Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/05/1984 SoUthold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 'llCJ?l TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONI$. JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBER~[J'DOUGLASS M I N U T E S JOSEPH H. SAWICKI APRIL 5, 1984 REGULAR MEETING A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on .Th~rsday,~ April'_j5, 1984, 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.; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Member Serge Doyen, of Fishers Island, was absent due to illness. Also present were Victor Lessard, Building Department Adminis- trator, and approximately 30 persons in the audience. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded with the first public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3210. RECESSED FROM MARCH 2, 1984. Upon application of JAMES F. DRUCK III, Box 355, Laurel, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Article XI, Section tO0-118, to alter and construct addition to a nonconforming second dwelling exceeding 50% of fair market value and leaving insufficient sideyards. Premises: 7015 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-126-10-013. The Chairman opened.lthe hearing at approximately 7~33 p.m., however, our office was informed earlier that Mr. Druck may not be able to attend until approximately 9:30 p.m. due to another meeting. On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to recess the hearing in the matter of JAMES F. DRUCK ~II, until later this evening, approximately 9:30 p.m. S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -2- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3210, JAMES F. DRUCK III - continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent. This resolu- tion was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3208. Upon application of JAMES A. and EDNA-MAE CHRISTIE, 675_.North Oakwood Road, Laurel, NY for a Variance t.o the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100=31 for permission to re-separate Lots 21 and 32, Map of Laurel Park, Map No. 212, with insufficient area and width and sideyard setback of existing dwelling. County Tax Map Parcel No. lO00-127-7-15~'and 16. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7:40 p.m. and read the legal notice in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map and a copy of the[map~dated February 23, 1984 surveyed by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. indicating Lot #31, which is the lot in question, approximately 80 by 200' on North Oakwood Drive. Doctor Christie, would you like to be hea'rd in behalf of your application? JAMES A. CHRISTIE: Yes, that's what it is as far as what I wrote down, as far as I deliberately kept these lots separated for over 20 years with the hopes Qf my son or my daughter building next door to me, and the'pfact that the surrounding area and the road itself. They're all equal as far as size is concerned and less. That's all I have to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any questions from any .board members? (None) Doctor, we made a physical inspection of the premises and we do agree with you; the board does concur that most of the houses, if not all, are on--particularly on your side-= are on single lots; and therefore, bearing that in mind and seeing that there are no objections from the adjoining property owners, I'll make a motion granting this as applied for. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. (continued on page 3) S~6uthold Town Board of Appeals -3- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3208 - JAMES A. and EDNA-MAE CHRISTIE, continued:) The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicants request permission to re-separate two parcels as existed on the t925 Subdivision of "Laurel Park," Map No. 212, Subdivision Lots 31 and 32, which are substandard to the present zoning requirements. The lots each contain approximately 16,000 sq. ft. in area with a lot width of 80 feet along North Oakwood Road. Existing on the northerly parcel is a one-family, 1½-story frame house which is set back approximately 10 feet from the front property line. Upon personal inspection of the premises and the neighborhood in question, the board finds a majority of the surrounding parcels to be of similar size and character as these parcels. Also, in researching the history of this property, town records show that each lot has been in single and separate deed since prior to 1961 when the zoning requirements were 12,500 sq. ft. minimum lots. Therefore, in view of the above and in considering the circum~ stances of this appeal, the board determines: (1) that the practical difficulties have been shown and are sufficient to warrant the granting of the application as noted below; (2) that the relief as noted below is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zoning code; (3) that the circumstances are unique; (4) that the relief as approved will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning of the protection and promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare; (5) that the interests of justice would be served by approved the application since the character of the neighborhood will not be adversed changed. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3208, application for JAMES AND EDNA-MAE CHRISTIE, to re-separate Lots 31 and 32 of "Laurel Park" Subdivision at North Oakwood Road, Laurel, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED. Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel Identification, District 1000, Section 127, Block 7, Lots 14 and 15. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent. This resolu- tion was unanimously adopted. S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -4- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3224. Upon application of ROBERT A. CAMPBELL, 140 Bay Avenue, Greenport, NY for a .Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Artic.le III, Section 100=31 for permission to locate dwelling with an insufficient f~ontyard setback from Washington Avenue. Location'of Property: Southwest corner of Washington Avenue and Middleton Road, Greenport; County Tax Map Parcel No. 100D-041-02-001. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7~:42 p.m. and read the legal notice of nearing in its ent~re'ty and appeal .app.]ication. M'R. CHAIRMAN: I have a Copy of. th'e Suffolk County Tax Map, and I have a copy of a survey, sketch of a survey, done bx Howard Young-- the date is cu~.off, ~in.di.cat!i'ng the proper'th w~hich is. approximately 13,664 sq. ftc, s.~owfng a pro~sed ~etbgck of 18 feet from Washington Avenue and 35 feet from Mi.ddl..eton'Road~ Would_SomebOdy like to be heard in behalf of this application? ROBERT ~. CA'MPBELL: ~he only o~er ~hi~n§ t. ca~sas is that what I've been told by. the science people aro. und in %be area -- the winter sun is only 30o high and according to the hedge, like it said on the form, the hedge and the house wou.ld definitely hi..nder the back side of the hou. se. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any reason, Mr. Campbell, why you selected 18 feet as opposed to-- MR. CAMPBELL: Well, also the water collectors on the roof, the companies I'have talked to s~id the best angle of the house would be to have an east-west ridge so that the flat side of your roof would be on the south side which would gather more sun, .%h. at's Why as y. ou see on the map it's kind'of stra~ge--bu~ that's why, it would, 17~, because I wanted to keep as much .of the house into the appropriate area that I should be in as shown on the plot Plan. MR. CHA]IRM~N: Ok. When you say in ~he application 17 feet closer to-the p~.~perty~ line, and when I looked_at the survey it's ~ 18 feet. MR, CAMP~BELL: Eighteen feet is what I want. MR. CHAIRMAN: Eighteen feet is what you want. MR. CAMPBELL: We-'d have to go by scale to be sure, but I think it's 18. MR. CHAIRMAN: And how big is the house square footage-wise? MR.i~'CAMPBELL: It's 1,0~6. MR. CHAIRMAN: The board has not talked about this. We have only ~iewed the property. So I can't guarantee you a decision this evening. We have to deliberate upon it. So we will try as we do in m~§t~icases do the bes~ we can solar-wise. Than~'yO. Uo S~thold Town Board of Appeals -5- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3224 - ROBERT A. CAMPBELL, continued:) MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a~yone else to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody to speak agains% this application? Questions from board members? (None). Hearing no questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, ~econded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to~'Cl'ose'the he,ring and reserve decision until later in the matter of.'ROBE.RT~A. CAMPBELL, A~. 3224. Vote of the Board: Ayes:'~' M~.ssrs. Goehrq'nger, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawick'i. Member Doyen of Fishers'Island ~as absent. This resolu- tion was adopted by unanimous vote of th]e memters present. PUBLIC.HEARING: Appeal No. 3192. Upon ~p.plication of LINDA MILLER FAULKNER,"'BOX 787.., Q~.tchogue,. NY ~or a Variance to the Zoning ~-~-inance, Article III, Section 100-31 for pe mission to re-separate two parcels with insufficient area and-.width. Location of Property~ Southwest Side of West Creek Avenue, ~utcho. g.~ ,_.NY; County Tax Map Parcel Nos. 1000-103-13-4 and 5. 'The Cha'irman opened the hearing at ~:50 .m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal pplication. MR. CHAIRMAN:] I have a copy of the Suff~ lk County Tax Map indicating this pngper'ty and surrounding pr~op(rties, and a copy of the survey map dated July 26, 1966 from V~anTu~-i and Son., indicating Parcel No. 1 of 34,124 ~sqo ft.. which has the (~isting dwelling and §ara§e, and 33,101 .sq. ft. which is Parcel No~, 2 which sh.ows a proposed dwelling, of approximately 30' by~ 50' with a 50' setback from West Creek Avenue~ Would somebody like to be heard in behalf of this application? Would you kindly, state your name? JOHN FAULKNER: My name is John Faulkner. I'm the husband of the accused=-my wife. I don't know whether you have a letter there from the Planning Board. It may come up later in the meeti, ng-= ~ut I would like to address that now. Basically our application ~ll stand, as you have it there. The Planning Board, we did receive a letter from them about two months a§o, It simply said that they were in favor of this proposal. I wrote to the Planning Board twice. I~haven't had a reply yet~ But I did talk to t'~ secretary, and she looked at the minutes of their meeting, and I'll quote you from the minutes; and I do have a copy here if you don't nave one. It says that they"are concerned with the fact that the lot slopes toward Wickham's'Creek." As I said, I hadn't been a~le to get a reply from the Planning Board'. The secreta'ry did talk to the Chairman of the Planning Board, and'he said that he wasn't goi-ng to reply because he was too bu'sy, and he just wanted to leave it up.to the Zoning Board. So that's why I'm here tonight. Yes, our l'and does S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -6- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appea'i No. 3192 - LINDA MIL'LER FAULKNER, continued:) MR. FAULKNER continued: slope down towards Wickham's Creek. As I pointed out to the Planning Board in one of our letters, so do the other 18 lots that are on that side of Wickham's Creek. And our lot -- it has been in the family, and used by the family for 50 years. It's the only lot that just a lot. Everything else, there is a house on it. I've re-surveyed all of the buildings that are on our side of West Creek Avenue. All of them are closer to the water than our proposed building would be. All of the lots are smaller. Ihere's one lot that's only 12~000 sq. ft. We will need, I think it's 34 or 33,000 sq. ~ft. 'for eachlot.~._ MOSt imp. ort~ant, since the letter from the Planning B~ard$ we'v~ received appr.oval from the Department of Environmental Conser'vation, of which I thi_Dk you also have a copy of, which states that there won't be any significant effect on the environment. I suspect that the Planning Board was concerned about the effect on the environment because we're on the Creek. We are concerned about that also. But I think that that becomes irrelevant if the Department of Environmental Conservation is willing to issue a permit for it. I also want to stress here that we're not asking you to sub- divide one acre lots in the middle of two acre lots. If you know Fleets Neck, all the houses there are older, the lots are half acre,, quarter acre, three-quarters of an acre at the most. And the new lot that we're proposing--not the new lot, the lot that we thought that we had until abo.ut five months ago, is .certainly as big or bigger than anything that is around there. So what we're asking I think is reasonable. We talked to the nei.ghbors and we have no objection at all. In fact the fellow on the other side of the street, he's go~ing to be glad to ~e.~ the grass go because it's about 12 feet from the road, or 15' from the road, right in front of his window. He looks out and he just sees my grass. And we're going to take that out and remove it or get rid of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, before you sit down, Mr. Faulkner-- are you aware of the concern of Mrs. Schubeck concerning your parcel? MR. FAULKNER: I was not aware until I just read your Notice of Meeting tonight. I did not know that he had replied The only thing that I can say there is that I spoke to Mr. Schubeck as I did to my oth-er nei.ghbor about three months, I'think you have a copy of the letter and the dates that it was officially mailed to him. The address that he was mailed to i's from your Tax Assessment rol&s, which is what I~m required to do as according to the zoning.law. And I -- he lives, t guess, in the City. We haven't seen him in six months. SN~el'y~ I'm not to be penalized any more, because he hasn't been out here in six months and hasn't changed his address. I really-- MR. CHAIRMAN: We have received a telephone call indicating S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -7- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3192 LINDA MILLER FAULKNER, con~ihued:) MR. CHAIRMAN.continued: that since they were unable to appear tonight, that they request a postponement of this hearing until the next regular meeting. At that particular point, we had asked Mrs. Schubeck if she would have somebody that could represent her here--it appears that Mr. Hall, sitting in the back row is going to represent her. MR. FAULKNER: Ok. Fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of the application? .~l'l 'right, Mr. Hall? MICHAEL HALL, ESQ.: First of all, I''~ thin'k I can set the board and Mr. Faulkner at ease. I looked pack at the tax listings after I look at the purportedly faul'ty no.tice, and in fact my client's address is incorrectly listed in the mailing, so I am not going to contest notice tonight .and we're not asking .for a recess. I also want to say that in behalf of my clients, .my clients are not vehemently opposed to the application. They've asked me to be here tOnight to be sure that the board takes all its normal factors into consideration before they grant the variance sought--that they consider whether or not the applicant has shown practical difficulties, that they consider the environmental aspects. I looked at. the file briefly."yesterday. I did see the Department of E.nvironm~ental Con- serv.a.tion approval. The board ~s still empowered to, of course, consider within the spectrum of considering the health and welfare of the community how another house or lot might affect the drinking water situation in the area. Again, I've been empowered to let the board, grant the board its discretion of course which is to speak in behalf of the Schubecks. I realize that the lots proposed are at least similar or larger than a lot of the lots in the area, and the board is aware o_f that. The most important reason why I'm here and I don't think .the Faulkners will have any objection and I don't think the board will have any objection, but the Schubecks have asked me to ask the board in its power under the zoning ordinance under Sectio'n 100-122 to impose a condition on the Faulkners and it's a favorable condi- tion for the Whole neighborhood,_ that if in fact the variance is granted that the trees which separate the Faulkners' property from .the Schubecks which are on-- we don't even know which side of the property line they're on, put that covenant in, that that condition be-- MR. FAULKNER: They're on the north side of their property and south of ours. MR. HA'LL: Meaning what? Whose property are they on? MR. FAULKNER: They're on the property line. MR. HALL: That's What I thought. S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -8- April 5~ 1984 Regular Meeting c (Appeal No. 3192 - LINDA MILEER FAULKNER, continued:) MR. FAULKNER: They were planted by my wife's father-if that makes any difference. MR. HALL: The condition that we're asking for, that if a variance is granted, that the Faulkners covenant not to remove any of the trees or destroy any of them, and that if during the course of construction any of theme]are uprooted or destroyed, that a replanting take place. The reason that I'm asking, my clients want to maintain a good neighbor- hood relationship with the Faulkners, and they feel that this barrier will in effect prevent them from seeing any p~oposed house, and they re very glad about that. They would just like the board to impose a condition that that barrier stay there, thus enhancing the aesthetic character of the community. That is it, MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you sit down. We run into a tremendous problem with trees. With rights-of-way and everything else. And I will admit to you and I will be the first to admit to you, when we went out and inspected this property, we have not been too lucky in the past two or three times that we had gone oute It has been raining like you would never, ever believe, the Saturdays that we had gone out and inspected properties. We had gotten to this gentleman's lot, and it was coming down in torrents, and we did not walk the property which we normally do. So I would ask you, please-- I don't want any problems with t~espassing here or anything else. I'd like a mutual agreement between the two of you to please stake-- tell us which trees you're talking about so that we can go back and investigate the property, re-investigate the property, and reinspect the property, and you can either do that by tieing something around the trees, staking the line with a cord, whatever, so that we know what trees you'~re talki.ng about in question. And we'll make the determination whether that particular covenant should orl. should not be so enforced. MR. HALL: That's fine with me. I think it's easier and I think it would make sense to legally if the covenant would state t.hat any trees within two or three feet of the property line>]that would become unknown--I don't know if that's workable, but I think it would be pretty finite-- MR. FAULKNER: It's workable as far as I'm concerned. Yes. We have no intentions of touching ~any trees within 10 feet of the property line ~long the Schubeckso We're not--the~trees are a barrier., and thgy will be a screen to us to give us our privacy the same as they. wou~ld be for the Schubecks. The same applied on the other side, unfortunately, a few of them blew down in this last storm but we're already in the process of replacing those, so I know ~xactly the t~ees you're talking about. They are on the property line in between the Schubecks' property and our prop~erty. They're right on the line. And we have no objection of you .putting in a condition like that to even four or five feet from the property line, as we will not touch any trees there. We - ~on't want to. S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -9- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3192 - LINDA MILLER FAULKNER, continued:) MR. HALL: I-th'ink that would suffice. I was just researching Anderson on Zoning as to how finite a condition has to be, or how unvague it has to be, and I think that would suffice if we said, for example, within five feet ~f the propert~y line~ I~'m~ sure~ it wOuld satisfy the Schubecks as to that ].~s~.e. __. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there some way '6f staking that line so we would know where it would be when we went'down ther'e.. MR. FAULKNER: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll be going out again on. inspecti.ons~ Mr. Fau'lkner, within the next two we.~.~.s, probably two weeks from this coming Saturday, we I guess is pre~ttz.~.~os~.._to Easter at._th.at point-- but-- MR. FAULKNER: I guess the easiest thing would be to. call before you came, and I coul'd show you where._.th'ey"re at. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are y~'~ out m~'~ weekends? MR. FAULKNER: I live here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh', you live here. The minute I asked' that question I r~membered the address. Ok. M'R, FAULKNER: If you want, we'll stake it also. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh,-well then b~'"'prepared that W~e'll knock on the door if we don't call some Saturd. aY~morn, ing o~. s~me_~_.'.eve~ning, MR, FAULKNER: Ye~, I have a bi~'dog. ..... MR'. CHAIRMAN: We'l.1 call first." MR. HALL: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank' you. Is there anybo'dy else that would like to speak against the ~app.lication? YES., ma'am. MR'S. WARREN SHEPPARD: "M~name is M~s." Wart.eh Sheppar'd. We're aslo re.siden'ts-on W.e~ Creek~.~venue~ I'would like to _~.ring up the question whether o~ not'this idea of res~pa?at.~.ng lots will set a .preCedent so that peop~6,~all' over t.be North Fork can take some little small lot and have permission if this one is granted, will you be opening yourself to granting almost any reseparation question, and will that ~'~'~aCt make all the zoning la~s that have been paSse~.]by the town at this p.~int--it's a g.gneral principle that I' would like to speak about. MR. CHAIRMAN': I just want to refer back to the file for one second in order to answer your question~ Mr. Faulkne~.~ were these purchased at two separate time~ S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -10- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3192 - LINDA MILLER FAULKNER, continued:) MR. FAULKNER: Yes, they were. Originally. They were purchased as two separate lots. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's one of the criteria that we use. MR. FAULKNER: Fifty years ago. MR. CHAIRMAN: 'Yes. MR. FAULKNER: They were purchased in 1963 I believe by my wife's parents, and then she willed them to her in an estate when she died a few years]ago, That was the sequence of events. They were originally purchased -- the deeds I think you have a copy o~, indicate they were always two parcels, I'd also like to remind you that this is the only lot in that area--there isn't another situation that I know of in that particular area. MRo CHAIRMAN: Two more things--Mr. Lessard wants to say something. In taking into consideration, we don't sp~ecifically call it the redivision, we call it the division, ok,. of any~.~operties. We try and take everything iht6 perspective. What th~ surroun'~in§ properties look like. What does the Suffolk Coun%y Health Department say about it. What is the New' York St~e_Depart~nt of D.E.C.,_ Department of Environmental Conservation say, so on and so forth, and we then also go back, was in it a subdivision, was it not in a subdivision, does it tend itself to the character of the neighborhood. All of these things are taken into consideration. I don't know. Is there anything else I can tell you? MRS. SHEPPARD: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lessard has something to add. ~ICTOR LESSARD, BUILDING DEPT.: To put your fears at ease, ok, when two acre zoning was passed in Loca Law #7, it upzoned everything. Before that in the middle '7Os, the State passed a law saying that if your property--if you had two pieces of property that were contigu- ous and touched each Other, one of those lots wasn't developed ~.ithin three years, that it automatically merged. That's what started every- thing. Then last year, when they passed Local Law 7, and had two-acre zoning, automatically everything that was under two acres in the same name, boom- it came together. Ok. All the work that the Planning Board had done, all the work that the Board of Appeals had done, went down the drain. So then they realized what they .did and they passed Local Law #8. And that didn't do it. Then they passed Local Law .#9 ~nd that didn't do it. So finally Local Law #10 s~d any%h'~ng that was approved on a signed map between the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals, or whatever, before 1957~-no, after 1957 when zoning went into effect, be automatically be p~t on an exception list. So that reseparated-everything again. Unfortunately, every.~hing before 1957 was laid out by description, before zoning, left those PeOple stuck wi~.h lots that they thought they had, they ~.had merged together again. A_nd now, from that period back, the Zoning Board has So'uthold Town Board of Appeals -10- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3192- LI'NDA MIE'I~ER ?AUI~KNER, cont-inued.:) MR. LESSARD continued: to take all these things into consideration and reseparate them. So, yes, it is a problem, and no it isn't. It's going to be a lot of work, but it can be done officially. Officially, you're not creating houses all over the place. Does that a~wer your question. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Does anybo'dy else wish to be heard in behalf of this application? No one. Heari_.ng no further ques- tions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER SAWICKI: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOEVED, to cl'O~e the~he~rin~ ~nd reserve~dedi'Sion, until later in the matter of LINDA MILLER FAULKNER, Appeal No. 3192. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent. This resolu- tion was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3176. Application of CAROL ?LOCK, 10003 North Bayview Road, Southold~ NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,'Sect~on 100-2.1 .for permission to re-separate two parcels with insufficient area.a~d, width, and a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law, Section 280-A. Location of Proper'ty: 10007 North Bayview Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~79-5=17 and 21. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:09 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal ap~plication. M'R. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map and sketch of a ~urvey indicating a right-of=wa~ 50' in width running a distance to the boise lot which is approximately 400' off I believe that's North Bayview Road, indicating the house lot of 44,074 sq. ft. and ~h6~]proposed lot in this subdivision on this case of 41,888 sq. ft. Is there somebody that would like to be heard i~i behalf of this application? CAROL PLOCK: When the two lots were purchased, it was at two different_ t.~mes, and of course we purchased them in our joint names, and of course they me~ed togethe~o We had been planned to build a smaller house when the children grew up and got older; and we had bee_~_ working on that particular lot, I think about six years in planting of different trees and planting them in the right place. Items ~ot sgme~h~ng we had just dQne overnight. So of course when we found out they had merged them together, then I of course went 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3176 - CAROL PLOCK, continued:) MRS. PLDCK continued: ahead with the application to see if we could get them separated. There's no sense doing anything further because there's no way of putting a house on that particular piece of property. And of course I would like to build a smaller home; I had lost my husband and now with three children getting much older, I'd like to build a smaller home, a solar home-- and that's why I'm submitting the application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Plock, I can't guarantee you a decision tonight. We haven't discussed this. We haven't deliberated upon it. But I can at least in some way say we probably will have one within the next 10 days to two week's~ ~ MRS. PL~OCK: Fine~ MR. CHAIRMAN: And I thank you very much for coming in. MRS. PLOCK: Thank you. MR. C'HAIRMAN: You"re welcome~ Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Would anybody like to speak against the application? QU~$.tions from board members? (None) Hearing no que'st~ons, 'I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until l~ter. On motion ~by Mr. Goehri'ng~, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED~ tO cl'o~e the he~i'~_~'~nd ~e~rve-d~di'~ion~until later in the matter of the application of~. ~, Appeal No. 3176. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer',-Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent. This resolu- tion was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3224. Upon application of GEORGE AND NATALIE WIESER, 1415 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, NY for a Vari. ance to the Zoning Ordinancg, Article III, Section 100L32 for permission to construct accessory swimmin.gpo~l in an area other than the rear yard at 1415 Harbor Lane, Cutch~ogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-97-6-10. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:12 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and a~peal appliCation. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map sho~ing this and surrounding p~perties, an~ I have a copy of a sketc~ of a survey indicati_~g a pool pnoposed of approximately 20~ by 40~ in dimension and deck I will ask about which appears to lie t50 feet from the tidal area and 60 feet from, it appears to be the northerly property line~ 45' from the south side. 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3234 - GEORGE AND NATALIE WIESER, continued:) MR, CHAIRMAN (continued:) Mr. Wieser, would you like to ben,heard in behalf of this application? It's nice to see you again. MR, WIESER: How are you. What would you like to ask me? MR, CHAIRMAN: How fair are you from"the actual beginning of the property? MR, WIESER- The actual be§inning? ~'The tidal wetlands? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, MR, WIESER: From the road. Well there's a lot that I have in front of the prope?.ty which is .appro~.imately 220..feet. T~hen we have back to the pool I would sax. anOther.~ybe 500~.feet~ MR, CHAIRMAN: And how large is the dec'k surrou-nding the pool? MR, WIESER: Ok. The deck will be approximately 1600~ MR, CHAIRMAN:~ Sixteen-hundred'what? MR, WIESER: Sixteen=hundred 'square feet. MR, CHAIRMAN: What ~s that in actual width around? M'R, WIESER: Width, one section is t-he shell under the pool it would be about l0 by 20. Going over the sides it'll be about ~pproximatel.y seven feet, on the back portion ~the deep end it's be another § to 7 feet. MR, CHAIRMAN: Do you have any intention of enclosing this pool? MR, WIE.SER: No~ MR, CHAIRMAN: Do you have any intentions of putting any highlighting in that would disrupt yQur neighbors in an~ wa~.? MR~ WIESER: No. The only lighting I"ll be putting in would be submers~'d lighting which ~ul..d be inside the poo~, and there will be some facing garden lighting whiCh Will be f.o.oting lights. Maybe 15 lights at best. MR.-'CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybo'dy else that ~ould like to be!~heard in behalf of this application? Anybody]ike to speak against the ap.plication? .Any questions from any_board members? (None) Ha~!pg been over to. your .propert.y many. tim'~s, Mr. Wieser, ~e have inspected the property in full force and I see absolutely nothi~g ~rong with the appl_i- cat~on, so I'll 6ffer it as a resolution with the restriction that it not have any overhead lighting, so that it does not disrupt any neighbors on either side. Ok? S6uthold Town Board of Appeals -13- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3224 - GEORGE AND NATALIE WIESER, continued:) MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. MR. WIESER: That's all right with me. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicants seek permission to construct an inground swimmingpool with deck of an area totaling approximately 1,600 sq. ft. and approximately 150 feet westerly from the ordinary highwater mark which is shown on the April 24, 1980 survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.Co The pool will be situated forward of the existing 1½-story frame, one-family dwelling and will have a setback from the north and south side lines approximately 60' and 45', respectively. The premises in question is located at the east side of Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, contains approximately 2.0 acres in area, and has a width of 168 feet (average). For the record, it is noted that the property in question has received conditional variances on February 25, 1983, Appeal No. 3071 for an accessory storage building and on November 25, 1983, Appeal No. 3177 for conditional approval of access over applicants' 15' wide right-of-way, In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial; (b) that by the granting of the requested relief, a precedent has not been set and therefore will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood; (c) that by allowing the variance, no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; (d) that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (e) that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and (f) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. GOehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3224, application of'GEORGE AND NATALIE WIESER for permission to construct accessory pool struc- ture in the frontyard area, BE AND HEREBY IS~APPROYED AS APPLIED AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: No lighting shall be permitted that may disturb neighboring premises. Location of Property: 1415 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, 'NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-97-6=10. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by ~nanimous vote. S6uthold Town Board of Appeals -14- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3221. Upon application of ROBERT BROWN, Main Road, Greenport_, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article VIII, Section 100-81 for permission to construct addition with an insufficient, frontyard setback. Location of Property: 74450 Main Road, Greenport; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-45-06-006. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:25 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map showi'ng this and surrounding pro,pe?ties, 'and ~_h.~ve a copy of part of a survey indicating the.~p~ed addition of approximately 14 feet wide, leaving a fron'~yard setback area of.approxim.ately 35 feet. Is there somebody tha~.woul'd like 'to be hear.~..in behalf of this application? Your. name? STANLEY GARREN: Stan Garren. Would you need the-- MRo CH-AIRMAN: This is a one-story'structure? MR. GARREN: Yes. It'll just be ~xtended ~right out from the existing building.. MR. CHAIRMAN: It will conform to the existing buil.ding, Mr. Garren? M'R. GARREN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: I mean, there won't be any changes of roof design or anything of'that nature? MR. GARREN: No~ MR."CHAIRMAN: And it will be used as an office. MR. GARREN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN:- Is there anyt~gL~ou would like to say? MR. GARREN: We do need it. Th'~'-business i"~ growing. The office space is cramped. With all the CoUnty vehicles records that we have to keep. We.need more ro_om, and'that's the only place to go. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you very much. Would anybo'dy else like to speak in behalf of the application? Would anybody, like to ~speak against the app-1]cation? Q~uestions from b_oard members? (None) All right, gentlemen~,~ a m'O~tion is in order on this one. MEMBER GRI'GONIS: I'll move to grant the ~ppl~ca%ion as~app~iied.~for. MR. CHAIRMA'N: Mr. Grigonis says he'll move-"to grant it as applied for. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -15- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting [Appeal No. 3221 ROBERT BROWN (Sunrise Coach Lines), continued:] MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. The board made the following findings and determination: By this applicant, appellant seeks to construct a 14' by 20' office addition to the existing Sunrise Coach Lines business structure which would leave an insJfficient frontyard setback at 35 feet. The premises in question is located in a "C-Light Industrial" District and contains an area of approximately 4.3 acres with 205' frontage.~along the Main (State) Road. The present office is located at the front of the building and the board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant in that due to the location of the "garage doors," it would not appear feasible to expand the office in any other location without extensive changes. Also, neighboring properties have similar setbacks from the Main Road as that proposed by this application. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial; (b) that the circumstances are unique; (c) that by allowing the variance, no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; (d) that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (e) that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of the zoning code; (f) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Messrs. Douglass and Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3221,~ application of ROBERT BROWN for permission to construct 14' by 20' office addition with a front- yard setback of 35 feet, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED. Location of Property: 74450 Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-45-06-006. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent. This resolu- tion was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. ~3228. Upon application of BERIT LALLI, ]~O~'Narrow River ho.ad,. Orient~ NY for a~riance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec.t~on 10.0-31 for permission to construct garage addition with an insuffi-cie~t rearyard setback. Location of Property: 1405 Narr'ow.~Ri'.v~grl Road,. Orient,'NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000=027-'03-006.3. The Chairman opened-the hearing at 8:20.p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entire.~ ~.&~i~peal appli.~ation ~ 1 Southo d Town Board of Appeals -16~ April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3228 - BERIT LALLI, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surroundi~ng properties, and I have a copy of a survey produced on June 3, 1981, amended August 4, 1983, indicating a proposed addition,-it appears to be, I'll ask, ~s~there someone who would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Would anybody like to speak against the application? Is Mr. DeVoe present? C~ARLES DEVOE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. DeVoe, what is the approximately size of the-- MR. DEVOE: I built the-- I can't, hear too well. MR~ CHAIRMAN: What is'the approximate..size of ~he proposed addition? MR. DEVOE: I think it's 24~--the garage there. I th~nk it's 24 this way. I was surpr}sedlwith the back of the garage, I thought it was the side, you know. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the proposed addition right here. MR. DEVOE: There's noth~.~g over here. That's all Indian land. Well, let's say there's another lot there and then the Indian land. There's another little house rig.bt here--two of them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you give us the apProximate-dimensions of it and call the office tomorrow or Monday? MR. DEVOE: Sure, The dimensions of this garage itself? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR, DEVOE: All right. I'll call back with the exact dimensions. Thank you. _ MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to speak in behalf of this application? Against it ..~gain? .(No one). Hearing no further comments, I~ll make a motion closing the hearing and reser¥~ng decision until later. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve deciSi~on until later in the matter of the application of BERIT ~I, Appeal No. 3.228, Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. Member Doyen of Fishers Island wa~ absent.? This resolu- tion was ad~pted by unanimous vote of the members present. Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting - - PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3223~ Application of THOMAS 'AND BARBARA'D.'.~MERCI. ER;.]~ew.._Su~.~lk Avenu~.Mattituck.~_~¥.~ Wick~m~ Wi~ck'b'am &~sl'er,"P.C.) for a'Variance to.'the. Z~ni'ng ord~ina~, ~rt-~cl~e i~ ]~e~iQn~ioQ~20(A)~or permission'~'to .... convert an existing single-family 'd~elling use into two profes- sional offices. "-[oc~t~.~.'Pr~pi~.~ 496~:M'~dle Road_ (C~iR... 48), Matti~uc~ NY;~ Coun'~y Tax.~ap Parce~No~ 1000~1~-01.-21; ].!'Map of Clara W.R. Reeve #212", Part of Lot 5. "' The Chairman opened th~ heari~ at 8:27 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its e~ti~e.ty and a~.peal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the Cou~'ty Tax'M~p indicat- ing this and s~rrounding propert~.es~nd a copy..~f the'p.~rcel which appears to be 60 by 115',.'60' on Love ~ane, and a~ in.~ication of where the proposed pa~k~ng area is to be.placed. Mrs. Wickham, would you like t~ be heard in behalf of this~application? ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ.: I h~ve a couple'~f people here I would li~e ~he board to hear fr'om tonight to ~ry .~nd sh~pw as we stated in the application a hardship, ~hat the ~haracter of the district will ngt..change and the application is unique. First I'd like Dr. Mercier t~ speak to ~.be.board about hi~ i.Dtended use and ~ome of-the background. THOMAS ME.RCIER: I'm '~homas Mercier. I live on New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. My wife and I'bought this house on Love~Cane, Mattituck, for the p~rpose of having'my professional office there. The intende~ use is._ju~t to~p. ractic~ p~diatrics in ~he~!'~uilding and ~ intend to prac%ice alQD~, by m~elf~ without any other doctors. There will be one recep~ioni'6.~.working with me at ali times, 'and approximately I would be having office hours approx~- matel~ 30 hours per we~k, 28 tp 30 hours a week. We have planned to maintai~ the exterior of the house the way it is, and we're planning not to remove any..trees to_pbeserve the residential atmosphere of the house.._The only c~anges that will be made will be brick walkways, a ramp, and handrails. Inside there will be a couple of changes m~de, like ~utt~.ng a p~rtition in on~ room to make !~ into two rooms and exchanging the entrance into the bathroom into the bedroom, entering ~h~bathroom from the kitchen. MRS. WICKHAM: Could you tell the board how long you have been looking for office s~ce, in what area, and what experience you had. ~R, MERCIER: Well, we. were looking for a space for approximately six mon~s, and during that_.time, we looked at a number of.~places. For the'most part, everything that ~e felt was s~i.~able in a suitable location was._in very bad repair .and required a lot of money to restore it. M~S. WICKHAM: What a~'ea were you looking? S©uthold Town Board of Appeals 18- 4/5/84 DR. MERCIER: Well, we were looking in Mattituck and Cutchogue. My patients come from all over the North Fork. I wanted to have my office in Mattituck. GAIL WICKHAM: So, you didn't see any other property in the area that was suitable? What was the price that you paid for the property? DR. MERCIER: We bought it in December of 1983 and we paid $52,500 . 00. GAIL WICKHAM: Did you buy it because it was residential? DR. MERCIER: No, we bought it to use it as an office? GAIL WICKHAM: So, you bought it only with the intention of applying for permission to convert it, is that ~rrect? DR. MERCIER: Yes. AIL WICKHAM: Would you have bought it otherwise? DR. MERCIER: No. GAIL WICKHAM: Was there any reason you bought it prior to getting the change of zone? DR. MERCIER: Yes, there was. The prewious owner of the house Mr. McMillanF was not willing to wait for a zoning change or a variance. Mrs. McMillan was ill, she had a brain tumor and they were anxious to sell the house. GAIL WICKHAM: Could you tell the Board what your carrying charges on' a monthly basis are? DR. MERCIER: Presently we pay $525.00 per month for the mortgage, $75.00 per month for the taxes; $35.00 per month for insurance; and repairs have been approximately since we have been there, during the first three months, so about $100.00 per month. GAIL WICKHAM: Are there additional repairs that you are going to have to make to the property? Other than the renovations? DR. MERCIER: There may be some Other plumbing repairs that may be necessqry. GAIL WICKHAM: You indicated that right now you are a single practitioner and your hours would be 28 to 30 per week. Is there a possibility that could change? What then would be the anticipated maximum use of the building? DR. MERCIER: Well, there is a possibility that I would have a partner and my intention, if that ever occurs, would be to have my partner there at times when I wasn't, so that there would not be two do~ors practicing at the same time. Southold ZBA -19- 4/5/84 GAIL WICKHAM: You would stagger your office hours and therefore alleviate any parking problems? DR. MERCIER: Yes. GAIL WICKHAi~: Do you feel that the use that you are asking for would adversely affect any of the neighbors' properties? DR. MERCIER: No, I don't. I think because we are very interested in maintaining the grounds and landscaping and we are going to be very careful to put in shrubbery and landscaping, which shields parking from neighbors and stuff like that. I have also spoken with several of the neighbors, Mrs. Deborah Orlowski, who told me personally that she had no objection whatsoever to my relocating my office. Also, Mrs. Gladys Nine, who said the same thing. Mrs. Guiliarno, who is the neighbor on the west, I did not speak with her personally, but she relayed a message through Mrs. Nine that she had no objection. GAIL WICKHAM: Thank you. Mrs. Nine and Mrs. Guiliarno are the two houses to the north and west. Does the Board have any questions of Dr. Mercier? CHAIRM~ GOEHRINGER: Yes. It appears in situations like this, Mrs. Wickham, we are not specifically concerned with replacement of the house as it exists right now. But, as you know in a piece of property of this limited size, that we would kind of object to any expansion of the existing dwelling because it would limit the parking area and that's a very difficult area to park in, so we would think of that, some sort of restriction that if you do any expansion, the expansion would have to be up. Do you have any problems with that? DR. MERCIER: No. GAIL WICKHAM: I don~t think that he had any plans to expand. But I am not sure if he did, if he expanded to the east or west it would be a problem. Parking would be along the private road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I haven't officially spoken to the Board in toto, concerning this. However, if they should express a con- cern in the parking, which I will get to in one second, and I do agree with you that if there were any expansion and if we did not have that condition, that certainly the expansion would be less fragile on the west side, there ms no question abou~ it. The other thing the Board was concerned with, Dr., was the private road or the paper private road which exists between your property and the existing house toward the creek. We noticed that this road really doesn't exzst. It exists on the map but there is no improvement. Are you intending to do any improvements to the road at all, to the driveway? SOUTHOLD ZBA -20- 4/5/84 DR. MERCIER: Yes. GAIL WICKHAM: Whatever he has to do to make it passable. He has met with Ray Nine, and I am sure Ray would make sure he could get in and out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We assume that the property line, and that little fence that goes down there on the one side. You do have a right of way over that private~road, right? GAIL WICKHAM: Sure, it's on the filed map. CHAIRMAN GOEHRtNGER: Could you furnish us with some copy of that? To the fact that you have a right o~ way. GAIL WICKHAM: It's on the filed map and that by virtue of it would give title, actually title to the center of the road, and an easement over the entire road, as any lot on that map would have. It's the map of Clara Reeves. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's about all we have at this particular time. Thank you very much. GAIL WICKHAM: In addition to Dr. Mercier, I would like to present some testimony from real estate people and I have asked Ellen Tomson from Celic Realty to come in. Would you give the Board your name, address and qualifications? ELLEN THOMPSON: My name is Ellen Thompson, I live on Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel and I work with Celic Realtors. I am a broker. GAIL WICKHAM: How long have you been in the real estate business? ELLEN THOMPSON: About 15 years and about 5 or 6 years in this area. GAIL WICKHAM: Do you consider yourself fully aware of residential an~ commercial property values in this area? Are you personally familiar with the Mercier property? ELLEN THOMPSON: Yes, I showed it. · GAIL WICKHAM: The property was listed with your agency for sale? ELLEN THOMPSON:. Yes. GAIL WICKHAM: Do you recall when and for how much? ELLEN THOMPSON: It was in around 1983, May, sometime around there. GAIL WICKHAM: And you showed the property to how many parties? SOUTHOLD ZBA -21- 4/5/84 ELLEN THOMPSON: I would say four or five. GAIL WICKHAM: And did any of those people make an offer? ELLEN THOMPSON: No. GAIL WICKHAM: Do you know why not? ELLEN THOMPSON: It didn't lend itse'tf for residential use; it's on a 4 lane highway and it's very damp. THe only use I could see was for somebody with a boat, perhaps. GAIL WICKHAM: Do you feel that the surrounding business properties also af.fected it for non residential use? ELLEN THOMPSON: Yes. GAIL WICKHAM~ Do you consider the property to be a good investment as residential real estate? ELLEN THOMPSON: Not really, for the reasons I just gave. It is an old house and it needs a lot of work. The porch sags. GAIL WICKHAN: In your opinion, what would a fair rental value for the property be? ELLEN THOMPSON: I would say about $300 per month. GAI/ WICKHAM: Given the carrying charges that Dr. Mercier says he has, do you feel as a real estate broker, that the property potential rental value could yield reasonable return? ELLEN THOMPSON: I wouldn't think so. I just don't see how. GAIL WICKHAM: Considering that his mortgage was $525 and taxes were $75 and insurance was $35. ELLEN THOMPSON: No. GAIL WICKHAM: In your opinion, what is the fair market value as a residence? ELLEN THOMPSON: At that time, I would probably say $45,000. GAIL WICKHAM: DO you think that the property as a residence, would show good appreciation? SOUTHOLD ZBA -22- 4/5/84 ELLEN THOMPSON: No, not as it stood, because of its location. GAIL WICKHAMi: What do you feel would be the value of the property if the use variance applied for were granted? ELLEN THOMPSON: It would go up. AT least $55,000.00. GAIL WICKHAM: Are you aware if there were any offers that were made on the property? ELLEN THOMPSON: Yes, there was one in our office. It was not through me, it was through another broker and I think it was for. $54,000, a little under full price, and then of course, you have our commission about $3,000, so it would be a net of about $52,000. ELLEN THOMPSON: Yes. GAIL WICKHAM: Did that deal close? ELLEN THOMPSON: No. I was away at the time. GAIL WICKHAM: As a real estate broker, do you feel that a use variance, if granted, would adversely affect the neighborhood property values? ELLEN THOMPSON: No. GAIL WICKHAM.: Does the Board have any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. GAIL WICKHAM: Thank you. I had also asked Robert Celic to be here tonight to gmve testimony. He was unable to due to a meeting mn Riverhead that he had to attend. He did prepare an affidavit on the question of valuation. I know normally the Board wants someone here, but I would like to ask you if you would have any objections to being offered this affidavit? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No objections. GAIL WICKHAM: Would you like me to read it first? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes please. GAIL WICKHAM: (Read affidavit of Robert Celic). I also hawe a copy of a letter from the McMillan's, who owned the house and moved out of the area. They are down in Virginia. They did send.me a letter indicating that the property had been on the market since April of 1983 and they only had thee one offer, which was not close, other than the Mercier's. I believe you have a copy of the map indicating surrounding zoning. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I do. SOUTHOLD ZBA -23- 4/5/84 GAIL WICKHAM: Just to summarize, I would tike to point out here that the hardship is twofold based on insufficient return on a rental basis and that the secondary hardship is limited values of residential properties, due to location and proximity to business property. And also I might mention that there is almost no setback from the road, due to the fact that it was widened. It may appear to the Board, that the.hardship is somewhat self-imposed. Dr. Mercier has just recently bought the property. But they purchased it only with the intent to seek this zone change. The sellers could not wait for them to gst the use change, due to their age and health problems and the Dr. had no other alternative available to him. So by purchasing, he did succeed to the McMillan's pre existing hardship of having residential property in a business area, which we have presented here tonig.ht. Secondary part of this application, the character of the district, I think we have shown it will actually be an asset to the neighbors, ra~her than continuing as a marginal residence. And it will also act a buffer between the business property on the one side and the r'esidential property on the other side, by being a fairly unobtrusive type use as a professional office. I-t is a unique application. The only property which is even similar is the house next door owned by Guiliarno, but that's in much better shape, has more room, better water view and is not on. the intersection like this house is, nor is it next to that business property on the other side of Love Lane. I might mention that the Planning Boar~d has indicated by letter dased February 17th, by Resolution, that they recommend that the Mercier's proceed with the use variance rather than a change of zone. Do you have a copy of that correspondence'? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. GAIL WICKHAM: I believe there are letters in the file, all from the medical staff of ELIH, indicating their support of the application. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. As you know this Board doesn't like to restrict professionals, particularly in this case. We were just wondering, however, what would be the nature of the office in the doctor% home now. Is that going to exist? Are you going to have an office in your home on New Suffolk Avenue and a dual office on County Road 48, or what's the deal? GHIL WICKHAM: I think I know %he answer to this. He bought the property over there with the thought of perhaps converting the garage into an office, and decided that that was not feasible, so this would be his single office. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much. SOUTHOLD ZBA -24- 4/5~84 GAIL WICKHAM: One more thing for the record. Hfs current office in Cutchogue has a lease, which is expiring and that is the reason he does need the space. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is the~e anybody else would like to speak for the application? Against the application? MRS. EHLERS: I would like to clarify something in my mind. I live on New Suffolk Avenue. Am I correct in understanding the statement that if Dr. Mercier has this sanction he is not going to convert his barn into an office? CHAIRMAN GOEHRtNGER: That,s correct~ MRS. EHLERS: Thank you. GAIL WICKHAM: I am not sure that was going to be a condition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, she was just asking as a general question. GAIL WICKHAM: I am not sure you can condition one property on another. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we wouldn't do that. That's why I said this Board does not like to restrict professionals. Any questions from anybody else mn the audience? Questions from Board members? I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving deciszon until later. 8:57 p.m. Public Hearing i~ the Matter of Appeal No. 3184, PETER AND PATRICIA LENZ by Wickham, Wickham and Bressler, P.C. for (a) approval of insufficient width of two proposed parcels (b) approval of access. R-O-W off N/S Sound Avenue, Private Road #11, Mattituck. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:57 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing and appeal application for the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map and a copy of a survey which was mentioned in the application dated October 3, 1983 indicating the house lot, which is approximately 2.0975 acres and the lot in question, area of 2.0871 acres. Would somebody like to be heard in behalf of this application? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Let me first explain that the applicants, the Lenzes, are contract vendees. They have a contract with the Rothmayers who own the property contingent upon obtaining the subd~vi~ion~and variance. The primary hardship here is that you have over two acres on each lot and they're approximately 91500 sq. ft. each. The limited factor is the width of 100 feet Board of Appeals -25- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting .(Appeal No. 3184, Matter of PETER AND PATRICIA LENZ, continued:) MISS WICKHAM continued: on each lot. The lot to the east of this owned by Anderson is 100 feet, and has approximately the same dimensions as the two proposed lots in this application. In addition there are other lots further east, just north of the Harbes Farm, which are 100 feet, 125 feet and 75 feet respectively. So this proposed division is really within the pattern of the area and if denied would force a division that would be not in keeping with that pattern. Two of the potential divisions would be to divide the property front and back, and in that event you would lose your waterfront for one lot resulting in a significantly lower value for the property. You could leave the property as one large piece, but then you would have a house that ts way off center with an un sideyard on the east. You could, I believe, probably divide this property and meet the width requirement with the building lines by slanting your center division line, but then you would have very awkward configuration, and the building lines on the vacant lot would be way back from the bluff and essentially give up the waterfront aspect. The board should be aware that these two lots that we are asking to be redivided were acquired as two separate parcels in two separate deeds, many, many years ago. The house lot was purchased by the Rothmayers on July 1, 1946. The vacant lot was purchased in 1949, and I have copies of those two deeds. In fact that entire up there north of the Koroleski Farm was set up with this pattern of long, narrow lots in the 1940's by Mattituck Park Properties. The lots have always been taxed separately. I have copies of th~ '82-83 tax bills and I confirmed with the Assessors Office that the '83-84 assessments are also still separate~ These bills are '82-83. There's also a separate bill there for the road interest. The lots have always been-used ~eparately.--The vacant lot is overgrown and is not used in conjunction ~ith the house lot, with the small exception of a 1~' encroachment of the tin.shed, which would be removed. There is ample sideyard, 12o8 feet, from the garage to the sideyard of the center line, and I don't think that anything that any of this proposal is at all out of keeping_with the character of the neighborhood. I m~ght~just mehtion the roadway, which I know the board is concerned about. That roadway-- there is a deeded 1/10th interest for each lot, this would have 2/lOths. It is owned and maintained by all of the lot owners up there. The deeds will show a maintenance clause. It is kept open all year.__I know ~hat this is the worst season, and right now it's no doubt it does need work. I've been up there a number o3 times myself, not recently but the road is general a good one, a solid road, but there are bad spots which would have to be repaired to board specifications. And that is understood. I've asked Andy Stype of Val StyDe Real Estate to just briefly give the Board of Appeals -26- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3184 ~ PETER AND PATRIC'IA'LENZ, continued:) MI~ WiCKHAM-~'CO~¥~ued): .... board some real estate background on the hardship here. ANDY STYPE: M~ name is And~ Stype and I'm fro~-~attituck and own_the_Stype'Real Estate, .~nc._ .... And I jus~ wanted to make a couple of points first~ I'd like to point out that there are individual tax bills on each of these lots here~ I'd also like to ppint out that I was up there just the other day after all these storms we've been having, and found that the road g~ing up is in excellent shape because you know, I was there just the other day,.~fter all these you storms we've been having, and I found that the road going up is in excellent shape because you 'know, I was a~'o a l~tt]e concerned about the road, but it's in very fine shape.. MISS WICKHAM: Could you tell the board basically how long you have been a broker in this area? ~R. STYPE: I have been a sales person for almost nine years and I have been a real estate broker five years. MISS WICKHAM: Are you therefore fully familiar with the value of the residential real estate in the Mattituck area? MR. STYPE: Yes, I am. MISS WICKHAM: In your opinion, would a division' of property into a waterfront lot and a nonwat~rfront lot in the rear be financially advisable? MR. STYPE: -~o. It wouldn't. MISS WICKHAM: Can you just elaborate on that? MR. STYPE: Well if you had a back lot, of course, you know, it didn't have_any_w~terfrontage, you would lose a lot of value obviously then anything that has some ~aterfrontage~ MISS WICKHAM: In your opinion, would there be a difference in value if'the two parcels were kept as one tot as opposed to dividing them as ~equested? MR. STYPE: Yes, there would be. I had, I have here an estimation of value on the house and land, number one~ on the house itself--I estimate the house to be about $80,000 and I estimate the lot to be about $125,000. Yes, about $125,000. The house and land, one, I added ~!t up to have a value $225,000. Board of Appeals -27- ~pril 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3184 - ~ETER AND P~TRICIA LENZ, continued:) MISS WICKHAM: By that, you mean just a single lot? MR. STYPE: Right. Just the lot and a house. And I estimate the other lot to have a value_of about $125,Q00, and that would have a combined total of ~ppro×ima~ely $350,000. Now if you took the house and also two lots, I estimate that would have a value of approximately $285,0~0. So I feel you would have a difference of approximately $65,000. MISS WICKHAM: Sir, do you b~lieve tha~ in terms of real estate value, the owner would..have a hardship if the property could not be divided at requested? MR. STYPE: They would have a hardship. Definitely. MISS W~KHAM: ~oes the board have any questions? MR, GOEHRINGER: Of, Mr. Stype? MISS-WICKHAM: AnyOne. MR. GOEHRINGER: We have no questions of Mr. Stype. MISS WICKHAM: Ok. That's all I have to say als-o. MR. GOEHRINGER: The only question I have is that in the beginning of the application, y~u mentioned that,~t says, "the right~of-way must be approved by the Planning Board," and I assume thats "o..280-a application is not required .... " MISS WICKHAM: Yes. That--the reason I put that down was that was what my Notice of Disapproval said. Now I under- ~an~.th~t since that time there has been some discussion about it. The Planning Board approved it but didn't say anything about the right-of-way~ That wa~swhat Mr. Hi~derm~nn had indicated on the Notice of Disapproval and that's why I put that in the application there. ~R. GOEHRINGER: Ok~ I just wanted you to be aware of the fact that since we did find out it's going to be under our jurisdiction, that we did take the liberty of asking the town engineer to go up and inspect the road. He has informed me that he was waiting for a little better weather to go up there, and as of yet he has not submitted a repont to us concerning the condition of the road. So that any-- if we do close this hearing tonight, it Will be pending receipt of that recommendation from him, or that evaluation from him, whatever he intends to give us at this particular time. So, we can't give you a decision immediately. Board of Appeals -28- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting MISS WICKHAM: I would just like to mention that the real hardship here is that the sellers are very anxious to close. This matter has been pending a long time. They are elderly and they have really suffered by waiting:for us to conclude this application. If you are able to make a decision subject to the roadway meeting the Board of Appeals specifications-- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would assume, had-- MISS WICKHAM: I have also asked him if he could go up there fairly soon it would help us along. ~HAIRMAN GOEHRINGE~: I would assume in about two weeks. Is that all right? MISS WICKHAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRI~GER: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would li.ke to speak in behalf of this application? Behalf or against? MRS, ROSE KOROLESKI:Well, I'm a neighbor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ~lease use the mike and state your name. ROSE KOROLESKI: We~ve ~een maintaining part. of.!the road since 1942. And all the trees and the bushes and all, we keep ~utt~i~gi]%h~m~down--we even did it last year, all the way down. And they don't seem to appreciate it, but it is in bad shape, very bad. Lots of times you can't get through. A tree fell down the other day and it's right on the right-of-way. It's my tree--you should know that. But they have, Mr. Lenz had it surveyed, and they have the surveying markers on my side over the right-of-way. They say they are bounded by Koroleski's. They are not. They should be bounded by the right-of-way. That road belonged to the Dundee's Corporation Farm, and it's been a right-of-way since 1930. We purchased the farm in 1942, and we~ve been maintaining it for many years. But it is in a bad position. Especially on the north side. But they are bounded as the paper says by the Koroleskis, which they're supposed to be bounded by the right-of-way and not by Koroleski. The markers are there. Do you know what I mean? They consider this right-of-way over that property that they have. CHAIRMAN~GOEHRINGER: I think I know what you're saying, Mrs. Koroleski. Is there anything else you would like to say? MRS. KOROLESKI: No. That's it. Board of Appeals -29- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you very much. MRS. KOROLESKI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Kindly state your name, sir. WILLIAM C. HEES: My name is William C. Hees. I own property to the east of the applicant. I shouldn't say the applicant because the applicant doesn't own that property. I have a 25~ right~of-way for access, across the southern boundary of the property in question. ~ dld~n~t~receive a legal notice from the applicant, and I haven't had a chance to talk to my attorney regarding any action on the application. I feel since I had a vested interest and since I hav~..LILCO rights and New York Telephone rights across that property,_that I should have been notifiedL Additionally, a question has come up now as far as road improvements. The road that is in question, I think as far as improvement--is the private road which is a north-south road, is I think identified as Private Road No. 11, which I own 3/lOths interests. Some point wa~ made that w~'re all going to be approved--I would like to know who is going ~o pay for the improvement of that road? CHAIRMAN: Are you asking that question right now, Sir? MR. HEES: That's correct. If you want to put that into the minutes, we can-- but apparently it was brought up as far as the attorney for the applicant. CHAIRMAN: To answer your question, Sir, this board does not deal with who pays for the improvements. We very simply impose the improvements. Since it is the perspective or proposed applicant that is coming before us here, he or she, them, ~question, are looking for in this particular case a Certificate of Occupancy, then I would assume that the burden is placed upon them at that time. That's the only thing I can tell you MR. HEES: Again, since I own 3/lOths of that road, I was not legally notified. I felt I should have been. I would like to mak~ those points clear. CHAIRMAN: Thank you vers much. Would somebody else like to speak against? Yes, Sir. MR. MAITREJEAN: I'm Mr. Mait~ejean, and I wrote a letter to you stating most of my reasons why -- I was just wondering-- Board of Appeals -30- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting MR. MAITRE~EAN (continued:) about the--I mentioned that I thought this property should be divided into two plots, and I was taking Mr. Stype's figures here. Apparently, the footage, the $!.,250 a foot. I c~me up with $374,000 for the value of that property without a house. Now, maybe my arithmetic is incorrect, but I wonder how Mr. Stype came up with that. If you divide it into two properties, he said it would lose a lot'of value. I don't see where it would lose any value. MISS WICKHAM: I just ~nd~cat~d there would be a difference in value if the property had to remain together as opposed to if it could be divided. It would be an additional increment in value if you could divide the property. MR. MAITREJEAN: Well, just taking his figures~ as I say, I'm not too sure of my arithmetic. But I just came up with $374,000 for the value of the land, and an $80,000 house, that's come to roughly about $450,000. So, if_they're talk- ing about $350,000, bY dividing it, I don't see where there's any loss od any hardship. I think the hardship is if you do divide this property. The main thing is as I mentioned in those, that house has no--that property has no waterview whatsoever. And if you set a house some 100 feet, which I think you have to do if I'm correct through the Department of Environmental Conservation. The only thing they can do to get a waterview at all is to knock down that bluff. You knock that bluff down and you re going to have plenty of erosion. And that is going to take Mr. Lenz's house, future house,if he buys it, and it's also going to take my bluff, 10 steps, which are right along side of it. You cannot do that up there. We've had as you know plenty of trouble with Levon through the years and we've lost an awful amount of property up there, and to repeat this, this is going to be a hardship on us and on Mr. Lenz's property also. I think this should be considered. And I think you have most of my reasons. I think we could--those properties, speaking of making it lengthwise, you can give a piece of beach down there, you know--you don't need, all you need is a right-of-way of 10 feet and you wander all over that beach, if that's what they want to do. And the possibilities of ten houses are up there, so I think that should also be considered. That road is a thing--the maintenance thing up there, I say that is a difficult road. Believe me. And I'd like you to add that to Mrs. Koroleski; she's here. That property has just recently beeD surveyed. The road has just recently been surveyed for very obvious reasons. Because a good number of those markers were taken out and that is our private road, as you know, we're taxed on this road. Mrs. Koroleski had nothing to do with it at all. And I think what she said Board of Appeals -31- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3184 - PETER AND PATRICIA LENZ, continued:) MR. MAITREJEAN (continued): wouldnot bear any account for anything at all because she has nothing to do on this road. Thank you. CNAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Sir. Would anybody else like to speak against the application? Miss Wickham, do you have anything to add? MISS WICKHAM: May I ~ee the letter that Mr. Maitrejean sent? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (Gave Miss Wickham letter to read.) While you're rea~ing that, could I address Mr. Hees for a minute? Mr. Hees, I should make you aware, if I close this hearing, there is no further input into this. And I wanted you to be aware of that. ¥oui~re aware of that? MR. HEES: The only input I would have and it's a legal input is that, if you do ac% affirmatively, I do not want to relinquish apy of my rights of access, which include the road access, LILCO right-of-way across the southern boundary, New York Telephone right-of-way, which is-- the New York Telephone poles--LILCO apparently subleases those poles-- so I just want to make sure if you do go. in the affirmative that any written document that you should pass does not include my rights of access. I really don't see any problem of that. MISS WICKHAM: I don't think anything the board does can imp}~ge upon a deeded right-of-way that you have and certainly your access or your~.LILCO right or your telephone right could not be affected because you have those rights and there's no intention nor would there be any opportunity for them to do that. MR, HEES: Right. The applicant also has a right of access across the southern boundary of my. property. And that's what led me to wonder about the road improvement.-because I happed to be the last one on the totem pole, sort of speak, and I do not want to have to pay to improve the road for this application. And I realize that once the hearing is over with, that's it. CHAIRMAN GOE~HRINGER: I just wanted you to be aware of that because ygu did mention ~hat your attorney has not had a chance to read your file. MR. HEES: Yes. May I ask a question? Is it just the public notice that is in force. I believe the attorney present had notified me on another application that you were handling for Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3184 - LE~Z, ~on~inued:) MR. HEES (continued): my neighbor on the other side, anybody that's either bounded or has some right on the property, shoDld be legally notified. Is that correct? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We usually deal with surrounding property owners.. Contiguous ~u~roun~ing property owners. MR~ HEES: How about joint property owners, for example the private ro~d? CHAIRMAN GOEHRtNGER: It depends upon really what the name is in~ an~ I~ll be honest with your I had thought that a good portion of this right-of-way belonged to the applicants- I'm sorry-to the owner, rather than any other other people up there~ This is one of the reasons or the problems that we had had with the Planning Board in dealing with who was going to have jurisdiction. And in this particular case, the Planning Board first, based upon the Disapproval of Mr. Hindermann I believe, stated that the Planning Board had jurisdiction because it was within the,]~ubdivision, and Mr. Lessard had stated however that that was no correct, but ~ow we've had jurisdiction. So, in dealing with the issue, I had thought that the property had belonged the Rothmayers~ And you just had ~ights-of-way over them. MR, HEES: We have tw~ situations. We'have a private road which is a north-south road approximately one mile long, which each of the property owners owns a_certain percentage. I own 3/lOths. I believe_the Rothmayers own 3/lOths as well. The second road is an east-west r'oad across the base of all of the property owners, a 25' right-of-way across, for e~ample, the Rothmayers property, my property, Mr. Mait~e- jean~' property, Cannons! p~ope~ty. So we'r~ talking about a right-of-way~ east-west ~igbt-ofrway ~cross various lands in question, and we're talking about a private road which is a north-~outh .... CHAIRMAN: So that the east-west road belongs to=- MR. HEES: The east-west road is a right-of-way across each property's land--each owner's property. That's what one of ~y ~ssues h~re is, that I do not ~ant any ruling by the board to negate my access across the 25' road across the southern pa~t of the applicants. CHAIRMAN: We wouldn't ~o that. Now, as the ownership of that right-of-way. Who owns that right-of-way? The individual property owners. MR. HEES: That's correct. Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appea~ No. 3184 = LE~Z, ~on~inued:) ....... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. And the other right-of-way, the one in question-- MR. HEES: It's not a right-of-way; it's really what they call a private road on the tax maps. CHAIRMAN: Yes. A tenth, or 2/lOths, 3/lOths belongs to each owner. Good. Thank you. Would you like to address that letter, Miss Wickham? MISS WICKHAM: Yes, J~st briefly regarding Mr. Ma~trejean's .comments. Certainly, l~?~ul~ be the L~Dz b~nefit to do anything, it would cut dowD our_owD bluff and I don't think that would_be permitted. We do ha~e D.E.C. permission to divide and certainly upon building any conditions tha~ they ~mpose would be adhered to. Also, he men- tioned the downzoning--it's not a downzoning. There is_a variance but I don't think it!s considered a downzoning. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf o~ this applicatioD? Yes, Mrs. Korolesk~? MRS. KOROLESKI- Sir, in 1~0, in the early 1930s, t~at right-of-way belonged to the farm and ~as sold to the people up north. _Mr., of Du~dees .Corporation had to give them the right=of-way, and that's a 25' right-of-way from Sound_Avenue all the way up north, all the way up. That's_a 25' right-of-way the Dundee Corporation had to give, add now we do pay taxes on that right=of-way because ~% comes from our farm. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Maitrejean. MR. MAITREJEAN: I thin~ we had to straighten something out. There are five of us paying taxes on that road, and Mrs. Koroleski is not one of the people_paying taxes on that road. As a matter of fact, there ~re many problems on it, caused by Mrs. Koroleski, and the board should settle~this matter any time the board can check this out. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hearing no further comments, I'll ask the board members if they have any questions. (None) I'll make a motion closing ~be~hearing and reserving decision unti~ later, pending receipt of a,~report from Jack Davis concerning road recommendations. Thank you everyone for coming in. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision ~ending receipt of road report from Jack Davis concerning recommended improvements, in the Mat~er of Appeal No. 3184 = Peter and Patrici~ Lenz. Vote of the Bo~rdi Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer~ Gr~gon~s, Doyen, Douglass and Sawick~. This resolution was adopted by unanimous v~te of all the members. 'Southold Town B6ard of Appeals -34- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3219. Application of CROSS SOUND' FERRY SERVICES, INC., Box 33, New London, CT 06730 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section lO0-70(A) and Section 100-71 for permission to: [a] construct principal building with an insufficient frontyard setback from the easterly property line and [b] establish a ferry-terminal use in this B-1 Business District. Location of Property: 42175 Main Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Nos. 1000-015-09-11. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:27 p.m. and read the appeal application and legal notice of hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map and a copy of the proposed plan dated January 21, 1984, received February 16, 1984 showing the approximate placement of approximately 40' from the east side, 30' from the west side of the property, adjoin- ing property -- I'm sorry, this is upside down-- so my coordinates should be 40' from the west side and 30' from the east side; a building of an approximate configuration with irregularities of 45-50. Mr. Young~ would you like to be heard? HOWARD YOUNG: I'm Howard Young. Young & Young, Riverhead, New York. I'm the surveyor for the applicant. I'll just say a few things on their behalf, and Mr. McMahon would like to say a few. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. has asked me to appear here tonight to answer any questions that the board may have or the public. I certainly don't want to intend to be very knowledgeable of your zoning ordinance, but I believe that the use has been established for a good many years here as a ferry terminal, and a ferry terminal is a very unique land use. And the Cross Sound Ferry Services is very interested in upgrading their service to the public and wish to build a new terminal. The terminal building will be mainly a waiting area, lounge, ticket office, toilet facilities. In order that, to build this building here with the new flood zone requirements, we had to elevate the building at a considerable height, and will require a good, large amount of fill to be brought into the site to obtain a finished floor elevation of I believe ll feet. Because of this and the unique use of the property and trying to stage cars in an orderly fashion to loak onto the ferry, we have had to squeeze the building to the eastern side of the property, which is adjacent to a 5-foot strip of land, now or formerly owned by Mary Hicks. This parcel of land separates Cross Sound Ferry terminal's property from the Main Road or the State property on the east premises. We have maintained a sideyard there to the building of 27 feet, which is well within the sideyard requirements of the ordi- nance, since we have also a street-- a setback on a side street is required to be under,]your ordinance of 35 feet, and we're asking for a variance there to 32 feet, or a three-foot variance. Because of the fill and the slope that's required on the other side and the situation of the drive-in window happen to be the road they're elevated so that people can use a drive-in like you do at a bank. Every foot ~ of distance that we could get away from the westerly property line 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3219 CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC., continued:) MR. Y~UNG continued: helped on a slope for proper access for vehicles. I think that's all that I would like to say at t.he present time. I would be glad to answer any questions of the board or anyone else. MR. CHAIRMAN: There is other property the ferry district owns-- not the ferry district but Cross Sound Ferry? MR. YOUNG: Cross Sound Ferry Services owns the property on the east side of the Main Road. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's where the existing hold statio'n is or ticket office is or whatever, right now? MR. YOUNG: Right. The former ticket office was at the head of the Main Road and now they have moved it over temporarily into the snack bar to try and provide better service temporarily until they get this ferry terminal. MR. CNAIRMANi~A~dthen it will be dis(---). MR. YOUNG: Yes, then the ticket office would be removed to this site if this plan is approved. The other thing, I don't know whether the board's familiar -- at. the Planni'ng Board's meet- ing last week, I guess, the week before, they had approved the site plan. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. MR. YOUNG: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McMahon? JAMES McMAHON: Good evening. Just to give you a little informa- tion how this proposed project got started, t, as the DireCtor of Community Development for the Town of Southold, was contacted by Rich McMurray in Cross Sound Ferry asking whether or not there were any monies available for them to imorove their existing site. They were looking to enhance the facility and prevent some of the problems that the traffic during the summer months was causing out on Route 25. The cars, because there was not an adequate, staging area, cars were backing out onto Route 25 and causing a problem. What this proposal intends to do is to eliminate Number One, that problem of the sta'ging area, getting the cars off Route 25 and putting some rhyme and re~on into the parking. Previous to Mr. Young's site plan, cars would come in off Route 25 and there was no rhyme or reason. They could go into the overnight parking area. They could just go and drive around. There were no signs directing them to the ticket booth--the old ticket booth was totally inadequate and didn't have -- in using the ferry quite a number of times myself, than any more than a half dozen of people, there was just no room for you to get in out of the weather, if you were waiting for somebody to pick you up-- a lot of times it was just not the adequate terminal facility that is needed with the volume of traffic that Cross SOund Ferry ~s~-h~ndling. 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3219 - .CROSS 'SOUND'iF'ER'RY :SERVICES, I.NC~, 'continued:) MR. McMAHON continued: The bathrooms were totally inadequate. The ticket area, as I said, was totally inadequate. The reservation system, was inadequate. In a Cross Soupd Ferry study that was done, the State of New York looked at a number of different sites and found that the Orient Point site was the most advantageous. When I was contacted by Cross Sound Ferry as the Town of Southold is a member of the Suffolk County Community Development Consortium, we arranged for $100,O00-1oan that, with a low-interest rate, with the premise that the Cross Sound Ferry would come up with, and as part of their contract create 10 permanent fulltime jobs at the site. The staging area would be corrected. They would build a new reception center with adequate toilet facilities. They would improve the overnight or day parking facili:ties; and they would put in moor- ings or dolphins that would enable boats to dock in inclement weather. As part of our negotiations, we've met with the Cross Sound Ferry and they have agreed to have a boat originate from Orient Point with a local crew. As it stands now, the boats all originate from New London and we thought it would be a nice idea and if they could guarantee that a boat would originate from Orient, we could have a guarantee of jobs. They also promised us in writing that they ~re going to put in a computerized reservation terminal at the Orient Point facility. As this is one of the first, or the first part of Long Island that people visiting our area see, we have a meeting with Cross Sound Ferry and Mr. Young to try to devise a plan that is going to be aethestically pleasing. We're looking to enhance not only .the facility but also the benefits to local commerce, getting a market--markets in the northeast where our fishermen, or people who are engaged in nurseries, farming, can find additional markets in the northeast, and we think since Southold depends heavily upon recreation and tourism that things can be worked out with the local chambers of commerce to bring people into the shopping areas of Greenport, Southold and Mattituck. One of the problems that in meeting and talking with the Department of Transportation, because the Department of Transporta- tion in looking at this pr-oject made this project part of the transportation bond issue that was passed in November, they are contributing $400,000 to the project. The Suffolk County Community Development .Consortium through the Town of Southold is putting in $100,000 of low-interest money into the project. One of the problems that we talked with the D.O.T. about is the traffic on Route 25 and on Route 48. They have assured us that they are going to work with us in seeing that the problems that are there possibly can be limited, and you're not going to in any way reduce the volume of traffic. They've got roughly 300,000 cars using that ferry. The idea with this terminal is not to expand the ferry's use or its ridership, but more or less to provide an adequate ticket area, an adequate reservation system, an adequate bathroom facility, and upgrade the whole area. 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -3~- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3219 CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC., continued:) MR. McMAHON continued: We've spent a lot of time, Howard Young and t, in meeting with the Cross Sound Ferry, and I know they are concerned about the volumes of traffic. They have made a proposal=-I'm sure everybody lives out here has seen at least in the newspaper the Cape Hanolopin-- the new boat that Cross S6und Ferry purchased, that is capable of carrying 85 cars and 800 passengers. One of the things that they are working on is to take very shortly, maybe even by the end of this year, the Cape Hanolopin out of service. It may be, as I understand, leased to the State of New York, and put one or two ferries the size of the New London that carries 45 cars so you won't have the impact on the local traffic that the Cape Hanolopin has. If you have any questions, I'm sure Mr. Young, or I, am familiar with this project to quite an extent--if you have any questi'ons, I'd be glad to try to answer them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Not at the moment. Thank you. Would somebody like to also speak in favor of the application? (No one)~ Would somebody like to speak against the application? Sir? Would you kindly use the mike and state your name. NATHAN HICKS: Nathan Hicks, Skippers Lane, Orient. I represent my wife, who is the owner of the property directly east of the property in question. I'm here really on two behalfs, Mr. Chairman, one: the proposed development is as shown is a totally- usurps any beneficial use my wife could ever have in the future of that property. That should not be permitted. That's a very simple set of technical arguments. I'll be very brief with them. I came down under very difficult road conditions from Boston today through the courtesy of the canceled ferry, which I had a reservation on. More to implore on the board that through the zoning process-that's available, this is a private for-profit monopoly. I have a 35-year history riding with that, and I am a very substantial user of it now. Very nearly twice a week, year in, every month of the year. Certainly in the range of 70 or 80 trips a year. The people-- we send people away from the Town of Southold with a distaste for our community because of the lack of service that's provided down there, and this is an organization of a long history of maintaining that lack of service. So quickly let me say, in regards to my wife's property, you have a plan before you that raises a level bear in mind that if you went down there, the way people used to go down in the old days, for a ride on a Sunday afternoon, it was nice to go to the end of the road, to buy an i~ce cream cone. They can't do it now. The beneficial use of Route 25 has been taken away from the general public because it's nothing but, it's a swap over from an operation that can't operate on its own property. The new scheme woul~d be even worse. It's not an improvement. It's an 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3219 - CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC., continued:) MR. HICKS continued: aggravation of an existing scheme. And I'll be specific as to why I believe it is. Their proposed -- the elevation of the road in front of the Jiffy Bite is eight feet. They're proposing to go 25 feet from my wife's property line at an elevation of ll feet. But her property is at an elevation of five feet. They're showing a 12-foot driveway in which they propose all of this traffic from the ferry to exit through a 12-foot driveway. That's my own home driveway glorified. They have to be raising the level of the pavement at our property line either in the range of three, three and one-half, or they're going to slope down and make us a catch basin for their whole problem. I don't think that a three-foot vertical wall is in keeping with normal construction standards. You have loaded tractor-trailers coming over there. I see no provision for a curb to control water runoff even if it were permitted. I see no problem for a safety fence. If it is stepped back to normal two feet for one foot in elevation, they've suddenly taken away seven feet of that 12-foot driveway and left with five feet. Every tractor-trailer, almost every tractor-trailer--and I don't belittle the trucking industry-- the cars are equally guilty of this, but the problem is that the trailers are bigger and you're more aware of it. Almost every one you've got sitting at the ferry at this end stops to either call their office, or book another reservation. That's all you do. Put them in this 12-foot driveway, and the whole situation is stuck. The entire operation then bails out onto 25 again. There isn't a hardship involved. The ferry isn't going to go out of there. The intent of the zoning ordi- nance is to do away with nonconforming uses. The entire area down there should be zoned commercial under, in--where the ferry terminal is permitted, in directing these people to come in with a proper master plan that addresses traffic control not only in 1984, in 1994, in. 2004. I §o back 35 years. That time goes by like nothing. We're involved -- what is the saturation point of Route 25. How much can we push on this community of Orient, the people. Over the years this unregulated agency has developed a tremendous under-current or d~ssatisfaction within the community. This should be an opportunity to provide for a public hearing so that proper authority can hear. What is that dissatisfaction? Where does it input properly into master plan zoning for the area and provide either you people or some other regulatory authority of the Town of Southold who as a condition to granting the approval of such a plan, to place regulations on it. These ideas; they're great. I'm happy that somebody is trying to stir up~th~ngs like Mr. McMahon. But they're figments of an imagination. They're not contracts in writing. They haven't materialized in the past and I don't believe they're going to materialize in the future. I think the Town of South--your constituents are dissatis- fied with the operation. I think you have an opportunity to 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- April 5, 198~ Regular Meeting (Appeal No~ 3219 - CROSS SOUN.D ~F]ER'RY ~SE.RV,I.CES, INC., continued:) MR. HICKS continued: regulate it through the zoning pr~ocess, 'and I hope that you don't bypass that opportuni'ty. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Hicks. Is there anybody else that would like to ~peak against the application? (No response.) Anything in rebuttal, gentlemen? JAMES McMAHON: I, just -- in reading the Long Island ferry study, would have to agree to a lot of what Mr. Hicks, as far as the Cross Sound Ferry's reputation in the past had been is true. What we are attempting to do here is correCt the reservation system that was totally inadequate. You call up and they just weren't able to guarantee you the ability to get on the boat. One of the things unfortunately with the way that the ferry system is set up now without the proper dolphins and bulkheads, they are not able to provide the kinds of services they would like to provide and having this boat run back and forth without being affected as they are now by the weather when they have weather such as we had over the last couple of days. They need additional dolphins to enable this boat to dock properly. If the State of New York is willing and has seen the need for the service, all these proposals that are presented to the State of New York under the transportation bond issue were on a competitive basis. The State of New York granted $400,000 to Cross Sound ferry with no strings attached other than Cross Sound Ferry provide decent ferry service, and that's what the $400,000 Department of Transportation granted-- Cross Sound Ferry is attempting to do. With the $100,000 that came through the Community Development Office, in writing and signed by the TOwn of Southold and the Cross Sound Ferry, they have to guarantee ten permanent jobs. They have to guarantee that a boat is going to leave Orient ~oint, and I think, you know, I don't t~ke to see the increase of traffic on Route 48 or Route 25, but I also don't like to see farms go out of busi- ness simply because -- or if we're trying to keep agriculture on the North Fork, we have to have a place for our farmers to send their produce. We have to have a place for our nurserymen to send their produce. And ~f we can expand the markets into the northeast and maybe give these guys another breath of air, then I think that the inconvenience of the traffic on Route 25, or Route 48, is something that is not going to get any better. It's probably going to get worse. But I would like to see as a benefit to the community here, because we do benefit so much by tourism, is that the people are going to use the ferry terminal no matter what. -What I'm suggesting is that we have a decent reservation system, a place where people can get in out of the weather, where they can se.cure their tickets if they get off the boat or they're waiting for the boat; there is adequate restrooms there, t think those are the types of things that without this change that we're talking about tonight, we'll just have the same kind of conditions that is existing there now. What you have ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3219 CRO'S.S"~SOUND~F~RRY S~.RVICES~ INC., continued:) MR. MCMAHON continued: there now is a smaller room no bigger than the jury box that is supposed to provide over the]'course of the summer a restroom facility for 300,000 people. That's not adequate. The dirt, the dust, the lack of r'hyme .~.r reason for cars coming off of Route 25, they get there and there's no direction as to where to go. It's a mess, and I'll be the first one to admit, it is a mess. And what we're attempting to do here is to correct that mess. If the application is denied, well then we sit with a mess-- I don't know. We sit with a mess. We're back to Square One. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. McMahon. Mr. Hicks? MR. HICKS: Can I just comment briefly. I didn't-- I neg- lected to point out that one of my problems with the site plan is the one safety factor you have down there now in alleviating any traffic situation is if that was open and a tractor-trailer blocks the lane directly coming out from the ferry, the next one blocks Route 25 and you still have room to squeeze around, the staging area that's ~presented here is no larger. They have the room right now. They don't have to create an impervious surface down there to put on. The little building that's going up there isn't that much better than what they've got now., although I don't think they should be using that building. They've taken away a restaurant facility from the general public down there and it's not a permitted use in that zone. As it ( i~naudible _) half the use of what they're applying for right now. They're only grandfathered under half of this site. They took over this other half of the site from a private home and they converted it to ferry use, and they don't come to you asking for the proper permission. They're an unregulated monopoly is what they are. To put that building in there loc'ks you into a problem. If -- The reservation service is in now. The si.aging area is in now. They need a better terminal. But this isn't it. It needs to be bigger than this. It needs to be better planned. That's what we need. This is going to create a -- aggravate the hazard. You take away one of the safety valves for traffic to get out of there. MR~ CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, Howard. MR. YOUNG: I would be glad to answer any -- the technical merits of this plan that the board may have. Certainly some of the things that Mr. Hicks has pointed out are incorrect. We've taken quite some care not to disturb his property complaining of this and slopes from his property up. And when he mentions that we would distroy the use of his property, I don't know what that use is, being that it's five-feet wide. I also believe that the Cross Sound Ferry has attempted to purchase the property from the owners, and the present -- the part of the trucks-unloading truck drivers are some of the best drivers in the world; usually they're not the ones that cause traffic jams. The intent, as long 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -al- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3219 - CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, 1NC., continued:) MR. YOUNG continued: as they can off load in the same manner that they have been, and I don't see that that has changed any--we have provided an additional 12-foot with a cross through the property adjacent to Mr. -as well as the existing way that they come off the ferry onto 25. MR. CHAIRMAN: Has anything been taken into consideration con- cerning the elevation factors that Mr. Hicks has mentioned and the drainage problem that might exist on his property? MR. YOUNG: Yes. They're shown on the plan. MR, CHAIRMAN: And what will be the difference in elevation between the two? MR. YOUNG: The property is, and he says, the property here is between elevation five and six, and our proposed contour here of 6, or 7 wraps around here. The majority of the slope to get up to the building here is on this grass part here where we have a one on two slope. We also proposed drainage bins on the ~ehange tape toside~B)~end, which is going to be excava't'ed down to clean sand and _backfilled with gravel there so that any runoff from our paving Wo~ld enter_~.g~avel landscaped area there and rech. arge into the ground. We've provided those places here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Has anything been done concerning the no-parking areas for the discharge of trucks and cars and such as Mr. Hicks has mentioned so that this problem doesn't exist that he eluded to? MR, YOUNG: So that-- MR. CHAIRMAN: So that we have no problems with cars stopping short as they have done before? MR. YOUNG: Certainly that could be a problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: I know they do that. I'm just asking. MR. YOUNG: We certainly have provided parking spaces on the 12-foot exit there that is on the property of Cross Sound Ferry here so that people want to stop for some reason could go into the terminal and pick somebody up. The people now stop at anyplace but doesn't pick up people. There is no -- We have a state road which they park on and we don!t anticipate interrupting traffic there any more than we have. I believe he also mentioned about taking the restaurant away. It is the intent of the owner to move the ticket office back to the new terminal and to continue that as a snack bar. But that is a (inaudible)piece of property right now. The only use as far as a variance goes on that property is the overnight parking. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any other comments? ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -42- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3219 - CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC., continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: Mr. Hicks, we will take another look at this site prior to any deter- mination from this board. We will go out, reinspect it again as we have done in the past, and we will try and protect your interests to the best of our ability. That is all I can tell you at this particular time and we thank you very much for driving down all the way from Boston. Oh, I~m sorry -- Mr. Douglass has a question. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I would like to ask Mr. McMahon one thing. MR~ CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER DOUGLASS: You mentioned in your arguments that Cross Sound has promised this~.town so many permanent jobs. Are you of the knowledge that there are none on board'those present boats at the present time and that they are importing from Connecticut all machinery and equipment that is doing the job that Mr. Young has surveyed? MR. McMAHON: Yes, I've spoken to Cross Sound Ferry about that. One of the reasons for having a boat docked at Orient was that it would provide for a local crew, that you would have a crew from the Southold Town or North Fork that instead of having the boat take off from New London, it would almost require you to live in New London because the boat is going to be back in New London each night. Having a ferry leave from Orient Point makes it advantageous for Cross Sound Ferry, and they have indicated that they would be willing to, have a crew that is made UP of men from or women from the North Fork. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Do you know how available those people are here? MR. McMAHON: I have talked and sent two gentlemen that have recently graduated from the naval, Fort Schyler there-- MEMBER DOUGLASS: Maritime Academy. MR. McMAHON: The Maritime Academy, and they are Southold Town residents and they're going to make a good effort to hire those. MEMBER DOUGLASS: They're working for me, because they weren't taken on. MR. McMAHON: That's correct. But if we put on, and they are in the--Cross Sound Ferry is in the process now of moving up from Louisiana, I believe, an off-shore workboat that is going to be used as a ferry; and they are in the process of building a new boat very similar to the New London to replace the Cape Hanolopin and we have with the Department of Transportation money because that is coming from the Town of Southold as is the $100~000 from ~he County 'Southold Town Board of .Appeals -43- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3219 - CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC., continued.:) MR. McMAHON continued: is coming through the Town of Southold. We have as many hooks into Cross Sound Ferry as we can to insure that all the permits that are required or obtained that the jobs that are promised are real jobs. We have their assurance instead of locating the reservation system in New London that it will be here in Orient and that we will have computer operators on hand and they will be local people that will run the reservation system. I was myself as you mentioned when they came and filled part of that parking lot with trucks from New London, I mentioned to Rich McMurray that it is not a good practice if you're looking to establish a business here that you should hire local con- tractors, and that has always been my contingent of local contractors-- should be hired with any kind of a town or communi, ty development project. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Is it a legal practice? MR. McMAHON: A legal practice? In this particular case under the Department of Transportation, they don't have to go out to bid. The contractor can select whoever he wants. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I don't mean that. I know it doesn't have to go out to bid. I don't mean that at all. I mean as a legal process to hire illegal operators to work over here. MR. McMAHON: I wasn't aware that that would have--. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just wait one second, please. Are you done, Bob? Just briefly, Mr:. Hicks. MR. HICKS: Mr. Young's comments regarding any contact between the ferry and my wife are wrong. I th~nk it's wrong for him to stand up here and say something like that as a statement before the board that I have to .rebut it. They not only have never contacted us with that in mind, they have never discussed with us this particular plan with any attempt to ameliorate any problems that exist between their development and our site. A prudent developer would do that, wouldn't they? Back in the Fall, he suggested there was going to be a develop- ment scheme and that they would furnish us with a map. When I went to New London to ~ick up the map it was not available. She said it would be sent over the next week. They carefully ignored the thing ever since. When I seen the plan, when I came up and got mine, through the courtesy of Linda (ZBA secretary) and the xerox machine in the Assessors Office which I paid for, that was my first look at it, and. when I had seen the plan, I know Why they wouldn't approach me with it. It's a disgraceful plan and they could recognize my reaction. The cognizance of Mr. Young purported in expertise of a situation down there at the Point indicate that he is not an expert on it. He's very unfamiliar with the day and day situation down there with the problems that exist, and it should be considered by this board in that light. · Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3219 CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC., continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Yes, Mr. Young. MR. YOUNG: I apologize if I was in error about them contacting you, but I was with the boss or the owner of Cross Sound Ferry when he asked one of his Vice-Presidents there if he would contact Mrs. Hicks. If they didn't dQ so, I apologize~ MR. HICKS: I~m also amazed at how a sideyard setback shows on a confident survey or.plan through to the far' dimension of my property. MR. YOUNG: That'.s showing the ~oad setback, sir. And the setback on the plan is to' you.~ proper'ty~ tt shows 27 feet from your property line. MR. HICKS: All I see is a 30-foot dimension. MR. YOUNG: W~uld you like to look at it? MR. CHAIRMAN: 'Howard, would you point it out to him please? MR. HICKS: That's two dimensions. MR. YOUNG: You can't add? It says 27 feet here, 13 plus 12, right? j~ MR. HICKS: There's the dimension of'30 feet. MR. YOUNG: Right. That's what we asking an appeal on because the or'dinance says it has'to be 30 feet back from the street line. MR. HICKS: I think you have an obligation to spell out like that far more clearly. It's almost an obvious attempt to try and produce something that's r~atly not accurate. This plan doesn't show any grades there. Where is your elevation at that 12-foot point? What's your finished elevation of the pavement? It isn't there! MR. YOUNG: I don't want to get into an argument here. It is there, sir. MR. LESSARD: We don't want this to get into a verbal debate-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand that. MR. YOUNG: If you would like to take the plan to an engineering firm and have them review it, I don't know what Mr. Hicks is-- MR. HICKS: If he's down to our grade there, he's got a driveway that goes like this. MR, YOUNG: It's not that way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me have that--we,re going to go back out on 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3219 CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC., continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: Saturday morning and reinvestigate this and I don't know if we'll be in need of your expertise, Mr. Young. MR. YOUNG: I would also like to mention one more thing that I believe the Hicks have been very aware of this thing. Mrs. Hicks called me and asked me to survey her property there and that she would like to put up a fence on the property. And I told her that I was working for the Cross Sound Fer~ry and I didn't think it would be right if I got into any kind of legal problem with the ferry company, and Mrs. Hicks, she was very nice, and I thought I was being very cooperative with her. MRS. HICKS: I was really -- I didn't say a fence, I said I wanted to put up a sign just in case when I first heard about this plan. But that's very true I did call him up and he was very nice (remainder of statement no audible due to sh~fling of papers). MR. CHAIRMAN: I am going to ask the board after this hearing if they will go out again and investigate this plan on Monday, excuse me, Saturday morning at everybodY's convenience, and we will be out there; we will be viewing the cars again. Of course it's not the busiest season of the year. If we're in need of your expertise, Mr. Young, we'll call you also. And as I said to you before, Mr. Hicks, we will do the best we possibly can. Thank you ~11 for coming in. On motion by Mr; Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision pending reinspection in the matter of Appeal No. 3219, for CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent due to weather conditions.) This resolution was unanimously adopted. 10:13 p.m. Public Hearing in the Matter of MARY ORIGONIS, Appeal~No~ 3211, f~r ~ Variance~to Article III, Secti~.lO0-31 for approval of i~uf~icient area of two proposed parcels located ~t the west s~.de or_Wells Avenue~ ~outhold, 'NY; ~ounty Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-61-02-08~ The C~airman opened the hearing at 10:13 p.m., read the legal Southold Town Board of Appeals -46- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appea~ No. 3211 MA~Y G~IG~NIS, conti, nued:i CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of the Suffolk'County Tax Map showing this and the surrounding properties, and a copy of a survey dated December 27, 1983 indicating the house lot of 50,327 sq. ft. with 242.56 foot frontage, and the parcel to be set..off from the house lot, with an existing agricultural barn, of approxi- mately 56~120'sq. ft. in area. (No one appeared in behalf or against the application). On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, t~ close the hearing pending deliberations and a decision iD the Matter of Appeal Nos 3211, for MARY GRIGONIS. (Member G~gonis was ~t ~resent %r~m].the~op~ning of the hearing until ~fter the hearing was closedo)_ Vote of th~ Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the four members present. loll7 p.m. Public Hearing - Appeal No. 3210. Matter of JAMES F. DRUCK,_III,_which_was recessed_earl~ier this evening to allow more time ~'~i~nceZ~he applicant indicated he may be late._ ~heyf~rs%'~h~aring on,thi~s~pplicat~io_n initiated March 2, 1984. Mr. Fred D~ruck was present and spoke in behalf of the application. FRED DRUCK: At the last meeting you asked me to su~pl.y.~a - 'Ce~ti~icate of Occupancy on both dwellings which I believe_you have.~a copy o~f. If..not, I have it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We didn't get the C.O. We got the affidavit, which indicated i~hat from the prior~owner this property h~d been used, and so on an~d so forth. MR. DRUCK: I was under th~ impression that-- SECRETARY: When did you get it, today? MR. DRUC~: Yes. SECRETARY: We did not get a copy as yet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is this for the]- MR, DRUCK Both dwellings. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Certified that the building accessory... is this for the new bu~ilding that you built, the storage building in the back? $outhold Town Board of Appeals -47- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3210 - JAMES-F. DRUCK III, continued:i FRED DRUCK: The accessory building they're talking about there is the storage building in the back. The two dwellings and one accessory building. CHAIRMAN: Ok. This is for the little building built in the back. Do you have another one there? MR. DRUCK: They only gave me one copy of that. Oh, here's everything. CHAIRMAN: Ther~ we go. "Two privat~ one-family dwellings and one accessory building." That's what we wante~.~ Ail right. Is there anything_else.you would like to add to this? MR. DRUCK: We~l, I talked with my architect again, and what we would like to do, the_total width of the property at that point is 55 feet, and the addition we're proposing is~32 fee% wide, which would give us combined setbacks of 23 feet, which meads we are still two fee~ shy to be legal. So we would still actually need a variaDce on the two feet, and on the west property~line, he, believes he can stay off the property line 3 feet 8½ inches-- CHAIRMAN: The west property line? MR. DRUCK: Yes. We~t property line. Our plan was to make %h~s~was slab- run a solar wall aloDg there which faces southwest. He believes if we sit back more than th~ calculated footage, then we would be losing a substantial amount of sun until_about 1:00 o~clock in the a,fternoon. C~AIRMAN: Ok. Can you tell us how high the building is going to be at that point? MR. DRUCK: How high. CHAIRMAN: You don~t nave to give it to us today. You can call it in. Just ask him how high it is going to be along that west property line. What I want is the highest point and then a mean-- depends on how the structure, the addition appears if it is going to have a gable roofline from what I can see here. Just to give us an idea. ~s I told you, the reason why we want that affirmation is so that a ladder can be placed on the base without standing on your neighboring property, and so, what else did you have to add? MR. DRUCK: Well that was basically it. The only other additional information siDce the last meetingr-I had purchased the front house-- so t now own both pieces of property, or will in another two weeks. But that's somethiDg ~e~.~ were attempting for a long time. The rear house will be my main_dwelling, and the front one probably as a seasonal rental, CHAIRMAN: Is {here any reason for the configuration of the addition ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -48- April 5, 198~ Regular Meeting (Appeai No. 3210 - JA~ES F. DRUCK III, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): that you have proposed. In other words, if you went 3 feet 8½ inches, you would go w~th the proposed addition but would be cutting it back by that_amount? M~. DRUCK: In my original plan I was 34 feet, I would be cutting it back to 32 feet~so.I would not be going east to make up the additional. I would be shrinking it down by two. CHAIRMAN: Ok~ And you'll get that information in reference to the height, and hopefully we!Il be able to act on it in about a week or so. We thank you for all the input. We do need a copy of this. The copy machine is not on. SECRETARY: I could get a copy tomorrow. Just need the number. CHAIRMAN: That's all right. We can get a copy. Thank you, Mr. Druck. Would anybody else like to speak concerning this matter? (None) Hearing no further cQmments, IJll make a motion ~l. os~ng %be hearing and reserviDg decision until later. MEMBER SAWICKI: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehrin§er~ seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the Matter of Appeal No. 3210, JAMES F. DRUCK III. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigo~s~was absent.) This resolution was unanimously adopted. NEW APPLICATION: APPEAL NO. 3231 Recent application of DOUGLAS MILLER. Application for 280-A approval at Laurel Lake, Laurel. The board reviewed received correspondence dated April 2, 1984 from George Guldi, Esq., attorney for the applicant and Mr. Guldi explained the rights-of-way in question briefly. The board felt right-of-way was not properly shown. Mr. Guldi said he would provide accurate map within the next three weeks of traveled right-of-way. Mr. Guldi indicated the right-of-way does not appear to overlap Kirkup Lane and the traveled part is wes~ o~ Kirkup right-of-way as deeded. Mr. Guldi indicated that contract calls for a closing by April 15th, however they will ask for a 30-day extension from the seller. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals ~4~ April 5~ 1984 Regular Meeting Pending Decisions: The board indicated they would inspect the premises of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. on Saturday, April 7, 1984 at ll:O0 a.m. at Orient. and premises of Henny Smith on Thursday, April 12th at 6:30. Pending Decision: Appeal No. 3218 NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 2, 1984 in the Matter of the Application of the NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, Appeal No. 3218; and WHEREAS, the board members have considered all testimony and documentation entered into the record in this matter; and WHEREAS, the board members are personally familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding properties; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By.this application, appellant requests permission to locate a mobile home for single-family residency for the paster and his Wife inlan area 60 feet from the west side of Westphalia Avenue, 25 feet from the north Side of property now of Rosenfeld, and 15 feet from the northerly yard area along McCaffery's property line. 2. The mobile home is proposed to be 850 sq. ft. of livable floor area. 3. The applicant has assured the board that if approval is granted for the placement of this mobile home, the existing struc- ture located just east of the "concrete basketball court" will be removed entirely and the foundation filled. 4. Many objections have been received objecting to this particular location as proposed. 5. For the record it is noted that on January 24, 1984, under Appeal No. 3197 for the North Fork Baptist Church, a conditional variancw as granted for permission to replace an existing dwelling with a modular home and reinstate the one-family dwelling use (lo- cated just east of the "concrete basketball court.~ 6. It is the opinion of this board that a relocation of the subject single-family dwelling to the requested location is.not the most feasible area, particularly in light of the available ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -50- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3218 NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, decision, continued:) b.ufl~able ~re~ on the en't~re ~3,5 acres. ~n que.stion. 7. In granting this appeal, one of the requ~'rements is that the mobile home be placed in the area Within %he "yellow-colored" block on the survey amended April 14, 1983, dep.ic%ed by the Chairman same date hereof (to be attached to board's decision when filed with the Town Clerk). In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines that: (1) the relief requested will not be detrimental to adjoinin~g properties; (2) there will be no substantial change in the character of this district; _(3) the relief req.uested wilt not cause a substantial effect of any increased population density; (4) the circumstances of this appeal are unique; (5) the difficulty cannot be obviated by some method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (6) the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance applied as noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis~ .it was RESOLVED, that the single-family mobile .(modular) home structure previously granted under Appeal No. 3197, for the NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, BE AND HEREBY IS PERMITTED TO BE RELOCATED ONLY AS STIPULATED BELOW: 1. The mobile/modular home to be located only within the yellow-colored area depicted by the Chairman on the survey submitted with the application under Appeal No. 3218; and 2. The subject dwelling shall be loca~edi'no C~loser than'~ 30 feet from the rear pn~operty line along Hannafin ~(or Whitmarsh); located no closer than 115 feet from the front property line along C.R. 48; located no closer than 60 feet from the most westerly corner monument of land now of Rosenfeld; all as shown to be within the yellow-colored area~referred to in No. 1, supra; 3. The dwelling shall not exceed 1½ stories in height; 4. The existing foundation just east of the concrete basketball court must be filled to grade after removal of the damaged building (as agreed). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unani- mous vote of all t.he members. BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD ADOPTED APRIL 19, 1984, THIS RESOLU- TION WAS RESCINDED AND APPEAL NO. 3218 WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT. -Southold Town Board of Appeals -51- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION-: Appeal No. 3211. Application for MARY GRIGONIS, 550 Wells Avenue, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100~31 for approval of insufficient area of two proposed parcels located at the west side of Wells Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-061-03-08. The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this e~ening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appea~, applicant seeks approval of a parcel of land to be set=off from the existing dwelling which would contain 56,120 sq. ft. with 282 feet of frontage along Wells Avenue. The existing dwelling will be retained on the 50,327 sq. ft. lot'with 242~56 feet of frontage. Existing on the northerly parcel to be set-off is a very large barn, approximately 1.5 feet from Wells Avenue and which is structurally in good, sound condition. In personally visiting the site and the neighborhood in question, the board finds as follows: (a) the premises to the north and the premises on the east side of Wells Road opposite this property are zoned B-1 Business and which require a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft.; (b) the parcels wouth of this property and east of Wells Road contain an area of less than 40,000 sq. ft. The courts have in the past held that the denial of such an area variance is improper where there were numerous lots in the neighborhood which were as small or smaller than the subject lot (Krueger v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 368 NYS2d 63 (1975, AD). In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial; (b) that the circumstances are unique; (c) that by allowing the variance, no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; (d) that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (e) that there are numerous lot in the neighborhood which are smaller than that proposed; (f) that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of the zoning code; (g) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goeh- ringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3211, application of MARY GRIGONIS for approval of lots having 56, 120 sq. ft. and 50,327 sq. ft. located at the west side of Wells Avenue, Southold~ BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED'SUBJECT TO THE. FOLLOWING~CONDITION: $outhold Town Board of Appeals -52- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3211 - MARY GRIGONIS~ decision, continued:) That the building existing on the northerly parcel noted "barn" shown on the survey map dated December 27, 1983 shall not be con- sidered a principal structure or dwelling; and in the event that at any time in the future this "barn" building is permitted to be used, renovated or occupied as a principal building, the same must be moved so as to conform with all front, side and rear yard require- ments of the code for principal buildings. Location of Property: West Side of Wells Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No~ 1000-61-3-8. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass and Sawicki. Members Grigonis and Doyen were absent. This resolution was unanimously adopted with a quorum of three members. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: The board reviewed each of the following matters: Appeal No 3229 VINCENT GRIFFO; Appeal No 3238 JAMES ANDERSON; Appeal No 3222 - JOHN WICKHAM AND OTHERS: Appeal No 3225 JOSE V. RODRIGUEZ; Appeal No 3239 - JOSEPH FISCHETTI; Appeal No 3240 JOHN AND ?ATRICIA DINIZIO: Appeal No 3237 GOLDSMITH & TUTHILL: Appeal No 3238 GOLDSMITH & TUTHILL: Appeal No 3235 - GERTRUDE M. ALI; Appeal No. 3118 KATHRINE FARR; Appeal No. 31.17 - KATHRINE FARR: Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARJORIE WALKER. On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations determining each project to have a "nonsignificant adverse effect" on the environment in accordance with Article 8 of the N.Y~S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold, as follows: Southold Town Board of Appeals =53- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environme-ntal Decl'a~ations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATI~/E ENVIRON~IENTAL DECI~RATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3117 PROJECT NA24E: KATHRINE FARR This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Ar.ticle 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law ~44-4 of the To%rn 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 deterI~ination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or simil~ project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Speci-a] ExceptJ0n to use premises for marina and brokerage in this C-Light Industrial Zone. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more ~articularly known as: West Side of Manhanset Avenue, Greenp0rt, NY; 000-34-5-21. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the' short formhas 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) A new and extended bulkhead appears to have been built since certain permits issued by the N.Y.S.D.E.C., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Town B0ard~ have been authorized. Southold Town Board of Appeals -54- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3118 PROJECT NAME: ~ATHRINE FARR --' 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 no~ 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: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for in'sufficient yard s~etbacks for a proposed marina office structure in this C-Light Industrial Zone. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kngwn as: l]00 Manhanset Avenue, Gr~enp0rt, NY~ 10D0-34-5-2]. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) A new and extended bulkhead appears to have been built since certain permits issued by the N.¥.S.D.E.C., the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, and the Town Board~ have been authorized. Southold Town Board of Appeals -55- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3239 PROJECT NAME: JOSEPH FISCHETTI 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 dec~laration 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: To erect ground sign with less than four-foot clearance from the ground. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 52800 C.R. 48, S0uth0]d~ NY; ]000-5]-5-002. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (t) 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 proposed sign is landward of existing structures. Southold Town Board of Appeals -56- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (iEnviron.ment~l DeCla~ations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificance APPF_~kL NO.: 3232 PROJECT NZ~WIE: BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER -" This notice is issued pu~suah~ 50 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: Interpretation': (a) for exjisting cottage and garage to be valid~ preexisting uses and structures; (b) for approval o~ WoQ~q~ deck,as an acqes6o~y s~uc~ur~ i~side~ard; (c) reduction of liwble floor area oT DU] r ~su T1clen 's oe r~ . ~%~a~ ~J~6~: ~own ~ ~o~oI~, County of Suffolk, more . particularly known as: Edgemere Park~. MacD0nal_d's Path off Pec0nic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; 1000-145-4-14. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The premises is bu]kheaded seaward of exi"sting structures the total length of the property; (3) The relief requested is not directly related to new construc- tion (interpretation) ......... Southold Town Board of Appeals ~57- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATI~-E F~NVIRON~IENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3236 and 3237 PROJECT NAME: GOUDSMITH AND TUTHILL 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: Special Excepti'0n and Variance for permission to construct office/storage building in this C-] General Industrial Zone with insufficient frontyard setback(s). LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 1515 Y0ungs Avenue, S0uth01d, NY; 1000-60- 001-006. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETErmINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The premises in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. Southold Town Board of Appeals -58- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ~VIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3222 PROJECT NAMe: JOHN WICKHAM ...... 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 Envirorn~ental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance to permit sma]] office.for marine contractor with accessory storage use with repair of contractor's own vehicles and equipment. LOCATION OP PROJECT: Town of Sou~hold, County of Suffolk, more particularly know~a as: 67575 .Main Ro~d _(and Al.bertson Lane)~ Green- port: NY~ 1000-52-5-58. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~4INATION: (t) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the enviror~nent are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The premises in question is not located ~thin 300 feet of an estuary or critical environmental area. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -59- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONFIENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificance APPEAL NO.: 3235 PROJECT NAME: GERTRUDE M. ALI 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 environ/~ent 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 for p.ermissi0n to construct new dwe]]in§ which places accessory storage building in the fr0ntyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold,~ County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: South Side of East Road, ~utcbo§ue, NY; ]000-]]0-7-]8. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The premises in question is bulkheaded seaward of the proposed dwelling location and is at an elevation of l0 or more feet above mean sea level. Southold Town Board of Appeals -60- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Envi'ronmenlJal ~Decla~at~ions, continued.:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRON~IENTAL DECLAP~ATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3238 PROJECT NAME: JAMES ANDERSON 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-~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE-OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Reinstate dwel'ling use of structure located in this B~I Business District. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Sou~hold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 300 M00re~$ kane_(Linden ~venue), Cutch0§ue; ]000-]09-03-008. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Envir.onmental 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 i~Dle- mented as planned; (2) The premises in question is not located w~thin 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. (3) Structure in question is existing; the relief requested is not directly related to new construction ............ So~thold Town Board of Appeals -61- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3229 PROJECT NAME: VINCENT GRIFF0 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 for the cons-truction o.f accessory storage building in an area other than the required rearyard. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kngwn as: 280 Basin Road', S0uth01d,.v NY; 1000-81-01-19. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The premises in question is bulkheaded and the location of this shed is at an elevation above 10 feet above mean sea level. S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -62- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S,E,Q,R,A, NEGATI~q~ ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3225 PROJECT N~: JOSE RODRIGUEZ 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 to ccnstruct dwelli.ng in this B-I Business District. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kngwn as: West Side of F0x~..Lane, Fi&hers Island, NY; 1000-012-01-001.002. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) ~Ln 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 project in question is not located w~thin 300 ~eet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area; (3) The elevation above mean sea level is more than ten feet. ~ ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -63- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (EnVironmental Declarati'ons~ continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3240 PROJECT NAME: JOHN AND PATRICIA DINIZI0 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 no~ 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 to construct inground swimmingpool in the sideyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 315 Brown Street~ Greenpo~t, NY; 1000~48-3-42.3. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The premises in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. 4- Southold Town Board of Appeals -64- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly ~dopted. APPEAL NO. 3223 - THOMAS AND BARBARA MERCIER. (Public hearing was held and concluded earlier this evening.) This board instructed that'~a letter be sent to the applicants' attorney' requesting a copy of an affidavit o~ other document which would indicate an easement to the applicants f~r ingress and egress over the "private road" to the parki_ng area in question. PLANNING'BOARD~RESPONSES: The board acknowledged receipt of the foll~w~§ r.espon, se~rrequested by the Board of Appeals concerning appl_ica.~ions joint}y!pending w~th both departments: (a) Mary Grigo~is - P.B. has no objection to lay-out of pr~posed, di~ision~and reiterates insufficient area. P..B, ~11 require additional reviews if ZBA approves. (b) Kathrine Farr proposal - Pi~]B. amended resolution of 13~3/83 to reflect conclurrent of Attorney Lark's resolution dated March 20, 1984. (c) Cross Sound Ferry proposal - PoB. approved site plan. (d) Dav~·d and J~nne Bra~ner - P.B'. disapproves set-off and reiterates insufficient area as noted, but does not object to l'ayou, t. Z.B.A. application has not been received for processi~ng as _yet. (e) Richard and Sophie Greenfield - P.B. approved minor Subdivision subject to 280~ ap~·roval by ZBA outside subdivision limits. ZBA ap,pli~cation has not been f~ted as of this date. Southold Town Board of Appeals -65- April 5, 1984 Regular Meeting Appeal No. 3233 - McKay and Greenly. Area ~ariance for insuffi- cient size of two lots at Mann,Street, New Suffolk. ZBA .requests pre-certificate of occupancy as exists as one lot from applicant prior to hearing. Appeal No. 3230 - JEAN C. HOLLAND. Variance to re-separate lots with amended lot lot and each ha~ing insufficient area and width, at Meadow Beach Road~ ow Vanston Road~ Cutchogue. The board agreed that thin-'matter be hel'd i~-~ab~yance pending Planning Board review and comments,l~and N.Y.S~ Dept. of Environmental Conservation action prior to scheduling for public hearing. ~FIELD INSPECTIONS'DA.TE~ The board members agreed to field inspect~on.s on ~at~rday, April 7~ 1984 .(a~d.~hu~d~y, April 12, 1984 at 6:30 p.m. concerni. Dg the Henry P. Smith property). TentatiYe dates were also set for Th~.rsday, May 3, 1984, or Saturday, May ?~ 1984~ NEXT'REGULAR MEETING DATE~ The board members agreed to set Friday~-M~y ]1~ ~984 at ?~30 p.m. at the date and time of the ne~'~a~.~e~'t~g~nd public hearings to be held in the Assembly Room, To~n Hall, Main Road, 'Southold, New York. NEXT SPECIAL MEETING: The board members agreed to set Tuesday,."A.~il 1~,~1984 .gs the date for a Special Meeting, which will be c6~D~med with each of the board members next week. (The Specia.! Meeting was changed to April 19th, for the record.) There being no other business properly coming before the board at this ti. me~ 'the Chairman decla?ed the meeting adjourned. The meeting was adjo~mned~atL. 12:45 a.m.~ April 6, 1984. ~. Respectfully submitted, ~~~_~/~_~~.~,~ Llnda F. Kow~alskl, Secretary ~.~ _~~..~-~~_'.~outho]d Town.. Board of Appeals ~ed- ch"~irman ~ -~ ~