Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/22/1986APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONI$ .IR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H, SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RDAD-STATE RnAD 25 SnUTHI3LD, L.I., N,Y. 1'1971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 M I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1986 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1986, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis (arr. 8:40 p.m.; Serge Doyen; Robert J. Douglass; and Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting the five members of the Board of Appeals. Also present were: Victor Lessard, Building- Department Executive Administrator, Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Clerk and Secretary, and approximately 55 persons in the audience at the commencement of the meeting. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.mo and proceeded with the first public hearing on the agenda, as follows: 7:38 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3399 - JOSEPH AND ANN PACELLI. 7:48 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3492 - JOYCE TESE. 8:03 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3498 - GREENPORT N.Y. CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH WITNESSES. 8:10 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3504 GREENPORT HOUSING ALLIANCE. 8:15 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal Southold Town Board of Appeals (Public Hearings, continued:) May 22, 1986 Regular Meeting No. 3500 - NORMAN REICH, 8:20 p,m. Public Hearing was held i.n the Matter of Appeal No. 3483 - PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO~ 8:28 p,m. Public ~eari~n~-'Has held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3065 - JOHN N. KERBS. 8:33 p,m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3506 ARMANDO~. CAPPA/PORT~OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES. 8:40 p.m. Public Hearing was r~'~nvened i~ ~he Matter of Appeal No. 3418 : GRETCHEN HE~GL~ Objections from 4/3 meeting concerning legal]~use of right-of-way from prop.~rty owners to the east (Ful.%z] .was withdrawn by letter. The heari~9 was concluded. 8:43 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Ma~ter of Appeal No. 3493 - WELLS PONTiAC:CADiLLAC.' 8:54 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3491 - DONALD J. GRIM~ 8:58 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3477 - KATHERINE AND W~LLIAM'HEINS. 9:30 10:10 p,m~ Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No.. 350].. N~N FORK WELD~NG/SCHO.ENSTEIN. i0:10-10:15 p~m. Five-minute-break/temporary recess. 10:15 p,m. -Motion was made by Mr~ Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis~ to reconvene. This resolution was duly adopted. 10:15 p.m. Public Hearing ~ecoh¥6ded (from 4/~ and 5/1) in the Matter of Ap~gal No. 3471 N~CHOLAS TS~RKAS~ 10:20 pom. Two-minute recess was taken in order to allow Mr. Pachman, attorney for Mr. Tsirkas, to make a telephone call to his client conce~ping the pending hearing. 10:23 p.m. Meeting recon~ened. 10:23 p.m, Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3509 - HOWARD AND JANET MALONE. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- May 22, 1986 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings, continued:) 10:30 p.m. Public Hearing reconvened in the Matter of Appeal No. 3471 N~CHDLAS TSIRKAS. 10:33 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3497 - MARJORIE Do ?ETRAS. 10:55 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3507 NICHOLAS THEOPHILOS. II:O0 p.m. Mr. Goehringer left the room for ten minutes. ll:O0 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3458 - NORTH ROAD ASSOCIATES. (Mr. Goehringer was absent.). After opening the hearing and receiving comments, motion was made by Member Sawicki, seconded by Members Grigonis and Doug- lass~ to recess this public hearing without a date until further instruction is received from the agent for the applicants, and/or Attorney Bruer's Office, who advised the. board this date that they will be representing North Road Associates. A letter from John DeReeder was received requesting a postponement of this hearing until datei~some time in July or August. This resolution was duly adopted. Each hearing was concluded, except as noted above. Verbatim transcript of the above hearings have been prepared and filed with the Office of the Town Clerk under separate cover for reference. ll:lO p.m. Chairman Goehringer returned to the meeting. Chairman Goehringer brought the board up-to-date concerning a recent Supreme Court matter (Article 78 proceeding) which was brought against the Board of Appeals 24± months ago. The Chairman indicated that he has spoken with Frank Yakaboski, Esq., Special Counsel of the Z.B.A., and that without the oral testimony in Court under oath of the ZBA Secretary, Linda Kowalski, and the Building-Department secretary, Helen DeVoe, anfaVorable settlement would not have been possible. The Chairman noted that this is the third Article 78 proceeding recently resulting in favorable decisions for the town requiring affidavits and/or testimony by Z~B.A. Clerk~ Linda Kowalskio The board took the following action: Southold Town Board of Appeals (Article 78's, continued:) -4- May 22~ 1986 Regular Meeting On motion by Mr. Sawicki~ seconded by Mro Goehringer~ it was RESOLVED, that the Chairman is here~y authorized and directed to send a written report to the Town Board concerning the recent three favorable settlements in Supreme'Court wi~t~ the ass~istance a~d testimQny of the Z.B.A. Clerk, Linda Kowa]ski, and the rece~ settlement of Walker v. Z.B~A. with also the assistance of Building-Department secretary~ Helen D.eV~ and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that a ~equest be included in the written report to the Town Board requesting that a letter of appreciation be placed in b~tb their personnel files commending their actions which have excelled any action normally required in their positions. Vote of the Board~ Ayes: Messrs~ Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimou6]y 9dopted- .RE. QUEST OF INTERPRETATION: By memorandum dated May 21, 1986, Mr. Lessard, Executive Administration-Building Inspector, requested an interpretation concerning St. Peter's San Simeon Retirement Community, under Section 100-52 of the Zoning Code° I~was agreed among the board members and Mr. Lessard to discuss this matter within the next six days ~t~'the]~e~t~RegQ~ar Meeting. (This request for an interpretation was o~ally w~thdrawn by Mr. Lessard the next day after additional informa~.~on was submitted by Pastor Ettlemeyer of St. Peter's Church.) REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF PRIOR DECISION: By letter dated May 21, 1986, Mrs' Pat Moore~ Of ~he Law Offices of Rudolph H. Bruer, Mrs. Moore asked the Z.B.A. to consider amending its recent decision rendered in the Matter of Appeal No. 3488 - WI~LLIAM KREITSEK: It was the consensus of the board to~],inform Mrs. M~ore that the board is without authority to change~ amend~ modify, rescind, withdraw or take any other action concerning a decision rendered without a formal application, re-notices, public hearing, etc. It was also mentioned that if it is the intention of the ~pplicant in the future to sell the parcel in question, and the ZBA conditions are not met, that an application could be filed and entertained for a rescission~ withdrawal, amendment, or other action for removal of the tennis Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- May 22, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3488 - KREITSEK, continued:) court, fence, gazebo, lights, which are uses "accessory to the abutting residence of the applicant." ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Member Douglass, seconded by ~ha~rman Goehr~nger~ was RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations indicating the following projects not to have an adverse affect upon the environment for the reasons noted therein, in accordance with Part 617 of the implementing regulations of the N.Y.S. Environ- mental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Code 44-4 of the Town of Southold: Appeal No. 3483 - Philip and Ellen Bellomo, Appeal No. 3504 - Green.port Housing Alliance, Appeal No. 3498 - Greenport NY Congregation of Jehovah Witnesses, Appeal No. 3491 DOn~d J. Grim, Appeal No. 3477 Katherine and William Heins, Appeal No. 3065 John M. Kerbs, Appeal No. 3501 - North Fork~.Welding/Schoenstein, Appeal No. 3399 Joseph and Ann Pacelli, Appeal No. 3500 - Norman Reich, Appeal No. 3492 - Joseph Tese, Appeal No. 3497 - Nick Theophilos~ Appeal No. 3493 - Wells Pontiac-Cadillac (continued on pages~'6-18) Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- ~nvironmental Declarations, continued:) May 22, 1986 Regular MeetiNg $.E~Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAP3~TtON Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificance APPEAL N0,~3483 PROJECT NA~ Philip and Ellen Bellomo This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southoldo This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the-~-~asons indicated below. Please take further notice' that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF A~TION: kJ Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DE$CRIPTION~OF ACTION: Locate accessory garage/storage building in f~ont yard LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of So%lthold, Count~ of Suffolk, more particularly kn°w~' as: 7455 Soundview Ave., Southold, N.Y. .. I000-59-6-8 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DET.ERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which~'indicates that no significant adverse effects to the envirorm%ent are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Cons%ruction propesed is landward of existing structures. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- ~Environmental Declarations, continued:) May 22~ 1986 Regular Meeting S~E~Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.= 3504 PROJECT N~4E: Greenport Housing Alliance 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 ~ ~ ' uonse~vatlon Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southoid~ 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 ma~e for any other department or agency · which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. ~i~. TYPE OF ACTION: [x~ Type ii [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Locate new dwelling with insufficient northerly sideyard setbaCk.and insufficient total sideyards LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly k~own' as: 1300 7th Street, Greenport, N.Y. 1000-48-3-16 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imp!e- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setback or lot line variance, which does not require further processing under "Type II" Actions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. S°uthold Town Board of Appeals -8- ~Environmental Declarations, continued:) May 22, 1986 Regular Meeting SoE.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Si n~_~_ficangq .APPEAL N0.:.3498 PROJECT NAME: Greenport N.Y. Congregation of Jehovah Witnesses k. ~' This notice is issued pursuant to'Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Enwironmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the-~asons indicated below. Please take'further notice' that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. ~.~..~ TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II ~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION~ Special Exception to construct attrition and establish same~,~or~, ' religious, library use. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of So~thold, County of Suffolk, more particularly k~Qw~' as: 1345 Indian Neck Lane, P~conic, N.Y.... 1000-86-5-1 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: {1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted whichindicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple~ mented as planned; (2) The proper~y ±n question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. ' Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- (Environmental Declarations, continued:) May 22, 1986 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAF~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificance APPEAL NO.:. 3491 PROJECT NAME~ Donald J. Grim This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.YoS. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a sigsifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the-~asons indicated below. Please take'further notice' that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. ~, ~ TYPE OF A~ION: [ ] Type II ~x] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTIONs Special Exception to construct storage building and establiSh du~Side stockpiling of material uses. "C-i" Heavy Industrial ~one. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly k~Qw~' as: Lot %2 of pending Minor Subdivision %~50. S/s Oregon Rd., Cutchogue, N.Y. 1000-83-3 Part of Lot 4.4 containing 4.59 acres REASONIS) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (!) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple= mented as planned~ (2) Th~ property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. Southold Town Board of Appeals -lC- ~£nvtronmental Declarations, continued:) May 22~ 1986 Regular Meeti..n_g S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAPJ~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.~ 3477 PROJECT NAME: Katherine and William Heins This notice is issued pursuant to'Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the NoY.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the 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 takeCfurther 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. ~i,.,~ TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II ~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTIgN OF ACTIONs Variance for approval of insufficient area, width and depth~.Qf two parcels LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of S0uthold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kn~w~' as: N/s Main Road, Orient, N.Y.. '.' 1000-19-2-5 and 6 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 relief requested is not directly related to.new construction, being a lot line or area variance. Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- ~Environmental Declarations, continued:) May 22~ 1986 Regular Meeti.n.g S.E.Q.R.A.._ NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificance APPEAL NO.~ 3065 PROJECT NAF~ John M. Kerbs This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.So Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #~4-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the--~asons indicated below. Please take'further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or simil&r project. TYPE OP A~!ON: [X~ Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] . DE~CRIP~ION OP ACTION:Variance for insufficient lot area of three parcels in this!~,pending four-lot minor subdivision LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly k~pwn'as: S/s C.R. 48, Southold, N.Y. 1000-55-3-3 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which'indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environmentlare likely to occur should this project be imple= mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is not directly related to.new constmuction, being a lot line or area variance. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- (Environmental Declarations, continued:) May 22~ 1986 Regular Meeting S.E.Q~R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of on-S~qnl~lcance APPEAL NO~:.3501 PROJECT N~4E: North Fork Welding/Schoenstein This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the NoY.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the--~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project ...... TYPE OF ACTION~ [ ] Type II ~x] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIBTION OF ACTION~ (a) Permission to locate new building within req.trired 75' setback from wetlands area and (b) permission to expand nonconformin~ in busin s i ' s LOCATION ~ P°~O~: %own o~ ~o%1~ho~,Coun~"B-L' ht"of ~u~o~u 'n s moreZ°ne particularly k~_own' as: S/s Main Rd., Greenport, N.Y. (Peconi'~ Bay Estates) 1000-53-2-12 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 is an application concerning use of the premises and is not directly related to new construction. Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- .,(Environmental Declarations, continued:) '/ May 22, 1986 Regular Meeti~ng S~E.Q.R~A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3399 PROJECT NAME:Joseph and Ann Pacelli 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 slgpifi- 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 simii~r project. TYPE OF ACTION: ~ ] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] vidth of DESCRIPTION three parcels. OF ACTION: Variance for insufficient area, depth and LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly k~Dwn'as: Summer Lane and North Sayview Road gouthold, N.Y. 1000-78-9-Lots t & 16 ' 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 proiect be imple- mented as pl nned, ~ (2) The Suffol~ounty Health Department has approved or issued ihs letter waiving additional review by their agency. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- iEnvironmental Declarations, continued:) May 22, 1986 Regular Meeting NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificance APPEAL NO.~ 3500 PROJECT NAMe: Norman Reich This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article S of the N.Y.S~ Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold~ This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the--~asons indicated below. Please tak~'further notice' that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Construct deck addition with insufficient rearyard LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southotd, County of Suffolk, more particularly k~wn as: 655 Cedar Drive, East Mari~n, N.Y. ~. 1000-22-2-41 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETE~4INATION: (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 p!anned~ (2) The property in question i~ not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- _{Environmental Declarations, continued:) May 22~ 1986 Regular Meeting NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLA~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Si~qnificance APPEAL NO.:, 3492 PROJECT NA~: Joseph Tese This notice is issued pursuant to'Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the-~asons indicated belowl Please take:further notice that this declaration should not be considered a deter~ination 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 [ ] front~RI~ION OF ACTION: Locate accessory three-car garage in LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of $outhold, County of Suffolk~ more particularly k~wn'as: 800 Jackson St., New Suffolk, N.Y. 1000-117-10-5 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 a~ planned; {2) Construction proposed is landward of existing structures. S°uthold Town Board of Appeals -16- (Environmental Declarations, continued:) May 22~ 1986 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.R.A~ NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of e' ' ' Non-~ ~_~_~nl f lc ance APPEAL NO.:. 3497 PROJECT NAMe: Nick Theophilos 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--r-~asons indicated below. Please takeCfur~her 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 ~ TYP~ OF A~ION~ ~x] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRI~ION OF AC~ION~ Locate swimmingpool with deck and fence enclosure wi.thi~ 100' of bluff area along L.I. Sound LOCATION O~ PROJECT: Town of South.old, County of Suffolk, more particularly k~w~as: 2200 Sound Dr~ve, Greenport, N.Y. '.' 1000-33-1-16 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) Tke premises in quest±on is at an elevation of 10 or more feet above mean sea level. Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- j_~nvironmental Declarations, continued:) May 22, 1986 Regular Meeti.n_g S.E.QoR.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificance APPEAL NO.: 3493 PROJECT NAME: Wells Pontiac-Cadillac 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~e~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 simi!~r project. TYPE OF ACTIONs ~.] Type II iX] Unlisted [ ] DE$CRIPTIO~ OF ACTION: (a) erect ground sign exceeding max., 6'6" height requirement and (b).place wall sign with projection of mo~e than one foot LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffo~ more particularly k~Qwn'as= 421~5 Main Rd., Peconic, N.Y. 1000-75. 1-14 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (I) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the enviror~ment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The property in question is-~not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands~or other critical environmental area. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, T~s resolution was duly adopted. 'Scut'hold Town Board of Appeals -18- May 22, 1986 Regular Meeting ENVIRDNMENTAL DEGLARATION: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESDLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declaration: S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAPJ~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APP~%L N0.~3458 PROJECT NA/dE= North Road Associates This nQti¢~ is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review A~t 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 advm=se effect on the environment for the-~asons indicated below. Please tak~tfurther notice' that this declaration should not be considered a d~termination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYP~ OF A~ION~. --~ ~X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] ~ DESCRIPTION~ OF ACTION~ Variance' for approval , ~, ~..~, . of three parcels insufficient'~ a~ea'.~ and %3 of insufficient depth LOCATION OF PROJECT= Town of Southold~ County of Suffolk, more particularly k~wn'as: ROW off N/s Main Road, Orient, N.Y. " 1000-018~4-1 (1.1) REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS ~ETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessmen: in the short form has been submitted which indicates t~at no significant adverse effec=s to the environ~ent are likely to occur should this project be imple- mente~ as planned; ('2) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction, being a lot line or area variance. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. 'Grigon~s~ Doyen, Dou~]ass and Sawicki. ~Chairman_GOeh~i_pger abstained~) This resolution w~s duly Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- May 22, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) adopted. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that a Special Meeting ~s hereby scheduled by this Board to be held on WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 1986 to be held in the early evening at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southotd, New York, to continue the last four pages of tonight's agenda and other business properly coming before the board at that time. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyens Gri§onis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted.' The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. Town Clerk, Town of ~ Respectfully submitted, Z.B.A. Clerk REGULAR MEETING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~3399 - At 7:38 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of JOSEPH and ANN PACELLI for a variance for insufficient dep~ea and ~'i-~-~ o~3 parcels. Summer Lane and North Bayvmew Roads, Southold. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application in their entirety, for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone who would like to be heard? Kindly use the mike and 'state your name. PAUL CAMINITI, ESQ.: I am representing the applicants on this hearing tonight. Thzs is a typical example of a merger on three lots. As the application shows, Mr. and Mrs. Pacelli purchased lot 1, where they presently have their home, in 1959. This was all part of a subdivision of small, quarter acre lots and they purchased lots 9 and 10 in 1962, to build a house for their daughter, Dorothea. Unbeknownst to them, lots 9 and 10 merged and became lot 16. They did not realize the merger and their daughter passed away and they are seeking to sell the lot. Ail the lots in there are small lots, zn fact the tots directly across the street from the land, apparently were sold by Mr. Thurm and there are mobile homes and small trailers on those lots, so I don't feel that the change in the neighborhood character would be destroyed in any ~ay. In fact, I think if any- thing, it probably would enhance it with new construction up there. So, it is a practical hardship for them. I don't think there is any change in the character of the neighborhood, and I ask the Board to grant them the variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you a couple of questions? We are looking for a subdivision of two lots from the house lot, for a tctal of three lots, is that correct? MR. CAMINITI : That is right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Secondly, we have been requesting and most everyone has been in conformance with this request, to give us a brief analysis, and you don't have to do this tonight, of a copy of the tax map, indicating what house lots are merged. You can either go to the assessor~ office. In other words, are houses built on double lots or are they built on single lots, specifically on that one side where these lots fall on Summer Lane and Cedar Drive, so we know what the general &rea looks like. We will compare that to our records and make that a form of the total file. So maybe within the next couple of weeks you could furnish us with that. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 2. MR. CAMINITI : Does it have to be forma~? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It does not have to be totally formal; just a little memo on the top saying' we researched this and this is what we found..." You will see that the last hearing tonight, a gentleman by the name of Sgouros, did the exact same thing for us, so that we know exactly what lots are merged and what lots are not merged within the subdivision, to make a determination, based upon the entire picture. We can go UP there and take a look at the situation and I know Sum~er Lane, I have been up there,, and I know that there are many houses on single and separate lots already constructed and to get the true picture, it usually is best to have it in this particular matter. We have done some research, and we just want to compare our research to your research. It is also brought to my attention that they have Article 6 approval from the Health Department on this? MR. CAMINITI : Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything else that you wanted to say'in reference to my request?. MR. CAMINITI : Unless Mr. Pacelli wants to speak. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have to post the environmental declaration anyway, for 15 days, before we can make a decision, so that is why we like to have it just before we do the negative declaration. I am sorry, we are doing the negative declaration tonight, before the 15 day period-is up. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Against the application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions,. I make a motion closing this hearing, reserving decision until later. Thank you both for coming in. It was very nice meeting you both. ~3492 - At 7:48 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in Zhe matter of JOYCE TESE for a variance to locate accessory structure in frontyard. 800 Jackson Avenue, New Suffolk. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application in their entirety for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? FRED WEBER: I am Fred Weber, an architect with the office of Donald Denis. I don't have too much to add, really. They have a 2~ acre lot~and it is a fairly narrow lo~. The narrow side faces out on to Peconic Bay. Typically, the way those houses were built in that area is that the main house is the one with view so the garages were put in the back. That is typical of Jackson Avenue. I guess the Code forbids the construction of accessory uses in the frontyard, which is defined as between the ZBA 5/22/86 page 3. TESE HEARING - Continued FRED WEBER - Continued: Street and house. In this case, it is only the location that makes sense for the placement of the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have granted many applications and before I go into the issue of the waterview, I just want to quickly ask you, in no way is this building going to be used for anything but a storage building for garage purposes? Will it ha~e electricity? I did not allow you to answer that first question, I am sorry. FRED WEBER: No, it is not going to be used for anything but storage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will it have electricity or any type of plumbing? F.RED WEBER: plumbing. It will have electricity. I do not believe it will have CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the issue of the waterview, we have granted these particular accessory buildings, not for the purpose of the waterview, which werar.e not specifically inclined to deal with, but of the unique hardship that a person has.when they have a piece of property built so close to a natural bluff area, as they ha%~e in this particular case. We are al~o extremely cognizant of the fact that these bulkheads and retaining walls constantly need maintenance and rather than close in around the house, to preclude a person from getting proper machinery in, which is a tremendous hardship. In March 10 1983, we had a storm which caused a tremendous amount of damage down on the bay area. So, that's basically the area in which we are inclined to grant something like'this and n~'specifically because o£ the issue of the waterview, which we do not totally take into consideration. We do in some cases and we try to work it out, but in most cases we do not. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else. who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Against the application? Sir. JAMES DILLON: I reside on Jackson Street in New Suffolk. My property abuts that of Mrs. Tese on the west. The proposed garage is 5' from the property line. The residence at my property is located at 20' from the rear of the garage that Mrs. Tese proposes to construct. I do not wish to object for a request for the variance for this garage as this is the general pattern along the south side of Jackson. I would however, like to state to the Board my serious reservatiOns concerning the apparent rate of the flow.of stormwater runoff, as i~dicated on the architectural plans as part of the ap- plication. The area of my house and that proposed for this garage, the natural g~ade slopes from south to north and from east to west. The drop in elevation is approximately 3' in both directions with the low point occurring alongside the east side of my home. The stormwater runoff is manageable until the previous owner of Mrs. Tese's property filled much of this area on the east side of the line to create a more abrupt drop in my property line. Since then, I have had to construct a drywell, catchbasin between my house ZBA 5/22/86 Page 4. ~_0_ .n~t.inu e__ ~r d JAMES DILLON - Continued: and the property line, just to inter- cept the runoff on Mrs. Tese's property, before it floods my cellar. Although these measures have kept my cellar dry, they do nothing to alleviate the control the erosion in my sideyard. I cannot establish a usable lawn in this area. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have lived with a difficult situation for many years and I am prepared to accept the present conditions. HoWever, the inevitable consequence of these plans is not only to render my yard unusable but to endanger my house as well. I do not believe that this Board should permit any applicant to alter natural grades in such a way as to increase stormwater runoff into a neighboring parcel of land. I respectfully request that the Board mandate as a condition of the variance, if granted, that the finished grade around the garage conform to exis- ting elevations along the west side and that t~e two leaders located on the west side of the garage, which will empty close to my line, be piped to drywells. Furtherm©~e, I request that appropriate steps be taken during the excavation of construction, to limit the runoff on to my property consistent with the present condition. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that if you and Members of the Board were to visit the site, you would see the grade for yourselves, you would agree thqt these requests were very fair. I thank you for your attention and consideration. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Dillon. Is ~here anyone else who would like to mention any concern about this particular application, either .... in this particular case, we don,t con- sider this an objection, we consider it basically a form of con- sideration which we will address definitely in granting an appli- cation of this nature .... gAMES DILLON: Incidentally, the plans submitted by the architect do not contain any drywells at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anything that you would like to say in rebuttal to this, Mr. Weber? FRED WEBER: No, not particularly. I am not familiars, with the past drainage problems at the site. It is not the intention to cause any with the garage. I imagine that they could put drywells in. CHAIRMAN GOE~RINGER: HOw high would you say this particular structure is? Just off the top of your head. It is a two story structure, is that about 16'? FRED WEBER: 18' ZBA 5/22/86 Page 5 TESE, HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is the maximum you are allowed for an accessory structure in the Town, without a variance. The only thing that concerns this Board, and apart from water runoff that Mr. Dillon just mentioned, is that we would like to have enough of a sideyard on one side, when working on this particular building a ladder can be placed on the side of the building. At this particular point, it appears to me that the Lee sideyard on the west side would be approximately 15', so when this Board addresses this particular issue, we may r~ove the building over 15'. I am sormy, another 10', which would be a total of 15' from the proposed 5' that you have now. FRED WEBER: I did not quite follow. The 15' is for a ladder? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. To allow people to work on the property without going on surrounding property owners' property. In other words, if you were stand a ladder up straight, you would not be able to climb it, it would be on someone's property, and because there is definitely an overhang on this building or somewhat of a little overhang anyway, it concerns us and this is an area that we are going to.be addressing. FRED WEBER: Okay., the building wall itself is 8' and from that point you end up with a pitching roof, so that in a sense, you do not have an 18' wall, where you need to direct a ladder down. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are now considering the issue of storm drains and we want to make sure there is no erosion from those storm drains and that all the runoff be retained on the property itself, so we are going to need some more room on that side. FRED WEBER: One point I would like to make though, is that the driveway is an existing driveway. Not only is it existing, but it is tree-lined, so to alter the location of the driveway, you know it is going to take a long time to grow trees of this size, and if the garage is moved 10', it will make the entrance to the garage pretty unmanageable. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why you did not select the other side of the property, on which there appears to be more room? FRED WEBER: Well, they have quite a nice lawn area, which creates a vista to the house. If you cross that entire lawn area with a driveway is an expense and a visual negative point. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 6 TESE HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Maybe you could move the garage further to the south, where you see that the driveway bends a little bit, it would give us a little more room. Say, moving it another 50' or so. FRED WEBER: Well, we indicated a 60' depth in, which I guess is the depth that is required for a principal dwelling and I guess by 60' we thought that being that is a smaller dwelling than a principal dwelling, it's an accessory dwelling, actually,, that 60' would be a very reasonable'amount. I really don't think the driveway curves that much to the point that you are really going to gain... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, this is only an opznion upon what I have discussed in looking at it myself. I am only one of five members of this Board, so there is a possibility that they may not want to go 15', they may go 12'. It. is my understanding however, that the -garage doors will be facing east, is that correct? Yes, so we will be looking at the side of the building from the road? I thank you very m~ch. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Hearing no further questions, I will ask if there are any questions from Board Members. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving deczsion until later. ~349.8 - At 8:03 p.m.. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of GREENPORT NY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH WITNESSES for a Special ~'X'~p~o~'~'~'c~'~~~'~[~-~n~ establis~-~same for library use. 1345 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, New York. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would someone like to be heard on behalf of this application? Mr. Russell, how are you? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, when we built this in 1969, at that time there was no zoning board as far as construction of religious buildings and we had the intent to expand out in the north direction, but now with the zoning laws, we can only go 5', which would, give us no value at all. The congregation has doubled in the last two years and our facilities are inadequate and we.need to expand. We don't have enought auditorium room, so the intent was with the addition, since we can't go out that way, it would meet the Building Code to go out to the rear and put the area there for the library and bath- rooms and we could remove the partitions inside and use that for the auditorium. .At the time we did not realize we had to have approval here, the addition is going to be tot he rear of the building. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 7 GREENPQRT NY CONGREGATION OF~JEHOV~HWITNESSES Hearing ~ Continued MR. RUSSELL - Continued: We built the building with the idea and tried to make it~ look like a structure to conform to the area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a couple of qUestions? Are you going to take any of the parking spaces away at all? No, okay. How many people in the congreg.ation at this particular time, do you know? MR. RUSBELL: 108. We anticipate 120. Right now we are jammed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How many days a week do you have services? MR. RUSSELL. We meet on Tuesday evening, Thursday evening and Sunday morning. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't normally get the entire congregation just maybe on Suanday? MR. RUSSELL: Just Thursday and Sunday. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was wondering if there was any other area that you co~td get additional parking? Have you investigated that thought at all? MR. RUSSELL: We thought we could move the hedge on the north side and we could get straight in parking, you can see it on the survey. We have sufficient room there for maybe 4 or 5 cars. We have 24 in the parking area. We would like that if possible. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's the nature of another variance.. I thank you very much. Anyone else in favor of this application? Against the application? NANCY ~- : I have worked across the street for 4 years and Iffeel there is going to be a real problem in the future, be- cause I have been keeping notice, when I heard they wanted an ad- dition in the rear and the last 2 Sunday's I have noticed over a dozen cars on a private_piece of property and there were some that were two thick. I feel that once that private property is sold or developed, I don't know where the people will park. I have seen cars there on Saturday, also. I would just like to voice that opinion. Page 8 Z,BA 5./22/86 GREENPORT NY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH WITNESSES HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. For the record, I have two letters in the file. Is there anyone else who would like to speak against the application? Hearing no further questions, I thank everyone for coming in and voicing their opinion. Do the Board Members have any questions? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. We have to close this for 15 days before we can make a decision for the declaratiDn for SEQRA. MR. RUSSELL: We did correct the parking situation. We talked to them about it and told them'they had to park on Spring Lane, which is only a 35' ~oad, so we are putting attendants in the parking area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ail in favor. #3504 - At 8:~]0 p.m. a public hearing was held in the matter of GREENPORT HOUSING ALLIANCE for a variance to lo, ate new dwelling ~Y~~~-~{~y s ideyard setback and i~sufficient total sideyards. 1300 7th Street, Greenport. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Swann, would you like to be heard? MRS. SWANN: No. MR. MCMAHON: I just thought that if you had any questions or if the Board had any questions, either myself or Bessie would be glad to answer them at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When I went down there, Jim, I notice that the house was not there anymore. MR. MCMAHON: Yes, it was over the last 2 or 3 years, there had been several small fires and the Village of Greenport, had on a number of occasmons, asked us to board the place up, which we did, but it is an attractive nuisance to children and knowing what the liability insurance the Town faces already, we were asked to remove the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason you chose a 20' setback? MR. MCMAHON: It originally had an 11' setback. We just felt that it would be easier esthetiCally and 11' from the road is a little close. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 9 GREENPORT HOUSING ALLIANCE Hearing - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I notice you have 40' in tke back, I as- sume there is no problem pushing it back a little bit. MR. MCMAHON: We will put it where you would like it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The approximate size of the honse is 850 sq. ft, the bare minimum? MR. MCMAHON: Actually the house the house proposed for the lot is 1090 sq. ft. Three bedroom. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: O~e story? MR. MCMAHON: One story, sold at cost. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That should sufficiently answer our questions. I thank you very much. Anyone else inffavor of this application? Against the application? You have to raise your hands fast in this place. I guess there is no other comment. Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Thank you both. ~3500 - At 8:.15 p.m. a public hearing was-held in the matter of ~gRM~_=A_.~_.~E.~ for a variance to ~nstruct deck addition with in- sufficient rearyard. 655 Cedar Drive, East Marion. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application in their entirety for the~.record. H. SAXTEIN: My name is Henry Saxtein, 747 East Main Street, Riverhead. I represent the applicants Norman and Karen Reich. Mr. and Mrs. Reich purChased the house in 1978 and built the deck in 1979. They are now under contract of sale to sell their home and have come to the realization that they need a c/o to sell their home and for the deck also, so the actual application is for a 4 ' variance because it is an "A" zone, which requires a rearyard of 35' and they have a 31' yard, with the existing deck. This application would not change th~ character of the neighborhood, in fact it has been there for a number of years with no complaints from the neighbors. My client has a practical difficulty in changing the location of the deck, in that it is already constructed. It would be a financial hardship, because of the cost of moving the deck and jeopardizing the contract of sale. The relief that we are requesting will not chang.e any characteristics of the neighborhood~ ZBA 5/22/86 Page 1 0 NORMAN REICH HEARI~NG - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you a couple of q~stions? There is no intention of making this deck a portiOn of the habitable living area of the house, adding on to it or put. ting a foundation underneath it of anything of that nature? H. SAXTEIN: Not a~ all. It is going to comply with St. ate building code for decks, we are just seeking a c/o for the deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much. Anyone else in favor? Against the applica'tion? Questions from Board Members? H'earing no further que~tions, I make a motion closing ~he~-'hearing, and I thank you for coming in. ~3483 - At 8:20 p.m. a public hearing was held in the matter of PHILIP and ELLEN BELLOMO for a v~riance to locate acce~ssory struc- ture in front yard. 7455 Soundview Avenue, Southold. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application in their entirety for the record. ELLEN BELLOMO: We would like to locate this building in the front of our property, which is on a private road with only 4 other homes on the road. We are right on the lake and'we don't really want to put it in the back. It is not feasible to put it in the ~back of this property. It would kind of blend in the surroundings and I don't think it would~be an eyesore. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was over a 7 o'clock last Sunday morning to look at it and the only thing I notice that is different from the architect's rendering and the application, is that the architect refers to a 16' x 16' and our. application reads 1.8' x 18' ELLEN BELLOMO: That must be a mistak~r It is 16' x 16'. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, it does not tell me exactly far from the right of way this is to be constructed. MR. BELLOMO: It is over 300' away-from Soundview and we wou~d like to build within 3' of the private road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Within 3' and the door of this particular structure would be build on which side? Toward the water? MR. BELLOMO: Toward the northeast CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is a 1~ story structure and it will be used only for storage pn~poses and Will not have electricity or plumbing or will it have electricity? ZBA 5/22/86 Page 1 I PHILIP and ELEN BEL'LOMO Hearin~ - Continued MR. BELLOMO: We might have a light in there, bUt no plumbing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's ~ee what d~evelops. I have one other question to ask you, let's see if anyone else.ha~s anything to say. Anyone else in favor? Against the application? Yes, sir. DAN SMITH: Mr. and Mrs. Burdenstein asked me to come to the meeting and tell you the only objection they have is that the building is too close to the right of way. I think it will stick out like a sore thumb. There is nothing else down there like this and they think they could go ba~k 50' or.so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRtNGER: I am going to ask that question and it is interesting that you got up and said that, Mr. smith. That is the question I am going to ask this gentleman. Could you answer that for me, sir? MR. BELLOMO: Yes, sir, for one reason is that there is a sump and well wire, in 15 or 20' of it and~I would have to cut down a half dozen oak t~ees. Wh~re we want to put it, ~e don't have to cut down any trees. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ho~ far do you think you could move it without cutting any tre~s down? MR. BELLOMO: (two feet) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any objection to any screening to place near it, so. it does not become obstrusive to your neighbors? Screening in the way of evergre~ns~ MR. BELLOMO. With the space of 3' by the lake,.at one end of the shed 'kb.ere would be maybe ~ or 5' and towards the beginning of it it would be angled and there are woods we intend to keep right there, ~'.rees and s~.rubs. It would be decorative. We would not cut back on any costs. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before making a decision, I will come down and take a look at it again. I ask you if you can locate one of your monuments, specifically one on the southeast Side, so we see exactly where it is. It would help us out. I thank you very much. Is there anything else you would like to say, Mr. Smith. The question from Mr. Doyen is there any reason you codld not put it on the other si~e of the property? In the front. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 12 PHILIP and ELLEN BELLOMO Hearing - Continued MR. BELLOMO: It would block the front of .the Muse. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, Mr. Smith. MR. SMITH: I believe that Burdenstein would rather it be where it is now, r~ther on the front side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. We thank you, sir. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing this hearing, reserving decision until later. ~3065 - At 8:28 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of JOHN M. KERBS for a variance for insufficient lot area of 3 parcels in pending subidvision (minor), South side CR 48, Southold. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? JOHN KERBS: I really don~.t have anything to add to the application but I am here should you folks have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why you chose to make the back lot 90,000 sq. ft. instead of adding 5000 sq. f% to each one of the other two tots? JOHN KERBS: The reason for that was to, if at some future date, it were to have a house built on.it, because of the configuration of that lot in the particular area, it makes some sense to have it larger and give a little more frontage to that particular piece. That is the reason for that. The whole thing is an odd shaped piece as you can see on the map. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And .... JQHN KERBS: Excuse me, and the fact that the present home is where it is, we had to kind of work around that, too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, I thank you. Let's see what develops or if there are any objections. Is there anyone else in favor of this application? Against the application? Questions from any Board Members? It is about the fastest hearing in history, Mr. Kerbs, but I have no further questions. I am going to come down again and take a look at Lot ~3. I was a little unclear, so if you see me in your driveway someday, that's what I am doing. I thank you very much. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. ZBA 5/22/86 page 1 3. ~3506 - At 8:33 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of ARMANDO~- CAPP'A/PORT OF~EGYPT ENTERPRTSES for ~ variance to locate attached deck and seafood holding tanks within 75" of high water and bulkhead. 62140 Main Road, Southo~d. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application for the record, in their entirety. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cappa, would you like to be heard? MR. CAPPA: I will answer any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The deck is going to remain open at all times? Okay, there will be no roof or awnings, or anything placed over it. No, okay. It will be elevated how high abo~e the existing grade? Even with the first floor of the restaurant or what? MR. CAPPA: It is even with the parking lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, it is actually depressed to a certain degree. How many people do you think this can hold, do you have any idea? MR. CAPPA: I propose 26 tables for 2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will there be any external, obstrusive lighting or anything that will cause traffic congestion of that nature, large spotlights, or anything? MR. CAPPA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It will not reduce parking areas in any way? MR. CAPPA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I noticed on the original site plan, this area is all planted now and that's all you are doing is putting a deck and a planted area. Will this increase the seating capacity in your restaurant? Not inside, okay. Just for the record, could you just give us an idea of the total seating capacity is in the restaruant? MR. CAPPA: It is 175 now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much for giving us such a detailed plan. Let's see if anything develops throughout the hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in behalf of this application? Against the application? Questions from any Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 14 ~3418 - At 8:40 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of GRETCHEN HEIGL for a variance for approval of insufficient lot area and width and access over private ROW. Northside Soundview Avenuw, Southold. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application in their entirety for the record. MIKE HALL: I just want to make sure that the Board has in its file the letter from Mr. Cuddy, whereby they withdrew any objection they had to the use of the ROW as a title question. Letter of April 18, 1986. Other than that, I would just like to say that there are no more objections, and we have agreed to sit down in concept and work out a maintenance agreement, but it does not relate t©what the Board has to do. The Board imposes 280A conditions. The Heigl's will comply with them. If, a year from now, they want to make a maintenance agreement, that is perfectly agreeable with us. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any objection to the original im- provements of Mr. Davis, as they were proposed. MIKE HALL: The qUestion of my client is, can improvements be made after construction as a condition of the c/o? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Interesting question. We really don't want to put this gentleman to my left, but how do you feel about that Victor? VICTOR LESSARD: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Against the application? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing this hearing reserving decision until later. ~3493 - At 8:43 p.m. a P~bli¢ Hearing was held in the matter of WELLS PONTIAC CADILLAC for a ~ariance to erect ground sign exceeding maximum-6~.~ ~--- height and place wall sign with projection of more than one foot. 42155 Main Road, Peconic. Chairman read legal notice and appeal apportion in their entirety for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Wells, would you like to be heard, sir? ZBA 5/22/86 Page I 5 WELLS PONTIAC CADILLAC HEARING - Continued MR. WELLS: Just for 18 years I have been sidesteppzng the authorized GM sign. Other GM dealers surrounding me have tlhem and I found that I can no longer run the risk of keeping my homemade sign. I find it quite difficult to realize that you might turn it down. My firm generates about a half million in sales tax, which goes to New York State and I am sure some of it comes back here. I would like to ha~e this permission. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How high is this sign? MIKE COLANUSI: : The overall height of the sign is 25'0" top t'o- grade. Th~'overall height of the si~n~ is 8'8~", the width again 8'8~" and what I would like to stress.here is that the square footage of the sign does not exceed the Town Allowance of 81.25 sq. ft.and also I would like to submit a couple of photos to the Board one being the existing sign that is there now and the other being a sign approximately right on the corner of Young's Avenue, which is very similar in size, it is exactly the same size other than being a different GM dealer. Again for the sidewalk sign, I have a photo of the Oldsmobile dealership right on the corner, which again, has the same type of the sign on the side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How big is that sign? 4' x 4'. MIKE- COLANUSI: : Yes, he has a similar sign on the side, which is larger than what we want to put up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you just tell me the large sign is going to be placed? how far from the road MR. WELLS: one. It will be in exactly the same place as the present CHAIRMAN GOEHiRINGER: Could you just give us some .... is that a standard suggestion, 5' from the property line for a sign that size or gan you go a little bit further with it? MR. WELLS: Any further and I think it would interfere with the traffic. That seems to be the best place to have it. 5/22/86 WELLS PONTIAC CADILLA~ HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOERRINGER: There is a question and we will be back to you in one second. Do you have any idea how much lighting this will create in illumination factor? MIKE COLANUSI: Well, I am assuming there are approximately 8 lamps of 40 watt light bulb. It is not as bright because of the plastic being in front of that, it basically dims down. I think if the Board ~would like to get a good idea of what the impact of this sign would be, looking at the one right around the corner is identical. As far as trying to say how many watts compared to a light bulb or fixture, it is pretty hard to generalize it like that. Flashing signs that detract more from the look of the surrounding area than the actual illumination of a sign. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you. MIKE COLANUSI: As Mr. Wells says, his present sign is probably brighter than the sign that would be going up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You told us how many tubes are in it. That is what we are looking for,. Thank you. Is there anyone else either for or against this application? We thank you gentlemen for coming in. Hearing no further comment, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. ~3491 - At 8:54 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of DONALD J. GRIM for a special exception to construct storage building and establish outside stockpiling of material uses in "C-1" Industrial Zone. Lot #2 of pending minor subdivision ~450, Southside Oregon Road, Cutchogue. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application in their -entirety for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone who would like to be heard? DONALD GRIM: If you have any questions, please...; CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, the building is going to be used for what, offices? DONALD GRIM: Storage of trucks and payloader and tires parts, etc. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 17 DONALD GRIM HEARING - continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is the rear stockpiling area going to be screened at all, from the surrounding farm area. Are you going to plant any bushes around it, a fence up, or anything? DONALD GRIM: We would like bushes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are open on that? Well, you are being so nice, people usually fight us on this. DONALD GRIM: The piece behind me is in contract with a person in excavation. Me is going to have some heavy equipment there. I cannot see any reason for putting any bushes between me and him. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's see what develops. Is there anybody who also would like to speak in favor of this application? Against the application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing...wewill see how the Board feels concerning the issue of screening. You will find out in the decision, when we get to itk okay? We thank you for coming in. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. ~3477 - At 8:58 p.m. a Public Hearing was hetd in the matter of KATHERIN~ HEINS and WILLIAM HEINS for a variance to approve insuf- ficient srea, width and depth of 2 parcels. Northside Main Road, Orient. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application for the record in their entirety. A. TOHILL: I am an attorney and I represent Mr. and Mrs. Heins with offices at 12 First Street, Riverhead. The property needs a series of area variances, including lot area, width on a new lot and depth on an old lot. The facts however, are somewhat unique than you are customarily presented with on the run of the mill application. What happened here is that there was a building permit issued on March 22, 1985 for the construction of a single family residence and the building permit was revoked on December 23, 1985 and received by the applicants on Christmas Eve, 9 months after its issuance. Nine months after its issuance, but also nine months during and after an expensive fruit tree and orna- mental bush collection on the lot which is the vacant lot of 18,984 sq. ft., had been removed. The trees that had been removed included all fruit bearing trees; including 60 peach trees, 150 spruce trees,;250 boxwood bushes; 20 booseberry bushes; 6 currant bushes, %his sounds like a Christmas song, I know, but I don't intend it that way, I am reading my notes... 1 plum tree; 2 pear trees...fair warning is fair. warning.., and 5 grapevine. Additio~. nally 5 working beehives were removed from the property. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 18 KATHERINE and WILLIAM HEINS HEARING - Continued A. TOHILL - Continued:...All of these trees were removed and in the process, a source of income an source of sustenance and a source of recreation for the applicants, were removed as well. The excavation had been completed on Christmas Eve 1985 and the footings had been installed by that time and were in the process of being prepared for the foundation blocks that would then be set upon them. The b~k~round here is is that each of the appli- cants are in the neighborhood of 80 years of age and I won't be more specific at Mrs. Heins~ specific request. They resided on the Main Road at their home next door to this vacant lot for the last 24 years. Thei~ present home is well known to many of you. It is a more than century old, 2 story frame structure. It is large and quite old fashioned. The grounds are extensively landscaped and all of the landscape plantings were installed by Mr. and Mrs. Heins. They were a management problem for them, in addition to the house. Mr. Heins in now in failing health and suffers from heart conditbn. He is under continuous medical treatment and care. The bedroom is on the second floor and is reached by a rather narrow, pre-code set of stairs. They are concerned and insecure about their inability in a medical emergenc~ to be accessible to emergency personnel. They wish to live out their remain~ag years wh~e they have been for the last 24 years. Not in a nursiRg home or in a retirement village. Neither of them is sophisticated about zoning or land planning or area vari- ances than any of us would be reading local newspapers, including extensive material that has been published in the last few years. After observing another house being built on another undersize lot, after an undersized lot splitoff in their neighborhood in late '84, they made inquiry of the Building Department in order to determine whether a building permit could be issued on their property and they were advised that one could be. They obtained SCHD approval and I will ha~d up to you tonight a duplicate copy of the exact survey to obtain that approval and they paid a builder, Mr. Morizzo, the sum of $12,000 as an advance on construction. They sold some of the boxwoods; they d~stroyed many of them and carted away the balance of the trees that were on that vacant lot. They then observed with some anticipation the discontinuance of the chores involved in the maintenance of their present residence and they looked for- ward to the construction of a new small, one story residence on the vacant lot as a form of extending a new lease on their lives. ZBA 5/22/86 Page I 9 A. TOHILL - Continued ..... The stop work order was then issued on December 23, 1985 and received by them on Christmas Eve. This was by Mr. Horton, after he determined~ on his inspection of the propert~ that under the zoning classification there, the property, on May 22, 1985 when the building permit was issued and on December 23, 1985, when the stop work order was issued, had not changed in its zoning classification and had already ~ther always been Residential "A" and obviously therefore re- quired more in the way of land area; more in lot width; and more in the way of lot depth on the Old Main Road side. Now, with respect to the merits of this application, I will hand up to you now 3 sheets from the SC tax map, which depict the residence, which I have marked and depicts the vacant lot as 2 separate parcels and you can see from reviewing how those three sheets, which are the subject property and everything around them, there is virtually no change to the character of the neighborhood in the usual zoning sense. There are neighbor- hoods to the west of this area, where there is a character to the neighborhood, but as to the particular location of the Heins property at the intersection of Main Road~and Old Main Road, there is no precise or defined character that would be interrupted by reason of the granting of these variances. With respect to the insufficient depth problem, that is the line on Old Main Road. There will be no change in the line. There is no creation of a new line; it is pre-exist~g and as a matter of argument, I would submit to you there is not even a vari&nce needed with respect to that line. With respect to insufficient width, the lot shown as a separate tax parcel #6, it is 88' in the front. There is 153' in width to the main residence parcel. By lopping off width from the vacant parcel, I am not sure what it does in the way of gain to the existing parcel, we now end up with 2 non-conforming parcels instead of 1 non-conforming parcel. However, if the Board wanted to pick up on Mr. Orlowski's recommendation, you ~ould start at the northwest boundary of lot #6 and draw a line on a bias out to the Main Road, perhaps 20' west from the existing southwest corner of the 88' parcel and the result would be that the cottage which is there in the backt but not shown on the most recent Van Tuyl survey, which is ~rt of your package, could be preserved. That cottage is quite old, about 150 years old,once a corn c~ib, and it was placed on the site many years ago, ~ursuant k0 a building permit. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 20 ~HER!NE and WILLIAM HEIRS H~EAR!NG - Continued A. TOHILL - Continued:...permit, to the extent that it is not shown on the survey, I don't think the Planning Board fully was aware that it is there, but is ~' off the northwest corner of the 88' lot. Ail the way in the back, as you face the lot to the left. It is 15' west of that on the targ¢ parcel with the residence. So if one were to draw a line from that monument back there, which would be the middle monument between the 2 lots, and run on a bias in a southwest direction, so that it ends up on the M~n Road 20' east of the existing southwest monument corner of the smaller lot, the result would be it would come up to around 110' in frontage, but doing so, you render the other lot non-conforming. Furthermore, there is a very clear line or buffer or hedg~Lng that has been there f©r~many years and that will end up on the wrong lot. I am not sure what the benefit is. From a land use point of view, there is no change at all. You are not creating any further distanee between neighbors. The second item is that the only neighbors to the Heins, W. C. Duvall and William Tuthill~ have both sent to~you~ and you have it in your files, the original letters expressing their support for this application and the lack of any opposition. There are no other neighbors. Furthermore, and I hand up to you this time a letter from the Chief of the Orient Fire Department, which if there is an agency which sould be concerned about housing being too close, expressing their support for the application and the lack of any objection. I will ha~ up a copy of the SC Health Department approval. I have spoken with Mr. Reynolds, the PE with the Health Department as far as water quality, and he ex- pressed to me yesterday again, that the Health Department's position is that there is nothing wrong ~ith the application and they are required as a matter of law to identify the 2 parcels as separate parcels and they woU~d approve the application if it were submitted again. Still another factor would be the expenses that have been in- curred by these people in reliance upon that buildin~permit. First, about $15,000 to the builder in connection with the work done prior to the issuance of the stop work order. They have paid Mr. Van Tuyl $300 for sur~ys incident to the construction and $140 to the SCHD for their approval. They have paid the Building Department $271.80 for the building permit. They have paid me $750 to stand here this evening and talk to you. They have paid filing fees for you and the Planning Board in the sum of $75.00 and they have received notice from Long Creek Homes that if this application were approved, and con- struction were to recommence, the fee would be $5,000 more ZBA 5/22/86 Page 21 KATHERINE and WILLIAM HEINS HEARING - Continued A. TOHILL - Continued: .... than quoted in the contract, by reason of the delay, as a result of the revocation of the building permit. In addition, and a number cannot be ascribed to this, they have lost the use, enjoyment and income from the fruit trees, beehives and the plants that had to be destroyed, in reliance with the issuance of the permit. This type of application, this specific application, because the facts are so unique and different, I appeal to your discretion and you have legal authority to respond to that type of appeal. I have in my hand a copy of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County decision of Judge Laser, who all o£ you know as the single-most articulate member of the bench on matters of zoning, in which he states" .... the traditional resistance to the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel to zoning cases in this S~ate, has abruptly ceased..." "...The perameters of the newly evolved rule remain obscure, p~rticularly since the limited precedent available are not in accordance with orthodox estoppel dogma .... - Translated from the legal gobbldygook in the next four or five pages, what he is trying to say is that a zoning board, in cases of this nature is obliged to consider the following factors: 1. Has the property owner relied upon the Town authority in issuing the building permit? 2. There is to be a balancing of the equities. Is it fair or unfair to leave them where they stand or is there, in the history of man, likely to be some praise for a zoning board for coming up with a fair result. 3. Expenses should be attended to, and at the applicants' age, without an income, other than what they have reserved, those are very substantial expenses. They don't spend too many weekends spending $20,000 in Atlantic City. 4. Change of position. Did the property owner, in reliance upon the municipality, change his position. Pretty clearly they have and if Mr. Goehringer had been forced to read the entire application, you would have heard twice, how they have changed their position. 5. Question of clear detriment to the neighbor. There are two and both of them have signed letters which support the appli- cation and exp[ess no opposition to the application. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 22 KATHE~I~and WI.LLIAM..HE!~NS HEARI~_G T ICqnt%~e~d Ao TOHILL - Continued: .... Those are the 5 factors that I and the Courts ask you to entertain and as a result of entertaining those applications, I believe that you would properly be placed to approve the applications. The function of the zoning board of appeals is to act as an escape valve for the unfairness that occurs between property owners and the building Qepartments, when building departments, in the proper exercise of their duties, ha~e to say no to property owners, even when the property owners stamp their feet. But that is not the end of the municipal function. The function of this board is to act as the root by which problems that arise are fairly resolved. Based upon the virtually unique facts of this, I am asking you to grant the application and extend the relief sought, in the absence of any precedents. Finally, on behalf of my clients I would like to extend to Mr. Lessard our respect and our compliments and our thanks for his professionalism and courtesy throughout this ordeal. I would like to hand up to you now an original affidavit con- sisting of eleven pages, together with extensive exhibits, which restate the substance of what I said to you and give you some detail. Both the applicants and builder are here in case you ha~e any questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have 2 or 3 questions. I don't have before me the original building permit indicating the placement of the house on that lot nor do I have a copy of the plans and specs of that house. I feel that we are somewhat that we are missing the issue of this cottage and where it is placed in the wooded areas, etc.. I would like to see that on a survey. You are aware of the fact that if we were to so grant this application, there is no indication that the Planning Board would grant it and there- fore without looking at the entire Picture in toto, it is very difficult to make a determination. A. TOHILL: With respect to the Plmning Board , the function of the Planning BQard under Municipal Law is to grant applications for subdivisions if the ordinance says that the application is okay. Their role is ~different from yours. They are administrative on the one hand; you are quasi-judicial on the other. They are more szmilar to the Town Board and you are altogether different and dissimilar from the Town Board. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 23 KATHERINE and WIL_~_ _. ~A~EINS HEARING - Continued A. TOHILL - Continued--- The Planning Board, as a matter of law, cannot grant this application. The function of the Planning BQard and the Bay in which it works, is to permit the right hand to know what the left hand is doing. It is a terrific system, but it shouldn't be misunderstood. If the Planning Board grants this application, it would be wrong as a matter of law. If this Board has the application before it, I will submit to you to deny the application, is also wrong as a matter of law. In other words, you are the only Board, as the escape valve, that can exercise discretion; you are the only Board that does not have blinders on, other than the blinders that would be imposed by a higher Court. The Planning Board has no authority to grant the application; it can't grant the appli- cation and therefore, this Board can never be concerned about waht the Planning Board would say. It has nothing to say about it other to offer a sensible suggestion. Sweep that westerly line on a smaller lot in a westerly direction and thereby establish some parity between the two lots. The or~f problem is that the cot- tage is back there and they did not know that, and of course, the other problem is from a land use point of view, I would respectfully disagree with them, because all we are doing is changing the line in an office of the first floor of the County Clerk's office, and that is about it. Anyone going on the Main Road will never' know that the line has been changed. What we will do is create deed reference, some problems now as to who is going to maintain the p~&nts; whether these people will maintain the plan~s or whether someone else will. If you fel't that you had to do something to balance the situation then if you did move the line, I would ask you to move it on the bias. I will submit to you a survey within two weeks, sh~wing precise location of the cottage relative to the lines .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: and... ...and the existing fruitetrees, plantings A. TOHILL: They are all gone... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ..... No, no. A. T~ILL: On the large lot. Sure, yes, do you want to see those? We will give you a landscape plan showing as is landscaping for at least the first 30' west of the westerly line of Lot ~6. Now, on the building permit, there is no dobbt that it was issu~. The number of it appears in the affidavit that I handed up. Mr. Lessmrd is here and he obviously issued it on the basis of plans and specs. Page 24 ZBA 5/22/86 KATHERINE and WILLIAM HEINS HEARING - COntinued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you submit to us the survey that was originally given to us. The plans and specs we can look at any time. I am primarily interested in the footprint area. And I am only referring to the request of the Planning Board in their recommendation here, to the notice of disapproval of December 23, 1985, from Mr. Lessard, who says that it was ap- proved on the following grounds,Article I, Section 106-20. If you don't agree with that, it is all right. A. TOHILL: There is nothing wrong with that, except that it is not the end of the analysis. Inssome municipalities, we don't go to the Planning Board at all on these applications. Here, we do. It makes snese to do it; it is a great idea. The problem is that after that great idea, how far can you go with it. They can't tell you what to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand, I understand. Will you please also give us a choice upon these references that you are making on the bias of what the additional square footage of that area is? Let's see what develops as the hearing goes on. I thank you sir. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Against the application? MRS. RUTH 0LIVA : ~eren~ the applicants in for a few years ago for a setoff of this property? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Tohill. A. TOHILL: The answer is ye~. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: October 12, 1983. A. TOHILL: The question then becomes does that mean anything on May 22, 1986 or March 22, 1985 o~December 22, 1985 and the answer is no as a matter of law. And the question is can a Zoning Board change a prior resolution on precisely the same facts? And the answer is yes, subject to the applicant demonstrating a change of circumstances. A change of circumstances can be anything, so long as it is extrinsically induced. In other words, the applicant did not single handedly create the change,. Here the extrinsic induce- ment was fortunately a mistake, error that happened and as a remlt nine months of activity followed, resulting in footings, which now have 19gal significance. We have a whole new set of facts and the Board has the application to consider~ ZBA 5/22/86 Page 25 KATHERINE HEINS and WILLIAM HEINS HEARING - C©nZin~ed CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Tohill? Do you have anything else to say, Mr. A. TOHILL: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am not sure that we can take the infor- mation down as fast as you speak, sir. A. TOHILL: Do you want me to repeat any of it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I really should not have let you sit down. The next question comes to be, if we are unhappy with what you have given us, and we are of course, receiving further information from you, then I can't physically see how we can close this hearing at this point. A. TOHILL: That's no problem. If you want, you can close,, subject to your motion to reopen it and I will waive the time period in which you decide. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, that's a little illegal, I think and a problem that I don't really want to get into. A. TOHILL: What is Linda Checking? Gerry, you have a June 19th SEQRA date on this one. What if I stipulate and agree right now on behalf of the applicants, that the ~pplication will be deemed submitted subject to the Board's right to reopen the hearing on its own motion at any time prior to determination, based upon the information I will supply. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am not sure I can do that. That is a question that we consider to be a gray area. I would rather re- cess the hearing with no date and will do it as soon as we can. A. TOHILL: The only problem is that I remind you of the age of our clients, and that is a problem. The measure of the problem is the question of whether I could hang you up on the time after tonight, in which you have to render a decision, as a matter of law. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand that, but I really don't get into that issue because we run into problems with that with the legal opinion that we have gotten and I think we will recess without a date, but we will attempt to put it on either the next or the following meeting in June. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 26 KATHERINE and WILLIAM HEIN~ HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I will recess this hearing until the latter meeting in June. All in favor. ~3501 - At 9:30 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of NORTH FORK WELDING/SCHOENSTEIN for variances for new building Wit~i'~ 75' of ~'~dal wetlands and permission to expand non- conforming use of welding business in B Light Zone. Southside Main Road, Greenport. Chairman read legal notice and application for the record. MR. WIGGIN: Thank you. As you just pointe~out 'this appeal, is to do with a 4500 sq. ft. building primarily for two reasons. First, to increase the welding shop area and provide inside storage for protection of materials. We annotated five set of plans showing the breakdown of the present square foot area. CHAIRMAN GOEHR~NGER: Thank you very much. MR. WIGGIN: That breakdown is as follows: The present shop area is 2290 sqo ft. There will be 1125 sq. ft in the new building and 3000 sq. ft of storage area. In the existing building, there is 625 sq. ft of office and that will stay the same. The building is within 75' of the wetland~ area, which is a 4' deep State Highway drainage ditcD, whic[~ provides a physical barrier between the property and the building site. The wetlands permit has been issued for the construction with a 10' barrier provided. Also, the on site drainage, the roof drainage from the building will be into wet wells. The second aspect is the non-conforming use that has been provided undersea previous appeal back in 1979. Now, when we originally made the applications, we reviewed it witk the Town Planning Board and Trustees. The master plan had been amended for Light Industrial, so if the master plan were adopted, he would be conforming. As you point out, this is a continuous business, 1978, it supports the work of Southold Town business and the fishing in- dustry and it is the only one like it in the area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anyone else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Yes sir. I have a couple of questions, Mr. Wiggin. Do you have any idea how far the zoning is in depth in this particular area, the present zoning, I believe it is B-Light. MR. WIGGIN: It is B now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How deep does that go? ZBA 5/22/86 Page 27 NQRTH FORK WELDING~SCHOENSTEIN HEARING - Continued MR. WIGGIN: As I recall, that goes back to the State Highway drainage from the highway and that is as deep as it goes. Another aspect, by the way, is that the Planning BQ~rd is that the building height and the highway shoulder is approxi- mately 40' from each other. This is created a zone that is kind of no-man's land; that's been turn around by trucks and debris, etc. One of the concerns of the Planning Board is how to improve the looks of the a~ea and we have obtained information from the State Highway Department that the a~plicant can landscape that area that belongs to the S~te and dress it up and plant trees and put in screening on the S~ate Highway property. The Planning Board was anxious to improve the looks of the site. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MICHAEL HALL: I would like to say something on behalf of the application. I wish I was not appearing after Tony Tohil~, but that's okay. What I would like to present to the Board tonight are five letters from local businesses. The reason I am presenti~ these letters is because they are from important, essential indus- tries from the Town, and they are quick and I will read them briefly ..... One iL from Greenport Yacht Company .... One is from Winter Harbor Fisheries .... One~ is from ~e Chief of Greenport Fire Department .... One is from Southold Lumber Company... and the last is from Robert T. Cooper Sea£ood Ail urging favorable treatment of this application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. You are not representing them, Mr. Schoenstein, in any way, are you sir? M. HALL: Yes, I am. Mr. Wiggin is the primary applicant. just here as their attorney tonight. I am CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now that we have that straight. Is there anything else that you wanted to add, Mr. Wiggin, before 'we go on? No, okay. Is there anything that you would like to add, sir? Let me just address this one issue, sir. Are we not in a portion of this appl%cation dealing with a use variance? MR. WIGGIN: Yes, that's correct. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 28 NORTH FOR_.. ~- ~ W_~ELDING~SC~HOEN_STEIN HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What you are in effect saying is that this particular new building will comprise the same type of activity that the existing building comprises and it will be used in toto, meaning even though they are not together, or adjoining, they will be doing the same things in both? MR. WIGGIN: Oh, yes, sir, they will be used adjacent to each other but the primary use of the new building will be storage of materials an increase in the shop area of the existing buildings. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Who would like to speak against the application? Would you kindly state your name, sir? NICHOLAS CARNES: I am president of Peconic Bay Estate Property Owners Association and I am here to express opposition to the granting of a variance to build additional buildings. I represent some 125 families, who reside on Kerwin Boulevard, Bayshore Road, etc, in GreenpQrt. I urge that you deny Mr. Schoenstein's application. The variances to locate new buildings on this curr.ent property, which is several yards adjacent to Kerwin Boulevard on the east. Our opposition is based on the fear of our members that if you permit North Fork Welding to clog up their property with heavy equipment, you will, in effect, diminish the value of their property, let alone, that such a building will spoil the gateway to Greenport and the East End. North Fork Welding was given a temporary variance from Light Business Zone to .Light Industrial. You-would expect that they would have lived within the framework of that variance, which permits two empbyers. Sadly, they have not. They blatantly operate as heavy industry they manufacture heavy docks and you just heard they are going to have fire trucks there. They repair large trucks and trailers and have tons of heavy machinery lying there on the ground, visible to drivers passing by. These violations are continuing on the blanket of a Light Industry variancer when it is in effect a heavy industry business and violation to that variance and the Town should put a stop to such activities. What exists on his property has caused problems for Mr. and Mrs. John Nicoletti, who reside only a few feet adjacent to Schoenstein's property. There has occurred a spillover of machinery and mounds of sand and dirt on the Nicoletti property. I act on the Nicolett's complaint and in an effort to avoid long and costly adversary proceedings. The discussions resulted in a signed agreement with the Nicoletti~s, Mr. Schoenstein and myself, which provided that North Fork Welding would erect a fence to protect the Nicoletti property line. He has failed to live up to his agree- ment, just as he has not complied with the temporary light industry variance. I urge that you deny the variances, for not to would spoil our area and most important you could be offending 120 families and favoring one. You would be responsible for the ZBA 5/22/86 Page 29 NORTH FORK WELDING~SCHOENSTEIN HEARING - Continued NICHOLAS CARNES: Continued...diminishing of our interest pro- perties. Again, on behalf of our members, Town taxpayers and voters, I respectfully urge you to deny the application for this variance. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Thank you, Mr. Carnes. else who~nwould like to speak in opposition? Is there anyone MR. NICOLETTI% Iam on the land just east of the WElding Company. We had some trouble with him. He dropped some dirt on my land and the DEC fined him for it $500, and it seems like he is taking it out on u~. He picked up the dirt in that area and brought it right along my borderline, which is now, everytime it rains, it runs off on my property. He seems to do that and not care. It is really bad. He has some heavy equipment and he is saying that he wants to build that shed just to store equipment. Now, he had a shear brought to him about two weeks ago, delivered on a flatbed truck and I am in this business, myself, this thing is capable of shearing a four by eight sheet of boiler plaqe~ half inch thick. If you want to sit in my living room when he works that thing, all the glass will just rattle. He intends putting that in this new shed that he is going to build. He says it is fcr storage use. This is going to be an operating machine. Now, if that is light business, it beats me. That's definitely heavy industry. We don't even have a shear that size in Brookhaven National Labs. He just had that delivered and it. is parked outside of his shop on a flatbed truck and he didn't dare move it until dark and they started moving th'at at 9:30,10:00 p.m. and they were there all night putting it in. There are tractors, trailer trucks, noise, cranes, we couldn't sleep. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You live adjacent to the antique shop? MR. NICOLETTI: Just east of it. CHAIRMAN GOEk~INGER: Is there anyone else in opposition? WE will go back, now you can speak, sir. FRED SCHOENSTEIN: I am a partner in the business of North Fork Welding. I would like to clear up a few things. With respect to Peconic Bay Estates Association, my grandparents, aunt and several of my friends live there. Not one of them was approached about this matter. I would like to see the letters or signatures saying that these people are opposed to the new building. The only people that I know that are against us are these Deople who come out here to retire or spend weekends, after they have made their living somewhere else. They want peace and tranquility ZBA 5/22/86 Page 30 NORTH FOXING ~ Coptinued MR. S~HOENSTEIN: ...continued ..... and should not bother to buy business property on the Main Road. The DEC did not issue any fine for any amount of money because of the soil that was dumped on their property. Mr. Nicoletti says that we have a tremendous shear out in front. It is not a shear. It is a press and the press operates silently. There is no crashing, no noise. The reason why the press was out there in the evening was that it come from a company in by the city and the trucker was trucking it he did not get there until 6:00 p.m. We had to unload it that night, because the trucker was being paid. He was not going to sleep over and go back in the morning. That's why the press was unloaded at night. Not to try to kid anyone or do it in the dark. They are not,the working peop~ of this area. How can they possibly survive. Everyone wants peace and tranquility on the Main Road. It is impossible, abso~tely im- possible. We urge the ZBA to grant us permission for our new building so we can house our machinery and make our operation more presentable. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a question, sir? press in operation, now? Is this MR. SCHOENSTEIN: No, it is outside the building getting rained on everyday. If you would like to come down to the shop, I will operate the press to show you exactly how much noise it makes. I guarantee you that if you stand outside the front door of the shop you will not hear the press in oPeration. That is a new piece of machinery that we have acquired. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you operate this on a Saturday morning? MR. SCHOENSTEIN: Sure, we do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, we w~i1 be down next Saturday at 10:00 to view this. Anyone else? LIBBY SCHOENSTEIN: I am Joseph's wife. When we applied for the variance in 1979, it was granted to us and we have since violated the variance, and the reason for this is because of the iRcrease in business and the growing of the business. Now, we have adapted his plans for a better environment for the community to see. We have not intentionally dore anything to our neighbors to agitate this situation. At the time that my husband did have that dirt we were not aware of that fact that it was the boundary of Mr. Nicoletti's property. He h~s bough~ the piece that is behind it. We were not aware of that we were %'iolating on his prq~rty, so it was not done deliberately to offend him. That is all I have to say about it. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 31 ~0RT~ Fg~~ WELDI~.G/SCHOENSTEIN HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you work for your husband? LIBBY SCHOENSTEIN: I did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: now? Can you tell me how many employees h~ nas LIBBY SCHOENSTEIN: A ~ew men have come and gone; him and his brothers are partners and he has at least two other employees. I also own the antique shop to the east of the shop and at one time I operated my business in the main part of the building, and I considered it a hazard to have my customers come in and walk across the steel and stuff like that, so I moved to the other side. My building in no way, is offensive to Mr. Nicoletti. There is no garbage outside. I don~ do any refinishing of fur- ni~ure. I am ontf open half days on Saturday and Sunday and during the winter, I am closed most of the time, so I don't feel that that ms offensive to him at all. My husband's building was there at the time Mr. Nicoletti bought the property and I would assume if I were buying a place and I saw an area which I was opposed to, I would not buy in that area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very muCh. Is there anything else from the family of the representatives. We are running into a match back and forth. JOE SCHOENSTEIN: I am the owner of the property with my bm©ther and I would like to say just one thing. With respect to the fill, we had placed some fill which we had received from Porky's Regtaurant to fill some of the holes and low spots in our work area. Of course, we couldn't do it right in our driveway, so I dumped it on the property next to me, which is between Nicoletti and myself toward the rear of the property and without my knowledge, it was within 75' of some type of grass that is considered wetlands grass. I got a letter saying I was being fined $500 for filling wetlands and they said I have to move the fill from the area itlis ~ and then I would not have to pay the fine. So we moved the fill and I had to maintain 75' from the grass and the mosquito ditch that runs between the two pieces of property, so In order to do that and keep the fill on my property, without screwing up too much. of my driveway or parking area, I ha~ to put it along the property line of Mr~ Nicoletti. The man that we hired ~o do it was a little too close to the property and I did not ask him to be that close. That fill will be moved, hopefully to put in where the new building is going. The Town Trustees have looked at the whole site and approved everything. I definitely will put up shrubbery, a fence and whatever reasonable agreement we can come to, along that property line down. I wanted to wait until I got a building permit and I will definitely follow through and put in this shrubbery or fence. Thank you very much. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 32 NO~ ~O_R~_K_ ~EL~!.N~G_/S_CHO~NSTEIN HEA~N~G -_ ~ontinu~e~d CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is not a question directed in a derogatory sense to your business, but when I was down there last week, I saw all this paraphernalia all over the place. Are you actually physically we~king on this stuff that is outside? JOE SCHOENSTEIN: The majority of it is a large supply of steel for the lumber yards, mostly going into housing and condominiums. We had purchased a piece of property behind Mr. and Mrs. Gilbeck, whidh is to the west of me, they have a red house, and we are using that for steel storage and machinery storage right now, and we hope to, of course, try to organize that to house all that material with the new building and fencing and driveway facilities and shrubs. There will not be any sHorage in the front of the shop, just parking. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you sir. MRS. NICOLETTI: I would like to clear up something and I am sure Mr. Lessard is going to remember 'what happened. I had gone down to question the property behind us and Mr. Lessard stated at that time there was a large amount of dirt, which was not on Mr. Schoenstein's property, but on the property we were buying at that time. He was sending dow~ someone to checlk. Now, after that, we don't know what happened, the next morning we get up and there is Mr. Schoenstein taking all that dirt and dumping it on our property line. We came out and spoke to him and he accused us of squealing on him that the dirt was back there. It wasn't on any wetland, it was on our land. Now, we did not say anything because we did not own it at that point. I went out to find out if the property behind me was available. Now he had the nerve to come over to us after he dumped a 5' high by 30' wide pile, which all washed on my side. I have since spokeR with Mr. Lessard as to what can be done. Schoenstein came o~er and told us he had to put it there. He has a whole big piece of property and he has a lot of room in there. He purposely loaded that dirt for spite and we even told him that and he said because we squealed. Mr. Lessard said he would talk to him to tell him it was not us that he himself found about it. This is the whole thing that is going on. He had junk on our property, which we have told him to remove and he did and he is very careless, he does not care about people. He is supposed to be light business. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 33 NORTH FORK WELDING HE~N~ /~ Continued MRS. NICOLETTI: - continued - We bought our house 3 years ago. We hadn't moved in until last September. At that time, he was a very small business and his wife had the antique shop>~there. That was the reason why we bought it, because it was small. We did not intend to see this thing happen. If we knew this would happen, we would not have bought the property. We are renovating our house, which happens to be the first schoolhouse that was built out here and we intend to live the rest of our life here, but not with all this argument and fighting going on and this welding business. I don't even think he should be in this area. The equipment he has nowis actually heavy equipment, it is not light business, as it is supposed to be. Now, when he builds a shed, is he going to put all this heavy equipment inside? Is this what the intention is? I~ould appreciate your going down there and checking on that. Plus the dirt on my property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank yQU~ Mr. Wiggin, can I ask you just one more question? I appears that this building is straddling two property lines; are both of these lots in a corporation name or one name or what is the situation? MR. WIGGIN: They are both under Joseph Schoenstein now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it two lots or more than two? MR. WIGGIN: It was more than two lots originally, I think it is two additional ones and they was added to the D~inal lot.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It appears that the proposed building is straddling a couple of property lines, that may not be all in the same name. It is all in the same name absolutely? MR. SCHOENSTEIN: The only one not in the same name is on the east side of the mosquito ditch between my own shop and the Nicoletti property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Please provide us with a couple of deeds, so we can be aware that they are all in the same name. There seems to be some question about it. It is not that ~e are questioning you, but our records may not be as accurate as yours are, because you are the owner of the property. We get our cop~es from the County Clerk's office and sometimes they are not accurate. How high is this building supposed to be? MR. SCHOENSTEIN: I am trying to think of ~e exact height... 16 or 17' it is on the plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anyone else? Hearing no further q~estions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 34 ~3471 - Recessed from 4/3 and 5/1/86 on behalf of NICHOLAS TSIRKAS. ]0:]5 p.m~ MR. PACHMAN: I knew all along it would be a late evening. Are the minutes from the Ma~ 1st hearing ready? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. I have reviewed the report fromm the engineer and so has the Board and you can tell the engineer that he has done a very good job and we appreciate it a real bang up~job on evaluating the prqperty. The reason that I asked you to come is that I want to know if you intend to do all the things in that report? MR. PACHMAN: Yes, yes, yes CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are y~ MR. PACHMAN: We are ready t best of our ability. It wou CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The on I wanted a copy of the origi I have in the report is a be MR. PACHMAN: That's the con in fact it is 48', because t prepared to protect the bluff? o follow the recommendations to the id be foolhardy not to. ly other question that I had nal survey, but I think the one tter one. fusing one that shows the 38' when he deck shouldn't be considered with cantilevering and really the distance from the building is 48' and not 38'. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have a copy of that? MR. PACHMAN: This is the survey that the Health Department approved but I have another one. He is not considering his deck as giving any weight. The distance is really 47' from the foun- dation to the blop~. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is a great possibility that we might and this is why I wanted you here. If we so desire to grant this application, we may gr~nt it without the deck. Hear me out. Asking you to come back wit~ another application just fo~ the deck as an accessory use an~ that is an option that we have been discussing. Now what we are saying is we don't want the l~e~ added to the'house. It can be adjacent bo, but we don't/l~ a part of the structural integrity of the house. Structnmally, it means nothing ..... ZBA 5/22/86 Page 35 N_!CHOLAST_~!RKAS ..... HEA~..__ RING - COn~in.~.._.~_ ~..~_~e.~d_~ MR. PACHMAN: But, what if the condition is that we build it that way, that it is not part of the housew so we don~t have to come ba CHAI~AN GOEHRiNGER: That's a good question, let me ask 'the building inspector that. If you want to make this particular deck an accessory use, we did not advertise for the deck to be an accessory use~ except for the structure, excuse me~ so there- fore we wouldn't have to bring another application. MR. PACHMAN: I respectfully bicker on that. The relief that they were asking for is the identical relief, the.fact that you are disassociating it from the structure, the deck was part of our application. MR. LESSARD: If you can. sg~p out from structure on to the deck~ it is considered part of the structure. We have gone through an awful lot of argument on this~ because people like to stand the deck independent a~ainst the house. It doesn't work that'way7 rulin.q I ~ot is'~f you could step out-of-the structure onto the deck, it. was con$iOere~ part of the structure, ' Now with. that~''in mind, I don't know where you wa~ ~0 Q0.. CHAIRM~N GOEHRINGER: We will. 'cross that bridge when we ~t to it. This is the realm that we are dealing with at this particular time I'll worry about that when we get 'to it. MR. PACHMAN: Let me make a telephone call. I_don't think we have a p~oblem~ with this. I am trying to c0nceptua]ize this ~n my own mind. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are not interested in taxation. I under~- stand what Mr. Lessard is saying. We don't care if it is cir- cumventing or not circumventing. MR~ PACHMAN: it is not our concern whether the two carf~be at- tached~ the fact that they are independently supported by each other,. I don't have a problem with that. /he fact that ~t'-s not"in some w~y affixed to the structure its.elf by :Sbfn6 f~-t-6~n--i'~fi~'~cT~ I don think that's, a grave issue. If we get it granted, and the plan fr~Om a:n engineer or builder's point of view,' he can erect the deck so it's not fastened to. the building. I don't think I have a problem with that if that'~s what you're saying~ Just let me make a telephone call, 'and I will verify if that's ok.. I don't think either of us care if it"s physically attached or not. MR. LESSARD: Just not to confuse you, ..sir, whether it's attached or detached, it will be, permit-wise attached. Ok? With that in mind, 6e my guest. MR~ PACHMAN: I understand~ The nuances~ discreetness of it being attached or not. What we're talking about is unfastened to the building. ~. The Board proceeded with the next hearing of Howard and Janet Malone. The Tsirkas hearing was reconvened following the Malone hearing at 10:30 p.m. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 36-a ~3509 - At 10:23 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of HOWARD and JANET MALONE for variances for permission to con- struCt addition with insufficient sideyard and permission to lo- cate addition within 75' of ordinary highwater mark and bulkhead. 250 Blue Marlin Drive, Greenport. Chairman read appeal appli- cation and legal notice in their entirety for the record~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you like to be heard? MR. MALONE: I am here to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: addition now? We are specificlly talking about which MR. MALONE: We are adding to the east and west sides. side has the error in the concrete location. The east CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And both sides are within the 75' we are talking about with reference, within that zone of the 75'? MR. MALONE:. There were originally separate wells, the location of the bayf~nt of the building is about 76 or 77'. That was back in 65 or 66. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What. are these going to be these two additions~ MR. MALONe: The east side is a closed porch and the west side a two story frame with provisions for two bedrooms and shower, library and office. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, the east side is constructed is the other side constructed also? MR. MALONE: Yes, the concrete is in on both sides. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And they are full foundations, not slabs, is that correct? In a situation like this, we usually put a restriction on that there be no further sideyard reductions because we want you to have ingress and egress to your bulkhead if you have to. Do you have any objection to that? MR. MALONE: I don't plan to build anymore. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you for coming in at this late hour and sorry we could not speed it up a little more. MR. MALONE: I have a question. When will I hear on the disposi- tion of this application? We have already cut the side wall of the foundation to get access to new, and we have a weather and storm problem. Is it possible to get a decision tonight? ZBA 5/22/86 Page 36-b HOWARD AND JANET MALONE, hearing, continued: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. We have to post negative declarations for 15 days, so at the very bare minimum, it would be 15 days~ We will do the best we can to expedite it. Mr. Pachman knows how good we are at that. I thank you very much, sir. Anyone else in favor? Against the application? (None) Another easy hearing. Thank you, sir, very much° Hearing no further comments on this, I~ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserve decision until later~ 10~30 p,m. Reconvened Hearing of'NICHOLAS TSIRKAS~ Appeal No. 3471: MR. PACHMAN: I called Mr~ T~'~rkas and explained to him that there may be, if the application was approved, in addition to the five suggestions made by Mr. Tsontakis, the engineer, that an additional provision would be made that the deck itself would be freestanding adjacent to the building but not affixed to the building~ He said he could live with that. CHAIRMAN: Oki. Wonderful. At! right~- MR. PACHMAN: All we're saying is that it physically will not be affixed to the building, but it will be adjacent~ CHAIRMAN~ While y-ou were ou~ we had worked that out, prior to the start of the past hearing, and I understand what Mr~ Lessard and he now understands what I was saying~ MR~ PACHMAN~ But I don'~t~ MR. LESSARD~ It's an interpretation between two boards~ to do with the ruling of either board~ Nothing MR~ PACHMAN- Ok~ As l~ng as we don't fall into an abyss. CHAIRMAN- Hearing no further comment~ ~'~li make a mot'ion closing the hearing and reser~'ing decision until later~ MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second~ The hearing was concluded~ ZBA 5/22/86 Page 37 %3497 - At 10:33 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of MARJORIE D~ PETRAS for a variance to construct addition in ex- cess of maximum permitted 20% lot coverage, 700 Koke Driver Southold. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (Read legal, notice and appeal application in their entirety for the record.) Would you like to be heard? LEON MOORE: I am here from Mr. Bruer~s office. The first thing I will do is amend all the numbers, i will give you another sur~ vey which, as I learned tonight in the hallway, even that survey is not correct. So~ bear with me, I have a copy of some compu- tations~ which actually what we are asking for tonight is a percentage variance of less than~.½ of 1%. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail right. LEOM MOORE: It has to do with ownership in the middle of the ROW. The survey that you have before you does not show ownership to the half-waymark of the ROW, which in fact the Petras's do own. The survey which I have here tonight~ which i will leave with you shows ownership to the halfway mark of a 30' right of way, whk~ is referenced in the Petras' deed. However, tonight in the hallway,~ I learned from next door nei~hbors~ Mr. Diefenbach~ that that ROW is a 50' ROW, and ! have a copy of part of the survey that shows it to be a 50' across the front of the Petras~ home~ With a 50' ROW, we own half way and that's 25, so we nave added 2500 sq~ ft~ The original survey shows a lot area of 10,18~ sq. ft. based upon a 30' ROW. We should add an additional ~1050 sq~ ft. which is the additional footage, assuming a 50'ROW. Grand total 11,231 sq. ft.. 20% lot coverage of this new number ~,231 would be 2246 and the proposed addition is 882 sq. ft~ The existing deck is 246 sq. ft. The proposed deck. 141 sq. ft. and the existing house ~,044 sq. ft. Total 2,313 sq. ft~ There is a shed up in the corner, which I have not computed of 84 sq~ft~, because we shall remove that. We ask that you allow us to maintain that shed durLng the course of construction and we will have it re- moved prior to the mssuance of a c/o~ only because it is used for storage at this time. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 38 MARJORIE D. PETRAS HEARING - Continued ~HAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What about the other deck on the south side? East side, right. Oh, it is an addition, I apologize. That is included in the number he gave us? LEON MOORE: Permited coverage is 2246 sq. ft. as opposed to actual 2313 sq. ft and it is only 67 sq. ft, which represents approximately ~ of 1% lotcoverage. I can put that in formal writing for you and I will get a new survey from Mr. Van Tuyl. I can continue on, having bored you with numbers and talk about why we want even % of 1% tonight. It is the intention of the Petras' to convert a summer cottage, without heat and convert it to a retirement home. It has been redesigned with a retirement couple in mind and includes an extra bedroom for Mr. Petras~ elderly mother, who plans to live with them. The house pre- sently has 2 bathrooms which would be maintained. I have some exhibits to show you, prepared thinking we were asking for a very substantial variance, showing proposed elevations with the existing house. Also, we have pictures of the tax map blown up. The surrounding homes are going through similar types of construction. I have a letter from a title company which establishes, in its opinion, ownership to the halfway point of the road. My next exhibit for you is a series of letters. Pat Moore who did most of the work on this file spoke with the neighbors and having gotten their permission to take pictures of their homes, she got a series from neighbors, all in support of this appli- cation. I think that's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have only figure on this from you and that was the original figure of 10,000 with a 30' ROW, half of the 30' ROW, 10, what did you say? LEON MOORE: Using the 30' right of way, I used this number on the survey from Young and Young, it was 10, 181, that included a 30' right of way. I then added to get 1,050. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Lessard, can we use the ROW as part of the area square footage? Yes. Possibly you might want to pass them by the Building Inspector, so he can change a notice of disapproval. Thank you very much. Anyone else in favor? ZBA 5/22/86 Page 39 M~A~.ORIE D. _~P, ETRAS HEARING - CO_ ED. DIEFENBACH: I am the adjoining neighbor to the west and I have no objection to the application and I recommend its approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, sir.. Anyone else in favor? Against the application? Before I close the hearing, pending receipt of your survey, Mr. Moore, do your clients have any Objections that there be no further sidey~rd reductions? So the only other issue we are talking about is the distance from the water, from the 75' situation. MR. MOORE: The bulkhead was there prior to 77. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only thing we are misszng and the only thing you can't build is that proposed deck right there, because it is within the 75' area and we didn't advertise for that. We need a new application. It was not applied for because you were not turned down for it. It was not a part of the original denial. PAT MOORE: It was part of the application. inspector received the whole project. The building CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand, but he did not turn you down for that. We cannot include it because we only advertised based upon the denial for what you applied for. What you can do is when we are ready to grant this application, we will grant it for everything but this little portion and then you can bring another application back, because it is within the 75' area from the highwater mark. Yes, another application, eventually. PAT MOORE: That means another four months for them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Actually, it is the entire addition, because it is within the 75' area. There is a new law in town which is plagued this Board. Part of the ordinance says that any house or structure on the bay side or creek side, is not permitted to build add or subtract, etc. 75' is that zone which is not permitted to build on and that has precipitated a tremendous amount of applications before this Board. This is an area which we assume has not been denied by the Building Inspector, therefore, we do not advertise for it. LEON MOORE~ I won't ask why. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 40 MARJORIE D. PETRAS HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me be honest-~ with you, we had another application for Port of Egypt and we attempted to expeditiously run things together, so we can do something like that also and it will be a little more iengthly, but it will be as.bad. So, what you do is come in tomorrow morning and whenever you get the correct survey and then you file that survey and make separate application and get a denial ...... It has to be a separate application~ so I think what we will do is recess this hearing until we have that 'hearing and we will run both of them together. We will make the negative declaration now, so we can make a decision then.. LEON MOORE: The floor plans that we have establish that the floor elevations to be 12'9" in zone A-4, that's elevation of 8' MR. LESSARD: Is the ground itself above 8,? It should lift you right out of that zone. I don't know why you are there in the first place. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is too late to get upset, so don't worry about anything. It says that proposed addition (Zone A-4) is substandard, requiring a flood development permit... MR. MOORE: Ail the utilities will be in one room above ground. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What we will do at this particular time is recess this hearing until the other application is on the agenda and we will run both together. Hearing no further comment, I make a motion recessing this hearing until a later date. ~3507 - At]0:55 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of NICK THEOPHILOS for a variance to locate swimmingpool with deck and fence within 100' of fluff at 2200 Sound Avenue, Greenport. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Simerling, would you like to be heard? Questions, always questions. I met-with these lovely people last S~nday.~ior~Saturday and they informed me that no way was this the deck or any part of this structure going to be attached to their home, is that correct? MR. SIMERLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, I see a figure of 15' from the patio, which is enclosed over their house. That is 15' to the pool. There will be a deck encroaching closer to that. In no way will that deck be tied to the house in any way? ZBA 5/22/86 Page 41 NICK THEOPHILOS HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Secondly, when we grant applications like this we want all the necessary precautions taken for the pre- serving of the bluff area and that is that no fill be dumped over so as to cause an erosion, or disruption of any foliage on the bluff itself. Do you have any objection to that? Will there be any overhead lighting that might be obstrusive to neighbors? How high will the deck be off the existing grade? Will it be elevated high or sunk in the ground? MR. SIMERLING: About 3" higher than existing deck. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What do you intend to do with excess fill? MR. SIMERLING: Cart it away. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no. Would anyone else like to speak for or against? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. · ~3469 - Recessed from 5/1/86 in the matter of JOHN P. SGOUROS. 10:58 p.m. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will open this later, but we have kept Mr. Sgouros here all night and we are very sorry. We had opened your hearing at a prior meeting and asked you to come back with a little plan for us, I believe, is that what it was? Indicating what houses are built in the area, etc.? MR. SGOUROS: We made a survey of the area and see how many other parties might be faced with a similar situation as ours, with two adjacent lots that were joined. I have that. CHAIi[~[AN GOEHRIMGER: What did you find? MR. SGOUROS: The entire subdivision is about 40 lots. I have found that 4 that were joined with two adjacent lotsin the single ownership. The biggest lot in the area are 6/10th's of an acre. The majority are in the half acre range. Should the board fail to grant our application, our individual lots will be larger than the entire subdivision. I do have a question. Should[ the Board in its discretion fail to grant this appeal, would the offset be for something called Schedule "A" on a bulk schedule? It would be. Thank you very m~ch. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 42 JOHN P. SGOUROS HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It would be. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on this particular ap- plication? Seeing no hands, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. 11:00 p .m. ~3458 - At p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of NORTH ROAD ASSOCIATES for a variance for approval of three parcels with insufficient area and depth. ROW off Main Road, Orient. Mr. Douglas read legal notice and appeal application for .the record. Chairman Goehringer left the room during the hear- ing. Member Douglass chaired the hearing. MR. DOUGLAS: The applicant respectfully requested that the Board recess this hearing until the next available date on the agenda around August. Are there any comments from anyone here that would like to speak for the applicant? None. Anyone against the proposal? EDWARD LIINKhR : I submitted a letter on February 28, 1986 which I think you will find in the file and I just would like to state that we descri%~d our concerns in that letter and hope the Board would give some consideration to those points. I am here for any questions or if I could provide more information. I would invite the Board or representatives to visit the property and examine it as necessary to see what we have put forth. Thank you. MR. DOUGLAS: Good night sir. Thank you. anyway. We inspect all of it PAT MOORE: I am from Mr. Bruer's office. I believe Mr. Bruer's office was contacted along with re- Mr. Pachman to/present North Road Associates and we ask that this hearing be adjourned to the next date when we would have a chance to meet with our client for the first time. I don't believe that they were aware that it was going to be opened up and be open to discussion at all, otherwise Mr. Pachman would have waited. MR. DOUGLAS: Well, if there are people here that want to make a statement, they can make their statement, so that they don't have to come back again. It will be added to all the information that we gather. PAT MOORE: I will let them know that it was opened for any statements. If there are any that are requested from you to them in response to this, please let us know. MR. DOUGLAS: Right. Anyone else against this project. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 43 NORTH ROAD ASSOCIATES HEARING - Continued MR. LESSARD : How many lots are we looking at here? MR. DOUGLAS: Four. Three. It is four lots. It is on the bottom of Brown's Hills Estates. There are no further comments? We have a motion on the floor to recess this hearing as requested until we are notified th2t they want to reopen it~ I will second the motion. ZBA 5/22/86 Page 44 These minutes were transcribed from tapes recorded electronically~(by Linda Kowalski, ZBA Secretary). Respectfully submitted, Bar~bara A. Strang Pp~' 1-43 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals May 22, 1986 AND FILED BY