Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/14/1985 Southold Town Board o£Appeals MAIN ROAD- E~TATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 1'1971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI H T N U T E $ REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 1985 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on ThUrsday, F~brua~y 14, 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., Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting all the members of the board. Also present were Victor Lessard, Building Department-Administrator, and approximatels 25 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: PUBLIC HEARING: 7:34 p.m. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading of the legal notice and variance application concerning Appeal No. 3294 for PETER J. AND MARGARET TROYANO by Richard F. Lark, Esq. There was testimony both in behalf of and against the application, and the verbatim transcription of same was recorded electronically and subsequently prepared by Barbara Strang, the original of which has simultaneously been filed with the Office of the Town Clerk. Subsequent to receiving testimony, the board took the following action: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing pending receipt of the pictures referred to by Mr. McGunnigle, in the Matter of Appeal No. 3294 of PETER J. AND MARGARET TROYANO. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeai No, 3294 - PETER AND MARGARET TROYANO, continued:) Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. 7:58 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the matter of JOSEPH AND PATRICIA STIEFER_under Appeal No. 3314 for permission to build accessory horse barn in the frontyard area and to erect fencing exceeding the four-foot height requirement in the frontyard area, at 6760 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NeW,York. Mr. Stiefer.spoke in behalf of his application, and the verbatim transcription of same has been.prepared under separate cover b~ Barbara St~ang and filed simultaneously with the Town Clerk's Office for reference. Subsequent to ~eceiving testimony, the board took the following action: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESDLVED, to clos~ the hearing pending receipt of~the setback distances requested of the applicant.. Vote of the Board: Ayes:' Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki_. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vQte of all the members. 8:12 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of THOMAS PERILLO~ by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. under Appeal No. 3314 for approval of insufficient area and width of two.proposed parcels at Home Pike and Silkworth Roads, Mattituck, New YQrk. Mr. Brue~ spoke in behalf of the application, and the verbatim transcription of same has been prepared under separate cover by Barbara Strang and simultaneously filed with the Town Clerk's Office. Subsequent to receiving testimony, the board took the following action: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, tO close the hearing pending ~eliberations in the Matter of THOMAS ?ERILLO, Appeal No..3314. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vQte of all the members. ~ S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -3- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting 8:20 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of ANTHONY PAGOTO for permission to locate swimmingpool in frontyard area, at Bridge Lane and Bayberry Road, Nassau Poi. nt, Cutchogue. Mr. Pagoto spoke in behalf of his application. ~The statements of the hearing have been recorded electronically and prepared under separate cover by Barbara Strang and filed~simultaneously herewith in the Town Clerk's Office.) Following testimony, the boardl]~ook the following action: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing, pending"receipt ~f the setback distance for the pool with the deck a~ea from the ~roperty lines. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigo~is, Doyen, Dougl. ass and Sawicki. This resolution was ad~Dted by unanimous vote of all the members. 8:30 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of the ESTATE OF LOUISE WILSON, by A. Wickham, Esq. for Variances: (~) to Article III,~ Section 1~0-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels, and _(b) to New York Town Law, Section 280-a for approval Qf access, R-O-W located off the North Side of Main Road, Mattituck, New York. Miss Wickham spoke in behalf of the application, and follQwing testimony, the board took the following action: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to recess for approximately f~ve minutes, at which time the hearing would be recon~ened. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. The meeting recessed at 8:35. 8:40 p.m. After motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to recon~ene. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ESTATE OF LOUISE WILSON PUBLIC HE~ING continued: Abigail Wickham advised ~he ~oard ~ha~ the property was located in the "A" Residential Zoning District and the date of ~eath was early 1983.~ (T~stimony has been transcribed under separate cover by Barbara Strang and filed with the Town Clerk for refenence.) S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -4- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Estate of Louise Wilson,-continued:) Following testimony, the board took the following action: On motion by Mr. G~ehringer, seconded by-Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing pending deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Mess~s. Goehringer, Gri§onis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki_. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. 8:42 p.m. Public Hearings in the Matters of Appeal Nos. 3316 and 3315 fQr the_CU~CHOGUE FREE LIBRARY. Thereiwas.no Qpposition to the Chairman's combining the two hearings. The Chairman read both the legal notices for each hearing and read each application accordingly fQr the record. Mrs. Jane Minerva was present and spoke in behalf of the application. No opposition ~as received. (The statements of the hearing were recorded electronically and prepared under separate cover by Barbara Strang, attached.to the end of these minutes and filed with the Town Cl. erk's Office.) ~ollowing testimony, the board took the following action: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to clos~ the hearings pending deliberations on Appeals No. 3315 and 3316 for the CUTCHOGUE'FREE LIBRARY. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. ~oehringer, Grigonis, Doyen~ Douglass and Sawick~. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. 8:55 p.m, Mr. Joseph Stiefer appeared before the board with the setback distances requested earlier during~his hearing. Mr. Stiefer advised that board that ~he distances for the proposed fence enclosure are as follows: (a) 10' from th~ front property line, (b) 30' from the east property line, (c) 20! from the west side property line, and (d) ~rom th~ road and extending back 950 feet. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3317: Upon application for THOMAS PERILLO, c/o Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Main Road, Southold, NY for a Var~aDc~to the Zoning Ordinances Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels in this proposed division of lan~ located at Silkworth Road and Home Pike, Mattituck, NY; District 1000, Section 114, Block 1, Lot 7. The board took the following action: WHEREAS, the public hearing on the appeal application of THOMAS PERILLO, Appeal No~ 3317, was held on February 14,_1985~ and~all testimony from~said hearing have been taken into consideration by each board member in making these findings and determination; WHEREAS, at said hearing, there was no opposition given in the record; and WHEREAS, each of the board members have viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and its surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact and determination: 1. The property in question is located in the "A-80" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District~ 2. The property ~n question is identified on the Suffolk County .Tax Map as District 1000, Section 114, Block 1, Lot 7, and is show~ on servey map dated May 30, 1984 as.vacant property of a total of 3.1974 acres; _ 3. Article III, Section 100-31, and Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code, requires a minimum area Qf 80,000 sq. ft. and minimum lot width of 175 feet for each proposed parcel of land established subsequent to June 10, 1983 (date effectuated)~ 4. Parcel #1 is proposed to be 1.5323 acres (66,746± sq. ft.) consisting of Part of Lot 19, and 20 of a former 1916 subdivision of "Point Pleasant," having frontage along Home Pike Road of 144.20± feet and an average lot width of 248.10 feet, with frontage along Darby's Branch of Mattituck Creek of 352~ feet (along a tie line). 5. Parcel #2 is proposed to be 1.6651 acres (72,531 sq. ft.) consisting of Lots 17, 18, and part of 19 of the former subdivision 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3317 THOMAS PERILLO, continued:) of 1916 of "Point Pleasant," and having frontage along Home Pike Road of 80± feet ~nd an_average lot width of 150± feet with frontage along Darby's Branch of Mattituck Creek of 260± feet (see survey dated May 30, 1984). 6. In viewing the area, the board finds: (a) the neighboring parcels to the west to be of.a size similar or smaller than that proposed by this application, varying from 442000 Sq. ft. and greater for area, and from 80' lot width and greater; (b) the relief_ is the minimal_available under the circumstances. 7. The right-of-way in question is private and is pending acceptance by this board as to anticipated improvements i_n accordance with the September 30, 1982 decision of this board under Appeal No. 3025, pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-A. In considering this appeal, the board also finds: 1. That the ~elief r~quested is minima'i; 2. That this proposed is consistent wi~h those parcels generally existing in the sur[ou~ding neighborhood; 3. That there will be no ~ffect on population density and thereby will not effect available governmental facilities; 4. That there i's no substantial change in the character of this area or a substantial detriment to adjoining properties; 5. That the circumstances are unique; 6. That the relief requested cannot be obviated by another method feasible to appellan~ other than a variance; 7. That in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance, asc conditionally noted below .... NOW, THEREFiORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it wa~ ..... RESOLVED, 'that the_relief requested under Appeal No. 3317 in the Matter of_'THOMAS'PERILLO as shown on survey ~ated May 30, 1984), BE AND HEREBY IS ~PP~OVED~]SUBJECT',TO THE?OLLO~ING CONDITIONS:_ 1. That there be no further lot size reductions (no further division); 2. New York Town Law, Section 280-A,-concerning conditions as ~Southotd Town Board of Appeals -7- February 14~ 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3317 THOMAS PERILLO, continued:) imposed by this board involving the subject right-of-ways, extending from Westphalia Road and along premises of the.applicant, as follows: (a) Commencing from Westphalia Road and extending along the premises in question: [1] a minimum width of 15 feet and [2] such minimum 15-foot width shall be surfaced with a minimum depth of two inches of packed three-quarter-inch stone blend so as to afford access for emergency vehicles. Such stone blend may be either applied to the ground surface and shaped, or the surface may be excavated to permit the application of packed blend to a depth of two inches; (b) Commencing from Silkworth Road and extending along the premises in question: [1] a.minimum width of 15 feet and [2] such minimum 15-foot width shall be surfaced with a minimum depth of four inches of packed three-quarter-inch stone blend so as to afford access for emergency vehicles. Such stone blend may be either applied to the ground surface and shaped, or the surface shall be excavated to permit the application of packed blend to a depth of four inches; (c) Where the terrain of the land over which such access roads are traversed is such that drainage problems may occur, the applicant and/or owners shall be required to construct such drainage facilities as may be recommended by this board; (d) That this access road must be maintained at all times in good satisfactory condition as stipulated above for access by.emergency vehicles; (e) That this access road be approved, after notification~ by the Board of Appeals as to meeting the above requirements. Location of Property: Silkworth Road and Home Pike Road, Mattituck, NY; 10Q0-114-1-7. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Gri§onis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- February 14, 1985 Re§ular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3314: Application of JOSEPH AND PATRICIA STIEFER, 6760 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission: (a) to build accessory horse barn in the frontyard area and (b) to erect fencing exceeding four-feet in height in the frontyard area, premises known as 6760 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY; District 1000, Section 121, Block 04, Lot 08. The following action was taken; following deliberations: WHEREAS~ the public hearing on the appeal application of JOSEPH AND PATRICIA STIEFER, Appeal No. 3314, was held and concluded on February 14~ 1985, at which time no opposition was received and the applicants were heard in behalf of their application; WHEREAS, the board members have viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and its surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact and determination: 1. The property in question contains an area of 13.3655 acres and is located in the "A-80" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District; 2. The subject premises is known and identified as Lot 1 of Minor Subdivision No. 438 conditionally approved by the Planning Board November 5, 1984; and more particularly designed as District 1000, Section 121,~Block 4, part of Lot 8; 3. Article III, Section 100-32 of the Zoning Code permits the placement of an accessory structure only in the rearyard area; 4. Applicant has requested permission to place a 30' by 100' horse barn, which will be accessory to a proposed principal struc- ture-one-family dwelling, tn an area approximately 600 feet from Sound Avenue, and approximately 80 feet from the easterly property line; 5. Article III, Section 100-119.1 of the Zoning Code permits fences to be located within the frontyard area at a maximum height of four feet, and within the side or rear yard areas at a maximum height of 6½ feet; 6. Applicant has requested permission to locate a fence at a height of hot greater than five feet within the frontyard area approximately ten feet from the front property line, approximately 30 feet from the easterly property line, and approximately 20 feet So~thold Town Board of Appeals -9- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3314 JOSEPH AND PATRICIA STIEFER, continued:) from the westerly property line. The fence enclosure will extend approximately 950 feet from the front property line (Sound Avenue). Also, in considering this appeal, the board finds, in view of the size and uniqueness of this parcel, the setback proposed of the principal one-family dwelling of more than 1200 feet from Sound Avenue, the barn is proposed to be set back a distance much greater than than normally required for either a principal or accessory building, and the fencing is proposed to be at a height of one foot (25%) over that permitted near the northerly and westerly frontyard areas, as follows: 1. That the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the zoning requirements~ 2. That these proposals are consistent with the intent and purposes of zoning; 3. That there will be no substantial change in the character of this Residential and Agricultural Zoning District; 4. That there will be no effect on population density and thereby will not effect available governmental facilities; 5. That the circumstances are unique; 6. That the relief requested cannot be obviated by another method feasible to appellant under the circumstances other than by a variance;~ 7. That in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance, as conditionally noted below. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3314 in the Matter of JOSEPH AND ?ATRICIA STIEFER to locate 20' by 100' horse barn/stable in the frontyard area and five-foot high fence enclosure extending at a point 10' from the northerly front property line (Sound Avenue) 950 feet deep, as applied herein, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The fencing shall not exceed five feet in height; 2. The fencing shall not be located any closer than: (a) 10 feet to the northerly front property (Sound Avenue); So~thold Town Board of Appeals -.10- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3314 - JOSEPH AND PATRICIA STIEEER, continued:) (b) 30 feet to the easterly property line; (c) 20 feet to the westerly property line; (d) 5 feet to any telephone pole; 3. The fencing shall not extend further than 950 feet from the northerly front property line (Sound Avenue), as requested; 4. The subject horse barn/stable: (a) shall not be located any closer than 75-80 feet from the easterly property line; (b) shall not be located any closer than 600 feet to the northerly front p~operty line (Sound Avenue); (c) shall not be of a size in excess of 30' by 100'; (d) shall not be used for residential sleeping or habitable purposes~ (e) shal~ not exceed 18 feet in height. Location of P~operty: 6760 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 121, Block 4, Lot 8. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members of the board. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3311: Application of ROBERT'A.'CELIC, Box 1247, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance~ Article VII, Section 100-71 .for permission to build addition with an insufficient rearyard.setback from the easterly~property line, premises identified as 10200 Main Road (and Marlene Drive), Matt~tuck, NY; County Tax Map.Parcel No. 1000-143-3-1. F~ld~$ng deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, the public hearing on the appeal application of ROBERT A. CELIC, Appeal No. 3314, was held and concl, uded on January 24~ 1985, at which.time all. testimony was taken, including wnitten .opposition from an adjoining property owner along the ~southerly property line; and WHEREAS, the board members have each viewed the premises in question as well as its surrounding area and are famil~iar with So'uthold Town Board of Appeals -ll- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3311 - ROBERT A. CELIC, continued:) the character of the immediate zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of facts: 1. The property in question contains an area of 31,451 sq. ft. and is located in the "B-l" General Business Zoning District; 2. The subject premises is known as 10200 Main Road at its intersection with Marlene Drive, Mattituck, and is more. particularly identified as District 1000, Section 143, Block 03, Lot 001; 3. The subject premises is improved with a one-story building presently used for a real estate office and beauty parlor with a setback from the westerly front prQperty line at 7.5± feet at its nearest point, and set back from the northerly front property line at 80 feet at its nearest point; 4. Abutting the subject parcel on the south are premises located in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and on the east, premises also located in the "B-l" General Business Zoning District. 5. Article VII, Section 100-71, and Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code requires a minimum sideyard set. back of 25 feet and minimum rearyard setback of 35 feet for a principal structure~ 6. Applicant has requested permission to vary the easterly setback to 18 feet for a proposed~2,750 sq. ft. addition, extending 43± feet eaSterly from the northeast corner of the existing building and thence extending northerly 45 feet (30 feet northerly from the northwest corner of the existing building); 7. Applicant has a proposed site plan pending before the Planning Board for consideration of the elements required under Section 100-134 of the Zoning Code; Also, in considering this appeal, it is the opinion of the board that: 1. The relief as requested is not substantial in relation to the zoning requirements since, the parcel in question is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-13, and as such, Section 100-119 allows a yard other than'a fr~ontyard to be deemed a~i~yard~ which is 28% of a variance from the 25' requirement, or deemed a rearyard; 2. The propos~al is consistent with the existing character of the use(s) establis.hec, and there will be no substantial change in the character of thee zoning district, since the addition is proposed for expansion of the present use(s); 3. There will be no effect on population density and thereby will not effect available governmental facilities; 4. That in view of the manner in which the d'ifficulties arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance applied. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3311 ROBERT A. CELIC, continued:) NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 2311 in the matter of ROBERT A. CELtC for permission to construct addition with an insufficient setback from the easterly property line at 18 feet, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED. Location of Property: 10200 Main Road (and Marlene Lane), Mattituck, NY; 1000-143-03-001. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Goehringer abstained from vote.) This resolution was adopted by majority vote. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3315: Application of CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY, 27550 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(B), 100-31, and 100-119, for permission to construct library addition leaving an insufficient rearyard setback at premises known as 27550 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; District 1000, Section 109, Block 06, part of Lots 1 and 2. Following deliberations, the following action was taken: WHEREAS, the public hearing on the appeal application of the CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY~ Appeal No. 3315, was held and concluded on February 14, 1985, at which time no opposition was received and the applicant was heard in behalf of this application; WHEREAS, the board members have 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 as shown on site plan dated Novem- ber 28, 1984 contains an area of 31,666 sq. ft. and is located in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District; 2. The subject premises is improved with an 1800 sq. ft. building which has been and will continue to be used for the Cutchogue Library; 3. The subject premises is bounded on the east by premises presently of the Sacred Heart R.C. Church which is zoned "B-I" General Business, on the south by land presently of Case and others located in the "A" Residential and.Agricultural .Zoning District; Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal~ No. 3315 - CU~CHOGUE FRE~ LIBRA~Y~ continued:) 4. Article III, Section lO0-30(B) permits by special excep- tion and site plan approval a library and subject to all other code regulations, including Section lO0-31 and Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code which requires a minimum ~earyard setback of 50 feet; 5. Applicant has requested permission to vary the southerly yard setback to 19 feet and the easterly yard setback will be maintained at the established 16 feet, for the proposed 3,580 sq. ft. extension of the present library, extending 64rfeet to the south and 60 feet at the southerly end at its widest point; 6. For the record it is noted that the January 16, 1985 certification of the Building Inspector indicates that the site plan as proposed before the Planning Board will meet all other zoning requirements, and which this board is in agreement with; Also, in considering this appeal, it is the opinion of the board: 1. That the relief as requested is not substantial and that the area chosen is the most feasible, particularly in light of the fact the subject premises is a cQrne~ lot and the building is set back substantially from the main highways; 2. The propoSal' is consistent with the character of the area since the use has~.been established and the site abuts.premises in the business district on the east, which is required to have a minimum of 35-feet from the rear property line (15 feet less than that required for this site); 3. There will be no effect on population density and thereby will not effect available governmental facilities; 4. That in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance, as.applied. NOW~ THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested in the Matter of the CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY for permission to construct'addition for librany use with an insufficient rearyard setback from the southerly property line at 19 feet, Appeal No, 3315, BE ~ND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED. Location of Property: 27550 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3315 - CUTCH~GD~_ FREi LIBRARY, continued:) Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-109-06=002 and part of OO1. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unani- mous of all_the members. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3316: Application of CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY, 27550 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(B)[4] for permission to establish library use for an addition proposed at premises known as 27550 Main Road, Cutchogue, N.Y; District 1000, Section 109, Block 06, part of Lot 2 and 1. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, the public hearing on the special exception applica- tion of the CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY, Appeal No. 3316, was held and concluded on February 14, 1985, at which time no opposition was received and the applicant was heard in behalf of this application; WHEREAS, the board members have 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 as shown on site plan dated Novem- ber 28, 1984 contains an area of 31,666 sq. ft. and is located in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District; 2. The subject premises is improved with an 1800 sq. ft. building which has been and will Continue to be used for the Cutchogue Library; 3. The subject premises is bounded on the east by premises presently of the Sacred Heart R.C. Church which is zoned "B-I" General Business, on the sou-~h by land presently of Case and others located in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning Distrct; 4. This is an application for a Special Exception pursuant to Article III, Section lO0-20(B) for permission to establish library use within a proposed.addition to the present library structure; 5. The project in question has received a variance under Appeal No. 3315~ same date .hereof, to vary the southerly yard setback to 19 feet and the easterly yard setback will be maintained at the established 16 feet, for the proposed 3,580 s.q. ft. extension of the present library~ extending 64 feet to the south and 60 feet S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -15- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3316 - CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY, continued:) at the southerly end at its widest point~ 6. For the record it is noted that the January 16, 1985 certification of the Building Inspector indicates tha~ the site plan as proposed before the ~lanning Board will meet all other zoning requirements, and which this ~board is in agreement with; In considering this application, the board has determined: (1) that this use of the land tn question is not a newly created use since it is an expansi.on of the present library; (2) that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonabl~ use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent-use districts; (3) that the safety, heal. th, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; (4) that the use will be tn harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of the zoning .ordinance. In passing upon this application, the board has also considered items.(a) through (1) of Article XIt, Section 100-121(C)[2] of the Zoning Code. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that a Special Exception for the extension of the proposed addition to the present library for library use BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED'AS'APPLIED in the Matter of the ~UTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY, Appeal No. 3316. Location of Property: 27550 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1.000-109-06-002 and part of 001. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was~adQp~ed..by unani- mous of all the members. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -16- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3310: Upon application of GARY~DOROSKI, 425 Monsell Lane, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate accessory storage building in an area other than the required rearyard at 425 Monsell Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-97-8-27, Norwald Subdivision Map 1275, Lots 31 to 35 inclusive. The public hearing on this matter was held on January 24, 1985. Subsequent to deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, the public hearing on the appeal application of GARY DOROSKI, Appeal No. 3310,.was held and concluded on January 24, 1985, at which time no one appeared either in behalf of, or against, this application; 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 contains an area of 37,703 sq. ft. in area and consists of Lots 21 through 35 of the 1939 Subdivision Map of "Norwald," and is more particularly identified as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 97,_BLock 8, Lot 27; 2. The subject premises is located in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District; 3. The subject premises is improved with one, one-family dwelling, more particularly shGwn on survey dated December 1~, 1975, and set back at its closest point from Monsell Lane at its southwest corner 31 feet; 4. Article III, Section 100-32 restricts accessory buildings to the rearyard area; 5. Applicant is requesting permission to construct a 20' by 20' accessory building in the northerly sideyard area to be set back not closer than 31 feet from the front~prope~ty line along Monsell Lane and to be positioned on an angle approximately 18 feet from the northwest corner of the house; 6. Article III, Section 100-30(C) limits uses for acces- sory buildings allowing a garden house, toolhouse, storage, garage - use, etc., and it is the understanding of this board that the use Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting ~Appeal No. 3310 - GARY DOROSKI, continued:)' of this accessory building will be clearly incidental or subordinate to, and customary in connection with~ the principal dwelling use of this lot; 7. For the record, it is noted that under Appeal No. 2040 permission was granted to construct the existing residence with a setback not closer than 30 feet to Monsell Lane~ as rendered in the board's decision of June 12, 1975. In considering ~his appeal, the board has determined that: l. The relief as requested is not substantial in relation to the requirements of_the zoning ordinance since the parcel in question is a waterfront parcel with limited buildable ~rearyard area; 2. The proposal will not create a substantial change in the character of the zoning district since most of the parcels along the east side of Monsell Lane have similar depth as that of the subject parcel, thereby lea~ing limited rearyard area; 3. The propo~ai as requested will be clearly incidental or subordinate to, and customary in connection with, the residential use of this premises; 4. There will be no effect on population density since the subject building is for storage purposes and.not for sleeping or habitable quarters~ 5. That in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by allowing the area variance appl. ied, as noted below. NOW, THEREFORE, on Motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki~ it was RESOLVED, that an 20' by 20' accessory storage building be permitted to be located in the sideyard area as applied, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ~ i.~ That this structure be no closer than 31 feet to the front property line (along Monsell Lane); 2. ~hat this structure be'located as requested with a minimum distance of 15 feet from the..existing house~ 3. That ~his structure not exceed one-story height, (18 feet)~ 4. That this structure only be incidental and customary ~n connection with the residential use of this premises (no business storage or sleeping or habitable quarters to_be permitted). Southold Town Board.of Appeals -18- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3310 GARY DOROSKI,"co~l~nued:) Location of Property: 425 Monsell Lane, Cutcho§ue, NY~ Norwald Subdivision Lots 31 through 35, incl.; District 1000, Section 97, Block 8, Lot 27. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyens Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3312: Upon application for ESTATE OF LOUISE WILSON, c/o Wickham, Wickham and Bressl. er, P.C., Main Road,~Mattituck., NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and a Variance to New York Town Law, Section 280-a for approval of access over a proposed right-of-way to be located on the north side of Main Road, Mattituck, NY; premises ident'ified as District 1000, Section 122, Block 6, Lot 19. Subsequent to deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, the public hearing on the application for the ESTATE OF LOUISE WILSON, Appeal No. 3312, was held and concluded on February 14, 1985, 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; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is located in the "A-80" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District, containing a total area of 1.622 acres, and identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 122, Bock 06, Lot 19; 2. Article III, Section 100-31, and Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code, requires a minimum area of~_80,O00 sq. ft. and minimum lot width of 175 feet for each proposed parcel of land established subsequent to.June 10, 1983 (date effectuated); and prior to June 10, 1983, a minimum area of 40,000 sq. ft. and minimum lot width of 150 feet for each newly created parcel of land; 3. By this application, insufficient area and lot width is requested, as follows: (a) Parcel #2 will contain 24,505 sq. ft. in area and 100 feet in lot width _(b) Par.cel #1 will contain Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3312 - LOUISE WILSON ESTATE, continued:) 46,137 sq. ft. in area and 100 feet in lot width (inclusive of rigbt-of-way)~ approval of access pursuant to New. Yo~k Town Law, Section 280-a is also requested over a 16'-wide right-of-way extend- ing from the north side of Main Road 250 feet in depth along the east side of proposed Parcel #2, for access to proposed Parcel #1. 4. Parcel #2 is improved with a one-family dwelling, Parcel #1 is vacant, as shown on survey mapped June~15, 1984; 5. Abutting the subject premises to the west are premises located in the "B-Light Bus~ness" Zoning Distrct, and to the north and east of the subject premises, other premises in the "A" Resi- dential and Agricultural Zoning Districts. 6. A copy of the November 19, 1969, Will of Louise Wilson, the owner of the entire premises in question, has been submitted for the record conveying the property as separate parcels to Muriel Wilson and Dorothy Saunde~s, as shown o~ the subdivision map prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. mapped June 15, 1984, parcels #1 and #2, respectively; and the owner's date of death effectuating same was February 23, 1983. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (1) the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the zoning.require- ments which existed February 23, 1983, Parcel #2 being 39% of a variance (51% of a variance exclusive of right-of-way), (2).there will be no effect on population density thereby not effectin§ avail- able governmental facilities; (3) there will be no substantial change in the character of the neighborhood Qr a substantial detri- ment to adjoining properties; (4) 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 requested under Appeal No. 3312 in the Matter of the ESTATE OF LOUISE.]WILSON for apprQval of ~nsuffi- cient area and width of parcels in this proposed division of land (more particularly not'ed in the board's findings, supra) and for approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a, BE AND HEREBY ARE APPROVED SUBJECT'TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. That there be no further lot area reductions for either parcel; 2. That the right-of-way be improved as follows: Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -20- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3312 - LOUISE WILSON ESTATE, continued:) (a) For a minimum width of l0 feet within the legal 16' right-of-way and extending up to Parcel #1, be either blacktopped or surfaced with four-inches of stone .blend, and (b) Be continuously maintained in good condition at all times. Location of Property: N/s Main Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-06-19. 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. 3303: -Upon application of FRANK A. FIELD REALTY, INC., Box 631, Green- port, 'NY for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections lO0-31 and lO0-30(A)[1] for approval of the construction of a one-story two-family house, at premises known as Lots 26 and 28 of "Greenport Driving Park" Subdivision, containing 11,262 sq. ft. in area and lO0-foot lot width. Applicant proposes to remove two existing dwelling structures located partly on Subdivision Lots 26, 28, 59 and 60, and to retain an existing one=family trailer and one-family, two-story house on Lots 59 and 60; premises identified as County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-48-03-20, 19, 8 and 9. Subsequent to deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, the public hearings on the application of FRANK A. FIELD REALTY INC., Appeal No. 3303, were held on December 13, 1984, January 17, 1985, and January 24, 1985, at which time all testimony was received in behalf of this applic'ation and against the application and entered into the record for consideration; 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 the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District, containing a total area of 22,5262 sq. ft. and lot width(s) of lO0 feet~ 2. The subject premises is known and referred to as Lots 59, 60, 28 and 26 as shown on the 1909 Subdivision Map of "Greenport Driving Park" and is more particularly identified as District 1000, Section 48, Block 3, Lots 8, 9, 19 and 20~ 3. The parcel in question is improved as follows: (a) the section known as "Lot 60" contains a temporary [one-family] Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3303 FRANK A. FIELD REALTY INC., continued:) trailer, (b) the ,section known as "Lot 59" contains a one-family, two-story frame house, an uninhabitable one-story frame house and part of another uninhabitable one-sto~y frame house which is also located partly on "Lot 28" _(c) "Lot 26" is vacant except for a small 7' by 9' storage shed located approximately three feet from the northerly and westerly property lines (d) "Lot 28" is vacant except as noted in (b), supra. 4. By this application, applicant is requesting permis- sion to construct a two-family residence to be located 35 feet from the front property line (along Brown Street), 154± feet from the northerly property line [along Linnett Street], 14 feet from the easterly side property line, and 22 feet from the westerly side property line; 5. The applicant-owner proposes to remove the two uninhabitable structures in lieu of the proposed two-family structure, and reference is made to the Map prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. October 19, 1984; 6. For the record it is noted that on January 22, 1985, the Southold Town Board granted the applicant-owner a 6-month extension for the existing temporary trailer on the premises in question. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (1) the granting of this two-family use for a total of three dwelling units on the entire premises [Logs 26, 28, 59 and 60] is not substantial since it is not an increase of the number of dwelling units which existed previously on this site; (2) there will be no substantial change in the character of the neighborhood which might be detrimental to adjoining properties since, although the number of dwelling units will not be changed, the buildings which are delapidated and eye sores to the community will~ be removed~ (3) there will be no effect on population density which would adversely affect available governmental facilities since the density of dwelling units remains virtually unchanged; (4) that the relief requested cannot be obviated bY another method feasible to appel- lant other than a variance since the two existing dwelling uni. ts to be removed exist in nonconforming locations; ~(5) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance, as conditionally noted below. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3303, concerning property now or formerly of FRANK A.''FIELD REALTY INC. BE GRANTED !0 ~ERMIT~ONE NEW TWO'FAMILY RESIDENCE'AND'ONE ONE'FAMILY EXISTING RESIDENC~',"FO'R A IOTAL-OF THREE DWELLING UNITS ON ~E ENTIRE PREMISES, SUBJECT TO THE FQLLOWING CONDITIONS: So~thold Town Board of Appeals -22-February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3303 FRANK A. FIELD REALTY INC., continued:) 1. That the entire premises, consisting of Lots 28, 26, 59 and 60 of the 1909 Subdivision of "Greenport Driving Park," not exceed a total of three one-family dwelling units (which may be one two-family and one one-family structures; or three separate one-family structures); 2. That there be no division or set-off of land (unless subsequent approvals are made by this board and other appropriate agencies after formal applications accordingly), and these premises shall be deemed to be one lot in its entirety. Location of Property: East Side of Brown Street and West Side of Linnett Street, Greenpor~, NY; Subdivision Lots 26, 28, 59 and 60 of "Greenport Driving Park"; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000=48-3- 8, 9, 19 and 20; containing 25,526± sq. ft., more or less. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. SET,UPS FOR HEARINGS FOR MARCH 7~ 1985: After reviewing each file, the boa~d~took the following action: On motion by Mr, Sa~cki, seconded by Mr~ Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to advertise notice~of the.following m~tters.~or public hearings to be held on THURSDAY, MARCH ~, 1'985 in the local and official n~ws~ papers of the town pursuant~to law: 7:30 p.m, Appeal No 3325 -'DDUGLAS A.' COOPER; 7:35 p.m. Appeal No 3322 ~ JOSEPH-LIZEWS~; 7:40 p~m. Appeal No 3321 ~ ~LICE B. CURRIE; 7:45 p.m~ Appeal No 33~9 ~ ANDREAS~PAL~URASl 7:50 p,m, Appeal No 33t8 - MEEHAN~ANB-LEONARDI; 7:55 p~m~ Appeal No 3306 ~ ROBERT~ANB ALDONE'NORKUS; 8:05 p~m. Appeal No~ 3205 ~ 20HN AND FRANCES'DtVEELO. Vote of the Board: -'Ayes: Messrs~-~Goehringer~Grigoni's, Doyen, Douglass and Sawick~ This resolution was adopted by- - unanimous vote of all the members. - Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting REVIEW: Appeal No. 3320 - BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP. (SAGE)~ After reviewing the.letters and information received February 6th concerning the board,s request of ~anuary 10th, the Secretary was directed to send correspondence to_Mr. For~helli requesting that the areas of fresh and salt water wetlands of Section One be sketched, perhaps on the]maps presently in our file, in red inK, which would not_be highly cos~ly.~. Th~_board was part$cularly concerned about the large area~of.~arsh~ahd-a~d_~land under ~ter within Section One. It was also requested that an application be made by the applicants to the N,Y,S? Department of EDv~ronmental Conservation fo~ the subdivision pursuant to Section 661.5(B)[5~] of the Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Part 661, and Article_25 o~ the ~nvironment~l ConservatioD Law, and that any actions or correspondence regarding the same be furnished for our files. It was brought to the board's attention that the Planning Board will be reviewing this project at their March 4th meeting, and the secretary was asked to obtain a copy of that action in the interim. REVIEWS: The board members reviewed each of the following files and made notations, as follows: Appeal No. 3326 - WILLIA~ AND HELEN COSTER - Subject to receiving Planning Board comments prior to adverti$ing~for the March 28th Regular Meeting ~advertising deadline 3/19); Appeal No. 3327 - EMILIA T. PIKE - Subject to receiving Planning Board comments prior to ZBA advertising for the March 28th Meeting (advertising deadline 3/19); Appeal No~ 3323 ~ COLGATE DESZGN'CORP~ Await response from P!_~no~.ng B~~.%~ our ]/]6/8~ memo ~oncerning prior site-pla~_re.quirements for access .~t the east side ~ this building before advertising foX'the M~F~h 28th meeting, Appeal No. 3333 - HELYNN D~ KAPP - Scheduled for the Regular ~ Mee$ing subsequent to M~?C~Tth, which is expected ~o be March 28th, File is complete. Appeal No. 3~28 ~'BRiDE~'M~CHI~E.'coR~i Awai~-P~a~ni!ng Board - Appeal No, 3329 review_~n~ comment~ which are_.~xpect~d at their March 18th meeti, ng~ if received, may advertise fo~ March 28th public hearings. Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (REVIEWS, continued:) Appeal No. 3331 - SAUL MILLMAN - File is complete. May be and 3332 schedu, led for public hearing for the next ava~l~.~le_~ate, pos~b'ly~Ma~ch 28th~.~. . - ACCESSORY?APARTMENTS~ The board members discussed the proposed Local Law on Accessory Apartments which was submitted to our office yesterday. The Chairman asked the board members to submit their comments by Monday, February 18th so that a draft may be prepared ~nd~n~.final form as'~reque~d~'by Vic Lessard and Frank ~urphy for the Town Board's F~bruary 26th meCting. Vic was a~s~ur~d tba~ our' ~eCommendat~ns~]wo~l~ be submitted as early as possible, and that s~nce there has been a tremendous amount of inp~t~and feedback during reviews by the Zoning Committee, research must be done to determine the~amount of conversions being permitted. It was also mentioned that i~ ahecking with the Assessor~ Office, it appea~s there are 9,000± houses ex~sting since 1976, which is 90% of the presently existing houses. It was suggested that the cut-off date be 19~7, the time when "Pre-Certificates of Occupancy" predicated. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded b~ Mr. Go,bringer, it was ~ _ _ RESOLVED, to approve the~Minutes of the last Regular Meeting of the board, to wit: O~nu~ry 24~ 1985 as submi~tedo Vote of the Board: Ayes: Mes~rs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawick~. This resolution w~s adgpt~d by unanimous vote of all the members. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, i~ was RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the Special Meeting of this board h~ld J~nu~y 26, 1985 as submit~ed~ Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawick~. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: Pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) of the Environmental Conser- vation Law, and Chapter 44-4 of the Code of the Town of Southold, and after reviewing each of the following matters, the board declared Negative Declarations, as follows: S.E.Q.R.Ao NEGATi~rE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAP~ATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NOo: 3325 PROJECT N/LWIE: DOUGLAS'A. COOPER 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 To%~ of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the ~asons indicated be!ow~ 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 c0nst.ruct stable (p01e barn) a 2.4±-acre parcel for the keeping of horses (presently vacant land). LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, more particularly known as: R-0-W off N/s BE[g~n Avenue, ~attituck. 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 barn as proposed is landward of existing principal buildings. (3) The property in question'is at an e]evati0n 0~ ]0 or more feet above mea~ s~a level. -. Southold T~wn Board of Appeals -26- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Environmeqtal Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.RoA. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3322 PROJECT N~: JOSEPH LIZEWSKI 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 Enviror~mental 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 similA~ project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Specia-]' Exception to establish private racquetball club at premises zoned_B-Light Busingss. LOCATI6N OF pROJECT: Town of Southold, C0~nty of~Suffoik, more particularly known as: Main Road and _De_pot Lan~, Cutch'0gue.~ REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An EnviroPn~ental Assessment in the short fol-m has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The premises i.n question ts not located near ti. da] wetlands or in an_envi~ronme~ally sensitive area~ (3) The strlu~tum¢.for the proposed 6se i.s existing. Southold Town Board of Appeals =27- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRON~NTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 332l PROJECT NAM_E: ALICE D. CURRIE ..... 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 Envirornnental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines t_he 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 ~lso have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OP ACTION: To Ye=de~.~e~ and cha'nge-]0t lines-of thre parcels containing insuffic%en~ area, depth.~nd Width. (Prior ]95? Variance for a d~v~i0n of ]and i_~ in effect.) L~CATION OF PROJECT: Town of Sou~hgld'~ County_Qf~Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: N/s S0undview Avenue, S0uth0]~. P~EASON(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; I~t The project is not d~rectly related to ne~ construc%'i0n; A prior Variance for a di.~si.Q~ of ]and has been in effect since ]957,_and applicants have requested a re-definition of t~se lot lines ...... $outhold Town Board of Appeals -28- February 14, 1985 RegUlar Meeting (Environmental' Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPF~AL NO.: 3319 ..... PROJECT NAME: ANDREASPALIOURAS 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 444-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II ~<] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To reinstate and restore (second-) dwelling structure to its or'iginat cond~t'ion as a one-family res~denc'e. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southoid, Cou~ of~ Suffolk, more particularly known as: 32570 C'.R'. 48,-Peconic. 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 project is for restoration of an ~is'ting build-i'ng and reinstatement of use, 'not directly related to new construction. Southold Town Board of Appeals -29= February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3318 PROJECT NAlVIE: MEEHAN AND LEONARDI ..... This notice is is'sue~urS~ant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the--r-~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Re-d~'i. si0n of two lots conta'i, ning insufficient area, width and dePt~" Reydon ~rive~ Southo]d~ LOCATION OF PROJECT: TownLof~Southold, county of~Suffolk, more particularly known as: Reyd0n Drive, 'S0uth0]d. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessmenu 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) This project ~s not d~rectly related to new construction; subdivision of ~eydon Shores was est~]i, shed pri. or to zoning'.~ (3) Premise~ is landward of ex~s~'6~ structures and 50-foot travel. 6d roads~ ~ So~thold Town Board of Appeals -30- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3306 ......... - PROJECT NAME': ROBERT AND ALDONE NORKUS 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 ~f 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 similA~ project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Four p.r~oposed parcels having i~suffi- cient lot width ...... LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~ Suffolk~ more particularly known as: Orchard .Lane~ 0f.f _Cedar B~ach Road, S0uth0]d. 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) This project is not directly related-to new construction; (5) Relief as to the bulk zoning area requirements was granted on March 13,.1984 'by the Southold Tow~ Board; (4) A permit under Articl. e'25 of~the Environmental Cop~rvation Law has been issued by the N.Y,S'. Dept. of Environmenta~ Conservation for the division of l~nd as p~oposed~under Permit No. 10~84-0958~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.RoAo NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPF~L NO.: 3205 PROJECT Nk~: JOHN C. AND FRANCES DiVELL0 ..... This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing r~gulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Enviror~ental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the--~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 s~il~ project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ I Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for: (a) approval of' access off "Meday Avenue" and (b) appr0va] of insufficieDt area and depth off, parcel's proposed. LOCATION OP PROJECT: Town of southo!d, County Of Suffolk, more particularly known as: E/s Westphalia R0a~.d, Mattituck. P~EASON(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) This project is not directly related to new construction; (3) More than 90% of the premises is at an elevation above 10' above mean sea level. (4) Authorization has been granted by the-N~Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation for this division or.land. (5) ~ew dwellings, if authorized by all agency approvals, would be landward of existing dwellings._ Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adQpted by unanimous vote of all the members. CORRESPONDENCE: Appeal No. 2760 RICHARD ANDERSON. Peter Stoutenburg, Environment,lEast, Inc., as agent for Mr~ Anderson has asked whether the ZBA_would authorize the building inspector to issue a building permit subject to final ~p.rovemeDts of the wi~%h~n right-of-way ~nd prior ~o ~rami~in~s~ion, cesspool and well installations. _Right-of-way off Wunneweta Road, Nassau ~oint, Cutchogue. ~_road inspection and report was recently made by John W. Davis, as r~quested by the ZBA, indica~in§ that the right-of-way is not acceptable "as is and needs to be graded and more~material added to meet the ~u]~l width of the ri'ght-of-way. It was_Mr. Davis' recommenda- tio~ that the applicant be given permission to start the foundation and ~hat the building permit be released since construction equipment, transit mix trucks,_etc, can damage improvements to be done. The board was in agreement with Mr. Davis, and the following action was rakeD: On motion by Mr. GOehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, itwas RESOLVED, that a building permit which meets all the requirements of applicable laws~and codes may be issued by the building inspector for the construction of a foundation in the Matter of the Property of RICHARD ANDERSON, u~der Appeal No. 2760, provided that the road improvements required under_this board'~ variance be done prior to a framing inspection to assure compliance. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adQpted by unanimous yQte 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 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, / Zonin~ Board of _Appeals PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ 14, 1985 (Regular Meeting) 7:38 p.m. Public Hearing PETER J. AND MARGARET TROYANO by Richard F. Lark, Esq. for approval of access over private right-of-way located 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. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:34 p..m., and read the legal notice of this hearing and application in its entirety. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a map prepared by Young & Young updated November 28, 1983 indicating the length of this right- of-way and somewhat strange turn that it takes approximately three-quarters of the way up the farm, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding prop- erties in the area. Mr. Lark, would you like to be heard? RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ.: I think as you read.the petition pretty much explains everything and also you have in the record as you requested, and I have you an affidavit, which I believe was dated, sworn to on the 20th day of December, 1984, which there is not a deed per se anymore to this right~of-way because it was in dispute with the neighboring owner and was settled in the lawsuit, as I think you have in the affidavit. As a result of it all, originally, the history of it is as it says in the application, it goes back to 1956 when Steve Sledjeski, who owned that whole parcel of land which is now the dual highway, C.R. 48 all the way to the Sound, and he sold off some parcels on the Sound to the Reichman's and the Troyano's, and then created a r~ght-of~-way, which at that time was one rod, and now since you have it in my affidavit and in the settlement agreement and in the lawsuit, it was finally agreed they would narrow it down to 15' which it is now~ And the surveyor staked it and the road was refurbished and fixed up to conform with the settlement agreement, and the people that have the right to use it are Thomas McGunnigle. He has reason to, use it as a farm road, access to portions of his farm, and you've all been up on'the right-of-way, so you.know what I'm talking about.there~ And then the Reichman's, which has now been sold to people by the name of Salarno, they have the right to use it, and then the Troyano's have the right to use it~ The Tnoyanos in an effort to settle his estate, get things squared away, decided to subdivide his property-he has a little over 4 acres there-because he wants to deed Qne out to his daughter and son-in-law at the present time° The Planning Board granted approval. And then when they researched the records, it was something I hadn't known at that time, the original right-of-way created by Sledjeski had never received formal approval, and I think the reason for that is the building permits for both Reichman and Troyano, as we understand, went back to about the 1956, 1957 time frame~ So it was right at the advent or a little bit before zoning. ZBA 2/14/85 Page 2 TROIANO HEARING - Continued R. LARK: -- continued -- and so therefore, we didn't get into 280 A request for a right of way. I think that's the reason that happened. And so the reason now for the request is the Planning Board requires it because if another lot is going to be created, then we have to get 280 A approval. There is no appreciable change in the usage over the years, nor is it con- templated. Mr. McGunniqle will continue to use it and so will the Sa]anno, who have taken it from the Reichmann's, and the Troy. ano piece. The only thing I wish to point out to you is that I did read a report from the Town Engineer, John Davis, and I did read his report and I discussed/~th Mr. Troyano and I have been up there many times myself over the years, because I have been involved with. this property as a result of litigation since 1982, since we got it all straightened out. The one thing I did want to point out to you is that no time, to my knowledge, and I .have .been up there after some of the heavy rains we have]~a~ ~ ~rright of way or any portion flooded, because when Latham refurbished it he did put a pitch on it, there's little potholes here and there, you are going to have that witk that type of farm road right of way. I am not going to say different on that, but at no time, to my knowledge or Troyano's,-n0 one's ever been blocked getting to and from their residences there, nor has there been any heavy flooding due to rainfall or snow or whatnot, where you couldn't get mn or out. The whole purpose of the 280 A and standards so emergency vehicles can get in or out% Mr. Davis said that in all probabiliZy could drive through without difficulty to get to the residences. I request that you do grant the 280 A approval, so we can get on with getting our application finalized with the Planning Board. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Lark. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Yes. THOMAS MCGUNNIGLE: My name is Thomas McGunnigle and I own the land the right of way goes through. I don't know a whole lot of what is going on, but the right of way, when Latham put it in, ~twas supposed to be 15' from the line and all ~hat stuff and it's basically there, but I took pictures and they are not developed, so I can't prove it right now, but in lots of places where my property goes out and back the right of way cuts it acros~b~ ~~,c~eo~~ pictures, my car ~ crossways on the right '~fP-~y /one s~e, a complete car which is like 18.5' or 19' and then the road right under the middle of the back bumper, which would show it to be about 25' or 30' from the property line. That's in a few places. It would be real nice if they stayed where they belong.within 15' of the property line. Also, Latham went up there aft~/finished it and the first time he did it, when he supposedly did what he did correctly, he left it as a mess. I farm it and he ]eft ditches and if it was a high spot ZBA , 2/14/85 Page 3 ~ROYANO HEARING continued: THOMAS McGUNNIGLE (continued): he just cut through and left just a straight, shee~ bank, which naturally was a pain in the neck. What am I supposed to do when I have my tractor there and it's going to fall down on the right-of-way. It was a mess, and I took my tractor with potato bucket in the front which is not for moving soil, but it was the only thing I had and it kind of rolled the stuff at least into rolls instead of straight off cliffs and somehow or other, Mr. Troyano got mad at me for touching his right-of-way and then Latham went back up there this past summer do to, I don't know what, I don't even know what the purpose was, but around the "S" turns where the right-of-way goes like this, I had planted Christmas trees, Norway Spruce,.3' off what would have been the edge of the right-of-way-- they were only seedlings, tiny little things, but he with his pay- loader, went night over them and wiped them right out, and in two places had garbage in the bucket of_the payloader, and just threw it out in the middle of my field and dumped .it. And they're still there. I don't think that's real nice. I don't know what that has to do with approval or disapproval, but it doesn't seem to have been done professionally in my mind at this point. I guess that's about all I really have to say. Oh, wait, there is something else I have to say. I don't know what it is going to mean down the road, but if this is a permanent access, winter time as well as summer time, I also don't want to see that right-of-way being built up to avoid water being over it. That would flood my field worse than my field is already flooded, and the higher they go with the right-of-way, to get out of the water, which right now ~s_even with the bottom of the car, about 14" high right now over the top of that right-of-way. If that right-of,way gets built up that 14" now the water is going to back up on the farm quite a bit more. ~t's going to be a dam. It's not going to be able to flow over the right-of-way into Wicks' property, which i~s the adjoining farm, And so if it gets, everything gets_approved, and I don't care one way or the other, if everything gets approved, I kind of think that sooner or later they are~golng to build up this road so they can get back there in the winter time, And if they do, I don't want it just plain built up as a dams I don't knQw wh~t is necessary to be done. I don't know if they would be allowed or if somebody would be allowed to put pipes going through and purposely drain the water onto Wicks' proper'ty_or whethe~ they would need some_kind of a drainage thing, I don't know what, but whatever it is, I don't want my farm to be in worse shape than it already is. And I don't want Latbam dumping all his crap all over my field either. There is, that's probably it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any culverts in the right-of-way now? MR. McGUNNIGLE- Culverts, what do you mean? ZBA, 2/1.4/85 Page 4 TROYANO HEARING - Continued: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: These pipes that you are referring to. THOMAS McGUNNIGLE: There is one down. ~Yes there are two of them. But after you make the "S" turn, the water goes from one part of my farm to another part'o~ my farm, not from my farm to Wicks' farm, because there's a swampy area, or pond, in one corner, and the right-of-way was built up because it was low there, and I made Latham put a culvert across to take water from my field on one side to.where the swampy area is on the other side, That's not where I am talking about, That's my field to my field. I was more referring to up where the power lines are that floods and it would not be from my farm to.~my farm to get rid of.water. That would be from my farm to Wicks' farm. As a point of interest, I don't know if it has to do with anything ei. ther, but the other side, the west side of my farm is naturally high and dry, and if the right-of-way were 50' high, it wouldn't stop any water from flowing Qne way or the other; but where it is on the easterly side, would create a problem if it were built up. The right-of-way, in this court thing that happened a year or two ago, was completely put on me on my farm,.because of my predecessor giving Reichmann and..Troyano those pieces of property, so I felt it was ~air enough too, that I took the entire right-of-way where_formerly it really had nothing to do with that. Now, it is totally on my property, which is essentially a move of right-of-way not where it's always been but, all those years. It's essentially been re-done, and I don't know if that has anything to do with either. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I vary rarely ask this question of a property owner, but since.you do basically own the deeded right=of-way,~.you own the property underneath the.-night-of-way sort of speak? MR. McGUNNIGLE: I own the right-of-way too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You own the right=of-way too, What is your basic opinion of the shape of the rightTof-way at this time? MR. McGUNNIGLE: Right now I have a four=wheel drive jeep and I went through it today and had all I could do to get to the other side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, you're talking about the-- MR. McGUNNIGLE: That's why I'm worried about if someone goes back there to build a house in the wintertime, not iD the summertime-- in the summertime it's beautiful, but if someone lived back there in the wintertime, I could nev.e~ get through there with my car~ Now the jeep today had all it could do to get through, and if there was an inch of ice on top of the water where you broke through it, I don't care what you had, you'd be stuck, ZBA 2/14/85 Page 5 TROYANO HEARING - Continued T. MCGUNNIGLE - continued; because you break through the ice and no matter what the base was, it wouldn't matter or make any difference. You would be stuck in ice. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, the reason I asked the question was when I went down there a week or so ago, I didn't venture all the way down the right of way. I had been down there in the summertime. But I have not ventured down all the way, because of the conditions. Conditions that I had seen when I was there. That's why I asked the question. I thank you. Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? R. LARK: I am thankful.Mr. McGunnigle did appear. Unfortunately he wasn't under oath because as you know, he was one of the defen- dants in the former right of~y action, which we eventually settled and I am sure there is going to be subsequent litigation because Mr. Troyano and Mr. Reichmann spent some $18,000-$19,000 refur- bishing the right of way pursuant to stipulation, and with his farm vehicles and his other farm practices, he continues to try to deteriorate and ruin the right of way and that's the reason Mr. Latham came back to regrade it and reblade it, so to speak. I am glad he put that on the record because I am sure there is going to be subsequent litigation to force him see, he never did like the fact that his predecessor in title, nor did the County of Suffolk like it, that the predecessor in title gave these landowners a right of way over the farmland. There it is and we had to litigate it to establish it and he is supposed to, pursuant to the settlement agreement, not deteriorate it, but he continues to do so, which has been an irritant my clients and I am sure that is going to be subsequent to another litigation. But the point of it is that it has nothing to do with the 280 A problem. The maintenance of it is going to be an ongoing headache -- between the landowners and people who have the right to use. it, that $$ sort of a Hatfield and McCoy situation that will/co~%~ein the future. The existing owners there, both Sa]arno and Reichmann and Troy ano, because it's pre-existing, have the right to go in and out of it, insured by title companies, etc., and there's c/o's on all the houses. That's not the issue. The issue is that the Planning Bomrd, for reasons of their own, and ruling from counsel, don't feel they have the right to grant approval, since it's off premises. They granted the on -premises access to the other lot, that they have approved the subdivision, of which you have a copy and so they require formal approval from the Board. There is really not going to be too much change in the facts. I~e fact that the 2 owners do not get along, I suppose it's never going to be changed by anyone, Board or court for that matter, so thank you for your time. ZBA 2/14/85 Page 6 TROYANO HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. speak on this application. Anyone else like to T. MCGUNNIGLE: I guess I have to. Asfar as me hurting the right of way-- as a matter of opinion it's ridiculous. I don't even use it. I have my own roads in the fields. If I dig potatoes, I go right back to where I dug, it's easier to get to the barn that way. If you are going to take and fish-~a right of way through farmfields that are sloped, you are going to get rain and wash topsoil on to that right of way. Now, I don't care who is who; I am not going to do it, but it is going to happen. Soil is going to wash on to that right of ~y and if you get a big enough rain and you got a big enough area where it is going to collect and run fast, you're going to have a ditch across the right of way. And it has nothing to ao with my farm equipment or anything else. If the thing was blacktopped or something it wouldn'thappen. But anytime there is soil and water running, it's subject to change. It's not my vehicles that have anything to do with it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further questions, I ask if there any questions from any Board Members? Do you suppose, Mr. McGunnigle, do you have any idea when you are going to have these pictures developed that you were referring to? T. MCGUNNIGLE: They are in %he camera. I thought they would be developed. My wife just didn't do itl that's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would they be in the next two weeks or so? T. MCGUNNIGLE: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Maybe you could let us borrow them for a while after you get them developed and we will send them back to you~ or when you're going this way, you can pick them up. T. MCGUNNIGLE: This all started too, because they were wandering around puddles and stuff. Out in my field and out J'n WicKs field. I don't want that to happen again. If there's a puddle on the right of way, I don't want them going 50' out in the middle of my field to get around it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. So, I will make a motion closing the hearing upon recempt of pictures from you, so that we might have a better understandin§.0f what you are referring to. Thank you very much for commng in. ZBA 2/14/85 Page 7 7:58 ~3314 Public Hearing in the Matter of JOSEPH AND PATRICIA ST1EFE.R, 6760 Sound Avenue, Mattituck: Variance to Section ~-32 to build accessory horse barn in frontyard and to erect fencing exceeding four-feet in height in frontyard area at 6760 Sound Avenue, Mattituck; 1000-121-4-8. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. and read the legal notice of heari_ng and appeal application in i]ts entirety. MR. STIEFER: The purpose of the fence is a restraining fence, of course~ fmr the horses. This would keep t e ff _. an~ ~0~ un~ ~ feet and it wou]~ be high enough, not quite b ,/aha l~ wou~ surroun~ ' the entire property. It would be a wood fence, completely around, not wire and this would presumab~ make it look scenic. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You didn't indicate how far this fence would be off the line, the property lines. You sketched the fence in, but you haven't told us exactly how far off the property lines you intended to construct it, if it is approved. MR. STIEFER:. Well, I believe I can't go any further than the utility poles in the front of the property and also down the side of the'property. On the other side of the property, I am going to wihd up with a road in there. CHAIRMAN G©EHRINGER: Well, the existing right of way is how wide on the west side? MR. STiIEFER:: On the west side? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it doesn't particularly indicate it. MR. STiIEFER: '.~soever. No, that would have nothing to do with the property CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I just wanted to make sure that the .... you have to understand we have to write a decision, if we grant this, to so state how far the fence is to be placed. We just can't say you are placing a fence based upon this, because some year in the future, if you ever want to sell this property and they come back and they find out a building permit was granted for this particular thing after our approval, we have to have coordinates, distances, okay. MR. ST[EFER: Well, I would say then 5' from the utility poles should be sufficient. That should gzve Con Edison or LILCO or the Telephone Company enough right of way to work on the poles, and that would also bring me off the road side of the ZBA 2/14/85 Page 8 STIEFER: HEARING - Continued MR. STIE. FER : - continued front, because there are poles in the road side of the property, too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Assuming that the telephone.poles are on · . .£1ne,~ the properny~ wou&a I then be correct in saying, 5' from the property line? MR. SY['[F[R: I would say the telephone poles are somewhere about 5' into the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, they are into the property. Okay. So, you actually own a portion of the travelled right of way as it exists, as it meanders. MR ST~EFER: ~ The right of way is~OSt entirely my property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The right of way is on your property, okay. MR. ST[EFER: But again, the telephone poles are off the right of way and I will have to go 5' beyond the telephone poles~ so there will be no interference from anybody. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What about the east side? MR. S?IEFER~. The east side, I will wind up putting a road, so you can eventually go to the front of the home. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 10' off? Okay, so you want to stay approxima~ly MR. STIEFER: No, I think about 15'. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sound Avenue? Okay. What about the front yard on MR. STIEFER': Again, I have utility poles in the front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It doesn't indicate on the map. You mean those big ones. Okay. Now, what about the size of the barn? How large ..... it may be on the building permit. Okay, it's a 30' x 100' barn, this is a pole barn? MR. STCEFER:, A pole barn. ZBA 2/14/85 Page 9 STIEFER HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What kind of exterior, wood or steel? MR. STIEFER: Wood. CHAIRMAN'GOEHRINGER: Probably Texture 11i. One or two stories high? MR. S%~tEF'ER:~ Probably 1% stories. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Notto exceed 18' in height, 16' or 14'? MR. STEIt~ER : Not to exceed 18' CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Approximately 80' from the east property line, is that what you're-- MR. STEILER~ : That's what I am doing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any idea where the fence is going to stop, how far in from the road? MR. STEI~ER' : I have that on there too. Here's the fence line. Give us the distance though from here to here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: /What I want you to do is go down there and measure it, okay. MR. STEIPER. : If I had a ruler, I could measure it on here, be- cause that's all drawn to scale. I made it all up to scale. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Maybe what we will do is close the hearing and we will ask Mr. Lessard if he would assist this gentleman back into his office and let him take a ruler and give us an idea. What is the basic reason for placing the barn in the frontyard area? MR. STEIPER%: That's the levelest spot, which I would have no washout to the barn area. It's open and protected by one or two trees on each side; it's easily accessible because of the route that's indicated on the east side. There are no houses or anything on the east side, nothing but from what I understand there is a vineyard going up. So, it's probably the best and out of the way for everyone and I believe that tree line, that fence will go up to the tree line, because I don't want to cut trees down. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: information? You understand why I have to have that MR. STIEFER: It's understandable. ZBA 2/14/85 Page 10 STEItER HEARING - Continued While MR. LESSARD: /I am listening to this conversation, you didn't indicate where you are going to put the fence on ~he west side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we did. It's in there. un]ess MR. LESSARD: I believe with the subdivision/ I misunderstood what the Planning B©ard said. Just down the road, those three pieces if they were subdivided again, would have to be treated as another subdivision. MR. STEI~ER~ It's can't be resubdivided. The only one that can be resubdivided is my property. Ihe back property. MR. LESSARD: That's true. Okay, it would push that subdivision into a major subdivision and it would interfere with your right of way. What I am asking you, sir, should you resubdivide~ which you apparently have no intention of, just for the record, your right of way would then have to go to 50 feet, because it would be considered a major. That's why I asked you Where you were putting your fence. MR. STEI~ER : If I resubdivide, the front area, I would put the road on the east side of the property. MR. LESSARD: No, the point is sir, the right of way on the west side where it is now, would have to go to 50'. MR. STEI~ER~ : But that wouldn't change. that but the front property. Nobody would be using MR. LESSARD: Well I am just making you aware of the plausibility. If that should happen, what about your fence on your west side? Would it be agreeable to you to move it to get it oun of the road? MR. STEIrER : To bring it back? MR. LESSARD: Well, if you are going to widen the right of way to 50', obviously you are 5' off the road now, you are in the middle of the right of way. This condition is possible. MR. STEIFER : No problem. I understand. Yes, that's no problem. your fence is concerned,/if MR . LESSARD: Asfaras you are going to hold the fence more than 5' from the 3 or 4 sides of your property, you don't need a variance. ZBA 2/14/85 Page 11 STEIiEP HEARING - Continued MR. STEI~ER. : I do in the height. MR. LESSARD; Not if it's more than five feet in. made aware of that. MR. STEIt~ER .: Neither was I. Ok. I wasn't MR. LESSARD: If you are on the line or within 5', you have a 4' requirement for a variance. Anything from 5' in ... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Even in a frontyard area, Mr. Lessard? MR. LESSARD: That's right. No, I am wrong. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 50' in the frontyazd area2 MR. LESSARD: No, I think I am right, if it's more than 5' in, it can go up to 8' high, according to the way the law is~ritten. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we had always anticipated that the frontyard had to be placed in 50' and that was the reason people brought these applications before us. So, what are we going to determine the sideyard on the west side to be? You have 25' now from the property line on this second copy that I have. Are we going to stay to that 25' or are you suggesting that he move it 50' back? MR. LESSARD: He can stay his 25'. I am letting him know in ad- vance that should that thing have to be moved to 50' that fence would have to be moved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. MR. STEI~ER~.: But I would be crossing the subdivzsion anyway. MR. LESSARD: I know you would, sir. MR. STEI~ER : That would not be a problem, because if there was a subdivision, there would be no fence. MR. LESSARD: side. Either then you have the right of way on the east MR. STIEFER: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? I will close the hearing, Mr. Lessard, pending a distance hearing on this.. ZBA 2/14/85 Page 12 8:12 p/m. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3317: 8:12 p.m. THOMAS PERILLO by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. as Attorney' for approval of insufficient area.and width of two proposed par- cels.. Home Pike and Silkworth Roads, Mattituck. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:12 p.m., read the legal notice of hearing and appeal application in its entirety. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a map dated 5/30/84 indicating LotS'20 and part of 19, a total of 1.5323 acres, and Lots 18, part of 19, and 17 referred as Parcel 2,1.6651A. R. BRUER: Mr. Chairman, Members of .the Board, I would like to point out I believe you have a copy of a letter from the Town Planning Board dated December 11, 1984, pursuant to your request, took the following action in resolving this matter " .... The Southold Town Planning Board, following a field inspection, recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the application of Thomas Perillo located at Mattituck, be approved, since the creation of the two lots from the four previously subdivided, lessens the nonconformity Of.parcels.If you have any questions, please call." I just want to point out that the Planning Board has re- commended approval of thzs application. Denial of the application would create a hardship and practical difficulties for the appli- cant. It is a unique situation in that the properties hererwere four particular, lots that was a filed map drawn in 1950 or the early 1920's. The merger of the lots took place via changing of the zonzng code over the years and the property is being held in single and separate ownership. It is not going to change the character of the neighborhood because you are going to create if you do go along with the application, properties that are over an acre and a half in area. These properties would have been up until the most recent change in the code, well in excess of most of the lots that exist in the Town. I think the Board should grant the application as to both aspects, because I think Lot II needs a width variance with respect to the road frontage. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We had approximately two years ago, Mr. Bruer, approved a subdivision somewhat past this particular property for Mr. and Mrs. Ziegler. At that time we had imposed some road maintenance conditions. I will be honest with you, I have not been up there. The property has subsequently been sold, to my knowledge, I don't know if the new owners have imposed any conditions. But it has been the nature of this Board to in- corporate any lots on the right of way, along with those conditions. I am just making you aware of it. They are not terribly disturbing conditions but are conditions which, I think for pieces of property of this nature, would enhance the value of the property ZBA 2/14/.8,5 Page 1 3-a PERILLO Hearing, continued: MR. GOEHRINGER (continued: and would al'low for fire access. It's needed badly in areas such as this, Do you have any objection to that? R. BRUER: I guess I would have to say yes, in that I don't know what those conditions were. I state that we don't own the right-of-way, and without knowing what you have in mind, I can't say I approve of them. And with the title company we do have.insurable access. Other than that, I don't know what our rights are as far as what we can do with that property. And without knowing what you have in mind, I really can't say that I can approve~.of?'them. MR. CHAIRMAN: As I said, we usually say it's subject to the normal conditions that were imposed in the prior applications, because=- MR. BRUER: I would think with the-- MR. CHAIRMAN: In other words, you have to share in those particular improvements assuming that -- MR. BRUER: Depending on what they are, but I would think that based upon the nature of the property and the cost of the cost of the property, that the owners would not do anything that would be detrimental to it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. I thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody against the application? Questions from bQard members? (None) Mr. Bruer, we would be very happy to give you a copy of that if some time you want to send your secretary over or whatever the case might be on the improvements on the original Ziegler applications for 280-a. MR. BRUER: I'll send somebody over tomorrow. MR. CHAIRMAN: Good. Thank you very much. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until, later. 8~20'p.m~ PUBLIC HEARING~ Appeal No. 3291: ANTHONY PAGOTO for pool in frontyard area. Bridge Lane and Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:20 p.m., read the legal notice of this hearing and appeal application in its entirety. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a map pWoduced by Burton Hand, and I don't see a date, but the map has our stamp with a date of 9/14/84, indicating a proposed location of approximately 100 feet from Bridge Lane, 109 feet from Bayberry Road, 30' from the rear ZBA 2/1.4/85 Page 1 3-b MR. PAGOTO (continued): will be 20' by 40', and the second half of the pool would probably be decking, which would be about four to five feet around~ It has to be because it would have a significant incline, and ] would think the costs would be prQhibitive to try to fill that in. So part of it will be decking, and the othe~ part will. be just brick and.~sand. But it would be at least 30 feet away, even with the decking, from the neighboring property. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, when ~he deck is done you even anticipate it that far away? MR. PAGOTO: Well, I don't want to say-- MR. ~HAIRMAN: You're showing 30 feet now. MR. PAGOTO: The map should show it, I don't want to state--but it's_got to be within the limitations. MR. CHAIRMAN: If we were to put a restriction on that it be no closer than 25 feet to the rear property line, would you have any objection to that? That is 30 feet for the pool and five feet of decking to the rear. MR. PAGOTO: You re say,n§, from the end of the deck to the property line? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. PAGOTO: Is that right, 25 feet? MR. CHAIRMAN: Twenty-five feet. Yes. MR. PAGOTO: I'd to really--I'd ha~e to get more accurate figures with an actual measurement. I know where their line is, they have poles there. MR. CHAIRMAN: We're referring to the east side now, basically. MR. PAGOTO: Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: ~s a figure- Do you want to measure it and get back to us, give ZBA 2/1 4/.85 Pag~e 14 (Appeal No. 3291 ANTHONY PAGOTO, continued): MR. CHAIRMAN lcontinued): property lines, and a sketched in 20 by 40' pool. Is there anybody that would like to be heard in behalf oi~ this applica- tion? ANTHONY PAGOTO: Has anyone seen the property? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes~ I got stuck in your driveway last weekend (due to snow storm). MR. PAGOTO: Ok. We were wondering why the tire tracks. We're putting a pool ins can either put it in the front, back, to the right Qr the left of the home. The way the property is situated now on a sign~icant incline, ii we put it, let's say to the righthand side of the home, it would be above eye level. If we were sitting on the deck, inLthe kitchen or in the den, whatever, it would be above eye level, which I think is incredibly dangerous. We thought for years on this thing, and the main thing was safety. We have three children. So in no way would I put it there. It would also be too close although probably legal, it would be too close to the property next door.to me, which is the Hillmer property. Likewise, in the back of the house, again it would be very_close to their property and it would be on top of my house. It's too close on both sides. I don't think the front of the house is an appropriate place to put a pool, I_don't think it would be right to the neighbors across the street from a privacy point of view, it would not be good for us and for the children. I really can't see the front of the house it being off Bayberry Road. The only place that I can see is to the right of the driveway. I don't think the Hillner's o'bject to it. I've discussed it with them as my neighbors. I've explained to them where it would be positioned. I even have flags put out. And their comments to me was, as long as it is not to the left of my house, which would be above the eye level because it would be right on top of their property. So I think I have their support on this. The firm that would do it is Swim King, which has a good reputation. It is not a matter of their destroying neighboring properties or anything like that. So, that's about it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you a couple of questions? anticipating a normal 4' fence around the pool? You ' re MR. PAGOTO: Whatever is required. Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: What about decking areas? Are you anticpating any soPhisticated decking areas that may encroach on m~nimum lot lines, setbacks=- MR. PAGOTO: No. What will happen is, as you mention, it ZBA 2/14/85 Page ~ 5 ANTHONY PAGOTO HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: - Continued -- You want to measure it and get back to us, and give us an approximate diDtance? We have been placing this restriction on pools and not speci- fically for you as the applicant, but the possibility Of selling, that there be no adverse overhead lighting. This seems to be one of the major objectbns that neighboring people have, that people put in these large lights which light up the whole area and upset neighbors, etc. Do you have any objection to that? MR. ANTHONY PAGOT0 : When you say overhead lighting, we would obviously have lighting, which would be well done. I think it would be done in a secluded way. I can't envision very high spotlights coming down on a pool. Whatever is required from a safety point of view I would have to put in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you will get back to us on the actual distance from the rear? Conceivably you are not going to be putting it in next week anyway, so we have a little bit of time because of the weather conditions, etc. MR. ANTHONY PAGOT0 : so, you would want to know then sir, the distance from the deck the end of that deck from that point to the neighboring property line. The minimum. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are showing 30' right now. words, what I am asking you is how big is the deck? In other MR. ANTHONY PAGOT0 : It's going to be about five feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's the reason I asked you if we put the restriction on it of 25',. minimum. MR. ANTHONY PAGOT0 : Can I get back to you on that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You may call the secretary or drop us a line. We certainly wouldn't be making a decision on it until about the 7th of March, which will be the next meeting. M R. ANTHONY PAGOT0: I might also point out that we have three daughters and one of them last year had a bad incident with jellyfish and she was very bad for several weeks and she refuses to go in the water now, so it is a consideration. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Against this application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. ZBA 2/14/85 Page 16 8:30 p.m. --- LOUISE WILSON HEARING - Appeal No. 33]2 by Abigail Wickham, Esq. for Variances: (a) to Art. III, Sec. 100-3] for insufficient area and width and (b) to NY Town Law, 280-a for approval of access. N/s Main Road, Mattituck, NY. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:30 p.m., read the legal notice of this hearing and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey dated 6/]5/84 indicating the house lot to be 24,505 sq. ft. and the rear lot to be 46,]37 sq. ft. And a righttpf-Wqy aBpFpximate]y,]6 feet in width runn~9 some 250' on the north s]ae oTtne property, and Suffolk County lax Map. G~IL WICKHAM: ' Fortunately for the heirs of Louise'Wilson, their mother outlived the zoning ordinance, which this will contemplated at the time that she drew it. The property is in a peculiar position because it is sandwiched between the railroad and the Main Road and a .shopping center on the other side, and a few hundred feet down on the road to the east is another major business district. The Board may have also noticed when it made its inspection, the property to the east of this has homes on it. So, I don't think what the appli- cant proposes is goingt0 ~ anything to jeopardize the neighbors. It was a division that was contemplated 18 years ago. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a couple of questions? The piece in the front is business zoned, is it not? GAIL WICKHAM: Not according to the map that I looked at. I will check that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not. I just thought everything in that area was business zoned and that's the reason I asked the question. I will be honest with you, I didn't look at the map. You said, by will, and by application, this property was supposed to be divided in this particular manner. Is it being bequeathed to certain parties? GAIL WICKHAM: The will was drawn in 1969, in which she directed the front half contain a house for the one daughter and the back piece serviced by a 16" right of way from the Main Road be given to the other daughter. She wanted to divide the property between her two daughters, and the will specified how far back the division line would be. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Lessard, maybe you could check that for us and see if it's business zoned or not? If you don't mind we are going to take a two minute recess until you are done. (Hearing recessed). ZBA 2/14/85 Page 17 ESTATE OF LOUISE WILSON, continued: Appeal No. 3312: 8:40 p.m. MISS WICKHAM: For the record, it's an "A" Residential Zone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. And the approximate date of death? MISS WICKHAM: probated. She died in 1983. The will has already been MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else to speak in behalf of or against the application? (None) Questions from board members? (None)~ Hearing no further comments, I~ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserv= lng decision until later. We will have a decision for you soon, I hope. Have a good night~ fo~ reduction of rearyard setback of library addi%ion (b) Special Exception for addition for library use. 27550 Main Road, Cutchogue- 8:42 p.m. - Hearings opene~. The Chairman 'was authorized to waiver reading of both legal notices of these two hearings. The Chairman read the applications for the record~ MR. CHAIRMAN (GOEHRINGER): I have a copy of the survey drawn by Mr. Peters on ~ovember 28, 1984, indicating the existing library with an addition of approximately 64' by 60', with a variation to the west side of approximately 40 feet, and a covered walk, with a, what appears to be a walkway back to the road, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard? MRS. JANE MINERVA: While I'm not subjected to speak but I do represent the library~ Bill Peters could not be here tonight. I'm Jane Minerva. I'm the director. And I'm certainly ready to answer any questions you may have. I think his statements speak for it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The existing site as it exists is all the property that is involved, that yomJow'n or will own, or do own, or you will -- . ~ MRS, MINERVA: I believe the subdivision was approved, It was part of the Congregational Society, the old house property. They own the whole Village Green~ MR, CHAIRMAN: They own the entire Village Green also. But the library is buying this entire parcel? So that the figure of 31,660 sq. ft. is the ent~ire parcel you're b_uyin.g~-I mean, what I,m s~ying, if you had to~increase, t~e pa.~king area in y.ears to come, you could do so? On that piece of property. There isn"t anybo.dy else that's ..going to have a right-of-way or own half of, .or anything of that nature? ZBA 2/14/85 Page 1 8 CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY HEARING - Continued J. MINERVA: No. It will be ours. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any idea who dictated the amount of parking spaces that you have to have? J. MINERVA: I believe it was predetermined by the number of feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, right now I see 10+ whatever you have across the street on the Village Green? J. MINERVA: Yes, and there is a letter available from Mary Tuthill saying that we will share parking. I don't know whether you have that, I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I have it. I don't have any further questions. The addition will be a wood addition similar to the construction of the original? J. MINERVA: That is dictated in the contract with the Congreg- ational Society, which was drawn by Gall Wickham. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? The existing library we have is 32 adults and 8 children. Do you have any idea of how many people you will be dealing with in the new addition? What is it rated for? J. MINERVA: I believe somewhere in the letter from Mr. Hi~dermann. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I..have read this a little while ago. "The off-street parking area is an existing, non-conforming location and the 4 additional spaces proposed exceed the requirement for 40... or meets setback requirements for adjacent residential property lzne. I am not going to call for a motion tonight, Mrs. Minerva, because we haven't discussed it, so-there doesn't appear to be any objection to it right now. Ok? J. MINERVA: The last project, we were pushing to apply for it, but we have received word that we have been awarded a grant and all we have to do is call the contract out by April 15th, so we are working on deadlines. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I assure you it wouldn't be that long. I thank you very much for coming in. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Respectfully submitted, Barbara A. Strang, Pp. 1-18 *These minutes were transcribed from tapes as recorded in my absence.