Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/28/1985 Southold Town Board of Appeals HAIN ROAD--roTATE ROAD 25 SDUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS M [ N U T E S JOSEPH H. SAWICKI REGULAR HEETTNG THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1985 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on T~ursday, March 28, 1985 at 7:15 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Jr., Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Joseph H. Sawicki; Robert J. Douglass, constituting all the members of the board~ Also present were Victor Lessard, Building Department-Administrator, and approximately 70 persons in the audience at the commencement of the meeting. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. and proceeded with the first public hearing, as follows: 7:20 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of GUSTAVE J. WADE PROPERTY by the FLEETS NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION and WILLIAM NICOL, Appeal Application No. 3295. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and application for the record. Anthony G. Nowacheck, Esq. spoke in behalf of the applicants, and Richard J. Cron, Esq. spoke in behalf of the property owner, Gustave J. Wade. Also speaking were Marguerite Vanderbeck, Benjamin Schwartz, Phyllis Lombardi, Gary Schneider. (The statements made dufing the hearing are transcribed under separate cover by Barbara Strang to be filed simul'taneously herewi'th at the Town Clerk's Office. 8:00 p.m. Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, to recess for approximately five minutes. This resolution was unanimously adopted and the temporary recess was taken. 8:07 p.m. Motion was made by Mr..Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, to reconvene. This resolution was unanimously adopted and the public hearing Continued. The Chairman read into the record the March 26, 1985 letter from the Town Trustees. Additional testimony was received (transcribed under separate cover) and the hearing was declared officially cbncluded, pending deliberations, at 8:15 p.m. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting 8:15 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of GUSTAVE J. WADE under Appeal No. 3302. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and application for the record. Richard J. Cron, Esqo spoke in behalf of the applicant, and Anthony G. Nowachek, Esq. spoke in behalf of the Fleets Neck Property Owners Association and William Nicol. Also s~eaking was Benjami_n Schwartz. (The statements made during the hearing are transcribed under separate cover by Barbara Strang to be filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office.) 8:30 p.m. Following the hearing, the Chairman moved to conclude the hearing, seconded by Mr. Douglass, and unanimously carried. The hearing concluded at'8:30 po.~. 8:30 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3328 for BRIDEN MACHINE CORP. in its application for a Special Exception to establish and use industrial building as a machine shop in this "C-Light Industrial" Zoning District. 555 Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck. Mr. Fred Bouffard was present and spoke in behalf of his application. (The statements of the hearing are transcribed under s~parate cover by Barbara Strang to be filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office.) Following the hearing, the Chairman moved to concluded the hearing, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and unanimously carried. The hearing was concluded at 8:35 p.m. It was agreed that re=inspection of the subject premises would be made. 8:36 p.m. Public Hearing was hel~d in the Matter of Appeal No. 3329 fo~ BRIDEN MACHINE CORP. in its application for a Variance to construct ~achine~shop building with insufficient side and rear yard setbacks. 555 Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck. Mr. Bouffard was present and spoke in behalf of his application. The Chairman indicated that the board wished to reinspect the subject premises and asked Mro Bouffard if stakes at a 10' setback could be placed. (The statements of the hearing are transcribed under separate cover to be filed simultaneously herewith at the Town CLerk's Office,) Following the hearing, the Chairman moved to conclude the hearing, seconded by Mr. Douglass, and unanimously carried. The hearing was concluded at 8:46 p.m. pending reinspection and deliberations. 8:47 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No~ 3333 for HELYNN D. KAPP in a vari. ance application for perm~ission to construct machine shoR~ building with insu~.ficient sideyard setbacks and in excess of maximum permitted 20% lot coverage. 1305 Third Street, New Suffolk, New York. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Kapp Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3333 - HELYNN were present and spoke in behalf of the application. (Statements made during the hearing are transcribed un.der separate cover and filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office.) Following the hearing, the Chairman made a motion to concluded the he~?i~.§, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and unanimously carried~ '-T'he hearing was concluded at 8:57 8:58 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3324 in an a.ppl]cation for LYNN SCIDRA for a Special ~ception to reinstate business as delicatessen to include on=site eating and drinking services. "C-Light Ind'~striai" Zo~e~ Corner of Main Road and Kerwin Bou'evard',' Greenport. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and application in its entirety. Reference w~s. made to the site plan dated 12/18/84 prepared by Garrett A, Strang, Architect, which indicated the existing building and the proposed bathroom addition. Garrett A, Stran_g was present and sgok~ in behalf of the applicant. There..was no opp~ition~ FOll.~wing receiving testim~.ny, the Chairman mo~ed to conclu~e_.%h.~_hea~ng, seconded by Mr. Douglass, and this resolution was unanimousl~ carried, The hearing concluded at 8:59 p~m. ._~ 8:59 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3331 in a variance application of._'.~A~L MILLMAN for per~]ss]on to establish two-family dwelling on ~arcel containing less than four acres and less than 1~5 feet of lot width at 3930 Horton Lane, Southold,~ New York. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and ~ppeal agplication for the record. It was also noted for the record that a .34-signature petition has been received in opposition to this propo.~sal~.as a two=family use~ Mr. Saul Millman was present and spo.ke in behalf of-~is application' Speaking against the application were .Mike Da~ds, Lori Salm~n,~. Joseph Conway. (The .statements made'during the h~aring.gre transcribed under separate cover ~o be filed simultaneously herewith a~-the Town Clerk's Office.) Fotlo~ing testimony, t~9 Chairman moved to conclude the hearing, _~.econded by Mr. ~ou.glass, and this resolution was unanimously carried. The hearing~oncluded at 9:14 p.m. . _ 9:15 p.m, Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3332 in the application of SAUL MILLMAN for'a Speci,al Exception to estCb]ish two-family ~wel]_.ing use, at 3930 .Horton Lane, Southold, New York. The Chairman read the l~'gal notice of hearing and application for the record, The 34~si_~gnature 'petition in opposition to this p~oposal!was..noted~,'~]~r. Millman Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- March 28,~1985S~R~gu~ar Meeting (Appeal No. 3332 - SAUL MILLMAN, continued:) spoke in behalf of his application~ Mrs. Salmon and Mr. Davis asked that their comments of theiprior hearing (Appeal No. 3331) be entered into the record for ~his hearing ~lso._ (The'statements made during this hearing are transcribed and ~yped under separate cover to be filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office.) Following testimony,_ the Chairman moved'to conclude the hearing, seconded by Mr~ Sawicki, and unanimously carried. The hearing was concluded'at 9:18 NEW'HEARINGS FOR APRIL I1TH: On motion by Mr. Douglass, secon~ded by Mr~.Goehri~§e~ ~as RESOLVED, that the following matters be and hereby are scheduled for public hearings to be held at the next R.egular Meeti~g'of this board, to wit: THURSDAY, APRIL l'lth, 1985: 7:30 p.m~ Appeal No. 3327 = £milia T. Pike. Variance for insu~.~icient area of proposed Parcels 1 and insufficient lot width of Parcel 1; N/s Main Road, Mattitu~k, NY. 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3323 - COLGATE'DESIGN CORP. ~riance to construct accessory building withi~ westerly sideyard area (7-11 .Store.). Main Road, Cutch.~gue~ 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3320 - BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT C~RP~]~AGE_ Variance for approval of insuffi~cient area and width of Parcels in this propQ~ed cluster development=subdivision and insufficient setbacks of buildings. 67380 Mai~ Road (Sage Boulevard), Greenpprt (Breezy Shores). 7:55 p.mo Appeal No. 3350 - JOSEPH LIZEWSKI, DDS Variance to construct building~or private membership with an insufficient setback from easterly property line. N/S Main Road' a~d E/s Depot Lane, ~Cutchogue. 8:00~p~m~ ~Appeal No. 3322 - JOSEPH LIZEWSKI, DDS. Special Exception to estab~lish anted build private r.@cque.tball club. N/s Main Road and E/s ~pot Lane, Cu~.chogu~.~_ 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3335 - ~OM~S HIGGINS. To construct acces- s~?y .~ara. ge in fron'tyard area, 850 Ruch La, Southold. 8:10 p.m. Appeal No] 3334 - HAROLD CARR. To const~u~ct deck Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting (New~iH~ari~gs, 'conti-n'ued[)~ addition with insufficient rearyard setback. 2045 Marratooka Road, Mattituck. 8:20 p.m. Appeal No~ 3330 - DOMINICK VARANO. For approval of insufficient area of'proposed Lot 3. 6750 Indigen Neck Road, Peconic. 8:30 p.m. Appeal No~ 3326 - WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER. Special Exception to estab~nd build funeral home busi- ness at premises of Dalchet C~.rp., S/s Main Road an~ W/s Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. IT~WAS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to'publish notice of same pursuan? to law ~n the local and official new.spapers of the town, to wit: Long Island Traveler Watchman, !nc. and the Suffolk Times, Inc. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. MATTERS FOR FIELD INSPECTIONS: The board members reviewed each of the following matters and field inspections are to be arranged in the following order: 1. Emilia Pike, N/s Main Road, Mattituck; 2. Colgat~ Design Corp., Cutchogue; 3. Bayview Development Corp./Sage, Sage Boulevard, Greenport; 4. Joseph Lizewski, E/s Depot Lane, Cutchogue; 5. .Thomas Higgins, 850 Ruch Lane, Southold; 6. Harold Ca-rr, 2045 Marratooka Road, Mattituck; 7. Domi-nick V~rano, 6750 Indian Neck Road, Peconic; William and Helen~Coster (Dalchet Corp~), Main Ro~d and Harbor Lane, Cutchogue; Matters tentatively for May 2~ 1985: 9. Saba/Kislow/Suje-.ski, Stillwater Ave, Cutchogue; 10. Kimon and Retzos, Rocky-Point Road R-O-W, East Marion; 11. Guy Sobering, N/s Sound Avenue, Mattituck; Mr. and Mrs. Howard L~ Young, N/s Main Road and E/s Browns Hill Road, Orient; 13. Bal~dwin-Schuler, Nassau Point, Cutchogue; 14. Bruce M. Vitale, S/s Sound Avenue, Mattituck; ~15. Periconi and .Cimini, N/s C.R. 48, Peconic. Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -6- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3294: Application for PETER J. AND MARGARET TROYANO, c/o R.F. Lark, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 for a Variance to New Yowk Town Law, Section 280-a for approval of access over a private right-of-way lo- cated on the north side of C.R. 48, Peconic (along land now or formerly Mcgunnigle) to premises known and identified as District 1000, Section 73, Block 4, Lot 4. Following deliberations, the board took the following action. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on February 14, 1985, concerning the Matter of PETER J. AND MARGARET S. TROYANO under Appeal No. 3294~ and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation entered into the record during the public hearing, in behalf and in opposition to this application; and WHEREAS, ~he board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the right-of-way and premises in question, as well as its surround- ing area; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is located in an "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District, is situate along a private right-of-way which extends approximately 4,238.45 feet from the northerly side of Middle Road (C.R. 48), at Peconic, and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 73, Block 4, Lot 4. 2. The subject premises contains as a whole 4.3475 acres with 290.10' frontage along a westerly extension of the right-of-way in question; the premises has received conditional approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for a set-off division of land, Lot 1 of an area of 106,000 sq. ft. and frontage of 100 feet, and Lot 2 of an area of 85,000 sq. ft. and frontage of 139 feet. 3. By this application, appellants request, approval of access as required by New York Town Law, Section 280-a, apparently for both lots #1, which is presently improved with one, one-family dwelling with attached garage, and #2, which is presently vacant except for a small frame storage-type shed situated below the bluff area. 4. It appears from the testimony received that if improvements were required by this board which would elevate the road, further flooding onto neighboring lands would be created. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7= March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3294 - PETER J. AND MARGARET TROYANO, continued:) 5. Road Report No. 408 confirms a traveled width of the right-of-way to vary from ll to 15 feet, and that the road is well- stabilized with sand, grave~ and loam throughout most of the right-of-way. There are however a few flooding areas due to the left side sloping down and a few depressions. Raising the road at the highest existing eleva- tions would cause additional flooding onto neighboring lands. 6. Subsequent inspections have been made by the board members and it is their opinion that the most feasible way to help eliminate flooding and icing of the right-of-way would be to re-grade, add bank- run, to an average height of the natural contour of both sides, and as otherwise noted below. In considering this application, the board determines that the variance be granted as noted below since: (a) this right-of-way appears to be the only principal ingress and egress to the appellants' property and property presently_of Reichman; (b) this right,of-way has been used by appellants since 1956, and the location of same has been settled by an Agreement dated March 10s 1983, filed under Suffolk County Supreme Court Index No. 81-22565; (c) the relief requested is not substantial; (d) there will be no substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or substantial detri- ment to adjoining properties if the variance is granted as conditionally noted below; (e) the circumstances of the appeal are unique and there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (f) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose~ justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to grant approval of access applied for under Appeal No. 3294 in the Matter of PETER J. AND MARGARET S. TROYANO over the private right-of-way located on the N~rth Side of C.R. 48 at Peconic to both lots known and identified as District 1000, Section 73, Block 4, Lot 4, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the entire right-of-way be re-graded for a width of 15 feet extending from its beginning at the north side of C.R. 48 to the lots in question, and further improved as follows~ (a) For the first 245.13 feet of existing bluestone, depressions to be patched; (b) For the next 354.87 feet, the right-of-way be brought Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -8- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeai No. 3294 PETER J. AND MARGARET TROYAND, continued:) up to the average height of the natural contours along both sides of the right-of-way with bankrun; (c) For the next 1856.98 feet, regrade and patch depressions with bankrun; (d) For the next 550± feet, the right-of-way be brought up to the average height of the natural contours along both sides of the right-of-way with bankrun; (e) For the next 1500± feet, raise to peak elevation of pipe with bankrun and regrade; (f) For the next 700± feet running northerly, and 264 feet running in a westerly direction, fill depressions and potholes with bankrun and regrade where necessary~ 2. Constant maintenance of the entire right-of-way; 3. All improvements to be made within the legal boundaries of the subject right-of-way; 4. Final acceptance to be made in writing by the Board of Appeals, of the above conditions and improvements; or, if made by the Building Inspector, a copy of his written report/acceptance to be submitted to the Board or. Appeals. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Gri§onis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3205: Application of JOHN C. AND FRANCES DiVELLO, by Wickham, Wickham and Bressler, P.C., Main Road, Mattituck, NY for Variances: (a) to New York Town Law, Section 280-A for approval of access over a private right-of-way known as "Meday Avenue," and (b) to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100=31, Bulk Schedule for approval of insufficient area and depth of parcels in this proposed subdivision. Location of Property: Meday Avenue and Westphalia Road, Mattituck, NY; 1921 Subdivision of "William B. Codling".Lots 1 to 7, inclusive; District 1000, Section 113, Block 9, LQ~S 8'and 15, containing 4.38± acres. Following-deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 7, 1985, Sou{hold Town Board of Appeals -9- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting concerning the Matter of JOHN C. AND FRANCES DiVELLO under Appeal No. 3205; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation entered into the record during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, by letter received January 25, 1985 from the applicants~ attorney, the applicants decided to proceed with this proposal without the request for the relocation of the right-of-way over "Lot No. 1"; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, as well as its surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question ii located in an "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District, is situate along the northerly side of Westphalia Road and easterly side of a private right-of-way known and referred to as "Meday Avenue," and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 113, Block 9, Lots 8 and 15; 2. The subject premises as a whole contains 4.38± acres, and involves lots from a 1921 subdivision plan known as "Map of Property of William B. Codling, filed Map No. 745,2' Lots No. 1 to 7, inclusive; 3. Applicants are proposing four lots as follows: (a) Lot 1 of 40,000 sq. ft. and 260' frontage along Westphalia Road; (b) Lot 2 of 40,075 sq. ft. with 95.55 frontage.along Westphalia Road; (c) Lot 3 of 40,000 sq. ft. with 20' frontage along Meday Avenue; (d) Lot 4 of 71,000 sq. ft. with 125± ft. frontage long Meday Avenue; 4. Existing on proposed Lot 4 is a one-family dwelli'ng and on proposed Lot 3 is a frame garage-storage building; 5. Also requested by this application is approval of access over "Meday Avenue" where it commences at a point along the northerly side of Westphalia'Road and extending in a northerly direction along the preml~ses in question 425± feet; 6. Road Report #431 from the town road engineer indicates as follows: The first 150 feet has a stable roadway, 15± feet in width, with a few depressions and is presently used for access to two houses on the west side of Meday Avenue. Also listed in this report are recommendations for improvements, which the board is in full agreement -~with. In considering this application, the board determines that the relief requested be conditionally granted since: (a) more than 50% of the lots in the immediate area are of a size similar or smaller than that proposed by this application; (b) no substantial detriment will be caused to adjoining properties or to the character of this area; (c) the circumstances are unique since the property was a previously filed subdivision map with lots substantially smaller; Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -10- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3205 - JOHN ~AND FRANCES DiVELLO, continued:) (d) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served, as noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3205 in the Matter of JOHN C. AND FRANCES DiVELLO, be and hereby is approved, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the right-of-way be improved a full 15 ft. width as follows: (a) Remove trees where access road makes right angle turn into property, (b) Widen road at the right-angle turn to 15 feet and do necessary grading to meet existing property elevation; (c) Grade sides for width where higher than road; (d) Place a six-inch course of sand and gravel bankrun; (e) Place .a two-inch (2") top course of 3/4-inch stone blend on the bankrun; (f) To make access road took uniform, place thin layer of stone blend on the first 150 ft. of length of right-of-way; (g) Final acceptance of improvements to be made by the Board of Appeals, or, if made by the Building Inspector, a copy of his written report and acceptance to be submitted to the Board of Appeals. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Sawicki, Doyen and Grigonis. (Member Goehringer abstained from vote.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3205: Application of JOHN C. AND FRANCES DiVELLO, by Wickham, Wickham and Bressler, P.C., Main Road, Mattituck, NY for Variances: (a) to New York Town Law, Section 280-A for approval of access over a private right-of-way known as "Meday Avenue," and (b) to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule for approval of insufficient area and depth of parcels in this proposed subdivision. Location of Property: Meday Avenue and Westphalia Road, Mattituck, NY; 1921 Subdivision of "William B. Codling" Lots 1 to 7, inclusive; District 1000, Section 113, Block 9, Lots 8 and 15, containing 4.38± acres. Following deliberations, the board ~ook the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 7, 1985, concerning the Matter of JOHN C. AND FRANCES DiVECLO under Appeal No. 3294; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation entered into the record during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, by letter received January 25, 1985 from the applicants attorney, the applicants decided to proceed with this proposal without the request for the relocation of the right-of-way over "Lot No. 1"; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, as well as its surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is~located in an "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District, is situate along the northerly side of Westphalia Road and easterly side of a private right-of-way known and referred to as "Meday Avenue," and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 113, Block 9, Lots 8 and 15; 2. The subject premises as a whole contains 4.38± acres, and involves lots from a 1921 subdivision plan known as "Map of Property of William B. Codling, filed Map No. 745," Lots No. 1 to 7, ~nclusive; 3. Applicants are proposing four lots as follows: (a) Lot 1 of 40,000 sq. ft. and 260' frontage along Westphalia Road; (b) Lot 2 of 40,075 sq. ft. with 95.55 frontage .along Westphalia Road; (c) Lot 3 of 40,000 sq. ft. with 20' frontage along Meday Avenue; (d) Lot 4 of 71,000 sq. ft. with 125± ft. frontage long Meday Avenue; 4. Existing on proposed Lot 4 is a one-family dwelling and on proposed Lot 3 is a frame garage-storage building; 5. Also requested by this application is approval of access over Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3205 JOHN C.' AND FRANCES Di'~ELLO, continued:) "Meday Avenue" where it commences at a point along the northerly side of Westphalia Road and extending in a northerly direction along the premises in question 425± feet~ 6. Road Report #431 from the town road engineer indicates as follows: The first 150 feet has a stable roadway, 15± feet in width, with a few depressions and is presently used for access to two houses on the west side of Meday Avenue~ Also listed in this report are recommendations for improvements, which the board is in full agreement with. In considering this application, the board determines that the relief requested be conditionally granted since: (a) more than 50% of the lots in the immediate area are of a size similar or smaller than that proposed by this application; (b) no substantial detriment will be caused to adjoining properties or to the character of this area; (c) the circumstances are unique since the property was a previously filed subdivision map with lots substantially smaller; (d) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served, as noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3205 in the Matter of JOHN C. AND FRANCES DiVELLO, be and hereby is approved, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Meday Ave. right-of-way be improved a full 15 ft. width as follows: (a) Remove trees where access road make~ right angle turn into property; (b) Widen road at the right-angle turn to 15 feet and do necessary grading to meet existing property elevation~ (c) Grade sides for width where higher than road; (d) Place a six-inch course of sand and gravel bankrun; (e) Place a two-inch (2") top course of 3/4-inch stone blend on the bankrun; (f) To make access road look uniform, place thin layer of ~tone blend on the first 150 ft. of length of right-of-way~ (g) Final acceptance of improvements to be made by the Board of Appeals, or, if made by the Building Inspector, a copy of his written report and acceptance to be submitted to the Board of Appeals. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Sawicki~ Doyen and Grigonis. (Member Goehringer abstained from vote.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3324: Upon application for LYNN SCIORA, by G. Strang, Box 1412, Southold, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B) for permission to reinstate business as a delicatessen to include on-site eating and drinking services in this "C-Light Industrial" Zoning District known as 67680 Main Road (a/k/a 180 Kerwin Boulevard), Greenport, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 53, Block 02, Lot 21. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 28, 1985, in the Matter of Appeal No. 3324, for LYNN SCIORA: and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documenta- tion entered into the record during the public hearing and since the filing of this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, as well as its surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is zoned "C-Light Industrial" and contains an area of 12,500 sq. ft., with 100' frontage along the south side of the Main Road and 125' frontage along the west side of Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport, as shown on site plan dated 12/18/84 prepared by the office of Garrett A. Strang, architect; 2. Existing on the subject premises is a 2,950± Sq. ft. building set back approximately three feet from the Main Road and from the westerly property line, and set back approximately 38 feet from the most southerly (rear) property line; 3. Applicant is proposing by this application to construct a bathroom addition of a size 10' by 21', leaving a frontyard setback from Kerwin Boulevard at 51± feet, which appears to be compliance with all other zoning requirements for this zoning district; 4. Article VIII, Section 100-80(B)[13] permits eating and drinking establishments by special exception by the Board of Appeals, as provided by the Bulk Schedule, and subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board; 5. It is noted that the existing building had previously been used as a delicatessen, however, that use was discontinued for at least eight years; 6. It is also noted for the record that a previous Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -14- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3324 - L~NN SCIORA, continued:) appeal was granted under Appeal No. 2679 to Raymond and Anna Ciacia for insufficient area and width of this parcel set off from the parcel identified as 1000-53-3-23 and to relocate th~ one-family dwelling from one onto the other; In considering this application for a Special Exception use, the board determines: (1) that the use will not p~event the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent propertie~ or of properties in adjacent use districts; (2) that the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the town will not be adversely affected by the property use and its location; (3) that the use is in harmony with and will promote the general purposes and intent of zoning since it is a permitted use. In passing upon this application, the board has also considered items (a) through (1) of Article XII, Section 100r121(C)[2] of the Zoning Code. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that a Special Exception for permission to reinstate business as a delicatessen to include on-site eating and drinking services in this "C-Light Industrial" Zoning District, BE AND HEREBY IS GRANTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. Planning Board approvals as required by Sections 100-134 and 100-112 of the Code of the Town of Southold; 2. Referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter. Location of Property: South Side of Main Road (#67680), (a/k/a 180 Kerwin Boulevard), Greenport, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 53, Block 02~ Lot 21. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members. Southold Town Board of Appeals -15-March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: App'eal No. 3319: Application of ANDREAS PALIOURAS~ 37-17 20th Road, Astoria, NY 11105, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section lO0-118(D) for permission to reinstate and restore dwelling structure to its original condition as a one-family residence located at 32570 C.R. 48, Peconic, NY; District 1000, Section 74, Block 04, Lot 009. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 7, 1985, in the Matter of Appeal No. 3319, for ANDREAS PALIOURAS; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documenta- tion entered into the record during the public hearing and since the filing of this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, as well as its surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is zoned "A'~ Residential and Agricultural, and abutting the premises on the west side is a private road referred to as "Paul's Lane," to the west of "Paul's Lane" are premises zoned "B-I" General Business, and the east of the subject parcel are premises zoned "C-Light" Industrial and premises zoned "A" Residential and Agricultural; 2. The subject premises is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 74, Block 04, Lot 009, and contains a total area of 1.196 acres as shown on survey of November 10, 1982, prepared for the applicant by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C.; 3. The premises fronts along the County Highway 48 at a length of 112.66 feet, and is improved with three structures, one presently a two-story, one-family dwelling, one a small storage shed, and the other is the subject building which is in delapidated and unlivable condition; 4. Applicant is proposing by this application to restore the most southerly building presently in extremely poor condition to its original condition an2 as a one-family dwelling; 5. The December 17, 1984 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector indicates a variance is required pursuant to Article XI, Section lO0-118(D) of the Zoning Code before the - structure could be used "again as a dwelling with an existing one-family dwelling in use on premises." ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -16- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3319 ' ANDREAS_PAI'Z~URAS., continued:) 6. Article XI, Section lO0-118(D) states that "whenever a nonconforming use of a building or premises has been discontinued for a period of more than two years..., the nonconforming use of such building or premises shall no longer be permitted unless a variance therefor shall have been granted by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provided .... " 7. Section 100-118, Subsection (E) states that "a noncon- forming building may not be reconstructed or structurally altered during its life to an extent exceeding in aggregate cost 50% of the fair value of the building .... " 8. Upon inspection of the building in question, the board found that approximately 85% of the structure needed to be re-built, and to the board's recollection, the structure had not been lived in as a one-family dwelling for at least 30 years; 9. No evidence has been submitted for the record which would prove its valid nonconformity in existence either prior to 1957 or since 1957. 10. It is also noted for the record that it has been found that plumbing facilities and utilities have not been operable for many years, and that recently the roof had been repaired, a new cesspool installed, minor structural repairs done; there are no kitchen or bathroom facilities, finished walls or floors, no windows~ etc. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) there is insufficient evidence in support of the granting of the relief requested; (b) the alterations and reconstruction necessary in order to restore this structure for one-family residency substantially exceeds 50% of the fair market value of the building; (c) the nonconforming use of this structure which may have existed prior to 1957 has been discontinued; (d) the granting of this variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood since more than one dwelling on a parcel is not common; (e) the parcel in question is less than two acres and substandard in size; (f) that the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances; (g) that the interests of justice will not be served by allowing the relief requested. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3319 in the Matter of the Application of ANDREAS PALIOURAS to restore structure for use as a second, one-family dwelling on this 1.196 Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3319 - ANDREAS PALIOURAS, continued:) acres, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Gri§onis~ Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3333: Application of HELYNN D. KAPP, 238 South Water Street, Green- wich, CT 06830, for a VarTance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule for perm'ission to construct new one-family dwelling with insufficient sideyard setbacks and in excess of the maximum-permitted 20% lot coverage requirement~ at premises known as 1305 Third Street, New_Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 1'17, Block 07, Lot ll. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 28, 1985, in the Matter of. Appeal No. 3333 for HELYNN D. KAPP; and WHEREAS, the board has considered ail testimony and documentatio~ entered into the record during the public hearing and since the filing of this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, as well as its surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is zoned "A" Residential and Agricultural and is situated at the West Side of Third Street, more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 117, Block 07, Lot ll; 2. ~'The subject premises contains an area of 5,317 sq. ft. with 52.50' frontage along Third Street and at the present time is vacant; 3. Prior to 1968, a one-family dwelling existed on this parcel, and the applicant is desirous of replacing the dwelling together with three-foot wide extensions at each side which will leave sideyard setbacks of seven feet from the northerly side and 12.5 feet from the southerly side, and total sideyards 19.5 feet° Soutbold Town Board of Appeals -18= March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3333 HELEN D. KAPP, continued:) 4. The foundation is planned at a width of 27 feet by 36 feet deep, and this is planned a one-story structure. 5. For the record it is noted that the dwelling will be in conformity with the neighboring parcels which have a 16 foot frontyard setback, and approval has been received under No. 14-S0-121 from the Suffolk County Department of Health Ser- vices. 6. Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule requires minimum sideyards in this "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District at 10 and 15, with a total of 25. In considering this application, the board determines that relief be granted for 10 and 12.5 sideyards since: (a) the three-foot extensions on each side can be reduced allowing proper accessibility for emergency vehicles in the event of an emergency; (b) the relief as granted is not substanti'al in relation to the zoning requirements; (c) the circumstances of the appeal are unique; (d) practical difficulties have been shown; (e) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to grant relief from Article III, Section 100'31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code for the construction of a new one-family dwelling applied for under Appeal No. 3333, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. There be no less than 10' and 12.5 sideyards; 2. There be no further sideyard reductions; 3, Any further construction or additions will require lot-coverage variances also pursuant to the Bulk Schedule and Article III, Section 100-31. Location of Property: 1305 Third Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-7-11. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3331: Application of SAUL MILLMAN, 435 Highwood Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30 and 100-31 for permission to establish two-family dwelling use on a parcel of land containing less than four acres in area and less than 175 feet of lot width known as 3930 Horton Lane, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District lO00, Section 54, Block 7, Lot 23.7. The public hearing was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was concluded pending deliberations. The board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 28, 1985 concerning the Matter of SAUL MILLMAN under Appeal No. 3331; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documenta- tion entered into the record during the public hearing, in behalf and in opposition to this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question as well as its surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is located in an "A-80" Resi- dential and Agricultural Zoning District, is situated along the west side of Horton's Lanes Southold with a frontage254.83, and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 10002 Section 54, Block 07, Lot 23.7. 2. The subject premises contains as a whole 2.98 acres, or 129,809 sq. ft. in area and is improved with a 15' by 30' vacant building which was recently moved onto the subject premises from another area, set back approximately 126' from the front property line. 3. By this application, appellant requests a variance from the requirements of Article III, Section lO0-30(B)[1] and Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, of the Zoning Code, for permission to construct and establish a new two-family structure which would be located approximately 85' from the front property line along Horton Lane at its nearest point. 4. Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, of the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 160,000 sq. ft. in area and minimum lot width of 270 feet for a two-family dwelling, and Article III, Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- March 28~ 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3331 SAUL MILLMAN (variance), continued:) Section lO0-30(B)[1] authorizes by Special Exception by the Board of Appeals as...provided...subject to site plan approval...in accordance with Article XIII... 5. For the record it is noted that town records show a No. 13526Z for a proposed~ pending building permit for a new one-family dwelling and accessory structure for the subject premises, for which Health Department approval was obtained under No. 14-SD-171 on August 29, 1984. In considering this application, the board determines that the variance applied be denied since: (a) the relief requested is more than 10% of the requirements of the zoning code; (b) the granting of the requested relief would change the character of the neighborhood since there are other parcels existing in the neighbor- hood with similar circumstances; (c) the circumstances of this appeal are not unique; (d) practical difficulties have not been sufficiently shown to warrant same; (e) the interests of justice will not be served. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3331 in the Matter of SAUL'MILLMAN for a Variance from the requirements of Article III, Sections lO0-30(B)[1] and 100-31, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Gri§onis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. P.ENDING DECISION~ Appeal No. 3332~ Application of 'SAUL'MILLMAN~, 435 HighWo.od Road~ Southol~, NY for a Speci_a]_Exception_.~.t~_ t_he'Z~oning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0~30(B] fQr.Rermission to establish two]f~ami'ly].'d_~e~llin~g use ~on ~-- parcel of land of insufficient area and lot width ~nlown] as 3930 Horton Lan.~., Southold~__~N¥; County Tax Map District 1000, Section '~4, B~ock 7, Lot 2'3~7~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3332 SAUL MILLMAN (special exception), continued:)~ WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 28, 1985 concerning the Matter of SAUL MILLM~N under Appeal No. 3332; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documenta- tion entered into the record during the public hearing, in behalf of and in opposition to this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question as well as its surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is located in an "A-80" Resi- dential and Agricultural Zoning District, is situated along the ~west side of Horton's Lane, Southold with a frontage of 254.83 feet, and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 54, Block 07, Lot 23.7. 2. The subject premises contains as a whole 2.98 acres, or 129,809 sq. ft. in area as shown on survey dated July 30, 1984, and is improved with a 15' by 30' vacant building which was recently moved onto the subject premises fro'm another area, set back approximately 126 from the front property line. 3. By this application, appellant requests a special, exception under Article III, Section lO0-30(B)[l] of the Zoning Code for permission to establish a two,family dwelling use; 4. Article III, Section 100-31 of the Zoning Code requires 160,000 sq. ft. in area and minimum lot width of 270 feet for a newly established two=family use. 5. For the record it is noted that town records show a No. 13526Z for a proposed, pending bui~lding permit for a new one-family dwelling and accessory structure for the subject premises, for which Health Department approval was obtained under No, 14-S0-171 on August 29, 1984. It is the opinion of the board members that this request for a special exceotion must be denied since this proposal i~~ not in accordance with the all the requirements of the zoning code, particularly the 1.ot area and width requirements, and that this board is without authority to grant legislative relief. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the request under Application No. 3332 as Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appea-~ No. 3332- SAOL '~-iLL~AN, Special Exception, continued:) applied for a special .exception in the Matter of SAUL MILLMAN for a two-family residence, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of this board held March 7, 1985~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrso Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Goehringer~ second'ed by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations for each of the following matters having "nonsignificant" adverse effects on the environment, in accordance with the N.Y.S'~ Environ- mental Quality Review Act, Local Law 44-4 of the Town Code, and Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law: APPEAL NO. 3326 - WILLIAM AND HELEN COSTER (DALCHET CORP~) (continued on page 23) Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeti S.E.Q.R~Ao NEGATIVE ENVIRON~IENTAL DECLAPJ%TION Notice of Determination of NonmSignificance APPEAL NO.: 3326 PROJECT N~E: William and Helen Coster . This notice'-~s issued ~%rsuant 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 To~m of Southotdo 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 simit~r project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [ ~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special Exception for perm~ssi0n t~ establish and build one-story bui]din§ as a f.~ner~]~ home business~ LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~Suffolk~ more particularly known as: Da]chet Corp. S/s Main.Rd: W/s Harbor La:. Cutch0gue ~1000-97-6 part 15; containing 2+ a~res in area~ REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2)The property in question is not located within 300~ of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. (3) Construction proposed is landward of existing structures. Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3320 PROJECT NAME: Bayview Development Corp./Sage This notice 'is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.YoS. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X.] Type II [ ~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:For appr0'val of insufficient area a6d 10t width of 19 proposed ]0ts in_this cluster-d~ve]0p~nt LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold," County of~Suffolk, more particularly known as: Sage Bou]eYard, Gr.ee-np0rt~ ~Y ; REASON[S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: ~ (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has ~en submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effect~ to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imp!e- mented as planned~ (2) This is a lot-line variance not directly related to new construction. (3) The Sou~hold Twon Planning has deemed itself lead agency and has coordinated reviews pursuant to SEQ~A~ . Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- Ma~ch 28, 1985 Regular Meeti S.EoQ.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECZ~.P~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3330 PROJECT N~2~E: D0minick Varano ...... 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 Southoldo This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the envirornuent for the r---~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X.] ~tpe II [ ] Unlisted [ ~ DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: varianc'e f~ bulk s~hedu]e for ap'~r0va] of insufficient are of proposed Lot #3 at premises LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk~ more particularly known as: 6750 Indi.an NEck .Rd.. PEcon~c, NY ~1000~86-07-044 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 envirorn~ent are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Relief ~equested is not directly related to new construction. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- March 28, t985 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.RoA. NEGATIV~ ENVIRONF~NTAL DECLAPJkTION Notice of Determination of Non=Significance APPEAL NO.: 3334 PROJECT NA/~E: Harold Carr ..... This notice is issued pursuan~ 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 envirorn~ent 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: [ ,] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: var~ance-f0r permission to construct deck addition with an insufficient'. setback. LOCATION OF PRO.CT: Town of Southold~ County of~ Suffolk~ more particularly known as:2045 Marrato0ka Rd~_ ~attituqk, NY #1000-122-02-003 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form hasbeen submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Construction proposed is landward of existing structures. (3) The relief requested is landward of existin~ setback or 10t line variance, Southotd Town Board of APpeals -27- March 28, 1985 MEeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3335 PROJECT N.~h0mas Higgins This notice is i~sued 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 To~ 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 simi!~r project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Permissi-on to construct accessory .garage in front yard area. LOC~TION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold~ County of Suffolk. ~ore particularly known as: 850 Ruch Lane S0uth0]d, NY ~1000~52-0 ~30 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 imp~e~ mented as planned; (2) Construction proposed in landward of existing structures. Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- ~qarch 28, 1985 Regular Meeti S.EoQ.R.A. NEGATI%rE ENVIRON~ENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3350 PROJECT NA/~E: Joseph Lizewski This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the NoY.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law ~44-4 of the To%rn of Southoldo This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environr~ent 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: DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance to constru-Ct building for private membership with an insufficient setback from the ea'ster']y property line LOCATION OF PROJECT': Town of Southoidt County of, Suffolk, more particularly known as: N/s Main Rd. and_ ~/s Depot Lane Cutch0gue #1000-102-G2=12.1 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETE~MINATION: (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 relief requested is a setback or ]0t line variance The property ~n question is not located within 3Q0' of tidal wet]ands or other environmental area. Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- March 28, 1985 Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONmeNTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: #3323 PROJECT NA/~E: Col gate Design C0rp~ ~ .... This noti6~ '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 To?ma of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the envirornnent for the ~easons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or simil~ project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance. for permissJ0n to construct accessory building within the westerly sideyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 7-11 Store., North Side of MAin Rd. Cutch0gue, NY .#1000-102-.05~24 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form hasbeen submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as ~!lanned; (2) /he property in question is not located ~ihin 300'-of tidal wetlands or other critical area. Sou{hold Town Board of Appelas -30~ March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting S.E~Q.R.A. NEGATI%rE ENVIRONF~NTAL DECLAPJ%TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3327 PROJECT NAMe: Emilia T. Pike 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 simil~ project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for approval of insufficient area of proposed Parcels 1 & 2 and insufficient ]0t width of Parcel LOCATION OF PROJECT: Tom of Southold, County of~Suffolk, more particularly known as: North Side Main Rd.. _Matt. ~1000-140-03~26 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETER~4INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short for~ hasbeen submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The property in question is not located within 300' of tidal ~etlands or other critical envi'ronmental area. -31- SoQthold Town Board of Appeals March 28, 1985 Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRON~LENTAL DECLAILATiON Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: #3328 & #3329 PROJECT NAME: Briden Machine Corp. 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 slg~ifi- cann adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or simil~r project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II k~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special Exception to establish machine shop, with insufficient side and rear yard setbacks. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffotk~ more particularly known as: 555 Westphalia Ave. Mattituck, NY County Map #1000-141-03-35 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATiON: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The property in question is not located within 300' of tidal wet]ands or other critical environmental area. Sou£hold Town Board of Appeals -32- March 28, 1985 Regular Meeting (EnvirOnmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass .and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. There being no other business properly coming before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the_meeting adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 Respectfully submitted, Llnoa . ~,owa/sK1, ~ C y Southold Town Board of Appeals T!.~-E SOUi'HOLD TO¥11~ CLE~2~ HOUR To~ Clerk, Town of Seuthoi8 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION OF HEARINGS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ThursdaY~ March 28, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3295 At 7:25 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of the FLEETS NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION and WILLIAM NICOL, to appeal New York Town Law, including ~2-~A to cancel, revoke and nullify building permit issued to 1000 East Road Cutchogue, New York. ' The Chairman read the legal notzce of the hearing in its entirety and appeal application,-for the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. NowaChek, is there anything that you would like to add to the hearing? MR. NOWACHEK: Members of the Board, on behalf of FNPOA, I just want to. mention the fact, whi'ch is probably common knowledge at this point, that the DEC apparently held a hearing or a conference this morning on the violations they charged the applicant with, who is engaged in the construction of the dwelling at Fleets Neck. I am not going to go into any of the merits of the disposition that occurred there this morning, but I do want to say that somehow a commentary was made tha~ notwithstanding what the procedure was there this morning and the result of the disposition, they were sort of amazed at the fact that the Town people were invited by subpoena to bring certain records and documentation, which they say "was an invitation but nobody appeared" The reason, I understand, for the subpoena was to probably help them make a determination as to the substance of some of the violations. That being put aside, the ma]or issue that was raised at the hearing was the question of access to that property. The applicant has misstated to the Board here contends that he has access over Town-owned property from the foot or terminus of East Road and it is that portion that is extending about 50 to 65' in an easterly sort-of direction with a width of about 30' that he leveled; that he graded; that he filled with crushed stone to make it a private driveway to utilize~for his trucks, vehicles, manpower, equipment to get to the job site on September 29th, 1984 to do his work. That is after removing the barricade. It is the position of the applicant that he had the full right, authority, consent of the Town Board and Superintendent of Highways Into the record was placed a letter from the Town Clerk directed to Southold Board of Trustees, dated June 6, 1983, which read "... that the Southold Town Board discussed the Gustave Wade matter in exe- cutive session on May 24, 1983 and it was the determination of-the Board that the Town Highway known as East Road, from the guardrail easterly to the high water mark into fcrmer Eugene's Creek is deemed to be a public highway and upon examination of all the facts, it has been determined not to have been abandoned." ZBA March 28, 1985 Page Two FNPOA and WILLI~AM NIC_~L Hearing - Continued MR. NOWACHEK: Continued...Subsequent to that letter, they relied on a letter dated June 14~ 1983, of which I got a copy, on the stationery of thw Public Works Department of the Town of Southold, signed by Raymond C. Dean as Superintendent of Highways, directed to the same Southold Board of Trustees reading as follows " .... the Southold Town Board discussed the Gustave Wade matter in executive session on May 24, 1983 and it was a determination of the Board that the highway known, (and he quotes what the Town Board decided in that previous letter read)7 Then the letter continues "....therefore the undersigned as Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Southold does hereby grant to Gustave Wade, permission to construct a driveway at his own cost and expense from the existing guardrail on East Road to its terminus at the ordinary high'~water mark of former Eugene's3Creek. Specifications and approval thereof shall be subject to the final approval of the Superintendent of Highways. There would be no objection to installing the water or electric services underground the length of. the driveway, from a telephone pole adjacent to the guardr~il, down to the highwater mark at Eugene's Creek on the south edge of the driveway." Gentlemen, issue was raised before the DEC today as to whether there was access and this is what they relied upon that the applicant has access to his property, having erected an~ constructed a road on taxpayers' land without authority. I submit to the Board to submit it to the Town Trustees that it should be checked in the Highway Law as to whether the Superintendent of Highways, Mr. Dean, was without the scope of his authority to make such a letter and give such authorization. It is my understanding under the Highway Law, that the elected official maintains those highways, but he creates none and he gives nobody jurisdiction to create their own. Gentlemen, if every taxpayer took down every barricade at the terminus of a public road and decided to make his own, I don't think you would have any public property left. Point Number 2, if in fact that Town road is on Town property as it is today, it constitutes in my opinion, a violation of the DEC law. It is within the setback in the marshlands and the water of actual vegetation. You would have' required if the Town itself had wanted to construct that road, that DEC approval be gotten, or you would have to file some statement that there would be no adverse impact to the marshlands and water. That issue was raised before the DEC today, but they said it is not on Mr. Wade's property, it is on Town property and the Town maybe should take judicial notice that individual,they are violating State law as to the permission that they gave an ZBA March 28, 1985 Page Three FNPOA and WILLIAM NICOL Hearing Continued MR. NOWACHEK - Continued: .... Gentlemen, I have a little deck around my house and there is a creek across the street and I had to come here before your Board to get a variance and I had to file that putting up that little piece of deck wouldn't be in violation of any Environmental Conservation laws. But your Superintende~t~of Highways, whose authority is challenged as to whether he has a right to do that~ permits somebody to remove the barricade, to put down a road and then not be held responsible for violating. It was my understanding at the last hearing that there was documentation within the file of the Building Department that notwithstanding that he had no~access from any public highway, it was enough that he had access by water. That was the determination of your Building Department. I understand now there is a two-page letter within your files, addressed to your Board, where the Building InspeCtor now says that question of access by water becomes academic because, in fact, ak that time, there was no DEC permit. Gentlemen, without go'ing into the merits of the DEC matter, and its disposition, it suffices to say that the DEC made this particular point on this date in time, is not in valid existence. Until such time when your department obtains documentation and proof there is in fact a-valid permit zssued to the applicant by the DEC, then you can consider an applicating for permitting him to have a building permit. At this date and time, no such valid permit exists. And there is a question of 280A of the Highway Law, as to access. And I mentioned the other factors, which the DEC may be interested in as far as the picking up of that road and restoring that to its orzginal condition. In view of that the FNPOA, stands firm in its prayer or request that the permit be revoked until such time as all underlying permits required, shall be furnished. MR. CHAIRMAN: heard? Thank you sir. Mr. Cron, would you like to be MR. CRON: know. Well, there may be others who wish to be heard, I don't MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, okay, is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of the FNPOA? Would you kindly state your name? MS. VANDERBECK: Barbara Vanderbeck. I cannot understand how the Building Department can issue a permit when there are wetlands and a beach right nearby and I don~[t know whether they are considering the sewage. This is one problem that I think the beach owners and anyone around in the vicinity is concerned with. I don't know whether you have looked at the property. I know that there has been talk that the DEC would approve it from Albany sight unseen. This seems wrong. I would like to see our Town get on this, look at it and really see where this cesspools are going to be. You certainly cannot issue a building permit without cesspools and all the rest of it. That's all I have to say on that. ZBA March 28, 1985 Page Four FNPOA and WILLIAM NI~C~L~ Hearing Continued MR. CHAIRMAN: To answer your question, we have all been down there numerable times. MS. VANDERBECK: That's fine. I also want to state that in March of this year, that property was completely underwater, every bit of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: please. Thank you. Is there anybody else? State your name BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ: My name is Benjamin Schwartz and I live adjacent to the property. However, I will do my best here to represent not my own interest but the interest of Southold Town, of which I am a resident. I would like to charge Southold Town with the respon- sibility of assumi~ the status of lead agency. There zs an act called SEQRA which stands for State Environmental Quality Review Act which states that in a case like this one agency must take the lead and be responsible. I spent most of this morning 4 or 5 hours at a DEC hearing on the Violations, with respect to the DEC permit which was issued. That permit was issued by a judge in Albany, who had never been to the site and knows nothing of this area. There are some very important considerations, which have not even been brought out with regard to this case in terms of the esthetic quality, which may or may not hold up in a Court of Law, but which is very important to us. The visual pollution of when that house is built. I will try not to get into the emotional side of this. But even staying in 1.egal and rational ground, which I feel are very strong in this case, I feel that the permit that the State originally granted, should be illegal and susceptible to, if anybody wished, to pay for the lawyer to call them on a 78, WhiCh questions the validity of their decision in granting that permit. I think that permit couldn't hold up on health grounds, of the sewage. Also, there is a question of access to th'e property or fresh water. I know of several lies and misrepresentations by Mr. Wade in attempts. Well, it's a fact that after meeting today, the DEC. meeting, also once before, in front of the property on the end of the road there, Mr. Wade got extremely agitated and accused me of trying to interfere with his personal rights; threatened me and all of you to ruin Southotd Town. And then at the meeting again, he stated explicitly in exactly these words "...I will ruin your neighborhood".. This was in response to if we don't issue him a permit or let him build his house. His house, the question of ownership and the concept of property ownership in today's world is undergoing vast ghanges. There is a move away from the rights of ownership to the respon- sibility of ownership from the idea of a lord and god who owns sole rights and can do anything they want as an individual on that property to the idea of a steward, who is entrusted with the property, if he takes care of that and preserves that. That land Will be there in one st~e or another and it is not only the owner who is going to be on that land or be affected by what goes on that land, but ZBA March 28, 1985 Page Five FNPOA and WILL~IAM NICOL Hearinq - Continued MR. SCHWARTZ: Continued ...ali of us also, and all of the wildlife who I am sorry can't be here tonight. I do feel that the wildlife both animals and plants and this morning at 5:00 a.m., when I was on the beach on Wade's property, I heard calls from over the water and from the property of 15 to 20 different kinds of birds. The roadway which was actually started by Glover. I am not sure whether everyone as familiar With the fact that this case began 15 years ago, with a highly questionable decision deeding the property in question to Glover, Leander Glover, who then sold it to Mr. Wade less than a year ago. Not only did Mr. Wade s~y he was going to ruin our neighborhood, he also. offered to sell me that property. Very reasonabl at a mere 600% increase over what he paid fOr it a year ago. I know inlfation is bad in this country, but that's a little scary to me. I know property values are rising, but 600% in one year? I would like to talk all night, I feel there is a lot more to be said. I feel if I could represent the fact that the DEC hearing today they were under the impression they were really not interested in anything and the Judge who presided at the hearing where the settlement was read and taken down for the record, told me explicitly on the record, that he is not, he does not believe it is his lob to go out and find out the information and he admitted that he hasn't been to the site and doesn't care to go to the site. Ail he will do is represent the people who will come to him and he feels that Southold Town has non presented a strong enough case and Gustave Wade is there asking for what he wants so the DEC is only interested in the parties that represent themselves. I feel that we should be the lead agency because I feel that Gustave Wade is not interested in our Town or our community. He is interested in one thing as far as I can tell and that's money. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schwa'rtz, before you sit down. Mr. Nowachek, did you inform this gentlemen what the purpose of this hearing was? Is he aware... MR. NOWACHEK: To grant or not grant a building permit. MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually, we are talking in this hearing about legal access. Maybe you might want to talk to Mr. Schwartz so he is aware of exactly what the purpose of the entire filing of this application was, so that if he understands in his mind that we don't deal with this process in this particular case, the lead agency basis, etc. I would hate for him to go away not totally informed. MR. NOWACHEK. I will gladly do that for you. MR. CHAIRMAN: What I will do is I will ask anybody else if they would like to speak. I will ask Mr. Cron to speak and then we will caucus for abOut five minutes. You can discuss it with him. If he has any other questions...were you at the last hearing? Mr. Nowachek will inform you of it so that if you have any other questions. The SEQRA process is a very involved process. We don't normally deal with that in this particular area. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf? ZBA March 28, 1985 Page Six FNPOA and WILLI.AM__ _. ~ICOL Hearing - COntinued P. LOMBARDI: My name is Phyliss Lombardi and I had not planned to speak. My husband and I are not yetr~residents of Southold Town. We just completed building a small home ~on Fleets Neck, but I was delighted to see that so many people here taking a sincere interest in the value of the land and the area. The concern is somethfng that .is just real good and I hope that you consider this with the integrity and intelligence that we hope to find in this Board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else? Yes sir. G. SCHNEIDER: I live on Eastwood Drive in Fleets Neck. When I moved to Southold Town to build a home about eight years ago, I contacted several builders. They indicated that they would not build in Southold Town because of the restrictions, which you people and your predecessors had placed, which I consider to be a real compliment. Based on that, my wife and I decided that this was the type of area we would like to move to and raise our children. I will give you that compliment, and I would also like to ask that what is good for the majority is a solid consideration. That's why we are here, that's why you are here. I thank you for the job you do and I would just to once again say that on behalf of the people of Southold Town, if you can continue that direction, that's the direction we want to go. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Cron. Anyone else before we go to the opposition? MR. CRON: If it pleases the Board, I think what we have heard from all of the preceding speakers is a great number of issues, that perhaps at some other other forum or some other time might be ap- proriate. They surely are not appropriate to the applieation that is presently before the Board by the Fleets Neck Property Owners Associatzon. Much of what has been said is something that occurred Subsequent to the application Of FNPOA. I think the only issue that this Board has to consider and all of these others are not pertinent to the question and that is did the Building Inspector properly issue a building permit to Mr. Wade to construct a resi- dential dwelling on his Premises? Now, the application of the FNPOA is to revoke that permit which was issued by the building department. That's the only issue. Do they have a right and have they presented the necessary evidence that would warrant a revocation of the building permit by the Building Inspector. Now, the DEC matters, they are all matters of interest. All of the matters pertaining to the Superintendent of Highways; matters pertaining to the Town Board etc. All of these things are of interest. It is not important for the purpose of your application as to what Mr. Wade thinks or thought~ his access might be. That is not the issue. The issue is what was the basis of the Building Inspector to issue the building permit. ZBA March 28, 1985 Page Seven FNPOA and WILLIAM NICOL Hearing - Continued MR. CRON - Continued ...Now, 'the Building Inspector has gotten up at the prior hearing and he has submitted a letter to your Board and he has given the Board the necessary evidence to indicate why he issued a building permit. Now, there is a presumption that a public official will do his duties properly unless that is properly rebutted. But, I think you have got to start with the presumption that Mr. Lessard acted properly in issuing a building permit. He formulated, on the basis of issuing a buildingpermit, a different method of access and the method he used, was perfectly legal in terms of issuing the building permit. He determined that access existed to that property on the basis of it being an island and he didn't care whether there was a road filled in by the Town or by the County or by Mr. Wade"s predecessor in title. That was not the basis for issuing a building permit. He had an absolute legal right to make a determination that there was access to that property even if the access was by water. Now, in addition to that he made absolutely certain that all necessary permits had been is- sued as a basis of issuing a building permit. He determined that there was a DEC permit, a valid, legal, existing DEC permit. He likewise determined that there was a valid, legal, existing Health Department permit. He had e~erything necessary in front of him to make a determination that a building permit could be issued on the basis of the plans, etc., submitted by Mr. Wade. And he did so. That's the only issue. If it is established that the Building Inspector did not do that which was valid, then a basis exists for the revocation of the building permit. Frankly, I have heard no such evidence of that. To the contrary, the only legal and valid evidence I have seen submitted is that from the Building Inspector, which says I was perfectly right in issuing the building permit. Everybody speaks about let's do something right or the majority. You know, it's the law that's the majority. Not people. We are a nation of laws and we must follow the laws. We are not able to follow the dictates of a vast majority who may be wrong. We live by the law and everything that was done by Mr. Wade in getting his building permit was done by the law. All these other issues are really of no importance. But for the record, Mr. ~ade did appear at the DEC hearing today and it is my understanding, I was not there, that if he clears the matters that he was alleged to have comitted in violation of the DEC permit, .he will be issued or re- instated a what was once a suspended DEC permit, it will be rein- stated. There was never any clear revocation of his permit to be- gin with. Thank you. ZBA March 2.8, 1985 Page 8 FNPOA and_WILLIAM NICOL Hearing - Continued MR. NOWACHEK: I would like to retort to that, Mr. Chairman. My dear brother Cron says to the Board here .... MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, please refer to Mr. Cron as .... MR. NOWACHEK: He is my colleague. He doesn't object to that, I am sure. He' tells the members of the Board here that he upholds the Building Inspector in saying that there was access by water. Mr. Gus Wade, to .the DEC, says I have access by road, but he says that to another attorney and he produced these two letters that said he had access based on this road that he had a right to create by extending East Road. So, gentlemen, he tells you one thing and he tells the DEC something else. But you know what is very puzzling, he doesn't do either. When he started building on September 29th, he didn't get there by water. Your building inspector knows that. He got there and he saw him build a piece of highway for himself, which is tantamoun5 to a violation of the DEC law, because there was no consent or permit' for the Town or anybody to construct a roadway within the perameter or within the proximity of the wetlands. When you look at your files, gentlemen, I have seen the letter of your Building Inspector who says now the situation is basically moot. Mr. Cron refers to producing evidence that he didn't have access or your Building Inspector could not issue a permit on the basis that he found access by water. Gentlemen, if I may say, if you have a Town attorney, that every public official who enforces the law, is presumed qualified and knowledgeable in all areas to either make a legal determination that water access is access under the Town law, without consulting the Town attorney. I don't know why we have one; why we pay him a salary. Here we have a Town Board that on the basis of the Town attorney says that East Road will continue as a highway under the law. There at least your Superintendent of Highways had something to pin his. hat on and say sure, private citizen. Go ahead,' they say it could be a public highway, you take the rest of it. But here you have a building inspector who says you have access by water. Where? He has to prove that to you gentlemen. He has to substantiate to you on what basis he found that access by water under the law was enough and justify why he issued the permit. We don't have to do that. Now Mr. Cron wasn't at the DEC hearing today. I didn't go into the merits but I think that FNPGA will deal with that deter- mination of the DEC. I don't want to come before this Board and tell them what the DEC said because we want to tell the Board the same thmng we tell the DEC. We think the applicant should do that too. I am glad you told them that, M~. Cron, I just want to say that before the DEC he said he had access, not by water, but because of that road, which I requested should also be removed, excess dirt and the pilings and everything else for him to get his permit re- stored. Those are the conditions, since he went into the merits. He has to restore it to be in compliance to what the original permit was issued for and if he doesn't do that, there is no regular permit, and there is none now. ZBA March 28, 1985 Page 9 FNPOA and WILLIAM NICOL Hearing - Continued MR. NOWACHEK: Continued -...I raise the question if he will remove that road also because he put a lot of shredded stone there and it is going to be lousy for those people who are going to walk to the beach over that barricade. It might be hazardous and be a liability to the Town, not to the applicant. So, I said to the DEC, get him to remove that. They said, no, no, that~the Town's problem, let them do something about it. MR. CRON: I really don't have any objection if he were to use the term dear colleague, so long as he doesn't spell it with two "e"s. What Mr. Nowachek has overloOked, and I thought I made it clear that it was, the issue here was 'the basis for the building permit and the Building Inspector made his determination that access existed though it be by water. That was all that was necessary to issue the permit. I n~ver said, nor do I now imply, in fact I expressly state otherwise, it has always been Mr. Wade's claim that he has access over the road. It is still our claim and will continue to be our claim that we do in fact have access ~over the road, as well as by water. For us to have access over the road, whether we are right or wrong, is not the issue. The issue is what was the basis for the Building Inspector to issue his permit, forming a basis for access that he believed. Let's clear the record. Mr. Wade does have access over the road as far as we are concernedf~and we will continue to exert that right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, at this point, I will suggest to the Board that we take approximately a five minute recess. I don't know if Mr. Schwartz is your client or what, but would you just explain to him, .or I will explain to him , but since he lives in your area down there, you could tell him. Thank you very much. I will make a motion, gentlemen, for a five minute recess. Recess for five minutes. MR. CHAIRMAN: ..... that the Town TrUstees met on March 26, 1985, and I want to inform you of this because it doesn't appear that you h~ve gotten a carbon copy of this letter. I will read the letter. It says~on March 21, 1985 the Board of Trustees personally visited the subject property located at the end of East Road, Cutchogue. kfter making an inspection of the property, it was determined by the Trustees. that no fill had been placed on Trustee land.~' So, I know you had made reference to filling and I would assume that this means that they, that there was no filling done in that particular area. MR. NOWACHEK: Mr. Chairman, the first 50 to 65' immediately east of the terminus MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe that is what they are referring to. ZBA March 28, 1985 Page 10 FNPOA and WILLIAM NICO~ ~ Hearing - Co~ntinued MR. NOWACHEK: No, they are referring to their property. When you go east from %he terminus~50 to 65' is Town property. Beyond that is Town Trustees'. We don't claim there is any fill on Town Trustees' property. The imposed roadway is on Town property. The only reason I mention that letter is that it didn't give him the right to put it on Town property. It gave him the right, if anything, to put it on Town'~TrusteeS'' But he didn't put it on Town Trustees property, he put it on the Town's property. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Schwartz¥ do you have anything that you would like to add? ' B. SCHWARTZ: Well, just about the fill. I can remember when instead of a ramp or roadway at the foot of the hill, there once was a set of stairs there. If they were there now, the bottom step would be under ten feet of fill. Actually, the filling process was begun by Glover. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else like to say anything on this side before I close the hearing? We will go over to Mr. Cron. MR. CRON: I think if I understood what Mr. Nowachek said, he was saying that the Superintendent of Highways in terms of giving Mr. Wade certain rights to construct that road and fill in that road~ gave him the right over Town Trustees' land, if I understand what he is saying. The Town of Southold is giving Mr. Wade rights over land it doesn't own. I do not think that was the case. I think the letter, if you read it, from the Superintendent of Highways, gave Mr. Wade the right to construct the existing road to the terminus of the h~gh water mark, which would probably bring it somewhere in the vicinity of Town Trustee~ land. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would anybody else like to say anything either pro or con concerning this particular application. Hearing no further comment, I will make a motion closing the hearing reservzng decision until some time in the near future. Public Hearing No. 3302 At 8:15 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of GUSTAV_ p E.J. WADE for a variance to Article XIV, Section 100-142 as utilized for an alleged violation of Section 267 of New York Town Law, for reinstatement of Building Permit #13244Z, issued for the erection of a dwelling upon premises known and referred to as 1000 East Road, Cutchogue, New York. The Chairman read the legal notice of the hearing and the appeal application for the record. ZBA March 28, 1985 Page 1.1 GUSTAVE J. WADE Hearing - Continued MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. ~Cron, I would like to ask you if you have any- thing to say on behalf of this application? MR. CRON: If it pleases the Board, I think I made my position rather clear at the preceding hearing. This solely involves not a factual question, but really a question of law. That is, did the building inspector on the date in question, have the legal and lawful right to revoke a valid building permit? And if he has that right, can he do it pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Laws, which forms a basis for staying work under a building permit, where an appeal is made to the ZBA. For a number of reasons, this cannot be done. Firstly, there was no validly existing appeal under .Section 267 of the Town Law at that time, filed with the ZBA. But, even if it were, for arguments sake, Section 267 does not give anybody including the Building Inspector, the right to revoke the building permit merely because appeal is filed. What that section permits is a stay in the performance of any work in which a building permit was issued. But to arrive even at that basis, one has to arrive at the fact that the work that you are seeking to stay is that Sepcific-work that was authorized by a building permit. You have a serious question here as to the work that MR. Wade was doing, was work that was done pursuant 5o a building permit, but rather to a DEC permit. So, there is no factual question to argue here it is strictly law and it was done illegally and unlawfully. For that reason, you have to reinstate it. MR. NOWACHEK: You know, I have to agree with Mr. Cron. Our ap- plication, which you just adjourned says you should revoke that permit beCause he had no access. Now, Mr. Cron's application on behalf of his client, is to give him back his permit. But his application does not give him back his permit because he has ac- cess, gentlemen, his application is because yQur Building Inspector went out to the job site and gave him a stop order and he said you will stop this job. He didn't say 267 , whatever that means, he didn't say I am a lawyer. What I think your Building Inspector did was go down to the job site and say"I think you are violating your underlying permits. No. 1, You gave us a permit presumably from the DEC that says you are only supposed to do a certain number of things, in accordance with that DEC permit; a certain amount of fill; bulkheading; etc., and you are doing it all wrong. You are violating your DEC permit~ Then he looked at it probably and said,~you are supposed to get in by water, look what you did, you made yourself a highway over public property, took down a barricade and you excavated, moved Soil around and you don't have permission to do this." ZBA March 28, t985 -Page 1 2 GUSTAVE J. WADE Hearing - Continued MR. NOWACHEK: Continued ..... So, your Building Inspector went to his office, I was there, and so were a lot of other people and we have photos, and he said~you must stop this job.~ Mr. Cron was there. He didn't stop the job that day, gentlemen, you know when they stopped. That was Saturday afternoon. Your Supervisor was there. They didn't stop until Monday and the DEC guys got down there and they told him~you violated~DEC permit and we are going to stop you. If you don't want to listen to the Town; they couldn't yank your permits, we will yank it.' Gentlemen, as much as he says illegal and unlawful, when your Building Inspector came out there remember Mr. Cron's comment. ~'Your public official is presumed, to do the right thing. He knows his job. He is qualified." Was he qualified when he came out Saturday afternoon and handed him an official piece of .paper with his signatume on it that said Mr'i: Gus Wade stop this job? That's not what happened, because he called Mr. Cron and he Said'we are going to continue this work' and they did, gentlemen until probably dark, until the real boys came down from the DEC on Monday morning, when he was trucking in all this excess fill spilling it all over the road on Pequash Avenue; it was raining and most of the summer people were home and then the DEC came and.they said you will stop because we are going to charge you with 5 violations and they will cost you $10,000 each and they stopped him. And it has been standing that was since that Monday, gentlemen. He has no DEC permit now, none at all. Mr. Cron was right. When he gave him the permit,they gave him all the underlying permits. The DEC, Board of Health and everything.. The moment your Building Inspector found out he violated them he yanked his. He had a right to do it. This application doesn't concern access, gentlemen, it doesn't concern 267. Your public officials can make a mistake. They can issue a permit in error. We are all fallible and make mistakes. Do lawyers have to profit by everybody's mistakes? The answer is no. Mr. Cron is trying to tell you people he lauds your inspector for doing a great job and giving a permit. On the other hand, he doesn't have the same praise for him that he was doing his job and took it a~ay. That is inconsistent and hard to believe. If he gave it to him, I presume lawfully, I have no reason to believe otherwise, gentlemen, for the reasons I stated and which you know, he took it away properly as well and that's the way it should remain. Taken away. MR. CRON: I wasn't going to argue, but I guess I am going to have to bring some in. Let me say, first of all, that there's nothing in- consistent with my position that when Mr. Lessard issued a valid building permit, that I have to carry that through when he takes action which I deem to be an unlawful revocation of that permit. ZBA March 28, 1985 Page 13 GUSTAVE~J. WADE Hearing - Continued MR. CRON: Continued ...Let me just get into some of the factual basis. At the time that M~. Wade was doing the work for which Mr. Lessard issued a revocation, and I will establish for you that it was a revocation. He was doing work that was authorized under his DEC permit, that's what he was doing. No more than ten minutes prior to Mr. Lessard issuing the stop work order and revoking his permit, I met with tWo members of the DEC, and we insisted that they fully inspect what was being done and indicate for the record, and we have a record of it, whether there was any violation of the DEC permit. They said absolutely not and they left. So at the time that Mr. Lessard came, which was only a few minutes later, there was no violation of any DEC permit; there was no violation of the Southold Town Building permit, because we weren't doing anything pursuant to the building permit; furthermore, a revocation of the building permit, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law, is il- legal and unlawful. And for that basis, I told Mr. Wade, he could continue the work because none Of this was valid and legal. Now, for the record, I w%ll submit this to you, the stop work order issued by Mr. Lessard on that date, states."...Please take notice that there exists a violation .... Town Law 267~ at premises hereinafter described in that an appeal filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals, permit #132442, is revoked .... in violation of Section 267 of the Town Law." I Will hand this to the Board in case you don't have a copy of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy. I must apologize to the public for being remiss in not asking anybody in the public before I got to the attorneys, if there is anybody who would like to speak in favor of this application other t~an Mr. Cron. Is there anybody in the public who would like to spea~ against this application, other than Mr.~NOwachek? Yes, Mr. S~hwartz. B. SCHWARTZ: First of all, I have t~ admit that I did not under- stand completely everything that Mr. Cron said and I will go to the books and study t~e legal terminology, but, I do know that as a person I. am more important than a ~aw, 'And i know that the legal system is here to serve people and wd people are not objects subject t~ the laws of the United S{ates. W~I ~ake the laws of the United States. They ar'e our laws and we fo].low them because they are our laws. So, the fact that you put law~ before people confuses me. But, at the DEC permit...hearing...n¢~t on the permit, but on the violations today, there were DEC vioJ.ations. In fact, when the building permit was issued, the building permit was issued on the grounds of access by water and for a~cernain house, with the'plans of the' house on t'ha[ basis, als0 on ~he basis of the DEC permit. However, that DEC permit was issued qn the grounds of a different house; plans for a different house, ~s well as by access from a different way. At the DEC hearing, ~he DEC agreed to reinstate ZBA March 28, 1985 Page 14 GUSTAVE J. WAD_ E Hearing - Continued B. SCHWARTZ: COntinued ..... the permit only after a fine for the violations which were denied initially and later accepted and admitted by Wade; were cleared up by action of removing the fill payment of a fine by putting things back to the original DEC permit and only if ~e was going to follow that original permit and make a small little round house, which differs in szze, con- figuration and footprint from the large, rectangular house, on which the building permit was issued. Therefore, it seems to me t'he building permit has no DEC permit to stand on. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak either for or against in this particular proceeding? Hearing no further questions, I will make a motion closing the hearing, ~eserving decision until later. Public Hearing Appeal ~3328 At 8:30 p:m a Public Hearing was held in the matter of BRIDEN MACHINE CORP., for a Special. Exception 'to establish and use industDiat'~as machine shop. "C-Light Industrial Zone, 555 Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck, New York" The Chairman read the legal notice and appeal application for the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would somebody like to be heard on behalf of this application? Sir, kindly sta~e your name. FRED BOUFARD: Briden Machine. MR. CHAIRMAN: that 5'? I am Fred Boufard, the sole stockholder of I don't have any questions that I can answer. Ame all those figures correct, Mr'. Boufard? Is MR. BOUFARD: That sounds correct, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Eight feet and 30' and 23'o.. MR. BOUFARD: I will look. at it. MR. CHAIRMAN: It looks like these two were changed. have new figures for these? Do you ZBA March 28, 1985 Page ~ 5 BRIDEN MACHINE CORP. Hearing Continued MR. BOUF~ARD: Well, what I did was shorten it up. It originally was longer and I shortened it up so those figures work. MR. CHAIRMAN: Those are the correct figures? So the 23' is from this point over? Thank you very much. Presently, you own a piece of property adjacent to this, don't you? MR. BOUFARD: Yes, that's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: And are you going to operate both parcels or will you be continuing use in one? MR. BOUFARD: No, we will be using both. MR. CHAIRMAN: What type of building will you be constructing? MR. BOUFARD: Well, I spoke to the Building Inspector relative to a steel building, which they had no objection to or a masonry. It will probably be a masonry and brick building. MR. CHAIRMAN: idea? How high would that building be, do you have any MR. BOUFARD: Approximately 20' to the bottom of the eaves. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do yon have any idea what overhang you would put on a building of that nature? MR. BOUFARD: If that. No, I would assume maybe a foot or so, that's all. MR. CHAIRMAN: I assume the building will be a slab type of building, no basement or anything? MR. BOUFARD: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: No entrances or truck ramps or anything of that nasure, other than, or anywhere around the building except that part that faces the road, or near the overhead door. I thank you very much. Is there anybody who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Against the application? MR. BOUFARD: I haVe a letter from one of my neighbors zn favor of it when I had my zoning change, from Mr. Ruland. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think we have it. MR. BOUFARD: Well, I am sure you have it on record, because I had it when I got the zoning change. ZBA March 28, 1985 Page 16 BRIDEN MACHINE CORP. Hearing - Continued MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Town Board has it. We don't. But we would appreciate your sending us a copy tomorrow, anytime before the end of next week. Thank you very much. Any questions from Board members concerning this building? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, making a decision sometime in the future. Public Hearing Appeal No. 3329 At 8:36 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of BRIDEN MACHINE CORP. for a variance to construct a machine shop building with insufficient side and rear yard setbacks, 555 West- phalia Avenue, Mattituck, New York. Tax Map 1000-141-3-35. The Chairman read the legal notice and appeal application for the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: The only concern that our Board usually has, Mr. Boufard, is that we would want to have access around the entire building. MR. BOUFARD: I think I am a little confused here. me up before. When you called MR. CHAIRMAN: That's all right, I questioned. MR. BOUFARD: I thought we were talking about the building. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it doesn't really make any difference. I could have opened both hearings at the same time, but it somesimes gets a little confusing . MR. BOUFARD: I would like to point out that when before I purchased this property I came down here to talk to the Building department relative to what I would have to do to use it as a machine shop. I was told at the time that I would have to have it rezoned, which I went through time and expense to have done, and it was written in the contract, and I assumed at that time that I had permission to operate as a machine shop, when the thing was granted. Since that time, I have said I would take out tanks and I have been through a lot of expense to take down tanks, take the underground tanks out to clean the place up considerably, and I said I would do and now with this variance I am a little confused as to why I have to do the same thing again. In other words, I assumed that I have already gotten permmssion to operate a machine shop next door, by getting the zoning change to "C". Now, I understand a sideyard variance is a different issue and that's the issue I thought we would be discussing here tonight. ZBA March 28, 1985 Page 17 BRIDEN MACHINE CORP~. Hearing - Continued MR. CHAIRMAN: To answer your question, I think that the permission you have gotten would mean you had the right to operate the machine shop in the existing building or buildings that were there on the property at the time that you purchased it. Now, since you are coming for the construction of a new building, that basically opens the variance and special exception area up again, and that's why you are here. MR. B©UFARD: Wouldn't the variance be the same if it was still a business property? In other words, I would not have had to have it rezoned. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you cannot have a machine shop in at['B-l" zone. So, in my opinion, we would have to check that/~en Zoning Code Book. I am not sure you are allowed to have a machine shop in that... MR. BOUFARD: The real issue here now is a new building with the side yard? Okay. Now what was the question? MR. CHAIRMAN: The question was we as a Board like to have access around the entire building. We have an ultimate concern, not that any of the property owners are going to change or what ever the case might be, but the most logical feeling is that a person should be allowed to work on their own building, on their own property, or should be permitted to do so without having to step on anyone else's property. With the possibility of a 20' building, a rearyard or the westerly line, a 5' access basically, or a 5' thoroughfare sideyard in this particular case, will not be deemed to be adequate, in reference to a sideyard for this particular Board, because we feel that even if you went to work on the building, regardless of the overhang, there's not proper room in there to maneuver around. So my basic question to you is, what do you feel that you could live with with reference to a sideyard setback other than a 5'? MR. BOUFARD: What do you consider to be adequate? MR. CHAIRMAN: We would have to estimate what a 20' ladder would be the arch of a 20' ladder against a building of this particular nature. Secondly, the water runoff situation, if there was any problem with the water running off the roof on to an adjoining property, with only 5' there machinery could no5 be brought in, because machinery is about 6' in width, and there has to be maneuverability here and there to place proper recharge basin or storm drain for the adequate recovery of water from a leader and gutter situation. So, what I am trying to say to you is that we would like to have some sort of access around the building and I assure you that if in years to come it will enhance the building, rather than detract from it. So, you can suggest to us what your feelings will be and we will take them into consideration, but I know that this 5' is a concern to the Board at this particular time. ZBA March 28, 1985 Page1 8 BRIDEN ~A~HINE CORP. Hearing - Continued MR. BOUFARD: Well, what wouldn't be a concern? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know, we have not talked about it. went down independently and... We all MR. BOUFARD: Have you looked at the property? MR. CHAIRMAN: I know this property extensively. I can't tell you. we will go down and measure it again and see exactly what we feel to be a minimum sideyard in that particular area. MR. BOUFARD: DO you feel that the 5' is objectionable by the LIRR also? Or just on the back area? MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you have 8' over there. You have 8' in the corner here. As long as you can get a vehicle in to come around the side of this building and go back out, that's the only ~thina we are concerned with. MR. BOUFARD: Okay, if I made it 8' or 10', would that be.. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you do this for us? Would you measure in 10' from these two lines and put a stake there? We will come down and make sure that we can make the turn. That's what we are concerned with. Is that fair enough~? I will come down next Saturday with the biggest Town cars that we have, or the Supervisor's old car, which is a 73 Ford or something of that nature and we are only concerned with this aceess and I assure you that you will see in years to come that it will enhance this building when you have to work on it. So you will do that for me? A week from this Saturday. MR. BOUFARD: I will be at the shop, you can come and I will show you where I have this stake. So you want it 10' in from both lines? MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Public Hearing Appeal No. 3333 At 8:47 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the Matter of HELYNN D. KAPP for a variance~for permission to construct a ~ew one-f~mil~ dwelling with insufficient sideyard setbacks in excess of maximum permitted 20% lot coverage, 1305 Third Street, New Suffolk, New York, Suffolk County Tax Map #1000- The Chairman read the legal notice and appeal application in their entirety for the record. ZBA March 28, 1985 Page 18 HELYNN D. K'APuP Hearing - Continued MR. CHAIRMAN: Is Mrs. Kapp here? Is there anything you would like to say concerning your application? MR. KAPP: We would like to comply with all of your zoning regu- lations and we did have a permit for the' building some years ago. W~ were unable at that time to construct the building. MR. CHAIRMAN: What are the pieces or the 4 areas that are pro- truding out on the sides? MR. KAPP: That's the overhang of the building. It's the building itself with the kitchen and bathroom are setback about 2' from the foundation. MR. CHAIRMAN: You mean cantelever? Okay. If we so grant you this application, would you ..we are concerned with access, we don't feel 7' is enough on the north side and we would the 12.5' on the south side to be totally unobstructed in perpetuity, meaning forever. What happens is on smaller pieces of property of thzs nature, people want to stretch the building as much as they possibly can and we are very concerned about access to the rear of the property. We would place a restriction on this application, if we so granted it, stating that there be no side yard reduction; no further side yard reduction. DO you have any objection to that? MR. KAPP: No, none at all, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you be living in this house year-round? MR. KAPP: Not at present. MR. CHAIRMAN: You are asking for the same frontyard setbacks that your neighbors have, 16'? I thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak ~n behalf of this application? AgainSt the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. We will have a decision as quickly as we can. Public Hearing Appeal Nc. 3324 At 8:58 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of LYNN SCIORA ~for a special exception to reinstate business as delicatessen to include on-site eating and drinking services in "C"-Light Industrial Zone, corner of Main Road and Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport, New York. The Chairman read the legal notice and appeal application for the record ZBA March 28, 1985 Page 1 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Strang~ G. STRANG: Good evening. The application as presented is relatively straightforward. There was a pre-existing deli operation in that building which was discontinued not too long ago. The owner of the bui!ding's intention was to reinstate that as well as elaborate on it a little by adding a lunch counter type arrangement. It be- came apparent that if he were to do that, he would have to make the building accessible to the handicapped, as well as provide handicap toilets, which necessitated a building permit. When application was made for the building permit, it was found that the previous use was never approved by the Town. It just happened to develop. Consequently, we had to come before the Board to make application for the special exception for this use. I would like to call to the Board's attention, if it has any bearing on the application, that the parking as shown, is not the way it will be installed as per some discussion with Planning Board. We are going to revise that and have some in front of the building in the area that shown on your map as a gravel right of way. We are going to negotiate with the State to get permission to use that area for parking, as per a recommendation of the Planning Board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to proceed with it as the plan exists now and eventually get that or what are you going to do? G. STR~NG: No, we can't as I understand it in any event.. We cannot get the building permit without two things. 1. ZBA special ex- ception and 2. Planning Board approval. We are in the process of working out the details with the State on getting either access to use that property or to purchase it, at' which time we will resubmit to the Planning Board for their approval. MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of this application other than Mr. Strang? Anybody against the application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questionsr I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Public Hearing Appeal No. 3331 At 8:59 a Public Hearing was held in the matter of SAUL MILLMA_ ~ N for a variance to establish a two-family dwelling on a parcel containing less than four ac~es and less than 175' of lot width, 3930 Horton Lane, Southold. The Chairman read the legal notice and appeal application for the record. ZBA March 28, 1985 Page 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: I have an affidavit signed by 34 adjacent property owners opposing this application. Mr. Millman, ~ould you like to be heard? SAUL MILLMAN: Well, I did not mean to offend any neighbors or break any tradition in the neighborhood. I am here to appeal for myself. The property that the house is to berbuilt on is on 2.93 acres but by builders acres, it is 3.25 acres which is 3/4 of an acre off of the amount that I would need without going for an appeal. It is not a quarter acre, it is not a half acre, it is still 3.25 acres As far as the narrow lot line, 175' being the minimum, the point where the house will' be located will be 235' to 240', which means I wouldn't be too close to any neighbor, if they were right on my lot line. As far as the size of the house, I would like to build a house more than the minimum requiremenss by the Townl. The Town requires 85'0' sq. feet per dwelling, for myself and for the children. I would really like to build smaller if we were allowed, where I would have a total of 1,500 ', 850' for myself and my wife and 650' for the children. Therefore, I am doing the house smaller than the Town would require me to build it. I would like, as I mentioned, the house would be occupied by myself and my wife and if we could make it two family, we would have the two children and whatever possibly they might increase the family by in the future, which is a small family, even combined by today's standards. I would like to give them a place they could afford with a little privacy, within the area. I know all the newspaper publicity is for affordable housing for accessory dwellings and you can't pick up a newspaper today, where you do not see some article with reference to this issue. I am just trying to use that and conform with that issue myself. I feel that I am living in today's standard, my son could use a place that is affordable, I feel combined, we could have something like that we could afford and convenient within the Town. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you sit down, Mr. Millman, what are you planning with the existing building that you have on the pre- mises? I see that you have it sitting 25' from the proposed dwelling. Are you intending to attach that to the proposed dwelling? SAUL MILLMAN: I did buy the building from the school. I did contract a mover to move it. I did also have to remove the rafters to be able to move the house under the wires. By the time I did all that, I found that the house was not really as feasible to do, as I would liked it to be. Therefore I put the house there as an accessory building or possibly, when I do get to do it, maybe I will build from that and restore that. Originally, we wanted to restore that building. That was our desire, our dream. At this point, we would have to review it ZBA March 28, 1985 Page 21 ~AU~._MILLMAN Hearing - Continued SAUL MILLMAN - Continued .... economically to see if it is worth restoring. I brought it there because I was contracted, and obli- gated. MR. CHAIRMAN: And you have a building permit for it? SAUL MILLMAN: Yes. Also, I woul.d like to mention one thing to you.. You mention the 46 x 25 house. I did submit another drawing for a house which is smaller than that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The house may be smaller. I have a 32 x ... My plan is not that discernible, to be honest with you. Why don't you give us a better indication. I have a plan here of, let me show it to you, .... 1'6 and 14 okay, is that what you are talking about. See, on this one, 16 was written in. .This is the proposed house you are talking about. This is the one you would be living in? And you still haven't made a decision on what you are going to do with the existing dwelling ? SAUL MILLMAN: If we don-[t use it for part of the residence, and we would reconstruct it, in a presentable way as an accessory dwelling. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we understand. Is there anybody who would like to speak on behalf of this application other than the applicant? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes. Kindly state your name. MIKE DAVIDS: My name is Mike Davids and I own the property to the north of Mr. Millman's. I am against the two family dwelling. I am against the building which is on there now. I am against every- thing that is going on there, because everything has been done in such a haphazard way. It was left there and all of a sudden boarded up then plastic was put on the roof which is now all over the place. There is a car, which has been parked back there for a few months now. When I put some trees on my property, I notice there is stuff scattered all over the back of the property and on to my property. As far as a hardship goes, you have to give Mr. Millman some credit and I have to admire his son because I have been trying for a long time to build on there and I am in the process of trying to finance a building, but I don't agree with that at all. As far as the building and what they are going to do with it, when he does put a house up with an extra building, he doesn't have enough land right now to put a two family .house, so what is he going to do with another building in the back. The property as it is formed, does not support it. ZBA March 28, 1985 Page 22 SAUL MILLMAN Hearing - Continued MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Next. LAURIE SOLOMAN: We have the property next to his. My understand- ing is, and I am not sure, he did not have a permit to put the building that he has there now until after it was already put there. The Plastic that Mr. Davids complained about has been in our yard. I came down here and complained about that. All that was done about that was he boarded up his windows. Plastic has been flying all over our yard; all over the other farm lot. It has been on Young's Avenue and as far as him wanting to have his son live with him. My understanding is that any home older than a 1975 building could be converted to a two family dwelling. I don't know why he just doesn't buy something you can convert to a two family dwelling instead of totally messing up the neighborhood. MR. CHAIRMAN: You have to have 4 acres to have a two family dwelling. Don'~it confuse what~ you read in the paper, that has no~ been approved yet. LAURIE SOLOMAN: I realize that the 4 acres. I just want you to realize that I was the one who started the petition and most of the signatures on there are from people who live up and down Horton's Lane in that area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? JOE CONNELLY: My name is Joe Connelly and I have the property to the north and I can echo with these two people. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. thing that yoy would like to say? Mr. Millman, do you have any- SAUL MILLMAN: Briefly, the windows that are boarded as of recently because there were a couple broken windows facing the road. The car was put over there to bring something over there and it did jam up and if it is not fixable, I will be glad to take it off the property. As far as the plastic,I didn.'t realize I offended anybody, it just ripped off the roof during the winter. I will be glad to gather it. I don't intend 'to have animosity. I would rather be a good neighbor otherwise I would rather not go there. If there is anything they would like to tell me, tell it to me as a neighbor by phone, then by me having tohear it at the Board. I will be glad to cooperate and do whatever I can to be a good neighbor. ZBA March 28, 1985 Page 23 SAUL MILLMAN Hearing - Continued MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you sit down, let me get this straight before we go to special exception. The plan that you submitted is the plan we just took a look at. This is the plan you are anticipating living in, which is 30 x 32? You have not made a determination of what you are going to do with the existing building that is on the premises now? You are ant±cipating that if this was granted that you be producing approximately a~building of t,400 sq. ft., which would include the 900 sq. ft. that you are talking about in this particular hearing here plus a 600 sq. ft. apartment? Okay SAUL MILLMAN: I will be either restoring that or a new building. I still have to appraise that before we cancel the idea of restoring that building. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Public Hearing Appeal No. 3332 At 9:15 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of SAUL MILL~AN for a special exception, to establish a two family dwelling use at 3920 Horton Lane, Southold, New York. The Chairman read the legal notice and appeal application for the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: Again I would like to ask you, Mr. Millman, if you have anything to say concerning this special exception? Nothing. Is there anybody else who would like to say anything on behalf of this application? Against the application? LAURIE $0k0MAN: Everything that I said before. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The way we had verbalized the type of con- struction on the last hearing is the exact same thing you would be doing in this hearing, is that correct? Questions from Board Mem- bers? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the - in-~ reserving_decision until later. R CgIV D AND FILED BY ~'iE oOo~HOLD TOWN CLEF~ Respectfully submitted, ar a S tr ang Pp. 1 -23 scribed from tapes recorded in