HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/11/1985 Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD ~-5 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y, 'l'lC~?l
TELEPHONE {516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P, GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR,
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 11, 1985
A RegUlar Meet'ing of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was
held on Thursday, April 11, 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-Administra-
tor, and approximately 40 persons in the audience at the commence-
ment 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.mo Appeal No. 3327 Public hearing was held in the
Matter of the Application of EMILIA T. PIKE filed by Abigail A.
Wickham, Esq. for a Variance for insufficient area of proposed
Parcels 1 and 2, insufficient lot width of Parcel 1 at the N/S
Main Road, Mattituck. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing
and application for the record. Abigail Wickham spoke in behalf
of the applicant~ No verbal opposition was received. (The state-
ments made during the public hearing are transcribed under separate
cover by Barbara Strang as recorded electronically and are to be
filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office.)
Following the hearing, motion was made by Mr. Goehringer,
seconded by Messrs. Douglass and Grigonis, that the hearing be
concluded pending deliberations. This resolution was unanimously
adopted.
$outhold Town Board of Appeals -2- April ll, 1985 Regular Meeting
(Public Hearings~ continued:)
7:42 p.m. Appeal No. 2323 Public hearing was held in ~the
Matter of the Application of COLGATE DESIGN CORP. (7-11) filed by
William W. Esseks, Esq. for a Variance to construct accessory
building with an insufficient westerly sideyard setback at N/s
Main Road, Cutchogue. The Chairman.reed the legal no'tice of
hearing and application for the record, Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. '
was present and spoke ~n behalf of the applicant. The letters
of Richard F. Lark, Esq.' dated February 14, 1985 ano from Kull's
Service Station, Inc. dated February 6, 1985 were noted~for the
record. (Th~ s~atements made during the public hearing are
transcribed under separate cover by Barabra Strang as recorded
electronically and are filed simul, taneously herewith at the
Town Clerk!s Office.)
Following the hearing, motion was made by Mr. Goehringer,
seconded by Mr~ Douglass, that the hearing be concluded pending
deliberations. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3320 Public hearing was held in
the Matter of the Application of~BAYVIEW D~VELOPMENT CORP. (SAGE)
filed by Joseph Forch~lli, Esq~ f~r a Variance for approval of
insufficient area and width of parcels in this proposed cluster
develgpment-subdivision and insufficient setbacks of buildings.
67380 Main Road, Sage Boulevard, Greenport. The Chairman read
the legal notice of hearing and application for the record.
Joseph Forchelli, Esq.. spoke in behalf Of the application.
Also speaking in favor of the application were Henry Raynor, Jr.,
Henry W. Drumm. Speaking in opposition were Henry Weissman,
Mr. Flynn. (Statements made during the hearing are prepared
under separate cover and filed simultaneously at the Town
Clerk's Office for reference.) ~ft~r receiving testimony~
the Chairman called a 5-minute recess and indicated he wished
to caucus the board as to whe~ber~a recess was in order ~o
investigate the proper notification to "adjoining landoWners,''
since this was one of the main concerns of the objectants.
At 8:20 p.m., a 5-minute recess was taken, after motion
was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and
unanimously carried.
At 8:25 p.m., the hearing was reconvened, aYter motion
by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, and unanimo'usly
carried. The Chairman advised those present that this ~earing
will be recessed until May 2, 198.5, at which time all persons
who were not. properly notified by the applicant may be, and
additional testimony would be taken at that time.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- April ll, 1985 Regular Meeting
(Public Hearing Bayview Development, continued:)
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing in the Matter of Appeal No. 3320 of
BA~VIEW DEVEL6PMENT CORP, (SAGE) be and hereby is recessed until
the next Regular Meeting of the Board, to wit: THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1985.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
8:27 ~m~Appe.a~s~350~& 3322 -.Public Hearingswere..held in the
Matter of the Applications~of JOSEPH LIZEWSKI, DD~ for ~ Variance &Spec. Exc.
to construct building for pri~ate membership with a~ insufficient
setback from easterly proper~y li'~e~t ~he north side of Main Road
and east side of Depot Lane, Cutchogue~ ('Spec~a~E~ce~t~n~heaning'neconvened
since the March 7, 1985 h"eari~g which allo~ed applican~ t~me to file
for a sideyard variances) Joseph Lize~ski was present and spoke in
behalf of both applications. (The statements made during the hearing
are prepared under separate cover to be filed at the Town Clerk's
Office silm~l%ane~u~ly heremith~
Following the hearing, motion was made by Mr. Goehringer seconded
by Mr~ Grigonis~ it was
RESOLVED,.th~t the Public Hearings under Appeals No. 3350 and
3322 fo~'JOSEPH L~ZEWSKI, hereby are 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.
8:33 p.m. Appeal No. 3335 - Public Hearing was held in the
Matter of the Application of THOMAS HIGGINS for a Variance to
construct accessory garage in'frontyard area at 850 Ruch Lane,
Southold~ New York. Mr. Higgins was present and spoke in behalf
of his application. No opposition was received concerning this
~.roposed garage structure. (The statements made during the hearing
have been prepared under separate cover and simultaneously filed
with the Town Clerk's Office.)
Following the hearing, the board made the following nesolution~
On motion by Mr, Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- April ll, 1985 Re§ular Meeting
(Appe~ No. 3a35 - THOMAS HIG~INS, con'in'ed:)"
RESOLVED, that the hearing under Appeal No. 3335 for THOMAS
HIGGINS 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.
8:36 p.m. Appeal No. 3334 - Public Hearing was held in the
Matter of the Application of HAROLD CARR. fora Variance to con-
struct deck addition with insufficient rearyard setback at
2045 Marratooka Road, Mattituck, New York. _~The Chairman read
the legal notice of hearing and appe~ a~plication for the
record. Mr. Carr spoke in behalf of the. agplication briefly.
(The statements are prepared und~ separate cover and filed
with the Town Clerk's Office simultaneously h~rewith for reference.)
Following receiving t~st~mony, the followi_ng action was taken:
On motion by Mr. Goehri~ger, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, ~hat the hearing in the Matte~ of HAROLD CARR under
Appeal No. 3334 be and hereby is concluded, pending-deliberations.
Vote of the Board: Aye's~ Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen~ Douglass and S'awicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
8:39 p.m, Appeal No~ 3330.~- Public Hearing was held in the
Matter of the Application of DOMINIC,. VARANO made by Ri_chard F.
Lark, Esq~ for a Variance for a~p~y~a.1 of insufficient area of
proposed Lot #3 in this division of land lo~ated at 6750 Indian
Neck Road, Pecon~c. Richard F. Lar~, Esq_~ sp~ke in behalf of
the applicant~ Also speaking~a~i~the applicant, Dr. Varano.
(The statements are prgpared under separ~'te cover, also filed
at the Town Clerk's Office~s~multa~eously herewith.} The
appeal application and. notice o? hearing were read into the
record. Following testimony, the board took the follow.i~g action:
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it
was
RESOLVED, that the he~ring under Appeal No. 3330 for
DOMINICK VARANO be and hereby is concluded, pending reinspection
by the board members at 11:00 on Saturday, and pending delibera-
tions.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- April Il, 1985 Regular Meeting
(Appe~ No. 3330 - D~RINI-~K~'ARANO, continu~':~ --
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members. ~
8:58 p.m. Appeal No. 3326 Public Hearing was held in the
Matter of WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER, by Richard F. Lark, Esq. for
a Special Exception to establish and build funeral home business
at premises of Dalchet Corp., S/s Main Road, and W/s Harbor Lane,
Cutchogue. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and
application into the records Richard F. Lark, Esq. spoke in
behalf of the applicants~ There were._approximately 50 persons
present for this hearing, a majority of which were in favor
of this application. At apprq~imately 9:35 p.m., the Chairman
called a five-minute recess. Motion was seconded by Mr.
Douglass, and unanimously carried by the board. The hearing
reconvened at 9:40 p.m.,, after motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded
by Mr. Douglass, and unanimously carried.' Speaking in favor
of the aplication were: Mr. ~gster, Mrs. Coster, Fred Fay,
Franklin Roth, Barbara Kelling from Laurel, Mary Beth Andreson,
Alan Bahr Nancy Pierson, Barbara Abbott,_. Betty. Brannon, I'' ~
Th~re~was:opposition from: James Fogarty~ Joh~ Bak'ows~i,~Joseph
Bakow~k~:, Qohn. Bakow~k~,Sr., Mrs. Bakow~ki, Albert Austin.
Mrs. Ruth Oliva, also spoke for the North ~ork Environmental
Council (in general). _(All the statements of the hearing are
prepared under separate cpver and filed simultaneously at the
Town Clerk's Offi. ce for reference~] Followi_ng testimony, the
board took the following action:
On motion by Mr. Dou.glass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED,.that the hearing of Appeal No. 3326 for WILLIAM
~nd HELEN_'COSTER, be and hereby is concluded, pending delibera-
tions and re-inspections.
Vote of the' Board: 'Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
10:30 p.m.
INFORMAL: William Gillooly appeared before the board request-
ing a review of the building inspector (V. Lessard) determination
that the yard area in which he wishes to place an accessory garage
structure is not rearyard area. Mr. Gillooly was issued a building
permit for a dwelling, accessory pool and fence enclosure around
pool area under #13311Z on August 23, 1984. The premises contains
a total area of 13.421 acres, and a major subdivision has been
pending with the Planning Board for six,lots since the Fall of '84.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- April ll, 1985 Regular Meeting
(Informal, continued - Wm. Gillooly)
The prem'ises in question f~n~'s al'~ng two streets, along the west side
by Village Lane, and along the east side by Tabor Road, thereby leav-
ing a large "frontyard" section according to'the definitions of Section
100-13 and limited "rearyard" area. The Chairman advised Mr. Gillooly
that the board will"discuss this matter ~ater and noti'fy him accordingly.
NEXT'REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Goehrin§er, seconded by
Mr. Grigonis_, ~t was
RESOLVED, that.the.date_of the next. Regular Meeting of this board
be and herebx is SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY~ M'AY'2~ 1'985 commencing at
7:30 p~m~ to be held at the S~uthold Tgwn Hall, and it was
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secreta'ry is ~ereby authorized and
directed to advertise notice of the following hearings will shall
be held on May 2, 1985, commencing at 7:.30 ~.m. and as follows
pursuant to law in the Suffolk Times and L.I.. Traveler-Watchman:
7:30 p.m.~ Appeal No~ 3337 ~ KIMON ~ND WOODENE R~ZOS;
7:40 ~.m~ Appeal No. 3345 = BRUCE M. VITALE;
7:45 p~m. Appeal No. 3336 - ANN SABA;
7:50 p~m. Appeal No. 3339 ~ GUY SO.BERING;
8:00 p.m~ Appeal No, 3338-~ HOWARD L. YOUNG;
8:10 ~.m~ Ap.pe~ N~. '3320 ~ BAYVIEW-DEVELOPMENT CORP./SAGE;
Vo~6 ~of'~the.~Boar~:i]~Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawic-~i. This resol-ution w-as adopted by
unanimous ~ote of all the members.
FORM LETTER AUTHORIZATION- The board members authorized the
Secretary to use the following letter, in blanket format, for each
new file~ The board~cated that where_~lannin§.Board, N.Y.S.
Department of Environmental Conservation, Town Trustees or County
Health Department are.involved~ the ap.plicant should be requested
to provid9 such approvals as early as_ possible. The format
approved is as follows:
To (applicant or his agent)
Re (Appeal # and applicant's name)
..~Thi~s letter will--acknowledge receipt of your recent
application. The Members of the Board of Appeals will
be conductin§ field inspec~i6'ns and environmental reviews
as may be requ~ire_d by State and Local Laws prior to their
scheduling your application for .public.hearing.
Although the earliest available date for public hearing
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- April ll, t985 Regular Meeting
(form letter, continued:)
at this time is on or about (to be filled in), written
confirmation will be sent to you within the next couple
of weeks. A copy of the legal notice of hearings will
be sent to you prior to publication int he Suffolk Times
and L.I. Traveler-Watchman.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions.
Yours very truly
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
'By (secretary's name) ....
After motion by Mr~ Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki,
and~u~animously carried~ the above form letter was approved.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS:
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations
for each of the following matters having "nonsignificant" adverse
effects on the environment for the reason~ as noted therein, and
in accordance with the N.Y~S~ Environmental Quality Review Act,
Local Law 44-4 of the Town Code, and Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation [aw:
APPEAL NO. 3337 KIMON AND WOODENE RETZOS (continued on
next page)
-8-
Southold Town Board of Appeals April.il,1985 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRON~LENTAL DECLA1LATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3337
PROJECT NAM~E: .....
Kim0~ and W00dene Retz0s
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementinq
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 Southoldo
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 I! [X] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ~CTION: Variance'requesting approval of access over a
proposed right-of-way.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southotd, County of~Suffolk, more
particularly known as: Rocky Point Road, East Mar~0~, NY S~M#1000-031-2'-10
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETE~!NAT!ON:
(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 q~uestion is not located within 300 feet
of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area.
(3) The relief requested is not directly related to new
structures.
Southold Town Board of Appeals-~ril. 11,_1985-,u Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIIrE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARA. TION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL N0-:#3338
PROJECT NAFLE: Mr. and Mrs~ Howard Young
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: ~X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance requested granting relief of lot
area requirement of 80,000 sq~ ft.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southoid, County of~Suffolk~ more
particularly known as: Main Rd, 0r4ent, NY Tax # 1000-018~.-06-024
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETER~INAT!0N:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the shor~ 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 Qr other Qritical environmental area.
(3) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction.
-lO-April 11, 1985
Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRON.W[ENTAL DECLAILATION
Notice of De.termination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3339
PROJECT NAME: Guy Sobering
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the Implementlng
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.
P/ease take further nocJ. ce that this declaration should not be
consi(icred a determination ma~e for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pen~ing for the same or simil~r
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X~ Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:
Variance requested to Sub-divide into 2
parcels, each having 63,400 + square feet.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly known as: No # Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY SCTM#1000-121-01-3.1
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
Il) 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 ]0cared ~ithin 300 feet of tidal
w. et]an, ds or"d%her critical environmental area.
Southoid Town Board of Appeals _ll_April~li, 1985 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAIQ%TION
Notice of ~Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO~: 3345
PROJECT NAME:Bruce Vitale
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 detezmines 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 simil~r
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II ~ Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance to operate a carpenter shop in the
existing building.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 7280 Sound Ave. Mattituck, NY SCTM#1000-121-05-2
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the shor~ form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects tQ
the environment are likely to occur should this project be i~le'-
mented as planned; ,~' ,
(2) Yhe property i~ question is not located withi~ 300 feet of tidal
wet]ands or other cU~tica] enviPoumenta] area.
(3) The relief requested is not directly-related to ne~ construction.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- April ll, 1985 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations, continued:)
S.E.Q.R.A,
NEGATIVE ENVIRON~IENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO,: 3336
PROJECT NA~4E: ANN SABA (by P. Sujeski)
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.YoS. 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: [X] Type Ii [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance f0r~ approval of i'nsufficient
]0t area and width in this proposed division/set-off of ]'and.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 1000 Sti]]water Avenue, Cutch0gue, NY;
REASON'(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1} ~ Environmental Assessment in the short form haS been
submitted w%hich indicates that no significant adverse effects to
~he 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, Grigoni's,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolut'ion was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- April 11, 1985 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3335:
Application of THOMAS HIGGINS, Ruch Lane, Southold, NY for a Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to
construct accessory garage in.frontyard area, at 850 Ruch Lane, Southold,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-52-02-30.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on April 11, 1985,
concerning the Matter of THOMAS HIGGINS under Appeal No. 3335; and
WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation
entered into the record during the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question as well as its surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, there has been no opposition received concerning this
proposed accessory garage in frontyard area as applied; 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 along the south side of the
private road known as "Ruch Lane" at Arshamomaque, and ts more parti-
cularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000,
Section 52, Block 02, Lot 30.
2. The subject premises contains as a whole 112475± sq. ft. in
area and is improved with a one-family bungalow-residence which is
shown to be set back 32' from the front property line along Ruch Lane
and set back 7.9' from the easterly side line and 10.7' from the
westerly side line.
3. By this application, appellant requests a variance from the
requirements of Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate
a 12' by 20' accessory garage structure in the frontyard area to be
set back three feet from the westerly side line and in line with the
neighbor's established setback line, not less than six feet from the
front property line along Ruch Lane.
4. Article III, Section 100-32 of the Zoning Code requires
accessory buildings to be located only in the rearyard area.
5. It is the opinion of the board that due to the restricted
access along both sides of the existing bungalow-dwelling, it
would not seem practical to locate the garage in the rearyard area
and location of same would be less than 75' to the wetlands areas.
In considering this application, the board determines that
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- April ll, 1985 Regular Meeting
(Appe~'i-' No. 3335- THOMAS-'HIG'GINS, con'-tin~-e~:)
the variance be approved since: (a) the substandard frontyard
setback has been existing within the immediate vicinity and
therefore the character of the neighborhood would not be changed
or adversely affected; (b) access by emergency vehicles into
the rearyard area is limited~ (c) the circumstances of this
appeal are unique since the dwelling-bungalow has been in existence
since the enactment of zoning; (d) in view of the manner in which
the difficulty arose, the interests of justice would best be served
by granting the variance, as noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr.
Higgins, it was
RESOLVED, that.the.relief requested under Appeal No. 3335
in the Matter of THOMAS HIGGINS for permission to locate 12' by 20'
accessory garage in the frontyard area six feet from the front
property line and three feet from the westerly side property line,
BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
]
1. The garage not be attached to the house (must remain acces-
sory to the main structure);
2. Never to be used as sleeping or living quarters;
3. Shall not be located closer than three feet to the west
side line;
4. Shall not be located closer than six feet to the front
property line, or the established neighbor's setback to the west,
whichever is greater.
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 -15- April ll, 1985 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3335 HARDLD CARR:
Application of HAROLD CARR, Box 1416, Mattituck, NY for a Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to
construct deck addition with an insufficient rearyard setback, at 2045
Marratooka Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-123,02-3.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on April 11, 1985,
concerning the Matter of the Application of HAROLD CARR under Appeal
No. 3334; and
WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation
entered into the record during the public hearing~ and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question as well as itt. surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, there has been no opposition received concerning this
proposed deck addition as applied; 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 along the east side of
Marratooka Road, Mattituck, and is more particularly identified on
the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 123, Block 2,
Lot 3.
2. The subject premises contains as a whole 12,500 sq. fto in
area and is improved with a one-family, 1½-story frame house with
attached garage set back 35± feet from Marratooka Road and having a
rearyard setback of 43.5 feet from its rear (easterly) property line.
3. Article III, Section 100-31 and bulk schedule of the zoning
code requires a minimum rearyard setback of a principal structure to
be 35 feet.
4. Applicant is proposing a 14' sundeck addition which would
reduce the rearyard setback to 29 feet.
In considering this application, the board determines that
the relief as requested be approved since: (a) the relief requested
is for a variance of six feet which is not substantial, in relation
to the zoning requirements; (b) the relief requested will not
change the character of the neighborhood; (c) the relief requested
will not be detrimental to adjoining properties; (d) the interests
of justice will best be served by allowing same as noted below.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- April ll, 1985 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3335 - HAROLD CARR, continued:)
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehrin§er, seconded by Mr. Grigonis,
it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3335 in the
Matter of the Application of HAROLD CARR for permission to construct
14' sundeck addition with a reduced rearyard setback at 29 feet, BE
AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1~ No further rearyard reductions;
2. Proposed deck not to be roofed, enclosed or created for
additional living area;
3. No lighting which will be obtrusive to neighboring parcels.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members.
The board members reviewed the following matters, which are
pending receipt of additional documentation and pending public
hearings:
(a) Philip Reinhart, Appeal No. 3340, by R. Bruer, Esq.
(b) Helen Conway, Appeal No. 3341, by R. Bruer, Esq.
(c) Perricone and Cimini, Appeal No. 3342, by R. Bruer, Esq.
(d) Pindar Winery, Appeal No. 3344;
(e) Blum/peconic Bay Vineyards W~nery Application;
(f) Szala/Kaminski, Appeal No. 3347;
(g) Charles A. Simmons, Appeal No. 3348 by A. Wickham, Esq.~
(h) Cliffside Associates, Appeal No. 3349, by R. Haefeli, Esq.~
(i) Andrew and Ida Pitre, Appeal No. 3351 by A. Wickham, Esq.;
(j) Genevieve Richards, Variance #3352;
(k) Genevieve Richards, Special Exception #3353;
(1) L.l. Shores, Inc., Appeal No. 3354, by A. Wickham, Esq.~
(m) Paul and Mrs. Canalizo, Appeal No. 3355;
(n) J.P. Slotkin, Appeal No. 3356, by A. Wickham, Esq.
Also noted were other files which have been held in abeyance for
quite some time pending receipt of requested information:
(a) N. Aliano;
(b) J. Holland by M. Hall, Esq.~
(c) Hanauer and Bagley, by A. Wickham, Esq.~
(d) Douglas Miller by G. Guldi, Esq.~
(e) Harold J. DeNeen;
~f) Walter Hairston;
Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- April ll, 1985 Regular Meeting
(Matters awaiting addit{~nal information, continued:)
(g) J. Charles and M. Sledjeski;
(h) J. Katharine Tuthill;
(i) Mary N. Code;
(j) Donald P. Brickley;
(k) Fred P. Jens;
(1) William and C. Lindsay, variance;
(m) William and C. Lindsay, special exception;
(n) Sal Caiola;
(o) M. Romeo;
(p) R. DeHaan;
(q) Henry P. Smith (Peconic Lane, Peconic);
(r) Port of Egypt Enterprises;
(s) Best, Schmitt, 'Syve?son;
(t) Eugene Davison (to re-submit new maps);
(u) Eugene Davison (requested to hold p~nding further notification);
(v) Bert and M. Crystal;
(w) Renate Riedel (aw&it amended maps and amended DEC).
There being no other business transacted by the board at this
time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting
adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
The verbatim transcription of the statements made during tonight's
hearing have been prepared under separate cover, simultaneously
filed with the Town Clerk's Office.
~//Approved -%'~23~5
Gerard P. Goehringer~/Chairman
Town Clerk, Town ~ Scu~ho!~
TR2NSCRIPTION OF HEARINGS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZBA
R~eqular Meeting, April 11.,~J~985~
93327 - At 7:30 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
EMILIA T. PIKE, for a variance for insufficient area of proposed
parcels 1 and 2, insufficient lot width of Parcel 1, north side
Main Road, Mattituck~ New York. Chairman read appeal appli-
cation and legal notice for the record.
A. WICKHAM: I would just like to add to what is in the appli-
cation by saying that as you no doubt observed when you went down
to look at the property and drive through that section of Matti-
tuck, there are a number of nice homes along the road and all
of a sudden there ms an open space, where this proposed lot is.
There is nothing wrong with that open space, but certainly if
a homse were located there, it would not at all be out of
character with the pattern of spacing of houses. Mrs. Pike
is quite elderly and couldn't be here tonight, but the gentlemen
who is planning on building is here, so if you have any questions,
he can answer them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to ask you a question.
reason why you did not move the line over?
Is there any
A. WICKHAM: Further east? We positioned'the line in that position
for two reasons. 1. It enabled Mrs. Pike to retain her circular
driveway and the trees %hat are there. 2. The size of the pro-
posed lot and the width of the proposed lot is really pretty much
in line with the other lots immediately to the west. And also the
lot on the rear, which are a little more.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who
would like to speak on behalf of this application? Against the
application? Questions from Board Members? For the record, we
have visited the site on several instances; four of us have gone
out individually and we have not discussed this application in
any way tonight, or prior to the meeting and we haven't in all
the applications and so we are not prepared to vote on it at
this time. We will deliberate upon it, however, if time permits
tonight. So, I thank you very much for coming in and I will ask
for a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later.
ZBA
April 11 , 1985
Page 2-a
~3323 - At 7:35 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
COLGATE DESIGN CORP. for a variance to construct accessory building
within westerly sideyard area (7-11) Main Road, Cutchogue. The
chairman read the appeal application and legal notice in their
entirety for the record.
MR. CUDDY: My name is Charles Cuddy, 108 East Main Street,
Riverhead, New York. This application has been-before the
B~D~d once previously. At that time, the building, which is
a l0 x 12 concrete ~uilding was on the east side. We have now
arranged to put it on the west side, behind the dumpster area,
This Board and the Planning Board also indicated that 'they pre-
ferred it to be in the backyard. Our practical difficulty is
that we cannot put it in the backyard. We would appreciate
the Board approving the application at this timer as submitted
to you on the west side of the building, a 10 x 12 concrete be
erected. One other thing, Mr. Lark at one time ._ a neighbor
to the west did object. He wrote a letter to the Board on February
14th, indicating that he would withdraw the objection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: As you know the concerns of this Board, were the
fact that there were or appeared to be a couple of alleged vio-
lations, one of which was the truck or truckbed on the east side
blocking the rear access. One of the concerns of this Board is
the fire access be allowed and be available and not blocked in
a cumbersome way, as this one was. I know there is a letter in
the file indicating these things will be removed and I believe one
of them has been, etc., I hope that if this Board does entertain
this application that you understand that restrictions will be
further placed indicating that that side does remain open.
Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to
be heard 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.
~3320 BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/SAGE submitted 0n
f0t]0win§ Pages 2b through
ZBA - Page 2-b
April 11, 1985
AppealS3320 - At 7:40 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the
matter of BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT Cq~/SAGE, for a variance for
approval of insufficient area and width of p~rcels in this proT
posed cluster development-subdivision and insufficient setback
of buildings. 67380 Main Road, Sage Boulevard, Greenport.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Raynorf are you.representing Mr. Forcehlli?
MR. RAYNOR: Yes, if it pleases the Board, my name is Henry Raynor.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just a minute, Henry. Mr. Higgins in the
back there, could I ask you to close those doors, please. Thank
you very much.
MR. RAYNOR: Both myself and Mr. Forchelli and a principal of
Sage Development Corporation are here this evening.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
that mike over there?
tonight.
Henry, do you think I could ask you to use
I am not positive that they are working
MR. RAYNOR: We are here seeking relief to the Building Inspector's
notice under Section 131, Article 3 and Article 1 Section 106 for
insufficient setbacks in the area. As stated in. the application
for appeal, the first section for development is laid out here,
would remove the 12 units from the point that exists on
the site. In doing so, a proposal is before both the Town'Board
and the Planning Board. To date it.has the approval of the
Planning Board for sketch plan. The Town Board has reviewed
the plan approved the concepts for the area. Planning Board
has declared under State Environmental Review Acts that this
is a negative declaration to the environment.
The proposal itself is unique in that the dwelling units
pre-exist all the ordinances by 'probably 30/40 years and the
variance requested on the property with regard to the cluster
would bring the property density down by subdivision to the
current 80,000 s.f.
The character of the area would not be changed; it would
only be improved with the reduction of density and we would hope
that the Board has had sufficient information that we have supplied
zn both the analysis of the property and the documents that they
have requested.
ZBA
April 11, 1985
Page 2 -c Bayview Development Co~
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we thank you
this this evening in this particu
like to ask you, and of course we
when you have asked me, many peo~
this application. I have no idea
we will see in the near future.
extreme west side, what is the ac
piece of property?
MR. RAYNOR: That will be a compl
left in a natural state. Primar~
ordinance standards. We have co~
and deleted those from the formul
arbitrary line which is a little
quirement.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So, we could call
held in perpetuity; or anytt
MR. RAYNOR: Yes, it~is held and
it will not be built on.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is through th
the Planning Board process? Whet
MR. RAYNOR: Under cover of lett,
have indicated it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I again am verbal
audience that had questions of wh
p./Sage
for all your cooperative help on
lar endeavor. One thing I would
have had, as I have indicated,
le come in the office concerning
if they have shown up tonight,
The Section 1 indicated on the
tual intent of that particular
etety open area reserved, to be
ly to come up with prlesent zoning
puted out for you all the wetlands
a and therefore come up with this
greater than the 80,000 s.f. re-
~his a scenic easement; or land
ing of that particular nature?
we have already stipulated that
e covenants and restrictions in
e have you indicated that?
r, separately to your Board, we
zing this for the people in the
at was going in there. The in-
dication of Section I 2.5 acres, which appears to be a small tri-
butary marina type, adjacent to ~he marina, Which is not a part of
this particular parcel, will be serviced as a marina? What is going
to happen with that piece?
J. FORCHELLI: Are you' referring to this? That will remain open
and the proposed 19 lots will have ~space here to keep their boats
or access to the water. Nothing would be built upon this. It
would remain open with the except
for boats for the 19 property own
MR. RAYNOR: This backs up approx
Zehrler boatyard.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there~anybody i
Why don't you put it right up her
might wan~t to see it back there.
see tha5 all right now? We have
give you.
ion of maybe little docks or slips
ers and no one else.
imately to the back part of the
n the back who can't see this?
e, Henry? I just thought they
Why don't you just...can you
a copy right here which ~e can
ZBA
~April 11, 1985
Page 2-d Bayview Development Corp./Sage
MR. FtYNN : I would like, if I may, to have dedicated the first
parcel that was described to remain left forever wild.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you designate that for us, Mr. Forchelli?
J. FORCHELLI: Yes. This 29 acres in this area will be forever
natural, nothing can be built on it. In. addition, a part of the
disconnected portion, will be a qature preserve fore~er. This
portion will be a beach area for the 19 proposed dwellings and
this .2.5 acres here would remain natural with exception of possible
docking, etc.. This section her~ is not part of the application.
This whole area here we'are~not seeking to do anything with at
this time. That's.the future section.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I 'just ask a c
indicated that there was another
on and used. Were you referring
MR. FORCHELLI: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN': Thank you very mu¢
MR. FORCHELLI: We do not propose
with respect to the area designat
point they will juSf remain as t~
MR. CHAIRMAN: is there Town ware
MR. FORCHELLI: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don~t think I ha
see what develops. Is there anyt
or the agents, that would like t¢
H. DRUMM: I would just like to ~
piece of property, iarge open sp~
understand the proposal there wi]
with the island of nature conser%
we in the Town have the opportunJ
as they have proposed. I feel i~
the Board approve the plan as pr~
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else on be~
Against the application? Kindly
HENRY WEISSMAN: I reside at 940
at law and I am here tonight repl
wife. I was retained last night.
an adjoining property owner and
and a list of property owners th~
provisions of Section 100-125 of
uestion, Mr. Forchelli? You had
parcel that would not be built
to the island?
he
or request or ask for anything
ed as future sections and at this
.ey are until a later date.
r running into this pzece at all?
.ye any further questions. Let's
~ody else other than the applicants
speak on behalf of this application?
ay I am very familiar with the
~ces existing 31 units and as I
.1 be a reduction down to 19 unins
'ancy and I think very seldom that
.ty to preserve as much open space
~'s a good plan and I recommend that
~sented. Thank you.
~alf of this application?
state your name, sir?
Tarpon Drive and I am an attorney
'esenting Charlotte Weissman, my
It happens that Charlotte is
examination of the application
~t were notified pursuant to the
the ordinance, which apparently
is jurisdictional, indicates tha~ a number of adjoining property
owners were not notified of this application. I can name a few.
ZBA
April 11 , 1985
Page 2-e Bayview Development Corp/Sage
MR. WEISSMAN - continued: Rackin on Tarpon Drive; Barry on
Tarpon Drive, formerly Walters; Charlotte; Chilton. You see
Charlotte and Chilton own underwater land adjoining the under-
water land described at 11 or so acres on this map. Under the
terms of Section 100'125 of the ordinance it stated that a person
owning such a situation must be given ~tice. So, I therefore move
at this time that the B'oard deny the application and of course allow
the petitioner to submit it again after giving proper notice to
all parties who are to be notified.
MR. CHAIRMAN': Mr. Weissman, can I just ask you one question? You
had alluded to your wife's property, first. Is that contiguous
as to water or to land?
MR. WEISSMAN: It's land under water.
MR. CHAIRM~N: Okay, it's riparian rights under water.
MR. WEISSMAN: It's land under water. No riparian rights.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay;
MR. WEISSMAN: Mr. Bracken's property joins above the land and so
does the Barry property, on top. And they received no notice.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
had?
And you assume these people would be here if they
MR. WEISSMAN: I would think so. They certainly would make in-
quiry. And we are opposed to the application in its present form.
I made the application to deny the application pending resubmisslo~
an~ proper notice. Next, if you see fit not to do so, then I request
a one month adjournment so that we have the opportunity to prepare
after due preparation, present all arguments and oppositions on the
application. Or if you feel that you prefer not doing that~ we
request that we have one month, that the hearing be held over for
one month so that written objections to the application can be made.
Frankly, I have had since last night to review this thing. I~s
brought up to date on the application last night by my neighbor~
Mr. Flynn, who had spent a little time looking into it and it is
quite a scheme.
Number 1, I think it is an absolute violation of the spirit
and intent of the ordinance. You provide for cluster zoning and here
they come in with a cluster zoning using one piece of property that
is not even contiguous to the properties they intend to build on
for the purpose of providing land to compensate for the land re-
quired in a cluster. My goodness, you could come in here and say
I will give you land in Mattituck for the application. This land
is not even contiguous. One of the obvious things is the use of
the summer bungalows as an~_excuse for the variances reducing the
side yards and rear yards and lot area and front yards, is really
a sham. Certainly the building sites and they are proposed are so
large that not one of these bungalows would fit into it. They are
so tiny.
ZBA
APril 11 , 1985
Page 2--f Bayview Development Corp/Sage
MR. WEISSMAN - continued: It's obvious that they are all going
to be destroyed or removed and that something else is going to be
built there. The use of the bungalows is only being utilized for
the purpose of creating some kind of hardship. They knew what they
were buying. They weme buying a non-conforming situation. The
only hardship that they could have here is hardship 'that is self-
created. The Board has no authority to grant them relief in a
self-created hardship.
It would take a matter of a few weeks to develop a clear in-
sight as to what this project is about and to present it adequately
to this Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would
like to speak against the application?
MR. KLEIN: I live at 835 Tarpon Drive. I would like to endorse
everything that Mr. Weissman has said and point out that as I under-
stand the concept of cluster zoning, the reduction of lot size and
the use of cluster zoning is a relief in and of itself, lot size would
represent a 50% reduction.. Some of these lots are 9,000 s.f., which
represents a reduction of approximately 82% in area. The setbacks,
sideyards represent 30 or 40% in addition to the permitted variance
under cluster zoning, the so-called 19 lots on 29 acres, physically
consists of 19 lots on 5.25 acres and if that constitutes a legal
cluster concept, in my 35 years of experience, I h.ave never seen
anything quite like this. What you have here is the filing of a map
which consists of variance piled upon variance. It is the duty of
zoning to eliminate non-conforming use. What you have here is an
application that will create a map which in its entirety is a non-
conforming use.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Klein. Anybody else like to be heard
on behalf of this application? Is there anything that you would
like to say, Mr. Forchelli?
J. FORCHELLI: In terms of the objection that there was not notice
given to those on Tarpon Drive there, the variances requested are
not in that area. They are adjacent to the proposed future selion
there. The variance requested on the east end of the property and
I respectfully submit to you the case of Gaona v. Town of Hunti~g_to~n
ZOning Board of ~ppeals, 483 NYS 2nd p.430, d~cided December 31, 1984,
which stands for the proposition that the lack of notice in this
area is not a jurisdictional defect and therefore does have juris-
diction over the application. With respect to the statements about
the schemes, or what have you, there are presently 31 cottages with
a certificate of occupancy for the 31. All we are seeking to do here
is reduce 31 cottages to 19 lots. The density is being reduced, it
is not being enlarged and the variances which we are seeking would
foster the reduction of the density from 31 to 19. In terms of the
19 proposed lots on 5.75 or 6.0 acres, there presently is 31 in that
amount of area. We think that this application is preserving open
space and not detracting or using up open space'. The development
in the area where it presently is but in a reduced amount. We are
reserving areas to be open, such as the island portion and this por-
tion on the Main Road and we think that the application is a good one
and should be considered favorably.
ZBA
April 11, 1985
Page 2-g Bayview Development Corp/Sage
MR. FORCHELLI - continued: I think that we all know what we are
talking about. We are talking about mehhod of ownership and splitting
up ownership of the property and we are not talking about density or
increase in density. We are talking about reduction in density and
change in ownership or type of ownership. I respectfully submit that
it is a good application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Weissman.
MR. WEISSMAN: I would just like to point out to this Board that
here we 'are not concerned with the question of judicial interpretation.
What is an adjoining owner? Your ordinance is absolutely explicit.
It states that in the event that any petitioner owns or has any in-
teres~ in any property immediately adjacent to the property which is
the subject of said petition, that written notice should also be
given to the owners of the property adjacent to such other property
of the petitioner. There it is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Do you have anything else that you would
like to say? Mr. Flynn, anything that you would like to say?
At this particular time I think we will take a 3 minute recess and
discuss the possibility here o4 a recess, or no recess and close
the hearing and we will come back with a verdict or a decision.
So, I make a motion recessing for approximately 3 minutes.
Recess.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Occasionally situations occur, where certain legal
points come up and as you know the Town attorney is not with us at
this particular time to suggest what he might suggest as being a
remedy to this act. So, I basically have a philosophy and a request
from both parts. One, the philosophy is the philosophy of the Town
Board and we are, of course, sitting representing them at this
particular time. It has been their philosophy that everyone in the
Town be heard. Therefore, I am going to ask Mr. Forchelli to please
give us notice through the Town assessor's office that you have
notified everybody. I am going to ask you, Mr. Weissman, to send
a letter indicating people that you feel haven't been notified and
I will recess this hearing unless there is further comment on this
until May 2nd. Being the last hearing of that evening because we
have a full calendar for that docket already and if there is any
question from anybody, I will take it right now. Either side?
Hearing no further questions, I make a motion recessing the hearing
until May 2nd~ All in favor. Thank you very much for coming in.
ZBA
April 11 , 1985
Page 3
3322
#3350 - At 8:00 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
JOSEPH LIZEWSK~ ..~r for a variance to construct a building for
private membership with an insufficient setback from easterly
property li~eA^Dorth side of Main Road and Depot Lane Cutchogue.
· ~1~ ~ ~ ~
Chairman/read ~egal notice and appeal application in their entirety
for the record, since hearings were recessed from prior meeting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Doctor, can I ask you a couple of questions on
your site plan here? What is the building in question, here that
we are referring to?
J. LIZEWSKI: These setbacks here are supposed to be as per Town
Code. Both of these buildings are within 50'° This is the new
section that is to be built.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And it has this mismatched effect to it?
the purpose of that?
What is
J. LIZEWSKI: To keep the corner of the building away from the
present which will be removed. This came straight, too
close to this building.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
to 46 x 44.
Basically, we are talking about an addition 34 x 26
J. LIZEWSKI: Yes, I had to have it redesigned in order to keep
the distance from the corner of this one.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would this have locker rooms?
J. LIZEWSKI: Yes, a locker room and 2 racquet ball courts,
you have to have locker rooms.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And how high did you say this building was?
J. LIZEWSKI: It is one floor. It is being built subteranneously
and it is 10 feet below the ground.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How far will it protrude out of the ground?
J. LIZEWSKI: It is a one story building. It will keep the
same roof height as the rest of the buildings, so it looks nice.
I have been working down to it as I built.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Is there anybody else who would
like to speak on behalf of Dr. Lizewski's proposed recreation building
Against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no
further questions, I will make a motion closing the hearing reserving
decision until later. Thank you very much for coming.
ZBA
April 11, 1985
P age 4
~3335 - at 8.:05 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
TOMAS HIGGINS for a variance to construct an accessory garage
in frontyard area~ 850 Ruch Lane Southold. Chairman read legal
notice and appeal application in their entirety for the record.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How big is the garage?
you anticipating?
How ~Arge a structure are
T. HIGGINS: A one car garage by 10 ' wide x 20'. I need the
garage, I have no garage, I never did have a garage. I have owned
the house for 14 years and I retired out here, semi-retired out
here and I need a garage. Everybody else on the street has a
garage and I haven't one.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any particular reason why you chose that
side as opposed to the other side?
T. HIGGINS: Because there is a big tree on the one side and if
I cut down the tree, I cut down everything and it is close to the
other party, where this one would be closer to the Petrone's next
door to me and he doesn't mind it at all. His garage is on the
other side of his house. So it wouldn't interfere with any view
or anything at all I am going to put it in line with his
house.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much. Anyone else would like to
be heard 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.
~'3334 - At 8:10 p'.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
HAROLD CARR for a variance to construct a deck addition with
insufficient rearyard setbacks, 2045 Maratooka Road, Mattituck.
Chairman read legal notice and appeal application in their entirety
for the record.
MR. CARR: I will answer questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just let me ask you two quick questions. Do you
intend to leave this deck open, there will be no roof on it?
Are you anticipating any more reductions in sideyards? Or
rearyards?
MR. CARR: None at all.
ZBA
April 11, 1985
Page 5
HAROLD CARR HEARING - continued
MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank you. Anybody else like to be heard
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.
93330- At 8:20 p.m a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
DOMINICK VARANO, for a variance of approval of insufficient
area of proposed Lot 3, 6750 Indian Neck Road, Peconic, New
York. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application in
their entirety for the record.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lark, would you like to be heard?
MR. LARK: As indicated by the petition, my client would like
to subdivide this 5.425 parcel into 3 lots. Dr. Varano has owned
the property since February 1981. As you recall, at the time of
this purchase, the township had 40,000 s.f. zoning requirements
for area and today, since 1983 they are 80,000 s.f. To meet the
requirements of the ordinance, would mean dividing, since you
have the map in front of you you can see that due to the rectangular
length and shape down to the bay, we can divide it into two lots
of 118~000 and 115,000 s.f. Since it is an area variance request,
it presents a~practical difficulty~for Dr. Varano As the Board
knows, the term practical difficulty'°come5 to mean a legal term
that is the outgrowth of several court decisions dealing with this
type of problem. We have an area or si~eyard requirement request
for a variance. To determine what is a practical difficulty~ the
Board~has to determine 1. How substantial the variation from the
zoning ordinance in relation to the requirement. In this case,
the 76,300 s.f. request in relation to the 80,000 s.f., 3,700
sof. is indicated in the decision. I submit to you that this is
a relatively small variation. The Planning Board of the Town of
Southold also agrees. As you are probably aware, Dr. Varano,
through his real estate agent, went to them first, thinking he
could get subdivision, but when they laid it out with the
surveyor you can see the problem.
Now, as I understand, they passed a resolution on 3/18/85
saying that the request for a variance is not very large with
respect to what he is asking for on the subdivision. I think you
have a copy of that in your file. Second criteria that you have
to consider is whether the affect of any of the variances that
you granted, if you allow it, on the increased population density
and that impact on available governmental facilities. You have to
make a determination whether or not in granting of an additional
lot side, which really is what the application is all about will
add anything to the density of the area, considering the entire
neighborhood and whether or not it will have any effect on govern-
mental facilities, police, fire, sewage and' what not.
ZBA
April 11, 1985
Page 6
DOMINICK VARANO HEARING - continued
MR. CHAIRMAN: What additional house are you referring to?
MR. LARK: He can get as a matter of right without any variance
two lots, two house sites, so what it all boils down to is that
you would have a population increase of one additional house.
We submit that there will not be any significant impact on police,
fire or other governmental facilities. The next requirement you
will have to consider is whether a substantial change will be
produced in the character of the neighborhood, or there will be
a substantial detriment to surrounding properties. It is sub-
mitted there will be no change in the character of the neighborhood.
It will remain residential, whether there is one, two or three lots.
They will all be residential character. It will not change the
neighborhood in any way, shape or form. As you can see from the
map in front of you, the width of the lots will be substantial, so
you are not going to have an overcrowding situation on any of the
adjoining properties.
One of the next criteria you will have to consider is whether
the difficulty can be obviated by some other method feasible to
the applicant. The only other way for the applicant to get relief
would be to acquire 3,700 s.f. from one of his neighbors. However,
when you are visiting the area, due to the size and configuration
of the neighboring lots; plus where their houses are in relation-
ship to the property line, this is not a feasible or practical
solution. He has contacted both neighbors, both Mr. George Guyman
who has no objection ot the application. In fact, I think your
file contains an affidavit from Mr. Guyman indicating since he
has been down there since the early 30's, what the property has
contained; what has been done in the neighborhood. And the other
neighbor to the west, a Mrs. Odell, she wrote a letter and you
gave me a copy of that letter and I gave that to Dr. Varano~ who
knows her and he called her and she really has no objections after
he answered all her questions. Dr. Varano is with me here tonight
for comment on that in a moment.
The last criteria that you have to consider in view of all of
the above that I just mentioned im considering the nature in which
the difficulty arose. The upzoning, increasing the area from 40 to
80,000 s.f., and considering these factors, the interest of justice
will be served by allowing the variance. As I indicated before,
when he brought the property, it was his intention to divide it
into 3 lots for his children and that would have been no problem
under the 40,000 s.f. concept, but when we went to 80,000 in the
Town, it created the reason why we are here tonight. I wish to make
note that if the Board grants the application, that you make it sub-
ject to Planning Board criteria. He still has to go back to the
Planning Board to get minor subdivision approval. There are several
details that have to be worked out but the primary one involves
the Planning Board and I talked to them and they didn't want to get
too involved with it until you 'made a decision on the area variance
requirement, as to the location of the access road, which will be
~eP~t o~ ~he m~nor su~div~$iQn over lots I and 2; where ~ would
relaLlons~lp, iL Wll± nave to De move~ zrom where meanders
ZBA
April 11, 1985
Page 7
DOMINICK VARANO HEARING - continued
MR. LARK - continued: across the center of the property and they
will have the jurisdiction over that. Basically, they have ap-
proved the general lot layout and that is one of the criteria they
will have to work with him. The other one, as I indicated in
the petitionj is that the building on lot 3 should probably be
some condition that they remain with-their existing footprint.
Furthermore~that the garage and the existing apartment, which I
understand contains a bathroom and bedroom facility, there is
no cooking facility, will be used as it has been over the years,
solely in conjunction with the main house and not be expanded
into a separate dwelling. He has agreed with Mrs. Odell, that that
would remain the fact. Apparently that has been used over the years
for that purpose and it would continue in the same status, as an
accessory structure.
I don't have anything further, I think I have covered all the
points which you gentlemen have to consider. However, Dr. Varano is
here and he wants to add just a few things if you would hear it.
Thank you.
DR. VARANO: We have been on the North Fork for maybe l0 years and
my family and I have become very close to the North Fork. We plan
to make this my childrens' future place to stay at. With that in-
tention, we purchased the property we have now. At that time it
was one acre zone, so the intentions were to give our children one
parcel each and keep one parcel for ourselves. The l'aw has changed
so we would like not to deprive the children of what we wish for them.
We would like to keep our promise to them that in the future there
would be a parcel given to them. As far as the apartment, it has
been used in conjunction with the main house, mainly as a guest
house. There is no cooking facilities, no kitchen. If you have
any questions, I .will be happy to answer them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr., there are times when we go out separately on
inspections and we are not able to make a date with you to inspect
the garage apartment. I would like to close this hearing tonight,
after we have questions from the audience. Allow us to come down
tc look at the garage apartment, which I spoke to your attorney
2 or 3 months ago, when the application was first filed and so I
would like to come down this Saturday morning, if it is all right
with you. If you are not going to be there, maybe you could leave
a key someplace. I have a very heavy schedule and we just couldn't
put it together. I was down there last Saturday but I would not go
into any building without permission. Is that all right with you?
DR. VARANO:
11:00 a.m.
I will make it all right~
I will be there around
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to
be heard on behalf of the application? Against the application?
Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questionsr I
will close the hearing pending inspection of the garage apartment.
ZBA
April 11, 1985
Page 8
~3326 At 8:30 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
HELEN AND WILLIAM C?~T~R for a s_p_ec~a~ x e~ to build a
funeral home business at premises of Dalchet Corp., south side
Main Road, west side Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, New York. Chairman
read appeal application and legal notice for the record, in their
entirety.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to say before we start this hearing
that there are certain things that we do deal with in an appli-
cation of this particular nature. And the one thing we do~ is
we deal with the normal courtesies we have among this Board and
that is if you have anything to say we are here to hear the entire
story, both pro and con% we would like your name stated7 we would
like you to speak clearly. If you are speaking for a group or
organization, we would like you to indicate that. We do not enjo~
nor will we put up with any shouting matches and we will ask you
to leave. If you don't leave, we will force you to leave in one
way or another, whether it is through the Southold Town Police
or other means. So, we have not gotten to that particular point
this year and we don't want to get to that point, so please use
courtesy in dealing with it.
Is there anybody who would like to be heard on behalf of this
application?
MR. LARK: As you know, this application is for a e~l e~x-
~epti~ to the zoning ordinance, Article 3, Section 100-30B13
Since the application was filed with the Board in January, I,
myself have received numerous telephone calls from neighbors and
other people~ in the community, asking me about special exceptions.
After having this experience, I can only say that when the zoning
ordinance is reaccomplished with the new master plan, that hopefully
you gentlemen will make sure that the words ~Pec~a~I e~xce~ are
eliminated from the zoning language and installed in its place,
the words ~A~a~ ~. The reason I say that, is that the
word 'exception~ is a misnomer and is misleading because no exception
is made for the provisions of the zoning ordinance in getting a
e~ ~xceD~io___~n by the Board of Appeals.
A ~pec~ exception is not a variance. In fact, it differs
from a variance in that the S3P_~ ~xce tp_~ contemplates the
use expressly permitted by the zoning ordinance, while a variance
is permission granted by the Board to use property which would
otherwise be prohibited by the Code. In fact, a s e~l e__x_ce t~
is not a modification or change of the ordinance. It is a permitted
use. The only difference between something designated in the or-
dinance for ~ x~ and that which would otherwise be
permitted under a specific section of the ordinance is that the
ordinance allows conditions be attached by the Board to a use for
Zba
April 11, 1985
Page 9
WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING - continued
MR. LARK - continued: which a ~ e__xqep~ion is sought.
If you look at the zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold, a
funeral home, which is really the subject of this application,
can only be located believe it or not, in an A-residential and
agricultural district. It cannot be put, and only can it be
located there, with a fp_ec%~_l xce~ from the Board of
Appeals and site plan approval, which is granted by the Planning
Board. The point being, that a funeral home in an A residential
district, which is what this property is zoned, is a permitted
use. The same conditions would exist for a church, which can
only be built in an A zone, with ~1 ~xception. So for some-
one to say that a funeral home belongs in a business district, is
not so under your zoning. If one were to be located in a business
or industrial district, a use variance would have to be obtained.
As the Board is well aware, the criteria for a use variance i%
in most cases~ very difficult to meet. So, when Bill Coster, ~.~ho
.~ ne aL1 ~ ·
ha~/ex~erz~ce zn Southold trying to locate a funeral home, came
to me and asked what could be done. I said under the code~ you
have to put it in an A residential and I said you will have to look
around for some Main Road property that is in an A district, other-
wise you will have to get a~use variance"and that is a very difficult
thing to do. You have to try to show financial hardship and the
other criteria set down by the code.
Again, I want to stress that this application is not as if a
variance and you are not sitting here before an appeal by the
building inspector denying anything. This special ~
comes directly from the code and delegated by the Town Board to
you to consider criteria as to whether or not to allow a
~eptioD or again the words s_meci_~ ~ would probably be
more apropos. Now, you have to consider the criteria that are
in Section 100-21C of the code. I wish to point out before we
get started here that if the proposed use meets' all the standards
and conditions of the zoning ordinance, i.e., the criteria~ then
the Board is under a duty to grant the applicant the spec~_~ ~_~-
~e~, with conditions as .they are appropriate as the Board sees
it. Now, also, we only can consider the criteria that is set forth
in the ordinance. Before getting into the details, and after you
review the application, I want to point out and I think the Planning
Board agrees that the applicant has met all of the criteria set
forth in the zoning ordinance and in some cases has exceeded it
in particular when you consider the off-street parking require-
ments and the site plan elements, because as you know, he also
has to get site plan approval from Planning. He received tentative
approval subject to the spDciai ~xception., but he has to back for
the detailed working drawings, etc., and I believe you have that
letter from Planning.
ZBA
April tl , 1985
Page 10
WILIIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING - continued
MR. LARK - continued:
Now, I have several things that I can explain to you and I
think they will aid you in determining the criteria as we go
through them. The first one which Mr. Coster has put u~ is an
architect's rendering of what the elevations would look like
after the building is constructed. You refer to when you read
thepetition, the portico, which faces on the Harbor Lane side.
The other thing is this-is the site plan he had submitted to the
Planning Board. You hate before you a letter where they recommend~
some changes and what we have done ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: What we will do is recess for 5 minutes, when Mr.
Lark is finished talking. Everybody can look at the rendering
and the site plan we have before us. So, that's about the best
I can do right now.
MR. LARK: Ail we have done is taken the site plan which was sub-
mitted to Planning, and we incorporated their suggestions on this
one here to show you how their suggestions would affect the property.
We felt that you needed to have that so when we go through the
criteria you could have something to determine. Here are the
detailed floor plan~ which were prepared by the architect;as to
how the interior of this proposed funeral home will lay out.
Sq in order to consider this somewhat involved application,
I will go through the criteria briefly and comment on them and
I am sure the Board will have questions later on.
One of the things you have to make a finding on whether the
character of the existing probable development and of uses in the
district, the A residential district that we are referring to
and the peculiar suitability in this district for the location
of this permitted us~ which is a funeral home. We submit that the
funeral home is a permitted use in an A residential district and
considering the neighborhood and where this property is on the
corner of Main Road and Harbor Lane, and its juxtaposition with
the Key Food shopping center and the other businesses, which are
located across the road, on the north side of Main Road and con-
sidering its proximity to the cemetery and due to the geographical
setting of the property, in its relationship with the surrounding
residential properties, which are on the south and east, that it
is a suitable site for a funeral home. You will notice, and Planning
concurred, that they did not want the building set back too far
because the whole purpose of having the building is to have a
residential effect and by having it set up with the existing
setback on 'this street, it perpetuated that effect, rather than
setting it back and having a lot of off-street parking in the
front. The theory then and after talking with the landscape
architect , keep the building up in the front, keep all the
parking in the rear and it will be shielded by landscape buffers.
ZBA
April 11 , 1985
Page I 1
WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING - continued
MR. LARK - continued:
The second criteria is the conservation of property
values and the encouragement of the most appropriate uses of
the land. We submit that a use permitted such as this, is not
only innocuous, but it would be very appropriate. The use itself
and by the way, all the other existing funeral homes in the
township are in A residential districts, but most of them were
here before zoning, but those that were not and some were created
afterwards primarily the one in Mattituck. Again, we feel that
this is an appropriate use. The parking situation with the
funeral home with a wake is only when there is a funeral service
it is not used every day like you get in some businesses, it is
only used at certain times. There are many days when it is not
used at all. We do feel that it would be appropriate use to this
particular piece of property.
Next, is the effect that the location of the proposed use
may have upon. the creation or undue increase of vehicle traffic
congestion on public streets and highways. This was particularly
sensitive with this piece of property, because it is on the corner
it is in a very busy area, especially in the summertime, due to
the shopping center. By locating the building and putting all
the parking behind and havingoutlet on Harbor Lane, both. the
traffic people and Planning concurred that it would not add to
this traffic burden that is there because the way the thing is
set up is the most reasonable use of it and it does provide more
than adequate off-street parking. One of the objections that I
heard is that since the funeral home is up in the northerly por-
tion of the property, people would park on the Main Road or on
Harbor Lane and then walk to the home rather than parking mn the
rear of the home . If that is so, then it is incumbent upon
the municipality to put no parking signs on Harbor Lane and they
have indicated that they will put no parking signs on the Main
Road. So, with having no parking on the roads right next to it
he has;through his own expense,provided more than ample parking
so I think that will take care of that problem. If somebody wants
to park in a no parking area, well they will end up here on
Friday morning. Provisions have been made to eliminate the con-
gestion, which we do have with some of the existing facilities
because the precede zoning and there is not ample off-street
parking.
The availability of adequate public and or private water
supply...the water in this particular area has not been a problem
as far as supply, it will be furnished for the bathrooms and the
other needs of the funeral home by private well. The same goes
for the test borings as indicated that there will be no problem
meeting SCHD standards, as per septic system. That is not a pro-
blem for this particular landsite.
ZBA
April 11, 1985
Page 12
WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING - continued
MR. LARK - Continued: The next criteria is whether or not the
use or incidental use of materials of the funeral home will produce
or give off any noxious gasses~ odors, smoke or sewage. Well, it
will be heated, no doubtleither by oil burner or electric heat, so
that would not cause any problem. I think the Board's experience
with existing funeral homes is that they do not give off any
noxious gasses~odors, smoke, etc. so I do not think these a con-
sideration.
Next, is whether the use will cause distnrbing emissions
or electrical discharges,vibration and noise. I don't think
electrical discharges are a problem with the funeral home busines%
just the surface of the parking area, as you can see from the revised
sketch, the perimeter of the property is going to be landscaped
which meets the requirements for off-street parking and so that is
not going to cause any dust. The parking area itself has to be a
dust free nature under Planning criteria . The light, which has
been some of the objection from the surrounding neighbors. By
having the oversized parking area which you see they are not, a~d
using shielded light and street light the middle of it, and having
no light emanating out on to the Main Road because all the parking
will be in the rear. Planning has indicated that low level lighting
would be appropriate for this type of use rather than having some-
thing that you have over at Key Food or A & P. There is nothing
like that going to be ; it has to be shielded, so it would be
discreet lighting . Vibration and noise other than the normal
cars going to and from the property, you would have little or
no noise.
Whether the operation is pursuant or cause undue interference
with the orderly enjoyment of public or recreational facilities
that are existing or proposed by the Town. Checking with the
Town and the master plan, no parks or any other recreational
facilities are planned in this particular area and neither are
public parking lots in the works.
The necessity for vituitous service space for purposes
of off-street parking of vehicles incidental to use and whether
space is reasonably adequate and appropriate, etc. As you can
see, there is more than ample if he has provided for 3 chapels
which would require 25 spaces for each chapel. Then you have to
have handicap spaces and a few for employees. When you add it
all up, you need 84 85 spaces and he has provided for close to
100 and as you can see , that it could be expanded in the future
if the need was required. At the present time, he feels it is
not necessaryI
ZBA
April 1t, 1985
Page 13
WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING - continued
MR. LARK - continued: The Planning Board was quite delighted
that he did not add to it in the future and of course, if he did,
he would have to go back and get further site plan approval,
because they have to consider the lighting, drainage, etc. So
that's what is proposed at the present time. So, I don't think
there is a problem with adequacy. Now, there has been a discussion
with him and they have put it on the back burner, so to speak,
the Planning Board, because it is one of the criteria to be con-
sidered by you as to what type of surfacing should be put for the
parking area.
It was felt if you blacktopped that whole thing, it would
look horrendous, in the sense that all you have to do is look across
the street and you would get the shopping center effect. He has no
objection, of course, to having some sort of stone, since it is in
a residential neighborhood, bluestone or some other type of stone,
so it breaks it up a little bit, and you don't get that huge blacktop
situation. That's one of the criteria th'at you are going to have
to wrestle with. Just what type of surface would you think be ap-
propriate in this particular neighborhood. Planning has suggested
asphalt, but on reflection they said that might be so but maybe just
in the driveways to and from, maybe it should be something else.
I think they just dumped it in your lap as to what to consider.
Next criteria is whether hazard to life, limb or property
because of fire, flood, eroszon or panic may be created by reason
or would result from use of the structure or by the inaccessibility
of the property for convenient entry and operation of fire or other --
emergency apparatus'by undue concentration or assemblage of persons
upon the plot. Well, fire access and egress, I won't even dwell on
that since most of you are firemen and are more expert than I and
I don't think there is any problem with accessibility of the structa~e.
As you know, from vmsiting the property it is basically level
terrain, so you don't have a problem with erosion or any of those
things.
As presently envisioned, the use of the funeral home, no one
will be living there, so you don't have the situation where you have
a permanent resident and in fact, the people using the place will be
strictly transient, both literally and figuratively, so I don't wan~
to get into that sensitive subject. If you have a large funeral or
wake, dUring a certain amount of hours it would be used and that's
the reason, which becomes a necessary evil to provide all that
parking.
I am going to let Mr. Coster talk about adequacy of lot, since
he is more familiar with how he intends to operate this funeral
home from his experzence in the business, so we submit to you after
you hear him, that the plot is more than sufficient to handle it.
ZBA
April 11 , 1985
Page 14
WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING - continued
MR. LARK - continued : Last, whether the use is near a church,
school, theater, recreational or other facility of public assembly.
As you all know, from being familiar with the property and the area
it is not near any one of these. So, in summary, you will have to
make a determination that this particular use for a funeral home
will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of the adjacent
property both to the west and south. To the east'as you know, is
the old burying grounds and that is no longer being used as an
active cemetery, but we submit that this will not interfere with that
either. This is a permitted use and we will not interfere with the
both adjacent properties with residential structures, and we submit
with the landscaping that it will not interfere~
Now, a couple of things that you should be aware of with the
site plan. The building was set where it is shown on the site plan
and provide~low lying house-type shrubs in the front and after the
Planning Board considered it, they want the same thing along Harbor
Lane, except that they did want rather than a privet or hedge,
deciduous trees, and they suggested it in their letter to you, some-
ting like sugar maples, to keep that residential effect. You will
notice here that if you park way in the back it is a long way to
walk especially in inclement weather and that was the reason he
installed the portico, under which a person or handicapped person
could be dropped off in a vehicle to get inside. The Planning
Board originally wanted the piece adjacent to the Bykowski piece
increased to 10' instead of 4'. There you would put something very
thick like arborwitae or privet, etc. that you would allow to grow
up. There is an existing fence there but they wanted that completely
screened. As you come around in the parking area they wanted the
tier or parking eliminated, so there would be no people pulling
frontways in even if there was a landscape buffer. That has been
eliminated and the parking will be in the central and along the other
side.
There is a barn on the property, which is in excellent shape
and the exterior facade will be kept as is and the interior will be
used for storage of materials and vehicles. You will notice that
the existing residences on the Main Road the parking and all of the
traffic was directed toward the rear and the landscape buffer would
prevent interference with the existing residential use of the exist~ing
house.
Basically, that covers all the highlights because this has
gone through several sessions with the Planning Board as well as the
landscape architect and engineer, covering what would be affected
on the property, and you will see that. At this time, I would
like to introduce one of the co-applicants, William Coster.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you do that, I would just like to recess for a
couple of moments to allow the public to take a look at these
renderings. I apologize for the overreaction before this hearing,
but I just want everybody to be aware o2 the fact that we are
responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of everybody
here. So, our site plan is down here and you will notice that
there is a difference between that site plan that Mr. Lark had
referred to that appears to be over here, so you are welcome to
look at all three or four and we will reconvene in 3 or 4 minutes.
ZBA
April 11 , 1985
Page 15
WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING - continued
WILLIAM COSTER: Good evening ladies and gentlemen and members of
the Board. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.
My wife Helen, is the co-applicant and for all of you who haven't
met her, this is my wife. Most people would prefer not to speak to
funeral directors or to discuss funeral homes. The discussion of
funeral homes generally recalls a period of sadness in peoples' lives
or the anticipation of the loss of someone that they love. Conse-
quently, it is not a popular subject or topic. When a person dies,
you normally have a funeral, which in most cases, marks the end of
a person's suffering and a beginning of a whole series of adjust-
ments for those left behind.
We gather as relatives and friends and recall all the wonderful
experiences we had with that person, give each other support and com-
fort and carry on in their absence. This gathering occurs in a funera.
home and with your permission, I hope to provide a beautiful,
comfortable setting for this gathering. I am a little nervous, par-
don me. Sorry, I would find it much easier to speak about someone
else but myself, please bear with me for a few minutes.
I would like to have the opportunity to prove to you in this
community that I am capable of providing excellent service. I am
experienced. I have been a licensed funeral director for 20 years
and I have owned and operated the Josephine McGrath Funeral Home
in Jackson Heights, Queens, successfully but prior to that I have
worked for the William F. Coster Funeral Home in Elmhurst. That
funeral home was built by my grandmother and grandfather in 1910
and is currently operated by an uncle, Richard Coster of Cutchogue
and Jackson Heights. I am married, happily, to Helen and have two
children that attend Laurel Public Schools. Helen and I left Jack-
son Heights with our very young family for the safe environment of
the North Fork. First, we moved to S. Jamesport, near my parents,
who now reside in Florida and then we moved to Laurel. I continue
to commute on the LIE, leaving at 5:00 a.m. and returning late at
night. I do that 6 days a week. Commuting on the LIE is a gruelling
ordeal, but like any other father or mother in this room, you do
what is necessary for your family, so you can earn a living.
However, this commute has taken its effect on all of us.
I have children who complain about not seeing their dad until
quarter of ten, but if you spend that much time on the LIE~ it
does create a hardship on them. So, with that in mind~ I started
to look out here for a building site. After looking, I determined
that there was definitely a need and room for another funeral home
in Southold township. As some of you are aware, we had looked in
the hamlet of Southol~ but were unsuccessful in finding a location
there. I believe the location in Cutchogue is by far the best
location that I have found. I brought an architect out here, who
just specializes in funeral homes and one day we drove from
Mattituck out east and looked at various sites and it was his
professional opinion that the site on Harbor Lane was the most
ideal.
ZBA
April 11 , 1985
Page 16
WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING - continued
MR. COSTER - continued: When completed, God willing, I believe
it will be a beautiful building that we will all be proud of. Mr.
Lark had mentioned earlier that I would explain a few things about
some of these drawings that are here.
The first exhibit here, which is a little difficult to see,
but you see the colors. This is a floor plan. This building was
designed by an architect that just designs funeral homes and it
is all on one level for the handicapped, basically, they can come
in any door and not have to lift a foot more than 3 or 4". The
entryway under the portico goes into a very large foyer and then
off that there are 3 chapels, that can be opened into 1 very large
room, which is approximately 72' x 28' The purpose of that design
is in the event that someone should die that belongs to many organi-
zations, or is an extremely prominent person, or has a very large
family, that room can be opened and Masonic service, fire department
service, any service of that nature could be conducted in a comfort-
able environment.
There are 2 offices which give privacy to people when they
make funeral arrangements. There is a ladies and mens room. The
ladies room is elaborate, with a lounge and there is a casket selec-
tion room and preparation room and an exit to the parking tot and
another one.
As far as the decorations go, it is going to be decorated like
a home. In fact this is a large residence. It is a georgian
colonial building and it is in keeping with what is across the
street, similar to what Gary Olsen has, in design. A white shingle
building with green shutters, with portico and dentil work~ so
it will look like a large residence. One of the many differences
is that from a neighbors point of view who might to this project,
there won't be any family pets or stereos or teenagers on the
weekends or noisy barbeques. It will be very quiet. Not a nuisance
and it won't disturb anyone. My success as a funeral director will
be determined on how well I am received by you and if I create a
monster or something that you don't like, you are not going to come
to me. Consequently, I have tried my best to put something beautiful
up and will inconvenience people as little as possible and con-
venience people as much as possible.
Mr. Lark mentioned that the building was pushed up and parking
was in the back. From a neighbors point of view, I walked around
and tried to see what objections people might have and from Mr.
Bykowski, who is in the rear, this building is far away from his
property as can possibly be. I thought this was a plus. The
buffer in the back was increased. On the side where Mrs. Fogarty
lives, we could have parked cars legally and I did not want to
so she would not be able to see the funeral home. Also, the way
the building ms going to be built in the event that ill health
or the lottery forces me to do something else it can revert to
a large residence. Its appearance is such that it could be a
large residence. I think that's it. I thank you very much for
hearing my application and if you have any questions about me
or my business, please feel free to ask~ especially criticisms,
because if you have something to criticize, I would like to hear it
ZBA
April 11, 1985
Page 17
WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING - continued
MR. COSTER: continued; so we can get it straightened out and go
ahead with this. Than k you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. We will start with the people who would
like to voice their opinion in favor of this project. I will say
~o you, Mr. Coster, that in the five or ten years that I have
been on this Board, visited peoples factories. We may want to
come up and see your operation in Queens. I can't guarantee that
at this particular time, but just for the record that might be.
MR. COSTER: May I add a footnote to that. I am selling the business
in Jackson Heights. We are closing ....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Celic.
R. CELIC: I am here to speak %n support of this project primarily
I have had dealings with Bill Coster, real estate wise, along the
North Fork and I find this site extremely unique. Ihave shown
him at least 8 or 12 possibilities and they were remote because
they were not zoned A/R to begin with. This property is unique
because when you have a funeral, you need a church and it is very
near three churches. It is an ideal location, because it is between
Mattituck and Southold, and can easily draw from both areas. In
terms of Bill, himself, I can vouch for his personality and his
character. He is involved with me personally with the M/C Pack 39
in particular with the Webeloe~ group, older boys, and I can tell
you that he is a gentleman. What he says, he does. What he does,
he does properly and I am not here talking in support for any
financial reason. I had nothing to do, unfortunately, with them
acquiring this property. I am just here to indicate to you that
the plan is done properly. It blends in with Gary Olsen's building.
It will uplift the general appeal of that whole strip and it is
certainly much better to have ~ funeral home which overlooks a
cemetery than having a McDonald's overlooking a cemetery. I
think that if there are any objecting neighbors might also con-
sider the possibility that if this property were rezoned by
the town master plan, it could be rezoned business. If this
particular structure is built, that would be a protection for the
neighbors, who might be opposed at this time. Other than that,
as far as Bill's wife, I could not find a more sincere, vivacious
lady under the sun. So, I plead with you to let these people come
to this town and do it right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
state your name, sir.
Anyone else on behalf,
Kind ly
ZBA
April 11, 1985
Page 18
WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING - continued
JACK MEAGLE: I am a funeral director. I have known Mr. Coster
for 25 years. I have known him as a young boy, teenager travelling
from Elmhurst into St. John's Prep in Brooklyn; when he started
his professional schooling; since he has gotten his license. I
know him as a concerned, compassionate, professional person, who
has served his family with great dignity. I know him as a father,
a loving and caring person, who is devoted to his children and to
his wife. I know Helen since they have been married. She is a
lovely, lovely person; she's involved in the community as a sub-
stitute teacher and she is an asset to the community along with
William and I think if you people would give this couple a chance
to build their funeral home, you will find that they are an asset
to the community, both as businessman and private citizen. I
thank you for the courtesy of listening to me.
MR. CHAIRMAN:: Thank you, sir. Anyone else.
FRED FEY: I live in Southold on Ship's Drive. I am a licensed
funeral director in NY State for 45 years. I was past president
of Interboro Funeral Directors Guild, which encompassed the working
funeral directors of the metropolitan areas. Bill Coster was a
memberof our guild. We worked within the guild to improve the
funeral profession and bring it up to the highest possible standards.
Now, Bill Coster when I heard he was going to make an application
to build a funeral home, I called him and told him, Bill, I am going
to talk for you, whether you want me or not. The area of Southold
is growing. There are more condominiums, people and they say
why another funeral home[ Well, I think we are entitled to another
funeral home, the same as we are entitled to more doctors, lawyers,
dentists, grocery stores, hardware stores, etc. We have the right
to this.
Now, as far as the Coster's are concerned. God bless them.
They are putting a lot of money into this and anything they do, they
do right. They have two funeral directors from Queens here tonight
because they want to get him out of Queens. Don't be afraid to
grant the Coster's this permission just because you don't like the
color of his hair, what little he has of it. These are real class
people and real class funeral directors, who works hard and I have
known him for 20 years and they are great people. Thank you all for
the opportunity to speak.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Fey.
FRANKLIN ROTH: I am the third funeral director, the second one
from Queens, to speak on Bill and Helen's behalf. I don't know what
I can add to what's been said tonight. We are not really anxious to
get him Out of Queens, because Queens is going to lose a fine funeral
director. He has made a commitment outhere to the North Fork
ZBA
April 11, 1985
Page 19
WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING - continued
MR. ROTH: continued: I have known him since he was a young lad,
and this is where they would like to be among you. They can be a
real asset and as far as any protections for the neighbors, I am
sure that they can be worked out. I don't have anymore to add to that,
except that I would like to hear something from the co-applicant,
Helen Coster
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else on behalf?
BARBARA KELLY: I .live on Laurelwood Drive in Laurel. I think it
would be an asset to our community to have a choice. I have used
the funeral parlor in Mattituck and I have the highest of praise
for them, but I think everybody likes to have a choice. In this
community, we have a great many elderly people. I do think that
someone like Helen and Bill would be an asset simply because we
need another funeral home here in our community. I do hope their
petition is granted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MARIBETH ANDRESEN: Somebody said something to me a few years
ago when I went through a very sad point in my life when I lost
my son. They said to me t~tdeath is just a part of life and I
have known Helen and Bill Coster since they lived in South'Jamesport~
and they were very near and dear to me through my loss. Bill is
a professional in all sense of the words and handled many of my
needs at that time. They have dignity, professionalism and goodness.
I am telling you to please grant their request. Thank you. You
couldn't ask for better people in your town. Thank you.
ALAN BARR: I live in Mattituck. I have a vineyard in Peconic.
I passed the proposed site about 5 times a day. I think it is a
good site because that whole little area is commercial. I would
like to see the application granted because I am the Webeloe leader
and I have this sucker come every Monday night, and I can see his
frustration because a lot of important meetings that we have with
our 28 boys; he misses or comes in at the tail end. So, I think
taking the site into consideration, the effort he gives to me as
the Webeloe leader, I think it is imperative that it should be
granted.
NANCY PEARSON: I live in Southold. Doctor's don't usually like
to admit that they know funeral directors, but Helen and Bill have
been very good to us in taking care of our children, and setting
up our home out here and I find them some of the nicest people I
have ever known. I have one statement that is purely hearsay
from my husband, who is also a physician, and one of his patients
said that Bill was a true artist. HE is well admired within his
profession. Thank you.
ZBA
April 11, 1985
Page 20
WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING - continued
BARBARA ABBOT: I am a resident of Mattituck, originally from
Queens. In the past, Bill has serviced our family and from a
personal point of view, I would just want to say tha~ if I had
to have someone service my family, I would like it to be Bill.
BETTY BROWN: I live in Aquebogue. My husband is a property
owner in the Town of Southold. I would expect that one of your
main concerns would be the concern of the quality of life cf
people left close by. Perhaps the buffer zone should be larger.
My husband owns a very small, five acre evergreen farm and I would
like to donate 100 or 1000 evergreeens, whatever the Coster's want
to create a buffer zone to have the neighbors enjoy. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to admit ~o you that I had second guessed this
audience and I apologize, but we did have (LAUGHTER), but we did
have a very serious thing happen Several summers ago, where a
gentleman did leave this hearing and had a heart attack on the
stoops of Town Hall, so therefore, I get very, very touchy when
we get into issues that affect people's feelings and so now
we will move to the opposite side.
JAMES FOGARTY. I live on Route 25, Cutchogue, adjacent to the
property of this proposed application. Last year, as I am sure
you are all aware, there were 7 individual property owners seeking
a zone change from residential to business on the south side of
Main Road opposite Key Food shopping center. The proposal was
denied. The Town Board's point of insistence, and I stress the
word insistence, was that they wanted to keep the business area
located in the hamlets, to elimlinate spot zoning. They also wanted
to have that area reamin the same as it was and is. Now, to the
east on the corner of the Main Road and Harbor Lane in a strip
running south behind the residence of John Bykowski, is proposed
a special exemption to the zoning requirements. Naturally~ a
funeral home is a business ente
is clearly an example of spot z
bring a negative affect on the
abut it and the 4 homeowners th
as a business without the benef
property to the west and north
Not only will our property valu
privacy there right now and thi
Light fixtures are hanging on t
areas. There is no feasible wa
rprise in a residential community,
oning. This parcel will clearly
4 residential properties that
at oppose it. This would operate
it of being business zoned. Our
is still zoned residential.
e decrease, but there is limited
s will be completely destroyed.
he building and in the parking
y to direct these lights so that
they do not become a nuisance ko our normal, daily living, especially
those properties that were sheltered previously along Harbor Lane.
I really feel that our daily l~ving will be negatively affected
by the granting of this specia~ exemption and hope that you consider
the effects on our property and lives~
ZBA
April 11, 1985
Page 21
WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING - continued
MR. FOGARTY continued: We are y
that we could probably sell and
to the negative potential, which
However, consider the retired pe
conception that a negative chang
These residents who have lived a
since they signed for the certif
these are people 60 or 70 years
lot on a residential street neve
a parking lot with lights on in
with a few other things, but I t
this so called s3p_~ ~xception
years ago. It was put in there
a home or large house and he wan
home, this was granted. It was
change the whole area and put in
new master plan, I am most certa
state that. You can put a funer
if it is pre-existing, no5 to bu
to be. Granting something like
comes out,I think it would be a
the master plan is out? Thank y
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Fc
JOHN BYKOWSKI: I am speaking on
and John , whose property border
my parents favor living next to
both. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
ALBERT AUSTIN: I am the one whe
I don't know what the intentions
house and told me what their iht
of people with good intentions.
a parking lot there when I put ~
reason that piece of property is
is you realize it is in excess
parking lot. Nobody walks 500'
Key Food Shopping Center on Sun
the fire zone to get a lotto tic
people drive to the deli on the
just sick of the idea of intentJ
I also disagree of the idea of
have tremendous problems with t
Dung enough, myself and my wife,
~ove if this situation lives up
we have already thought about.
Dple on Harbor Lane, who had no
e could occur in their backyards.
~gravated, unsettled lives ever
ied mail announcing the proposal
old, who built a house on a building
r thinking that they would have
their backyards. I could go on and on
hink the whole key to this issue is
. It was put into Town code many
~or one reason, if the person had
ted to' convert it into a funeral
not designed to put in there and
a new structure. In fact, in the
in that this would be revised to
al home in A residential but only
ild a new one. That was never meant
this now before the master plan even
bad idea. Why not just wait until
ou.
garty.
behalf of my parents, Josephine
s on the south side. Neither of
a funeral home. This bothers them
re that green square backs up to.
were of the Coster's came to my
entions were. I am sick and tired
There was no intention of having
.y house there 14 years ago. The
in the back and cut up the way it
f 500' from the main highway for a
in a parking lot. I can go up to
.ay morning and see 5 or 6 cars in
ket or a newspaper. I have seen
corner half of that 500', so I am
ons of what they are going to do.
he business and I told them that we
.at.
ZBA
April 11, 1985
Page 22
WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING - continued
MR. BYKOWSKI: I heard them mention this evening that the grade
level was okay. Well, they ought to come down there when it
rains. There is an area from the Main Road to my father's driveway
that is underwater and they had to dig a ditch on the other side
and let the water out which floods half the cemetery.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else against?
RUTH OLIVA: Comment. This is neither pro nor con. I just feel
listening to all of this, what a shame our code is so ambiguous to
put good people like this, which I am sure they are, into such a
predicament. I would also like the Board to be very careful in their
deliberations, to remember that the Town Board did turn down a
change of zone, not once, but twice, in this area. I would also hope
that they would refer to the minutes of the work session this past
Tuesday night, the 9th. Thank you, and I wish the Coster's all the
best.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ruth. Mr. Lark, is there something you
would like to say? Mr. Coster, is there anything you would like
to say? Anybody in the audience either pro or con, in summary?
Yes, Mr. Bykowski.
MR. BYKOWSKI: I would just like to say that I know the family is
nice and everything, but no hard feelings amonst anybody, but if
my parents lived further up, there would be no problem. They had
a choice between buying there and buying someplace else, then buy
someplace else. Everybody I mentioned to about this hearing coming
up, about them putting a funeral parlor, they said oh goodness, who
the heck would want to live next to a funeral parlor. The value of
your property would go down. 9 out of 10 would buy in that area now
but if there was a funeral parlor it would be down to 2 in 10.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Prior to this hearing, I had discussed
the possibility of viewing the master plan would have on this elon-
gation of business zones along the Main Road areas and this past
week, I discussed it with the Chairman of Planning at the zoning
committee meeting and they indicated to me that a lot of the busi-
ness zoned areas will be elongated, so that we will not see that withi]
the very near future. I will say that it encumbers upon this Board
a very difficult task and I have directed that to the Town Board .~.
the las ttime~I spoke to them, and in January when they asked me to
refer to the objectives for the year. I told them that we have been
plagued with many use variances and this is changing the residentir
ality of a piece of a property for the purposes
ZBA
April 11 , 1985
Page ~3
WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER HEARING -~continued
MR. CHAIRMAN: - continued: of business and I told them that we
have tremendous problems with that. Because of the lack of this
elongation and although this is not a use variance, there have
been indications tonight where people have referred to this as
being a business and it certainly is a business. We will take
everything that everyone has said. This has been a very touching
hearing for myself. Mr. Grigonis has been on this Board since
1957 so has Mr. Doyen from Fisher's Island; Mr. Douglass and
Mr. Sawicki are both on this Board and extensive amounts of time
and an example of some of the things we have to go through in
weighing the facts in an application of this particular nature
and I use the term agonizing~when I talk to the Town Board and
it truly is an agonzzing thing and we thank you all very much
for comzng in. We will do the best possible thing in weighing
the facts in this particular area. Thank you for everyone's
courtesy. I apologzze for all the reacting in the beginning.
I will ask the Board for a motion to close this hearing.
Prepared from recorded tapes of meeting. (29 pages total)
Respectfully submitted,
B~rbara Strang
RECEIVED AND FInD BY
TId~E SOUTI~[OLD TOV~N OLF_kqK