HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/02/1985 Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- -~TATE ROAD 25 -=:DUTHOLD, l.l., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES G RIGONIS. JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI M ! N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 2, 1 985
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was
held on Thursday, May 2, 1985 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the
Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York.
Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles
Grigonis, Jr., Serge Doyen, Jr., Joseph H. Sawicki, and Robert J.
Douglass, constituting all the members of the Board of Appeals.
Also present were Victor Lessard, Building Department-Administrator,
and approximately 30 persons in the audience at the commencement
of the meeting.
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and proceeded
with the first public hearing on the agenda, as follows:
7:35 p.m. Public Hearing in the Matter of Appeal No. 3337 -
KIMON AND WOODENE RETZOS for approval of access over private
right-of-way located off the east side of Rocky Point Road along
the southerly line of Metropoulos and over land of Nowell Estate
to Lots 2 and 3 of Minor Subdivision No. 81, East Marion.
Robert W. Gillispie III spoke in behalf of the applicants briefly.
There were no objections entered into the record at the hearing.
(The verbatim transcript of the statements made have been prepared
under separate cover and filed with the Town Clerk's Office for
reference.) (The legal notice and application were read for the record.)
Following receiving testimony, the board took the following
action:
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing under Appeal No. 3337 for KIMON
AND WOODENE RETZOS be and hereby is concluded, pending deliberations.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -2- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
7:40 p.m. Public Hearing in the Matter of Appeal No. 3345 -
BRUCE M. VITALE for a Variance to operate as a carpenter shop within
existing building in this "B-Light Business" Zone at S/s Sound
Avenue, Mattituck. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing
and appeal application for the record. Bruce Vitale spoke in
behalf of his application. During the hearing, a floor plan
showing the square footage of the proposed "use" was requested
by the Chairman. There was no opposition entered into the
record at the hearing. Following the hearing, the board took
action as follows:
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing in the Matter of Appeal No. 3345
for BRUCE M, VITALE be and hereby is concluded _(closed), pending
receipt of the requested floor ~]an and pending deliberations.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs~ Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
7:53 p.m. Public Hearing in the Matter of Appeal No. 3336 -
ANN SABA by Pat Sujeski for a Variance for approval of insufficient
area and width of two lots in this proposed division-set-off of
land located at the SW/s Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. The
Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and appeal application
for the record. Pat Sujeski spoke in behalf of the applicant.
During the hearing, the Chairman asked Mrs. Sujeski to supply
the board with the setbacks of the existing house from each
side yard. No opposition was entered into the record at the
hearing. Following the hearing, the board took the following
action:
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing in the Matter of Appeal No.
3336, be and hereby is declared closed (concluded) pending
receipt of the requested setback distances and pending
deliberations.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki~ This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
Southold Town. Board of Appeals -3- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
3:58 p.m. Public Hearing in the Matter of Appeal No. 3339 -
GUY SOBERING~for a Variance for approval of insufficient area of
two lots in this proposed two-lot division (set-off) located at
the N/s Sound Avenue, Mattituck. The Chairman read the legal
notice of hearing and appeal application for the record. Philip
Cardinale, Esq. spoke in behalf of the applicant. Mr. Sobering
was present. There were no objections entered for the record.
(The verbatim transcript of the statements made are prepared
under separate cover and filed simultaneously with the Town
Clerk for reference.)
After the hearing, the board took the following action:
On motion by Mr, Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the eharing ~n Appeal No. 3339 for GUY SOBERING
be and hereby is closed (concluded) pending deliberations.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
8:10 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal
No. 3338 - HOWARD L. YOUNG for a Variance for approval of
insufficient area of two lots in this proposed three-lot division
of land at the N/s Main Road and E/s Brown's Hill Road, Orient.
John DeReeder spoke in behalf of the applicant. Speaking in
opposition was Margaret Young. John DeReeder has indicated that
an alternative lot line was proposed and that an amended map
was being prepared. ~The verbatim transcript of the statements
made at the hearing are prepared under separate cover and filed
simultaneously at the Town Clerk's Office for reference.) The
Chairman made a motion to recess this hearing until June 13, 1985,
pending receipt of the proposed amended maps. The motion was
seconded by Messrs. Sawicki and Grigonis, and unanimously carried.
8:15 - 8:22 p.m. Temporary recess.
8:22 p.m. Motion was made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr.
Sawicki, to reconvene. The resolution was~unanimously carried.
7:22 p.m. Public Hearing was reconvened in the Matter of
Appeal No. 3320 -BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP./SAGE (Which was
recessed from the April 11, 1985 meeting)~ Joseph Forchell~, Esq.
---spoke in behalf of the applicant. There were numerous other
Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -4- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
~Appeal No. 3320 BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP~/SAGE, continued:)
statements and testimony given both in opposition and in support of
this hearing, which have been prepared under separate cover and
filed with the Town Clerk's Office for reference.
Exhibits submitted for the record during the hearing from
Joseph Forchelli, Esq. were:
1. Certificate of Occupancy, Nonconforming Premises, #12637
dated July 24, 1984;
Letter dated Qanuary 10, 1985 from Forchelli to Z.B.A.~
3. Letter dated January 10, 1985 from Planning Board to
Forchelli;
4. Letter dated February 7, 1985 with attachment from]Town
Clerk to Forchelli;
5. Letter dated April 19~ 1985 from Forchelli to Weismann;
6. Negative Declaration made by Planning Board dated March 4,
1985 concerning this project;
7. Copy of ex½press-mail receipts for mailings to Robert
Chilton; Robert Bracken; Leonard Walters, Anasthesia Group, P.C.
8. Copy of New York Law Journal page 4 of 4/17/85 concerning
regulations and forms of ownership.
9. Copy of ZBA minutes dated 6/23/77 for Appeal 2296 of
J. Park Wickham. ZBA pp. 19-27.
10. Copy of march 6, 1985 letter from Planning Board to Forchelli
concerning approval of sketch map for cluster subdivision
subject to ZBA approval for variances needed.
After the hearing, the board took the following action:
On motion by Mr. Goehrin§er, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing in Appeal No. 3320 of BAYVIEW DEVELOP-
MENT CORP./SAGE be and hereby is closed (concluded).
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Gri§onis,
Doyen, Douglass ~nd Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
INFORMAL: Re: Appeal No. 3308, Decision of 1/26/85 for LAUREN
KRUG. Mr. Romeo~ ~bu~lder for Lauren Krug, requestgd clarification
of the board's conditions and whether a bay window projection into
the rearyard would be in compliance therewith. It was the opinion
of the board that since the so=called "bay window" is livable floor
area projecting into the rearyard~, then Section 100-13, page 10009
(2)[c] of building area would not apply~ The restrictions set by
pg. lOOll under "livable floor area" will be applicable in this
case, and therefore a further reduction of the rearyard area would
require additional variance application. Motion was made by
Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and duly carried, to
advise Mr. Romeo that under the circumstances an additiona~
variance application would be necessary since the floor area is
extended.
REPLY: Continuing on William Gillooly s request of earlier
this evenings it was the consensus of the board that the premises,
as a whol (12.421 acres) contains two frontyard areas since it
fronts along the east side of Village Lane a~d~a~ong the west
side of Tabor Road. Therefore, locating the subject accessory
garage in the location mentioned by Mr. Gillooly would require
a variance since it is not rear yard area. (The rearyard area
was deemed to be the area designated pursuant to Mr~ Lessard's
determination under B~ilding Permit #13311Z for the accessory
swimmingpool, etc.)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by
Mr. Goehringer,-it was
RESDLVED, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
March 28, 1985.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
~'Suthold Town Board of Appeals -6- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR MAY 23, 1985: On motion by Mr. Douglass,
seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed
to advertise notice of the following public hearings in the Suffolk
Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman pursuant to law which are to be
held at the next Regular Meeting of the Board, to wit: Thursday,
May 23, 1985, commencing at 7:30 ~.m~ and as follows:
7:30 p~m. Appeal No. 3344 HERODOTUS DAMIANOS. Special
Exception for Winery at 37645 Main Road, Peconic.
7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3346 REYNOLD BLUM (Pec'onic Bay Vineyards)
Special Exception for Winery at 31320 Main Rd, Cutchogue.
7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3341 HELEN M. CONWAY. Variance for
approval of insufficient lot area, depth and width of
parcel to be set-off from 6 acres at C'hestnut Road,
Southold.
7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3361 JEAN C. HOLLAND. Variance for
approval of insufficient lot area and width of Lots
327 and 328, Nassau Point Map, Section C, and ~Lots
36 and 37, Map of Walter Grabie, Cutchogue.
7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3342 PHILIP REINH~RDT. Variance for
approval of insufficient area, depth and width of
two parcels at the N/s Pine Neck Road, Southold.
8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3351 ANDREW AND IDA. PITRE by A. Wickham,
Esq. Variance for approval of an 8' by 10' accessory
shed in frontyard area. 670 Holbrook Lane, Mattituck.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Gri§onis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. T~is resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3323 - COLGATE DESIGN CO~RP. (7-11):
Application for C.OLGATE DESIGN CORP., by W. Esseks, Esq., 108
East Main Street, Riverhead, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article VII, Section 100-71 for permission to construct accessory build-
ing within the westerly sideyard area. Location of Property: 7-11
Store, North Side of Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-102-05-24.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on April 11, 1985, concerning
the Matter of the Application of COLGATE DESIGN CORP., and
WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation entered into
the record including correspondence from R.F. Lark, Esq. and Kull's Service Station,
Inc., both adjoining property owners, and
So~thold Town Board of Appeals -7- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3323 - COLGATE DESIGN CORP., continued:)
WHEREAS~ the board members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question as well as its ~rrounding area; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question is-located in a-"B-l" General Business
Zoning District, is situated at The north side of Main Road (S.R. 25),
Cutchogue, and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County
Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 102, Block 05, Lot 24.
2. The subject premises consists of an area of 26,117 sq. ft.
with a lot width of 99.08 feet and is improved with one, one-story
masonry building set back approximately 90 feet from the front property
line along the Main Road, from the westerly side property line 18½ feet
(exclusive of fence enclosure), 17 feet from the easterly side property
line (exclusive of portable dumpster), and 130 feet from the rear
property line.
3. Applicant is proposing by this application to construct a
10' wide by 12' deep accessory b~ilding for storage of empty bottles
and cans, necessary since the recently ~acted New York State bottle
laws and will be utilized in lieu of the portable dumpster
(which is to be relocated either to the north of the proposed
building or in the rearyard area).
4. The proposed accessory building ~s to be located along the
westerly side of the existing store with a setback of eight feet.
Also shown on the March 13, 198~ site plan is the removal of the
chainlink fencing at the easterly side yard.
5. Article V~I, Sectio~ 100-71 and Bulk Schedule of the
Zoning Code require a minimum sideyard total of 50 feet, with
a minimum of 25 feet for each side yard for buildings in this
zoning district.
In considering this application, the board has determined:
(1) that the relief requested will not change the character of
the neighborhood~ (2) that the relief requested will not be
detrimental to adjoining properties; (3) that by this proposal,
the easterly yard area would be left open for accessibility by
emergency (and other) vehicles; (4) that the interests of
justice will be served by allowing same as noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Gri§onis, seconded by
Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3323
in the Matter of the Application of COLGATE DESIGN CORP. for
permission to locate 10' by 12' accessory building for the
purposes of storage of empty bottles and cans with a setback
of not less than eight feet from the westerly side property
line, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. The westerly sideyard be not less than eight feet;
2. That there be no protrusion of the subject building
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8~ May 2, 1985. Regular Meeting
into the frontyard area;
3. That the subject building be used only for storage
purposes (and not additional business sales area);
4. That the easterly side yard must be open and
unobstructed (except with an unlocked gate) to allow egress
and ~gr~ss for emergency and other vehicles, or this variance
will automatically be deemed null and void.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3327 EMILIA T. PIKE:
Application for ENILIA T. PIKE, by A. Wickham, Esq., Main Road,
Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule for approval of insufficient area of
proposed Parcels 1 and 2 and insufficient lot width of Parcel l,
located at the North Side of Main Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-140-03-26.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on April 11, 1985,
concerning the Matter of the Application of EMILIA T. PIKE, and
WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation
entered into the record concerning this application, and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question as well as its surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question is located in an 'A" Residential and
Agricultural Zoning District, is situated at the north side of the
Mai~ Road (S.R. 25), Cutchogue, and is more particularly identified
on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 140, Block
03, Lot 26~
2. The subject premises consists of a total area of 90,382 sq.
ft. with a total frontage along the Main Road of 311.05.
3. By this application, appellant proposes a set-off division
of land for proposed Parcel No. 1 of 29,921 sq. ft. in area and
Sou'thold Town Board of Appeals -~- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
'(Appea~ No. 3327 - EMILIA T. PIKE, continued:)
lO0.12 feet in lot width and for Parcel No. 2 of 60,461 sq. ft.
in area and 210 feet in lot width, which Parcel No. 2 is improved
with an existing one-family dwelling and small accessory shed in
the rearyard area.
4. Article III, Section 100-31, and Bulk Schedule of the Zoning
Code require a minimum of 80,000 sq. ft. in lot area and 175 ft. in
lot width effective May 20, 1983;
5. In viewing the immediate area, there are lots existing
with areas ranging from 19,500± sq. ft. to 37,000± sq. ft.
tn considering this application, the board has determined
that although there are lots of similar size existing in the
neighborhood, the lot to be set-off is more than double the
size of the lot to be retained, and a more equal division should
be established which would not set a precedent for this area and
would then be substantially less of a variance from the require-
ments of the zoning code. The board has also determined that
the application ~'as applied~ be denied since: (1) the relief
as requested is substantial'in relation to the' requirements of
zoning; (2) that the grant of the variance will be detrimental
to the character of the area and may set precedents; (3) the
relief as requested is not unique; (4) there is a more feasible
plan which should be established to be more compatible with the
general area.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief as applied under Appeal No. 3327
in the Matter of the Application of EMILIA T. PIKE for approval
of Parcel 1 of 29,921 sq. ft. in area and 100.12 lot width, and
of Parcel 2 of 60,461 sq. ft. in area, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous
vote of all the members.
So~thold Town Board of Appeals -10- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3330 DOMtNICK VARANO:
Application of DOMINICK VARANO, by R. Lark, Esq., Box 973, Cut-
chogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section
100-31, Bulk Schedule for approval of insufficient area of proposed
Lot 3, at premises 6750 Indian Neck Road, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-B6-07-004.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on April ll, 1985,
concerning the Matter of the Application of DOMINICK VARANO, and
WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation
entered intD the record concerning this application including corres-
pondence received in behalf of an adjoining property owner dated
February 14, 1985, and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question as well as its surrounding area, and
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning at its meeting held March 18,
1985, recommended approval of the subject variance application, and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question is located in an "A-80" Residential
and Agricultural Zoning District, is situated on the southerly side
of Indian Neck Road, Peconic, and is more particularly identified on
the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District lO00, Section 86, Block 7,
Lot 4.
2. The subject premises as a whole contains 5.245 acres with
a total frontage along Indian Neck Road of 249.10 feet and a minimum
width of 195 feet.
3. By this application, appellant proposes a division of land
as follows: (a) proposed Lot 1 of 80,000 sq. ft. in area, (b)
proposed Lot 2 of 80,000 sq. ft. in area, (c) proposed Lot 3 of
76,300 sq. ft. in area.
4. Proposed Lot 3 is improved with an existong one-family,
two-story frame house and an accessory structure which is depicted
as "garage-apt" on the survey map as amended September 6, 1984.
5. Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule of the
Zoning Code require a minimum of 80,000 sq. ft. in lot area
(effective May 20, 1983).
6. The relief requested of proposed Lot #3 is approximately
five percent (5%) of a variance from the requirements of zoning
Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
~(Appeat No. 3330 - DOMINICK VARANO, continued:)
and which the board finds is not substantial under the circum-
stances.
7. It is noted for the record that it is the understanding
of the board that the property has always been used for a single
family purpose, and therefore does not recognize the accessory
str~cture as a "garage-apartment."
In considering this application, the board has determined
that the relief as requested be granted since: (1) the relief
requested is not substantial in relation to the requirements of
zoning, (2) the grant of this variance will not be detrimental
to the character of the area and will not adversely affect adjacent
properties, (3) the practical difficulties are sufficient, (4)
in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose, the interests
of justice will be served.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3330 in
the Matter of the Application for DOMINICK VARANO for approval of
the lot area of proposed Lot #3 of 76,300 sq. ft., BE AND HEREBY
IS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
That Lot #3 shall be restricted to one-family use only with
no additional sleeping or living quarters in any accessory
buildings (except as may be allowed by legislative action
in amending the current zoning code).
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- May~2, 1985 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3295:
Application of FLEET~S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. and
WILLIAM NICOL~ Cutchogue, NY for a Variance Appealing New York Town Law,
including Section 280-a to cancel, revoke and nullify the building
permit issued for the erection of a dwelling upon premises known and
referred to as 1000 East Road, Cutchogue, NY; Tax Map District IOOD,
Section llO, BLock 7, Lot 28 (now of Gustave J. Wade).
This is an appeal by the Fleets Neck Property Owners' Association,
Inc. (FNPOA) of the issuance of a building permit by the Building
Inspector to Gustave J. Wade (Wade) to construct a dwelling on his
property located east of East Road in the area known as Fleets Neck
at Cutchogue and shown on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000,
Section 110, Block 7, Lot 28. The permit was issued on June 20, 1984
as permit No. 13244Z. The appeal (in letter form) was filed with the
Board of Appeals on September 26, 1984. It is claimed by the Appellant
that said permit was issued in violation of the provisions of Section
280-a of the Town Law and requests that the same be revoked and canceled.
Hearings were held on January 10, 1985 and March 28, 1985 at which
hearings the Appellant and Wade and their attorneys were given much
lattitude to present their respective arguments and their versions of
the factual background leading to this appeal.
From all of the testimony presented and from a review of the
records of the Board of Trustees, deeds and other recorded agreements,
the Board finds that Wade is the owner of a parcel of land comprising
approximately 15,000± sq. ft. (.347 acre) on the shore of Eugenes
Creek (formerly an island) which is separated from the easterly termi-
nus of East Road by land owned by the Board of Trustees (Trustees) of
the Town of Southold~ that Wade applied to the Trustees for a convey-
ance or a grant of an easement across the Trustees' lands from the
easterly terminus of East Road easterly approximately 75 feet to
Wade's land~ Such request was denied and Wade thereafter commenced
an Article 78 proceeding against the Trustees seeking to reverse such
determination. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Trustees
directing that it prepare findings of fact and conclusions. On
January 30, 1985, the Trustees complied with such direction and adhered
to its original determination and denied the relief sought by Wade.
As previously stated, the basis of Appellant's appeal is noncompli-
ance with Section 280-a of the Town Law.
In a letter from the Building Inspector to this Board dated
January lO, 1985, the Building Inspector stated that he issued the
permit on the basis that_the property is technically an island and
that access thereto was by water. There is no question that Wade
Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
'(Appeal No. 3295 - FLEETS NECK PROPERTY OWNERS/WADE, continued:)
thereafter proceeded with construction work on the site gaining access
thereto by constructing a roadway from the easterly terminus of East
Road across land owned by the Trustees despite the fact that the use
of Trustee land for such purpose has been denied by the Trustees.
In this appeal, Appellants seek a determination that the building
permit issued to Wade was issued in violation of Section 280-a of the
Town Law and therefor invalid and void. At the hearing on this appeal,
much testimony was given on the question of the revocation or attempted
revocation of the permit, and the validity of a stop work order issued
by the Building Inspector. Since the appeal is limited to the validity
of the issuance of the building permit, the Board need not pass upon
such issues in this appeal.
Subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Section 280-a of the Town Law provide
as follows:
"Section 280-a. Permits for buildings .not on improved streets.
1. No permit for the erection of any building shall be issued
unless a street or highway giving access to such proposed
structure has been duly placed on t. he official map or plan, or
if there be no official map or plan, unless such street or
highway is (a) an existing state, county or town highway,
or (b) a street shown upon a plat approved by the planning
board as provided in sections two hundred Seventy-six and
two hundred seventy-seven of this article, as in effect at
the time such plat was approved, or (c) a street on a plat,
duly filed and recorded in the office of the county clerk or
register prior to the appointment of such planning board and
the grant to such board of the power to approve plats.
2. Before such permit shall be issued such street or highway
shall have been suitably improved to the satisfaction of the
town board or planning board, if empowered by the town board
in accordance with standards and specifications approved by
the town board, as adequate in respect to the public health,
safety, and §eneral welfare for the special circumstances of
the particular street or highway. Alternatively, and in the
di~scretion of such board, a performance bond sufficient to
cover the full cost of such improvement as estimated by such
board shall be furnished to the town by the owner. Such
performance bond shall be issued by a bonding or surety
company approved by the town board or by the owner with
security acceptable to the town board and shall also be
approved by such town board as to form, sufficiency and
manner of execution. The term, manner of modification and
method of enforcement of such bond shall be determined by
the appropriate board in substantial conformity with section
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14= May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3295 - FLEETS NECK PROPERTY OWNERS and NICOL:)
two hundred seventy-seven of this article.
3. Where the enforcement of the provisions of this section
would entail practical difficulty or unnecessary hardships
or where the circumstances of the case do not require the
structure to be related to existing or proposed streets or
highways, the applicant for such a permit may appeal from
the decision of the administrative officer having charge of
the issue of permits to the board or appeals or other similar
board, in any town which has established a board having power
to make variances or exceptions in zoning regulations, and
the same provisions are hereby applied to such appeals and to
such board as are provided in cases of appeals on zoning
regulations. The board may in passing on such appeal make
any reasonable exception and issue the permit subject to
conditions that will protect any future street or highway
layout. Any such decision shall be subject to review by
certiorari order issued out of a special term of the supreme
coUrt in the same manner and pursuant to the same provisions
as in appeals from the decisions of such board upon zoning
regulations."
The provisions of subdivision I of Section 280-a are clear.
In essence, it provides that '~No bu..ilding permit for the erection
of any building shall be issued unless a street or highway giving
access to such proposed structure has been placed on the official
map or plan, or...unless such street or highway is (a) an existing
state, county or town highway, or (b) a street shown upon a plat
approved by the planning board.~.or (c) a street on a plat duly
filed and recorded in the office of the county clerk...prior to the
appointment of such planning board..° "
The Town of Southold has no official map or plan. Therefore,
the Building Inspector may not issue a permit under Section 280-a(1)
of the Town Law, unless the street giving access to the proposed
structure is: (a) an existing town highway, or (b) a street
shown upon a plat approved by the planning board, or (c) a street
on a plat filed prior to the appointment of the planning board.
There is no evidence that the access from East Road to the proposed
structure meets the requirements of (a), (b)~ or (c) of subdivision 1
of Section 280-a of the Town Law. In fact, it is undisputed that
no street or highway giving access to the Wade premises is in exist-
ence~ The evidence is that the premises is separated frDm East Road
by land of the Trustees, and that the Trustees have denied access
across such land to the Wade premises.
The provisions of Section 280-a of the Town Law have been held
Southold Town Board of Appeals .~15- May 2, 7985 .Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3295 - FLEETS NECK PROPERTY OWNERS and NICOL:)
to be mandatory. (Mtr. Truesdale Owners' Assn. v. Collin 22 Misc.
2d 27)
Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr.
Goehringer,
BE IT RESOLVED, that it is the decision of this board that since
the application for a building permit did not comply with the provisions
of subdivision 1 of Section 280-a of the Town Law, the Building Inspector
had no authority to issue a building permit, and the building permit
issued by him to Wade on June 20, 1984, is hereby determined to be void;
Subdivision 3 of Section 280-a of the Town Law provides for relief
where the enforcement provisions of the section would entail practical
difficulty or unnecessary hardship. If the owner of the premises is
aggrieved, he may apply to this board for a relief provided by Section
280-a(3) of the Town Law.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members.
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3205:
Application of GUSTAVE J. WADE by Cron and Cron, Esqs., Main Road,
Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to ~icle XIV, Section 100=142 as utilized
for an alleged violation of Section 267 of New York Town Law, for rein-
statement of Building Permit #13244Z issued for the erection of a
dwellino upon premises known and referred to as 1000 East Road,
Cutchogue, NY; Tax Map District 1000, Section 110, Block 7, Lot 28.
The public hearings on this matter were hel'~ on January 10, 1985
and March 28, 1985.
This is an appeal of a determination of the Building Inspector
whereby he purportedly revoked Building Permit No, 1_~244Z issued to
Appellant Wade for the construction of a dwelling on Appellant"s land
adjacent to EugeneJs Creek at Cutchogue, New. York.
By Appeal No. 3295, this Board determined that Building Permit
No. 13244Z was improperly issued and declared the same void. Since
the permit was void from its inception, it should not b~ reinstated.
As stated in Appeal No. 3295', in which ApPellant herein participated,
Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -16- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3205 - GUSTAVE J. WADE, continued:)
Appellant's remedy is by way of an appeal to this board pursuant to the
provisions of subdivision 3 of Section 280-a of the Town Law.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer,
IT WAS RESOLVED, that Appellant's remedy is by way of an appeal
to this board pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 3 of Section
280-a of the Town Law.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members.
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3350:
Application of JOSEPH LIZEWSKI, 29205 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for
a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(B)[6]
for permission to construct building for private membership with an
insufficient setback from the easterly property line. Location of
Property: North Side of Main Road and East Side of Depot Lane, Cut-
chogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102-02-12.1.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on April 11, 1985
concerning the Matter of the Application of JOSEPH LIZEWSKI under
Appeal No. 3350, and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar
witht he premises in question as well as its surrounding area, and
WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation
entered into the record concerning this application, and
WNEREAS, there has been no opposition entered in the record up
until the conclusion of the public hearing, and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question is located in a "B-Light Business"
Zoning District pursuant to a change of zone granted by the Southold
Tow Board March 9, 1982.
2. The property in question fronts along the north side of the
Main Road (State Route 25.) 147.39 (and 116.37) feet and is also situate
with frontage along the east side of Depot Lane 173.13 feet (and 233.7
feet), and is shown to contain an area of approximately 1.5 acres and
approximately 20,000± sq. fto including the one-family dwelling and
lot at the corner of Depot Lane and Main Road, also owned by the
applicant.
Soul, hold Town Board of ApPeals -17- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
~Appeal No. 3350 JOSEPH LIZEWSKI (variance), continued:)
3. The subject premises is improved as shown on the site plan
dated April 6: 1984, for one-family residence and professional office
uses.
4. By this application, applicant proposes to construct a
44' by 66' recreation building addition for a private racquetball
membership club with a setback at its closest point from the
east side line at 32 feet, which is 8 feet closer than the estab-
lished sideyard setback of the existing principal structure.
5. Article III, Section 100~30(B)[6] permits annual membership
clubs catering exclusively to members and their guests subject to
the following requirements:
(a) No building or part thereof er any parking or
loading area shall be located within one hundred
(100) feet of any street line nor within fifty (50)
feet of any lot line
6. It is the opinion of the board that the easterly sideyard
has been established at 40 feet and the setback as proposed at 32 feet
could be allowed for this addition if the special exception use for
a racquetball club were not required by Section 100-30(B)[6], that
the relief requested is minimal and is tn harmony with the intent of
the zoning ordinance.
tn considering this application, the board has determined that
the relief as requested be granted since: (a) the relief is not
substantial; (b) the relief will not be detrimental to adjoining
properties; (c) the relief will not adversely affect the character
of the district; (d) the practical difficulties are sufficient to
warrant approval hereof; (e) the circumstances are unique since
the property has residential structures existing as a nonconforming
use since prior to the change of zoning from "A" to "B-Light";
(f) in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose, the
interests of justice will best be served by allowing same, as
noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki,
it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3350 in
the Matter of the Application of JOSEPH LIZEWSKI for an insufficient
setback from the easterly sideyard at 32 feet for a proposed
recreational club addition, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING:
Modification of the Site Plan by the Planning Board
to include a minimum of 27 parking spaces (inclusive
of handicapped parking).
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members.
Sout'hold Town Board of Appeals -18- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3322:
Application of JOSEPH LIZEWSKI, 29205 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for
a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30-
(b)[6] and Article VI, Section lO0-60(B)[1](a) for permission to establish
recreational use (private racquetball membership club) at premises located
on the north side of Main Road and east side of Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY;
District 1000, Section 102, Block 02, Lot 12~1.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held initially March 7, 1985 and was
concluded on April 11, 1985 concerning the Matter of JOSEPH LIZEWSKI under
Appeal No. 3322, and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the subject premises as well as its surrounding area, and
WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation
entered into the record in this matter, and
WHEREAS, there has been no opposition entered in the record up
until the conclusion of the public hearing, and
WHEREAS, the board made' the following findings of fact:
1. The property in questio~ i~'~ locate~ in a "B-Light Business'~
Zoning District pursuant to a change of zone granted by the Southold
Tow Board March 9, '1982~
2. The property ~n question fronts along the north side of the
Main Road (State Route 25) 147.39 (and 116.37) feet and is also situate
with frontage along the east side of Depot Lane 173.13 feet (and 233.7
feet), and is shown to contain an area of approximately 1.5 acres and
approximately 20,000± sq. ft. including the one-family dwelling and
lot at the corner of Depot Lane and Main Road, also owned by the
applicant.
3. The subject premises is improved as shown on the site plan
dated April 6, 1984, for one-family residence and professional office
uses.
4. This is an application for a Special Exception by which
applicant proposes to c~nstruct a 44' by 66' recreational addition
for use as a private racquetball membership club with a setback at
32 feet from the easterly side property line.
5. Article III, Section 100-30(B)[6] permits annual membership
clubs catering exclusively to members and their guests after receiv-
ing a special exception from this board and site plan approval from
Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -19- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
~Appeal No. 3322 - JOSEPH LIZEWSKI [Special Exception], continued:)
the Planning Board in accordance with Section 100-134 of the Code~
6. For the record it is noted that conditional approval has
been made simultaneously herewith to grant an insufficient sideyard
setback from the e~sterly property line as 32 feet under Appeal
No. 3350.
In considering this application, the board determines: (1) the
use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent
properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (2) that
the safety, healths welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the
town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its
location; (3) the use is in harmony with and will promote the
general purposes and intent of zoning since ~t is a permitted use.
In passing upon this application, the board has also considered
items (a) through (1) of Article XII, Section 100-121(C)[2] of the
Zoning Code.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr.
Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that a Special Exception as requested under Appeal
No. 3322 in the Matter of the Application of JOSEPH LIZEWSKI at
premises known and identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as
District 1000, Section 102, Block 02, Lot 12.1, BE AND HEREBY IS
APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
Modification of the Site Plan by the Planning Board
to include a minimum of 27 parking spaces (inclusive
of handicapped parking).
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass~
seconded by Mr.'Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following "Negative Declarations
pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing'regulations to Article 8
of the Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Con-
servation Law and ~cal Law #44 of the T6wn of South~ld, to wit:
Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -20-May 2 , 1985 Regular Meeting
S~E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONmeNTAL DECLAtQITION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: #3346
PROJECT NAME: Blum Reynold (Peconic Bay Vineyards)
This notice is issued pursuant to Par~ 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a ~ignifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
conozd~red a determination ma~e for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or simil~r
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [X~ Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special Exception to.construct and operate
a w%ne~y, and v~neyard
I,d~-A~ION OF P '~ ,
ROJECT: Town of Southold County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 31320 Main R0ad~ 'Cutch'0gue~. NY
$CTM# 103-t-19.tl
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this pro]ect bc imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The property in question is not located within 300 feet
of tidal wetland% ot other critical environmental area~
Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3329:
Application of BRIDEN MACHINE CORP., Box 881, Mattituck, NY for
a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-81, Bulk
Schedule for permission to construct machine shop building with
insufficient side and rear yard setbacks at 555 Westphalia Avenue,
Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 141, Block 03,
Lot 35.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded in the Matter
of the Application of BRIDEN MACHINE CORPORATION on March 28, 1985, and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question as well as its surrounding area,
an~
WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation
entered into the record in this matter, and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question is located in a "C-Light" Indus-
trial Zoning District as adopted by resolution of the Town Board on
November 15, 1983, and contains a total area of 34,450~ sq. ft. with
frontage of 156.75 feet along Westphalia Avenue;
2. The subject premises is identified as District 1000,
Section 141, Block 3, Lot 35 on the Suffolk County Tax Maps and is
improved with one concrete block building set back 1.4± feet from
its front property line along Westphalia Avenue and 28± feet at its
nearest point from the easterly (side) property line.
3. By this application, appellant requests relief from
Article VIII, Section.s 100-81 and IO0-80(B)[I] for permission to
construct an 80' by 180' building for industrial use with an
~nsufficient setback: (a) from the most south-easterly property
line at its nearest point eight feet; (b) from the most south-
westerly property line along land now of Penny, five feet; Ic)
from the property line along the southerly side of land now of
Ruland, 10 feet.
4. The subject premises is of a very unique character
being an "L"-shaped parcel and therefore lends itself to the
practical difficulties warranted in the granting of this application.
Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -22- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
5. For the record it is noted that the Planning Board on
April l, 1985 has reviewed the site plan in question and submitted
its recommendations as noted in its letter dated April 4, 1985;
6. It is also noted that an application for a Special
Exception has simultaneously been filed with this variance request
under Application No. 3328 pursuant to the requirements of
Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B)[I].
In considering this application, the board has determined
that the relief as requested'be granted since: (a) the relief
requested will not adversely affect adjoining properties; (b)
the character and shape of the subject premises warrant the
granting of the relief requested since a majori%y of the property
would be practically unbuildable if required to meet all of the
setbacks in this zoning district; (c) the circumstances are
unique; (d) in view of the manner in which the difficulties
arose, the interests of justice will be served by allowing the
relief as noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by
Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that a variance be granted under Appeal No. 3329
in the Matter of the Application of BRIDEN MACHINE CORP., for
permission to construct a one-story building for industrial use
(reduced in size to conform) SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Minimum 15' rearyard setback from the southerly
property line (abutting Penny);
2. Minimum 23' setback from the most easterly property
line (abutting LIRR);
3. Minimum 23' setback as proposed from the northwesterly
side line (abutting land of Boufford (1000-141-3-36).
Location of Property: 555 Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-141-03-035.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3328:
Application of BRIDEN MACHINE CORP., Box 8812 Mattituck~ NY for
a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section
100-80 for permission to establish and use industrial building as a
machine shop in this "C-Light Industrial Zoning District, parcel
identified as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 141, Block 03,
Lot 35; 555 Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck, NY.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded in the Matter
of the Application of BRIDEN MACHINE CORPORATION under Appeal No. 3328
on March 28, 1985, and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question as well as its surrounding area,
and
WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation
entered into the record in this matter, and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question is located in a "C-Light" Indus-
trial Zoning District as adopted by resolution of the Town Board on
November 15, 1983, and contains a total area of 34,450± sq. ft. with
frontage of 156.75 feet along Westphalia Av6nue;
2. The subject premises is identified as District 1000,
Section 141~, Block 3, Lot 35 on the Suffolk County Tax Maps and is
improved with one concrete block building set back 1.4± feet from
its front property line along Westphalia Avenue and 28± feet at its
nearest point from the easterly (side) property line.
3. By this application, appellant request.s relief from
Article VIII, Sections 100-81 and lO0-80(B)[1] for permission to
construct an 80' by 180' building for industrial use with an
insufficient setback: (a) from the most south-easterly property
line at its nearest point eight feet; (b) from the most south-
westerly property line along land now of Penny, five feet; (c)
from the property line along the southerly side of land now of
Ruland, 10 feet.
4. The subject premises is of unusual character being an
"L"-shaped parcel, and simultaneously herewith an application for
an area variance was conditionally granted under Appeal No. 3329
for insufficient setbacks.
5. For the record it is noted that the Planning Board on
April 1, 1985 has reviewed the site plan in question pursuant to
the requirements of Section lO0-80[B)[1] and submitted its
recommendations as noted in its letter dated April 4, 1985;
Sou~chold Town Board of Appeals -24- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
In considering this application, the board determines:
(1) the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of
adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts~
(2) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order
of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use
and its location; (3) the use is in harmony with and will
promote the general purposes and intent of zoning.
In passing upon this application, the board has also
considered items (a) through (1) of Article XII, Section 100-
121(C)[2] of the Zoning Code.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by
Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that a Special Exception be granted under
No. 3328 in the Matter of the Application of BRIDEN MACHINE CORP.
to establish and use the proposed one-story industrial building
as a machine shop as shown on the proposed plot plan dated
12/21/84, received 1/29/85, and in accordance with the following
CONDITIONS:
1. Minimum 15' rearyard setback from the southerly
property line (abutting land now of Penny);
2. Minimum 23' setback from the most easterly property
line (abutting LIRR);
3. Minimum 23' setback as proposed from the northwesterly
side line (abutting land now of Boufford, 1000-141-03-36).
Location of Property: 555 Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-141-03-035.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
APPEAL NO~ 3343 - WILBUR BALDWIN by Ken Schuler. The
subject ~pplication was fi.led for an accessory building to be
converted for sleeping quarters at Vanston Road an_d H~ywaters
Road, Cutchogue~ Since the filing of same, numerous objections
have been received and copies forwarded to the applicant.
On April 18, 1985, this board received a written request from
the applicant requesting a withdrawn of this appeal. The board
took the following action:
Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -25- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3343 - WILBUR BALDWIN, continued:)
On motion by Mr. Goehrin§er, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, ~t was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3343, application for WILBUR BALDWIN
be and hereby is WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE (as requested).
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous
vote of all the members.
APPEAL NO. 3340 - PERICONI AND CIMINI by Rudolph Bruer, Esq.
The subject appeal was filed on March 14, 1985 for a proposed division
of land with insufficient lot area and insufficient setbacks at the
North Side of C.R. 48, Peconic. Comments were received from the
Planning Board on April 17, 1985. On April 23, 1985, written
communications was received from Mr. Bruer requesting a withdrawal
of the subject application and to be advised if his clients are
entitled to any reimbursement of fees paid. The board took the
following action:
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3340, application for JAMES PERICONI
and MARION CIMINI be and hereby is withdrawn without prejudice (as
requested).
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous
vote of all the members.
DELIBERATIONS: Appeal No. 3326: WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER.
The board briefly discussed the particulars of the subject applica-
tion, for Which a public hearing was held and concluded on April 11,
1985. Mr. and Mrs. Coster were present.~ Concern was mentioned as
to the need of an additional 10' from the frontyard off Main R~ad
(total 45' setback instead) to allow for possible widening of the
road and concerns on traffic safety being within 200 feet of three
separate street intersections. The board members agreed to reinspect
and table a decision on this matter until the next meeting.
NEW APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3349 CLIFFSIDE ASSOCIATES
(Tide Mark, Tetaldi) filed by Richard Haefeli, E~q. The board
reviewed the site plan amendments filed April 18, 1985 after
field inspecting the premises in question. Motion was made by
Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, to declare this
application "complete" and to declare the following "Positive
Declaration," all pursuant to the rules and requirements of
the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act:
Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- May 2, 1986 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3349 - CLIFFSIDE ASSOCIATES/TIDEMARK, continued:)
Location of Property in Question: North Side C.R. 48, Greenport
Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 45, Block 01, Lots 1 & 2
Project Proposed: Forty-six (46) dwelling units in six buildings on
7.002± acres per site plan as amended and submitted April 18, 1985.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Pursuant to Section 617.7 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environ-
mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, and in order to
commence the processing of the SEQRA procedures, the Board of Appeals
of the Town of Southold at this time declares itself lead agency in
this proposed project and hereby classifies the same as an Unlisted
Action which may have significant adverse effects upon the environ-
ment for the following reasons:
1. A complete traffic study is necessary to properly assess
the impacts at Route 25 and Chapel Lane, traffic safety and flow, and
visibility of oncoming traffic from either a westerly direction or
easterly direction within the "S-turns" along Route 25 (particularly
at the highest speed permitted by law in this area);
2. A complete study is necessary as to the effects on the
Long Island Sound due to soil erosion, alteration of surface drainage
and water runoff caused by new construction, regrading, and new roads;
3. A complete study is necessary as to the impact of this new
construction, its disruptive effects on the neighborhood (including
but not limited to nearby residences and existing nursing home resi-
dences);
4. A complete study is necessary as to the effects of the
quality of ground water if a water source other than a public water
system with the Village of Greenport is to be considered and approved;
5. A complete study is necessary as to the effects of the
quality of ground water if a private water (well) system is to be
considered and approved;
6. A complete study is necessary as to the effects of the
quality of drinking ground water and ground pollution if a private
sewage system is to be considered and approved.
It is hereby requested that the applicant andlor his agent
furnish our department with a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) in accordance with Section 617.8 and as stipulated above.
Sou~thold Town Board of Appeals =27- May 2, 1§85 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3349- ;LIFFSIDE ASS~OCIATES/TtDEMARK, continued:)
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous
vote of all the members.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary is hereby authorized
to coordinate copies of the Notice of Position Declaration to the
following agencies pursuant to Section 617.8 of the State Environ-
mental Quality Review Act:
Mr. Robert F. Flacke, Commissioner
N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolfe Road
Albany, NY 12233
Mr. Stephen A. Costa, P.E., Chief
Wastewater Management Section
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
County Center
Riverhead, NY 11901
Mr. Thomas J. McDonald
N.Y.S. Clearinghouse
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
L.I. Regional Planning Board
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, NY 11787
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous
vote of all the members.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass,
seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations
pursuant to
So~thold Town Board of Appeals -29- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3344
PROJECT NA~IE: HERODOTUS DAMIAN0S
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II ~'X] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special Exception for winery for retail
sale and production of grapes.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of $outhold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 37645 Main Road, Pec0nic, NY; ]000-085-02-]5;
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area,
'Sout~old~ Town Board of Appeals -$0- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAP~ATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 335l
PROJECT NAME: ANDREW AND IDA PtTRE
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the r~asons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or simitJr
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance to construct shed in fr0ntyard.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, Countyof Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 670 H0lbr00k Lane, Mattituck, NY; ]13-6-8.
RF~SON(S) :SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION:
(1} An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur shouId this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) Construction is landward of existing structures.
Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -31- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATI~EE ENVIRON~IENTAL DECLAP~TION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 334l
PROJECT N~J~E: HELEN M. CONWAY
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Enviroru~ental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Set off creating tow 10ts, one which
wi]] have insufficient ]0t area, width and depth.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County~ of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: Chestnut Road, S0uth0]d, NY.
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous
vote of all the members.
Sou~hold. Town Board of Appeals -32- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR MAY 23, 1985:
On motion by Mr. Goeh/~ng~r~-seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the following applications be and hereby are
scheduled to be held for public hearings at the next Regular Meeting
of this Board, to wit: THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1985, to be held at the
Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southo~d, NY:
7:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3344 - HERODOTUS DAMIANOS. Special
Exception for Winery and Production of Grapes
7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3346 - REYNOLD BLUM. Special Excep-
tion for Winery and Production of Grapes
7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3341 - HELEN M. CONWAY - Insufficient
lot area, depth and width of parcel to be set-off
?rom 6 acres. Chestnut Road, Southold.
7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3361 JEAN C. HOLLAND. Insufficient
lot area and width (re-division) of Lots 327 and
328, Nassau Point, Section C, and Lots 36 and 37,
Map of Wal, ter Grabie, Cutchogue.
7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3342 - PHILIP REINHARDT - For approval
of insufficient area, depth and wSdth of two
parcels at the N/s Pine Neck Road, Southold.
8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3351 ANDREW AND IDA PITRE - For
approval of accessory shed in frontyard. Holbrook
Lane, Mattituck.
Vote of,~the. Board: A~es: Messrs. Goeh~inger,' Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous
vote of all the members.
DISCUSSION: WETLANDS SETBACKS: The board members discussed
the recent legislation passed under Local Law #4-1985 concerning
setback restrictions for all structures, requiring applications and
approvals from both the Southold Town Trustees and the Z.B.A.
Recently, Gary Doroski was referred to the Town Trustees and the
ZBA by NOtice of Disapproval dated April 17th, even though he
received other necessary zoning setback variances as recent as
2/14/85 from the ZBA. Mr. Doroski's application for a building
permit was filed since 9/21/84 and has been pending DEC approval
which was issued on April 9th. On April 1st Local Law #4 was filed
with the NYS Secretary of State. It was the consensus of the board
Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals ~33- May 2, 1985 Regular Meeting
that Mr. Doroski should receive a refund of the $75.00 filing fee
and should be exempt from the new law since his proposal has
previously received approval from the Z.B.A. The Secretary was
authorized and directed to send a letter to the Supervisor and the
Town Board requesting same.
There being no other business properly coming before the
board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
L~i~owalski, Secretary
.-"'~~~~ South old Town Board of Appeals
./Gerard P. Goe~fringe~/ Chairman
/" May 23, 1985- /
(Transcript of verbatim statements made during hearings are
prepared and filed under separate cover.)
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursda'Y, Max 2, 198~5
%.3337 - At 7:35 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
KIMON AND WOODENE RETZOS for a variance for approval of access for
right of way on east side of Rocky Point Road near southerly line
of Metropoulos and over land of Nowell Estates. Chairman read
legal notice and appeal application in their entirety for the
record.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gillispie, would you like to be heard?
MR. GILLISPIE: I can answer questions, Mr. Chairman, but the
application speaks for itself.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any objection to any improvements to
be made to this right of way?
MR. GILLISPIE: Do I have any objections?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, are you representing these applicants?
MR. GILLISPIE: I represent Mr. Retzos, who own the property.
They seek to zmprove the right of way for access to 2 and 3.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So, basically, you have no objections to the
improvement of the right of way?
MR. GILLISPIE: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else on behalf? Against the
application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further
questions, I make a motion closing the hearing.. We have sent the
town engineer out there. He has given us recommendations and we
will attempt to follow those recommendations. We sometimes modify
them and as soon as we get together on this particular action, or
application, we will have a decision for you. It will not be
tonight, however. Ail in favor.
%3345 - At 7:40 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
BRUCE M. VITALE for a variance to operate a carpenter shop within
existing building in B-light zone, southside Sound Avenue,
Mattituck, New York. Chairman read legal notice and appeal appli-
cation in their entirety for the record.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
application?
Would anybody like to be heard on behalf of this
ZBA
5/2/85
Page 2
BRUCE M. VITALE HEARING - continued
BRUCE VITALE: I am going in front of the Board to apply. In
view of the surrounding area, I don't t'hink I would have any
problem as far as interrupting anyone's lifestyle, or making
noise or creating a nuisance. I am a small business; I employ
2 or 3 people at a time and I don't plan to get larger.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you renting this building?
BRUCE VITALE: NO, I own it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And was it the Building Department's opinion that
a carpenter shop is permitted only in a B-1 zone.
BRUCE VITALE: Right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to be selling things from this?
BRUCE VITALE: Yes, I do retail business..
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so.
BRUCE VITALE: TO be perfectly honest, I do have a wholesale
business. I sell to furniture stores on the Island.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is custom fUrniture, not outdoor furniture?
BRUCE VITALE: This is mostly kitchens, dining rooms etc.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am a little unclear on this. Are you only asking
for the use within that building or are you asking for the entire
piece of property?
BRUCE VITALE: My business is indoors and I don't use the outdoors.
Although I am sure I will have to. Eventually I plan to clean up
the yard and plant something. It's not a business that requires
great outdoor use.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is rather a large building.
BRUCE VITALE: The reason that I chose this, is I had been looking
out in the area for quite a while and for what was available and
the price I paid for it. Well, what I am paying in rent in C~p~igue
and I live mn Amityville, it made sense to buy.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How much storage, or what part of the building
would be used for storage, do you know?
ZBA
5/2/85
Page Three
BRUCE M. VITALE HEARING - continued
BRUCE VITALE: Right now, I have one of the bays rented. There's
eight separate units inside the building and one of the local farmers
is using it for potatoes. I would like to see a few of them rented
to keep it full. I will probably use 3 or 4 bays eventually.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Of that 3/4 which you will be eventually using,
approximately what percentage of that would be used for storage?
BRUCE VITALE: Well, my raw materials and my finished product
would probably take a quarter of that or 3/4 of that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So, this is a consignment type of thing?
BRUCE VITALE: Not in the terms used. I have set customers that
buy my products. It is mostly residential kitchen and dining rooms
stUff - tables to be specific and it's small operation, 2 or 3 at
a time - we are not really manufacturing in great quantities.
But I would like to get involved with the local people as far as
retail goes and do some architectural woodworking with some of the
local contractors. And any. other needs that a woodworking shop
can provide in the area, I would like to do.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay~ let's see what else develops. Thank you very
much. Anyone else on behalf of this application? Against the
application? Questions from Board members? Correct me if I am
wrong, okay, Mr. Doyen's question is what about the rentals?
This is basically an 8 bay steel corrugated potato house.
BRUCE VITALE: If there are certain areas of the building that I
am not using, I will rent for a little more income. I am not looking
to turn the building into a rental unit. The farmers had been renting
this building over the years, mostly potatoes for storage, so I
guess it's switching over from potatoes to grapes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think where the question arises with that area
of rental, is that the building has been used for an agricultural
use. Now, the question basically is I would like you within the
next week or two to submit us a floor plan on the area that you
are going to utilize at this time , so that we know what we are
talking about. Also, so that we know what portion of the building
if we are so inclined to grant this application, that you are going
to be using. What often happens is the remaining part of the building
since the building is now having the use of B-l, certain people may
come in other than farmers and attempt to rent the building and we
would then have multiple uses in one particular building and I don't
think this Board has any tremendous objection continuing the
agricultural use if there is a rental in a certain portion of
the building, but we would object to an industrial use; a use
that would be a pollutant to the environment.
ZBA
5/2/85
Page Four
BRUCE M. VIATLE HEARING - continued
BRUCE VITALE: You would put certain restrictions on this?
MR. CHAIRMAN: YES, yes.
BRUCE VITALE: At this point, I am very concerned to establish
myself. The rentals would help, but if there were certain res-
trictions, that would be more than fair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's why I want you tell me how many bays ...
draw it out and bring it in the office and we will make a decision
on it, because we are not going to make a decision on it tonight.
I will close 'this hearing pending the receipt of this from you
and we will go from there. Floor plans as far as office space,
storage space, utility or shop plans. Remember, if we only
grant the use of the building, then the expanse Wait, if we
were to grant you the use of 3/4 of this building or 6 out of 8
bays, the other two bays would have to remain as agricultural use
or B light use, whatever the individual restrictions are. Anyone
else who has any comments on this particular applications?
Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing
pending receipt of floor plans. All in favor.
#3336 - At 7:53 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
ANN SABA for a variance for approval of insufficien~area and
wid~ Of lots in proposed 2 lot division, 1000 Stillwater Avenue,
Cutchogue, New. York. Chairman read legal notice and appeal appli-
cation in their entirety for the record.
MR. CHAIRMAN~ Would somebody like to be heard on behalf of this
application?
P. SUJESKI: So, you have a copy of these maps here? Ail she
wants to do is add more footage to where the existing house is
at present, blocking off the other side to be given to her son,
to be used at a future date.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea what the distance is from
the house to the proposed property line? I don't have any...
P. SUJESKI: No, is it 32.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it is a little more than that.
different map than I?
You have a
ZBA
5/2/85
Page Five
ANNA SABA HEARING - continued
P. SUJESKI: This is the proposed line here and there will be
plenty, plenty of room.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you measure from here to here and the distance
to the house and an approximate distance from here to here, not
tonight, but sometime within the next week or so?
If I get the distance from here to here, and you tell me what
the length of the house is, I will know what the difference is by
subtracting to get the distance from here to here. When I was
down there I did not have a tape, and the weather was fine, but
I was without the tape and I could not find this monument over in
this corner here. Is there anything else that you wanted to say
concerning this? Okay.
P. SUJESKI : The properties located in the surrounding
area are all small and even if it is divided, we would have more
than the properties have, even across the street from us.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are the applicant?
P. SUJESKI: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Anyone else on b~half of
this application? Against the application? Questions from
Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion
closing this hearing, reserving decision until receipt of the
distance I requested.
~3339 - At 7:55 a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
GUY SOBERING for a variance for approval of insufficient area
of lots in proposed 2 lot subdivision, northside Sound Avenue
Mattituck, New York. Chairman read legal notice and appeal appli-
cation for the record in their entirety.
P. CARDINALE: Mrs. Guy Sobering is here in case you have any
questions. The one thing I would like to have you place in the
file is further indication that the separation agreement was made
in 1981 and was filed. What happened here is that the Soberings
bought the place in '72, a four acre parcel, and they contemplated
dividing it, but never made formal subdivision application. The
marriage became 5roubled; they entered into a separation agreement
he uses the studio and has used it and she uses the house.
ZBA
5/2/85
Page Six
GUY SOBERING HEARING - continued
P. CARDINALE - continued: It now appears that they never made
the formal application before the change of zoning. The do need
a variance now 'because the proposal is 16,000 s.f. short. There
are already existing buildings on each piece as you can see. One
interesting thing that I just found about right now. Apparently
in 1975, which adds to the uniqueness of the situation, and the
fact that practical difficulty not necessarily hardship would
result,in 1975 Ruth and Guy made an application #2003, January 29th,
to this Board, the ZBA, regarding this exact piece. They, at that
time, contemplated dividing into 40,000 s.f. with that concrete
foundation and the studio and deck, and they made ~pplication for
a variance in accordance with zoning ordinance, Article 3, Section
100.30 for permission to use exi sting foundation ~or new con-
struction with insufficient setbacks, location of ~he property is
what you are looking at. After inspection and decision, the
Board finds the applican't requests to use the existing foundation
for new construction. The findings of the Board, are tha~ the
applicant wishes to use the existing foundation which one of the
building inspectors found to be sound~ The Board agrees with
the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds tkat strict
application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties
and unneccessary hardships unique and would not be shared by all
properties alike in the immediate vicinity and in ~his district.
A variance would not change the character of the neighborhood.
Therefore, be it resolved that Ruth and Guy Sobering be granted
permission to use the existing foundation for new Construction
.... etc., subject to the following conditions.
1. A condition of granting is that the applicant must
adhere to the lot lines set forth in Young and Young survey
dated August 18, 1972.
2.This permission will establish at least 40,Q00 s f
area surrounding the 2 story house and at lea~t 40~0~0 s.f.
of area surrounding the building to be constructed.
So, I would like to submit this. And the map that accompanied it
which is realt, y of historical value because it was never.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's see if it is the same map that I have.
Yes, it is the same map. Thank you very much.
P. CARDINALE: The thing I would add is that this
situation and the filing of a separation agreement,
each of them to use one half of this three acre par
studio, she the house, that since they had a varian
which indicated that it would be okay to use that s
long as they surround it with at least 40,000 s.f ,
were to grant the variance we are asking for, it wc
inconsistent with what it did in 1975.
s a matrimonial
which calls for
cel, he the
ce at one time
tructure, as
if the Board
uld not be
P. CARDINALE:
G. SOBERING:
P. CARDINALE:
MR. CHAIRMAN:
okay.
P. CARDINALE:
ZBA
5/2/85
Page Seven
GUY SOBERING HEARING - continued
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does Mr. Sobering intend to use this structure?
Or a portion of it, I mean, is he going to add to the studio?
What is your intent?
I don't have any intent.
If I understand it, he is using it as a studio now.
Is it a dwelling now or are you living there? No,
Specifically, a studio and foundation. Eventually
we would like to put a residence or to use that foundation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Anyone else on behalf.of this
application? Against the application? Questions from Board Members?
Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing
reserving decision until later.
#3338 - At 8:00 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
HOWARD L YOUNG for a variance for approval of insufficient area
of two lots in proposed 3 lot subdivision of land north side Main
Road and eastside Browns Hill Road, Orient, New York. Chairman
read legal notice and appeal application in their entirety for
the record.
J. DEREEDER: I will answer any questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I had spoken to you on the telephone concerning
this application and you had asked me that the Young's were anti-
cipating a change of different conformity of lot lines. You in-
dicated to me that you would like to request a recess of this
particular hearing until such time a different map could be drawn.
There are some trees and some buildings that they would like pre-
served with different lot lines, is that so?
J. DEREEDER: Yes, there is one particular tree of major concern
and some other woods that we can better serve and save by moving
things-a little bit.
ZBA
5/2/85
Page Eight
HOWARD L. YOUNG HEARING - continued:
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's see how the hearing goes, let's see if there
is any opposition and we will try to give you an approximate d~ate
for a decision. Anyone else on behalf of this application?
Against the application?
MARGARET YOUNG: I am the wife of George Young, who is the little
property owner you will see on the map. We feel that 3 lots out
there is too many. We can see 2. As you know, we worry about the
water and I am sure you have seen that North Fork water supply plan,
which is on file in the Town Clerk's office and I quote from that.
It says the available fresh water supply is extremely limited and
it is further recommended that development in the Orient area be
tightly controlled. It is further recommended that .only variances
resulting in less water uses be approved. I guess some of you ha~e
seen that new master plan that came out on Tuesday and right across
the street from the subject territory, they are suggesting five
acre zoning. They want very low density where we are and we figure
if the taxpayers pay for these findings, that the Board should be
very tempted to go along with them.
Also, we worry about overpumping. Right now, they have probably
done water tests there, you have
so George and I are the only house on that land. The Planning Board
has already approved a subdivision north of us and that has 32 lots
· n it, so we are already worried about some of the pumping that
is going to go on. We are also worried about drawing in temik.
We have pure water, we are very lucky, we are surrounded by con-
taminated wells and we are afraid of that. I guess what we are
saying is we wish that you would put off making any decision on
3 building lots until you have had a chance to study the master
plan map and the~map you are having updated. That's all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else against the application?
MRS_~ OLIVA :
Planning Board?
Is there a letter in your files from the
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a letter, would you like me to read the
letter.. Resolved, the Southold Town Planning Board forwards the
following comments to the ZBA on minor subdivision of Howard L.
Young and wife at Orient, dated April 17, 1985.
1. Two of the three parcels proposed are less than 80,000 s.f.
requirement. However, it is noted that the surrounding lots
are small.
2. Consideration should be given to creating two conforming
lots rather than three as proposed.
ZBA
5/2/85
Page Nine
HOWARD L. YOUNG HEARING-..~continued
MR. CHAIRMAN: - continued --
3. The Board questions the 90°turn on the dr'&veway.
Anything else? Anyone else pro or con? Board members, do you
have any objection to the possibility of a recess, somewhere in
the area of the June 13th meeting? Would you offer that as a
motion, Mr. Sawicki? All in favor. Thank you very much.
~3320 - BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP/SAGE minu%es submitted and
attached hereto as pages lO through 23.
Respectfully submitted,
B/arbara Strang
**These minutes were transcribed from tapes recorded in
my absence.
pp. 1 - 9
lO - 23 (Bayview Development/Sage)
ZBA - Page 10
May 2, 1985
Bayview Development Corporation/Sage
Application ~3320 -reconvened
MR. FORCHELLI:I would like to submit some documents that were not
submitted last time. First, I have an aerial photo of this property
which I would like to submit, which indicates the road in red and
in black I have circled the property which belongs to the applicant,
and I would like to submit that into the record.
The property as it is zoned is A-Residential, 80,000 s.f.
for single family dwellings. Although that's the zoning, it is
presently improved with a roadway that divides the property and
the loss of services from the adjacent properties, including the
marina and it improves the 37 structures, 31 of them, for which
there are certificates of occupancy, and I would like to submit
to the Board the c/o for the structures. I would like to point
out that the application, and you can see it clearly from the
picture , involves the cottages which are all located at the
far end of the property. The variances affect the cottages in
that area and I would like to submit, and I know it's in the
record, I would like to submit another copy of my letter to
the Board, January 10th, which indicates that the variance
only affects the 19 proposed lots and do not affect any other
property, which is there.
Now, what we are seeking to do; there are 31 existing
cottages there in that area. What we are seeking to do is
thin them out and by removing 12 of them and removing accessory
structures and thereby reducing density to 19 lots and 19 struc-
tures on them and this would thin out the density almost 40%
and the 19 remaining cottages would request to be on legal lots.
Now the reason we are ~equesting the variance is because all of
the structures are clustered in that one area and we cannot
comply with the zoning with the 80,000 s.f. zoning and leave
the cottages remaining. We felt it was economically feasible
to thin it out from 31 to 19 and thereby reduce the density and
have something that was economically feasible and yet with our
plan, we propose to dedicate substantial other acreage on the
property so we have a gross area of 45 acres and yet we have a
net acreage of o~er 80,000 s.f. per each of the 19 lots. Thereby
we comply with the spirit and intent of the ordinance as it was
amended a number of years ago.
The open area includes the 29 acres on the northwest end of
the property, 2.5 acres which is around a small basin and 1.556
acres which is the island and then there is a lot of 30,000 s.f.
which would be the common beach for the 19 lots. Just to recap the
history of the property, initially an application was made to the
Planning Board and by resolution dated January 7th., the Planning
Board referred to the Town Board to consider the cluster zoning
approval and by resolution dated January 7th, the Town Board did
approve a cluster concept for the property. I submit to you a
letter . That was a resolution of the Planning Board referring
it to the Town Board.
ZBA
May 2, 1985
Page 1t of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage
MR. FORCHELLI - continued: The Town Board acted on February 5th
and did approve the property for full cluster zone and I submit a
copy of their resolution to you from February 5th. I would also
like to submit to you as our next exhibit, copies of the Planning
Board's resolution, in which the SEQRA and al.so a copy of their
resolution wherein sketch plan approval was granted to the property.
In reviewing the application, I believe the application is a
good one. It meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance and yet
it takes into consideration the facts of life, or the fact that there
are 31 cottages and 37 structures there at present and that being
so, we are not mindful of cases which say that zoning has to do with
use of property not who the owner is or how the ownership is and
realizing it and looking at it and saying we could possibly go in
and co-op or condo 31 units, we are not seeking to do that. What
we are seeking to do ms come here, set aside 45 acres 35 net,
and have 19 cottages where there were once 31. We believe it is
a good application and that it should be granted. We are not over-
intensifying use and density will be as provided in the ordinance.
I would like to point out, when we talk about cluster, sometimes
there is confusion that cluster means condominiums. This is not
a condominium. This is 19 lots that are clustered closer. There
will be individual houses with side, front and rear yards. It is
Just because of their existing configu ration on that stretch they
will all be located on that stretch, with the balance of the property
of that 45 acres, not condominiums and not attached houses and not
2 family houses. They are one family houses on 19 proposed lots.
I also would like to submit for the Board for the record, a
copy of resolutions where in similar applications granted in 1977.
Now, I believe when we we.re here three weeks ago, there was a
question raised regarding notice and whether or not adequate no-
tice had been given to surrounding owners, and particularity resi-
dents on Tarpon Drive and the matter was adjourned at that time.
I respectfully submit to you that as shown on the aerial photo,
Tarpon Drive residents on one side, can only be considered adjacent
if we consider the roadway not as dividing the property and the road-
way I have marked mn red. This is the area where the cottages are.
There is a break in the property here for the marina and some houses
here. The property is contiguous here. The red line divides the
...This portion there is divided from this by the roadway, which is
used by the marina and by these dwellings. Tarpon Drive is in this
area. I would submit that they are not within the meaning of the
ordinance. If the Board would like to submit otherwise, then I
would like to indicate to you that after our meeting on April 18th,
I met with Mr. Weissman and Mr. Flynn regarding this and I con-
firmed that meeting with Mr. Weissman, in which I sent the notice
of this meeting to him and I would like to submit to you a copy of
my letter to him dated April 19th, which is further notice to
Mr. Weissman of the meeting. In addition to that, by express
mail, guaranteed delivery by this morning 4 additional notices
ZBA
April 11 , 1985
Page 12of Bayview Developemnt Corporation/Sage
MR. FORCHELLI - continued: were sent out and I submit to you
the postal express mail receipts. I just would like to state that
I, in looking at this application, had a great de'al of difficulty
in understanding a, wherein existing 31 cottages that do have
c/o's, how in reducing it, what would be a major objection to it.
And I think as a result of my numerous conferences and my meeting,
and so on, I have determined that there is a master plan that has
just been revealed or officially shown in which the coYe area of
this property is proposed to be zoned in a marine/commercial
or a marine/business type use. Now, I have written a letter to
the Planning Board saying if they change the zone of that property,
then we will develop it in accordance with change of zone. Well,
that's nothing spectacula~r, whatever it is zoned, we can't use it
otherwise.
I want to state that we are, my client is a residential
builder and has no problem developing the entire property in Section 2,
residential. I think what we have here is some neighbors who are
opposed to a possible change of zone, which we are not advocating,
but have applied for. The~ are opposed to a possible change of zone.
They would hope that someway through this application, there could
be a commitment made that zone would not be changed. I don't have
the ability to do that and even if I did, I certainly would not try
to interfere with the Town Board's deliberations on master plan and
I think it is a terrible situation. We are coming in with a plan,
which we believe is good and they whipsawed into getting a commit-
ment out of the Town Board that they wouldn't change the zone on
the balance of the property. I don't have that ability to do that
and I think that if there is objection based on that, that objection
is not really relevant here. This is an applicaton that relates
to Section 1 of this map, relative to existing cottages and I trust
that this Board would consider it on its merits without consideration
of a master plan or something that a Town Board meant in its legis-
lative function. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Forchelli. Is there anybody else who
would like to speak on behalf of this application?
H. DRUMM: Gentlemen, I spoke last month in favor, and I would
like to say again. I have been a resident of Southold town all
my life,-as was my father and grandfather. I have a farm and I
believe in open space. I have known the.~Sage property, as I refer
to it, for many, many years. I felt that the way to go for the 31
cottages that exist and have been existing for manyyears, that the
19 cottages , basically two acre zoning was ideal. It preserves the
open space, which there is a lake and woods, and this plan does
preserve the open space. It is in keeping with our plan. It goes
along with the new master plan. We are only talking about these
19 cottages. I am very much in favor of it. I feel there are
c/o's on the cottages; the Planning Board has indicated in writing,
in fact it was the Planning Board that said what about the other
areas. The Planning Board has said okay and so has the Town Board
approved the cluster zone. I personally feel that and I request
that the ZBA vote tonight in the affirmative. Thank you.
ZBA
May 2, 1985
Page 1.3.3of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else who would
like to speak on behalf of the application? Yes, sir.
F. M. FLYNN: I have been informed, perhaps erroneously,
that Mr. Drumm was involved with the sale of this property as a
real estate broker, agent. If that be the case, I think perhaps
his endorsement of the sale and use of this property ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak, now
we will shift over to the opposition side? Mr. Weissman, did you
want to start with that?
MR. WEISSMAN: Yes. Let me say that I don't intend to repeat any
of the remarks I made at the last hearing but I would like to clarify
a few things. First, on the question of notice. The notice required
by the Town is to be given to the adjacent property owners at least
five (5) days before the filing of the action, so that these people
can be afforded enough time to inquire into the merits of the appli-
cation and into its nature. This has not been done, not even by a
last hour notice to people who had previously notified and I think
there are others who still haven't been notified because their
names have not been brought to the attention of the Board.
The principal point that I would like to make tonight, I just
briefly touched on last meeting was that the Board in fact, has no
jurisdiction over this application. This application is, in effect,
an application for rezoning. It is the application for the creation
of another zoning district within a zoning district and only the
Town Board has the authority to act in such a matter. Only they
have the legislative authority. This Board's authority, as you
all know is to grant variances when a person with a small lot,
piece or land or a situation is in need of some relief because
of a hardship or a practical difficulty. This is not the case.
Here you are being asked to rezone a 6+ acre parcel of Land, so
as to create a district with totally different density, totally
different sideyard requirements, totally different rear yard re-
quirements. You are being asked to approve building sites that
are less than a quarter of an acre in size, almost a fifth or
sixth of an acre. Now, that is not granting a variance. That
is rezoning. The landmark case, as a matter of fact, in the
State of New. York is a 2nd Dept. case involving the Town of
Southampton and I c~refer you to it for your examination,
the case of Van Dusen v. Jackson, 35 App.Div.2nd p.58 and I
recommend that you read it. There are a number of other cases,
but that is the leading case in the state of New York that ac-
cording to its terms is absolutely unwarranted.
Let me say that the ~n Grit v. Schermiler ~se, well that's
an0%her case, but one will lead you to the other. But the overall
plan is not complete. This is a partial plan for the development
of an entire parcel of land and I believe the application before
the Planning Board specifically stated that the development of
ZBA
May 2 , 1985
Page 14 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage
MR. WEISSMAN - continued: of Phase 1 or Section 1 'of this
application was economically dependent on the development of
Phase 2 and Phase 2 has not been presented to the Planning Board,
/nor to the ZBA, and so., no one knows what they plan with the
rest of the land, that will be planned as part of this cluster
development and of course, the area of land that they intend to
set aside undeveloped in order to qualify it as a cluster use is
not even adjacent to the area that they request the variances on.
I have no further remarks except I think we would like to
see a few of the exhibits that were presented to the Board, and
frankly I would like to see the c/o's relating to the 31 cottages
MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't we take an another 3 minute break here,
while you look at this and the one map I have is all cut up~ I
will get the other one from the office for you. Again, with the
public's indulgence, we will take another three minute break.
Recess.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to be heard?
MR. WEISSMAN: I would like to take the opportunity to introduce
my neighbor, Frank Flynn, who is in a position this evening to review
in detail, some of the technical objections to the application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. W~issman.
F. FLYNN: Gentlemen, if I may, I consider this a watershed appli-
cation with respect to the future of zoning and variances within
the Town. I have several things of importance that I would like
to comment on. I would like to recite my qualifications~
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you just try to lift that mike a little bit?
F. FLYNN: The first things that you requested was that various
maps be presented for the edification of the Board. I presume
that I am addressing the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of
Southold. If you look in front of you the property is represented
as being in the Village of Greenport. I would think that's a
matter of some importance, inasmuch as it indicates the care and
attention that was devoted to preparation of this map in p~esen-
tation of this application. Now, if I may for a moment, I will
give you my qualifications on the subject. I have been a real
estate appraiser and consultant since 1946. Through the course
of my career, I have appraised property from Guam to Greece and
from British Columbia to Brazil. I have appraised properties from
vacant residential lots to lucrative plant sites. I have appraised
properties in industrial types; public utility companies, ship-
yards, airfields. I have been retained as an expert by the federal
government; state government; the attorney general; department of
ZBA
May 2, ~985
Page 15of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage
F. FLYNN - continued: transportation. I have testified in the
various courts; I have testified before the PSC; I have testified
for the State Board of Equalization and Assessment, all as a real
estate expert and with a specialty of the effects of zoning on
property value. To bring it closer to home, some. of the major
properties I have appraised on Long Island, would be Grumman,
Republic Aviation, the MTA, Airborne Instruments, Long Island
Water Corporation, Sperry-Rand, I have appraised the Smithhaven
Mall in the tax certioraricase, & I am currently appraising 3
major public utility companies zn tax certiorari action against
the state of New York. This is my background from which I speak.
Now, I would like to go in if I may, to some of my comments
on this particular matter. I would also like to present to the
Board one final thing. As a planner, most recently, I was a con-
sultant with A~d~ Ra%hk0Dfin the exclusionary zoning case brought
against the Town of Brookhaven, in which we successfully defended
Brookhaven. Now, I will make my comments on this applicat~on~
I consider this application an insult to the intelligence
and integrity of this Board. The applicant is making outrageous
demands based upon hardship. There is no such thi~ as hardship
unless it is created by the applicant. If the applicant pays too
much money for the property, of course he has hardship. Had the
applicant paid $100,000 for this property, there would be no
question of hardship involved here whatsoever. In this instance
there is an intent to gain an outrageous intensity of use for this
property to alleviate the hardship that they themselves created.
Now, when we talk of hardship, we are not dealing with neo-
phytes here. We are dealing with experienced developers; experi,
enced attorneys and those who are politically well-connected.
Perhaps the Board should investigate the background of the appli-
cants. It might prove very interesting to the Board. I am in a
position to do so, but I don't think it is pertinent at this time.
I would remind the Board, that in all cases of this sort, the legal
precedents are that the Town is not the partner of the applicant.
It is in no way its obligation to rescue an.~appticant from an im-
proper and injudicious price paid for a portion or parcel of real
estate, which is apparently the effort being made in this instance.
If there were any humor, at all, present in this situation, and I
assure you that there-is none, I would lik~ it the applicants'
position to that of a youth who killed his parents and then asked
for clemency because he was an orphan.
ZBA
May 2, 1985
Page 16 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage
MR. FLYNN - continued: Cluster zoning is an intent to relieve certain
hardship inherent in the development of certain types of proper.ty?
The Town clearly spells out how far that alleviation of hardship can
go when cluster zoning is granted and it says that lot areas can be
reduced to a maximum of 50.% and any other dimensional variance can be
reduced to by a maximum of 30%. Now, I will give you a spot check on
some of the variances and the percentage requested on this appli-
cation.
Area reductions up to 88.75% in area
Width reductions up to 80% in width
Sideyards up to 75% in sideyards
Rear yards up to 50% in rearyards
And conveniently overlooked in all of this is the setback from the
high water mark required by the department of environmental control.
I have built a house in the area and I was restricted to 75' in set-
back and constrained from touching any land, although it was in
my ownership, within 30' of high water. Here we have a situation
where every one of these lots is proposed to be located 30' from
the h~gh water mark. The extent of variances requested here is
so outrageous that you would end up with 19 plots within an area
of approximately 6 acres and do not be fooled by the white elephant
of discussing existing cottages. The existing cottages are crude,
meaningless on this map. Were it only the intention to retain these
existing cottages, that could be done by mere demolition, but if
you will look at this map, what we have on here are area envelopes
through the proposed building envelopes, what is proposed here is
to locate additional houses and new houses within these lots, which
constitute a major subdivision that varies from the Town zoning in
every respect.
Now, we the poor, unconnected property owners in this Town
are constrained to 2 acre zoning. I know of instances where people
have owned in excess of 3 acres and been unable to build more than
one house on the 3 acres. Here we have the arrogance to demand
to build on 9,000 s.f. This, in my opinion, is ~inconscionable
and insulting to the Board. Now, within this application we casually
brush off an area of 2.5 acres intended for a basin for marina use.
Now even a fundamental, offhand investigation of the Town ordinance
would indicate to install a marina in that area would require a
change of zoning. That's glossed over completely, but that does
not belong before this Board although it is part of the application.
ZBA
M'ay 2~ , t985
Page 17of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage
J. FLYNN - continued: That's glossed over completely.
That does not belong before this Board, although it is part
of the application submitted to this Board.
Mr. Forcehlli's calculations as to yield are completely
erroneous. This property could not bring 19 lots, no,matter
how you calculate it by his standards for the simple reason that
he forgot, or deliberately neglected to deduct the 20% prior to
making his calculations. And I submit something else, what is
offered in this so- called cluster is a 29 acre parcel, a quarter
of a mile, more or less, removed from the potential building site.
What is overlooked is contiguous to this building site, is a vacant
parcel of approximately 20 acres which could be very well clustered
with this 6 acre site, except that then the entire property would
yield approximately 14 plots of the minimum size permitted by
cluster zoning. What we have here is someone who is offering us
a pig in a ~poke. We 'have 29 acres which is absolutely useless for
development. It is almost entirely wetlands and as such, the idea
of keeping it forever wild is obvious because it is not economically
developable.
Now, I am coming to the end of this presentation. Finally,
as this Board knows, what is intended for the Section 1, in con-
Junction with Section 2, is the most objectionable zoning con-
ceivable in the Town of Southold. We will have something that
smells as badly as fish processing plants, which will permit
boat building; which will permit free standing restaurants;
which will permit commercial fishing; the mooring of commercial
fishing trawlers; all in our backyards in the confines of a
residential area and to the benefit of the applicant and to the
expense of all the surrounding neighbors. It will destroy the
character of the community and it will destroy all the property
values and I would estimate at a minimum $5~,000,000 or.real
estate will be depressed to the extent that presently isn't
even calculable. Now, in view of what I have said, all of which
is available to you by reason of the same research that I have
done, I must request that if you are to act in good conscience
you preemptorially dismiss this application as of this evening.
Thank you, gentlemen for your attention.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Flynn. Is there anybody else who
would like to speak against the application? Yes, Ru~h.
RUTH OLIVA: On behalf of the Board of Directors of NFEC, we do
oppose this application. The Town Board, as you know, was given
suggested lot lines for their approval or disapproval of this
proposal. Now, that is what they did. They looked just at the
lot lines, not at the topography or the contour lines and they
said fine. It was good for a cluster. And the way they looked at
it, it was. But the 29 acres that are supposed to be in the cal-
culations for this cluster are nothing more than a marsh. And to
ZBA
May 2~. 1985
Page 18 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage
RUTH OLIVA - continued: the Planning Board's way of thinking,
has been counted as unbuildable land, not to be included in the
amount calculable for buildable land. So, therefore, Isuggest
that that be stricken and if the applicant wishes to cluster,
then he should include just the future section to the north of
that which is about 20 acres.
The lots also will be very small, and even with the removal
of these buildings, will be extremely small. Will these tiny,
little cottages remain? If they are not, are they going to be
knocked down and rebuilt? Therefore, will they have to come back
here again for variances for setbacks? There is the new wetlands
regulations from the Trustees that buildings be placed 75' back
from mean high water. Will they be able to meet this? What are
the septic solutions to this problem:? Are they going to retain
the septic tanks that they have now or are they putting in new
ones? How wili they be done? Mr. Forchelli has just said that
on the new master plan, that part of this property is up for
marine/commercial. I would like to remind Mr. Forchelli that
he said the Planning Board change of zone. It is not the Planning
Board that changes zone. It is only the Town Board that changes zone.
Only then after a public hearing. There are areas on the proposed
master plan that are inaccurate. The Planning Board knows this.
I have spoken to them about it. They left them on the proposed master
plan so the public could have it now instead of perhaps 6 to 12
months from now. Now, these items can be addressed one by one
as they come up.
We also have a question as to the future plans for the future
sections, especially that which is contiguous to Young's Marina.
We feel that this is not the place for any expansion of any marina
type service or any other commercial uses. Therefore, we do oppose
this. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in
opposition to this particular application? Mr. Forcehlli, would
you like to add something?
MR. FORCHELLI: Mr. Flynn spoke of a hardship and pain. I did
not speak of a hardship related to dollars. I don't think that
is really relevant here. In addition to the setbacks from the
high water mark, being somewhat familiar with the ~egulations of
the tidal wetlands act, the property is behind a substantial
man-made barrier over 100' in length and therefore, that does not
apply in that area. In any event, DEC will have to give a permit
if this were approved and I am sure they will regulate what is
done under thezr regulations. As a matter of fact, Mr. Flynn is
well aware that we have been in touch with DEC. With respect to
additional houses. There are 19 cottages on 19 lots. There will
be no more than 19 houses, if the cottages are moved and a house
is built, total at any time would be 19. As far as that 2.5 acres
ZBA
May 2, 1985
Page ~;19 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage
MR. FORCHELLI - continued: for a boat basin, being later used
for something else, everything that is part of this map for Section 1.
will stay vacant except for those 19 lots. And in that boat, the
19 lot owners will come in and out with their boats. This is not
a a subterfuge to make 20 lots or 25 lots or 28 lots. It's 19.
With respect to destroying property values by a marina
being put in there, we bought this property knowing the zoning
and knowing existing structures and uses. At the time that we
submitted it, the application to the Planning Board, there was
correspondence back and forth, and we submitted as an overlay
a possible development, which we are happy to live with of the
Section 2. This is dated November 12th and was submitted to the
Planning Board as an overlay, which by the way, I would like to
submit it at this time, shows 12 additional lots in Section 2.
They range in size from 84,000 feet up to 131,000 feet, three of
them on the cove. I would like to submit this and indicate pub-
licly that we are very happy to live with this. We have not ap-
plied for a change of zone. We are not seeking a change of zone,
but the Town Board, in its legislative function, will do what it
wants. I will publicly state that we have not requested it.
We are happy to live with this and you may ask, you h~ave lots
there that are 130,000 feet, that's over the 80,000. Could you
have squeezed more in? Yes, we could have squeezed more
But just coincidentally, the 19 we are talking about in Section 1
and the 12 on that total 31, which is precisely the number of
cottages that are there now. That number was not picked by
mistake or coincidentally. That number was picked so we still
have 31o
With respect to septic systems, that's a question for the
D'epartment of Heal'th, and we realize full well, if this were ap-
proved, the Department of Health will require sanitary systems.
Now, we talk about property across the street being open. That
property mak require denitrification system or what have you to
service these 19 lots. It is there, so it is available, if that
is required. If these 19 lots are going to have denite to go --
across the street and use up 3 acres, it is there. That is what
it is intended to be.
I just take issue with one statement made by Mr. Weissman
when he talked about the type of zoning and he cited a case,
Van Dusen v. Jackson. I think there is one coming down on a
case that appeared in the Law Journal on the 17th of April 1985,
of which I will submit a copy to you, which case cites the North
Fork Motel case, which I am sure you are aware of. Zoning has
to do with use of property. There is a legal, non-conforming there
but what we are saying to you is we have practical difficulties
ZBA
Page 20 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage
May 2 , 1 985
MR. FORCEHLLI, continued: in that we have legal non-conforming
we have 31 cottages. We are coming in here with an application
where we are looking for 31 spread out all over the property.
The cove area, which these people are concerned about, I think
their real concern is the master plan, not what we are doing,
or what we are proposing to do. We only show that we do 3
lots in that area. We are very happy to live with that. We
would not ask for a change of zone. We bought it as R-A, we
will keep it as R-A. That is basically where we stand on it.
We are not claiming hardship. We are claiming let's do some-
thing that's good in the spirit of what is there. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. FLYNN: May I respond? If you examine the application sub-
mitted by the applicant, it does claim hardship. Hardship is
expressed in terms of dollars and cents. And dollars and cents
particularly are indicated when the variance implies a change of
use. Now, if I am supposed to take any credence whatsoever in
the maps that are provided by your Planning Department and their
consultants, that small area of 19 acres, of 19 houses on 6 acres,
is classified a multi-family use or tourist homes. Now, we have
proposed here a change of use. Steinhilder is the ruling case on
that and I am sure I don't have to recite that to you people. Now,
with respect to the marina. The marina site is proposed for the
use of these houses. The Town ordinance says that a single owner
and it would be a single owner of all these 19 houses in the form
of an association, can only moor 2 boats, not 19 boats or 15 boats
whatever it may be, and also it would be necessary to rebuild that
with permission from the DEC; as far as the bulkheading is concerned;
as far as any potential dredging is concerned; anything of that
nature. So that is a refutation of that argument.
Now, the map, so-called map, if you look at it, was drawn
up in a hurry at the request of the Planning Board, if I recall
my study of the correspondence. It in no way meets the standards
or the rudimentary standards that are expected of a map to be filed
either with the Planning Board or to be presented before the Board
of Appeals. Again, I say, this is another aspect of this application
that insults the intelligence and integrity of the Board that they
should even consider such a presentation. Again, gentlemen, I
thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Flynn. Do I have any comments from
either sides? Mr. Weissman, do you have any other comments?
MR. WIESS~AN: No, not at the present.
ZBA
May 2, 1985
Page 2I of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage
RUTH OLIVA: Just a question with Mr. Forchelli. When you
submit the plan for the two future sections as they are pre-
sented now, in other words, if you get the approval for the
cluster, then it would be written that you must divide the
future sections the way they are presented tonight?
MR. FORCHELLI: I would have no problem covenanting that. No
problem at all. But the Planning Board has asked and we sub-
mitted to them a letter indicating that if the zone is changed
we will develop it according to the change of zone
RUTH OLIVA: You mean as far as the master plan?
MR. FORCHELLI: Yes. In other words, what I indicated was, to
Mr. Weissman and Mr. Flynn, we perfectly would be willing to
develop it as per Section 2, knowing full well, that if some of
that is wetlands and we don't get 12 and we get 11 out of it,
we will get 11 out of it. We know that. But they are in the
process of the master plan and if Mr. Flynn and Mr. Weissman,
and whoever else is opposed to a marina there, they are fighting
the wrong army on their own battlefield by coming here. We
are not asking for that. That argument has to be made against
the master plan and against those who would change or who are
promoting the master plan. We have no desire to have that,
but can I just say something. I cannot commit to something that
they change the zone on. They have requested that we submit a
letter and we have, that if they do change the zone, we will
develop it according .to how they change the zone.
RUTH OLIVA:
hearing?
But again, does that have to come.before a public
MR. FORCHELLIP I will be there and I will publicly state that
I hope they don't change the zone and I request that they don't
change the zone and that's in your minutes. I cannot control,
and you know and I know, just like the present-Town Board can't
legislatively restrict what a Town Board 5 years from now can do.
They have to have their legislative prerogatives. Most Town Boards
cannot restrict the later Town Boards on their legislative pre-
rogatives. But I will publicly state that if they change the
zone, I can't help that. I don't want them to change the zone.
It is on the record.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Forchelli, the only thing we did overlook
was the DEC. Would you just give us a brief comment on what
you had said concerning the DEC?
ZBA
May 2, 1985
Page 22 of Bayvzew Development Corporation/Sage
MR. FORCEHLLI: With regard to the setbacks from the water?
There is a substantial man-made barrier over 100' in length
running along the shoreline. These cottages are behind that.
Consequently, the landward edge of the tidal wetlands and the
adjacent areas ends at the man-made barrier. Therefore, what
is behind that they do not have jurisdiction over. On the ends
they come in slightly on their jurisdiction. Our application is
pending before DEC, Mr. Flynn is w~ll aware of that, he has already
had correspondence with them. I can presume I can imagine what it
is, but I haven't seen it yet. In any event, DEC would have to
approve this. There are many approvals which have to be secured.
Planning Board, Town Board, DEC, ZBA and if this were granted
it would be subject to DEC giving their approval on it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. FLYNN: Again, this remark is completely countered to my
experience Of the actions of the DEC in our immediate area, of
which I am intimately familiar. As recently as 3 years ago, a
neighbor across the street from me built a new home on a bulkheaded
canal and he was constrained to build 65' back from a bulkhead,
which was far more than 100' in length and he was only constrained
to build 65' because this was a man-made canal and were it natural
in nature, he would and was told, would have had to build 75' back
from this newly installed bulkhead. Against that on the Sage prQperty,
we have deteriorating bulkheads of limited use and really nothing that
serves as a buffer from'what the department considers to be sensi-
tive wetlands. They consider it shoal areas immediately to the
south of the bulkhead. As a matter of fact, this entire cove
area is classified as wetlands and is classified as a fragile
area to be maintained. And here we have a rapacious use that
would absolutely destroy the utility of the cove to the entire
community and to all those who benefit from it as a source of
breeding grounds for shellfish and some of the rarest wildlife
in the area. It is a breeding ground for swans; geese. I am
intimately familiar with it from having been in the State Of Maine,
we have loons nesting in the area. To include a commercial marina
in this area is absolutely a devastating thing to do, and I would
not want it on my conscience to do other than resist this to the
last drop of blood in my body. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. FORCHELLI: I just have to respond to that. I am not asking
to put a stick of wood in the ground in the cove area. I have stated
that we would be very happy to develop it residentially. Mr. Flynn
would like to fight against it and so would other people in the
area, I have no problem with thas. I am not looking to develop
that as a marina. I am not looking to touch a thing in there.
Thank you.
ZBA
May 2, 1985
Page 23 of Bayview Development Corporation/Sage
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are'there any questions from Board members?
I would like to thank the public, both pro and con for their
courtesy tonight. I thank the comments from the NFEC and
we will take everything un~r advisement and within the next
60 days we will discuss this issue to the best of our ability
and look over the individual documents that have been submitted
and the statements made at this particular hearing. I make a
motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later.