Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/24/1985 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.l., N.Y. 11cj71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONI$. JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI H I N U T e S REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 24, 1985 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, J~nuary 24, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Present were: Gerard P. Goehri'nger, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jrt, Serge Doyen, Jr.; and Robert J. Douglass, Members. Absent was Joseph H. Sawicki. Also present were Victor Lessard, Building-Department Administrator, Mrs. Barbara Strang, part-time stenographer of the hearings, reporter from the Suffolk Times, reporter from the LoI~ Traveler-Watchman, and approximately 20 persons in the audience at the commencement of the meeting. The Chairman opened the meeting and proceeded with the first public hearing at 7:38 p.m. as follows: 7:38 p.m. Recessed public hearing in the Matter of JOSEPH and ARLENE LESTINGI, by David Kapell, agent. The statements of this hearing were recorded electronically by Mrs. Strang, the original of which is to be filed simultaneously herewith under separate cover at the Town Clerk's Office. Following the public hearing, the following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, t6 close the heari'ng'and reserve decision pending deliberations in the Matter of Appeal No. 3296, of JOSEPH AND ARLENE LESTING[. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Douglass. Member Sawicki was absent. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- January 24, 1985 Regular Meeting 7:43 p.m. Public hearing was held in the Matter of HENRY J. SMITH AND SON by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. for approval of insufficient width in a proposed division of land located at the East Side of Peconic Lane and the West Side of Carroll Avenue, Peconic, New York. All the state- ments of this hearing have been prepared under separate cover by Mrs. Strang and is to be filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office. Following the public hearing, the following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to ~los'e t~ he~ri~ng ~nd reserve decision pending deliberations in the Matter of Appeal No. 3309, of HENRY J. SMITH AND SON. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Douglass. Member Sawicki was absent. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. 7:55 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3308 for LAUREN ~RUG to. attach~acCess_ory garage to dwelling for expansion of living area, leaving insufficient rearyard setback of principal building, at 200 Horton Road.,'i Cutchogue, New York. Mrs. Krug was'. present and there was no opposition during the hearing. The statements made among the board members have been prepared under separate cover by Mrs. Strang and are to be filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office. Following the public hearing, the following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the' hearing and reserve decisi~on p~nding deliberations in the Matter of Appeal N'o. 3308, of LAUREN KRUG. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Douglass. Member Sawicki was absent. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. 8:00 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3310 fo.r GARY DQROSKI to locate accessory storage building in an area other than the required rearyard'~t 425 Monsell Lane,.~ Cutchogue, New York. No one appeared in behalf of the..applic~nt and no opposition was made during the hearing. The board did question.what the setbacks of the accessory building were to be, and the Secretary was directed to contact the applicant for these figures prior to the board's rendering a decision. The following action was taken: Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- January 24, 1985 Regular Meeting (Gary Doroski, Appeal No. 3310, continued:) On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing pending receipt of the setbacks proposed for the subject accessory building, particularly the from the front property line. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Douglass. Member Sawicki was absent. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. 8:05_.p.m, Public Hearing was reconvened in the Matter of Appeal No. 3303 of FRANK FIELD REALTY for approval of the construction of one two-family house and reta'in one-family dwelling on northerly half of premises known as Lots 59, 60, 56, 28, Greenport Driving Park Subdivision, Greenport, New York. All the statements of the hearing, pro and con, ~re prepared under.separate cover by Mrs. Strang which will be filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office. Following the public hearing, the following action was taken: On motion by Mr, Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to Close the he~i~ng ~n~ reserve decision pending deliberations in the Matter of Appeal No. 3303, FRANK FIELD REALTY. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Douglass. Member Sawicki was absent. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. SHORT RECESS: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to recess for approximately five minutes. (8:15-8:22) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. ~oehringer, Doyen, ~rigonis and Douglass. Member Sawicki was absent. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. MEETING RECONVENED: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, Tt was RESOLVED, that the Regular Meeting be reconvened. The members present at this time were Mro Grigonis (Chairman Pro Tem), Serge Doyen and Robert J. Douglass. [Mr. Goehr~nger did not return until the Deckinger public hearing.] Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -4- January 24, 1985 Regular Meeting Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. (Members Goehringer and Sawicki were absent.) This resolution was adopted. 8?22 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3311, of ROBERT A. CELIC for permission to build addition for expansion of present use(s) with an insufficient rearyard from the easterly property line at 10200 Main Road and Marlene Drive, Mattituck, New York. Mr. Grigonis, Chairman Pro Tem read tb~ legal notice of hearing and appeal application, and Mr. Celic spoke in behalf of his application. No one spoke in opposition during the hearing, however there i~ one letter of objection which ±s part of the record. Following the testiomny, the following action was taken: On motion by Mr~ Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, tO Close the'he~ri'n§'~nd'reserve'deci'si~on pending deliberations in the Matter of Appeal No. 3311, of ROBERT A.~ CELICo ~ote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Doyen, Grigonis. (Member~'Goehringer and Sawicki ~ere absent.) This resolution was d~ly adopted with a quorum of the members present. SHORT RECESS: On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to recess for approximately three minutes. (8:25-8:28) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Doyen and Grigonis. (Members Goehringer and Sawicki were absent.) This resolution was duly adopted with a quorum of the members present. MEETING RECONVENED: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr~ Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the Regular Meeting be reconvened. (8:28 p.m.). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Douglass. Member Sawicki was absent. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. 8:28 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3307, of ADELE'V.' DECKINGER to locate pool and accessory building in the frontyard area at 3805 Soundview AYenue, Mattituck, New York. - Mr. and Mrs. Deckinger were present and spoke in'behalf of their application. The statements made during the hearing have been ~ SoJthold Town Board of Appeals -5- January 24, 1985 Regular Meeting (Adele Deckinger, Appeal No. 3307, continued:) prepared under separate cover and will be filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office. Following the hearing, the board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article III, Section 100-32-of the Zoning Ordinance which requires all accessory buildings.in the "A" Residential and A§r~cultural Zoning District to be located in the rearyard area. The premises in question is located on the North Side of Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, New York; and more particularly known as referred to as County Tax Map Parcel 1000-94-01-20. The subject premises contains an area of 56,000±_~q. ft~. with 90' frDntage along the L.I. Sound and 90' along Sound View Avenue. The topography of this property is at.its h'ighest elevations 95' above mean sea level in the frDntyard (south of the e.xisting dwelling) dropping to a five-foot elevation from the rear of the ho'use to the L.I. Sound. The premises is improved with a one-family dwelling, located approximately 325 feet from Sound View Avenue, 20 feet from the easterly, side property line and 32 feet from the westerly side property line. Applicant proposes a 20' by 40' swimm~ingpool and fence enclosure and 10' bY 15' accessory "dressing room" structures to be located in the frontyard area approx~'mately 290 feet from Sound View Avenue and approximately 15' from the we~.terly ~de p~operty line. In view of the foregoing and'in cons'~dering t'his appeal, the board finds as follows: (l)_that practical difficulties do exist due to the topography, 'the character and the dimensions of this parcel; (2) no adverse effects wili be produced on neighboring properties or on available governmental facilities of increased population; (3) the relief requested will be iD harmony with the purpQ~ses and intent of zoning; (4) the rel.~.~f requested is not in the board's opinion s~ubstantial since the normal se.tbac~ for a principal building is at 50 feet from the street; (~) that th~ difficulty..cannot be obviated by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance due to the existing setbacks and topographical natures, and (6) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. Accord'ingly, on moP, on-by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3307 in the Matter of ADELE V. DECKINGER for permission to construct accessory swimming po~l and ~torage/dressing room structures in the frontyard area, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS'APPLIED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ~hat the subject structures be located not closer than approximately 290' to Sound View Avenue (which is as requested-- see survey-~ketch plan); 2. That the ~subject structures be located not closer than 15' from the either sideyard area; 3. That the sub~ec't structures not be used for habitable purposes; Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- January 24, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2307 ADELE V. DECKINGER, continued:) 4. That there be no lighting that would be adverse to neighbor- ing properties. Location of Property: 3805 Sound View Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-94-01-20. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs.. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members present. 8:37 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3313, of~SERGE DOYEN, JR. for approval of insufficient area and width in a pro~Qsed set-off of land located at Fox Avenue, Fishers Island, New York. TwO letters in o~_position were read for the record and Mr~ Doyen spoke in behalf of h~-application. The statements made during the hearing_have been p~pared under separate cover by Mrs. Strang which will be filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office. Following all testimony, the following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, tO close t~e he~rin§ ~nd ?eserVe'~Cision pending deliberations in the Matter of Appeal No. 3313~ of SERGE DOYEN, JR. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass and Grigonis. (Members Doyen and Sawicki were absent f~om vote.) 8:50 p.m. Infg?mal Di'sdUs~ion: At the request of Henry Raynor, an appointment was made for disc~-ssion concerning the January 2~, 1985 .correspondence received from Mr. William Moore, paralegal from the Offices of Tooker and Smith, ESqs. for an interpretation of Sections lO0-118(E) and (F) of the Zoning Code~ The Chairman stated that an interpretation should not be anticipated for this evening since the request has been made only very recently and that the board would like to received legal opinions accordingly. Richard F. Lark, Esq,, special town counsel for the building depart- ment, was also present and gave a few examples of situations falling under this category. (See'verDat~m!testimony attached hereto.) 9:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF'MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Dou.glass, seconded '~y Mr. GQehringer, it WaS' ~.. RESOLVED, to approve the January 10, 1985 Regular Meeting Minutes and the March 2, 1984 Regular Meeting ~and verbatim testimony minutes. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- January 24~ 1985. Regular Meeting Vo~e of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, 'Douglass and Grigonis. (Members Doyen and Sa~icki were absent from ~.~te~) This resolution was duly adopted .... NEXT REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Goehri.nger~. seconded by Mr. Douglass, ..i't~wa.~ .... ].' RESOLVED, that the Date of the next Reg.ular Meeting.of_this Board be changed from February7. 1985 to.'THURSD'AY,''FEBRUA'RY'I4,''l.985, commencing at__7:30 p.m. at the. $6u~hold Town'"~all~ M~i-~R~'~i,i S6~d, NY; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Notice of Publication in the local and official newspapff~s of the town be amended_tq__reflect those h~arings scheduled fo~...that da~e accordingly. V~te-'6f the Boar~: Ayes: -~'~srs~ Goehringer, Douglass and Grigonis. (Members DOyen :and Sa~i.cki were absent from yote.) This ~esolution was duly adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3277~ Application of MARIE J. PATTERSON, 12 Turnwood Ct., Hempstead, NY for a Variance to th'e Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient area (and width) of two parcels in this proposed division of land located at the South Side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-128-02-17. The public hearings in this matter were held on November 15, 1984 and January 10, 1985, at which time the hearing was declared closed after receiving testimony. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Ordinance for approval of insufficient area (and width) Of two proposed parcels: (a) Parcel 1 proposed with an anea of 23,171 sq ft. and lot width of 85 feet [exclusive of 15' right-of-way] and (bi Parcel 1 proposed with an area of 22,700 sq. ft. Existing on proposed Parcel 2, the southerly parcel are a two-story, one-family dwelling and accessory storage-garage structure which is located in ~he "frontyard" area. Parcel 2 fronts along Pe'conic Bay approxi- mately 101 feet and is bulkheaded. Parcel No. 1 is vacant. The board members have personally visited the site in question and are familiar with the character of the residential neighborhood. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- January 24, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No~ 3277 = MARIE~J. ~PATTERS.ON,--conti~ue~':) Abutting the subject premises on the west are improved lots of approximately 10,000 sq. ft. in area. Abutting the subject premises on the east are lots of approximately 15,000 sq. ft. in area. The board members have taken all testimony in behalf and in opposition at the public hearings, which were held on November 15, 1984 and January 10, 1985, in rendering this determination. The board has found as follows: (1) that this proposal would not be out of character of the neighborhood since there are lots improved with one-family dwellings substantially smaller than that proposed herein; (2). no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population since this is a request for one additional building lot; (3). that the circumstances of this appeal are unique since the applicant's property is surrounded by lots substantially smaller; (4) the relief requested will be in harmony with ~he punposes of zoning and precedents set.~y the courts; (5) that t~he .interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, by reason of the fpregoing. Accordingly, ~n-motion by Mr. Grigon~s, seconded by Mr. Doug- lass, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3277, in the Matter of MARIE PATTER- SON BE AND HEREBY IS GRANTED THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: 1. Lot No.~' 1 shall contain an area of not less than 25,000 sq. ft. in area (inclus..ive of the right-of-way area), and Lot No. 2 shall be adjusted accordingly similar to the plan surveyed August 16, 1982, amended June 11, 1984;. 2. There be no setback reductions for new construction to less than that'permitted by the zoning regulations. Location of Property: South Side"of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-128-02~17. ~_ Vote-of the Board: Ay~: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED ~DECIS.ION: Appeal No. 3309:-. Appl~ca~i. on of H.E]NR~'~. SMItH]AND S.~, IN'C. (R. Bruer, Esq.), Main Road, Southol_d,_~N~..fQ~.a'~i~c~ t~.the'Zo.ni~.g Ordinance.,. Article VIII, Section 100-81 for approval of insufficient width Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- January 24, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3309 - H.J. SMITH & SON, continued:) (frontage) in this proposed set-off division of land located at the East Side of Peconic Lane and West Side of Carroll Avenue, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-74-3-19. The public hearing was held earlier ~bis evening, at which time testimony was taken and the hearing was then declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal f~O'~Arti"cle VII~,_.Section 100-81 of the Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code which requires a minimum lot width of 200 feet. Applicant proposes a division of land l'ocated in this "C-Light Industrial" Zoning District of two par~els,~ Lot 1 with an area of 40,000 sq._'ft. 'and 168.55' frontage ~lon~ Peconic Lane, and Lot 2 with an area of 52,731 sq. ft. (13,911.34 of "private road" area and 38,8i9.19 sq. ft. of buildable lot area,'and 50.03 feet'along Carroll Avelnue and 221..21 ~eet at ~.he "buitdable" setback line. Both lots_~re bounded'on _the_north by the LoQ.g Island Railroad. For the record it is noted that parcels to the east of th~s property were the subject of prior appeals ~rior to 1969. It is also noted for the record that the 50' private~road" strip is located in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District, which also surrounds the 2.1~8 acres in question. The board members have personally viewed the premises in ques- tion and are familiar with the character of the residential and commercial area of this locality. The board members have taken all the statements of t~ p~blic hearing held on this matter earlier this evening. Considering the circumstances of this appeal, the board finds as follows: .(~.~) that this project will be in harmony with and promote the §e~eral purposes of zoning since this project meets all of the zoning requirements as to area in this zoning district; (2) since this ~s a lot=line Variance, no adverse effects will be produced to adjoining.properties or on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (3) .that the circumstances of this appeal are unique since the entire C-Light Zoning section is all in the same ownership and of a size substantially greater than that required by the zoning ordinance; (4) that..~.he interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, by reason of the foregoing, and as noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doug- lass, it was So~uthold Town Board of Appeals -10- January 24, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3309 - HENRY J. SMITH AND SON, continued:) RESOLVED, that the relief as requested in Appeal No. 3309, in the Matter of HENRY P.~'SMITH & SON, INC. for insufficient lot width, BE AND HEREBY IS ~PPROVED~SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDI- TIONS: 1. The ingress and egress to Carroll Avenue shall remain open and unobstructed at all times; 2. There be no further lot area. or side or front yard reduc- tions. Location of Property: West Side of Carroll Avenue and East Side of Peconic Lane, Peconic, NY; 1000-074-03-19.1. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members present. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3300: Application of JOHN BERTANI, Colonial Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-62(B) for permission to establish building containing more than one retail store, offices or similar establishments in this "B-I" General Business Zoning District, at premises located on the north side of C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-55-02-20; containing 31,024 sq. ft. in area. The public hearing concerning this matter was held and concluded on December 13, 1984, pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article VI, Section 100-62(B) of the_Zoning Code requesting a variance from the 40,000 square-foot area requirement for a building containing retail stores, merchantile establishments, offices in this "B-l" General Business Zoning District. It is applicants' proposal to construct an 80' by 55' commercial building with setbacks of: (a) 60± feet from the front property line; (b) 55± feet from the westerly side property line; (c) 54± feet from the easterly side property line; (d) a minimum of 35 feet from the rear property line. It is the understanding of the board that there will be a maximum of four establishments within this building, each having a maximum of 700 sq. ft. of sales area, and will be those uses _ permitted under Article VII of the zoning ordinance. The site plan amended September 21, 1984 indicates 26 regular Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll= January 24, 1985 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3300 JOHN BERTANI, Continued:) parking spaces and two handicapped parking spaces for all four of the proposed establishments~ Article VI, Section 100-62(G) requires a minimum of one parking space for each 100 sq. ft. of sales floor area or office floor area, which would be a minimum of 28 parking spaces, without provisions for the handicapped. Therefore, an additional one handicapped parking space fQr each establishment must be provided in this board's conditions. In considering this appeal, the board has found: (1) that the variation is not substantial being 22± percent_~f the requirements; (2) there will be no effect, if the variance is allowed, of increased population density thus produced on available governmental facilities; (3) that the'~e will be no substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or a substantial detriment to adjoining properties since the premises Will be utilized as required under Article VII, in this zoning district; (4) Ghat the difficulty cannot be obviated by some method, 'feasible for the applicants to pu..rsue, other than a variance; (5) that i~ ~.~ew of the ...... manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served iby allowing the variance, as indicated below, by reasons of the foregQing. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that-the relief requested under Appeal No. 3300 in the Matter of JOHN BERTANI for permission to establish UP to four "B-l" Business Uses, each havin.g a maximum of 700 sq. ft. in retail sales or office floor area, BE]AND HEREBY IS'A.~PROVED,'.SUBJECT'TO THE FOLLOWING'CONDITIONS: 1. A ~inimum of 32 parking spaces, 28 regular and 4 handicapped spaces; 2~ A minimum planting area of 7,750 sq. ft. as requested and shown on the subject, site ~lan; .... 3. A maximum of 2,800 sq. ft. of retail sales or office floor area, as requested and shown on the subject site plan; 4. Changes which would increase the maximum' 700 sq. ft. of retail sales or office floor area for each establishment will require resubmission by formal application for reconsideration. Location of Property: North Side of C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-55-02-20. Vote of the ~Board:'~ Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was ~bsen_t.) This resolutio.p was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARA.~IONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. G~lnger, -~t was ~Sobthold Town Board of Appeals -]2- January 24, 1985 Regular Meeting RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations for the following matters, and "nonsignificance" determination as required by the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act, Local Law 44-4 of the Town Code, and Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law: S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3314 PROJECT NA/VlE: JOSEPH AND PATRICIA STIEFER This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southo!d. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the"reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II ! ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Location of an accessory horse barn in the fr0ntyard area on this 13.365-acre parcel. LOCATION OF PROJECT: To~ of Southold~ County of Suffolk, more particularly knpwn as: 6760 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY~ ]000-]2]-4-8 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The location of the proposed horse barn is at an elevation of 40± feet above mean sea level. (3) The premises is not located within 300 feet of wetlanas or othe~^~r~i~l_e~ir~nm~l ~ea S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -13- January 24, 1985 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATI%q~ ENVIRON~IENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3312 PROJECT NktvIE: ESTAIE OF LOUISE WILSON This notice is issued pursuant' to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a siqnifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: For approval of insufficient area and width of parcels in a division of land pu~99ant to Will effectuated February 23, 1983. - LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~-'-~uff61k, more particularly known as: N/S Main Road, Mattituck,_iNy; ]000~.]22-5-19. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Being a lot-line variance, this matter is an action not requiring coordination. (3) The premises in question is not located within 300 feet of an environ~Q~!l~._cr~j~al~.area So~thold Town Board of Appeals -14- January 24, 1985 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLASLATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3316 and 3315 PROJECT NAP[E: CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To establish expansion of library use in proposed addition to present library which will have insufficient rearyard setback. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 27550 Main Road, Cutch0gue.., NY; ]000-]09-06- part of Lots 1 and 2. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The premises in question is improved and has an established library use. Road(~d ~eP~e~ in question is a corner at the intersection of Main ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -15- January 24, 1985 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members present. NEXT SPECIAL MEETING: It was tentatively agreed that a Special Meeting would be called by Wednesday, January 30, 1985, to transact those business matter properly coming before the board at that time. It was suggested that a meetiDg be held that evening, Wednesday, January 30th at approximately 6:00 p.m. FEBRUARY 14, 1985 PUBLIC HEARINGS: The following files, which have been s~'hedu~e~ forjFeb~uary i4,_1985 for bearings, were reviewed and scheduled for field inspections~appropriately: Appeal No. 3294 - Peter and Margaret Troyano. Appeal No. 3314 - Joseph and Patricia Stiefer. Appeal No. 33t7 - Thomas Peritlo. Appeal No. 3291 = Anthony~Pagoto. Appeal No. 3312 - Estate of Louise Wilson. Appeal No. 3315 - Cutchogue Free Library. Appeal No. 33t6 - Cutchogue Free Library. FEBRUARY 28, 1985 Matters for field inspections and reviews: Appeal Noo 3319 - And[eas Palioura~; Appeal No. 3321 = Alice D..~Currie; Appeal No. 3322 - Joseph Lizewski; Appeal No. 3323 - Colgate Design Corpo; Appeal No. 3324 - Lynn Sciora; Appeal No. 3325 - Douglas A. Cooper; Appeal No. 3305 - Norkus (DEC expected by 2/7); Appeal No. 3251 - Renate Riedel (if DEC is received by 2/7); Appeal No. 3318 - Meehan and Leonardi. Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- January 24, 1985 Regular Meeting There being no other transactions taken, the Chairman adjourned the meeting until the next Special Meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. RespeCtfully submitted, . Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals Ger~~~' Appboved: 2/14}85 ~ Public Hearings SOUTHOLD TOWN ZBA Regular Meeting January 24, 1985 ~3296 - At 7:40 p.m a Public Hearing was held in the matter of JOSEPH and ARLENE LESTINGI, to locate accessory building in frontyard area. (Recessed from 12/13/84). MR. KAPPEL: I think the application, in this case, is self- explanatory. We requested to build a garage in the frontyard; this is waterfront property, and construction of a garage in the rearyard would obstruct the applicant's view. Due to the size of the house and width constraints of the property, it is not feasible to build the garage on the side of the house. That's pretty much..it, and I am available to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As you know, it is the concern of this Board in the construction of accessory buildings~ that they not be used for any habitable use. MR. KAPPEL: Under no circumstances will this be used for other than a garage and storage building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it a one-story structure or a two- story structure? MR. KAPPEL: I think it's a one-story structure. Yes. We have no objection to any restriction you may place on the variance prohibiting anything, other than a garage or storage building. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. MR. KAPPEL: Do you anticipate acting on this tonight? CHAIRMAN GOE~RINGER: Probably not at the moment, but sometime later on. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? A garage in the frontyard area, 26' x 40' Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. #3309 - At 7:45 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of HENRY J. SMITH & SON for approval of insufficient width, Peconic Lane and Carroll Avenue, Peconic. R. BRUER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I obviously request that the Board grant the variance. This has been before the Planning Board; it's been hanging around since last June. The necessity of the variance is I believe, Lot I, because it is not sufficiently wide enough on the road. I believe as to Lot II, if I am not mistaken, that is sufficiently wide enough, not necessarily on Carroll Avenue, but where~er the building line is. ZBA 1/24/85 Page 2 SMITH HEARING - continued R. BRUER - continued: There is a hardship if he can't divide the property. It is industrial zoned and the ultimate use of the property will remain the same. It is not going to change the character of the neighborhood. There is one thing I am a little concerned about. This afternoon I went up and reviewed the file and I noticed a letter in there in response to a letter from the Board from Mr. Lessard. He said..."the amended plan now meets the area requirements for lot size in "C" zone area, however, both pieces in this minor will require Width variances. That area in- dicated as private road is part of Lot II, amd until such time as this is developed and removed, it will have to be treated as such. The right of way is indicated in the James and Ruth Hubbard property that this private road is their access, then only one width variance is required by 280 A on Lot II is required.." I believe the 280 A would really be for the Hubbard piece, wouldn't that be true, Mr. Lessard? I don't know if you have a map in front of you. I don[t mean to put you on the spot. MR. LESSARD. You have to have the ability to get to Lot II regardless. Now, you would have two ways to go. If there is no restriction from the Hubbard Property, you use this to get to the Hubbard property, then a variance for an insufficient width will solve the problem. If there are restrictions on that little neck of land that involves other pieces of property, it would have to be through the right of way and then you wouldn't need a width variance. R. BRUER: I would like to be in a position to tell my client, assuming the Board grants this application, that I am not going to have to come back in the future for some type of 280 A, be- cause I don't believe we really do and if that's the case, and the Board has a.discussion tonight regarding this, I would ask them to amend the petition to request the 280 A, if that is re- quired, under 2675 of the Town Law. I think you have the ability to do that, under the facts in front of you. I don't think it's required and I think that's the access that's going to be used for the property in question, I forget their name. I feel con- fident, but I haven't spoken to Mr. Smith about that, I don't think any obstruction will be put in that 50' area, because we couldn't, we have to be, the building line has to be .... MR. LESSARD. What I tried to do is solve both problems. I don't know if there is anything restricting that small neck in there. R. BRUER: I don't know of anything either, I am trying to get the problem resolved tonight rather than waste this Board's time again in the future. ZBA 1/24/85 Page 3 SMITH HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This 50' x 50.03 x276.06 is a deeded piece of this parcel, is it not? R. BRUER: It's part of this parcel, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The discussion of 280 A is mainly discussion then of covenanting or restricting it to the point where this parcel is not built upon or constructed upon for legal access, is that what you are referring to, Mr. Lessard? MR. LESSARD: No, If Mr. Hubbard has some claim that he has the right of access across that little neck of property, it may not be. I just looked ... R. BRUER: Henry told me he thought that was the case.. MR. LESSARD...We want to resolve it, but I want to put all the facts in front of us. R. BRUER: That's why I am bringing it up tonight. MR. LESSARD: If there's no restriction to the Hubbard property then we should give you the width variance. If you do not need a width variance, you need a 280 update so Mr. Hubbard has a right to use it in case he is not going to get cut off. R. BRUER: Mr. Hubbard's not going to be cut off. We either need a 280 A or we don't. It might be Mr. Hubbard needs a 280 A, since he is the landlocked parcel, but it's not Mr. Smith. I am sorry I didn't discuss it with you. ~efore. I~think if there is a 280 A required it is Mr. Hubbard's problem, not Mr. Smith; he has the road frontage . MR. LESSARD: The responsibility goes to the landowner, that's the only way I can look at it. I mean, if I own the land obv~Dusly I wouldn't feel that you could come in and tear up my land to satisfy your wants. R. BRUER: Mr. ~ubbard has a right over Mr. Smith's property and Mr. Hubbard now goes for a building permit, he is the one who will need the access, not Mr. Smith, he's got it. I would just like the Board to take care of it tonight. He has road frontage and he has the width of the property to the building line. I don't see why he needs an access variance. If anybody needs it it is Mr. Hubbard and that will come up at such time as he wants to do something. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How would you like us to interpret this, Mr. Lessard? ZBA 1/24/85 Page 4 SMITH HEARING CONTINUED MR. LESSARD: Well .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ...Bearing in mind that if there was a legal access required, that we would normally send the Town Engineer out to look at it, etc., .. MR. LESSARD: The major concern is that Mr. Hubbard has a right across that property and it has to be tre~ed as a 280 A, so that the person who owns the property cannot/~ything there to obstruct passage. The research should have been done on it, I am sorry. R. BRUER: May I make a point. Mr. Hubbard does have a right to it via an easement. That easement, if he has such a right, gives him the right to get there and not to be obstructed. It is what it is, I don't know what his right is. It's like what Mr. Lessard said, I am dealing with Mr. Smith'tonight and I just want to clarify that because of some-action of Mr. Hubbard in the future, I don't want to have to come back here, when as of tonight, Mr. Lessard, I think we really don't need a 280 A just for this particular piece, under the facts presented to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, we will treat it then as if a 280 A exists, however, that any action of the Board will be put on notice that this particular area of this parcel not be con- structed upon. R. BRUER: To the extent that Mr. Hubbard has rights over it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. R. BRUER: I don't think the Board should create rights mn the name of this person. He's got what he's got. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we are not creating rights, we are just, if there other people using it, we don't want to bar them. R. BRUER: That's fine and they shouldn't be barred. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody against the application? Hearing no further comments, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. 43308 - at 7:55 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of LAUREN KRUG to attach accessory garage leaving insufficient rearyard setback of principal building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody against this application? Questions from Board Members? Mr. Lessard, if you remember this denial, when a person takes an accessory structure and adds it to an existing building, do they then have to bring this particular accessory ZBA 1/24/85 Page 5 KRUG HEARING CONTINUED CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: - continued...up to the present energy codes? What does a person do with a garage floor, do they break this garage floor up or do they insulate over and abo~e it, what do they do? MR. LESSARD: It depends on how it is designed. You may need a firewall. If he were to change it into living quarters, chances are he would have to put 18" of crawl space underneath it. Again, he may have to remove'all the cement and go down a foot, I don't know. I will have to study it; what he proposes to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, so that the granting of this appli- cation should include that an appropriate building permit from your department be gotten? MR. LESSARD: Yes. CHARRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. ~3310 - At 8:00 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of GARY DOROSKI to locate accessory storage building in area other than rearyard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would someone like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? How do you want to treat this ap- plication, gentlemen, bearing in~ mind that Mr. Doroski has not come to this hearing and we don't have the approximate distances that he is proposing? I will suggest to the Board that we close the hearing on this particular application and that we send Mr. Doroski a letter indicating approximate distance from the private road referred to as Monsell Lane, and I am not talking about the south side of the house, which I believe we have a dis- tance of 18', sorry 31~; I am talking about the north side of the house, which is near Conklin property, which appears to be a little bit farther. So, I will close the hearing on that basis. All in favor. 43303 - at 8:05 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of FRANK FIELD REALTY (Recessed from December 13th). FRANK FIELD: I think I answered everything at the last hearing, but I am here to answer any questions you may have. I think it will be an improvement to the area, the community. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As you know, Mr. Lessar~ and myself were down last week and we did~ go through your building and we thank you for being there. It is my understanding that this week the Town Board has renewed your trailer permit? ZBA 1/24/85 Page 6 FRANK FIELD REALTY HEARING Continued FRANK FIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You ~have given us a copy of a letter in the file where we asked the question of who was the actual owner of Frank Field Realty and you informed us that you and your wife are the owners of Frank Field Realty? FRANK FIELD: That's correct. We are sole owners. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't have any other specific queStions. I know there was some concern from the neighbors across the street concerning water runoff. Would you elaborate on that for us? FRANK FIELD: While you were there, I mentioned I would be willing to remove some of the soil, lower the grade down a reasonable amount to conform with the level of the road, if that would be satisfactory to the neighbors. CHAIRMAN HOEHRINGER: I thank you very much. Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? ANTHONY DINIZIO: Sorry I didn't make the first hearing, t am one of the first ones who built on that street and know the situation that is at hand and everytime I had to come up to this Town Hall, I got the runaround. In fact I almost got kicked out by this man last time I came up. He wouldn't answer any of my questions. Iwould like to express my feelings on this. The neighborhood, we have had promises, promises, promises over the last 6 or 7 years and nothing has been done.. The water situation over there has just worsened and worsened. Everytime someone builds a house, including my sons's two houses, it has worsened the wa~er situation. I don't l~ke getting up three o'clock in the morning because I got a phone call, my cellar is full of water. And Mr. Dean has been more than fair with us about trying to divert the water. The situation is out of hand. My son has spent all kinds of money and I have spent all kinds of manhours trying to divert the water out of his cellar. I think it's the Town's job now to do something about this water and I would like to rest my case right there. Naturally the more hous~you put up in the area, it worsens the water situation. He's been flooded out half a dozen times and I don't think it's right. I mean, you give him a building permit to build, somebody should go over there and look at the water situation and I am sure Mr. Douglas knows what it is all about because he helped grade the place. ZBA 1/24/85 Page 7 FRANK FIELD REALTY HEARING Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would the suggestion that Mr. Field had mentioned help your situation? ANTHONY DINIZIO: That won-~t help one bit, because the water comes from all over. I have been living ther for 35 years, and believe me, I know what I am talking about the water. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What are you basically saying would help your situation? It probably has nothing to do with this application. ANTHONY DINIZIO: The more houses you put up, the more water you are going to get, because you are taking away from .... what it needs is someone has to put a sump in somewhere, to take care of the water. I would think that would be first thing on the agenda. Get rid of the water first, then you could build upthe rest of the lots with houses, but let's get rid of the water situation first. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you one question? I believe your son had asked about the moving of the two'houses of the 7th Street Corporation to 2 lots around the ~rner from your piece, how they were turned down for a 2 family house. What we are looking at basically is an improvement situation to this particular area and I am just trying to get a handle, and the Board is trying to get a handle on the specific application 5nlst tha~ gen leman has brought before us and that is, would this . construction of a 2 family house in this particular parcel help your area or hinder your area? Now, you are telling me from a water point of view you feel it's going to hinder the area. ANTHONY DINIZIO: Definitely. The man, Mr. Fields, had me over one day, we had a very nice talk and he wanted to fix up the place he had. It's there, but yet, not, this man sa~s you can't do it. Why can't he fix up his own place? If you make him tear that down, and put up two more houses, you are worsening the situation, you are not bettering it, asfar as law~ goes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think he wants to construct a 2 family house? ANTHONY DINIZIO: That would be worse yet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you for your opinion,and I hope that your water situation improves. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application?. PAUL DINIZIO: I would like to speak about this 7th Street Cor- poration if you have any questions on it. ZBA 1/24/85 Page 8 FRANK FIELD REALTY HEARING Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no questions on it, I know you mentioned it the last time. PAUL DINIZIO: Yes,my name is Paul Dinizio, 637 Brown Street, Greenport. There is one thing I would like to say about it, okay, now my wife and I invested in this venture for the sole purpose of making money. I am sure that's why everybody invests mn some- thing. I am sure that's Mr. Field's intentions. If it is not, I am sorry, maybe I am wrong, but I am sure that's his intention. Now, by denying us, you denied us the right of making a little bit more money, okay, now what I feel is good for one l~ good for all in the area. Now, I was, here's one question I would like to ask the Board. This appeal that he has put mn, does the Building Department have to approve the building and the sites first for this appeal, or did the building department deny it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They denied it. PAUL DINIZI0: They denied it? Okay. But asfar as what I was saying before, you did not give it to us, so I feel you should not give it to anybody else mn the area. You set a precedent once so you should stick to it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are welcome. Anybody else like to speak against the application? Mr. Field, do you have anything else to say in rebuttal? FRANK FIELD: All I am trying to do ms mmprove the neighborhood, and what we are doing ms removmng two structures and replacing it with one structure to house two families. We are not in- creasmng the number of units available or decreasing, we are maintaining a status quo, but we are upgrading the housing in the area. Iwould like to straighten out that I have not been turned down on repairing the structure after the fire. I have not requested permission yet because my wife suggested that it might be better to build two new structures and get rid of the two old. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was referring to the denial of the construction of the 2 family house. FRANK FIELD: The procedure you have to use is you put in for a building permit and the building inspector looks at it and'says you are not conforming, you are in violation of the zoning require- ments therefore, I deny it, and then the next step is to come before this Board here. But, he mentioned about the house that was damaged and there is no problem with the building department with that because I haven't requested permission, but I have had a general discussion with them about what is required. Thank you very much. Any other questions either p~o or con on this application? ZBA 1/24,/85 Page 9 FRANK FIELD HEARING, CONTINUED CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. ~3311 - At 8:20 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of ROBERT CELIC for a variance to build addition with insufficient rearyards. ROBERT CELIC: Gentlemen, we are awfully crowded in the office. The primary reason for this extension is to facilitate the pro- blems we have now. My co-tenant, the hairdresser, has also the same problem of being crowded. She has expressed interest in renting the area I have. We would basically end up having an office for real estate purposes, of twice the size we pre- sently haVe. So, it is rather cramped at the moment and of course, and I guess you realize, by looking at the plan, am pro- posing the additional section within the addition for a rental income facility, which would help accomodate my income outlays in constructing this, as well as pay the taxes and everything else. Asfar as the architectural detail, I think it would uplift the general neighborhood, because it will be along the Cape¥ Cod-dish lines, unlike most of your new commercial buildings, within that general neighborhood. It will be quite nice, as long as I can afford it. Thank you. MR. GRIGONI$: Is there anybody else here who would like to speak on behalf of this hearing? Anyone in opposition? As you probably know, Bob, there is a letter in the files~with somebody, having an objection to this. ROBERT CELIC: I did answer that letter. MR. GRIGONIS: That's my neighbor to the south and I believe my explanations are sufficient. Thank you. Any questions from the Members? I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. (Mr. Goehringer was absent.during the hearing.) ~3307 - AT 8:30 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of ADE~E.V. DECKINGER for a variance to locate pool and accessory building in frontyard. ADELE V. DECKINGER: I really have nothing to add, unless you have some questions of me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you give us an approximate distance from Soundview Avenue to this pool, if it is constructed? ADELE V. DECKINGER: About 300'. ZBA 1/24/85 Page 10 DECKINGER HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 300' exactly, so if we grant you the pool and we write 300' in there, you will be happy with 300'? ADELE V. DECKINGER: Well, it might be more than that, because my existing building is 400', so it would be within at least 300'. CHAIRMAN G~EHRINGER: So, if we give you this proposed, we grante you this proposed application, and we say not closer than 300', you would be happy with that? ADELE V. DECKINGER: Delighted. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And how far is the storage building from the sideyard? I see. a figure of 15' there. ADELE V. DECKINGER: Well, the cesspool is ~n the way. It would just be a little changing room. CHAIP~AN GOEHRINGER: Well, it will be 15' from the west property line? ADELE V. DECKINGER: Oh, yes, at least. CHAIRMAN GQEHRINGER: Would the sw±mmtng pool area be lighted in any way, as to become obstrusive to any neighbors? ADELE Vo DECKINGER: No. CHAIRMAN G©EHRINGER: Is there .anything that any of the neighbors have said to you that they objsct to this. We did meet with Mr. Linsner, and he is a very nice gentleman, and he said he had no specific objection to this application. Let's see if anyone else has any objection. Thank you very much. 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 have no objection to this application. I there- fore offer a motion on it. The motion should, however, include as I mentioned to the applicant, that the swimming pool to be con- structed not be any closer than 300' from Sound Avenue and that it conform to all the normal setback requirements under the zoning code; that the storage building of 10' x 15' not be any closer than 15' to the property line and that this particular storage building not be used for habitable purposes and it will be lighted. You will have electricity in this storage building? ADELE V. DECKINGER: We didn't discuss it. I don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But it is not going to be used for habitable purposes? ADELE V. DECKINGER: No. ZBA 1/24/85 Page 11 DECKINGER HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I make a motion including everything I have just stated, approving it to include the conditions I have just mentioned. (Motion unanimously approved). Thank you very much for coming in. ADELE V. DECKINGER: Thank you.. #3313 At 8:35 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of SERGE DOYEN for a variance to approve insufficient width mn pro- posed setoff. SERGE DOYEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The application speaks- for itself. I came prepared to answer any quesq~ons and the op- position letters that are part of the file, but insomuch as my attorney was ill and could not be here tonight, I would like to reserve the option for asking for a recess, should that become necessary. If not, then I will not ask for the recess, and I would be glad to answer any questions on the application. I have some photographs, but I didn't bring them with me. They are aerial photographs and ground photographs of the property in question. CHAIP/~AN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. SERGE DOYEN: Gerry, did y©~ want to read those latters of opposition? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I will read them (Reading letter of Gene N. Dunlap). (Reading letter of Martha Kent Gray). Would you like to address those~.two? SERGE DOYEN: Surely, that last one is Gray. Gray and Dunlap are brother and sister and they own the property adjoining me. So, those two letters~are originating from the same land. Of course, the application itself answers the Gray letter. That is the reason I am asking for a variance and that speaks for itself, insomuch as it is not changing the character of the neighborhood because of the other small lots. Of course, I want to be a good neighbor and I don't mind addressing myself to the second'letter, i~ which the request is made that the placing of a structure, should it be built, on this lot, be situated in such a way, I guess what we call in the business - there would be no visual pollution - and I am amenable to that because the property~ lends itself to placing the house in the northwest corner, which would be out of the line of sight or visibility of any of my neighbors. If I only took in consideration the Gray request to place the house on the lot, then I am not taking into consideration my other two neighbors, one in particular. So, I would like to consider.them all - my neighbor on my east, on %he west and the Currant house, no matter who the owner is. Because of the topograpky, and the elevations, even a two- story house can be located, which would be impossible to be seen by any of my neighbors. So, in addressing the second letter, I want to be a good neighbor and certainly don't want visual pol- lution any more than they do. ZBA 1/24/85 Page 12 DOYEN HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Doyen, assuming you place this house in the northwest corner that you refer to, will that have any visual effect upon your neighbor? SERGE DOYEN: Well, it's the idea I am trying to convey. Because the elevation where that is is 20', where the grade is, the bottom minimum elevation must be at least 75'. My house has a minimum elevation of 55' and the neighbors on my east have an.elevation of at least 80'. So, I think in between the grades is where I would covenant the property for a house, I would, I am as certain as I can be that with trees in between up to 80' high and with the elevation of the northwest corner, I can't see how any part of the house would be visible to neighbors. It certainly wouldn't be from neighbors on the east. So, as I say, I know these are not technically legal questions to kave to be concerned by the Board, but I want to be a good neighbor and so I think I would be fair to the adjoining property owners, if I did covenant to have a structure only being built on that part of it. CHAIRMAN GOESRINGER: Do you object to any restrictions by this Board that the house be in the northwest? SERGE DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN G©EHRINGE~: Do you object to any height requirement restric- tions? Say, that the house should not exceed 30' in the air? SERGE DOYEN: Well, I think there is a current ordinance. I think it is 35.'? Well, I don't think that's.~necessary then, we can leave it a~35' or we can put it in, it doesn't make any difference, 5', it will not be in the line of sight of the ~ra~ structure. the Gray struc'ture~ as I say, between the tree barrier and even if there were no trees, the line of sight precludes viewing any structure up to 35' MR. LESSARD: I don't believe that this Board h~s the authority to restrict a building area on a piece of property. If it went to Court, it wouldn't hold up 5 minutes. This Board can't say you can have this, if you build a house a certain way, no, that's not legal. SERGE DOYEN: Excuse me, I concur with Mr. Lessard. I want my neighbors to know that I want to. MR. LESSARD: If you wish to put in those covenants when you sell the property, then that's y~ur 3p~rogative, but this Board does not have the right to do that. SERGE DOYEN: I have to concur, bu~ I want my neighbors to know that that's what I intend and what I would do and will do. It's the most practical wa~ 5o use the property. ZBA 1/24/85 Page 13 DOYEN HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN G~HRINGER: You will agree, however, that we do have the right/f~strict the height. MR. LESSARD: Sta~e law restricts the height. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have the right to reduce that height. MR. LESSARD. I don't believe so. That wouldn't hold up in Court, either. Trying to restrict a main dwelling, I don't know, it won't hold up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Doyen. SERGE DOYEN: No more questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: None. Are there any other persons who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Against the application? This particular application we find somewhat dif- ferent from the normal application that we get from Fisher's Island in the respect that this Board, pretty much in its entirety has seen this piece of property, Mr. Doyen, when we were over to Fish~r's Island in 1983. We understand the topo- graphy of the piece and understand the nature of your neighbors claim or objection, so to speak. We do understand that you did have intent of doing this prior to the change of zoning from one acre to two acres. I still think we do have the right regardless to restrict height of the particular structures although the scenic easement, so to speak of the surrounding property owners are not within the discussion of this particular application. Bearing that in mind, I will make a motion Closing this hearing, and we will deliberate upon it, as we ha~e done on several of them tonight. Is there anybody who would like to speak against it before I close this hearing? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Hearing Closed at 8:45 p.m. Open Discussion Followed Respectfully submitted, (These minutes were transcribed from tapes recorded in my presence). ZBA 1/24/85 Page 14 OPEN DISUSSION CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There are some attorneys present that are going to present some factual data concerning 100-118, after the nonconforming zoning code interpretation. Are there any attorneys present, yes. Could I have your name, please and could you approach the mike? WILLIAM MOORE: My name is William Moore, from Tooker and Smith, Riverhead. I wasn't going to make any formal presentation. I have presented the Board a letter which was delivered this morning and all we are requesting, we represent Richard T. Cart, who is an option holder on a piece of property in New Suffolk, all we are interested in determining what 100-118 E & F interpretation as given in the facts set forth in the letter. I wasn't prepared to take your time up with this. Just to get your determination to an answer to that question. I didn't expect that you would have an answer for me tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was of the impression that the Town attorney, or the attorney representing the building department was going to come and argue this particular issue, but I don't see Mr. Lark here. Is there anything that the building depart- ment would like to say on that? MR. LESSARD: No, we are taking the position that the use of the present building is In conformity with the zoning area. Non-conformity would probably exist in the setback requirements according to zone, so asfaras the use is concerned, I don't believe should even be considered. Mr. Lark is here if he would like to oomment on what I have said, of course, he doesn't know what I said. If you would look under Section 100-i3 and the definition of non-conforming use .... reading from Section .... So, it's not non-conforming use. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This has caught my totally by surprise. I didn't think we were responding to.any one particular piece or parcel of property. I thought we were having just a general interpretation of 118. Mr; Lark do you have something that you would like to say? R. LARK: The questions came up as to what is meant by that 118 Section, E & F, non-conforming uses. Since we are dealing with the statute, i.e.;, the zoning ordinance, you got to find out, first of all if it's been defined, the word non-conforming use. and Mr. Lessard quite correctly referred to you the 116 Section where they do use the word non-conforming use. And again, as he indicated to you it refers to any u~gz_whether a building or . . ~z~ Live a tract of land or both consz~ting~ay ~zs chapter, whzch does not conform to the use regulations. And when you read 118 in its entirety from the Preamble, where they refer to uses, you are back to the same situation that 118 is addressed to uses. ZBA 1/24/85 Page 15 OPEN DISCUSSION - Continued R. LARK: continued-- Now, it is true in E & F they talk about a non-conforming building in the first two, three words of the sentence, but then they turn right around in the ordinance, after they go through this 50% business, and I can cover this in another minuts here, but then they go right back and refer..."...unless the use of such building has changed to a conforming use." Now, I have given it a lot of thought and if our zoning ordinance in the definition section had referred to a non-co~.forming structural lot, like some zoning codes that you will see, where they refer to the lot, structure, etc., on the lot, and then after the zoning ordinance ~s enacted, it becomes non-conforming on the effective date of the ordinance, then we would be in a different situation. But on the limited question that has been posed as to whether E or F apply to just a building where the use is valid, I don't think it does. Now, an example, and I have Mr. Horton here and he can give you the specifics, ~e., p~eces of property, but an example would be if you had an A-residential zoning district ever since 1957 and before, and people constructed their house 10' from the front street, so you had a 10' frontyard, and it always had been that way. I will take a situation on a street wherein there is no established setbacks , we just have one house on the streetr Zoning goes · n and establishes a 50' frontyard. Five years later the house is remodeled or destroyed by fire. The p~ople want to rebuild on the same spot, same foundation, the building department has historically g~ven them a building psrmit to do that, even though it's only a 10' frontyard. The theory being that the use is still conforming. The use is residential. Now, I know that sounds · nconsistent in a sense, if you take the same house on the same parcel of land and it's put up when it's business and then later on it's upzoned to A-residential and it burns down, there the use · s changed, you have a non-conforming use. You have a business in a residential district. And if the building is then destroyed then you would have to conform, because the use of the building has changed to residential. But there, the building department tells me, where you have a business use in a residential neighborhood and it's destroyed, if it's restored according to code, that it is converted to a residential use and they build it according to the build code in effect at the time, they would allow the "footprint", as the word has been euphemistically used here, and they could put it up with a 10' yard, and it would not require an area variance. Mr. Horton ~s here and he can cite you some examples, where buildings have been taken down that no longer conform to the sideyards or rearyards setbacks, and they have interpreted it to allow the structure. This came up in quite of a different context, which is what you are aware of here. Now, another in- teresting side question has been posed. Ihave not researched ZBA t/24/85 Page 16 OPEN DISCUSSION - Continued R. LARK: continued -- this use district since 1957, but I have been told that it's always been a "C" Light industrial District, where shipyards have been a permitted use, providing they have a special exception. I have also been told that this property might not have a special exception because it was pre~existing prior to zoning. It's been represented that it has been there for 100 yearscor so, as a shipyard. So, a special exception has not been ever passed by the ZBA, since enactment of zoning ~n 1957. Now, if that's the case, and interesting, but not so esoteric question has been presented. If that use has been abandoned for more than 2 years, which it hasn't at the pre- sent time. I have been told that the use will have been abandoned by two years, either in May or June of this year, 1985. Then they are going to have to come in here and get a special ex- ception to continue that use for that property, if they let the 2 years come and go. They never got a special exception. It's only a permitted use under the ordinance today if you have a special exception. The non-conformity of not having a special exception can go on forever providing it stays continued, no matter what the use district says. They tell me it has always been zoned for that type of use subject to this special exception. So, that's another interesting wrinkle. That question is not before you today because the 2 year period has not expired, There is probably no question that it was used sometime during 1983, so that won't expire until the Spring or Summer of this year. Clearly, the building inspector tells me that it was not used as a shipyard, in this particular section during the calendar year 1984, so that's another question that they are going to have. In talking with the developer and their representatives, it was clear that what they want to do ultimately they are going to have to come in for a special exception and various permits, anyway. The issue that came up this time as to whether or not the building which are non-conforming in the sense they don't have required setbacks, do they require a variance, or something special from the' Board of Appeals, if they are to rebuild them in the exact same spot? The building department took the attitude if you rebuild them according to code, they can go up in the exact same spot. If you move the buildings in any-way shape or form, and are not within the 50'frontyard setbackS and 30' ~ideyard setbacks, then you would have to obtain a variance,which would then bring it in the jurisdiction of the Board. That's the position of the building department. Other people have taken the position, inclUding their own counsel, that might not be true. Since the buildings are non-conforming in the dictionary sense, or to rebuild them if they are torn down, they would require a variance. ZBA 1/24/85 Page 17 OPEN DISCUSSION ~ Continued R: LARK - continued.. We do not feel that that's applicable and hence, the Town Board suggested, and they readily agreed to come before this Board to get an interpretation of the zoning ordinance for that limited question as to whether or not a building which does not conform to the present sideyard or frontyard setbacks, if torn down and rebuilt according to code, at the present time, could it be built on the same spot? Or is that a non-conforming use? Therefore, it would require a variance from you people, that is the precise question. We take the view in the building department it makesfno difference. They can rebuild them right where they ar~a/~e~eet code~ The buildings are condemned by the Town Boar~they have to come down in any event. Now, I told you I would talk about one other thing that had come up, this 50% thing. The Building Fire Code, which we adapted by Chapted 45 of the NY Fire and Prevention Building Code, on remodeling, where they deal with the issue of remod~ing, provides in the one that I am reading from, which is Part, I might have to get it from Curt. Curt, do you have a direct reference on this? On the 50%, could you get it for me? I thought I had it right here, where they provide for remodeling of a building today, if you do more than 50% of its fair market value in more than a 6 month period, fair market value of the building when you start to remodel, and over a 6 month period, then you have to rebuild it according to code, you can~'t do what you want. You have to conform to the existing fire and building code at the time, and that is in Part 1231, which is of Chapter E of the NYS Uniform Fire Prevention & Building Code, which provides~.. that you have to conform to the present code when an entire existing building is hereinafter erected, When the cost of any alterations, additions or repairs in any 6 month period, exceed 50% of the cost of replacing the building, at the beginning of the 6 month period." Also they ha~e a particular section, 1231-4 "... whenever more than 25% of the roof covering of a building is replaced in any 6 month period, all roof covering on such building shall be made to comply with the current building codes." Both apply in this case, because the roof is more than 25% shot. It would have to be replaced. So whatever they do there, it has to be according to the current standards, the current bull.ding code standards. So we have that covered in the con- struction element of it. So, the only question that has to be resolved and we feel it's academic, but they do not and their other interpretations of the code are g~ven by competent attorneys, that the wording in 118 would apply 'and they would have to yet a variance to rebuild them as they stand. So the building department backed off and took the view, we have made our determination, you people disagree with it. Under our code at ZBA 1/24/85 Page 18 OPEN DISCUSSION - Continued R. LARK: continued -- the current time, as amended, the ZBA can make a decision on that precise issue. It's, in their view, relevant to them, because I think it's next Tuesday, the Town Board date expires and the buildings have to be torn down and the Town Board has taken the view at the present time they are not going to ex- tend that time. It is my understanding that come following day or days they plan to go out to contract and tear the building down themselves and assess it, to the property owner, whoever that might be, Marine Associates, we feel, at this time and so be it. We don't think that whether the building is up or down it makes any difference, but they seem to think it gives them some vested rights. So, depending upon whatever you people do or don't do at this point, will then dictate what they might decide to do; whether they will bring an injunctive relief in Supreme Court, to do whatever, because Town Board has said they are a hazard; they either have to be made safe. I think you should be made aware that after the building inspector told them what he deemed to have to be done to make safe, they costed it it out and apparently it's some $35,000 or $40,00-0 to have to be expended, just to make the building safe. That's not an improvement or anything just to keep it safe, so outsiders can't get in and the building doesn't fall on somebody, or blow away on somebody. That type of thing. It's an economic thing a~faras the developer ~s concerned. Curt, could you give the Board just one or two generalized examples where the building department has passed on the narrow · ssue of where a building was non-conforming to the current set- backs, as if you had to go in if it was vacant, and it was either torn down or destroyed by fire and then remodeled, restored or rebuilt, Where the building department has granted a building permit on proper application? MR. HORTON: I have seven or eight locations in my file and I will mention one which is one block away from the place. The place burned down over a year ago, they did get a building permit to rebuild the house, one block away from this. R. LARK: And the interpretation was since the use was valid, they did not have to conform to the setback, if they built it exactly in the same spot? MR. HORTON: Absolutely. ZBA 1/24/85 Page 19 OPEN DISCUSSION Continued MR. HORTON: I have more if you care to check the file. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Horton. R. LARK: Is ~here anything else, any questions? If anybody does, I will be glad to answer them because it's not moot or esoteric to them, it's real to them, but ..... MR. DOUGLASS:I would just like to ask you a question, counselor. In determining a two year lapse of time, in other words, a use of a place, how much business do you have to do to be con- sidered operational? R. LARK: That's not defined statu~orally and if they had a prior use of a shipyard, marina, which is, as I understand, the overall operation was, they are able to substantiate in this particular case is 1983, that they did use it. Now, they didn't use it maybe 100% of what they used it for in 1980 or 198~, or something like that, but the statute doesn't define. there has to be a certain percentage. How would you measure that, dollars? You are getting into some gray areas there. MR. DOUGLASS: I have not found anything in any of our stuff that says an~amount of value that you have to do. R. LARK: Amount of business, you mean? MR. DOUGLASS: Right. This is the reason I was bringing it up was because you have told us that they have shown operations. R. LARK: They are prepared to show proof MR. DOUGLASS: I personally know of operation in 1984, but if a dollar value is put on it, it changes the picture. MR. LESSARD: No, no. R. LARK: I know of none. I know of none. That only becomes an issue if they let~_their two year period go by and if the Board makes a determination, since a special exception was never obtained, because they didn't have to, but now they have to apply for one. We are not to that issue yet. The reason it came up is in the analysis of this non-c~nforming question you have to ask yourself, what is non-conforming in a shipyard, marina. And then when you start looking at the zoning ordinance and some of the predecessors that we have had in town, it seems you have to get a special exception. We all know what the criteria for that is. If you don't have it as a matter of right, you have it as a matter of B~a~d of Appeals grace if you meet certain criteria. So, that would be the only portion of this thing where you get into a non conformity. If they resought everything ZBA 1/24/85 Page 20 OPEN DISCUSSION - Continued R. LARK: -- continued the way it was, or the way it should be. Now, talking with their planner, Mr. Raynor, when they finalize their whole plans, they fully intend to come for site plan approval with the Planning Board and special exception approval, because they are making some modifications, so they will come in for the whole thing. But the problem if they do that where are they in relationship to the "footprint" of these 2 buildings on the southwest corner, is it, of the property? Can they rebuild on the same spot or do they have to move them up, because apparently if they have to move them too far back they have to reduce the size of the building to carry the use that they want to put to it and if they move them too far to the north, they interfere with some of their traffic patterns, so they are not sure exactly where they want to locate it. And they know they want to locate it probably closer to the sideyard, than if it was a vacant piece of property and they were to come in brand new to make application. It came up with interest at the building department after this question was raised, so let's get an interpretation not only for this property but for any other property in the Town, so the building department can have guidance, since ~hei~ determination had been challenged, that it might not b.e the correct one. Like an example like Mr. Horton gave, or the one I gave you with the residences, stuff like that. We don't have that much guidance because a non-conforming structure is not defined tn the code. Hopefully in the new amendments it will be and we won't have this problem, but we do today. A lot of codes address themselves to the size of the yards, size of the lot, so, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is not a hearing, so I will not ask anything further from members of the audience. We will take everything under advisement and come up with a decision in ...... %hi~ ~£Licutar mattc~. Thank you all for coming in. ~/~ /?~ HOU~ ~)~ ~m Respectfully submitted ...... I Barbara Strang 1 pp. 1-20 (These minutes were transcribed from tapes as recorded in my presence)