2 right against I guess it' s his brother Joseph' s
house . I don' t know how the rest of the Board
3 feels, but I think you need to move it over a
little bit there . This is a new construction.
4 I 'm look in the future, Bruce, in case someone did
sell it, they would have a one foot setback off
5 the right of way in case someone did exercise the
right to clear that and use it on Lot 2 .
6 MR. ANDERSON. I understand that concern.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bruce, do you have a
7 deed for that right of way?
MR. ANDERSON: I believe it would be
8 incorporated into the deed, I would be happy to
supply that .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you, please . But
I would agree with Vincent, if you could move that
10 over a bit .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The right of way runs
11 with the property, right?
MR. ANDERSON: Corect, but from a layout
12 standpoint, it' s almost rather silly, because if
you were on the back undeveloped lot and assuming
13 it was sold, which again, is very much a long shot
considering this was purchased by Mr. Zevits, now
14 deceased, for his kids in the ' 60s, the natural
way to access that area would really be down
15 through Little Peconic Bay Road, that' s where you
would go. It' s a driveway, it' s so easy you have
16 the steps there and a little beach at the road
ending.
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It would be the
right of the person who owned Lot 2 at the time to
18 exercise it if they chose .
MR. ANDERSON. They could go either way.
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, no, that 10
foot right of way enhances that back lot .
20 Certainly it enhances , it because it gives them the
right of way down to the water.
21 MR. ANDERSON: I agree . But the applicant
owns the right of way and the applicant is saying
22 enhancement or not, it' s unimportant to us .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But the importance
23 to us, Bruce, is if someone so chooses that back
lot, so chooses to use that right of way, they
24 have every right to clear 10 feet, which would be
a foot away from the house, if that' s
25 proposed. Can the applicant go five feet away
from that right of way, 15 feet away from the
November 17, 2005
45
1
2 property line?
MR. ANDERSON: Sure they could is the
3 answer.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not a problem
4 as far as cesspools are concerned?
MR. ANDERSON: No. If we' re talking about
5 shifting it over five feet, eight feet, something
like that . '
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It would be four
additional feet . Say you go from 11 to 15 .
7 MR. ANDERSON: In real life that' s not
going to matter. I mean, they've set it this way
8 because it' s ideal . They actually wanted 10 feet,
and I said I really don' t think you should put it
9 on the line, so that' s where the 11 came from.
But quite honestly, if it were 15 feet off the
10 Little Peconic Bay Road, at the end of the day and
in real life, it' s not a significant impact on the
11 overall development .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re not going to
12 be hampered in any way constructing a house in
that area?
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Not a deal breaker.
MR. ANDERSON: No .
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand why
you have the driveway the way it is, because you
15 have all the those leaching pools; you can' t be
driving over those .
16 MR. ANDERSON: Maybe they don' t even put
in the driveway because you have to understand,
17 the Zevits arrive and they just park. It' s a
family compound.
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, say 15 feet
from Little Peconic Bay Boulevard, it won' t hurt
19 the construction of this house?
MR. ANDERSON: No, but it will cause us to
20 amend applications .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It will give you
21 alternative relief .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bruce, were
these lots created by will?
23 MR. ANDERSON: They were initially created
I believe as a subdivision. There was a time
24 where they theoretically merged. This goes back
many years and I believe Mr. Olsen came before the
25 Board to have them unmerged. And that runs with
the land, but then what happened Mr. Zevits, who
November 17, 2005
46
1
2 created the property, passed away. And then the
individual lots were gifted to the kids .
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: By will?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes .
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In 197 they came
before our Board.
5 MR. ANDERSON: That could be because I
believe he died in 195 or so .
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And the applicant
has confirmed substandard lots .
7 MR. ANDERSON: It' s not as substandard as
you think because a 50 foot right of way to access
8 four lots is excessive . That' s what you need for
a major subdivision to access however many lots,
9 20 , 30 , whatever.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
10 MR. ANDERSON: And the right way is kept
free and open and everyone uses it .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
the audience who would like to comment on this
12 application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
13 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Premium Wine Group. Miss Wickham?
15 MS . WICKHAM: Good morning, my name is
Abigail Wickham, and I am representing Premium
.16 Wine Group. I'm here today with Russell Hearn,
who is the manager of this facility and Nancy
17 Steelman, who is the architect . And any of us can
answer any questions that I don' t hit in my
18 presentation.
I think the first thing I would like to
19 do, and I realize you have a long agenda today,
but I ' d like to take a minute to tell you how this
20 facility works . It is a production facility for
the making of wine for vineyards who do not have
21 their own wineries . PWG makes their wines
according to their standard specifications and
22 modifications that the individual vineyards
provides . The grapes come into the facility;
23 they' re crushed; they' re fermented in tanks,
barreled, bottled and shipped out . There is no
24 room for onsite bottle storage . It' s strictly a
production operation. Lieb Vineyards does have a
25 small tasting room in the front of the east
building, but this is not affected by this
November 17, 2005
47
1
2 operation.
If I could just show you the floor plan
3 for the moment . Do you have the site plan in
front of you? The east building contains a crush
4 pad on the rear, that' s the one along Cox Lane .
The tractors or trucks will pull in with the
5 grapes in the rear. They' re unloaded. They put
the grapes through the crushers and the juice is
6 pumped into the tanks, which are located in that
east building, to ferment . There are also tanks
7 located in the center area between the two
buildings which are used for short term storage
8 and fermenting of wine .
The wine that goes into barrels, that
9 operation is handled in the center now between the
two buildings; the barrels are filled and emptied
10 outside . The barrel storage then goes into the
west building, which has a small and what they
11 found to be an inefficient bottling operation in
the front corner.
12 The wine that has to be bottled, which is
in the tanks in the east building, has to be
13 physically pumped out and over to the other
building to the bottling line . Outside sometimes
14 they have to show up in the winter and shovel the
area before they can start their operation.
15 So the purpose of the new building is to
consolidate what goes on in the middle there so
16 the two buildings can have a unified production.
It is not to add more tank space . It is
17 merely to facilitate the production that happens
between the two buildings . Right now they' re
18 opening and closing doorways . They' re doing work
outside . This is an all year round operation, so
19 it has hampered them considerably. So they
basically want to fill in a portion of that center
20 space .
Now the proposed location that we have
21 shown of the -- I ' m going to call it the addition
for now, is actually stepped back six feet from
22 the front line of the building on the Sound Avenue
side . It does have a columned front porch and the
23 roofline comes down to the frontline, and they did
that in order to create an differential facade and
24 make it look nice . But the building itself is
stepped back six feet . What is not shown clearly
25 on the plans that you have is the fact that the
roof that is going to be over that new addition
November 17, 2005
48
1
2 will slope back considerably from Sound Avenue at
a ratio of one foot for each 12 feet . Right now
3 on the front of the building, if you look at it.
from the side, this shed roof projects out towards
4 Sound Avenue . So when you put the building here,
that shed roof is going to be only at a very
5 slight slope as it moves back from the building
over the porch and the front part of the building.
6 Then it will raise at a five to 12 foot ratio . So
when you face that building from Sound Avenue,
7 you' ll see the pitched roof on the west, you' ll
see a setback on the building with the columns and
8 the porch with a very slow roof going away from
you and then it goes up, then a separate
9 pitch. So there are three separate facades that
are created.
10 Also I want to indicate that the visual
impact from Sound Avenue, which is where the
11 frontage is that we' re talking about is
dramatically lessened for a couple of reasons .
12 First of all, the building line is not parallel to
Sound Avenue; it is skewed away from Sound Avenue .
13 The building is completely screened from the east
side by the trees and the vines that are there .
14 And the building if you note is already set back
135 feet from Sound Avenue on the west end and 200
15 feet on the east end, whereas the requirement is
100 feet . We have considered seriously pushing
16 the addition further back to set it back further.
I want to explain to you why that wasn' t
17 proposed because of the method in which the
operation occurs . This is the addition here .
18 Here is Sound Avenue . The addition is this
section here . Right now, in the barrel building,
19 they have their bottling line-up here . As I said,
they' re pumping the wine from the tanks across the
20 open area into the bottling line . The new
bottling line would be here . Originally if it
21 were all flush, it would have had an L-shaped
bottling line room that worked well . They pushed
22 it back further the six feet to try and set back
that building a little bit, so they' re already
23 off-kilter a little bit in that room. If they
push it back any further, they don' t have that
24 flow of bottling area and they lose that tank
space here, and really the only place that these
25 tanks could go is over here behind the crush pad,
and we feel it' s kind of visible to Cox Lane . And
November 17, 2005
49
1
2 right now they' re tucked in behind there and they
don' t show too well .
3 The reason that tank storage is
important -- stainless, I want you to understand
4 they are stainless steel tanks at 15 feet high,
there' s five acres of grapes in each tank, that' s
5 a lot of grape, and to move it back further and to
lose those tanks, they would not be able to
6 accommodate it .
Another alternative that we discussed was
7 pushing the front of the building out on the west
side, so you would have it offset . The reason
8 that didn' t make sense is now you' re pushing the
building closer to the road. We have the legal
9 right to do it, but we don' t think that effects a
good solution, it pushes the building too much
10 closer to the road, and it would also be an
excessive construction cost for the amount of
11 space that you have .
The applicant does have the right to build
12 a separate building in there, which could probably
about be about 58 feet wide . Again, that is not a
13 significantly feasible alternative because they
would have double walls right next to each other,
14 it would be extremely expensive; it would be
inefficient from a heating standpoint; they would
15 need another heating plant; they would still be
going in and out all the time and it just wouldn' t
16 work.
So what we would like to ask the Board is
17 that they consider the alternative that we have
proposed recognizing that the porch recess does
18 create a setback and we would ask the architect,
Nancy Steelman, who as you know is quite talented
19 to do these design features, to come up with a
plan with the Planning Board that they might be
20 able to accommodate that would soften the effect
of that building.
21 The only other thing we would ask is that
if you did make us move the building back, we
22 would want the ability to put those tanks in the
back so we don' t lose 50 acres of grapes
23 basically. And we think that that is not the best
solution, but it could be done .
24 One thing that I think is important to
note is that Sound Avenue travels in terms of
25 visual impact is not focused on the front of that
building as you go by, they' re focused on the
November 17, 2005
50
1
2 intersection. The westbound people, as I say,
won' t see it because of the trees and the vines in
3 front . The eastbound side does see mostly the
west side of that building, and they have put
4 trees up in accordance with their site plan and
buffers . If you wanted more buffer on the west
5 side of the building, we could certainly do that .
I think that the 60 foot law that we' re
6 addressing here was primarily aimed at strip
malls, and the LB zone which we' re in does not
7 allow strip malls . We' re not going to be seeing
that kind of usage . We' re not going to have
8 retail traffic . We' re not going to have people
going by trying to see how many different stores
9 are in there, and the building have three
different segments that are architecturally
10 dissimilar, it' s not a straight line of a
building.
11 What I want to address next, and fairly
briefly, is the economics of this expansion and
12 why they need it, so you can understand why it' s
important to the facility. The winery is designed
13 to accommodate the production of small vineyards .
It is designed to accommodate 500 acres of grapes .
14- The average vineyard size that they accommodate is
between 25 and 40 acres, small vineyards; eleven
15 of them are in Southold town, 11 of the 13 , and
• they' re expecting when they lose one right over
16 the line in Riverhead shortly due to a winery
construction that they will replace that with
17 several more vineyards in Southold town. The
existing vineyards that they accommodate have
18 farms on Oregon Road, Mary' s Road, Wickham Avenue,
Elijah' s Lane, Bridge Lane, Young' s Avenue and New
19 Suffolk Avenue, for example . And those are places
where you want to minimize having wineries and
20 tasting rooms, gift shops and all the catering and
other things that are attendant on wineries in
21 residential areas . And you also will encourage
agriculture by the promotion of this facility.
22 The facility does strongly support the development
rights program in Southold town. The farms that
23 they service readily adapt to the sale of
development rights because they don' t have to
24 build wineries or hold out land to do that on
their own farms . And if they can' t have this type
25 of production facility, in speaking to the
producers, Mr. Hearn has come up with the opinion
November 17, 2005
51
1
2 and has been told by them, they would either have
to find a way to build their own wineries or
3 basically be forced out of business .
We also will not see any significant
4 increase in traffic . This is to efficiently
handle the current planned production that they
5 have contemplated. Most of the employees are
Southold town residents, seven of them out of 10 .
6 And the producer vineyards that they employ a
larger number of people locally.
7 Their major production dates for harvest
are September to November, it' s about a two month
8 peak period. The rest of the time they' re
strictly a 9 : 00 to 5 : 00 Monday to Friday
9 operation. They don' t have weekends . They have a
tractor trailer truck that comes in about once a
10 week to either pick up wine or. deliver supplies,
and originally there was a little bit of
11 difficulty when the drivers were learning what the
route was and how to get in and out . Cars on Cox
12 Lane were a little impatient waiting to go around
them, but they have taken an active role in trying
13 to address that problem with drivers and they
think that that has been fixed.
14 The building height is 29 feet to the
ridge . It' s 16 feet to the soffets and a mean of
15 23 feet . This is really an exciting facility for
the north fork, because it does production of
16 these vineyards and farming operation. It
provides a great tax base, one much greater than
17 the owners appreciate, but it does provide a good
tax base for the town. I welcome your comments .
18 I don' t know if Nancy Steelman would like to
comment . I did mean to give you a copy of the
19 photograph that shows the actual shed roof . This
is the existing building now -- I'm sorry, we only
20 have one of these -- this is the current space
where the building will be added, and this is the
21 shallow shed roof that is currently in the front
and that' s what will actually go up for -- Nancy,
22 how far back does the shed roof go?
MS . STEELMAN: Thirty, the ridge is 60 .
23 MS . WICKHAM: Thirty feet before you start
going up to the higher elevation.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question?
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Wickham,
November 17, 2005
52
1
2 why are you matching the ridge on the two roofs?
I see there' s a mezzanine area shown in the plan,
3 and I noticed that mezzanine area shows storage
and so on; , is that the reason?
4 MS . WICKHAM: That is one reason to
accommodate a partial second floor. Part of it
5 will be open in the production area, part of it
will accommodate a conference room and a storage
6 area, and that' s important to get that in. If we
set the building back, I don' t think I mentioned
7 this and maybe Nancy wants to elaborate, it does
create roof issues in terms of how you would build
8 that . If we took the porch off so you saw the
setback more dramatically, the front part of that
9 addition would be higher, because the shed roof
wouldn' t come over it as much, and you' d lose that
10 column effect that kind of sets that apart as a
different architectural style . But that' s the
11 reason that roof is like that . And when you look
at the plan in front of you, it' s a big roof way
12 across . I don' t think if you look at that roof
you will find that it is that imposing in real
13 life .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Are any of the
14 mechanics that are in between the buildings being
moved or this would be covering those mechanics
15 and will stay there, meaning the plumbing, the
piping, the tanks?
16 MS . WICKHAM: The piping is just hosing.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The large stainless
17 steel vessels there .
MS . WICKHAM: The stainless steel vessels
18 that are in the center here are holding tanks and
they will remain.
19 MR. HEARN: Russell Hearn, Premium Wine
Group . The new addition is in an area where there
20 is nothing currently. So the tanks that are there
would remain behind the new addition. So we
21 already have tanks in place at the north end, at
the rear of where this would be. So from Sound
22 'Avenue now, if you drove past Premium Wine Group,
you would see the tanks physically behind where if
23 this . construction, when this construction would be
possible, it would block the current view of tanks
24 anyway.
MS . WICKHAM: So right now where they' re
25 pumping across and emptying and filling barrels,
they' re going to have that enclosed now. So that
November 17, 2005
53
1
2 will continue, now it will be enclosed.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high is it to the
3 peak of the existing buildings?
MS . WICKHAM: Twenty-nine feet .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : And the height of
the new addition to the ridge?
5 MS . WICKHAM: Twenty-nine feet to the
ridge once you get past the shed roof .
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Did you say there
would be no increase in capacity as a consequence
7 of this addition?
MS . WICKHAM: That' s basically true .
8 MR. HEARN: The physical footprint of the
property and the layout of the concrete that' s
9 already established and was built in 2000 , allows
for all the capacity that we would go towards .
10 This allows us to be much more efficient to do
that capacity. So it' s not looking to expand what
11 we are able to do, it' s looking to do what we will
do more efficiently.
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So there will be no
more bottles of wine per year as a consequence of
13 this addition?
MR. HEARN: We have not reached our
14 capacity at this stage . So every year production
has increased as more vineyards have come on line .
15 So we have the physical footprint to add more
tanks in this particular area. This would not add
16 any additional capacity.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So essentially
17 there' s a trade-off in a way between that issue of
efficiency and perhaps even the advantage of
18 shielding some of these shiny tanks that are in
the back as a consequence of the addition there
19 would be 180 foot continuous building across the
front . However, as you point out it' s kind of a
20 practical loophole in the law, that these could be
instead of three 60 foot buildings called
21 cheek-by-jowl, they could be three 59 feet
buildings with a foot between any two of them,
22 which surely would not make any aesthetic
difference . So that' s one way to look at it I
23 suppose .
MS . WICKHAM: There' s another point I want
24 to make, and that is that the 60 foot, applies to
only one street . And if you look at the Cox Lane
25 side, that building length is 130 feet . So I
think the variance almost could have been
November 17, 2005
54
1
2 structured in terms of that being the variance
that we needed, 130 feet rather than 180 feet,
3 which minimizes the amount of variance that we' re
seeking.
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then you would need
two variances .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. The original
variance was for County Road 48 . We based our
6 decision, really all it was the decision that said
our law says that the 60 foot rule only applies to
7 one street, and that was the big thing. If we' re
saying that, County Road 48 is the way that this
8 was built, that 60 foot . We didn' t grant any
variances .
9 MS . WICKHAM: No, you just made an
interpretation. But, maybe it' s a technicality
10 and we shouldn' t get into it, but what I 'm saying
technically we could claim 180 feet as the other
11 side, and the one street we' re looking at is
130 . I thought if it would assist the Board in
12 making a decision, fine, if not, let' s go.
If you have a moment, I' d like to address
13 a couple of other appeals, Lavcorp, 4882 is the
Peconic Bay Vineyards in Cutchogue, that allowed a
14 203 foot building, and I think as I read the
decision, part of that was based on the fact that
15 there were different facade elements to that
facility.
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Where was this?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s never been built .
17 MS . WICKHAM: It was not built, but it was
a variance that was granted in Cutchogue, Peconic
18 Bay Vineyard across from King Kullen shopping
center. You recently granted Mallin, not far away
19 from there . That was a smaller building, but you
allowed them to have a building length which was
20 almost a little over 50 percent of the width of
the property. Our building length is a little
21 over 50 percent of the width of our property, 108
to 334 . Jim Drake' s building up on Cox Lane and
22 48, that' s huge . I couldn' t find anything on
that . I 'm only assuming maybe that was
23 pre-existing before 195 , do you think?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes .
24 MS . WICKHAM: In the area we have the Twin
Forks Fence building, which is in the application
25 that states that width, and the Wendy' s Deli
building also states that width. So that is not
November 17, 2005
55
1
2 out of keeping with the provisions .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Gail, would you
3 have copies of any of those maps for the file?
MS . WICKHAM: I'm sorry, I didn' t make the
4 original application, so I'm not sure .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The ones earlier,
5 the Peconic Winery on the Main Road and for
Wendy' s .
6 MS . WICKHAM: Would you like copies of the
decisions?
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Yes, that would be
helpful .
8 MS . WICKHAM: Would you like several -
copies?
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: One for the file .
MS . WICKHAM: I' ll get these to you today.
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The ones you' re
referring to as part of your presentation.
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s probably too
late to make any change, but as I understand,
12 where Wendy' s Deli is is a strip mall, right?
MS . WICKHAM: Yes .
13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So I don' t know that
it would strengthen your application by saying
14 that it' s consistent with an adjacent strip mall .
Trying to distinguish it by arguing that it is not
15 in fact a strip mall or anything like it .
MS . WICKHAM: It' s not a strip mall and it
16 doesn' t look like a strip mall .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So I'm saying to
17 appeal to the existing next door strip mall could
backfire as an argument .
18 MS . WICKHAM: I think it' s not out of
keeping with the neighborhood, length.
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Alas .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like him to
just disclose that one of the principals is a very
21 good friend of mine . I have no interest in his
building or anything like that, but I did want to
22 disclose that . I just have a question about the
roofline . The peak of the roof is going to run
23 opposite between the two buildings .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Like a reverse
24 gable .
MS . WICKHAM: The addition portion will be
25 right here and there will be a roofline across
here . Right now the existing roof is here and
November 17, 2005
56
1
2 here . But this will be set way back. There will
be a dormer and shed so that will be set back
3 quite a way as well .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : How far is that set
4 back, Gail, so we can include that in the
decision?
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How far is it set
back from the peak and the two existing buildings
6 on the front yard; do you know what I mean?
MS . STEELMAN: 30 feet .
7 MS . WICKHAM: 30 feet is where it
starts .
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The height of the
ridge where it meets the other ridge .
9 MS . WICKHAM: Sixty feet from the front .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So that ridge is 60
10 feet to the north?
MS . WICKHAM: Yes . -So you' ll have a 1 by
11 12 shed roof for 30 feet, and then you' ll have a 5
to 12 pitched roof for 30 feet back.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, did you have any
other comments?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone in the
14 audience wish to comment on this application? If
not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
15 reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
16 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the
17 Martins down on Meadow Beach Road, Mattituck.
MS . MOORE : You' re very familiar with the
18 property from our prior hearings . We are at this
point working with the east side of the property.
19 The renovations of the house took place . Now they
are concentrating on landscaping and the
20 accessory uses on this property. We have an
existing pool, which you have in your file a
21 history that that pool was actually constructed
with the benefit of a variance that was granted
22 many years ago. The pool is going to be enlarged
and it is actually going to be placed behind a
23 gazebo. The gazebo is not actually going to be
connected to the dwelling, to the house,, it is
24 going to be separated by a couple inches . But it
will be a self-sustaining gazebo. It' s really a
25 covered barbecue area, living area for the family,
all part of an overall landscape plan that I know
November 17, 2005
57
1
2 you have the drawings in your file . Done by Ural
and Ural is here with me to answer any questions
3 you may have . We've included everything here
because the right of way, we have setbacks to the
4 right of way, the right of way being access to
some homes that are on the -- it' s an offshoot of
5 the bay, it' s the marsh area behind. The hot tub
that is presently there is going to be relocated,
6 so we included the hot tub. The shed that is
presently there is going to be converted from a
7 tool shed to a changing room, a very small
changing room but nonetheless it' s going to be
8 changed.
MR. TALGERT: The storage shed is supposed
9 to be enlarged by a little bit .
MS . MOORE: The existing is 8 ' by 12 ' and
10 it' s going to be enlarged to 10' by 12 ' . The
design of this pool and landscaping, it' s on a
11 patio area and as you get to the back of the
house, the patio, the stone patio, the fence
12 actually is going to be hidden from view so that
it all aesthetically matches the rest of the
13 landscaping. I'm sorry, Ural, I'm butchering your
description, so he will more eloquently describe
14 the design. It' s very well described on the
drawings . Do you have any questions?
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . Since it' s
my file and I have to write the decision, how much
16 larger, how big is the storage shed now, Ural, and
how much larger is it going to be?
17 MR. TALGERT: The existing shed is 8 ' by
12 ' and it' s going to be enlarged to 10 ' by 12 ' .
18 MS . MOORE : Mr. Goehringer, it would
probably be easier for you to follow site plan
19 page 1 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what I
20 have . I didn' t see- the dimensional changes on
there .
21 MS . MOORE : Look at the notation to the
north.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s page 2
actually.
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The proposed hot
tub relocation, how much of a relocation is that
24 going to be?
MR. TALGERT: About five feet, moving it
25 towards the bay side to the south. At present
it' s right against the storage shed. I just also
November 17, 2005
58
1
2 want to make the comment that the original
application before the Martins bought the property
3 was for a pool only from this Board, I believe .
The storage shed was added to by the prior owner
4 but without getting any permits . So we' re in
front of the Board also to legalize that .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The storage
shed?
6 MR. TALGERT: Yes . Not the hot tub .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to
7 tell you, Ural, we took 45 minutes of testimony
from the prior owner, who was a medical doctor who
8 wanted to know why the building inspector denied
this in the front yard area. Drove me absolutely
9 crazy.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : When he asked you
10 questions about the hot tub, you said, no, not the
hot tub.
11 MS . MOORE : No, he was talking about the
storage shed, the storage shed was the structure
12 that we didn' t find a permit for by the prior
owner. The hot tub may or may not have needed an
13 actual building permit because it' s a portable
unit .
14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It might need a
variance though, but you' re including that .
15 MS . MOORE : Yes, we' re including that .
Again, it came with the house and at the time they
16 put it up, I don' t know what the Building
Department interpretation was clearly today we
17 have included it .
MR. TALGERT: To answer Jerry' s question
18 how far it' s moving approximately, moving six to
eight feet . I don' t know how far exactly but it' s
19 moving closer to the water.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So how are we
20 going to depict it on the site plan?
MS . MOORE : Yes .
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What was the
reasoning to expanding a 40 foot pool to a 50 foot
22 pool?
MR. TALGERT: The Martins have children
23 who like to swim. We had to do some work to the
pool as it is . The pool, the way it is sloped is
24 on the site, all the rainwater from the pool site
to the house is sloping towards the house . So if
25 we had to rebuild this pool, the Martins decided,
well, why don' t we make the pool a little bit
November 17, 2005
59
1
2 bigger.
MS . MOORE : Keep in mind that this
3 property is more than three acres in size . The
variance with respect to the setback to the right
4 of way doesn' t change . And under the old
interpretation, once you had the variance for the
5 setback to the right of way you could extend, but
now the interpretation is you' re increasing the
6 non-conformity.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand that .
7 If people will build out to the maximum they can,
depending on the size of their lot, that if they
8 had five acres then they would want 100 foot pool .
MS . MOORE : I guess that's the benefit of
9 owning five acres versus two.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And one of the vices
10 for most of us .
MS . MOORE : It won' t create any greater
11 impact given that the setback is already
established.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I never saw the
pool . Is this a gunite?
13 MR. TALGERT: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So I notice the
14 pillars on gazebo --
MR. TALGERT: Trellis structure .
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: -- are going to
be placed in the pool, the pool is going to extend
16 into it?
MR. TALGERT: Between the house and the
17 pool is the terrace, the pillars will be built on
the terrace .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They will not
protrude into the pool?
19 MS . MOORE : You' re looking at planter
pots .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What type of
vegetation is going to be placed in between so as
21 not to cause a problem with the neighbor?
MR. TALGERT: At present there is a row of
22 cedar trees, actual two rows deep, about eight to
10 feet high right now. They run north to south
23 alongside the pool . They will remain as it is .
There' s an existing fence line, that will remain.
24 We' re taking down paving. Right on the drawing
you might see a dashed line on the sheet a little
25 higher, there' s a dash line, that' s the existing
pavement line . I'm pulling that pavement line
November 17 , 2005
60
1
2 back closer to the pool, so I' m pulling the pool
and everything closer back, but the existing
3 screening, the cedar trees are to remain.
MS . MOORE : To west of the evergreens it' s
4 going to be converted to lawn and again the patio.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My suggestion to
5 the Board is that at any time screening is
involved that the decision mirror the fact that
6 this screening has to be continuously
maintained. Any cedar trees that die will be
7 replaced 'with the same or similar vintage type .
MS . MOORE : That' s been their goal here .
8 MR. TALGERT: The pool, anyone' s pool is
personal property. You' re running around with
9 your bathing suit . Right next door is the right
of way where the public can go down. You don' t
10 want to show yourself off to the public, so I am
sure Mr. Martin will maintain those cedar trees
11 for the sake of privacy and also to screen out any
type of sound either coming from the road into the
12 property or from the property out toward the road.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Based upon this
13 enclosure that you' re building, and the pool, the
changing room or whatever, do you anticipate any
14 future noise that may or may not have occurred on
site as it exists now?
15 MR. TALGERT: I think the amount of sound,
the existing sound is pool equipment, that is to
16 remain.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where is that?
17 MR. TALGERT: Storage shed.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right behind the
18 storage shed.
MR. TALGERT: The only thing in addition
19 to is probably three kids running around screaming
and yelling. But that exists, so.
20 MS . MOORE : And the pool' s already there .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no
22 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no
questions .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the
audience wish to comment on this application?
November 17, 2005
61
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What are we
doing with the recharge of the pool water?
3 MR. TALGERT: Dry wells in the lawn area
to the west of the pool, and that' s where the
4 water from the pool will go into.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. When
5 the pool is backwashed?
MR. TALGERT: Yes . There' s lots of
6 property for the dry wells .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll make a motion to
7 close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
8 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
Reddingtons on Bittersweet Lane for an area
10 variance .
MR. VANDENBERG: Richard VanDenBerg here
11 on behalf of the applicant who' s with me today,
Michael Reddington. And we also have with us
12 Steven Garachi with us this afternoon.
The application I believe before the Board
13 is not only for an area variance but also for a
waiver of merger.
14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : No, the waiver of
merger has not been advertised with this
15 application. You have not had the property deeded
separately. You are not eligible for a lot
16 waiver. So you' re here for the area variances for
lot sizes to reconfirm the sizes, as you have
17 advertised it and noticed it to the neighbors .
MR. VANDENBERG: Then we' ll proceed with
18 what we can.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The area variances take
19 to the Planning Board.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Yes, if the area
20 variances were granted you could proceed to the
Planning Board. There' s a procedure for that .
21 MR. VANDENBERG: I misunderstood, I
apologize . With regard to the area variance then,
22 the property in question was a subdivision that
was brought before the Planning Board in 1969 .
23 There was final approval that was rendered at that
time . The parcel originally and was for a number
24 of years held by the Romeo family and relatives .
And when the subdivision was approved for the five
25 lots, the two lots, which are the two we' re
talking about with regards to Mr. Reddington,
November 17, 2005
62
1
2 essentially comprised almost 32 , 000 square feet
per plot . It is R40 zoning there . The lot widths
3 are located on Bittersweet Lane in Cutchogue .
They are 160 feet in width and 200 feet in depth.
4 So other than the actual square footage of 40 , 000,
I believe that we are able to meet all of the
5 other bulk schedule criteria.
The issue presented itself when
6 Mr. Reddington, who had originally contracted to
purchase the two lots, there was a dispute that
7 arose with the sellers, that began back in 1998 ,
was the contract, and ultimately, the issue of the
8 purchase was resolved in 2003 with a decision from
the Supreme Court . The properties were then
9 closed on title with regard to the two properties
and then approached the issue with regard to the
10 sale of one of the lots . Originally
Mr. Reddington had intended to purchase these two
11 lots with the idea of constructing a home on one
of them. Unfortunately, the delay in connection
12 with the sale resulted in his constructing a home
nearby, but then when we began to look to sell the
13 first of the two lots, the issue of the size of
the lot and subsequently the issue of the area
14 variance came up.
I will say that the area over there on
15 Bittersweet is an area that is comprised of
generally half-acre size lots . There are some one
16 plus acre size lots that are also in the area.
There are even a couple smaller quarter acre size
17 lots that are not far away over on Pine Tree . So
with regard to whether or not there would be an
18 undesirable change, we don' t believe that granting
the relief would create an undesirable change in
19 the character of the neighborhood because really
the houses that are located and the lots that are
20 located across the street from Bittersweet Lane
are the half acre lots, and these two three
21 quarter acre lots would be consistent with the
surrounding community.
22 With respect to the benefits sought by
Mr. Reddington and whether there was some other
23 feasible alternative to the relief that he is
seeking, we do not believe that there is any other
24 feasible alternative with regard to the fact that
when he purchased these two lots that he was
25 buying two lots, and the fact that we are in R40
zoning and that the requirement is 40 , 000 square
November 17, 2005
63
1
2 feet and these are more or less 32, 000 square feet
that' s a variation in the neighborhood of 20
3 percent or less in terms of the area size, and
there' s really no other alternative. There' s not
4 a lot we can do in terms of purchasing any other
adjoining lots to make these conforming.
5 That also addresses the issue of whether
or not the relief requested is going to be
6 substantial . As I indicated on the bulk schedule
with regard to the front yard setbacks, the width
7 of the lots, depth of the lots, all of those
issues, other than the fact that we are looking at
8 a 32 , 000 square foot, three-quarter acre lot
appears to be the only issue that we' re looking
9 for the relief with regards to the bulk schedule .
Again, whether granting this relief would
10 cause an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental aspect of the area, we don' t believe
11 that that' s the case . The area is pretty
sufficiently wooded. There' s a lot of natural
12 vegetation and growth in the area. There are a
lot of -- for lack of a better term -- briar patch
13 areas that provide good natural screening and
coverage . With the current lot coverage
14 permitted, I think we calculated that you could
build a house as big as 6 , 000 square foot
15 theoretically. Understanding that this lot is
call it 20 percent undersized, the anticipated
16 construction of the home on this parcel really was
going to be no more than a 2, 500 square foot
17 footprint or a 5 , 000 square foot home . So there
is really enough that' s present on the lot,
18 probably the growth on the lot, it' s mostly
deciduous, there is some evergreen on the lot, but
19 you could construct a home, meet all the setback
requirements and still provide sufficient amount
20 of natural screening for all the surrounding
neighbors . There' s no wetlands on the lots, on
21 either of the two lots .
So again, there' s really no adverse impact
22 to the physical or environmental conditions .
Mr. Reddington is here with regard to
23 speaking to you further on the issue of what the
economic impacts would be to him with regard to
24 the area variance as well .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think my big problem
25 is access . The roads are in deplorable condition.
They' re narrow. They don' t even meet our
November 17 , 2005
64
1
2 standards for 15' by . 15' for fire access . And
what could be- done to upgrade these because
3 they' re terrible .
MR. VANDENBERG: Suffolk County --
4 certainly what has happened to date, we' ve Number
one, gotten Suffolk County water to contract with
5 us to bring a line down Bittersweet Lane into the
area, so there would naturally be and certainly
6 are not opposed to some added issue with regard to
improving the access down Bittersweet .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: These roads are not
owned by the Town; am I correct?
8 MR. VANDENBERG: Correct .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any
9 conversation or communication among the people on
all these dirt roads to set up a special district
10 and have all these roads brought up to code and
rthen float a bond and have it paid off through the
11 taxes?
MR. VANDENBERG: There hasn' t been any
12 collective conversation with all the neighbors on
Horton. There is a small group that is kind of
13 some of the adjoining parcels to these two parcels
where there has been discussions with regard to
14 some improvements on the road. We haven' t
involved the other neighbors on Bittersweet that
15 lead back to Pine Tree in that discussion, but
certainly that was one of the issues that I
16 figured there was going to have to be some
addressing of developing some sort of community
17 association or doing something to involve everyone
in the discussion.
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would suggest that
what Ms . Oliva was pointing out there are both
19 advantages and disadvantages to having a private
road. If you have a private road, hence the
20 private association, then the roads that exist are
with the agreement, of all the people who live
21 there; and therefore it is certainly of concern to
everyone if more houses are going to be built on
22 those same substandard roads . So I would think
that the matter of consulting with the neighbors
23 is not something to be done afterwards but perhaps
before some of these issues can be considered by
24 the Town agencies .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think certainly
25 our code does address private right of ways and I
believe there is a certain requirement . I don' t
November 17, 2005
65
1
2 think these roads meet it, but the Town does have
some say in how wide this has to be . Jerry, you
3 can correct me if I'm wrong. I know that we grant
right of ways, and I think the code enforcement
4 officer can go down there and make them, whoever
it is, comply with the Town standard is, I think
5 15 feet has to be cleared.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s correct .
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Eleven top, maybe
it' s 15 high, I don' t know what it is . Now, of
7 course, we can base our decision on if that
doesn' t happen, they don' t get what they want . We
8 certainly are entitled to do that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or we can require a
9 280A access .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t know why
10 that wasn' t required.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Subdivision?
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure . Really we
should stop the hearing in my particular opinion
12 and address the 280A before we, go any farther.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: What is a 280A?
13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : 280A is an
application for a variance . New York Town Law
14 Section 280A.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For minimum
15 standards on roads . May I continue?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, go ahead.
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Minimum
standards on roads to meet fire and emergency
17 vehicles 24/7 .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Does your client
18 own Lot 1 and 2?
MR. VANDENBERG: Yes, he does . I' ll turn
19 over the microphone .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And it' s not before
20 us right now, but the Town is saying that they may
have been merged, 1 and 2?
21 MR. VANDENBERG: Yes . Because of the
issue they were held by the Romeos .
22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They were merged.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But your client
23 doesn' t own 3 and 4?
MR. VANDENBERG: No, those are owned by
24 other entities . I' ll reserve follow up comment,
if I could.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. Yes, sir?
MR. WATTS : Charlie Watts, Jr. I live
November 17, 2005
66
1
2 adjacent to the property in question, it would be
the corner of Horton and Lilac . I don' t know, all
3 my neighbors seem to like the roads -- except for
one -- the way they are . It keeps a lot of
4 traffic from going down. It' s rural, and that' s
why we moved there . And none of the neighbors are
5 aware of this going on. Just a little sign about
as big as this and that' s it .
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Our concern, sir,
is a fire truck has to get down there . There' s a
7 certain minimum standard, and that should be met,
and we shouldn' t be granting more residences until
8 that .
MR. WATTS : I agree, I'd 'rather not see a
9 house go up there anywhere . That' s all .
MS . FARRIS : My name is Joan Farris . My
10 husband William and I live on one of the lots of
this subdivision. It' s the only residence in this
11 subdivision.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re number 5
12 then.
MS . FARRIS : I don' t know what number I
13 am. I' m the only one . In response to
Mr. Dinizio' s comment about the fire laws, I had
14 the fire marshal come down and go down Bittersweet
Lane, and he called me back and told me -- and
15 this was very recently -- told me that the New
York State law for fire regulations has been
16 changed and there is no longer that regulation of
15 feet and 15 feet up.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t know if that
was a New York State; that was a town law that we
18 passed because many of our volunteer fire
departments just simply couldn' t get up these
19 roads with their trucks .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : What I think he' s
20 referring to is we follow now this international
building code . But he may be wrong because I do
21 believe there is something in our code, which we
can exceed that building code . I might be wrong.
22 MS . FARRIS : I agree with you, Bittersweet
Lane has been the bane of our existence, to be
23 honest with you. The Town refers to our lot as
705 Horton Lane . We do not have access off of
24 Horton. We have access off of Bittersweet . The
Building Department doesn' t recognize 320
25 Bittersweet, which is what we have used as our
address since we purchased our property 18 years
November 17, 2005
67
1
2 ago. So there is a problem and in my
conversations with the Town I haven' t felt that I
3 have gotten a lot of help with this . I will tell
you that years ago when we talked about the lots
4 in question with regard to this variance
application that I was told by the Town that the
5 lots were merged. This was with Valerie Scopaz .
And I was told also that Bittersweet Lane would
6 have to be improved by the first person that went
in there and built a house as part of the
7 application process for a building permit .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s when the new
8 access law gets triggered is when somebody applies
for a building permit .
9 MS . FARRIS : I don' t know where that would
stand at this point, all I know is that' s what we
10 were told at that time .
With regard to the variance Mr. Vandenberg
11 referred to that this would cause a hardship, I
don' t know that this is a hardship for
12 Mr. Reddington. I don' t know Mr. Reddington. All
I know is that our property is the only property
13 that abuts the lots in question, and for our
bedroom windows to be looking out at two lots and
14 two houses when we really by statute are supposed
to be one lot . And that' s how strongly we feel
15 about it .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just to interrupt
16 for one second. But when you purchased that lot,
they were two lots in front of you 18 years ago.
17 MS . FARRIS : They were two lots and we
were told when we purchased that they were one
18 because they together under the same name .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re saying they
19 were merged 18 years ago?
MS . FARRIS : They were. There' s no deed
20 that shows separation of ownership of those two
lots .
21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You still have fire
access whether there' s one house or two houses .
22 That' s still the requirement .
MS . FARRIS : The fire access is in
23 response to the questions the gentleman brought
up. I'm not talking about that . I'm talking
24 about the issues with regard to putting the two
lots together. And I don' t know if this is the
25 appropriate forum for that, but I just know that
we have that concern. When the Town says this and
November 17, 2005
68
1
2 then the Town doesn' t follow whatever it says it
wants to happen in this town, then you' re up for
3 interpretation by everybody all the time . And at
some point you have to say yes or no, and this is
4 what you do . Just be considerate, that' s all .
The other thing is in terms of the
5 neighborhood, yes, there are quarter acre lots
that have houses that are right on the border. I
6 don' t know how that got approved, but that' s what
happened in the past . There are half acre lots
7 with small little homes on them. Those are not
part of this subdivision. Only the properties
8 that you see on your maps are part of this
subdivision. I don' t know why their existence has
9 to impact on the marketability of what we have .
There' s no appraisal here, you can' t determine
10 that our property is not going to be impacted. I
can' t determine that . There' s no appraiser here
11 saying that we' re okay. Two smaller homes usually
means two smaller values . So, in view of the fact
12 that the property has had two lots, they've been
designated, but they've been merged for years . I
13 feel badly that Mr. Reddington bought subject to
this but no one talked to me about it, and this is
14 what I know. And, yes, I would love to have the
Town take over Bittersweet Lane, but I know that
15 can' t happen.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It could. It just
16 takes money to improve that road.
MS . FARRIS : That' s not all it would
17 require . It would need an authority like
yourselves that it needed to be widened to its 30
18 foot actual width, and that would impact people
who are using it now for parking. And they would
19 not stand for that . So it is a 30 foot wide
road. I was told by the Town it was owned by
20 Peter Sterling' s family. It has no owner because
the man' s been dead for 35 years . So I don' t know
21 what the case is . I just don' t know what to
do . But that' s the only way that that road is
22 going to be improved, that the Town is going to
stipulate that it be widened to what it' s supposed
23 to be widened to . Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there
24 anyone else that would like to speak on this
application?
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir?
MR. KENNEY: My name is Joseph Kenney.
November 17, 2005
69
1
2 I 'm an attorney at law, so I want to tell you
that, I can give you my appearance, it' s 142
3 Joralaman Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11201 . But
my role as an attorney is really in the context of
4 my wife is the co-owner of 405 Bittersweet Lane
and my wife' s aunt is the owner of 305 Bittersweet
5 Lane, two adjacent properties which abut the
subject property here . We object to the granting
6 of a variance here . We object to, if there does
come a time when a waiver of merger is requested,
7 we object to that as well .
A couple of reasons come to mind, when we
8 look at the nature of this property, my wife' s
family has been there for more than 50 years and
9 even though the house does sit on a half acre lot
and my wife' s aunt' s house does sit on a half acre
10 lots, these two twin sisters who originally bought
this property and put these two houses up
11 functionally served as a one acre compound, if you
will . The properties surrounding the subject
12 property here are all one acre on, if you will, on
two sides there are stated one acre lots, on our
13 side, while they are half acre lots it' s
functioning, has functioned for the last 50 years
14 and will function forseeably as a one acre lot .
Another adjacent lot, the one that corners on
15 Horton, I think the same thing can be said. There
are two lots there, they' re two acre lots but
16 they' re owned by the same family, and they have
been for literally generations . To subdivide this
17 property and to change it into something that
would create half acre lots there, or substandard
18 lots, would significantly, substantially change
the nature of the usage of the property, the
19 nature of the appearances of the area .
Regarding the roads, I agree they are
20 deplorable, and that' s just how we like them. The
condition of the roads, of course, demand that
21 traffic go slowly and it discourages traffic .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Who maintains the
22 roads?
MR. KENNEY: I don' t know.
23 MR. WATTS : Everyone' s supposed to
maintain the roads in front of their house .
24 MR. KENNEY: When we talk about a
variance, one of the criteria for your decision is
25 can the benefits sought by Mr. Reddington be
achieved by some other means . When I think about
November 17 , 2005
70
1
2 the benefit that Mr. Reddington is seeking here,
it is not to be able to build houses, rather than
3 it'.s the financial gain that' s going to be had by
being able to subdivide one lot into two, and sell
4 to two different owners . Now, when Mr.
Reddington' s attorney spoke a moment ago, he said
5 that we would hear from Mr. Reddington on the
financial hardship that might be caused here . But
6 nevertheless, I find it difficult to believe that
a financial hardship can be had, and
7 unsatisfactory financial benefit is going to
result from a property that went to contract, and
8 I believe he said it was 1998 , sir -- was it
actually earlier than that?
9 MR. REDDINGTON: 198 .
MR. KENNEY: My understanding is that this
10 matter has been going on for substantially longer
than that . In any case, even if it were a 1998
11 contract, to 2005, the market value has increased
substantially. Any financial hardship that might
12 be lost by not being able to subdivide the
property should really be measured against the
13 quality of life hardship that will be suffered by
the families that have surrounded this property
14 for 50 years .
Your criteria also talks about whether the
15 requested variance is substantial . I guess
substantial is a flexible term in many ways . But
16 nevertheless, what we' re asking is can we make two
properties where only one is allowed by the code,
17 that' s substantial . You' re asking for twice the
usage of the property that it was designed for.
18 Will it have an adverse effect or impact
on the physical or environmental conditions in the
19 neighborhood? Certainly it must . Right now, we
have, and we had for 50 years, and I, frankly, as
20 an outlaw, one who married into the family, I 've
only been there for 30 years, but what we find is
21 that the area has been almost a pristine nature
preserve for those of us who have grown up there,
22 our kids who have grown up there . I understand
that we can' t expect that to go on forever, but
23 nevertheless, to say that we should amend what the
law has given us, that we should provide some sort
24 of greater benefit to one who' s speculating for
the purpose of financial gain, it just seems
25 unjust .
This is not an inadvertent problem,
November 17, 2005
71
1
2 rather, it would appear that it was a very
knowable issue at the time the buyers went to
3 contract, and certainly before they closed. To
suggest that the rest of the community should have
4 to bear the brunt of that oversight, if it is, or
unfamiliarity with the law, when in fact, those of
5 us who lived in the area, those of us who are even
vaguely associated with what' s going on in the
6 area, have been familiar with these problems for
years, it just seems unfair to hold that perhaps
7 lack of familiarity on the part of the buyer, the
owner now, against the rest of the neighbors .
8 Thank you very much'.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
9 Mr. Reddington, I think you wanted to say
something?
10 MR. REDDINGTON: Yes . I appreciate
everyone' s comments . I've been a resident, my
11 mom' s got a house in Cutchogue for my entire
life . My mom actually lives right around the
12 block on Lilac Lane . When we originally went to
contract, and it was in 198 to purchase the
13 property, our intention was to build the house
there . We bought the two lots, our intention was
14 to build a house on one lot and keep the second
lot; I have four children. Subsequently with all
15 the delays, we found another house and purchased
the house . What we were going to do with the
16 properties at this point, if they are properties,
was with the possible intention of selling them or
17 the possible intention of keeping them for my
children. I don' t know what I 'm going to do with
18 them in the future or what' s going to happen with
them. We were in contract to sell both of them;
19 because of certain delays the sales -- bids have
been withdrawn, which I understand from the
20 buyer' s point of view. We don' t want to do
anything to the neighborhood that would bring down
21 the value . My mother lives around the block.
Right next to my mom there is a very small plot
22 that was sold several years ago and a house was
built on it, a very nice house on a third of an
23 acre piece of land. Very pretty. I'm sure if the
Board agreed to that it was two separate lots, and
24 I thought at the beginning of this conversation
that that was not going to be decided here, but if
25 the Board was to decide it' s two lots, I 'm sure
that the Building Department would only approve a
November 17, 2005
72
1
2 house that was suitable for that size . They
wouldn' t approve a house that' s suitable for an
3 acre . That' s my assumption, I 'm not 100 percent
sure .
4 From our point of view, yes, the lots are
three-quarter acres, they' re not the acre zoning.
5 They' re short by about 8, 000 square feet . When
the Board in 1969 did approve that subdivision as
6 five separate lots, it wasn' t a question of this
is one lot, but we' ll approve two. It was
7 separate lots, two separate tax IDs, two separate
addresses in the Town of Southold. They also were
8 two lots . At some point they were merged and what
I believe happened was it was an oversight
9 somewhere in the Romeo estate where he passed away
and the filing went into agreement that the lots
10 were merged, and no one was there to unmerge
them. I never knew that when I purchased
11 them. If I had known that, it would have been a
different story. We went through with it . We
12 went to the Supreme Court with one issue on having
to do with the sale . The Supreme Court said it
13 was a valid subdivision. And I'm not questioning,
and I know it' s not your job to say it' s a valid
14 subdivision, it has to do with the size of the
lots .
15 We bought them in good faith that that was
the case, and if we were wrong, we' ll have to live
16 with that . As far as the hardship is concerned;
yes, it is a financial hardship. Whether it' s an
17 immediate financial hardship or not, if you
purchase something and think it' s two, and all of
18 ` a sudden find out it' s one, whether it' s immediate
now or 20 years from now when my children realize
19 it, it' s a different story. It' s something we
just wanted to get straight and even if we
20 purchased at the time, we were going to build on
one lot -and keep the second lot as an investment
21 at the time . That was where we were leading with
it . I know I've sent you guys a lot of different
22 letters over the past couple of months . I
appreciate your taking the time to read them, and
23 the whole road concern is an issue that I' ll
address . It wasn' t something that was brought to
24 my attention, and it' s something I' ll bring up
with my attorney and whoever else is in the
25 neighborhood about that . I don' t want do anything
that' s going to surprise the neighborhood. My mom
November 17, 2005
73
1
2 lives there . It' s not my intention to surprise
anybody by building anything there . I wouldn' t do
3 that to neighbors let alone to my mother who' s
right there .
4 I want to thank everyone for their time .
Everyone who came here to speak. Whatever you
5 decide, I respect your opinion. Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just comment, first
6 of all, I do appreciate the gentlemanly nature of
the discussion -- I regret using the sexist term
7 "gentlemanly" and the frustration is there is
something in law called laches, which is sleeping
8 on one' s rights ; which is to say for better or
worse, if you were given a right, if the owner was
9 given a right in 1969 to subdivide and to build on
it, since that was never activated on, that was
10 exactly the point which the Town acted on when it
passed a merger law. In other words, rights are
11 not in perpetuity. So it' s unfortunate from your
point of view, certainly, that you cannot depend
12 on once upon a time the owner of that property had
the right to build two houses on the lots in
13 question. That' s just a point of clarification
and observation, but I do appreciate the polite
14 nature of the discussion and I hope this will be
dealt with in appropriate manner.
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And while I
appreciate Mr. Simon' s sentiment, my problem is
16 that we have people go and they took county maps,
they see two lots . They receive two tax bills .
17 They receive all this stuff indicating that this
looks like it' s two lots, and the only way they
18 get a notification that these lots are merged in
any way is if they happen to read the paper over
19 the course of advertising the law, or they were in
town when there was a public hearing. The Town
20 makes no indication, makes no effort to notify
property owners when their lots are merged,
21 although the Town did agree that there would be a
subdivision here .
22 I ' m a little unfamiliar with subdivisions
in that the people who sold you this lot are the
23 people who got the subdivision approval?
MR. REDDINGTON: No. It was Romeo .
24 MR. VANDENBERG: It was the collective
family, Romeo before .
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So then these two
lots were sold to somebody else from the
November 17, 2005
74
1
2 developer, no separate deed then?
MR. VANDENBERG: I can address that . In
3 169 when the application was made for the final
subdivision approval, and the minutes of the board
4 December 8 , 1969 said it' s approved, essentially
that point it was a 12 , 500 square foot single lot
5 requirement . What happens is in 1995 the law is
amended to say that well, on merger issues, if you
6 meet certain things, there' s a separately recorded
deed, which I think it was affected in November of
7 1995 , is when that law was enacted, that would
allow us to I guess eliminate any discussion on
8 the issue of area variance . The problem was that
Mr. Romeo, who owned the property, purchased it
9 from the family members, died in May of ' 98 . I
don' t know that the estate had even begun to be
10 addressed or probated or handled. So the problem
was that the estate completely missed, overlooked
11 or didn' t deal with the fact that the only issue
that had to have been done was to create and file
12 a deed. I refer to it as kind of a ministerial
act . Something that there' s no approval that you
13 need, there' s nothing other than just putting
words on a piece of paper and filing it at the
14 county center, would have eliminated all of the
applications that we' re here for. So while I
15 appreciate Mr. Simon' s remarks about sort of
sleeping on your rights and laches and those sorts
16 of issues, the . part of the process that we are now
faced with, is because they had gotten all that
17 approval, because it had been recognized in all
other ways as a valid individual two lots, the
18 relief that you asked for is, what' s appropriate?
What is equitable than someone who then comes in
19 and purchases what he believes to be two lots,
premises his investment. based upon that , and then
20 you ask for the waiver of what happens to be
nothing more than a technicality that' s taking
21 something away from him.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the next
22 step in this progression? 1995, because you don' t
have two separate deeds in two separate names .
23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : 1995 they didn' t
merge . 1995 was when we created a procedure for a
24 lot waiver; that was a procedure .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I know at some
25 point in time they were merged. What happened
next? How is it that Mr. Reddington didn' t know
November 17, 2005
75
1
2 that they were merged?
MR. VANDENBERG: Because of the contract
3 that was entered into back in 1998 , it was entered
into with a representation there were two lots .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And no single and
separate search?
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And no two deeds?
MR. VANDENBERG: There were no two deeds
6 at that point . It was basically premised on the
fact that they had the final subdivision approval
7 and all of that had been done . And there was a
representation by the estate that that was, in
8 fact, the case .
There are other representations in
9 connection with that that required them to produce
single and separates and do -certain things, but
10 more primarily was the issue of Suffolk County
Department of Health and getting water down there
11 because the water was not potable down
there . There were issues as to whether or not
12 even septic would be possible down there . So then
the focus from the seller' s point of view went
13 towards the Suffolk County Department of Health,
unfortunately for whatever reason they just didn' t
14 process that fast enough, yes, land values did go
up . When we finally collectively with other
15 homeowners in the area that own some of the other
lots prosecuted the issue with the Suffolk County
16 Department of Health to get them to agree with
Suffolk County Water to bring water down and
17 resolve the Department of Health issues, we then
said, look, we have now got this under control for
18 whatever reason the seller didn' t do it . So now
we want it closed. And that' s the point where the
19 sellers then said, well, we think you have
abandoned the contracts . We don' t want to sell to
20 you anymore .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Honestly, I don' t
21 think that' s part of our application here . The
delay is fine and all that . I want to be clear on
22 why you wouldn' t know that this was merged. If
you purchased a piece of land say from the time of
23 the merger law on, you' re going to need a deed.
Any lawyer is going to probably say that . And if
24 you don' t have a deed, how do you say that it' s
two lots?
25 MR. VANDENBERG: In the contract of sale
the representations were made that we were getting
November 17, 2005
76
1
2 that . When we didn' t ultimately get that, we
realized that ultimately there would have to be --
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You were getting
what?
4 MR. VANDENBERG: Two separate, individual
lots .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Like Lot 7 . 1, Lot
7 . 2 .
6 MR. VANDENBERG: They made that
representation in the contract of sale . They said
7 they were going to give us that . When it got to
the point where we were allowing them to do their
8 thing, and they didn' t deliver, that' s when the
dispute arose . We then realized we were going to
9 ultimately be faced with having to deal with this .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But you went ahead
10 with the sale anyway?
MR. VANDENBERG: We went ahead with the
11 sale anyway and our remedies under the contract of
sale were limited.
12 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Essentially to
not proceed and get your down payment back.
13 MR. VANDENBERG: Yes, to get your down
payment, but you lost the benefit of what you
14 bargained for.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But you did
15 proceed under the contract knowing full well you
had an issue as to whether they were two separate
16 buildable lots .
MR. VANDENBERG: We wanted to close the
17 transaction, yes .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Before you
18 closed it became apparent to you there was an
issue as to whether or not there were two separate
19 buildable lots?
MR. VANDENBERG: I would say that' s a fair
20 representation.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: And you
21 proceeded with the transaction.
MR. VANDENBERG: We proceeded with the
22 transaction knowing that the only thing that
hadn' t been done was the simple filing of the
23 deed.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask you, do
24 you then go to the Southold Town code and look at
the waiver of merger law and determine that there
25 is something in there that would allow for a
waiver of merger?
November 17, 2005
77
1
2 MR. VANDENBERG: At that point there is no
statutory definition that allows us to avoid
3 coming before you.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Not avoid. I 'm
4 saying qualify for a waiver.
MR. VANDENBERG: There' s nothing statutory
5 that qualifies for a waiver. We have to come and
ask for the relief from you.
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . We have
certain criteria, four criteria; do you meet any
7 one of those?
MR. VANDENBERG: Yes . Those are the four
8 criteria we talked about, in terms of the
density -- are you talking about the exceptions or
9 for granting waiver of merger?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: For granting a
10 waiver. Oh, you' re aware that these lots are
merged? You' re aware of that at some point in
11 time? At that point in time, you' re going to look
at the law and say Southold Town is giving us
12 something that we can get relieved. We haven' t
had that hearing yet .
13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s why I
redirected him here . I didn' t want him to go
14 through a double procedure like Daysman-Morris did
where the first step was to apply for a lot waiver
15 and find out he wasn' t eligible. I didn' t want to
waste Mr. VanDenBerg' s time with that . I wanted
16 him to get before the Board for a quick hearing.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My next question
17 was going to be that . I'm confused as to just
exactly, why are you here, because of the size of
18 the lots?
MR. VANDENBERG: I admit I misunderstood
19 when I first stood up.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Are we talking
20 about two lots or two single lots?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would a search at the
21 time of the contract reveal whether they had
merged or not?
22 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It should
have, yes . There was no single and separate chain
23 of title search.
MR. VANDENBERG: Again, I go back to the
24 fact that we initially contracted with regard to
the seller, all these things were going to be
25 delivered to us . Then when we got to the point
where we were on our way to court unfortunately to
November 17, 2005
78
1
2 conclude the transaction, and I'm not going to
stand here and neither is Mr. Reddington, and tell
3 you that we didn' t recognize at that point
sometime in ,2003 or whatever it was, that this
4 plot of land, be it one or two had not increased
in value, admittedly, yes, it had.
5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Whether it was
one or two it was still a transaction you wanted
6 to proceed with economically.
MR. VANDENBERG: Absolutely.
7 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So that
accounts a little bit against your hardship
8 argument .
MR. VANDENBERG: At the point we
9 recognized, though, that our only option would be
at that point would be to walk away or you can' t
10 get more than your --
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Your down
11 payment back.
MR. VANDENBERG: So, yes, there was an
12 economic decision that was made at that time to
conclude the transaction, agreed. Because at that
13 that point, knowing maybe what the road ahead was
going to hold and that the only issue
14 presumptively that we saw was the fact that this
was simply a fact that there was not a deed that
15 was filed. We did, if you want to call it, roll
the dice .
16 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Under the area
variance standards, lack of economic hardship is
17 not fatal, but it' s one of the balancing factors .
So you' re here to try and demonstrate to the Board
18 that this is not a detriment to the neighborhood,
and that you qualify for a variance . Then I
19 expect you would then go ask the Planning Board to
divide these two lots .
20 MR. VANDENBERG: Yes, ultimately that' s
what we' re faced with, yes .
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s my confusion
I think. Then because I read waiver of merger.
22 I fully expected to talk about waiver of
merger. We' re not talking about that . We' re
23' talking about two 32 , 000 square foot lots that
they just want variances for the 20 percent
24 they' re under, okay, the 8 , 000 .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Because it was
25 quarter acre when they got their approval in 1969 ;
today the size requirement is different .
November 17, 2005
79
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, but they' re
not separate lots .
3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Yes, they didn' t
follow-through for separate lots .
4 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They would
still need to be divided if you agree appropriate .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If we agree that
these spots are consistent with the neighborhood.
6 MR. VANDENBERG: That whole discussion, I
would point out, if we ultimately are faced with,
7 look we've got an acre and a half of land here,
and ultimately we' re faced with having to go back
8 to the Planning Board, the question is, is the
Planning Board going to be more inclined to say
9 make one of them an acre and the other a half
acre, instead of making them equally what they
10 were originally intended to be . Our objective is
not to make them a complicated -- I think you
11 heard from Mr. Reddington, it' s just to kind of
complete what, quite frankly, what should have
12 happened in 19 --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I read
13 Mr. Reddington' s letter, and he was stating that
it was a 60 year old mistake . I was trying, and I
14 have it now. I know what you' re here for even
though one reason on this is not quite that . I
15 don' t know.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The issue of
16 the road is still relevant here.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That would be a
17 condition of any approval we would give .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To apply for a 288 .
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The road that
serves these two lots must be improved to whatever
19 we say it would be .
MS . FARRIS : It doesn' t just serve these
20 two lots, it serves all the lots .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s only the 160
21 feet along Bittersweet that' s involved.
MR. VANDENBERG: I would only think that
22 would help the community in general .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s the only
23 thing you would be responsible for unless there' s
some district that these people form. That' s the
24 only thing we can control .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s the only thing
25 we could control .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you don' t have
November 17, 2005
80
1
2 anybody to speak to down there, like an
organization who' s responsible for the roads, we
3 can' t say, he' s got to develop the whole --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
4 MR. VANDENBERG: I don' t know if it' s
helpful, I guess I 'm asking for direction whether
5 there should be an amendment to our application to
address the access issue .
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think there
should.
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I' ll go along with
that .
8 MR. VANDENBERG: I' ll leave that to the
Board to tell us what to do, that certainly is
9 appropriate .
MS . FARRIS : May I just ask a question?
10 I ' d like to know that you' re going to rule on the
issue of variances; the Planning Board rules on
11 on an application for a merger of the lots; am I
correct?
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. We' re going to
rule on the size of those lots, give some
13 standards . If we choose to or not to grant a
variance from that 40 , 000 square feet to whatever
14 it is now, we' re going to say these are lots, even
though they' re substandard, if we choose to grant
15 that, we would allow that .
MS . FARRIS : So the issue of. the merger
16 becomes moot?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes .
17 MS . FARRIS : So in effect you will be
deciding the issue of the merger?
18 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Different way
of dealing with the same problem. It would
19 require two steps instead of one . It would also
require Planning Board approval of the division.
20 But this would be a very important step in that
decision. There' s some of the same considerations
21 are relevant . It' s a different legal standard but
a lot of the same considerations are relevant .
22- MS . FARRIS : Does the public get an
opportunity to speak to the Planning Board on
23 this?
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes .
24 MS . FARRIS : And would we be notified by
the Town that this is coming up?
25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes .
MS . FARRIS : How would the public find out
November 17, 2005
81
1
2 about your decision on this?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Call our office
3 probably in two weeks, they' ll meet on December
1st; it' s a public meeting, you' re also welcome to
4 sit and listen if you like .
MS . FARRIS : I just want to add for your
5 edification, I guess . I had a conversation with
the executor of the estate and he was advised by
6 the real estate agent that he should try to sell
them, promote it as two separate lots . So I think
7 you get a lot of stuff out there, and if people
aren' t sure, and I know Mr. Romeo, the gentleman
8 that died was told about doing this and changing
the deed, but he didn' t, and that' s the way it is .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Mr. VanDenBerg, you
10 were going to give a letter saying you would
accept conditions from the Board regarding right
11 of way access, I assume, right?
MR. VANDENBERG: Yes, absolutely. With
12 regard to Bittersweet or what?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : To accept the
13 Board' s conditions?
MR. VANDENBERG: Absolutely.
14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Or you would have
no objection?
15 MR. VANDENBERG: No objection.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions?
16 MS . MOORE : I actually represent Mr. Ryan,
who is the property 1 . 3 acres, it' s 7 .4 . Just to
17 give a little bit -- my client does not oppose
this application, in fact, he as well as
18 Mr. Reddington and Mr. Gerasi who is here, all of
us got tangled up in what became a family dispute .
19 The Romeo family and the estate and everybody
in-fighting was the reason why it took so long.
20 Then each of these property owners that were in
contract ended up all having to bring actions of
21 specific performance because the family couldn' t
get off the dime making a decision on the sale .
22 So everybody was faced with the same situation.
And we've all been working cooperatively to try to
23 get through this process that has been one
nightmare to another.
24 One thing I would ask, and it might be
helpful for this Board to have, and we can get
25 from Stanley Isaacson, while this subdivision was
approved in 1969 it was in fact being approved,
November 17, 2005
82
1
2 kind of the way zoning gets approved now, which
is, gee, we' d really move this along quickly if
3 you give us what zoning would like to have . So
even in ' 69, they were developing this almost , if
4 not entirely as a one acre zoning yield, and it' s
very close in calculations because at the time
5 roads were included, everything from end to end
the acreage is included. Our lot, Ryan' s lot is
6 1 . 3 acres, Farris' property, which also came out
of the same subdivision, 1 .4 acres . The road that
7 is now commonly owned by Gerasi, Reddington and
Ryan is 230 by 30, so there' s a lot of acreage,
8 square footage . All in all you' re going to find
that the yield of this land is as close as you' re
9 going to get to a one acre yield. I think it' s so
close that I think you would be well served to
10 those numbers from Stanley, who has been doing the
mapping. We have been working very hard because
11 even in ' 69 it was pre having to go through Health
Department processes . As you know, all of you
12 probably have seen or faced that subdivisions
approved prior to ' 81, minor subdivisions did not
13 have to go to the Health Department . The Health
Department retroactively in the ' 90s interpreted
14 that minors did have to go for Health Department
approval . So we actually all got together, did
15 one map, filed a subdivision map with the Health
Department with individual lots, ultimately just
16 recently because of this delay, again, we have all
been very cooperative . We said, we' ll let him go
17 with respect to the water connections because now
through the process everybody is going to be
18 connected to public water. Some of these homes on
Bittersweet have actually benefited from this
19 process from the subdivision because my client and
they have paid for the extension of the water
20 line . The Farris property is also going to be
benefiting from the connection to the water. And
21 we have actually voluntarily offered and nobody
has said they won' t consider to offer to give the
22 Farris family a right of way over our private,
that private road, which is they have a right of
23 access, but there is no right of utilities . We
have actually voluntarily given Mr. and Mrs .
24 Farris the right to extend that water line up that
right of way. Again, everybody has been
25 very cooperative here, very well-meaning, and the
fact that a subdivision gets jammed up because of
November 17 , 2005
83
1
2 family relationships and one misstep after
another, I think that should be in your record.
3 Because again, I think if you' re dealing with this
as area variances, these properties far exceed in
4 size, and these properties are essentially one
development scheme, far exceed in size the
5 surrounding neighborhood, which are all in the
half acre to less than half acre in size .
6 We are supportive of Mr. Reddington. We
have been all through this, and we hope you' ll be
7 supportive of him. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir.
8 MR. GERASI : My name is Steve Gerasi . I 'm
one of the property owners . I own lot 7 . 3 , it' s a
9 one acre parcel, so I don' t have any issues with
that .
10 When I first looked at the properties in
1998 or 1997, whatever it was, what brought me
11 there was the whole area. I mean, I had owned
property in Cutchogue previously years ago, that I
12 had intended to build on, but things didn' t work
out . I had to sell that piece of property. I
13 revisited the area and I found this, and it was
just what I was looking for: Private gravel road,
14 a flat, rectangular, one acre piece of property, ,
and I said this is perfect . When I went to the
15 real estate broker and they showed me the map, the
map showed four parcels . The parcel that I chose,
16 the one adjacent and two across from it . I was
perfectly comfortable with the fact that there
17 were two three-quarter acre parcels, and I still
am to this day. Anything else would be somewhat
18 hypocritical . Yes, I can understand some of the
opinions of the property owners that live there
19 now. Given a choice, I think of course they would
rather only have one house than two, one house on
20 an acre and a half as opposed to two houses on
three-quarter acre parcels . I don' t have a
21 problem with that because at the time I looked at
it that was the way it was represented then,
22 that' s what they' re asking for now, and I ' m
consistently sticking with that, that I don' t have
23 a problem with there being two three-quarter acre
parcels, and they' re right across the gravel road
24 from my piece of property.
Now, I have taken a very active role in
25 these past eight years in helping bring this
situation along to the point where we actually own
November 17, 2005
84
1
2 these pieces of property. I was the person that
got involved in the Suffolk County Water Authority
3 and the Health Department to help bring the water
in, and the water main extension goes directly
4 past my piece of property, which is 7 . 3 , it' s the
first piece of property on the south side of
5 Bittersweet into the minor subdivision.
You've heard from everybody else here some
6 of the problems that we have experienced over the
last eight years, all the hurdles that we had to
7 go over and some that we' re still working on. As
far as the road quality, as I said earlier, one of
8 the things that brought me there was the gravel
road and the way it' s very natural and bucolic; I
9 think that' s the way I would prefer it stay. Now,
on the north side of Bittersweet, there are three
10 houses there . How did those houses get there?
They were built there . There was construction
11 equipment brought in, and they built those three
houses and if you could bring in construction
12 equipment, I'm sure there' s not a problem bringing
in any fire equipment or any safety vehicles that
13 may have to come in there . Also too, my plan for
my home takes into account that Bittersweet Lane
14 is not a road that you can park on. I am going to
have a driveway apron that will allow cars to park
15 in there . There will be no cars parked on the
road, and I'm actually going to have a driveway
16 that for lack of a better term, it' s not going to
be a circular driveway but a cut out onto my
17 property so you can be able to turn around and
come back out . So no cars will ever be parked on
18 Bittersweet Lane because it' s a narrow gravel
road. It only makes sense . I can' t imagine
19 anybody building on those other two lots a little
bit further west of me doing anything other than
20 having parking in a driveway. All the houses
on the north side of Bittersweet do the same
21 thing. I believe there' s only one home, it' s on
the corner of Pine Tree and Bittersweet, the
22 Scoggins, use Bittersweet Lane and its apron, for
lack of a better term, on the south side to park
23 cars on, and even that doesn' t create a problem.
Those are the points that I wanted to make
24 here this afternoon after listening to everybody
else' s perspective on the situation. Thank you
25 very much.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Any other
November 17 , 2005
85
1
2 questions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If not, I' ll make a
motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
4 until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
5 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken. )
-------------------------------------------------
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing would
be for Mr. and Mrs . Ingrilli for an accessory
7 building, side yards and also the use in the
accessory building.
8 MS . MOORE : Pat Moore, for Mr. and Mrs .
Ingrilli . I have Mr. Ingrilli here today and I
9 have Mark Schwartz, who is the design
professional, the architect . We were just talking
10 moments ago, the notice of disapproval you should
have is the amended one, May 12, 2005 .
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We have October
24th, even newer.
12 MS . MOORE : I don' t think I have that .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I think
13 Mr. Schwartz may have obtained it .
MS . MOORE: The only variance that I 'm
14 aware of is for the garage .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. Then for the
15 workshop of the garage .
MS . MOORE : Yes . The Building Department
16 said because you want to put the space above the
garage slots, the workshop, they call it a
17 dwelling just in case; then it' s up to us to prove
to you that, no, we are not doing the dwelling.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, right in here a
workshop is not a permitted use in an accessory
19 building.
MS . MOORE: I don' t have that one .
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Second paragraph from
the bottom, that' s the May 12th one .
21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And I think the
addition to the house was taken out of it . You
22 have permits for the additions .
MS . MOORE : The house is actually under
23 construction.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We know that .
24 MS . MOORE : Maybe we need to describe
better what it is . We call it a hobby shop
25 because it' s his own personal space, and we can
get right into it if you want .
November 17, 2005
86
1
2 I had given you a floor plan of the
garage, which is the only variance, that
3 particular structure . And the garage, if you saw
that the design of the house, that garage looks
4 like a bunker. I'm not insulting the owner here
by saying it' s very unsightly. The neighborhood
5 has asked him to do something about it because
it' s unsightly. That garage is being redesigned
6 and it' s designed in conformity with the
architectural style of the house .
7 The garage, first floor, is for his
vehicle usage, and Mr. Ingrilli can describe
8 better what he does, but he' s a very creative
individual, and he has some vintage cars that he' s
9 actually restored.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We saw that .
10 MS . MOORE : I have the pictures of his
cars . And the garage is climate controlled. It' s
11 all intended for preservation of his antiques .
The second floor of the hobby shop or the garage
12 is again, for his own little tinkering. He does
decoys . And why don' t you describe what you do .
13 MR. INGRILLI : Hi, John Ingrilli . I mess
around with things . I don' t do it professionally.
14 I work for a bank. I have old vehicles from a
1952 Good Humor truck, 1953 vintage pick-up truck,
15 it won a Concourse award. I use it a little bit
more regularly now rather than just have it shown.
16 The garage is climate controlled for those
reasons . I mess around with older stuff that are
17 antiques, whether they' re gumball machines or
antique slot machines or from time to time some
18 woodwork. I do some hunting as well, so I started
to collect some older decoys . I do work on
19 restoration on older decoys I find. I try to make
some from time to time myself, I 'm terrible or I'm
20 told. But that' s the kind of things that I would
do in the garage . I will use it, the second floor
21 also for storage, as when I am doing or working
with someone . I don' t do any major restorations .
22 I' m not a mechanic . I work with one or two people
offsite, but I will collect things from time to
23 time that I do need for a "restoration. So I might
have some supplies or an old mirror that I need
24 for the car and things like that, which I won' t
keep with the actual vintage vehicles . I plan on
25 keeping that stuff upstairs, but that would be
almost exclusively, if I can the use of the
November 17, 2005
87
1
2 garage .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you restore the old
3 vehicles?
MR. INGRILLI : Only mostly interior stuff .
4 There' s no mechanical stuff that' s done at all,
most of that' s done at Gaslight Garage . I ' d love
5 to be able to do some of that stuff myself, but
I ' m not qualified to do it .
6 MS . MOORE : Just for the record, I want
him to say it so you have it on the record,
7 there' s no kitchen upstairs, right?
MR. INGRILLI : No.
8 MS . MOORE : There' s no sleeping quarters
upstairs?
9 MR. INGRILLI : There' s no sleeping
quarters . There is a powder room, a bathroom,
10 which is on the second floor. There is no planned
living quarters at all . The house is more than
11 ample in terms of number of bedrooms for my wife
and I and the children. So there' s no reason for
12 additional living space .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How will it be
13 heated?
MR. SCHWARTZ : I don' t think that' s
14 designed yet .
MR. INGRILLI : It might be radiant heat in
15 the floor downstairs . The only thing I did talk
to them about -- Eugene Berger is the builder. I
16 don' t know how they will heat it . I'm indifferent
I guessthey' ll heat it the same way they heat the
17 house . What I did need really tell them I care
more about the humidification more than anything
18 else . So it will have a dehumidifier for the
vehicles, and I guess to the extent they can do
19 that in the heating system or whatever, there' s a
combination, I would prefer that .
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the house would
have a basement, right?
21 MR. INGRILLI : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The heating system in
22 the house would be in the basement, but the garage
isn' t going to have a basement?
23 MS . MOORE : No, it' s usually either
propane or electric heat .
24 MR. INGRILLI : Propane or electric heat to
it .
25 MS . MOORE : Natural gas down in Nassau
Point?
November 17, 2005
88
1
2 MR. INGRILLI : No, no natural gas . I know
the old house used to have electric heat . I know
3 that they plan on using -- I think in the plan
they have oil fired system for the house . I ' ll
4 guess; because there will be propane for the
stoves and things, probably propane or electric
5 for the garage .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, did you say the
6 garage is going to be redesigned?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s going to be a
7 demo.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, it' s going to be
8 just what we have here?
MS . MOORE : Yes, exactly. With respect to
9 its setback, again, if you have seen the property,
you've seen that this is somewhat of a peninsula
10 in a sense . You have Nassau Point Road, which is
actually at a low level, then you go up to the
1'1 property, which is at a constant level, then there
is Smith Road, which is about six feet higher. So
12 the garage, the house you don' t really see
anything. Smith Road only gives access to two or
13 three houses at the very end point, and they' re at
a different level . This area of Nassau Point is
14 quite interesting in that it has very different
topography. So this piece of property has no
15 direct neighbor next to it . You can' t see it from
any road and you can' t see it from other
16 properties . So it' s very isolated.
I have, which, I don' t know that you have
17 in your file, I have a topographic survey. So it
can show you the different topography of Smith
18 Road and Nassau Point Road and you can see the
significant difference and how this piece is
19 visually isolated from all the other properties .
I have Mark here, I don' t want to take up
20 more of your time, but if you have any particular
questions, we' ll try to address them.
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why does the
building have to be so high?
22 MS . MOORE: Mark, you can answer that .
Keep in mind accessory structures can be up to 18
23 feet .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is showing
24 23 to the ridge .
MR. SCHWARTZ : The mean height is under
25 18 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 17' 1011 .
November 17, 2005
89
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We always want
18 and 4 , which is 22 , that' s the reason I think
3 they addressed it . If it was 22 , I don' t think
they wouldn' t have given --
4 MR. SCHWARTZ : I didn' t think the height
was the issue at all . I thought it was mainly
5 because of the road.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It says the
6 proposed building is noted at 23 . 3 feet .
MS . MOORE : From the road.
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No, road.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry, I
8 apologize, you' re absolutely, correct . I was
taking it the same way. And the difference in
9 size is what from the one that exists?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s on the
10 survey.
MS . MOORE : The existing garage is 1613 "
11 by 22 ' 311 . It' s one bay, cement block -- one and a
half bay, square box.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: New one is 26 by
30 --
13 MS . MOORE : Right, it' s a three car
garage .
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we have any
idea, Mrs . Moore, why they sought to deny you on
15 the basis of a workshop?
MS . MOORE : No. We could have called it
16 anything. I think maybe you approached them
first, and said, well, that' s what he does . If
17 you' re a tinkerer, how do you describe tinkering?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I notice that the
18 code mentions a play house as a permitted use .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Any workshop
19 isn' t listed. There' s also a catch-all phrase
that says that any use customary incidental to the
20 main use .
MS . MOORE : I've actually used that term
21 before, and it' s never been an issue of the use .
I think their concern is the fact that any time
22 you have space above a garage, they want to make
sure that there' s no possible conversion to
23 dwelling, sleeping quarters . That' s why at least
Damon conservatively says go to the Zoning Board
24 so they impose that condition on you. We said,
well, we don' t want to do that but we' re here
25 anyway with regard to setbacks, so it wasn' t an
impediment to the process .
November 17, 2005
90
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have a good
suggestion then, why don' t we change it to hobby,
3 not for commercial purposes .
MS . MOORE : All right .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s do that
from now on. Hobby/storage area, not for
5 commercial purposes . All future stuff let' s call
it that . You can mirror this application.
6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It wasn' t only the
commercial aspect, it was also residential because
7 they didn' t want it to be a dwelling.
MS . MOORE : I actually in my applications
8 generally say it' s not a dwelling, nonhabitable .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Say it' s not
9 habitable at the same time .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think it had a
10 lot to do with this guy wants a climate control on
accessory.
11 MS . MOORE : Yeah, they probably thought he
was in the business of restoring cars in his
12 garage .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We should probably
13 restrict it to noncommercial .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions?
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes . Reason you' re
before us is because the setback is being reduced
15 to 23 feet; is there any way of locating the
garage without having to do that? I mean, the
16 existing garage is 31 feet, so it is expanding in
the direction of the boundary.
17 MS . MOORE : Yes, but keep in mind that
when you have a waterfront piece of property,
18 you've got the slopes . So really your buildable
area is really smaller and more condensed. The
19 house where it' s presently located, the bank is
very close and right now it' s being renovated you
20 can see . So that right along Great Peconic Bay,
that whole slope there is not to be touched.
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm looking at the
topo map, and I 'm looking at the place where the
22 garage is, not the steep embankment on the other
side .
23 MS . MOORE : I 'm giving you the reasons
why, to push the garage closer to the house means
24 that you' re going to be shortening the space of
cars in circulation for any of his cars and his
25 kids, it' s shrinking everything, putting
everything closer to the existing house . Remember
November 17, 2005
91
1
2 that this property, where Smith Road, that setback
there, you have the elevation, and please, I' d ask
3 you to go look again, because it' s a tiered rear
yard, you have the Smith Drive all the way with
4 vegetation, then it comes to a landscaped wall,
two tiers of stone walls . So while the distance
5 is short, I guess linearly, from Smith Road, it' s
actually on a bank so it is completely blocked
6 from view. So the distance, you could actually
push it closer to Smith Road, you could push it as
7 close as the retaining walls would allow. It has
no impact there . Usually you worry about setbacks
8 because of cars going by and blocking visibility.
Here you have a garage that is how many feet down
9 from the Smith Road?
MR. SCHWARTZ : It' s at least eight to 12
10 feet .
MS . MOORE : So you've got the structure
11 down here, and you've got the road up here, and
you've got tiered landscape walls .
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : Smith Road is really a
driveway. It' s called a road but --
13 MS . MOORE : It' s a dirt path.
MR. SCHWARTZ : And the accessory building
14 only requires a 10 foot setback in this property
except for the fact that we have this right of way
15 called Smith Road that really requires I think a
40 , 50 foot setback.
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I ' m wondering is
I still haven' t gotten an answer to why it
17 couldn' t be say six feet further to the southeast?
I don' t know if it' s southeast, but it' s to the
18 lower right of this map . It would be the
southwest . I'm going to be writing this up, I ' ll
19 go and take another look at it . When I was there
someone was backing out, when I was driving in.
20 MS . MOORE : I had the same problem. There
were electrician vehicles in my way.
21 Mr. Simon, maybe this can help you a
little bit . This is the proposed garage, and this
22 is the driveway. Just also be careful because the
sanitary system, that' s fixed in its location.
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And plus there' s
already something there, something already exists
24 in that location.
MS . MOORE. We have the stone walls, we
i 25 have the sanitary and we have the existing house .
We have not too much room to work with as far as
November 17, 2005
92
1
2 placement of this garage without putting it in the
way of things . Any other questions?
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have a quick
4 comment . I can appreciate Mr. Ingrilli' s request
for a nice heated garage since Miss Moore' s
5 probably aware that I restored a 1932 Ford.
Unfortunately I don' t have a nice garage for
6 myself, I share it with my wife, but she knows to
stay away from it . So I can appreciate that .
7 Just for the record, I just want to say we did get
a letter from Alison Byers, a neighbor, opposed to
8 this application, 10335 Nassau Point Road. For
the record, we did receive it . I just wanted to
9 put that out there .
MS . MOORE: Okay, I don' t believe she even
10 sees this property.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Okay, I just wanted
11 to put that out . So we are okay, with just
putting as a condition a half-bath upstairs,
12 nonhabitable .
MS . MOORE : That' s fine.
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re going to
put in that aspect of nonhabitable/noncommercial,
14 hobby.
MS . MOORE : As you' re writing this, we
15 would ask respectfully, and we know you go as
quickly as you can, but right now because we are
16 under construction with the house, it would be
very helpful to Mr. Ingrilli if he got the
17 decision in some quicker fashion.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Two weeks we have our
18 meeting and as soon as we can get to it after
that .
19 MS . MOORE : Anything you can do to help
them out so we can demolish and start construction
20 on the house before the weather really changes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
21 the audience that wishes to speak on this
application?
22 If not, I' ll make a motion to close the
hearing and reserve decision until later.
23 (See minutes for resolution. )
(Whereupon, deliberations on Raynor permit
24 application #5711 were held. See minutes for
resolution. )
25 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is RQA
November 17 , 2005
93
1
2 Properties .
MS . WICKHAM: Good afternoon, Abigail
3 Wickham for the applicant, RQA Properties . I ' d
like to thank you for having the hearing at the
4 end of the day, I know it' s been a long day for
you and we will try to cover what is an awful lot
5 of material as expeditiously as possible .
As you know, this is a variance request to
6 add an additional building, which is really an
accessory to his main usage, it' s not going to
7 house a separate business . It' s not an expansion,
it' s basically to restore an area that has been,
8 in essence, confiscated by requirements that he
has to comply with for insurance and EPA
9 purposes .
We are here under code Section 100-241, as
10 a nonconforming use . I think, and I had
discussions with the Building Department, that the
11 Board could treat this if they wished and the
Building Department had no objection, as a
12 100-242 , nonconforming use and building, which
would allow up to a 30 percent expansion, and we
13 do exceed that . So we would be seeking a variance
from that as well . If you consider that as an
14 area variance, I think our proof is certainly
going to address those issues . However, we are
15 addressing this as a use variance application, and
providing the proof that we think you need to
16 sustain the decision on no reasonable return and
the other criteria in the code .
17 I put together a package, there are seven
copies of handouts that I wanted to make to you
18 during the presentation. I thought that rather
than running them up every time I mentioned, I ' d
19 just give them to you as a package . And I'm sure
you are going to be spending some time on this
20 decision, you can look at them later, so you can
listen to what I'm saying now.
21 As I said, I've done very few use
variances during the course of my career, because
22 they are difficult to obtain. They shouldn' t be
granted frequently, but I have to say that if ever
23 there was one, I think this is appropriate for it .
I want to review for you the property history, the
24 business of Rich' s, the financial and economic
issues and the other approvals that we are seeking
25 in connection with this need of his to expand the
building area.
November 17, 2005
94
1
2 You have before you a property history
sheet that goes through the different items that
3 have happened on this property over the years . I
just want to highlight that this was originally
4 before zoning an automotive usage, that it was
zoned business when zoning came in, and Ed Fox was
5 there with the Esso station, that it has a
multiple use history, that it was rezoned in 1989
6 to residential R40 when the automotive operations
were in full bloom. It wasn' t any cessation of
7 that business and Rich came into the property as a
tenant around that time . Was it 187?
8 MR. BOSINIAK: ' 87 .
MS . WICKHAM: ' 87 just before then. So
9 when he started it was zoned for business use, and
it was changed later than that, I don' t know if he
10 was aware of that because he was busy taking care
of his business . In any event, in 2004 the
11 property became available . Mr. Aliano put it on
the market . He really had no choice but to buy
12 it . He paid 550 for it, which was the price able
to obtain it for. What happened then was he had
13 since the ' 80s been operating as a tenant . He had
garageman' s insurance . He had all his permits
14 that he was required in order to conduct the
business . When he became an owner, his insurance
15 company advised him that now that he was getting
ownership insurance, he could no longer continue
16 under the tenant policy that he had, that he had
to comply with EPA and insurance standards . And
17 they came down on him very heavily. They ,
basically gave him a few months to put in an
18 environmentally sound spray booth or they were
going to shut him down, and he can' t stay in
19 business if he doesn' t have insurance .
In your package is the letter he received
20 from the insurance company that essentially has
notified him that his insurance as of now will be
21 canceled in December if he doesn' t comply. And it
lists on the back the reasons and the first one is
22 the spray booth, so that is the essence, that is
the guts of his hardship today, and his need for a
23 use variance .
The 1950s survey that' s in the file shows
24 that there was a gas station where the real estate
office was located and what was artfully called
25 the "lubritorium" in the garage building. I
hadn' t heard that term recently, but that gives
November 17 , 2005
95
1
2 you --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you've heard it
3 before?
MS . WICKHAM: I think I've heard it . But
4 in the context of Van Tuyl' s survey, this shows
that there has been that type of usage in the
5 building for a long time . In 1974 , Tad Auto Sales
came in and got a special exception from this
6 Board to have in addition to the uses that were
already there 15 used car sales slots . That
7 condition did require minor repairs only. Rich is
going to talk about the extent of auto repairs
8 that he does when he speaks, but I believe that
that decision was geared towards the auto sales
9 business itself because it appears that there was
already an existing glazier in -the building who
10 did auto repair, auto glass and metal fabrication,
and there is a letter in your file to that effect .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: May I interrupt you, it
also says that no further business may be
12 established on these premises other than existing
one of the glazier and the used car business of
13 the applicant, and that condition runs with the
land.
14 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . But there already was
a real estate office there, so for some reason
15 that was not included in the decision, and I think
it' s clear that it should be .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Should or not should,
that' s what it says .
17 MS . WICKHAM: I think that' s a mistake .
Because there was clearly a real estate office in
18 there, and I think that the decision, I can only
presume, was geared towards that section of the
19 property. In addition, the glazier who was there
and allowed to continue, was doing very similar
20 types of things to what is currently being
conducted and has been conducted since 1974 ,
21 that' s a long period of time . And nobody' s
complained about that in the interim. So yes, we
22 are here to ask you as part of your decision to
clarify that in light of what it is he' s
23 conducting now. As I said, in 2004 he bought the
business and he has encountered the problem.
24 By virtue of having to put in the spray
booth that goes in the front of the existing
25 garage building, that is a metal structure, a
self-contained unit, that occupies the two to
November 17, 2005
96
1
2 three bays that have been in the front of this
building since whenever Mr. Fox started his
3 business . The spray booth has significant
environmental protections, and the cost is
4 somewhere between $70, 000 and $80 , 000 to install,
so it' s not an insignificant amount of money.
5 He applied this summer when he learned
about this problem for construction of a building
6 in the rear, 18 feet high, 36 by 48 , in which to
put the operation of his business that is going to
7 be basically evicted by the installation of this
spray booth. And it will also help him deal with
8 the fact that he is doing some of the work in the
front of the building where it doesn' t belong and
9 he doesn' t want to continue it . So as I say, the
building is not to expand his business, it' s to
10 contain pretty much what he' s got now, and make it
more productive, more efficient . And as you' ll
11 see in the economic analysis, essential for him to
continue .
12 The spray booth is a dry use . What it
does, and Rich will explain this a little more, it
13 does blow the air, as the air is sprayed, the
paint is sprayed, it blows the air down into the
14 floor, filters it, so that before it goes back up
through the roof out the exhaust, it goes through
15 a series of filters and keeps it environmentally
contained.
16 Now, I'm going to let Rich talk about the
spray booth and those types of things, but I want
17 to get to the heart of the no reasonable return
issues . I have in the packet an appraisal, which
18 I would like to review briefly, but I did have it
there for you to study in more detail . Andy would
19 have been here today but his daughter had an auto
problem and that came first .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Wickham,
before you start that, while you' re saying that, I
21 just want to reflect upon the problem that Rich
has with the insurance company. Just give me that
22 again, so I can reflect upon that .
MS'. WICKHAM: He rented it for 15 years,
23 and he had garageman' s liability insurance . He
didn' t have to insure the building. He bought it
24 otherwise he was out of business, and when he
changed from his tenant' s insurance to his owner' s
25 insurance, the insurance company in order to issue
that owner' s policy, required him to install a
November 17 , 2005
97
1
2 spray booth as well as the other items that you
see . I can get you a more legible copy if you
3 can' t read it, but basically it says clean up the
parking area, do some other things, most of which
4 he' s done already. The spray booth, as you
probably know, it' s a very large structure that
5 goes in the building and that takes up the space,
and it has to be enclosed, but it was the
6 differential in the type of insurance he had to
get, he had to come up to standards .
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In inquiring
about that, do we assume that that' s for fire
8 purposes or was it for any other standard other
than that?
9 MS . WICKHAM: It' s for fire, it' s for
primarily for emissions purposes . You have a
10 sheet in the material that talks about how this
spray booth works, and it has also has some
11 specifications on it . It indicates that the
emissions are about 99 percent covered whereas
12 right now it' s going right up the chimney and
right in the air. There are OSHA requirements for
13 employees that were also part of the insurance
requirement . The VOC rating on this booth,
14 Volatile Organic Compounds, the emissions are
between 2 . 8 and 3 . 5 parts per million. It' s an
15 credible decrease in the amount of emissions . Not
only that but the air draws it down and converts
16 it to a metal, a solid compound, all those
compounds, which are then disposed of properly as
17 opposed to going up in the air.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The last thing
18 is a portion of the building he' s operating in
now is a wooden building; is that correct?
19 MR. BOSINIAK: No. It' s concrete, cinder
block.
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the roof is
wood?
21 MR. BOSINIAK: Right .
MS . WICKHAM: The building he' s proposing
22 is metal . It' s like a Morton building, low --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And fire
23 retardant?
MS .. WICKHAM: Yes .
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So are we going to
demo this building and start over?
25 MS . WICKHAM: No . We are adding. If you
look at the site plan I have an A and I have a B .
November 17, 2005
98
1
2 The first page shows the front building, with what
is essentially five bays, two in the front and
3 although he doesn' t have a door in the front, he
has two doors in the front, but three bays that he
4 can use . Then in the back, two bays, that' s in
that first building. The first page of the site,
5 it says existing, and it says up in the top what
we' ve got . And you've got, it says operation, one
6 story concrete block building, that' s what that
is . That is going to be reduced to a spray booth
7 and two bays in the back.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So he' s doing an
8 alteration of the existing booths to create a
spray booth?
9 MS . WICKHAM: He' s using the area where
the two or three bays are -- three bays I have
10 there in front are basically not going to be used
because that' s where the spray booth goes . I ' ll
11 show you a picture of it .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s going in one
12 of the bays?
MS . WICKHAM: That' s going -- turn to the
13 next page -- right here, he' s blocking off these
two bays, these two doors, and he' s just using
14 this door now. And that spray booth, that big
metal thing, and this is what it looks like .
15 That' s right inside the building, and those two
bays facing the road will not open any more .
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You threw me when
you said Morton building and then you went to
17 this .
MS . WICKHAM: The Morton building is in
18 the back and that is just to replace the bays that
are used up by the spray booth. Those bays in the
19 Morton building in the back will be bigger because
he wants to be able to accommodate trucks in
20 there, now he' s jamming the trucks in. He does a
lot of ambulances and fire trucks .
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So there' s no more
buff-outs or wet sanding out in the front now?
22 MS . WICKHAM: All that stuff that happens
in the front, it' s very busy, it ' s very
23 distracting, those people won' t have any access in
the front because the overhead doors .
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Where is the
spraying now on the current plan?
25 MR. BOSINIAK: There' s a room in the back
that I use as a spray room. When I got my license
November 17 , 2005
99
1
2 18 years ago it wasn' t required.'
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Gail, before
3 you go down the road of economic hardship, do you
have a point of view as to when 100-243 applies as
4 opposed to 241? And I hate necessarily to ask you
a question that I'm not certain of the answer of
5 myself .
MS . WICKHAM: Well, then I won' t feel bad
6 if I don' t know.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: My point is
7 241 suggests that you can' t enlarge a
nonconforming use and 243 seems to suggest that
8 you can up to 30 percent under certain
circumstances, and it' s not immediately clear to
9 me which one governs .
MS . WICKHAM: Let me tell you, when we
10 copied that, apparently they didn' t put it back in
the right place, I don' t even have it here, but if
11 I remember correctly, is that the one that is
entitled nonconforming uses and buildings?
12 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Exactly,
nonconforming buildings with nonconforming uses .
13 MS . WICKHAM: This is a nonconforming
building.
14 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: In what
respect?
15 MS . WICKHAM: It' s too close to the front .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Okay. I don' t
16 know why the- code should be more liberal if you
have a nonconforming building as opposed to a
17 conforming building, but in any event it seems to
be the right section. It seems that under certain
18 conditions that the Planning Board could impose
that you should be allowed up to 30 percent,
19 right?
MS . WICKHAM: That' s what I think. I said
20 100-242 I meant 243 .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I heard 243 ,
21 that' s why I just looked it up. It' s
nonconforming buildings with nonconforming uses,
22 which this is, right?
MS . WICKHAM: Right .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Isn' t that allowed to
expand under certain circumstances by 30 percent?
24 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You' re asking
for more than 30 percent, correct?
25 MS . WICKHAM: That won' t accommodate the
amount of space that he needs to replace this .
November 17, 2005
100
1
2 Just so you know, the building is already ordered.
He went into the Town when the first thing first
3 came up, and he, for some reason, and I'm not
saying it' s anybody' s fault, and he understood
4 that he should go ahead and order that building.
He didn' t have the choice anyway with the
5 insurance company, so we don' t have the
flexibility of changing the size of that building.
6 We are really asking you instead of 30 percent to
go to about 70 percent . But he' s not expanding
7 the business; he' s just adding a building to
contain what he had because insurance and
8 emissions, environmental regulations have required
him to do that .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there a CO for the
tent that he has out there?
10 MS . WICKHAM: That' s coming down.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Can we mark on the
11 plans that it' s going to be removed?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On the project
12 description as part of the file, under Item 2 it
says purpose of new construction requested, I ' m
13 quoting from what you wrote, the question is to
expand the existing facility; could you clarify
14 that?
MS . WICKHAM: We' re expanding the square
15 footage of the facility in order to accommodate
the use that had been employed in the old
16 building. We' re not expanding the business; we' re
expanding the facility.
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If the Board approves
this, it would be acceptable condition if it said
18 there will not be room to service more cars that
now can be serviced, right?
19 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . He doesn' t really
service cars, but we can work on that, but, yes,
20 he will not work on more cars .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Will not increase the
21 number of cars that can be worked on at any one
time?
22 MR. SENENFELDER: What he' s done where the
paint booth comes in the front because of the
23 standards he' s actually lost that whole front
building. Basically just replacing of the
24 existing space.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The point I
25 was discussing from the Board' s point of view with
Gail is if you go under 243 as opposed to 241,
November 17, 2005
101
1
2 what you' re talking about is an area variance not
a use variance . You' re talking about allowing
3 more than a 30 percent expansion, and one of the
issues is whether this is something that was
4 beyond the applicant' s control, whether it was
self-created or not . And I think the financial
5 hardship issues are still relevant, but they are
less of a requirement; it' s more how did we get
6 here, which is the story you've been telling.
MS . WICKHAM: I 'm giving you everything,
7 and you can decide how you want to handle it .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How do you
8 determine the 70 percent? Based upon the size of
the new building?
9 MS . WICKHAM: Based on what' s there and
what is going to be there, yes, square footage of
10 building space . If you look at the area that he' s
using outside, he' s using an area out front that' s
11 going, and he uses an area out back that' s
outside, then it' s much, much less than that . I
12 didn' t compute that because I didn' t know if you
would want me to, but I could.
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But we need to
compute that aspect of it because he' s taking out
14 those three bays to put the spray booth in, but at
the same time, he' s building a building to replace
15 that . I think the 70 percent sounds
extraordinary.
16 MS . WICKHAM: It is extraordinary. And I
use that number because I think that section of
17 the code and, Kieran, you have it in front of you,
is on a square footage basis . They talk about
18 expanding the buildings . That' s why I use that
analyses . But if you talk about expansion of the
19 use .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s the same
20 use, just using it' s a greater area.
MS . WICKHAM: But that code does, if you
21 read it carefully, does talk about expands being
buildings .
22 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s what the
increase of the footprint is .
23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We were talking
about that earlier, and you were going to get some
24 numbers to us on the breakdown on that . That was
where we left it . Remember when we weren' t sure
25 whether or not to advertise it for that?
MS . WICKHAM: Yes .
November 17 , 2005
102
1
2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : At least if we had
a breakdown of the percentage .
3 MS . WICKHAM: I can get that to you this
afternoon.
4 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Thank ' you.
MS . WICKHAM: If you close the record
5 today and hold it for that .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: How do you do
6 on lot coverage?
MS . WICKHAM: We' re okay on lot coverage .
7 We are lot coverage of actually 10 . 9 and it' s a
residential zoned, so we' re only 20 percent .
8 Anything else on those issues?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can see how
9 important it was for me to at least trigger that
question before you go into the rest of it .
10 MS . WICKHAM: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I just want to make
11 a quick statement, and you can respond. So your
client has been doing auto body/lubritorium work
12 there for almost 20 years?
MS . WICKHAM: Yes, since 1987 .
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And if your client
didn' t buy this piece of property and was still
14 renting, you wouldn' t be before us today, he' d
still be doing another 20 years of auto
15 body/lubritorium work?
MS . WICKHAM: Yes .
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I just wanted to
say that .
17 MS . WICKHAM: Are you ready for Andrew
Stype? That' s in your packet .
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The old real estate
building, what is that going to become?
19 MS . WICKHAM: That' s still there, it' s
rented to another broker.
20 The expenses that we have run through, and
I' m going to give you them in a different format
21 as well, are extraordinary, and have increased
significantly since he bought the property because
22 he had to get a mortgage, his utility costs will
go up with the spray booth somewhat . It will be a
23 more efficient operation, but it will cost him
more . He had to get a loan to get the spray
24 booth, so that cost is higher. His insurance has
basically at least doubled because now his
25 liability has to be coupled with the property
insurance . The real estate taxes here we show at
November 17, 2005
103
1
2 $6, 000 , they will also increase significantly once
the building goes up. Andy then went into an
3 income analysis, the office building at $25 a
square foot rental and the garage space at $12 a
4 square foot rental, those were based on comparable
rentals in the vicinity. The real estate office,
5 there are several, the garage space he likened to
what is being charged by the buildings up on Cox
6 Lane, which are renting out at about $12 a foot .
He then took in a 10 percent vacancy credit factor
7 and came up with what you could attribute an
expected return to the property of a little over
8 $22, 000 . When you analyze that against the
expenses, it is a negative return.
9 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: When you look
at the garage return, is that based on the
10 assumption that the property can' t be used to run
the business and it would just be used as a space
11 rental? Because it doesn' t show any income on the
business .
12 MS . WICKHAM: It' s showing as a rental, a
return, he equated it to a rental for the garage
13 space as opposed to ownership usage . I ' m going to
give you figures on his business usage shortly,
14 that will dovetail with that, and show you that' s
not any better.
15 The second scenario I 'm just going to
touch on briefly, but that may come up at some
16 point because in terms of improving a
nonconforming premises, you do have a 50 percent
17 rule, and Andy did a quick analysis for me to show
that this new improvement -- and he actually
18 valued it at 100, 000, that was originally what we
thought it was going to cost 80, that would not
19 exceed the 50 percent .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What is the 50
20 percent rule?
MS . WICKHAM: You increase, improved a
21 nonconforming building, it more pertains to fire
than anything else, but I just wanted him to throw
22 that in there .
Third scenario, what he did here was, he
23 said, okay, if we convert this to a residential
use what are we looking at, and we' re looking at a
24 big negative here because obviously it would cost
a tremendous amount of money to change the site to
25 a residential vacant lot . He could sell it as a
vacant lot, and he' s anticipating a $250 , 000
November 17, 2005
104
1
2 value, which last year we would have blinked our
eyes, but today is certainly feasible, incredible
3 but it' s feasible, but even at 250 , he still would
be looking at a tremendous loss .
4 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Gail, just to
cover our bases here, when you show there' s no
5 reasonable return, you have to show that there' s
no reasonable return for any of the permitted uses
6 in the zone .
MS . WICKHAM: I'm going to bore you with
7 that too.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I don' t want
8 to be bored by it; I just want to wrap it up . Can
we assume that the residential use is probably the
9 highest value use, and if there' s a huge loss
there, then there' s more than likely to be a huge
10 loss on any of the other permitted uses?
MS . WICKHAM: Yes . I was going to do that
11 after the income, but I' ll do that right now. In
an R40 zone, one-family, agricultural operations,
12 and the size of the property does not accommodate
that; we have municipal-type uses, fire districts,
13 the size of the building would not accommodate
that, and I don' t think it would be appropriate;
14 wineries, obviously it wouldn' t comply because
it' s not 10 acres . And special exception uses in
15 that area, two-family dwellings, we don' t have the
acreage, places of worship it' s not big enough,
16 schools it' s not big enough, philanthropic
eleemosynary, et cetera, it' s not big enough, and
17 the utility rights of way; now wireless
communication, he could probably make a bundle but
18 I think the neighbors would have a problem, so I 'm
going to assume that that is not a feasible use
19 for this property, beach clubs, tennis clubs or
children' s recreation camps, I'm just running
20 through the list of permitted uses in the code,
veterinary offices, cemeteries, stables, those are
21 not uses that would be accommodated on a one acre
piece of property. So I don' t think you could
22 generate a reasonable return and I think therefore
the single-family dwelling is the highest and best
23 use . And I think the other point that if this
appraisal doesn' t say, but you can use the
24 numbers, that if this business were to continue
just as it were without expansion, that' s going to
25 be my next point . Did I interrupt you?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I was going to make
November 17, 2005
105
1
2 a quick statement, did you consider or think about
going to the Town Board about rezoning it?
3 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . I 'm going to get to
that . In terms of what if he leaves it just the
4 way it is, does he get a return at that point?
And if you look at his expenses and his income
5 analysis, which his accountant has given me for
the first nine months of 2005, his gross income
6 was $342 , 000 ; his cost of goods sold was $249 , 000 ,
that' s things like labor, outside service,
7 purchases, supplies, paint, mechanical work that
he has to sub out to another location, so his
8 gross profit was $93 , 000 . Then if you take off
his business expenses of $63 , 000 for that period,
9 he had a net income for $30 , 000 for the first nine
months of the year and will have additional
10 insurance costs of $1, 400, additional mortgage
costs of $29, 000 and rent income, a positive
11 figure of $11, 250, that' s a lot of numbers to
throw at you, but that means the net income for
12 the first nine months of the year -is barely over
$10 , 000, it' s $11, 850 . So he' s barely breaking
13 even, and if he is to sustain a loss of more than
30 percent because he' s lost those bays in front,
14 he cannot continue in business, and that' s another
part of the reasonable return, . is what if he just
15 stays where he is; that' s a problem.
If you want me to submit more specific
16 details on that, I could. I would prefer not to
because it is part of the public record, but if
17 you would like it I will submit it .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Your last financial
18 statement was based on putting a new spray booth
in the building, but not putting the new building
19 in the back, correct?
MS . WICKHAM: Correct .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No. Your last
financial statement is how he' s been doing
21 business for the past nine months .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But he has the spray
22 in there .
MS . WICKHAM: No. With the installation
23 of the spray booth, because I did include the cost
of carrying the spray booth.
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re carrying it,
but that net of that report you just gave us
25 doesn' t include the loss of the three bays, and
the installation of this booth. The only thing it
November 17, 2005
106
1
2 includes is the amount of money you have to pay
for this booth.
3 MS . WICKHAM: On a monthly basis in the
mortgage .
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He' s not making
money with that booth right now. It' s not in that
5 nine months .
MS . WICKHAM: I'm not sure I understand
6 the question, but he is still doing --
MR. SENNENFELDER: I understand what
7 you' re saying.
MS . WICKHAM: This is Tom Sennenfelder who
8 is an engineer who is a business associate of
Rich' s .
9 MR. SENNENFELDER: I understand what
you' re saying is basically the numbers reflect
10 what he currently has done this year, but they do
reflect the fact that the forward part of the
11 building the last two months, those two bays, he
has stopped using them. Right now he' s actually
12 seeing a severe loss -- for the past month, excuse
me .
13 MS . WICKHAM: These figures, Tom, only go
to September.
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That spray booth' s
going in no matter what .
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re still not
making money?
16 MR. SENNENFELDER: No . The problem is the
volume, any business like a body shop requires
17 volume .
MS . WICKHAM: The spray booth will improve
18 his volume .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you just get the
19 spray booth and you don' t replace those bays, you
don' t make money.
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That was the last
statement he would make $10 , 000 a year.
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The $10, 000 a year
doesn' t include anything to do with the spray
22 booth.
MR. SENNENFELDER: No, $10 , 000 a year
23 actually reflects his income for the first nine
months of the year. And now he' s reduced his
24 capacity about 30 percent on the building' s
production.
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The last statement
she put the mortgage in for the spray booth.
November 17, 2005
107
1
2 MS . WICKHAM: I did, but it still comes up
at $11, 000 .
3 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It reflects
some of the costs but not the loss of income going
4 forward.
MR. SENNENFELDER: That' s correct . In
5 fact, if you do an analysis upon, that' s on an
exponential rate because you can' t bring in
6 business as pro shop from different insurance
companies because he doesn' t have the facility.
7 In fact, now he actually schedules the work and
has to turn work away, send them over to other
8 shops because you can' t bring the cars in because
he only has enough space for one and a half cars
9 that he can mechanically work on, and he doesn' t
have the proper paint facilities because he can' t
10 use that facility properly. So, in fact, if you
go to the shop many times now, you' ll find
11 multiple cars -- and I've seen up to nine cars in
the back -- that are waiting to be repaired, and
12 he has to make the determination do I send it to
another shop or turn the next customer away.
13 Without that facility, you know, any business,
especially where we live now, residences, more
14 people are out here now, you need to expand to
keep pace with what you have, but he has a
15 facility that was actually designed, I believe the
building was in place somewhere in the ' 30s . The
16 building hasn' t seen any appreciable increase in
the size or space or anything since the ' 30s . A
17 lubritorium is a term from the ' 30s, from the days
of the Model T.
18 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I thought we
should spend a minute or two how this increase, if
19 not increased use but sort of increased use of
space, what effect if any it will have on the
20 neighborhood and the surrounding area. That could
be a main thrust here .
21 MS . WICKHAM: My next point is that, but
starting with the building location, the proposed
22 location. My first question came in, why don' t
you just attach that to the existing building.
23 His response was he could do that, he could kind
of cantilever it off the southwest corner, but he
24 was trying to take into consideration the
residential surroundings and get it as far away
25 from the homes as he could. If he brings it up to
the building, it' s going to be closer to the main
November 17, 2005
108
1
2 road and therefore more essential over the fence .
If he' s brings it to the existing building, it
3 will be closer to Pequash Avenue and closer to
those homes . So he thought this was probably the
4 best place for it to be to have a minimal impact
on the neighborhood. It does have a door at
5 either end, so he does need room to be able to
maneuver, and the spray booth door if you look at
6 your second proposed map has a western bay, so he
has to be able to get out that way. That was the
7 only reason that he decided not to attach it to
the building. He thought it would actually
8 minimize the impact on the residential area.
We lost Mr. Huntington and Tom Wetzel, who
9 were here from the Fleet' s Neck Association, and I
believe they were going to speak favorably on
10 it . When what Mr. Huntington said to me before
the hearing was this is the kind of guy we need in
11 the neighborhood. They were very appreciative of
what he' s done to clean up the area. He will be
12 going to site plan review and the Planning Board,
and that' s going to involve a lot of aspects of
13 screening and building design and building
placement and access issues and parking issues .
14 He is also going to be taking what is now allowed
as 15 use cars, sales spots and reducing that down
15 to five . That is the only thing that' s going to
be in the front of that building, all the
16 detailing, the washing, the whatnot that goes on
on the Main Road area is going to be gone .
17 Everything will be moved into the buildings in the
back. We have a letter here from Emily Victoria.
18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I have that .
MS . WICKHAM: Emily and Jim Grathal own
19 the house directly across the street . She is
supportive of his application. I think that' s
20 very important because she would probably be as
much affected by it as anyone . And Rich has
21 talked to other people in the neighborhood and
he' s been very good about making sure that they
22 are not unhappy with what he' s doing. I believe
he' s also talked to the owner of not Elliot
23 Dawson, but his sister, who owns the house
immediately to the south, and to the lady who is
24 renting the house .
In terms of the neighborhood in general,
25 again, it' s been a long-standing use that ' s been
there for a long time . It' s not going to change
November 17, 2005
109
1
2 the neighborhood significantly, and you do have
other -- it' s in the HALO Zone and I believe I put
3 the HALO map in your package . So it is part of
the hamlet density studies and that I think is an
4 important factor, as well as the DiSantis
Christmas tree across the street and other uses -in
5 that Main Road area.
If I could just tick through some of the
6 other issues on a use variance . I think we have
talked about reasonable return, if you have any
7 more questions, I can give them to you. The
hardship is tremendously unique. Fortunately
8 nobody else in the neighborhood has the insurance
and EPA conditions he does . It does not apply to
9 the substantial portion of the district, it' s just
this property, and it will not alter the essential
10 character of the neighborhood and because it is
continuing to be what it has been since the 130s,
11 and he will be screening and actually improving
it . Before the Planning Board even told him he
12 had to do it, he' s done a lot of it already. It' s
not self-created in terms of the insurance
13 requirements, and it does observe the spirit of
the ordinance, now that was a tough one, but I
14 think the reason it observes the spirit of the
ordinance is because use variances are permitted
15 although limited, and this is the situation where
I think they should be available . Public safety
F 16 and welfare are served by the environmental
improvements he' s making and certainly substantial
17 justice will be done .
Now, I just want to tell you quickly about
18 the other approvals because that was a question.
We have had two meetings with the Planning Board.
19 We have submitted a site plan; it' s been accepted.
We have retained a surveyor to make additional
20 requirements that they have because although their
letter says it' s incomplete, that is for a
21 processing purpose, and they do, quote, agree with
the concept design, unquote . They have been very
22 supportive .
A change of zone was filed with the Town
23 Board to Hamlet Business on October 4 , 2005 at the
suggestion of this department . I am still waiting
24 for a work session appointment . We will agree to
continue to pursue that, but we anticipate that
25 that' s not going to happen immediately; that will
be involved with the HALO review; it will be
November 17, 2005
110
1
2 involved with other applications in the area. And
also I think the use variance, number one gives
3 him more immediate relief that he essentially
needs, and it also gives the Board the ability to
4 control and not open it up to a general
free-for-all down there .
5 I do want to mention one issue about
hamlet business use and that has to do with the
6 definition of "garage . " Hamlet business does
permit public garages, but it doesn' t permit a
7 repair garage . However, the pre-existing
definition from the 1973 code -- and that' s in
8 your material -- does allow that because public
garage and repair garage were all in the same
9 definition. And I want to mention that in case we
have that issue when we go to the building
10 department, we did explore that and I don' t have
to come back to you and discuss that .
11 Also, the code requires the 300 foot
residential setback. The special exception for
12 the auto sales we did address that, but I want to
make sure that we address that here today as well,
13 and if you want me to go into that in more detail,
I will, but I think it' s assumed in our whole
14 discussion.
Mr. Aliano applied for a use variance on
15 this property, which was denied by your Board in ,
2004 I believe, and I want to distinguish that
16 application. That application was basically for a
shopping center. The neighborhood was not happy
17 with it, understandably. So there' s a different
aspect to this use variance . It was not a
18 hardship; there was no financial showing; there
was no proof in the record. Different type of
19 situation.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That was 1990 ,
20 right?
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: 189 .
21 MS . WICKHAM: It was 3907 . Maybe it was
1990 , yes, I'm sorry.
22 And finally, as I said before, if there
was ever a reason for a use variance, I think this
23 is it . I think Rich has a couple of things he
wants to say, and then we' ll see if you want us to
24 say anything else .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One question, how
25 does this HALO region affect this? I thought HALO
has to do with affordable housing?
November 17, 2005
111
1
2 MS . WICKHAM: It does . But it' s an
indication that that' s a denser area of the
3 community, and that, where development is going
to occur. It' s not out in an agricultural area;
4 it' s not isolated from the center of town.
MR. BOSINIAK: My name is Rich Bosniak, I
5 own Rich' s Quality Auto Body. I 'm in business
there over 18 years . I live here in Cutchogue .
6 I' ve been here over 20 years . My family' s been
here for over 30 years . I have three daughters
7 that go to the Mattituck/Cutchogue school . My
wife works for the school, I'm not going anywhere .
8 So I'm really just trying to conduct business . I
purchased the property a year ago. It was not
9 available to me to purchase it before then because
Mr. Aliano did not want to sell it . He was very
10 generous to me because my rent was low, but from
purchasing the property, my expenses everything
11 has tripled -- more than that . And I really do
need to put up this building in order to conduct
12 my business . I don' t think I can conduct my
business if I don' t get a variance or go for a
13 zone change to put this building up. I have been
offered to sell and get out, but I have three
14 daughters to put through college, and I 'm a young
guy, I plan on being in business for a long time .
15 If there' s any other questions anybody has . I 'm
just trying to conduct business. I'm a service to
16 the community. There' s five body shops between
Riverhead and Orient . For an area like this
17 that' s very undersized. There' s over 25
mechanical shops that repair cars between Orient
18 and Riverhead. I feel that you need me here . You
need somebody to repair the cars . I don' t do
19 mechanical repairs there . I do strictly a body
shop . I do sub-out to all the mechanical
20 shops . The spray booth that I did put in that I
want to continue forwarding on is environmentally,
21 I live here, this is my town. When I got my fresh
air permits and whatever, all this stuff wasn' t
22 required. Because of the insurance and because I
purchased it, of course, I had to do it . It' s a
23 lot of money, but it' s a good thing. Everything' s
filtered, and fumes are not going out to the
24 environment . It' s a very needed thing,
MS . WICKHAM: Do you want to hear about
25 the water system, dry system differential?
MR. BOSNIAK: I don' t know of a water
J
November 17, 2005
112
1
2 system out here . Ted' s Auto Body has an older
crossdraft booth, First Class Auto Body has an
3 older downdraft booth. Starlight Auto Body has a
cross draft booth. These are all older spray
4 booths that don' t have a water system. So this
water system is a good thing, but you also have
5 other environmental issues because that water has
to be disposed of, that contamination has to be
6 disposed of .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How do they do it?
7 MR. BOSINIAK: My system is a dry
system. I have filters . The water system goes
8 through, the water gets collected, and the water
has to be carted away. This is just a dry system.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Rich, do you
honestly think that if this property was hamlet
10 business Mr. Aliano would have sold it to you?
Certainly not at the price you were paying for it .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is besides the
point .
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm saying in
general, I think that since the property was
13 residential, you were probably better off because
I think they have less interest in it, and the
14 only reason I say, I know the Aliano family for
many years, and I'm not putting words in anybody' s
15 mouth, but they own primarily commercial property.
Their shopping centers are all up in the Shoreham,
16 Rocky Point, Miller Place, every one of those are
multi, 26' units some of them have . I suspect that
17 conceivably the reason why you' re here and the
reason you did buy it was because of that reason,
18 that there really wasn' t anything they could do
with it at this point, except use it as it was .
19 MR. BOSINIAK: At this point in my life I
wasn' t going to start over anyplace else . I do
20 live in Cutchogue, and I have been in business for
a long time, and I do have a good following. I
21 didn' t have much of a choice . Mr. Aliano, the old
man who was my landlord was a good friend of mine
22 and still is today. His son got involved. His
son is a different person. His son tried to sell
23 my business out from under me . He advertised my
business . I really had no choice but to buy the
24 property.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else have any
questions of Rich or Miss Wickham?
November 17, 2005
113
1
2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I had one question,
Gail, could you just confirm for the record how
3 many uses there are because the old CO has a lot
of uses that aren' t there anymore . There are just
4 the two uses, primary uses, right?
MS . WICKHAM: There is the real estate
5 office use and there is Rich' s Quality Auto and
the auto sales .
6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So the auto sales
would go on in the back?
7 MS . WICKHAM: It would continue in the
front, but the volume would be reduced.
8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So it' s going to be
in the parking that' s shown on the plan?
9 MS . WICKHAM: It will be where it is now,
in front of the fence, but it will not be as many
10 vehicles .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : How many vehicles?
11 MS . WICKHAM: Five . He has permission for
15 .
12 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You will limit
it to five .
13 MS . WICKHAM: I don' t know if he mentioned
he doesn' t keep cars for parts on the property
14 either.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Thank you.
15 MS . WICKHAM: So I will get you the
specific numbers on the square footage .
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That was Rich' s
Quality -- I -
17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You mean the
breakdown for the 70 percent?
18 MS . WICKHAM: Yes .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That would be with
19 the tent building or without it?
MS . WICKHAM: I' ll give you both.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
close the hearing and reserve decision until
21 later.
If not, I' ll make a motion to close the
22 hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
23 (Time ended: 3 : 33 p.m. )
24
25
November 17, 2005
114
1
2
3
4 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
5
6 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
7 State of New York, do hereby certify:
8 THAT the within transcript is 'a true record of
9 the testimony given.
10 I further certify that I am not related by
11 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
12 action; and
13 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
14 of this matter.
15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
16 hand this 17th day of November, 2005 .
17
18
19
20
Florence V. Wiles
21
22
23
24
25
November 17, 2005