Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/07/1985 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- -~TATE ROAD 2[5 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11~71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIQONI$, JR. SERGE DOYEN JR. ROBERT J. DOUG,LASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI ~ I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING MARCH 7, 1985 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 7, 1985 at 7:30 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, and Robert J. Douglass (arr. 8:10 p.m.), constituting all the members of the board. Also present were approximately 20 persons in the audience at the commencement of the meeting. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded with the first public hearing, as follows: 7:35 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of DOUGLAS A. COOPER in the proposed keeping of horses in a pole barn or stable on this 2.4 acre vacant parcel of land. Right-of-Way located off the North Side of Bergen Avenue, Mattituck. Mr. Cooper was present and spoke in behalf of his application; no opposition was received. The written testimony of the hearing is prepared under separate cover by Barbara Strang also filed simultaneously with the Town Clerk's Office with these minutes. At the end of the hearing, the following resolution was adopted: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing of Appeal No. 3325 in the Matter of DOUGLAS A. COOPER be and hereby is declared closed, pending deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Southold Town Board of Appeals ?2- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3325 - DOUGLAS A. COOPER, continued:) and Sawicki. (Member Dauglass was absent from vote.) This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the four members present. 7:41 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of JOSEPH LIZEWSKI, Appeal No. 3322. Special ~E~ception for the est~ment of private racquetball club. N/S Main Road (E/s Depot Lane), Cutchogue. B-Light .Business Zoning District. The Chairman also read the legal notice of hearing and the'~'subj~ct application ~or the record. Dr. Lizewski was present and spoke in behalf of his application; no opposition was received. The written testimony of this hearing is prepared under separate cover by Barbara Strang and filed simultaneously with these minutes at the Town Clerk's Office. At the hearing, Dr. Lizewski advised the board that he has amended the building location and the setbacks were being changed. Inasmuch as the amendments may require variances, the Chairman sugges.ted.a recess until April llth in order to allow Dr. Lizewski time to file his amended plans with the Building inspector for re-consideration and if necessary, to file an application for the variance(s). The board took the following action: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that t~e Matter of Appeal No. 3322 of JOSEPH LIZEWSKI be and hereby is RECESSED UNTIL APRIL llTH, 1985. Vote of the Board: Ayes: M~ssrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member DOuglass~"was absent.) This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the four members present. 7:53 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of ALICE D. CURRIE, Appeal No. 3321. Variance to re-define and change lot lines of three parcels which_contain insufficient area, depth and width. N/S Soundview Avenues Southold. Mr. and'Mrs. Currie were present and spoke in behalf of their_application. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing, appeal application and letter of objection for the record. The w~tte~ testimony of the hearing is prepared ~nder separate cover and also filed simultaneously with these minutes at the Office of the Town Clerk ~or reference. The board then took the following action: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the Matter of Appeal No. '3321, of ALICE D. CURRIE Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3321 ALICE D. CURRIE, continued:) be and hereby is declared closed, pending deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was a-bsent.) This resolution was unanimously adopted by unanimous vote of the four members present. 8:00 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of ANDREAS PALIOURAS, Appeal No. 3319. Variance to reinstate and restore (second) dwelling structure to its original condition as a one-family residence~at 32570 C.R. 48, Peconic, NY. Mr. Paliouras and George Kokkinos were present. Mr. Kokkinos spoke in behalf of the application. No objections were received during the hearing. (Please refer to verbatim testimony prepared under separate cover by Barbara Strang and filed simultaneously with the Town Clerk's Office with these minutes.) The board took the followin§ action: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to cl~o~__th~'~h6aring,~pending deliberations, in the Matter of Appeal No. 3319, for ANDREAS PALIOURAS until after the board has had an opportunity to insoect the interior Qf the premises under consideration. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Sawicki. ~(Member Douglass was absent.) This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of f6ur members present. 8:06 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of WILMA MEEHAN and MARY LEONARDI under Appeal No. 3318. Variance for re-division of two lots which contain insufficient area, width and depth. Reydon Drive, Southold. Paul Caminiti, Esq. spoke in behalf of the application. No opposition was received during the hearing. (See verbatim testimony prepared under separate cover by Mrs. Strang and filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office.) The board took the following action after the hearing and deliberations: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 7, 1985, in the Matter of WILMA MEEHAN and MARY LEONARDI under Appeal No. 3318, during which time testimony was received in behalf of this application, and there was no opposition~ WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and its surrounding area, as well as all Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3318 - MEEHAN AND LEONARDI, continued:) the statements of recora; 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 and contains a total area of 39,900z sq. ft. and total frontage along Reydon Drive of 326o10± feet; 2. The property in question is shown to be Lots No. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the 1936 Subdivision of Reydon Shores, Block E, Suffolk County Clerk Map No. 631, and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District lODO, Section 80, Block 02, Lot 15; 3. The applicants are requesting: (a) proposed Lot 1 of an area of 19,050 sq. ft., comprising Reydon Shores Lots 29, 30, 31, and 32, and having a lot width of 120.6± feet and lot depth of 153.1± and 158.4± feet; (b) proposed Lot 2 of an area of 20,850 sq. ft., comprising Reydon Shores Lots 33, 34 and 35, and having a lot width of 205.5 feet and lot depth of 158.4 feet; 4. Proposed Parcel 1 is improved with a one-family, one-story dwelling set back approximately 20 feet from Reydon Drive and 46½ feet from its northerly side property line; proposed Parcel 2 is vacant at the present time. 5. Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code requires a minimum lot area of 80,000 sq. ft., lot width o.f 175 feet and lot depth of 250 feet; 6. For the record, it is noted that on January 21, 1985, the Planning Board recommended approval of this application; 7. In viewing the character of the neighborhood, the board finds the lots as proposed to be consistent with those existing in the neighborhood, and of similar or larger size accordingly. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) the relief requested is not substantial in relation to those existing in the neighborhood; (b) there will be no effect on population density and will not affect available governmental facilities; (c) there will be no substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or substantial detriment to adjoining properties; (d) the circumstances of this appeal are unique in that the land in question consists of lots on a subdivision map filed in the County Clerk's Office; (e) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue, other than a variance; (f) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance applied, as noted below. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3318 - Me'hah and Leonardi, continued:)' NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3318 in the Matter of WILMA MEEHAN and MARY LEONARDI for approval of insufficient lot area and width of Parcel 1 of 19,050 sq. ft. and 120.6± feet, and of Parcel 2 of 20,850 sq. ft. in area, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. There be no further subdivision or lot area reductions; 2. Buildings to be constructed must comply with the setback requirements of the zoning ordinance applicable to this lot size. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent from vote.) This resolution was unanimously adopted by all four members present. (Member Douglass arrived.) 8:10 p~m. .Public Hearing was held in the Matter of ROBERT AND ALDONA NORKUS~.~ppeal No. 3306. Variance for four_~pro~os~-6-~~ p~rcel~s~i-th insuffi~.~en~t lot width~ -Orchard Lane, of~..Cedar Beach Road, 'Southold~ Richard J. ~Cron, Esq spok~e in behalf of the applic.ation. Also present was Mark McDonald, one of the purchasers of the property in question. (Reference may be made to the verbatim testimony of this hearing prepared under separate cover by Mrs. Strang and filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office.) Following testimony, the board took the following action: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Messrs. Sawicki and Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing pending deliberations in the Matter of Appeal No. 3306, of ROBERT AND ALDONA NORKUS. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous ~ote of all the members. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting 8:21 p.m. Public Hearing wa~ held in the Matter of JOHN C. AND FRANCES DiVELLO, Appeal No. 3205. Variance: (~) for approval of access over "Meday Avenue" and (b) for approval of insufficient area and depth of parcel~.proposed. E/s Westphalia Road, Mattituck. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and appeal application for the record in its entirety. William Wickham, Esq. spoke in behalf of the application. Mr. and Mrs. DiVello were also present. No objection was received during the hearing. (Refer to verbatim testimony prepared under separate cover by Mrs. Strang and filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office.) Following the hearing, the board took the following action: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing pending deliberations and reinspection of the right-of-way concerning Appeal No. 3205 in the Matter of JOHN C. AND FRANCES DiVELLO. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis~ Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. At this point in timed the board discussed ahd deliberated on the Matter of Appeal No. 3291 of ANTHONY PAGOTO, Appeal No. 3305, ROBERT AND ALDDNA NORKUS, Appeal No. 3321, ALICE D. CURRIED Appeal No. 3325, DOUGLAS COOPER. (Continued on page 7) Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3305: Application of ROBERT AND ALDONA NORKUS, by Richard J. Cron, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient width of four proposed parcels l'ocated off Orchard Lane, approximately 450 feet easterly from Cedar Beach Road, Southold, NY; consisting of Cedar Beach Park Subdivi- sion Lots 35, 36, 37, 38, 47, 48, and part of 49; District 1000, Section 89, Block 3, Lots 8.1, 9, lO, 11.1, 6, and 4. Following deliberations, the board made~tbe~following findings: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 7, 1985, in the Matter of ROBERT G. AND ALDONA NORKUS under Appeal No. 3305, dur- ing which time testimony was received in behalf of this application, and there was no opposition; WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and its surroun~in§ 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 and contains a total area of 4.4 acres, located 451.63 feet easterly from Cedar Beach Drive, and off Orchard Lane, along a private right-of-way extending southeasterly 155.08 feet, thence southwesterly 270.11 feet, as shown on survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. as amended August 8, 1984; 2. The property in question is known to be Lots 35, 36, 37, 38, 47, 48, and part of 4~ of the 1927 Subdivision Map of "Cedar Beach Park", and is more particularly identified as District 1000, Section 89, Block 3, Lots 8.1, 9, 10, 11.1, 6, and 4. 3. Certificates of Occupancy have been issued by the Building Departments as follows: (a) Lot 35, No. Z10963, (b) Lot 36, No. 10962, (c) Lots 37-38, No. Z10961, (d) Lot 47, No. Z10965, (e) Lot 48, No. Z10964; 4. On June l, 1983, recommendation was made by the Planning Board to the Town Board to include this proposal for exemption from the two-acre zoning requirements effective May 20, 1983 by Local Law #7-1983. 5. On March 13, 1984, the Town Board granted relief from the bulk requirements as provided in Local Law #11-1983, as to lot area, as in effect prior to May 20, 1983. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -8- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3305 - ROBERT AND ALDONA NORKUS, continued:) 6. On April 2, 1984, the Southold Town Planning Board reviewed and approved the sketch map of the applicants; 7. On September 7, 1984, the Building Department issued a Notice of Disapproval for the subject division of land since action is required by this board under Article III, Section 100-31; 8. Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code in effect prior to May 202 1983 required a minimum lot width of 150 feet. 9. The applicants are requesting a lot width of 100 feet for each of the four proposed parcels: Parcel "A" which is shown with an area of 48,000 sq. ft., Parcel ~'B" an area of 44,000 sq. ft., Parcel "C" an area of 45,000 sq. ft., and Parcel "D" of 54,000 sq. ft. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial, being one-third of the requirements (in effect May 20, 1983), (b) there will be no effect on population density thereby no~ effecting available governmental facilities, (c) there will be no substantial change tn the char- acter of the neighborhood or a substantial detriment to adjoining properties since there are lots of similar character in the immediate vicinity, (d) that the circumstances of this appeal are unique, (e) that there is no other method feasible to rearrange to lot lines to try and meet the lot width requirements other than a variance, (e) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance applied, as noted below. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief as requested under Appeal No. 3305 for lO0-foot lot width for each of the four proposed parc'els as shown on survey amended August 8, 1984 for ROBERT G. AND ALDONA NORKUS, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. There be no further lot area reductions for any parcel (or lot line changes, redivisions); 2. All new construction must comply with all requirements of the zoning code applicable to 40,000 sq. ft. parcels (A-40); 3. All new construction must comply with Chapter 46, "Flood So~thold Town Board of Appeals -9- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3305 - ROBERT AND ALDONA NORKUS, continued:) Management Law" (the minimum lowest floor elevations above mean sea level). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. Member Goehringer abstained. This resolution was adopted by majority vote of the members. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3291: Application for ANTHONY PAGOTO, c/o Swim King Pools, Route 25A, Rocky Point, NY 11778, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate inground pool in an area other than the required rearyard, at Bayberry Road, Nassau Point, Cutchogue, NY; District 1000, Section 111, Block 15, Lot 1.6 (part of 1.3). Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, public hearings were held, initially November 29, 1985, and concluded on February 14, 1985, in the Matter of ANTHONY PAGOTO under Appeal No. 3291, during which time testimony was received in behalf of this application, and there was no opposition received for the record; WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and 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, contains a total area of 48,678± sq. ft., its westerly and southerly boundaries along Bayberry Road and Bridge Lane; and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 111, Block 15, Lot 1.6 (previously part of 1.3)~ 2. The subject property is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-13 with two front yards; 3. Existing upon the subject premises is a one-story, one- family dwelling, as shown on survey prepared by Burton Hands; L.S. September 6, 1978, with a distance to the nearest front property lines of approximately 56 feet from the southwest corner of the house and approximately 150 feet from the southeast corner of the house; 4. By this application, applicant requests permission to locate a 20' by 40' pool with decking, five feet wide at the easterly and westerly sides, and a maximum of eight feet wide at the southerls Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -10- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal- No. 3291 ANTHONY PAGOTO, continued:) side. The most northerly end of the pool area is proposed to be brick patio at a width of approximately 12 feet; 5. The proposed pool and decking is requested to be set back not less than 25 feet from the easterly property line and at a distance of 90 to 100 feet from the southerly front property line; 6. For the record it is noted that the premises in question was the subject of a prior variance, under Appeal No. 2461 by Thomas and Rosa Fucile of August 17, 1978, which conditionally permitted the construction of a one-family dwelling on vacant land with a minimum setback of 40 feet from Bayberr% Road and 50 feet from the northerly and easterly property lines;. 7. Article III, Section'lO0-32 of the Zoning Code permits accessory structures to be located only in the rearyard area; 8. It is the opinion of the board members that in view of the fact that the premises is a corner lot with limited rearyard area and for the reasons stated by the applicant, the requested location of the structures in question is the most feasible under the circumstances. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial; (b) there will be no effect on population density and will not affect available governmental faciliti.es; (c) there will be no substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or a substantial detriment to adjoining properties; (d) the circumstances of this appeal are unique in that this is a corner parcel; (e) that there is no other method feasible for appellant other than a variance~ (f) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance applied, as noted below. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the relief as requested under Appeal No. 3291 in the Matter of ANTHONY PAGOTO %or permission to locate swimming pool with decking and retaining wall, at a setback of 25 feet from the easterly property line and approximately 90 to 100 feet from Bridge Lane, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIQNS: 1. No adverse lighting; 2. Not closer than 25'feet from the easterly property line; Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -ll- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3291 ANTHDNY PAGDTD, continued:) 3. All other applicable rules and regulations pertaining to swimmingpoQls (building codes, etc.). Location of P~operty: Bayberry Road and Bridge Lane, Cut- chogue, NY; 1000-111.-15-1.6 (part of 1..3). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3321: Application of ALICE D. CURRIE, 68 West Fenimore Street, Valley Stream, NY 11580, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 1QO-3!, to re-define and change lot lines of three parcels which contain insufficient area, depth and width, located on the North Side of Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; District 1000, Section 059, Block 06, Lots 18-19. Foilowing deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 7, 1985, in the Matter of ALICE D,. CURRIE under Appeal No. 3321, during which time testimony was received in behalf of the application and no oral objections were added; WHEREAS, there is in the record one letter of opposition from the adjoining property owner to the west, Arthur R. Anderson; WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and 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 ZQ. ni~g District and contains a total area 1.18 acres (to tie li~.e) as shown on survey prepared December 19, 1984~. 2. The property in question previously involved the grant of a variance on October 24, 1957 under Appeal ~o. 33 of Douglass I. and Lawrence Currie in a proposed division of land, involving two lots Qf 11,400± sq. ft. each Iwhich is being referred to as Lot 1 and part of Lot 2 in this application); 3. By the present application, applicants wish to re-define and change the lot line from the northeasterly corner of Lot 1 in a westerly direction 100,72 feet rather than in a northerly direction, which would decrease the third parcel (Lot 3) from 28,000± sq. ft. to 11,809 sq. fro and increase the rear parcel (Lot 2) from 11,400± sq. ft. to 29,000± sq. ft. 4. Lots 3 and 1 are each improved with a one-story, one-family Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -12- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3321 - ALICE D. C'URRIE, continued:) dwelling with setbacks at least 36 feet from the front (southerly) property lines; Lot 2 is s. hown to be vacant except for a shed approximately 6' by 10' in size, situate 8± feet from the easterly property line; 5. By Notice of Disapproval dated January 7, 1985, applicants were advised that this application is necessary because Qf the insufficient lot areas. In considering this appeal, the board determines, since the lot area(s) have been established by a prior variance in accordance with the zoning code and laws in effect during 1957, that: (a) the relief requested is n~t substantial; (b) there will be no effect ~on~population density thereby not effecting available governmental facilities, (c) there will be no substantial change in the character of the neighborhood on substantial detriment to adjoining properties, (d) the circumstances of the appeal are unique and _there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance, (e) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance applied, as indicated below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief as requested under Appeal No. 3321 in the Matten of ALICE D. CURRIE for permission to re-define lot lines of parcels having insufficient area and width, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE ~OLLOWING: 1. Access approval over the right-of-way within the boundaries of the division by the Planning Board in accordance with New York Town Law, Section 280~a; 2. Referral by this department to the Suffolk County Planning Commission in accordance with Sections 1323, et.seq, of the Suffolk County Charter. Location of Property: North Side of Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; District 1000, Section 059, Block 06~, Lots 18-19. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. Thi~ resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. Southold Town Board of Appeals- -13- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3325: Application of DOUGLAS A. COOPER, P.O. Box 16, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(A) for permission to construct pole barn/stable accessory to keeping of horses on this 2.4± acre parcel located on a private right-of-way extending from the north side of Bergen Avenue, Mattituck, NY; District 1000, Section 105, Block 01, Lot 002.2. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 7, 1985, in the Matter of DOUGLAS A. COOPER under Appeal No. 3325, during which time testimony was received in behalf of the application and no objections were received; WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and 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 and is situate along a private ri.ght-of- way which extends approximately 3500 feet from the no. rth side of Bergen Avenue; 2. The premises in question is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 105, Block 01, Lot 002.2; 3. By this application, appellant requests permission to locate a 24' by 36' horse barn or stable for the purposes of keeping horses, to be situated approximately 300' from the southerly (front) property line, not closer than 20 feet to the easterly side line, an~ approximately 65-75 feet from the westerly side property line; 4. Article III, Section lO0-30(A) does not specifically list the proposed use as a permitted use on lots of less than 10 acres; however, barns for storage and commercial agricultural purposes are permitted provided they conform to the yard requirements for principal buildings; 5. Article III, Section 100-30(C) also permits similar build- ings, accessory to an existing residential use of a lot; 6. Applicant is also the owner of premises abutting the Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -14~ March 72 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3325 - DOUGLAS A. COOPER, continued:) subject parcel to the east containing 6.2± acres and an existing one-family dwelling~ 7. Applicant would not be required to obtain a variance if he were to place the proposed horse stable and keeping of horses on the adjoining residential parcel, nor would a variance be required if applicant were to first construct a residence on the subject parcel; 8. For the record, it is noted that a conditional approval was granted concerning the right-of-way to these premises under. Appeal No. 1996, January 30, 1975. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the zoning requirements; (b) that there will be no effect on popu- lation density adversely affecting governmental facilities; (c) that there will be no substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or substantial detriment to adjoining properties since the use requested would appear to fall under permitted accessory uses if a residence existed; (d~ that the circum- stances of this appeal are unique in that the owner resides at premises adjoining the subject parcel; (e) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance app.lied, as noted below. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3325 in the Matter of DOUGLAS A. COOPER for the keeping of three horses and for the construction of a 24' by 36' horse barn, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The subject building be used as requested, for the purposes of stabling horses; 2. The subject building not exceed one-story height (18 feet) and not exceed the size 24' by 36'; 3. There be no habitable quarters (or bunk house)~ 4. Building be located as requested: (a) no closer than 300 feet to the southerly property line; (b) no closer than 20 feet to the easterly property line. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. Southold T. own Board of Appeals -15- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting The Chairman discussed Appeal No. 3319, of ANDREAS PA~IOURAS briefly. It was noted that the structure appeared to be approxi- mately 20 x 26", and less than 850 sq. ft. of li~'able floor area. The board said. measurements could be taken at the time of reinspection. The secretary was d~redted to contact the applicant to arrange for an interior inspection of the building. The board members briefly deliberated Appeal No. 3294 of PETER J AND MARGARET TROYANO, and a~few of the board members wanted additional time to go back and determine what road improve- ments would be necessary in ~s!]~oDi'nion, particularly to low flooding areas of the right-of-way. No. action was taken. Mr. Cron appeared at approximately 9:25 p.m. in behalf of the properties of James McGuire at Cutchogue, near or abutting the greenhouse. Mr. Cron asked if the board was familiar with the premises, and it was mentioned that there was a previous variance with conditions concerning the greenhouse portico addition and parking. A decision was rendered recently by Justice Tedeschi concerning a storage building which has been recently modified or renovated. The Chairman said he was familiar with it and that matter was discussed brliefly ut the request of Mr. Lark and Mr. Lessard. To the Chairman's knowledge, e~ther Mr. Lark or Mr. Lessard were going to go over the whole situation and suggest a resolution to the problem. The Chairman said that there was noth~ng'!d~cus~ed that CnvoIves the Zoning Board at this time. (Additional verbatim statements are available under separate cover with the hearing statements also filed with these minutes for reference.) ENVIRDNMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declara- tions of "NonsignificaDce" as required bY the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act, Local Law #44-4 of the Town Code, and Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law: Southol~ Town Bo~,r~ of Appemls -16- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations~ continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 73~ PROJECT NAME: LYNN SCIORA 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 %44-4cDf the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant advemse 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&~ project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:To reinstate emtinc establishment/deli LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~ Suffolk, more particularly~known as: 676~0 Mmin Ro~, ~reenport~ County Tm~ Mmp P~rcel %1000=5~=02-?! REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The proper~ in ~ue~ion i~ not loc~te~ within ~00 ~eet of ti~l wetl~nd~ or other critics1 en~ivonmentml (3) The r~tief requested is not direc'-!V rel~te~ to new con~tructiono / Sou,thold T~wn Board of ~ppe~ts -17- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting S.E.Q,R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAP~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: ~731 & 3332 PROJECT NA~4E: SAUL ~LLMAN 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 944-4 of the To'w~ of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency Which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ .] Type II ~] Unlisted [~ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To est~%'lisb two-f~mily dwelling use on less th~n four mcres of l~nd: special e~ceptios. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of ,Southold, County of~ Suffolk, more particularly kngwn as: ~930 Horton Lane Southold~ NY County Tm× REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (!) 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 projec~ be impleL mented as planned; (2) The property in question is not locmte~ within ~00 ~eet of tidal wetlands or other critic~! environ~ent~l mre~ (?) The reliem requested is not ~irectlv re!~ted eo new construction, Southo!d Town Board of Appe~is -18- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting NEGATIVE ENVIRON~,NTAL DECLARATION ~ Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3333 PROJECT This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: . IX] Type I! [ ]. Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To construct new dwelling ~.,ith insufficient sidey~rd setbmcks & lot coverage. LOCATION OF PROJecT: Town of.Southold, County of, Suff01k~ more particularly kno~rn as: 1305 Thir~ Streetx. New Suf~olk~ County Tm× 14~p P~rcel %1000-i17-07~11o REASON(S) SUPPORTING TH~S DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has-been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-. mented as planned~ (2) The property in cuestion i~ not located within 300 feet of tidml wetlands or other critical environmental ~ree~ ( 3 } Con s truc Southold To~n Board of Appeals -19- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting S.E.QoR.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONM~ENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NOo: 33~_& 3_~29 .... PROJECT ND3~: BRIDENMACHINE CORP. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article $ of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law $44-4 of the Tow~ of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the--~r~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or simil~r project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Special exception to establish m~chine shop, with insufficient side & rear y~rd setb~cks~ LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Sou~hold, County or, suffolk, more particularly knpwn as: 555 Westphmli~ Ave ..... Mattituck~ County Tax b~p P~rcel $1000-!~i-03-35 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETE~4INATION: (!) 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 ~destion is not !oc~ted within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critics1 environmental ~rem~ (3) The relief requested is not directly re!~ted to new construction. 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 -20- March 72 1985 Regular Meeting PENDING APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3320 - BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT/SAGE. The Chairman was informed that we have received the requested maps as amended on March 5, 1985 showing the wetlands. The board indicated that if D.E.C. was furnished for our files by the advertising deadline, this matter could be scheduled for the April 11, 1985 hearings. This file will again be reviewed at our next meetiDg of March 28th for completedness. It was also noted that the PlanniDg'Board approved the sketch map and took legal agency, declaring_nonsignificance ~nder SEQRA. PENDING APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3323 - COLGATE DESIGN CORP. (7-11, Cutchog~). The boar~_member~ reviewed the correspondence from.the applicant indicating that the trailer presently used for storage of ~pty bottles would be removed if the variance is granted. Also reviewed we~e~itheL~tet~e~s of objections from both abutting p~operty owners. The board is concerned that emergency vehicles would be barred at either side f~om gaining entrance to the rear in the event of a fire, ~articularly~with a gas station abutting the premises on the east. As of yet~L'no response has been received from the Planning Board concer~ng their December 1972 site plan approval. The board did not set a date for scheduling the_~hearing until w~.~have received a response from the Planning Board in resolving this situation. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR MARCH 28TH: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded, by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the following applications be schedul~edLfor public hearings at the March 28th, 1985 Regular Meeting of the board, commencing at 7Z]5 p.m. and as noted below, and that the Secretary is hereby ~uthorized and directed to publish notice of same in the local and official~Newspapers of the T~wn, to wit: Suffolk Ti. me$ and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. pursuant to law: 7:15 ).m. Appeal No. 3295 - Fleet's Neck Property Owners/Wade; 7:25 ).m. Appeal No. 3302 - G~stave J. Wade; 7:35 ~.m. Appeal No. 3328 - Briden Machine Corp.; 7:40 ).m~ Appeal No. 3329 - Briden Machine Corp.; 7:50 ).m. Appeal No. 3333 - Helynn D. Kapp; 7:55 ).m. Appeal No. 3324 - Lynn Sciora~ 8:00 ).m. Appeal No. 3331 Saul Millman~ 8:10 ).m. Appeal No. 3332 - Saul Miltman. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Doug]ass and Sawicki. THis resolution was adopted by ~na~mous vote of all the members. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -21- March 7:1985 Regular Meeting PENDING APPLICATIONS: Appeal No. 3330 - Dominick Varano and Appeal No. 3336, William ~nd Helen Coster~ by Richard F. Lark, Esq. The board indicated that these matters could be held for public hearings March 28th, and it was noted that_Mr. Lark would be on vacation that week and they had verbally requested a postponement of one meeting, for April llth. This change was authorized~ MATTERS FOR APRIL llTH PUBLIC HEARINGS: The board reviewed and authorized sch~du]~ing of~each of the ~ollowing matters for public hearings to be held 6pril tl~h commencing ~t 7:30 p~m. and as follows: il) William and Helen Coster; (2') Bay~iew Development/Sage; (3) Dominick Varano; (4) Harold T. Carr; (5) Thomas Higgins; (6) Joseph Lizewski special exception reconvened; (7) Joseph Lizewski variance, plan as amended. MATTERS FOR?UBLiC HEARINGS AT PUBLIC HEARING FOLLOWING April llth (tentatively April ~St~ o~ M~y 2nd): (1) Saba/Kislow~ujews~i~ (2) Howard Lo Young and wife; (3) Colgate-Design Corp~; (4) Kimon and Woodene Retzos; (5) Sobering; (6) Jean C. Holland (await fee and additional sq, ftg. info.). MATTERS PENDING FIELD INSPECTIONS:'AND/OR'INVESTIGATIONS: (1) SchJduled for March 28th for hearings: (a) Briden Machine Corp.- (Nos. 3328 and 3329); (b) Saul Millman (Nos. 3331 and 3332); (c) Lynn Sciora (No. 3324)~ So'u~hold Town Board of Appeals -22- March 7, 1985 Regular Meeting (1) continued: (d) Helynn D. Kapp (No. 3333); (e) Gustave J. Wade (Nos. 3295 and 3302). (2) Scheduled tentatively for April llth: (a) William and Helen Coster; (b) Bayview Development/Sage; (c) Dominick Varano; (d) Harold T. Carr; (e) Thomas Higgins; (f) Joseph Lizewski (Nos. 3322 and 3350). (3) Open hearing dates: (a) Saba/Kislow/Sujewski; (b) Howard L. Young and wife; (c) Colgate Design Corp.; (d) Kimon and Woodene Retzos 280-a; (e) Sobering; (f) Jean C.~'Holland; APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESDLVED, to approve the Minutes of the February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting of this board.' 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 transactions properly coming before the board at this time, motion was made by Mr. G~igonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and una. nimously carried, to adjourD. _The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a . Kowa s~i, Secretary .~,,~.~~~~ Southo!d Town Board of Appeals ~ Chairman ? REGULAR MEETING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS March~. 7, [985 ~3325 At 7:35 p.m - Public Hearing was held in the matter of DOUGLAS A. COOPER .fo~ approval to construct pole barb/stable on ROW, north side Bergen Avenue, Mattituck. Chairman read legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. MR. COOPER: I think you know the facts. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. I have to ask you and you are aware when we are dealing with these buildings on individual pieces of property. I will make you aware, okay, that we like to put restric- tions on them that they don't become houses, that they remain as buildings for the purposes of housing the animals and we do that for the simple purpose that they are not built to normal specifi- cations that a house would be built to. So that's why we place these restrictions on them. You have no objection to any of those? MR. COOPER: None. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have not gone over this with the Board, so I am not asking for a vote at this particular time, but we will discuss it after the meeting tonight. You are welcome to call our office to- morrow morning. MR. COOPER: Thank you. CHARIMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Against the application? Questions from Board Members? You will be getting a building permit on this, right? That is assuming we approve it. MR. COOEPR: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reservzng decision until later. #3332 At 7:40 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of JOSEPH LIZEWSKI, for a Special Exception to construct private raquetball club on north side Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. Chairman read legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. DR. LIZEWSKI: After that map was submitted, we had to go back to the Planning Board, and we did a survey on the property. I have a survey to make sure the building was in the right proportion on the map, and it turns out that the building zs actually about 3' from the property line. I can move it up to 5' or 6' or 7', but ZBA 3/7/85 Page 2. JOSEPH LIZEWSKI HEARING - Continued DR. LIZEWSKI - continued: it doesn't fall within the normal limits that the Town Building COde comes within, in order to put this up and that would have to be taken into consideration at this time. The building is actually, and I had to change ...I went to the Building Department and the Planning Department...the building to more a 40 x 60 shape, rather than the 55 x 40 shape, in order to put in the 20 x 40 racquetball courts and a few bathrooms and thing that were necessary to go into the front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Board now? Do you have a site plan before the Planning DR. LIZEWSKI: Yes, I do. There is a site plan before the Planning Board at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you will furnish us with a copy of that? DR. LIZEWSKI: Sure. I haven't changed this map after the appli- cations were made because I applied for the Planning Board and they didn't like what I presented, so I had to go back and make another change, but I did not furnish you with that particular map, no. I will get you tha5 tomorrow morning, if you would like. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, Just let me ask one technical question. We are probably going to have to recess this hearing, doctor, because we have to get a determination from the Town Attorney, to see if affects the way we advertise it, if it is definitely a setback problem, then we are going to have to readvertise it for the next meeting. You will have to make another application for this variance, which would be the restrictive sideyards that we are talking about. DR. LIZEWSKI: Is there another set of forms to fill out? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, they are a little more lengthy-. DR. LIZEWSKI: I can leave this set the way they are and give you another set. CHAIRMAN G©EHRINGER: Right. What we would do then is open the hearing for the variance and reconvene the meeting for the Special Exception at the next meeting, whenever we hear it, the next meeting or the meeting after that. DR. LIZEWSKI: I have the Planning Board in between now and then, they will even do it concurrently, hopefully. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: building? Is the building still contiguous to the office ZBA 3/7/85 Page 3. JOSEPH LIZEWSKI HEARING - CONTINUED DR. LIZEWSKI: It's part of, yes. It will be built with the Codes as far as the separation by cement block., etc, etc. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is this a subterranean building, or is this an above the ground building? DR. LIZEWSKI: Well, in order to keep this building, one of the things that worried me was that a 20' building above the ground is very homely and one of the things that I wanted to do with this building is build the bottom 10' -- a racquetball court is 20' high, 20' wide and 40' long. So, in order to make this building look decent within my professional complex, 10' of it will be below the ground. Racquet- ball courts have no doors, they are complete square buildings and the doors are actually flush. They have no windows and I can't see any reason why 10' of it can't be below the ground, especially for appearances. It's like a barn above the ground, and I want to carry the exact same roof line. I have already dug my cellars in the other buildings to meet this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you give this Board some indication, be- tween the next meeting, what type'of rules and regulations you would have on this, what type of membership? DR. LIZEWSKI: I know already. First of all, a club like this doesn't appeal to everybody. We have had certain groups of people in the Town who have tried to build these before and not get together because the financial situation of putting 120 people together, but it would have limited membership, mostly for racquetball players, for a fee of let's say, $200 for 4 people and then they would use the racquetball courts and pay a token fee of $5'.00 per hour for use of them and that would be just about it. Eight people at the most could be in this building to be playing. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Is there any maximum membership? DR. LIZEWSKI: Yes, between 125 and 200 members. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you be~'advertising this actively? DR. LIZEWSKI: I don"t have to. No, I don't~have to, Gerry, if I get it it's built. I think there will be a waiting list. I don't think I will have to advertise it. I have already had so many in- quiries because people know I am interested in doing it. I don't think it would be adverse to the Town to do this in this manner. I like the idea of coming before the ZBA for something like this, because I don't think these things should be built haphazardly; the problem was not having this type of zining in the Town plans. The only other way it can be done is having the councilmen pass an amendment to the zoning code. By doing that you open up an awful lot of things, you should know, you can do anything you want once it is in there. At this point, everybody should have to come before you ZBA 3/7/85 Page 4. JOSEPH LIZEWSKI HEARING - CONTINUED DR. LIZEWSKI: continued: from anything from a pool parlor to any- thing down the road and you won't have the problems you have in Riverhead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the parking area is? I am assuming the site plan will indicate where DR. LIZEWSKI: Oh, yes, the site plan does. You don't need a lot of parking for this because at the most 8 people will be using this so you figure 8 or 10 cars. It's not meant to be a public facility. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any plans in future of elongating it, putting in tennis courts? DR. LIZEWSKI: I am not planning on inside tennis courts. If this turns out to be fairly successful and I move the big barn that's on my property, I would come back to you possibly in the future for an olympic sized swimming pool and I would like to put in a 75' x 40' heated indoor swimming pool as part of this complex. That would be my next step and I would end with that. But I would have to move those barns, provide much more parking and change an awful lot on that property in order to do that. That is in my mind, yes. But at this point no, because an indoor swimming pool of that size costs a quarter of a million dollars to build properly in a commercial fashion. We really don't have a commercial swimming pool on the north or south forks built for public use in the right fashion. All recreational pools put indoor areas, 7-Z's and the Omni basically have homeowners' pools with homeowners' eGuipment for public use. If I did it I would want to put it in for commercial use; you could have swim--75' pool is olympic sized and it could be used by schools. You could have swim clubs with your schools or anything at all. But I am waiting to see whan the Town does, alsO. We had that questionnaire, you know, does the Town want to have a swimming pool. I certainly wouldn't bother putting up one if they did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail right, I thank you very much. We will see if there are comments from the audience and then I will recess this hearing. Is there anybody who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion recessing the hearing. Dr. Lizewski, excuse me, what is your time limit on thzs? Do you have to get going on this, assummng you get all the approvals by the Boards? DR. LIZEWSKI: Yes, I would like to break ground this Spring and have it finished by September. I have everybody structurally, lined up. If t get it I will go. I think I can have it completed by September 1st. ZBA 3/7/85 Page 5 JOSEPH LIZEWSKI HEARING - CONTINUED CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I will recess this hearing until the April 11th meeting. Thank you very mUch. Thank you for coming in. ~3321 At 7:53 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of ALICE D.~ CURRIE for a variance to redefine and change lot lines of three parcels, north side Soundview Avenue, Southoldo Chairman read legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Currie, would you like to be heard? MR. CURRIE: I don't have anything to add to what you read off there, except that I would like to point out, you did point out that there would be one waterfront lot instead of two, and I would think that would lessen the impact on the lakefront and the waterfront lot is large but it's large because of so many requirements because of set- backs. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, what way would you be entering the property assuming this application was approved? First of all, I should ask you to put that mike on. I don't think the button is on. What way would you be entering this property? Is there an existing right of way over the driveways? MR. CURRIE: The existing right of way would be extended into lot #2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, you would be required to have approved ac- cess over that, which means you would have to continue that road and some maintenance of that 'to go into this other proposed lot. Is there any specific reason, other than the fact that requirements today by Suffolk County Health and DEC and so on, why you have chosen to divide it or redivide it in this manner? MR. CURRIE: There is no other reason than that, except that the small lot would be very hard to build a house on with the Health Department requirements. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: granted? How big was that lot? Originally, when it was MR. CURRIE: I believe it was, sorry I don't have my old map, but I believe it was 10,000 some odd square feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, now it would be 29,000 square feet? MR. CURRIE: Yes, that particular one would be. There is really not much change in the lot, except we turned the lines around a bit. ZBA 3~7/85 Page 6 ALICE D. CURRIE HEARING - CONTINUED CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Against the application? Questions from Board Members? I have one letter in the file from an adjacent property owner that is against this particular application. Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. I don't know if we will get to it tonight, but I have not discussed, nor have I seen the Board since the last meeting, so we will kick it around after this. That's rather a jargon phrase, but we will start the deliberation process after this meeting, okay, and we will have a decision for you in the near future. MR. CURRIE: But I better nor wait for one tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You 'are very welcome to do that. #3319 At 8:00 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of ANDREAS PALIOURA~ for permission to reinstate and restore second dwelling structure to its original condition as a one-family structure. Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirely and appeal application for the record. GEORGE KOKKINOS: We have nothing to say. You have read everything. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: When a house has lost its, in this particular case, non-conformance, we usually require the house to be brought up to 850 square feet. Now, I am asking that question, because I was wondering if you witling,~. to do that? GEORGE KOKKINOS: That's the requirement, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you be renting this house, or would you be using it for family members? GEORGE KOKKINOS: We are using it for family members. CHAIRMAN G©EHRINGER: Would you be putting its own separate well and septic system in the house, in lieu of hooking up to the other? GEORGE KOKKINOS: Yes. The house has running water. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any application before a Board usually entails when we grant something of this nature, it usually states that it not that it conform to all side yard and rear yard'restrictions as to zoning on a particular parcel, so therefore we would not, assuming we grant you this application, allow you 5o come in closer to the right of way, the property on the one side. Any building construction would have to be to the rear of that, to the rear of the existing building. ZBA 3/7/85 Page 7. ANDREAS PALIOURAS HEARING - Continued GEORGE KOKKINOS: Well, the house is there already, maybe 25'. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 25' from the road? I would say an area of 25' I 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. ~3318 At 8:06 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of WILMA MEEHAN and MARY LEONARDI for approval of redivision of two lots with insufficie~eydon Drive, Southold. Chairman read legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. MR. CAMMINITI: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, this parcel just happens to be ideally suited for setoff. Lots 29, 30 and 31 without any change, where the existing house is now, would be parcel 1 and it would remain intact and parcels 33, 34 and 35 would be setoff where the other sister would build her house and that would be about half an acre. According to the tax map, just about all the other parcels in that area, consist of half an acre. They are all approximately the same size. I would just like to refer the Planning Board's letter to you that creation of these two lots from seven, lessens the non- conformance of the parcels, rather than the way it is now. Actually, by creating these two parcels, we would be conforming to the way Reydon Shores is now, being half acre parcels. I think that ideally, we would have a good.situation 'as far as the community is concerned. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When our Board usually undertakes these appli- cations in the affirmative, we usually place restrictions on the parcels with respect to being no further subdivision. Do you have any objection to that? MR. CAMMINITI: No. No objection at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We also state that we would like the construction on the existing lot to conform to the current zoning requirements. Do you have any objection to that? MR. CAMMINITI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much. Is there anybody who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? Bearing in mind the nature of that subdivision, Mr. Camminiti, I will make a motion grantin¢ this as applied for, subject to those two conditions: One, that there be no further subdivision and two, that the construction of the house on those three lots conform to the normal zoning requirements of the Town. I offer that motion. Thank you very much for coming in. ZBA 3/7/85 Page 8. ~3306 At 8:10 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of ROBERT and ALDONA NORKUS for approval of 4 propo'sed parcels with insufficien~ l'°t~idth, Orchard Lane, off Cedar Beach Road, Southold, New York. Chairman read legal notice in its entirety and appeal application for the record. MR. CRON: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. As you can see from the Petitioner's application, the relief that is being re- quested is that of an area variance. The purpose of the relief re- quested is that to finalize a minor subdivision of land, consisting of four lots which had been started a number of years back and which was recommended by the Planning Board to the Town Board for Local Law 11 Relief, which of course, granted to the applicant, if such relief was granted by the Town Board, the right to one acre zoning. As you can see from the map itself, each of the proposed lots contain an area well in excess of the 40,000 square feet that is permissible under one acre zoning. Prior to the subdivision being proposed to the Planning Board, the applicant himself had the right to utilize five lots on the parcel itself, having a c/o for each of the five lots. Obviously the Town Board and Planning Board felt in granting sketch plan approval of the four lot minor subdivision, they saw the wisdom of changing this entire parcel from the utilization of five lots for residential dwellings to four lots for residential dwellings. The relief that the applicant needs from this Board is an area vari- ance to meet the bulk schedule requirements of one acre zoning and the ability to construct residences on lots that have only a width of 100' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you were mentioning. in the corner? I don't understand where the other lot was that Are you talking about that triangular lot down MR. CRON: I believe I furnished with the papers to the Board, at least annexed to the copy of the petition, that we had utilized for relief from Local Law 11, a map of property that showed basically six lots, which utilizes 35, 36,37, and 38, 47 and 48. Now what the applicant had was a separate c/o for a single and separate lot for lots 35, 36 and a combination of lots 37 and 38, which constitute three of the c/o's and then separate c/o's for 47 and 48. They were the five lots he had the right to construct residences on. The Planning Board at the time the applicant proceeded with a four lot minor subdivision, which was delayed to some extent by the abandon- ment of a right of way that existed through those lots, recognized that the Planning Board did not act as expeditiously as it might have and thereby the applicant was unable to secure approval of the subdivision by the May 20, 1983 date. Both the Planning Board recognized that hardship as well as the Town Board itself for Local Law 11 relief. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you, Mr. Cron. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? It is my understanding, Mr. Cron, that the right of way running into ZBA 3/7/85 Page 9. ROBERT and ALDONA NORKUS HEARING CONTINUED CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: continued--this particular parcel of property is going to be approved by the Planning Board? MR. CRON: I would assume so, either that or through the Building Department, but I assume that since the Planning Board will exerczse jurisidction, it usually. The right of way is already there. MR. CRON:S. You knQw~more than I do, because the Planning hasn't indicated to me. We haven't gotten to that aspect. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mark, just use the mike one second. MARK : The Planning Board has already sent an engineer out there to check it over and make formal recommendations, which they did, it should be in the file. Their feeling is that it is entirely within the Cedar Beach subdivision, so it is their domain. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They can have it. I just want to ask, where is teh right of way? Is it on the north or south side? MARK : It's called Clearvzew, I think. On the north side. Basically the Planning Board would not assume any jurisdiction over any right of way. that isn't within the confines of the subdivision. If it's outside of it, they couldn't exercise any jurisdiction. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, the original restaurant must have been within the confines of the original subdivision? Now, we have got that. Thank you very much. Anybody else like to be heard on behalf of this application? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later? I know you guys are very, very anxious to get going on this. We will have a decision for you very quickly and you are welcome to give us a call tomorrow. %3205 At 8:15 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the mat~er of JOHN C. and FRANCES DIVELLO for approval of access over Meday Avenue and approval of insufficient area of proposed parcel. Chairman read legal notice in its entire~ and appeal application for the record. MR. WICKHAM: Mr. Chairman, may I come forward, because I have some papers or at least a map to show you and I think I can shout loudly enough so the secretary can get it. Apparently there are two ques- tions involved here. Onet is the right of way over Meday Avenue. There was some question whether this particular parcel had a right over it. I would like to show you the original map of 1921 of William B. Coughlin, which portrays our parcel and a number of parcels ZBA 3/7/85 Rage I 0. JOHN C. and FRANCES DIVELLO HEARING CONTINUED MR. WICKHAM - continued: to the west, over as far as Illinois Avenue. Now, sometime after that, everything west of the Coughlin manor was purchased by a Albertolli Realty Company and they also purchased more properties over to Cox Lane and as far as this, it's simply superimposed on this map, although it changed lot numbers. So, there is no question in mind, that we have a right over Meday Avenue and we do have, and you have a report~of the engineer, which has just come in, virtually approving it, but of course with some suggestions. Now, the second problem is the area. Although I do want to bring up at this time the problem that we have had with lot ~1 and the right of way, which goes through it. One of the reasons for the delay in getting to you people is the fact that we tried to alter the-right of way as shown along the east side. So far, we haven't been too successful because this is not the only problem involved with this right of way. It's involved the whole length of it as you people very well know. For the time being, however, we are going to sub- mit the map with the existing right of way. We are still going to try to Change it because the idea is a good one for the benefit of all particularly coming out on to Westphalia Road. It's almost a perpen- dicular and you can turn either way but right now, we haven't been able to. As far as the area, we think the lots are more than com- parable to the lots on either side. I want to point out particularly lot ~4 that we have preserved the whole shoreline. In other words, we haven't tried to break that lot up into two lots in order to gain access to the water. The lots on the Coughlin map to the west or the Tolleywood map, as we pointed out in the application are all smaller, I doubt th~'e are more than a handful of acre lots in the whole subdi- vision. To the east we have one lot which is an acre; the one on the water is an acre and a quarter and to the east of that we have two skinny ones and I doubt that the frontage on the water is more than 60 or 70', although I haven't measured it. We believe that the lots across the street too, are much smaller. We believe that this is a very, very acceptable subdivision. The property was purchased originally for a family subdivision. The DiVello's owned on the sound, they sold and bought this so that they could have a house and their children would have a house and as I mentioned, I think it is a very lovely subidvislon and would be an asset to that part of the community. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's see. Is the existing right of way, which runs through lot ~1, is that presently blocked so it can't be used, or is it open? MR. WICKHAM: It is blocked. ZBA 3/7/85 Page 1 I . JOHN C. and FRANCES DIVELLO HEARING CONTINUED CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, that the Galgano's, who are the only people that appear to be somewhat objecting, although they are not totally objecting, they have an area of concern, a letter in the file from their attorney, since they don't have a total right of way over the new bulldozed right of way or new open right of way, whichever way you want to refer to it. Basically, you would be the only ones who would be using that area that's abandoned now or blocked or whatever we are referring to, is that correct? MR. DIVELLO: Firstly, Mrs. Galgano doesn't disagree with it at all. Her deed states that she may turn to the west, but she would be very happy to use the road to the-east to go out on the new right of way as long as the people they sold their property to would agree and they would agree. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you talking about the new house? MR. DIVELLO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, so it appears that some time in the future this right of way will be totally abandoned? MRS. DIVELLO: Exactly. Excuse me Gerry, when they subdivide their property, and that right of way, that straight right of way, my husband had put there before the structure of the house went up. Whoever bought that house just took it for granted that it was their's. Do you know what I am saying? It never got straightened out. We put it there for them and the bulldozers and everything else construction-wise when they built that house, just used it, that was it. The people took it for their private road, was not aware that my husband had put it there. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Okay. Just for the purpose of the mike, we are recording this, you are Frances Divello. Thank you. I don't have any particular questions at this time, Mr. Wickham. Let's see if there's anything else that develops. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Mr. Wickham, I apologize for making you get up after you sat down, do you have any idea how Suffolk County Health Department feels about this subdivision? Has there been any contact with them. I know the water quality up there is good. I live up in the same area, but was there any concern imposed by Suffolk County Health Department? MR. WICKHAM: Not that I know of. I am not certain on this because I am sort of substituting here, but if there is any, I will be glad to advise you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions from any Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Thank you very much for coming in. ZBA 3/7/85 Page 12. MCGUIRE'S PREMISES, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK R. CRON: You are going to' have to render a decision on that one. Which one is that one now? That was on the so called, alleged storage building situated on the property. And the other of course is on the matter of the greenhouse operation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just let me say before you start, that I did not discuss anything that would pertain to this Board at that meeting. All I did was familiarize myself withRe information. It was brought- to my attention that the building inspector was going to get back to you. R. CRON: I haven't heard from him. I heard from Lark. CHAIRMAN GQEHRINGER: That"s all I know. I know nothing else and had you been there, I would not have discussed it, because there is no application before.my Board. R. CRON: Well, I think what we are trying to do and again, it was not my suggestion, it was the suggestion of the other side, to get together with you and your Board to see what your inclination wauld be in terms of, which apparently the building inspector really has no strong objection to, nor does Mr. Lark. There is some evidence of this having been utilized as basically an~ladditional dwelling on the McGuire property. The point being to see if we can wrap up all the litigation because that's going to have to end up in Supreme Court anyway, it is not a matter that is going to be resolved in the local courts. But they seem to be anxious to resolve the outstanding liti- gation and probably to avoid any further litigation. Of course, it would entail having to come before your Board and obviously get some kind of a variance to utilize that so-called storage buitd~Rg, as a second dwelling without requiring or permitting any further subdivision on that property. In other words, the acreage that's involved could readily support two dwellings. There would be no problems in terms of the acreage available, since this is in excess of four full acres that you are dealing with and I would recognize the fact that you couldn't further subdivide or set that off as a separate residence but utilizing it in terms of the entire parcel as a second dwelling for rental purposes. Now, I don't know what the pleasure of the Board would be. I know you have a lot of difficulty with these things in terms of guest houses and what have you, this is really not the same situation. It's some- thing different. I can tell you this, there are Supreme Court cases that have permitted, even though there is no Subdivision of the land, they would recognize if you had two acre zoning, with four acres, you migkt be able to utilize anOther building as a dwelling. ZBA 3/7/85 Page 13. MCGUIRE' S PREMISES, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK R. CRON: There's covenants on there, of record, put on by the grantor, the common grantor of all those lots there, that prohibits subdivision of that land, so that would stand. That would have a lot of weight. I should have mentioned that, but you are probably right, you might have been able to attack:it that way. They bought it sub3ect to a covenant; they can't further subdivide. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had indicated to the Mr. Lark and to Victor that I would hope that Victor could take care of it in his own domain and I assume that that"s not the case now? R. CRON: Well, I haven't spoken to Victor on it. What Lark did mention to me was that Victor was thinking in terms of a storage building, although we can have that in any event. We can treat that as an accessory barn building for the nursery and utilize it that way. That's not giving them anything. That's hardly an adequate compromise I can see why the Town would like to get rid of these and I can see where ultimately they are going to lose both these cases anyway, so and I am not interested in any glorified victory in achieving something that's fair for everybody concerned. I don't need the victoyy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know what to suggest here. R. CRON: Well, what I was really seeking and I suppose it's unfair and I doubt if you are going to tell me as to what an inclination of your Board might be if this could be arranged as some kind of package deal in terms seeking a resolution of all outstanding litigation and avoiding any future litigation. They certainly are going to have to litigate this issue. In other words, they are probably going to have to go before your Board and that's the only way I can see them doing this anyway and depending on what your Board does with respect to this, we end up in an Article 78 in Supreme Court and wait fcr the Court to decide. What they are seeking is some kind of solution to the present outstanding litigation. I have no problem with that as long as the result ig fair for everybody and fair to my client. I am not waiting for a decision from you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do what you have to do,. P _ f"PNA~ · T'F ~rr~,~ ,,,~-~ hn~'n + RECEIVED AND F LED BY ~iE SOUTHOLD TO~VN Hour / n of~ Pp. ] -13 11:30 you wouldn-!t mind if I ducked out. Respectfully submitted, Barbara A. Strang *These minutes were transcribed from tapes recorded in my absence.