Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/13/1986APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS..IR. SERGE DOYEN. JR, ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals HAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 25 50UTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 M I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1986 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1986 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southotd, New York 11971. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer~ Chairman~ Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting all five members of the Board. Absent was: Victor Lessard, Building-Department Administrator. Also present were: Linda Kow61ski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 40 persoDs in the audience at the beginning of the meeting. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 pom. and proceeded with the first matter on the agenda, as follows: PUBLIC HEARINGS. Transcript of all the following hearings have l~-een prepared verbatim under separate cover and attached hereto for reference: 7:35 p.m. - 7:40 p~m. Public Hearing held and concluded. #3432 Mr. Holzapfel spoke in behalf of his application. [See verbatim transcript for statements.] 7:40 p.m. 7:50 p.m. Public Hearing held and concloded. #3457 Garrett Strang, R.A. spoke in behalf of the appli- cants. [See verbatim transcript for statements.] Matter of RALPH AND LUCILLE STOCKER~ Southold Town Board of Appea~s (Public Hearings, continued:) -2- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting 7:50 p.m. 8:02 p.m. Appl. No. 3452 PAUL FORESTIERI, Mr. Forestie~i spoke ~n behalf of his application. No public opposition was submitted during the hearing. Public Hear~Dg held and concluded, pending deliberations. [See verbatim traDscript for_statements.] 8:02 p.m, 8:,08 p.m, Appl. No. 3447 - PUDGE CORP. Public hearing held and concluded. Mr. Zamphiroff spoke in behalf of his appli.cation. INo public opposition was submitted at thi~ tim~.) [See verbatim t~anscript for statements.] 8:08 p~m. - 8:15 p~m. ~ Appl. No. 3447 - P~DGE CORP. Mr. James Gray spoke ]~D b~balf ~f ~he application and Abigail Wi~kh~m, Esq. representing Mrs. Norma Gregory, an adjoining property owner, spoke in Opposition, [See verbatim, transcript for statements.] The hearing was concluded, pending deliberations. 8:lS.p.m. - 8:25 p.m. Appl. No. 3~59 - 125-127 MAIN ST. ~ORP./M~LLS William J. Mills III spoke in behalf ~o'f the application. No public opposition was submitted. The hearing was concluded, pendin, g deliberations. [See verbatim transcript for statements.] 8:25 p.m. Appl. No. 3q65 - VE'LIMIR AND HEDA VRANKOVIC~ William Moore, Esq. spoke in behalf of the aPplicants as an Associate of Richard Lark, ~o~public opposition was submitted. The hearing concluded, pending delibera- tions. 8:35 p.m. 8:45 p.m. MICHAEL J. PERLMUTTER. Appl. No. 3460. Dr. Per~m~tter spoke in behalf of his application, Mr. Greg Sacks appeared in opposition. The hearing was concluded, pending deliberations. [See verbatim transcript. 8:45 p.m. - 8:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3450 ROSALIE GOWEN~ Abigail Wickham, Es~ spoke in behalf of the applicant. No public opDosit, ion was submitted. The hearing was concluded, pending deliberations. [See verbatim transcript for statements.] 8:50 p.m. The Chairman ~ndicated that DAVID Mi JOHNSON requested to withdraw the pending application, and the Board agreed to withdraw same. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings~ continued:) 8:50 p.m. 8:55 p.m. INFORMAL DISCUSSION (NOT A PUBLIC HEARING). Matter of Appeal No._3467_- BARBARA D. SCHRIEVER. Presenta- tion to furoish new facts, new evidence for a rehearing of Appeal No- 3393 rendered 9/26/85. Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. as Attoroey for the applicant, and Abigail Wickham, Esq. as Attorney for the contract vendees= both spoke citing their reasons for a rehearing (particularly with concern to the apartment in this Business Zone District). 8:55 p.m. - 9:10 p.m. Appl. No. 3463 - EDMUND PRESSLER. Public HeariDg held ~Dd concluded, pending deliberations. Gary Olsen, Esq. as Attorney for the Applicants, spoke in behalf of the application. (No public opposi- tion was submitted.) 9:10 p.m. 9:25 p.m. Appl. No. 3421 KATHLEEN VARANO. Richard F. Lark, Esq, spoke as Attorney for the applicant. Public opposition was received. The hearing concluded, pending deliberations. [See verbatim transcript for statements.] 9:25 p.m. 9~32 p.m. Appl. No. 3421 ESTATE OF JOSEPH ~IELONKA. John Wickh~m spoke in behalf of the Estate. No public opposition was submitted. The hearing concluded, pending deliberat-ions. 9:32 9:40 p.m. Temporary break. 9:40 p.m. 9:42 p.m. Appl. No. 3451 - BEDELL WINERY/VINEYARDS. No one spoke in behalf or against the application. The hearing concluded, pending deliberations. 9:42 p.m. lO:O0 p.m. Appl. No. 3456 - RICHARD AND ANITA WILTON. Richard F. Lark, Spoke in behalf fo the applicants, as welt as Mr. Wilton. No public opposi- tion was submitted. The hearing concluded, pending deliberations. [See verbatim transcript for statements.] lO:O0 p.m. - 10:lO p.m. Appl. No. 3466 - GREGORY SIMONELLI. ~ary F. Olsen, Esq. spoke in behalf ~f the applicant. Opposition was submitted. [See verbatim transcript~] The hearing was Concluded, pending deliberations. 10:lO p.m. - lO:15 p.m. Appl. No. 3475 - JOSEPH SAWICKI, JR. (Member d. Sawicki left the room duriog this hearing.) No one appeared speaking for or ag6inst the application. Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- March 13~ 1986 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings, continued:) The hearing concluded, pending deliberations. [See verbatim transcript.] lO:15 p.m. ~ 10:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3453 - SAMUEL K.C. AND ELIZA PLIMPTON KOPPER. Mb~ Kopper spoke i~ behalf of his application. Mr. Arthur Gosner spoke in opposition. The hearing concluded, pending deliberations. [See verbatim transcript for. statements.] (Chairman Goeh- ringer left the room]during the hearing.) (Member Sawicki returned during this hearing.) Chairman returned at this point in time. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Chairman Goeh- ringer, seconded by Member Douglass~ it was .... RESOLVED, to declare the follow,lng Envi~ronmental Declara- tions in accordance with the N~Y.~_~ E~ironmental Qu~.lity Review Act (SEQRA), Section 617~ 6 NYC~,..and Chapter 4~_~f ~h~Code~ of the Town of. Southold: _ (a) 125-127 Main St. Corp. (b) Bedell Winery - Unlis~ed~ (c) Paul Forestier~ Type II; (d) Rosalie Gowen - Type II; (e) Michael J. Perlmutter, M.D. Unlisted; (f) Edm~nd_Pressler - Unlisted; (g) Pudge Corp. - Unlisted; (h) Gregory S~monelli - Unlisted; (i) Ralph and Lucille Stocker - Unlisted; (j) Katbleen Varano - Unlisted; (k) Velimir and Heda Vrankovic - Type II; (1) Richard and Anita Wilton Type II~ (m) Athanas and Ruth Zamphiroff - Unlisted. /Mills & Co), Up]ist6d~ (continued on pages 5 17) Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations~ continued:) (a) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLA1LATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3459 PROJECT NA~: 125-127 MAIN ST. CORP. (MILLS & CO.) This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should no~ 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 utilize prqmi~es and construct addition for the manufacture of sails, canvas pr0aucEs, related items~ and office and storage area incidental thereto. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: C-Light .Industri.a] Zoning_ District; 74100 Main Road,-~'Greenp0rt; ]000-45-06-006. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The-premises in question is ]0cared more {hah 300 feet from tidal wet]ands or other critical env~r0nmenta] area; 3) Construction proposed is landward of existing structures. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) ( b ) NEGATIVE ENVIRON~IENTAL DECLAP~TION Notice of Determination of Non-siqnificancn APPEAL NO.: 3451 PROJECT N~NiE: BEDELL WINERY 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 t_he Envirorumental 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 envirorament for the reasons indicated- below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [.'] Type II [ ~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Specia.] Exception t0 establish winery use from grapes grown on the premises. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, ~e particularly kngwn as: 36225 Main Road, Cutcnogue; ]~00-85-02- . P~EASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETER/~INATION: (1) An Envirorunental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the enviror~nent are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; ~i Construction proposed is no~-~-~'-~h 300 feet from tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area; (3) The premises is at an elevation of more than 10 feet above mean sea level. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (c) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificancn APPEAL NO.: 3452 PROJECT NA~: PAUL FORESTIERI 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 no~ to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Varia-nce to locate new dwelling with insufficient front and rear yard setbacks. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kngwn as: East End of S0u~dview Avenue and South End of Fasbender Avenue, (both private roads), Pec0ni~; Bailey Park Subdivision Lots ]-5, inclusive; 1000-67-06-004. REASON[S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Envzronmental 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; f2~ This is a setback variance; 3) Construction proposed is more than 300 feet of tidal wetlands. Southotd Town Board of Appeals -8- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting (EnvirOnmental Declarations, continued:) (d) NEGATIVE ENVIRON~ENTAL DECLAP~TION Notice of Determination of Non-siqnificancm APPF~L NO.: 3450 PROJECT N~: ROSALIE GOWEN This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [-~] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for: (l) insufficient 10t area, (2) insufficient ]0t width, (3) insufficient ]0t depth, of parcels proposed in this pending division of ]and. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, ~2~e particularly known as: Corners of Zena Road, Cpt. Kidd Drive, Central Drive, Mattituck; Cpt. K'idd Estate~ Map #1672, Lots 134, ]53, and ]54; 1000-]06-02-32 and 43. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the enviroD_ment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (-2) Relief requested is an area-~v~rSa~ce-not 'directly related to new construction; (3) The property in question is located more than 300 feet fr'om tidal wetlands. Southold Town Board of Appeals 9- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting (e) NEGATIV]~ ENVIRON~IENTAL DECLAtLATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificancn APPEAL NO.: 3460 PROJECT NA/~E: MICHAEL J. PERLMUTTER, M.D. 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 Tow~ of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [, ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Varian.ce to utilize proposed addition/ existing dwelling for physician's office in excess of maximum- permitted (30%) first floor area, LOCATION OF PROJECT: Tow~ of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 35 Theresa Drive. Matt~uck; Deep Hole Creek Estates Filed Map 425~ Lot 59~ 10'00-115-16--1 t{EASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The project is proposed to "b~-lU~d landward of existing dwellings and 50-foot ~aved road. Southold Town Board of Appeals _lO_ March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATIVE ENVIRON~IENTAL DECLAP~ATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificancn APPEAL NO.: 3463 PRQJECT NAME: EDMUND PRESSLER 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 no~ to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [' ] Type I.I [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Varia-nce to utili.ze premises of 68,912 sq. ft. in area as a continuing nonconforming tw0-fami]y dwelling and add two retail sales/office uses in this "B-]" Genera] Business Zone. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: North Side of Main Road,.S0uth01d, NY~ ]0D0-63-3-26. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (1) An Envlror~aental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no siqnificant adverse effects to the enviroma~ent are likely to occur ~hould this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is not"~-{~{]~-~e]ated to new construction but rather uses of existing structure. (3) The premises is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands. Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (g) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significancm APPEAL NO.: 3447 PROJECT NAME: PUDGE CORP. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Unlisted [~.] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special-Exception to establish one or more C~I Heavy Industrial Zoning uses as described in the subject application. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: East Side of H0rt0n's Lane, S0uth0]d; 1000-63-01-10. 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 likel~ to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (~ Premises is located more tba~-3OO--fe'et tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. (3) Construction proposed is landward of existing structures and traveled town roads. Southold Town Board of Appeals lB March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations~ continued:) (h) NEGATIVE ENVIRON~ENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3466 PROJECT NAME:GREGDRY SIMONELLI This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for approval of proposed lots having insufficient area and width in this pending subdivision. LOCATION OP PROJECT: particularly known as: Mattituck; 1000-107-02-04. Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more East .(and Sou_~h) Sides of Grand Avenues REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessmen~ in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; ('~i This is a lot-line/area varT~-~nd-is not directly related to new construction; (3) The property in question is located more than 300 feet from tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. Southold Town Board of Appeals - l~ March 13, 1'986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (i) NEGATI~-E ENVIRON~NTAL DECLAP~ATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPF~L NO.: 3457 PROJECT N~: RALPH AND LUCtLLE STOCKER This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated' below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ,] Type II [X] Unlisted [ DESCRIPTION OF ACTION- Variances to construct new dwelling with excessive lot coverage and for ~educti0n in the required setback from bulkhead and tidal waters to less than 75 feet. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kn_own as: 1080 Maple Lane (a/.k./a 55 Snug_Harbor Road), Greenport; 1000-35-05-28. 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) Sepa~rating the construction-~repes-e-d-from the water'front area is a bulkhead in good condition. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- March 13, 1986 R~gular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATIvE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significancn APPEAL NO.: 3455 PROJECT NAME: KATHLEEN VARAN0 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have_ an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [.~] Type II [X ] Unlisted [~.] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for clar.ificati0n and/or correction of the interpretation of Building Inspector of Condition in Appeal No. 3330 allowing no sleeping or living quarters in accessory building. _ LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of South.old, County of~Su.ffolk, more particularly known as: 6600 (or 6750) Indian Neck K0aa, Pecon~i~c; 1000-86-07-004. ' - - REASON(s) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no siqnificant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur ~hould this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The-~relief requested is not-~T~-~l~-~elated to new construction~ (3) The structure ~n question is existing at this time. Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (k) NEGATI~-E ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAtLATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3465 PROJECT NAME: VELIMIR AND HEDA VRANK0VIC This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have_ an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: frontyard setback. [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [.] Variance for approval of insufficient LOCATION OF PROJECT: particularly known as: Greenp0rt; 1000~43-04-45. 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; ~) Thi~ is a setback variance~ .............. ' ~ (3) Construction exists-and is landward of other construction and town roadways. Town of Southold County of Suffolk, more 1625 Sandy Beach R~ad (a/~k/a 55 Bay Road), Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting (Enviornmental Declarations, continued: (1) NEGATIVE ENVIRON~ENTAL DECLAP~ATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPF~AL NO.: 3456 PROJECT N2L51E: RICHARD AND ANITA WILTON This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the To~rn of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated- below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for appr0va] of proposed lots having insufficient area, width, depth in this pending division of land. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: East Side of Queens Street, Greenp0rt~ ]000-40-3-6. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is not"-~-~l~-related to new construction and is a lot-lines area variance. Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations~ continued:) ( m ) NEGATIVE ENVIRONbIENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3470 PROJECT NA~: ATHANAS AND RUT~ ZAMPHIROFF This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the To%~n of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below, Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [-.] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance to construct addition of ]90 sq. ft. which will exceed maximum-permitted ]0t coverage requirement. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: ]7195 Main Stre~.t (a/k/a 720 Second Street), New guff0]k; ]000-]]7-08-13. 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~property in question is-~~d-of traveled, paved town roads; (3) The project in'question is more than 300 feet of tidal wetlands. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Doug]ass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting APPLICATION"WITHDRAWN: Appeal No. 3430 - CECIL YOUNG. The Board considered the request received from Daniel C. Ross, Esq. of Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C., as Attorneys, requesting a withdrawal of the pending variance application under Appeal No. 3430. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. G~igonis~ it was RESOLVED, that the request~dated February 10, 1986 from Daniel C. Ross, Esq. to WITHDAW APPEAL N0,.3430 is grantedo r Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen,._Douglass and Sawick~. adopted. Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, This resolution was unanimously ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS [continued]: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to declare the fo'~lowing ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARA- TION determining each project not to have an adverse effect upon the environment for the reasons indicated below and in accordance with the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Section 617~ 6 NYCRR, and Chapter 44 of the Code of the. Town of Southold: Appeal No. 3475 JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, JR. [c~ntinued on page 21] Southo]d Town Board of Appeals -19- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting NEGATIVE ENVIRON~NTAL DECLAP~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3475 PROJECT NA~: JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, JR. 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 enviror~nent for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [~,] Type II [X] Unlisted ~--] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for Appr0va] of Access, New York Town Law, Section 280-a over this private right-of-way. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: South Side of 01d North Road, S0uth0]d; ]000-5.5-2-4. P~EASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (~ The premises in question is--no~q~cat~d w~thin 300 ~eet of tidal wetlands~ (3) Access under consideration and possible improvement is an existing traveled roadway, landward of existing structures. (Member Sawicki was absent.) Vote of the Board: -Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis~ Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was duly adopt~d~ __ Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATIVE ENVIRON~ZENTAL DECLAP~ATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificance APPEAL NO.: 3453 PROJECT NA~IE: SAMUEL K.C. AND ELIZA PLIMPTON KOPPER This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated- below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have. an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [-~] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for approval of propo.sed three lots having insufficient area and width in this pending subdivision. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kn9wn as: West Side of Indi_an Neck Lane, Peconic; ]000-86-4-].2 (five acres). P~ASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~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 pl'anned; (2) The~pr0perty in question is'-~-~ T6f'~fed within 300 feet of tidal wet]ands area. (3) Relief requested is a ]0t-line, area variance, and is not di'~ect]y related to new construction. (4) The premises is at elevations above mean sea level of more than 80 feet. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. Chairman Goehrin§er abstained from vote.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting UPDATED REVIEW: Appeal No. 3462 HERBERT MANDEL. Pending area variances concerning three-lot division of land located off the north side of the Main Road, East Marion; 1000-31-3-11.23 containing a total area of 2~919 acres~ The Board was updated as follows: (t) neighbor n~tices as corrected by attorney for the applicant was received February 26, 1986 re~lecting all five variances as disapproved by the B,I. on (2) Plann~n§ Board-input re~e.ive~-Olll/85 and 3t4/86~ ~h6 B~ard intricated th-~t upon receipt O~ the following~ we will be in a position to calendar this ~atter for a...public heari.~g: (a) County HealthZDepartment Article VI subdivision approval or waiver; (b) copy o~f C.O. or other written document on the 2.918 acres as a whole, its uses as exist and whether they meet today's regulations as exist~ The Board reviewed Abigail A~ Wic~ham, Esq.'s letter received February 26, 1986 asking the Board to proceed without Health Departmen~ approval, and Mrs. Wickham's request was not,granted at this time. REVIEW: Spec~.~E~. No. 3481 PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC. The Board review.ed the application of ?oft o_f. Egypt E.~terprises and requested copies of ~r_itten appr_ov~als or requ]'rements from the N.Y.S. Department ..of Environm~ntal ~Conserva~ion and the Suffol_k County Health Department for the installation and loca- tion of the f_u. el t_anks. , , , There being no other business ProPerly coming before the Board at this time, the Chairman declare_d t_he meeti~ng adjourned. The Regular Meeting and Public Hearings were agreed for April 3, 19_86. The m~eeting concluded at 11 :'00 6"'~1~ ~ Southold Towh Board prove~d-~rard~ P. ~oeh~nger Z B A March q3, q986 Regular Meeting Transcript of Public Hearings In all of the following instances, the Chairman read the legal notice and appeal applications in their entirety for the record. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZBA Mar.~_~..Ch 13, 1.986 $3432 - At 7:35 p.m. a recessed hearing was held in the matter of JOHN and JOYCE~___ _.~ ~_ ~_~0~Z.AP.~FE.~ concerning conditions and improvements to a ROW known as Old Woods Road, Southold. Suffolk County Tax Map $1000-87-1-23.8 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I will ask Mr. and Mrs. Holzapfel if they have anything to add and then I will add my two cents. MR. HOLZAPFEL: I think that after last month, when we spent an hour or so going through all the points which you probably don't want to hear again. But just to go over the 3 or 4 things that I said at the end, to refresh everyone, the points that we would like to make is tha~ the road has a good base; has successfully served the residents for a number bf years; it has been maintained by the residents and can accomodate all emergency vehicles, except for the. recently purchased larger tanker. I believe the Fire Chief had said he had spoken to youj and made this point. Secondly, our house was only built after we received your decision on January 24, 1984. Our building permit was issued on February 7, 1984. The building of the house was dependent upon this decision. Third, the building department has si~gle'd us:-out from all the other applicants along the way. We are the only ones who have to address the question of the 280 A over the past ten years. Four, In previous decisions, the ROW has been accepted in more or less its present condition, in both Daley's decision and our revoked decision, that a 10' ROW was acceptable by the ZBA and again, I think to address that point we had a survey, and I understand you were out there and saw the marks CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I want to thank you for that. That was nice of you to do that. At least we knOw that the ROW we are talking about is within the ROW we are dealing with. MR. HOLZAPFEL: Finally, I make the point that the characteristic of the neighborhood would be substantially changed if the road had to be widened and this would also be an extreme financial burden on one user of this road. You asked us to contact the Fire Chief and we did. You asked us to survey it, and again, we had that done. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We appreciate that. There was some concern there that the sides were adjusted over the years. I have only been on the board since 1980, but it goes back prior to around the time of the Daley decision -which was 1981. At that time, we did not ask for it to be staked, and that' the actual used part was the ROW. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 2. H~OL Z A P~E L _. H e ~Vi_~g~_ ~r __..C 0 .n_ ~t~i_n ~ ~d CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (continued) t'-really don't have any other questions. I think we have run the gamut on this one, to be perfectly honest. Is there anything else that you want to add to the record before I close this hearing? MR. HOLZAPEEL: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRI.NGER: Thank y'ou again for doing that survey for us. I hope we can render a decision for you in an expeditious amount of time. MR. HOLZAPFEL: Can you explain what that means? Translate. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The next meeting I assume is going to be April 3rd, so it would probably be in and around that area. MR. HOLZAPFEL: That's the only way to do this is to make a decision at the following meeting? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Usually, un'less we decide to have a special meeting around the week of the 25th. There is a possibility that we will have a special meeting. I think we have 20 hearings on tonight. So, there is a possibility that once the 15 day period for the environmental'declaration has passed, we might attempt to deal with some of the'applications or hearings tonight. Yours would be the first one we would deal with, because we have heard it before° Hearing no further comment, I make a motion closing this hearing, reserving decision until later. #3457 - At 7:40 p.m. a'hearing was held in the matter of RALPH and LUCILLE..sTqC.~ER...~ for a variance from excessive lot coverage, and reduction in setback from'bulkhead/tidal waters, 1080 Maple Lane, Greenport, Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-35-5-28 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a tax map showing this and surrounding parcels in the neighborhood. I also have a copy of a sketch here dated 1/16/86 of'Garrett A. Strang, indicating a proposed dwelling of 1½ stories'in h~ight, approximate setback of 10' on the north property line, a variation of 9' to the south property line approximately; dwelling to be approximately 45' from the bulkhead; swimming pool approx£mately 20' from the bulkhead. I should mention that the property is a five-sided lot. Mr. Strang, would you like to be heard? ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 3. STOCKER HEARING - Continued GARRETT STRANG: Yes, please. You do have the map in front of you as described. The only point I would like to make with respect to your findings on that is that the 9' dimension that you read for the southerly property line is that to a patio or fenced patio for future use around the swimming pool, at ground level. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Therefore, it is not a part of the actual dwelling? It is more in the area of an accessory structure? GARRETT STRANG: No, it is not an accessory structure, it would be to a fence or to the patio at grade. The actual distance to the building or any construction, that being the deck or the house, it is in excess of the 15' a~ required by code. A- little hi~tory on this: my client had purchased this property about 2 years ago with the intention to construct a house and also at some point in time, to put in a swimming pool and patio. They went through the necessary procedures to get approvals from agencies to install a bulkhead, which has been installed. They then decided that it was time for th'em to conStruct a house and When they came back to me, I told them that since they purchased the lot, there had been a local law passed that required a 75' setback from the bulkhead. That did present considerable problems, given the size and configuration of the lot and if you look at the map, you will see that I have superimposed a dotted line, which is the building envelope if we were to meet all the criteria of the zoning, including the 75' from the bulkhead. This leaves little or no space for any residence. This leads us to the reason for our application for a relief from the 75' requirement. We do have to provide 35' frontyard from Maple Lane and Snug Harbor Road, which we have exceeded from MaPle Lane and met from Snug Harbor Road. We have met the 10' sideyard requirement and 15' sideyard requirement with respect to the building and the deck. So, we are left with tr. ying to deal with the 75' setback . I try to make anyone viewing the site plan aware that there are neighboring residences in existence that are less than 75' back ~from the bulkhead. The neighbor to the north is 49' from the bulkhead. To the south is a vacant lot, but contiguous to that is a new residence that is nearing completion at this time, and based on surveys, that's 46' back from the bulkhead. Our proposal is to construct our house 52' from the bulkhead and a deck pro- jection that would be 42~ still within a reasonable distance from the bulkhead. For a point of reference, there is a house under construction two lots to the south which drawings proposed a deck, which would bring their structure Closer to the bulkhead than the present 46'. ~owever, that would obviously have to come before this board. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 4. STOCKE_ ._R_HEARING__ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That deck you are referring to, is that attached to the house? GARRETT STRANG: Yes. It is attached to the house and elevated at'the level of the house and is appro×imately 10' in depth. Also depicted on the site plan is as you described, a proposal for a future swimming pool and a patio surrounding that pool. It is this aspect of the proposed construction that presents the problem with the lot coverage. It is my understanding that the State code dictates that the swimming pool be protected by a fence. The fence would surround the patio', which would be at grade, as would the pool. It is my understanding that the Town has interpreted that once a patio area, even though at grade, is fenced in, it becomes part of the lot coverage° So, it is mandatory that we fence it, so it becomes lot coverage even though if we were to put a pool in and not a patio, it would not be a consideration at all. It puts our lot coverage up to' 29.9 or 30%. Again, this is a future consideration. It is not go£ng to be put in at this time, but my feeling was in discussing this with them, inasmuch as we have to appear before this board, for relief of the 75' line, that we felt it best to bring to the forefront the whole master plan of the site, so we-don't have to come back again at a future time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If this board was'~Go inclined to grant the swimming pool at .this time, would that cause a hardship for your client? GARRETT STRANG: I don't believe it would cause a hardship, since it is planned for "future". We would like to have the opportunity to come back to the bQard to present it again for relief from that requirement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The other thing I was wondering, could the house be pushed back toward Maple Lane a little bit farther, keeping the same plan that you have, possibly reducing the frontyar~ area on Snug HarbOr to about 30'? GARRETT STRANG: That would not be a problem. If we were to be given a variance that we could~have a 30' frontyard on Snug Harbor, we would have no problem with that. That would slide the house back that much further. It may bring us up to within excess of 60' from the bulkhead to the principal dwelling and 50' to the deck itself~ ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 5. STOCKER HEARING . Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will talk about that. The only other thing I wanted to'ask you was the situation of the flood plain zone. Is thi~ in ..... GARRETT STRANG: The property has 3 designations. As you are out near Maple ~Lane, it is in a C zone; as you get closer to the bulkhead, it is a B zone and probably in the area where the swimming pool is shown on this map is in an A-7 zone, which required an elevation of +8. For all intents and purposes, the property, and I don~t have topographic data on it, but I am going of the assumption by visual inspection of the property, that the main portion of the property is probably at elevation 10 as we are out near Maple Lane, and at the bulkhead, probably 7½. The finish floor of the house would,~of course, be in excess of elevation 8. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in.favor of this application? Against? Questions from board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing this hearing, reserving decision until later. Thank you'for coming in. ~3452- At 7:50 p.m. a hearing was held in the matter of PAUL FOR. _~ _~___.~_~T~ER~ ~ ~ for a .variance for insufficient~fro~ard~ insufficient rearyard~at end of Soundview A~enue, Peconic, New York~ Suffolk County Tax Map ~1000-67-6-004. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a tax map showing this and surrounding properties in the area. Would somebody like to be heard on behalf of this application? PAUL FORESTIERI: Would it be okay for me to show you this? This shows the road that exists. It is pretty much to scale, as it was taken off a survey, but bloWn up a little bit CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The widest part of the house is 22' 6~'? PAUL FORESTIERI: Right. And it narrows to 17'-6". The widest part meaning front to back? CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Yes. The depth of the house. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 6. ~gR~S CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I keep these? you to use the mike, Mr. Forestieri? Thank you. Can I ask MR. FORESTIERI: I think basically it is all set there. The numbers that I gave you there, and I am willing to accept any juggling around on your part° The house is not designed, so if there are some suggestions, that is fine with me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: W~ have had so many people come before us, to be perfectly honest with you that want to build a 40' wide house on a lot that is only 83' wide, and I think that this is a fairly good plan in reference to that problem. I don't have any objections. Let us see what else develops in the hearing. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Against the application? Just let me ask you one other question, is it a 2 story or a 1~ story? MR. FORESTIERI Two'-storyt In order to get around 1600 sq. ft. I think I would have to do that:, otherwise the pitch of the roof would make it too small up there, so.. CHAIRMAN GOE~RINGER: I want to make you aware that in situations like this, we usually place restrictions.which will preclude you from coming back a~d building large, extensive decks above ground l~vel, etc., because we have extensive reductions here. The front yard is 35' and the rear yard is $5' for a total of 70'. So it is a 50% reduction. Do you have any Problem With that restriction? MR. FORESTIERI: The only thing that I have to assume is that a patio of some sort, at ground l~vel, not above ground, wouldn't be a problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is my contention. We do not have the executive administrator with' us tonight and he will answer that question for you, but that is correct, it would not be a problem, to our knowledge at this time. Is there anybody else who Wo~ld like to speak in favor of this application? Against the application? Questions from board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a ~otion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. You are aware that we have a 15 day. appeal period, so we can't make a decision for 15 days° Thank you for coming in. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 7. ~3470 - At 8:02 p.m. a public hearing was held in the matter of ATHANAS and RUTH ZAMPHIROFF for a variance to construct an ad- d'tion of 190 sq. ft. in area which will exceed maximum 20% lot coverage, 17195 Main Street~ New Su£folk, Suffolk County Tax Map ~1000-17-8-13. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a tax map showing this and surrounding parcels in the neighborhood. Who would like to be heard? I have been down and inspected the property, as well as the other bomrd members and I have not spoken to them; we do have a 15 day period in which we have to post a negative environmental declaration before we can make a decision. So, hopefully, I have no objections to the proposal. It is certainly within conformity; except for the excessive lot coverage. So we can take care of this for you. MR. ZAMPHIROFF: Thank you very much, I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 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 the hearing reserving decision until later. ~3447 - At ~8:08 p.m. a public hearing was held in the matter of ~.~O~t for a special exception to establish uses in C-1 Heavy Industrial Zoning District, East side Horton Lane, Southold. Suffolk County Tax Map ~1000-63-01-10. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map showing this and surrounding parcels in the area. Mr. Grey, would you like to be heard? JIM GREY: Thank you. My name is Jim Grey and I own Pudge Corp~ and I intend to build a re'al nice industrial park on this property. I am starting off with 2 buildings facing Horton Avenue and it. is very difficult to say who the tenants will be. There will be high-class tenants. There will be no junkyards. I have a good track record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I did seek a legal opinion on this appli- cation and to our knowledge, we have to at least narrow it down to 1 or 2 specific types of uses. Can you give me a better under- standing of what you might think as far as tenants? It is not that we have tremendous objections to this application in any way. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 8. JIM GREY: I have a tenant back in Farmingdale and they like the country out here and have intentions of moving out here. The other is~ ii am trying to pull a surveyor in here and that is the type of tenant. I don't have to rent these buildings immediately. I want nice tenants. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you~ery much. Is there~anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Against the application? Yes° GAIL WICKHAM: I am not sure it is against. I represent Norma Gregory, who owns property on the road next to this property, quite an old hOme. She is not opposing the use of the property but she and other residential owners do live in that area. We just ask the board to put their usual conditions on regarding outdoor storage, screening, excessive lighting, some of those things will come in with site plan, but you can put some conditions which can help temper the diverse ~oning that backs up these 2 properties. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I m~ast ask you what you mean by excessive lighting? You mean ground lighting as opposed to overhead lighting? GAIL WICKHAM: Yes, in the evenings. Wait, let me rephrase that. Security lighting is necessary, but there are different screenings that can be used on the site and types of lighting that are not glaring and won't disturb the neighbors. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, I thank you.. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? Is there anything that you would like to add to that, Mr. Grey? JIM GREY: As far as the lighting goes, I am going to control this park and we control the outside of all the buildings. There will be no O~her outdoor lighting except security lighting. It will not affect the neighbors, in no way will it be shining on any property other than mine. There is no reason for it. It is not going to be a place for people to play handball at night. Just for security. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any objection to putting ground lighting in instead of overhead lighting in the parking lot areas? JIM GREY: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions from either side? Questions from board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 9. #3459 - At 8:15 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of 125-127 Main Street Corp (Mills & Co) for Special Exception to utilize premises and new addition for manufacture of sails, canvas products and related items in C-Light Zone, 74100 Main Road, Greenport, Suffolk County Tax Map ~1000-45-6,006. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map showing ~s and' surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Mills, would you like to be heard? MR. MILLS: My name is ~William J. Mills, III, President of 125-127 Main Street Corp. I have affidavits from the surrounding property owners who have reviewed the site plan and have no problems with the site plan as presented, and are in favor of it. I also have for the board a rendering. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, the rear building will carry the same roof line as the large building~ MR. MILLS: Yes, it will. It is our feeling that the use is A-light industrial use and is intended as the code defines light industry. It is a non-obnoxious, non-noise polluting industry and I think it will conform with the area. MR. C~AIRMAN: 'We recently asked you for a. letter indicating the approximate square footage for specific uses for within the building itself. The front part of the building is going to be used for trade display and in .back of that the new building which will house office space in general? And the existing building and new addition of 85' x 100' will all be manufacturing, is that correct? MR. MILLS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I's that a one-story building'? It will remain as a one-story building? Any mezzanine areas or a~t~ng like that? And the type of construction is cement block? MR. MILLS: The back building is probably going %o be a steel struc- ture. Our intention is to take and and cover the back cement block building with the same sheathing as the metal building, if we have funds. And the addition between the front and back building will be covered with the same material. The front building is going to be redone in a colonial character. So, in- stead of hodgepodge, it won't appear as 4 separate buildings, it will appear as one entire structure. ZBA MARCH 13, 1986 Page 10. 125-127 Main· Street Corp Hearing - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: will you have? For the record, how many employees MR. 'MILLS: I think we have less on there than the exact number we have right now. Right now, one or two. We. are pretty stable. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much. 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 m~'ke, a motion closing this hearing, re- serving decision until later. #3465 - At 8:25' p.m~ a public hearing was held in the matter of ~E~IMIR~.and HEDA VRANKOVIC for a variance to construct a second story deck . ddition with insufficient frontyard at 1625 Sandy Beach Road, GreenpOrt~ Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-43-4-45. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER- I have a 'copy of a tax map showing'this and surrounding parcels in the area. Does anyone wish to be heard for this? 'WILLIAM-MOORE: H~llo, my name is William Moore and I am an associate of Dick Lark. AS you cannabis is an appeal, but un- fortunately for work which 'is already done. However, the people who are now Seeking the appeal, I can describe as innocent parties. As described in the appeal apPlicatiOn, they relied on the builder and had no idea they were lacking the C/O. In fact, they went to sell the property and got to a closing and the attorney for the buyer said well, the old survey from 1972 doesn't show the deck. So, we are here after the fact. I think we can categorize the applicants as innocent people. The Shape of the Property creates some practical difficulties, as it is 5 sided. Interestingly enough, 4 sides are on the road, so no matter how you put the house, you have the house near the road. I enclosed photograPhs at'the back of the memorandum. As you can see what type of deck it is that was built, and what minimum impact it does have with the way this particular piece of property is situated. There is no obstruction to the flow of traffic or to the view of any traffic that would be going through the area. It doesn't back up against other adjoining properties; no alley effects. As I pointed out, it is a summer beach community, and a lot of homes have these types of decks, so it is not not in keeping with the character of the communityl I think the most telling thing is the odd shape of this property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is my understanding that the house did exist without the deck addition and this portion is approximately 1/2 or that 2/5 of the front of the house has been added to it? It includes the spiral staircase to get up, is that correct? ZBA March '13, 1986 Page 11 . VELIMIR and HEDA VRANKOVIC HEARING - ContiDqDd MR. MOORE: Yes~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But basically, the only area that we. are dealing with is that particular area which houses the steel stair- case? MR. MOORE: That's right. The deck continues right across the top of that one story structure, which was there, for which there was a c/o and they built the deck across, the top of the existing structure, whick'~was built without a c/o. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: porch was there? B~t the porch was there? The existing MR. MOORE; That~entire patiO, shown on the sur.vey as a roofed patio was done all at one time. I don't know the exact date of that construction, b~t it was subsequent to 1972. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: a 20' setback. Actually, the house was constructed with MR. MOORE: That's right and it has a c/o for that. I don't know how that was accomplished, but, it was. I think that may have been part of the problem, they just squared off the deck in what appears to be a very natural appr-o~ach to doing it. That explains the rationale. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank'you very much. Let's see what develOps throughout the hear~ing. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this m'atter? Against the application? Any questions from board members? MR. MOORE: My wife was buzzing in my ear. Whether it is called a porch or a patio is the only question I have. It was an 1-shaped 1½ story cottage and the lower portion, that which was below the porch/patio, was there. That was your question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was my question. MR. MOORE: All'that was built was the roofed patio across the top of the existing structure. I am glad she buzzed my ear. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing ~he hearing, reserving decision until later. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 12 o ~3460 - At 8:35 p.m. a public hearing was held in the matter of ~HAEL ~. ~~_~.E.~R~_~,~ ~p~for~ a variance to use premises/addition for accessory home occupation in excess of maximum 30% of first floor area, 2035 Theresa Drive, Deep Hole Creek Estates, Mattituck Suffolk County Tax Map ~1000-115-6-t5. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a tax map showing this and surrounding parcels in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? DR. PERLMUTTER: 1 am~??asking for approximately 8% over and above the alloted 30%. The building will be of the same building materials as the old and it will be approximately 80%' from the back end of the adjoining lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why you chose that spot rather than the east side of the house? DR. PERLMUTTER: At the present time the other side of the house has trees and it also has a lot ~at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you intend to do any screening along the elongated driveway area? DR. PERLMUTTER: I will put in shrubs and it will be very difficult to see from the.road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: hours? Wil~l this office be utilized during evening DR. PERLMUTTER: Rarely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: afternoon? Well, when will it be utilized, in the DR. PERLMUTTER: Mornings and afternoons. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: lighting? So, there would be no need for overhead DR. PERLMUTTER: I anticipate tha~ any ~lighting to be in the form of coach lights. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 13. MICHAEL J. PERLMUTTER ~~ -~ Coqtinue,~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The area in grey that sort of meanders around %0 the proposed office area is What, asphalt? Oh, an asphalt walkway or ramp? DR. PERLMUTTER: No, there'won"t be a ramp there. CHAIPMAN GOEHRINGER: So, there will be no obstrusive lighting? DR. PERLMUTTER: Not at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail right, let's see what develops. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Against the application? Kindly state your name. GREG SACKS: I am an adjacent property owner. What I would like the board to consider'of utmost imp©rtance is the family-oriented neighborhood, with a large number of small children at this time. I bought an adjacent lot to my home to accomodate the neighborhood's and my own three children and I think that on any day that the board would like to drive down our area, you will see approximately 15 to 20 kids playing ball or something like that. I am afraid this will create possible problems in the futUre with a large number of cars and also parking. The appearance, I have not seen the plan~ but I don't know if it would deter from the family appearance of the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let'~ take a look at it. GREG SACKS: We have a lot of people driving in this area, but they all know the situation and the number of children in the area, from age 2 on up. Everyone drives with ca~tion. I am afraid with patients coming there,~they won't know the situation and who knows. That is my bi'ggest concern. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, I thank you. Anyone else against the ap- plication? Dr., could you just clear up for us how many patients you might have ak any one time. DR. PERLMUTTER: The 'average office visit is approximately 15 to 20 minutes, so a maximum of 3 or 4 patients an hour and there is no reason why the patients should drive any less cautiously than anyone else. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anyone else for or against? Questions from board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page I 4. ~3450- At 8:45 p.m. a public hearing was held in ~the matter of RO~S~.~L_I~. ~E~N~ for a variance.~for insufficient lot area and width, etc. Corner of Zena Road, Capt. Kidd Drive and Central Drive, Mattituck, Suffolk County' Tax Map 1000-106- 2-43, Captain Kidd Estates. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax map showing this and surrounding parcels in the area. Would someone like to be heard? G. WICKHAM: This application is essentially asking the board to bring the property into conformity with the neighborhood, even though it is a variance application. The house is entirely on the northerly half of the property. The sideyards and lot coverage are in conformity~ The two parcels are as large or larger than many of the lots in the immediate neighborhood. An investi- gation that was-based upon a tax map information.0_indicates that that this lot and only' ~ other parcels in the 5 ~S~hich in- clude and surround this lot, all seem to be single and separate and these are alr'eady built upon. We are talking about over 60 homes and 12 vacant parcels. Furthermore, although I am ~ot a licensed appraiser or broker, I have a lo~ of experience in handling real estate and it fairly p~ain that a vacant lot in this neighborhood will sell for $30,000- 40,000, whereas the value of a house parcel is going to be only slightly increased by including with it an unbuildable side yard lot. So, you are talking about'several thousand dollars in hardship that the other lots in the area are not forced to bear. This house has been in this family for many, many years. There is a financial necessity~of selling the lot, to settle the debts of the estate. One owner died and the remaining owner does not have suffi- cient funds to clear the estate. That is a personal hardship, but that is the reason for the appeal at this time. We ask that because of the neighborhood and the financial hardship, the board grant the variance. I have a ksetch here of the homes in green, which are already built. I would like to give that to you for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I~just ask you one question? Do you have any idea if this lot was "set-off" if they would be allowed to hook up to Capt. Kidd Wa~er or would they have to use an existing well or drive their own well? Do you have any idea? G. WICKHAM: I really don't know the answer to that. I think the mess that Capt. Kidd is in. I understand the wells are quite deep here. There are a lot of wells that have gone in. ZBA' MARCH 13, 1986 Page ROSALIE GOWEN HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I assume the house is hooked up to Capt. Kidd? G, WICKHAM: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' Well, we don't know what the Suffolk County Heal'th Department is saYingabout Capt.~ ' Kidd. G. WICKHAM: Nov we are goRng to have to go to the Health Dept. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any possibility that you could give them a call and find out the s'tat~as? G. WIEKHAM: Yes, I can give them a call. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just so we have it for the record, it would be real helpful. I thank you.very much. Anyone else in favor of the applicatbn? Anyone against the application? Questions from board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. ~3474 - At 8:50 p.m. the public hearing in the matter of DAVID M. JOHNSON was withdrawn Informal discUssion by Mr. Cuddy and MB. WR~kham. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page I 6. MR. CUDDY: We appreciate the opportunity to come back. I re- present the owner of the property, Barbara Schr~ever. It has an extended zoning history, as many of you know, starting in 1969. Recently, it has had rather an intense history. Here in September, the board granted 2/3 of our application. Our application was to convert the existing barn building to permit 3 uses. Two on the lower floor, which ~was an artist studio and a machine shop. And on the upper floor, we wanted to have a residence. That you denied. It has been somewhat of a long road to get back but we went to the Town Board and they permitted us to come back, so that we might ask you to rehear this matter, once again. The reason that we would like you to rehear it is that because we are not sure that we understood, the significance of the apartment use, in relation to the uses on the bottom floor. The apartment is to be used by the owner of the building. The follow is going to run the machine shop and his wife the artist studio. It is going to b.e used solely in conjunction with those uses. These people are the only o~es who are going to be there, so it is not going to be a rented out type of thing. I would like to point out to you that in Or±ent~ as I understand it, nearby there are at least 2, 3 or 4 uses that are ---a grocery stor~e, filling station, Idle Hour, and all of those places are very similar in nature in the sense that they have apartment or residence use attached to a business. I think you also may have overlooked the fact that in the business district, you can have a multiple dwelling type use. You can have a tourist type home or a boarding home. We could have taken the entire barn area and converted it to residential use that would be out of character with the area, but that is permitted by zoning. I would ask you to reconsider and to allow apartment use. I live in the town and I have seen a number of applications and I know this building quite well. So, I ask the board on the basis of what I have communicated to you to rehear and reconsider this ap- plication. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Cuddy. you would like to say. Gall, is there anything G. WICKHAM: Ail I can 'add is that my client is personally not in a position where they can buy this property and upgrade if they can't live there. I am not too sure that this point was clear. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you and we will take your thoughts into consideration. We will get back to you. Thank you. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 17. #3463 - kt 8:55 p.m. a public hearing was held in the matter of EDMUND PRESSLER for a variance to utilize premises as two-family ~~~~d two retail/sales office uses in B-1 Zone, Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-23-3-26., Main Road, Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a tax map showing this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Olsen, would you like to be heard on this one? GARY OLSEN: My name is Gary Olseno I am an attorney, having my office on MainRoad, Cutchogue, rePresenting the applicants, Mr.r and Mrs. Edmond Pressler. As I indicated in the application, there is an existing building on the subject premises, which is Located right opposite Mullen Motors. There is a certificate of occupancy in your file, indicating that the premises may be used as a two-family residence and a doctor's office. The west side of the building has an apartment upstairs, which has been rented out and downstairs is used as the doctor's office and later on there was a ceramic shop. On the easterly side of the building both the upstairs and the downstairs, was one residential unit. What the applicant proposes to do is utilize the entire up- stairs as two separate apartments, making the easterly side of the upstairs independent rental, and of course, on the westerly side, that would stay as it is. On the downstairs floor, he proposes to, it is a substantial size. DoWnstairs, we have approximately 1900 sq. ft. and that would be sufficient for two retail stores. Mr. and Mrs. Pressler are intending on using a portion of the down- stairs for an antique shop. As a matter of fact, they are pre- sently operating an antique business, now, which is just east of Thompsons. They are renting that and they want a place of their own and they would also like to have help in carrying the building, utilizing the remaining space downstairs for another retail store, which they would rent. They submitted to you a sketch and a layout of how the upstairs and downstairs would look, just to put on the record what is pro- posed. Downstairs there would be one store on the west side, having square footage of 630 sq. ft.; and on the east side, 1,247 sq. ft. for a total of 1877sq. ft. Upstairs, the westerly apart- ment would have 630 sq. ft. and the easterly apartment would have 1,084 sq. ft. As I understand the reason that we are here is be- cause the building inspector is saying that the present residential unit must have 80,000 sq. ft. of land area for a total of 160,000. This property is approximately 68,000 sq. ft.. We already have a non-conforming for two-family use, so we are not changing anything. The residential density would stay the same. And downstairs, the property is presetly zoned B-1 and the retail store use that is proposed is a permitted use. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 1 8. EDMUND PRESSLER HEARING - Continued GARY OLSEN - Continued: I would also like to put on the record that on March 5, 1986, a letter was addressed to Mr. Pressler, a copy which was sent to the Zoning~Board, from the Planning Board, and I will read it as follows: " The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, March 3, 1986. RESOLVED: That the Southold Town Planning Board , etc .... I have Mr. and Mrs. P~essler here, if you have any questions of them. I also have the engineer here, who did the site plan, Mr. Steven Tsontakis, who will answer any questions that you may have. Just to reiterate, the character of the neighborhood is not going to change. It will fill the need that the community has for apartments and also permit the appliCants to utilize the downstairs portion for the permitted uses, retail storeL~se. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As you know, that area is extremely busy. What would the applicant do to prevent people from parking in front? Utilizing the existing parking area and the proposed parking area? GARY OLSEN: Well, first of all, the parking that the Planning Board is requiring and has already apprOved, will be provided. There are 19 parking ~paces including parking for handicapped. There is no reason that directional signs could not be put at the entrance to the parking area to direct people to go into the back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason that I ask you that question is because people tend to overutilize sidewalk areas for parking and underutilize park£ng' lots. That's the reason I asked you that question. GARY OLSEN: The access to the units and to the apartments would be from the back. The engineer has indicated tome that due to the elevation of the property, the access, by nature, would be easier from the rear. SO~ people would naturally, at this particular location would tend to go in the back, I think. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason I ask you that question, is that we have a similar application in the hamlet of Mattituck, where we asked the people, and they did not, paint a stripe in front of the building on the road~; indicating the~e was no parking. Thereby forcing people. HoWever, the applicant did take it upon himself or herself to direct all cars to the rear of the building and that has been the case. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 1 9. EDMUND PRESSLER, HEARING - continued GARY OLSEN: Mr. Pressler has just indicated that he wants to encourage people to park in the back and will put an appropriate directional sigh'tO direct people to park in the back and utilize the parking that is there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would be the utilization of the frontyard area? People could still egress and ingress to the existing building area, where the front stoop is, GARY OLSEN: There are two ramps; one that was designed in the back parking lot and we put another alternate one in the front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the application? Against the application? Questions from Board members? GARY OLSEN: I would like to ask that the board give us a prompt decision, because' Mr Pressler is under time restraints and due to the fact that Spring is on its way, he wants to give his present landlord notice . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. #3455 - At 9:~10 pm a public hearing was held in the matter of KA_TH~VARAN._~ __~ for a variance to clarify and/or correct inter- pretation of Building Inspector Of 5/2/85, which allows no sleeping quarters in accessory struc'ture, Indian Neck ROad, Peconic, Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-86-7-0004. CHAIRMAN GOEH~INGER: I have copy of a map showing this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Lark, would you like to be heard? R. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York for the applicant. Mrs. Varano cannot be here tonight. She has to tend to some family matters. As you know, she is a recent widow and is kind of burdened now by raising the children by herself. I do not have too much to say except answer any questions. The application speaks for itself. The only thing I would like to ask at the outset, is 'that the board did write me on February 12th and I wrote back on February 19th. Have you ever gotten a legal opinion as to whether the board has authority to grant alternative relief? You are aware of that correspondence? ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 20. KATH~EN. ~V~~- _.c ont~in~ed MR. LARK: Continued: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: do not mind. I would rather not say at this time, if you MR. LARK: So, you don~St have a legal opinion, yet? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: time. Well, I really would rather not say at this MR. LARK: Okay. It is my opinion that you do have authority under the zoning ordinance of the State of New York, by virtue of which you sit, to grant alternative relief to applications. Now, getting to the pre~ise application here, as you know in reading the exhibits there ~the applicant has been put into a "Catch 22". The building inspector, in spite of the English language, has decided to interpret the one condition that you put on the variances which you previously granted; he has decided not to allow any sleeping facilities~ whereas the condition of your variance ~3330 said that lot #3, which is the one subject to the area variance, that it could be used for only one-famil~y use and n._0~_~di_~a~l_sl~eeping quarters in the accessory building. The key words there "no additional". The board at that time, had full knowledge of what was on the pre- mises, As what you have now, except as I indicated, that the file did not have Mr",Guyden's affidavit, so I got a duplicate original of that, and that which you have before ~.ou now is an affidavit from one of the former owners of the property. So the question that you have to decide under 100-121d.1, determine the meaning of any pro- vision of this chapter or any condition or requirement specified or made under the provision under this chapter. You put a condition on your variance and the building inspector has now interpreted it and really the question that you have to decide, is whether or not his interpretation is what you meant. In spite of what the language says there. I thought it was fairly clear. The vagaries of the English language, I guess. That is the reason why we are here. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I do not have any at the moment. For the record, I am very sorry to hear about Dr. Varano's passing, we did not know he was ill. MR. LARK: I do not think he was ill, it was a heart attack ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 21 . ~.ATH LE__ ~N_ ~VA_ ~R~N Q. ~H~n .ti~n CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had numerous conversations after the first time we had granted the appeal and the time that we had gone down personally and viewed the property. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Against the application? MARGARET KATZENBERG: I live in Southold. I am here, because my daughter is an adjoining property owner, and is unable to be here. She has lived there summers, constantly from 1967. I visited the property once a week during the year to make sure everything is well and those affidavits must be incorrect, as far as I am concerned, because the property was abandoned since 1967 until Mr. Varano bought it in 1984 or 85. So, that apart- ment was not used continuously. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak? Mr. Lark, is there anything else that you would like to say? For the record, anyone Who knows Indian Neck Lane, knows it is a confusing area to view property, because there are many driveways around~. Some are 100' wide and 1200' long. Someone named Pirelowitz had an application and I do not know whether I was alone that day, but I went to visit the Pirel~w~itz property and I was riding down a drivew.ay, looking for the Pirelowitz property and someone, I think it was a neighbor, informed me it was the Rusk's property, and I looked at the existing building sometime in 1981, and it was my c~tention, as you have just stated, that the apartment was vacant also. That's all I have to say. Are there any questions from any board members? Hearing no further questions, I will make a motion closing the'hearing, reserving decision until later. #3421 - At 9:25 p.m. a public hearing was held in the matter of ESTATE_OF.J_.O~E~H~ZIEL_~ ...... ON~.K~ (recessed from 2/6/86). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is Mr. Wickham present? Is there anything else that you would like to add? Over the past few weeks, i have been in touch with the TOwn Board, and I am waiting for them to tell us what to do about this application. I just wanted you to be aware of the fact that at the very most this board could grant to you is the existence of what existed there and we have not taken any straw polls and we have not done any votes and we have not done anything at this point. I just wanted you to be aware of that simple fact. JOHN WICKHAM: Mr. Chairman, John Wickham, speaking for family of the deceased. Our intention is simply to re-establish ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 22. ESTATE OF JOSEPH ZIELONKA HEARING JOHN WICKHAM:~Continued/the pre-existing use of this property. I have one other thought. We would be quite willing to take off the accessory building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for coming back in. Anyone against the application? Questions from board members? If there are no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Ten minute break. #3451 - At 9:40 p.m. a public hearing was held in the matter of B~DELL ~IN~.~V_~N~Y~i~D~S~for a special exception to establish winery use from grapes grown on premises. 36225 Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. Suffolk County Tax Map ~1000-85-2-10. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map showing this and surrounding properties in the area. Does somebody wish to be heard in behalf of this application? Against the application? Hearing no further questions, I will make a motion to recess this hearing until the next regular scheduled hearing. $3456 - At 9:42 p.m. a public hearing was held in the matter of RICHARD and ANITA WILTON For variances for insufficient width, ~-~'~'a"~as~ide Queens Street, Greenport, New York. Suffolk County Tax Map ~1000-40-3-6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a tax map showing this and surrounding properties in the area. Would somebody like to be heard? R. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. The appli- cation is fairly complete. What the petitioner wants, just a couple of highlights on it. The variance requested for the 2 lots are for 3,000 sq. ft. I believe is not substantial in relation to the present requirements of 80,000 sq. ft. When you take into con- sideration the existing neighborhood, coupled with the Proposed master plan, with an update of R-40 for the property, and the actual development potential development for the area. The 40,000 sq. ft. requirement is quite substantial in and of itself, when you consider the four lots to the north, which are t~e only residences on Queens Street, and they are on extremely small parcels, much smaller than the 40,000 sq. ft. As you can see from visiting the area, there can be no future residential development on Queens St. other than this proposal, because it is the last available one and the property to the west is the KOA campground, which has covenants on the front portion, which is immediately opposite this as well as the covenants for the use of the campground. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 23. R. LARK - Continued: So, the proposed development of that area just won't happen and in addition, the Village of Greenport owns property in the back and uses it as their watershed. So, they are not going to be developing this area. When you consider this, I_-feel that it isn't substantial considering the neighborhood of Queens Street and what is there now. The increase in population density will be one additional dwelling unit. Lot 91 the applicants are here, and they will talk momentarily but will utilize water and sewer, which is on Queens Street, primarily to service the KOA campgrounds. Lot ~2 Will not have water and sewer, mainly because the main is too far north of the lift station, in order to bring it down to that particular lot. There is an existing well on the property, and cesspool. There will be some change in the character of the neighborhoed, because I think the Town will be rid of the infamous labor camp Chat.has existed there for many years on that road and along that line, I am going to give the board another copy of that survey, December 10, 1985, and what is on there for the record, Mr. Wilton has annotated that survey with 11 pictures of the buildings that are presently on there as well as some of the neighboring buildings on the residences to the north. What is his intention to do is to take them all down, except for the One building which he intends to retain as a toolshed. All the others will come down when he gets a demolition permit. It is interesting how some of them sprung up, especially on Town property. Queens Street despite its dubious history, is Town dedicated road and when he went to buy this property, and he actually had a survey performed, 2 of the buildings ended up on Queens Street. So, I will had this all up as a hearing exhibit. #1, which is the survey annotated and series of 10 pictures, whichl are keyed into survey. I know you have seen the property and you are familiar with it. So, we will answer any questions. Other than splitting th-e lot, and Mr. Wilton will tell you the personal reasons he wants to do that, into two 40,000 sq.ft, lots, called for in the new master plan, there is no other practical way of doing this for 2 dwelling units, which is what he wants to do. The applicant has before the Planning Board an application to sub- divide the property but as you know, they have written to you as that they cannot act on the application until you either grant or deny it. They can then proceed accordingly because of the split to R-40's. At this time, I would like to turn it over to Dick Wilton who will explain to you precisely what he would like to do. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 24. RICHARD and ANITA WILTON HEARING - Continued R. WILTON: I am here with my wife, Anita. We purchased what used to be the migrant camp, when it became available for two prime reasons. One was to get rid of the type of operation that was going on there, that was in direct conflict to my own business. Approximately 20 migrants and tourists and visits coming together during vacation don't mix t©o well. Second reason is to locate my home from Mattituck, where I have lived for the last 14 years to be Closer to my business. My business is done well. I have the respect of my neighbors and that's because I believe in a hand's on management. I am there just about all the time in the summer. The only time I am not there is when I require a little sleep. Mr. Nadine, the owner of the property adjoining the migrant camp on the north side said that I have been a good neighbor and I have been a good neighbor with all the neighbors on the block there. Unfortunately, he could not come tonight,' but he said he is all in favor of a minor subdivision. The real burden of commuting back to Mattituck, especially in the summer months, When I am busy and running long hours for a few hours sleep. Druing the winter months, when the business is closed, I msut continually check on the property because before I was there everyday a few years ago, I had several breakins. When that hap- pened, it told me I had to be there. I have two children, 18 and 21, who_ desire to stay in Southold and have the same problem that most other kids have here, and that is affordable housing. That's why I would like to have Lot 01 as an option to settle my own family problem with my kids. During the next week, I plan to file for a demolition permit for 3 of the buildings that a~e there. I will keep one as a toolshed. If there are any questions, I will ~be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am going to ask a question of your attorney, and you might have to answer it, not for him, but together in unison with him. As you know, Mr. Lark, if this board was to so grant this application, the building that you are splitting to use as a tool- shed does not meet the minimum square footage requirements for a primary structure on that lot, so this board would be faced with placing restrictions on that particular building. MR. LARK: Okay, I can answer that. I understand where you are coming from. When he applies for the demolition permit, he is going to simultaneously apply for a building permit for a principal access. What he is going to do on Lot ~2 and what he can do right now on the whole property, but he wanted to be up front with you, is knock down all the buildings except the one that you indicated so simultaneously with the demolition permit, he is going to apply for a building permit to create a one-family residence, which will be the princiapl building and that accessory structure will be limited as an accessory structure, a toolshed. It won't be a garage or anything. ZBA March 25, 1986 Page 25. RICHARD and ANITA_~_WI~.O~_.HE_~I~ ~Con=%i~nued: MR. LARK : - continued: Apparently, he went through that, and he can explain moreain detail that building is worthwhile saving and where it will sit, i't won't interfere with residential use and can be used as an accessory structure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you if you have any objection to our placing restrictions on that particular part of that building in question, if that particUlar subdivision is granted. MR. LARK: No. For an accessory structure only, yes. no problem, because that is the intent. There is CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No sleeping .... MR. LARK: Absolutely not, because it is going to be a toolshed and it is going to be used in conjunction with his principal dwelling. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Against the appli- cation? Questions from board~ 'members ? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. #3466 - At 10:00 p.m. a public hearing was held in the matter of GREGORY SIMONELLt for a variance to approve lots with insufficient area and width Grand Avenue, Mattituck, New York CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map showing this and sUrrounding properties in the area. Mr. Olsen would you like to be heard? GARY OLSEN: My name is Gary Olsen, an attorney, with offices on Main Road, Cutchogue. I think the application sets forths-the intent of the applicant. Just to reiterate a little bit. The total area here is 167,768 sq. ft. If you look at the tax map,you can see that this parcel is way oversized compared to other parcels in the neighborhood. I have made a copy of the tax map and have outlined the subject premises to make it easy for the board. I would like to submit the tax map as Exhibit A for this hearing. You will see that the other lots in the surrounding area are generally in keeping with the size and sha~of the parcel to be created. The proposed lot 91 would have a square footage of 50,703 square feet and that would also have frontage on Grand Avenue of 150' Lot ~2 would have frontage on Grand Avenue of ~53.86' with an area of 60,228. Now, that particular ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 26. GREGORY SIMONELLI HEARIN.. _ _~. Conti~_~nue~d MR. LARK: continued; parcei wDuld be subject to a right of way to get access to lot ~3, which is the southerly lot, and the area of lot ~2 without taking the right of way area out~ would be 46,772 sq. ft. Parcel 93 would have 56,837 sq. ft. So, actually, in looking at the~tax map, it~appears that the. surrounding lots in the area roughly about 40,000, some are smaller some are bigger. These lots are on the larger size and therefore I don't think a variance that we are asking for is substantial. It is basically to bring this piece into the general size and shape of the others. I have also prepared a list of all the vacant land, which I have obtained from the real property tax service indicating what the assessments are for the other parcels in the community. You will see that because this particular piece is so much bigger than the others that the tax assessment is substantially larger than any of the others in the neighborhood, therefore it creates an economic hardship for the applicant and I have marked this as Exhibit 2 for the~earing and I submit copies of that for you also. Also, as you recall., this applicant was before the board with a different layout and division of the property ab©ut~a year ago and at that time, we had an appraisal done by Lance Larsen, dated June 27, 1985 and although the division of the lots is different now, I would like to submit his appraisal for this particular record and I will just read the pertinent part of it to show the economic hardship that would be created if the board denied the application. As it is, he came up with a figure of $180,000 and with three lots, he' came up with $236,500, indicating the difference of the economic loss would be $89,500. Now, in the interim, over the period of time, the lots have obviously gone up in value, so if anything, the economic impact, the hardship to my client would be higher than Mr. Larsen has put in his report. I submit this as Exhibit 3 for the record. The only other thing I would like to bring to your attention is that when you see the property, you will see that Mr. Simonelli's house, which is presently up and locater.!on parcel #1, is located way to the west of the property and the configuration as to where his house is located certainly works out very well with this new plan. The lots will be in keeping with the gize and shape of others in the area. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 27. GREGROY SIMQ. N~.L~!~,~EARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Against the application? EDNA POLAND: My name is Edna Poland and I own on the west side of the $imonelli property. May I ask a question? Is two acre zoning still in effect? Now, that's my point° I don't have an acre as Mr. L~rk said. I have an acre and a half. He is counting the first lot that we have with the house on it. He is overlooking the fact that we had purchased the additional ½ acre lot from Hugh Benjamin when he was going to Florida. So I have an acrea and a half and Mr. Mealey, who is not here tonight, he has an acre and a quarter. There are several other lots that are more than an acre, too. But, I applauded Southold's ruling on the two acre zoning. I have lived in the city for a long time and the effects of pollution are hor- rendous. I purchased this-long ago with the intention as soon as I am able to retire I can enjoy the open, fresh countryside of the North Fork, particularly Mattituck. It has built up considerably since we bought the place in 1960, and I think that ignoring the 2 acre zoning is just increasing the density, promoting additional pollution We have a problem of Temik and with the additional cesspools, who knows what will happen there. Talking about a hardship, heck, when I bought that adidtional % acre knowing that I wanted the space, we had hardships at that time, too. I had two young sons and we had to prepare for college. When it comes to hardship, if you are going to say that if you divide the property into 3 lots so I can make so much more money, so I can divide my property into 2 lots and make a lot more money. I don't think the question here is hardship. Put one house on it and you overlook that hardship. So, I am really am voicing my objection to this. I have no objection to one more house, but I do have an objection to two. That's all I can say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against~the application? Is there anything else that you would like to say, sir? Questions from board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion ~losing the hearing, reserving decision until later. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 28. ~3475 - At 10:10 p.m. a public hearing was held in the matter of JOSEPH SAWICKI, JR., for a variance of approval of access over private~ ROW South side of Old North Road, Southold, Suffolk County Tax Map ~1000-55-2-4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have asked our Town engineer, Mr. John W. Davis, to go out and to do an inspection and these are his findings, dated March 4, 1986 .... " .... there is an existing entrance and a 20' ROW .......... " I have a copy of a survey, dated January, 1986, indicating access for this proposed lot and I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map showing this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there someone who would like to be heard? Against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, re- serving decision until later. ~3453 - At 10:15:p.m. a public hearing was held in the matter of SAMUEL K.C. and ELIZA PLIMPTON KOPPER for variances for insufficient area and width in pending 3 lot subdivision, Indian Neck Road, Peconic, New York. MR. GRIGONIS: I have a copy of a tax map showing this and surrounding properties in the area. Do you have anything to add to this? SAM K©PPER: I am Sam K~pper. Basically, I think that the application speaks for itself. I really jsut came in case there are any questions. I do have some thoughts, though. I believe that we are simply asking for a 10% variance with the current ruling being 80,000 sq. ft. We are just over 70,000 sq. ft. So, it is right around 10% or slightly under that. Our adjoining neighbor's lots in front, with residences, are either one acre or one half, as mentioned already. The legal notice mentions insufficient width. I am not sure I under- stand that, because we had in excess of 175' either at the roadway points or on the front of the building envelope of each~ so I don't understand that part. It should be added also that my wife has been coming down here since she was born. Her grandmother built here in 1920, I believe and I have been coming here since the early 1970's and ~finitely do agree with the intent and spirit of the two acre zoning. In Massachusetts, where we have our permanent residence, we had a house a couple of years that was on two acres. Where we live now, it is one acre zoning and we have a lot that is about 3/4 of an acre. I will tell you that the two acre place that we lived before had a feel significantly smaller than where we live now. So, much depends on how a lot is laid out. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 29. SAM KOPPER - Continued: In the first place, with two ac~es, it was strangely shaped, with mostly woods and the place we live now is all usable. So, that are my thoughts. Thank you very much. MR. GRIGONIS: Thank you. Any one else? There is some corres- pondence here. Some in favor and some against this subdivision. ARTHUR GOSTER: My name is Arthur Goster. I border on that property. I think it is a poor' layout and there is no need to have three lots on five lots when we have two acre zoning. I think there are many discrepancies in the map where a test well was driven on someone's property. The frontage of 64%25' add up to 89 not 84 as they have shown on Indian Neck Lane and there is no reason to grant three lots. They just bought a few years ago, with knowledge of two acre zoning and they are just trying to override it to maximize their profit. SAM KOPPER: I just would like to respond to one t~hought there concerning that test well. The previous owner of the land leased the land out to one of the ad'joining owners who farmed the land. Just over a year ago, we had a test well drilled by bob Kreiger and he and the Health Department went down there to take the water samples. I don"t think that he and the Health Department would have made any mistake as to what parcel of land they were standing on, when they took their samples. Subsequently, it turned out that in the process of plowing there last Spring, 'Frank Chick's crew must"~have knocked the well over. If they don't know anything about that, but again, how can the Health Department and Kreiger have taken a test from a well that was not on my property. So, the well was there. We are in the process of trying to refind it. We know where it was. As to the shape of the property, I hired Inland Surveyors, rather Sealand, to do the layout I think that what they did and what I mentioned before about the width concern adequately covers that question. Rs far as the frontage on the road, quite frankly, I enjoy having a home that is somewhat off the road. When you have property where you can a driveway that comes in and have a few houses that come off that, it minimizes the impact or feeling of crowding along the road. One thing I forgot to mention before, if we get three lots out of this, we will keep one of them, and put up a small house ourselves, which would be seasonally used. Currently we come down to visit Lisa's mother in Cutchogue in the summer and on holidays. If we only get two, we won't be able to afford to do that and that's where~I feel the hardship. Thank you. ZBA March 13, 1986 Page 30. SAMUEL K.C. and ELIZA MR. GRIGONIS: Anyone or con? Board ~embez closing the hearing res Meeting concluded at 1 **The above minutes we~ by me~ .LIMPTON~. _~K~.0~pER__HEARING - Contin~u_e~d lse have anything to say? Either pro s have any questions? I make a motion erving decision until a later time. :30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, B,;arbar'a A. Strang e transcribed from tapes recorded