The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-12/11/1986APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11¢J'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER ll, 1986 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11. 1986 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall~ 'Main RQad, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting four of the five members of the Board of Appeals. Also present were: Victor Lessard, Building=Department Administrator; Linda Kowalski, Board Secreta'ry, 'and. approximately 25 persons in the audience at the beginning of th~.meeting~ Member Grigonis was absent due to hospitalization. .......... The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded with the first public hearing, as follows. The verbatim trans- cripts for all the hearings have been prepared under separate cover and filed with the Office of the Town Clerk for reference. 7:35 - 7:42 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No~ 3216 EUGENE DAVISON. Variance to establish ~p. artment over horse stable s~ond dwelling unit) upon 9.8± acre parcel~ S/s Sound Avenue, Mattituck [Strawberry Fields]. 7:42 - 7:46 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3577 - FRANK AND DELORES DAVIES. Variance to replace accessory shed in the north sideyard area, 2285 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. 7:46 7:50 p.m Appeal No. 3578 Public Hearing was held in the Matter of ARTHUR ESSLINGER. Variance to locate Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting APPROVAL OF MINUTES. On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the following Meetings held: November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting; Novemoer 3, 1986 Special Meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs.. Goehringer, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki._. (Member Grigonis was ab~t due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. PUBLIC HEARINGS, continued: 7:50 - 7:59 p.mm Appeal No. 3579 - CHARLES AND SANDRA BLAKE. Variance for approval of access over Olds Woods Path (Private Road #10), Southold. 7:59 - 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3580 - NICHOLAS BABALIS. Variance to construct new dwelli~ng with insufficient: (a) north side yard, (b) total side yards. 3360 Rocky Point Road, East Marion. 8:10 - 9:25 p.m. Appeal No. 3572 - MICHAEL AND JOYCE MATTES. (Recessed from 11/20/86). Special Exception for Bed and Break- fast use, 50 Luthers Road, Mattituck. Following testimony, a motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, to recess the public hearing for board inquiries until our next Regular Meeting (to wit: January 8, 1987). This resolu- tion was unanimously adopted. The Chairman explained that the January 8th hearing would accept responses to the board's inquiries, if any, but no new testimony otherwise. 9:27 - 9:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3557 ROBERT EGAN. Variance to Amend Conditional Approval Rendered 11/3/86 to allow recon- struction of dwelling with insufficient setbacks upon founda- tion, as exists at 5 and 12 feet, rather than 7 and 12 feet. 330 Knoll Circle, East Marion. Gardiners Bay Estates Subdivision, Lots 27 and part of 28. 9:30 - 9:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3552 JOHN SENKO. (Recessed from 11/20 as requested by applicant's attorney.) Stephen R. Angel, Esq. asked for a five-minute recess. The hearing was recessed temporarily as requested, reconvening at 9:48 p.m., infra. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3573: Application of MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate accessory garage structure in the frontyard area at premises located on the south side of a private right-of-way extending off the east side of Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-123-06-17. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on Novem- ber 20, 1986 in the Matter of the Application of MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST under Appeal No. 3573; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS,the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellants request a Variance from the Provisions of Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate an accessory 22' by 30' garage in the front yard area, as amended from the previous Appeal filed August 22, 1986 under Appeal No. 3551. The newly proposed location will be with a minimum setback of 12 feet off the west side property line, 350 feet from the front property line, and 65 feet on an angle from the existing one-story frame house (at its closest points). 2. The premises in question is a described parcel containing a total area of 1.3± acres, with 89 ft. frontage along the private right-of-way and an average depth of 597 feet to the rear property line along Peconic Bay. The subject premises is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as Distr~ct IODO, Section 123, Block 6, Lot 17 and is improved with the following structures: .(a) two-story frame dwelling, overall dimensions 36.4' by 36'3 set back from the existing wooden bulkhead 43± feet; (b) one story 20' by 32' Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3573 BEST, decision, continued:) accessory cottage structure, set back 132± feet from the bulk- head; (c) 8.3' by 12.3' accessory framed shed set back 2.8 feet at its closest point from the easterly side property line; (d) 12.2' by 20.2' framed accessory stable structure set back 21.7 feet at its closest point from the easterly side property line. 3. Article III, Section 100-32 restricts accessory structures to the rear yard area. The board finds placing this proposed accessory garage structure in the rear yard area would not be feasible due to the provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2 which prohibits new construction within 75 feet of a tidal water body. 4. By action taken October 22, 1986, under Appeal No. 3551, this Board granted a conditional area variance for a new accessory garage in the frontyard, with restriction as to the setbacks from the front and west side property lines at 275 feet and 25 feet, respectively. 5. Appellants indicate that by locating the garage in accordance with the limitations of the prior Appeal, several large trees would have to be destroyed. It was also brought to the Board's attention after their decision was rendered that the abutting property owner to the west had concerns about the setback restrictions. Submitted for consideration under this application is a letter of approval from the property owner to the west for placement of the accessory garage 12 feet off the common property line, garage doors facing north, and set back 6 to 8 feet north of the original location. 6. It is the opinion of the board that the change as requested is minimal, and there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance. 7. The proposed accessory garage structure shall be used only for garage and storage purposes accessory and incidental to the residential use of the premises and not for slee~ing or living quarters, nor operated for gain. In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines: (a) that the project as proposed is not out of character with the neighborhood; (b) the relief requested is not substantial; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique~ (d) the variance will not in turn be adverse to Southold Town Board of Appeals -56 December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3573 - BEST, decision, continued:) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (e) there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (f) there will be no substantial detriment to adjoining properties; (g) in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose and in view of the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to approve the location of a 22' by 30 accessory garage structure in the frontyard area as applied in the Matter of Appeal No. 3573, by MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. There be a minimum setback from the westerly side property line at 12 feet; 2. There be a minimum setback from the northerly property line as requested (approximately 350 feet); 3. The garage door(s) shall face north, as applied; 4. This structure be used only for garage purposes accessory and incidental to the residential use of the premises and not to be operated for gain, or living or sleeping quarters. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3571: Application of MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct addition at the southerly side of existing building with insufficient setback from the bulkhead along tidal water area and insufficient setback from the rear property line at premises located on the south side of a private right-of-way extending off the east side of Camp Mineola Road, Mattituc~, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No~ 1000-123-06-17. -~ll~wing deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on Novem- ber 20,. 1986 in the Matter of the Application of MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST under Appeal No. 3571; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS,the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellants request a Variance from the Provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct a 14' ~by 33' addition at the rear of the existing two-story frame dwelling leaving an insufficient setback from the exi.sting bulkhe.~d to the south at not less than 29 feet. The existing setback is shown to be at 43 feet. The addition is proposed for a heated porch and additional kitchen area. 2. The premises in question is a described parcel containing a total area of t.3± acres, with 89 ft. frontage along the private right-of-way and an average depth of 597 feet to the rear propenty line along Peconic Bay. The subject premises is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000~ Section 123, Block 6, Lot 17 and is improved with the following structures: (a) two-story frame dwelling, overall dimensions 36.4' by 36', set back from the Southol.~.-_.Tbwn Board of Appeals -T~ D.eLce~aber Il, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3571 BEST decision (addition), continued:) existing wooden bulkhead 43± feet; (b) one story 20' by 32' accessory cottage structure, set back 132± feet from the bulk- head; (c) 8.3' by 12.3' accessory framed shed set back 2.8 feet at its closest point from the easterly side property line; (d) 12.2' by 20.2' framed accessory stable structure set back 21.7 feet at its closest point from the easterly side property line. 3. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, subparagraph (B) requires all buildings and structures located on lots adjacent to tidal' water bodies other than the Long Island Sound to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary highwater mark of such tidal water body, or not less than s~ven'ty-five (75) feet from...the landward edge of the tidal wetland, whichever is the greater distance. 4. The Courts have' held that the area setback variances must meet the "practical difficulties" standard, considering as follows: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirement; (b) that the project as proposed is not out of character with the neighborhood; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique and are not personal in nature; (d) that the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (e) that the variance requested is the minimal necessary; (f) there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance. 5. It is the opinion of the board that the relief requested is not the minimal necessary under the circumstances; however, the circumstances of the property and existing dwelling's location are unique, leaving no other method feasible for appellants to pursue. 6. It is noted for the record that by action taken simultaneously herewith under Appeal No. 3573, an amendment of prior Appeal No. 3551, this Board granted a conditional area variance for a new accessory garage in the frontyard, with restriction as to the setbacks from the front and west side property lines, as noted therein. In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines: (a) that the project as proposed is not out of character with the neighborhood; (b) the relief requested Sobthold Town Board of Appeals -8- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3571 MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST decision (addition), cont'd:) is not substantial in relation to the existing dwelling setback, although the relief requested is substantial in relation to the requirements [being a variance of 60% from the 75-foot require- ment]; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique; (d) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town~ (e) there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (f) there will be no substantial detriment to adjoining properties; (g) in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose and in view of the above f~ctors, the inter- ests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motio~ by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to APPROVE an 12' by 33' wide addition at the south end of existing two-story dwelling, leaving an insuffi- cient setback at not less than 31 feet from existing bulkhead- Matter of~MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST under Appeal No. 3571. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawickio (Member Grigonis was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted.) PUBLIC HEARING, continued: 9:48 - 10:lO p.m. Appeal No. 3552 JOHN SENKO. The hearing reconvened. Following additional comments, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, to recess the hearing as requested by Attorney Stephen Angel until our next Regular Meeting of THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 1987, to possibly consider an alternative (as discussed during the hearing this evening). This resolution was unani- mously adopted. (See verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover.) S~utho~d Town Board of Appe21s -9- December Il, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3550: Application of JOSEPH AND LINDA SCHOENSTEIN for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Articles: (a) VI, Section 100-60 for permission to expand nonconforming use of welding business in this "B-Light Business" Zoning District; (b) X~, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to constr~ct new building and expand nonconforming welding business use within 75 feet of wetlands area, at premises located along the south side of Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-53-2-12, 13, 15.1 (15); Lots 172, 173, 174, Peconic Bay Estates Map No. 658, and Map No. 1124 as AmendeO. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: W~EREAS, public hearings were held on September ll, 1986 and October 22, 1986 in the Matter of the Application of JOSEPH AND LINDA SCHOENSTEIN and NORT~ FORK WELDING; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application~ and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas'; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the south side of the Main Road (State Route 25) ar Arshamomaque, in the Hamlet of Greenport, Town of Southold, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 55, Block 2, Lots 12, 13 and 15 (t5.1). County Tax Map Lot 12 consists of Lots 17¢, 173 and 172 of Peconic Bay Estates and Amended Map of Peconic Bay Estates, for which current ownership is in the name of Joseph Schoenstein, and contains an area of approximately one-half acre. County Tax Map Lots 13 and 15 (or 15.1) are in the names of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein, and contain an area of approxi- mately .60 of an acre. Combined, these parcels contain an area of 49~800 sq. ft., more or less, with a frontage along the Main Road of 198.59 feet and frontage along Lawrence Lane (a paper street) of 124± feet~ as more particularly shown on survey mapped March 29, 1985 by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. 2. By this application, appellants request Variances from Southold Town Board of Appeals -Il- December Il, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3550 SCHOENSTEIN/NORTH FORK WELDING, continued:) 1979, under Appeal No. 2541, a use variance was conditionally granted for the establishment of storage for a portable small- scale welding business at premises identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps during 1979 as District 1000, Section 53, Block 2, Lots 13 and 15, containing a maximum lot area of 26,458 sq. ft. The April 242 1979 survey shows that the premises was improved with a barn structure and accessory garage building [see Mitchell ?ekunka survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C.]. The premises during 1979 was zoned "B-Light Business." Conditions imposed by the Board on May 3, 1979 are: (1) There shall be no outside storage of equipment or work that is to be completed by the applicant; (2) If the proposed number of employees on the premises becomes larger than two, the appli- cant shall return to the Board of Appeals for a review of this action; (3) Suffolk County Planning Commission approval. 6. Also by prior action rendered by this Board on June 25, 1986 under Appeal No. 3501, a variance for the same relief hereunder was denied without prejudice for the reasons stated therein. 7. Article XI, Section lO0-119.2(B) of the Zoning Code requires all buildings and structures located on lots adjacent to tidal water bodies other than the Long Island Sound to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary highwater mark of such tidal water body, or not less than seventy-five feet from the landward edge of the tidal wetland, whichever is greater. 9. It is noted that the percentage of relief requested for this requirement is 66%, or 50 feet~ which is substantial in relation to the zoning requirements. It is also noted for the record, however, that the Southold Town Trustees have (a) determined the "ditch" area to contain wetland grasses as defined by Chapter 97 of the Code of the Town of Southold, and (b) conditionally approved a wetland permit March 27, 1986. This board also determines the nearest wetland grass area in this project to be within the "ditch" that extends from the waterways near Pipes Cove, although the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation has determined a further wetland boundary line as regulated by the State regulations. The nearest wetland area as determined by the Town is considered in making this determination. Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3550 = SCHOENSTEIN/NORTH FORK WELDING, decision:) the Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as follows: (a) Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to locate new building within the required 75-ft. setback from wetlands area, and (b) Article Vt, Section IOD-6D to expand the permitted welding business in a proposed new building as depicted by Site Plan prepared by Peconic Associates, Inc., Revised April 24, 1986. 3. The premises in question is in the "B-Light Business" Zoning District, which extends throughout the whole block from the west side of Pipes Neck Road (along the south side of the Main Road) to the east side of Kerwin Boulevard. Opposite the subject premises to the north side of the Main Road are properties also zoned "B-Light Business." Premises catty- cornered to the northwest (Wickham/Melrose) received a conditional variance to permit a business office for a marine contractor, with accessory use for storage and repair of that contractor's own vehicles and own equipment (see Appeal No. 3222 rendered June 28, 1984 - John Wickham). It 4. As depicted on site plan revised April 24, 1986 prepared by Peconic Associates, Inc., appellants propose the following: (a) to continue the use of the existing 2,286 sq. ft. building which is presently set back 25 feet at its closest point to the front [north] property line, of which 625 sq. ft. is for the North Fork Welding office and 1,661± sq. ft. weld- ing shop use; (b) to continue the use of an existing 15' by 21~ building (presently as an antique-sales shop) which is shown to be set back 23 feet at its closest point to the front [north] property line; (c) proposed new one-story 50' by 90' metal building [4,500 Sqo ft. floor area] for welding work shop use, of which 3,000 sq. ft. is to be for storage area, eliminating all outside storage and parking of equip- ment vehicles and paraphernalia being serviced or repaired. Apppellants propose to locate the new metal building along the westerly yard area 50 feet from the north (front) property line, 15 feet from the existing building~ and not less than 35 feet from the west (side) property line. The building is shown to overlap the deeded lot line (between Lots 13 and 15, and Lot 12) approximately 15 feet deep, and is proposed to be set back not closer than 25 feet from the wetland grass area, or "ditch," at the nearest point. 5. By prior action taken by the Board of Appeals May 3, Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3550 - SCHOENSTEIN/NORTH FORK WELDING, decision:) 10. It is the opinion of this board that the placement of a 50' by 70' building, accessory to the existing welding business, as an alternative and conditionally noted below, will not change the essential character of the business use granted under the prior variance, and that such an increase of building area does not affect its rights to continue the present use, at the present 26,458± sq. ft. site. No expan- sion or extension of the welding uses are covered by this variance, or the previous variance, into the abutting southerly parcel (Lot 12). II. It should be further understood that the grant of this variance is limited to permit the construction of a 50' by 70' accessory building and requiring the removal of all outside storage of equipment, vehicles~ vehicles parts, and other paraphernalia, for proper placement within the building. No dismantled vehicles or related items shall be permitted in the outside yard areas. It should also be understood that the grant of this variance does not prevent or prohibit steps for enforcement of violations as may be deemed necessary. In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines that by permitting the construction of an 50' by 70' building as conditionally noted below: (a) the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of this and surrounding properties; (b) the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself; (c) that the use thereof will not alter the essential character of the locality; (d) that the use thereof is consistent with the prior use variance since there will be no change; (e) the owner would nos be deprived of his rights to construct and continue the permitted use; (f) the use thereof will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of this district or adjacent use districts; (g) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the town will not be adversely affected; (h) there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (i) the hardship is unique; (j) and in view of the manner in which the hardship arose, the interests of justice will best be served. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -13-December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3550 - SCHOENSTEIN/NORTH FORK WELDING, decision:) RESOLVED, to APPROVE the construction of an 50' by 70' building in the Matter of NORTH FORK WELDING under Appeal No. 3550, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: l. The "welding" use must be conducted within the building at all times~ 2. No outside storage; 3. No retail sales of flammable materials (such as gasoline, oil, etc.); 4. Entrance and exit driveways shall have an unres- tricted width of not less than 12 feet and not more than 30 feet, and shall be located not less than 10 feet from any property line, laid out as to avoid the necessity of any vehicle backing out across any public right-of-way~ 5. Vehicle lifts, pits, dismantled or inoperative vehicles~ and all parts and supplies, and similar items shall be located within a building; 6. All service or repair, except minor servicing (such as changing of tires) shall be conducted in a building; 7. The storage of any gasoline or flammable oils in bulk for the owner's use only must be located fully under- ground and not less than 35 feet from any property line other than a street line; 8. Additional or other new buildings (except fences and screening) require an application for consideration to both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board; 9. The proposed building: (a) shall be used primarily for storage purposes; (b) shall not exceed 50' by 70' in size~ (c) shall not be set back less than 40 feet from the front property line, not less than 25 feet from the west (side) property line, not closer than 25 feet to the existing welding business structure, and not closer than 35 feet to the wetlands (ditch) area at its closest points; (d) shall not exceed 18 feet in height at eaves and Southold Town Board of Appeals-14- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3550 - SCHOENSTEIN/NORTH FORK WELDING, decision:) lO. 11. 25 feet at peak [as applied]; (e) shall not be located closer than three feet from the rear property line which abuts the northerly line along Lot 12. All water must be retained on site (for example, dry wells); This variance does not include "welding uses" which could be expanded or extended onto the adjoining parcel (Lot 12), but does recognize the "welding use" upon this 26,458± parcel (described on Page 2, para- graph 5 hereof), at this time. If the rear (southerly) lot should become merged as one lot (combined with the front (northerly parcels), applicant may apply for reconsideration. 12. 13. No additional commercial uses, except those uses accessory an.d incidental to the welding business; This variance will automatically expire in 18 months from the date of filing this variance with the Town Clerk in the event the building has not been constructed. 14. Minimum screening as follows: 15. (a) Five-foot wide screening with trees, bushes (or similar type) five feet off the front property line at a minimum height of three feet extending a length from the northeast corner of the existing welding building to the northwest corner of the property (except clearances for egress/ingress); (b) Four-foot stockade fencing may be substituted for the screening in 14(a) above; (c) Other screening as recommended by the Planning Board in its site-plan review. Final approval of the Site Parking and Screening Plan by the Planning Board in accordance with Article XIII and Article VI, Section 100-60 for this proposal; 16. Referral of this action to the Suffolk County Planning Southold Town Board of Appeals -15-December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3550 - SCHOENSTE~N/NORTH FORK WELDING, decision:) Commission in accordance with Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent due to illness.) This resolution was unanimously adopted. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3562: Application of ANA G. STILLO for Variances: (1) to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, for approval of insufficient lot area, width and depth of three parcels in this pending Minor Subdivision, and (2) to New York Town Law, Section 280-a for approval of access over private right-of-way extending from the north side of Main Road to the premises in question. Location of Property: ROW of~_the north side-~ Main Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 14, Block 2, Lot 26, containing 3.2 acres total. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on November 20, 1986 in the Matter of the Application of ANA G. STILLO under Appeal No. 3562; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is a described parcel of land containing a total area of 3.2 acres which extends at So'uthol'd Town Board of Appeals-16-December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3562 ANA G. STILLO, decision, continued:) the north end of a 20' right-of-way 300.43 feet from the north side of the Main Roads Orient, Town of Southold, and is more particularly designated on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District lO00, Section 014, Block 2, Lot 26. 2' The entire premises is vacant. 3. This is an application requesting: (a) approval of the proposed insufficient area of proposed Parcel #1 of 1~2 acres, or 52,2'72 sq. ft.; Parcel #2 of 43,560 sq. ft. (1.0 acre); and Parcel #3 of 43.560 sq~ ft. (l.O acre)~ and each having an insufficient average depth [east-west] of 157± feet, and (b) approval of access over a 20-ft. wide right-of-way extending 300~43 from the north side of the Main Road to the beginning of the 3~2-acre parcel. 4. Town records show that the subject 3.2-acre parcel was conveyed to the applicant on. July 20, 1983, Liber 9393 cp 136~ 5. Variances of 27,600 sq. ft., or 34.5% of the minimum lot area requirement of 80,000 sq. ft. (adopted May 20, 1983) for proposed Lot #1, and 35,200 sq. ft. or 44% for each of the remaining two proposed parcels, are requested. The percentages requested are substantial in relation to the zoning requirements. 6. It is noted for the record that: (a) by letter dated April 24, 1986, the N.Y~S. Department of Environmental Conservation waived j_urisdiction; (b) the Suffolk Coun'ty Department of Healt.h Services approved this three-lot division October 21, 1986; (c) an application is pending before the Southold Town Planning Board for a minor subdivision which has not as of this date been finalized. 7. It is further noted for the record that premises to the west (Malls) consists of 10+ acres. Premises to the east are two minor subdivision~ .... finalized prior to the enactment of the 80,O00-minimum lot area requirement~ to wit, the most northeasterly five-lot minor subdivision (approved November 29, 1972, Frank Stillo), and the southeasterly three-lot minor subdivision (approved June 12~ 1979, P. Sledjeski). Properties further east thereof ~ary from four to nine acres, or more. Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3562 - STILLO, decision, continued:) 8. With reference to the request for approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a, it is the opinion of this board that improvements over the 20-ft. wide right-of-way are necessary and are further stipulated, infra. It should be understood that the conditional approval of access is to the premises as a whole (3.2 acres). In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines that the area variances requested must be denied since: (a) the percentage of relief requested is substantial, being a va.riance ~f 34.5%..and.more of the requirements; (b) the circumstances are not unique; (c) there would be a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood, setting a precede.nt for similiar situations in the area; (d) the relief requested is not the minimal necessary; (e) there is a method feasible for appellant to pursue other than the variances requested; (f) this project is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance; (g) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in considering all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by denying the variances as applied. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to DENY the area variances requested for the three proposed p~rcels; and be it further RESOLVED, to'GRANT Approval of Access pursuant to New York Town Law,. Section 280~a over the 20-foot wide rig~t-of-way extending from the north side of the Main Road a distance of 300~4'9 feet to the northwesterly section.of.the su.bject~3.2-acre premises, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: l". That the applicant's legal right to use this 20-ft. wide right-of-~ay be in full force and effect; 2. That this app"oval of a~'ce~ is grante'~ for one dwelling (one lot) and sh.all not be n~cognized as Southold Town Board of Appeals -t8- December II, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3562 - STILLO, decision, continued:) approval of access for any other dwellings; 3. That the right-of-way be cleared and improved a full 10-feet ~in width as follows: Excavate 12" deep (or to sand) and replace with bank run containing a 20% stone content, and add two inches (2") of stone blend or crushed concrete as top layer. 4. Final acceptance of improvements to be made as authorized by the Board of Appeals, and if inspected and approved by the Building Inspector, a copy of his written report and acceptance to be submitted to the Board of Appeals. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. (Member Grigonis was absent due to illness.) PENDING DECISION: Appeal No~ 3565: Application of FRANK FIELD REALTY INC. for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to establish two-family dwelling use on a ~arcel of land containing less than 160,000 sq. ft. in area, 270 ft. lot width, 400 ft. lot depth, and with insufficient frontyard, sideyard and rearyard set- backs. Location of Property: 320 Linnett Street, Greenport, NY; Map of Greenport Driving Park #369, Lots #71 and #72; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 48, Block 2, Lot 36.t. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on Novem- ber 20, 1986 in the Matter of the Application of FRANK FIELD REALTY INC. under Appeal No. 3565; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are Southold Town Board of Appeals-19-December ll, ~986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3565 - FRANK FIELD REALTY, decision, continued:) familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located in the "A" Resi- dential and Agricultural Zoning District, containing a total lot area of .258 acreage, or 11,261 sq. ft. and lot width of 100 feet along the north side of Linnett Street, Hamlet of Greenport, Town of Southold. 2. The subject premises is referred to as Lots #71 and #72 as shown on the 1909 Subdivision Map of "Greenport Driving Park," and more particularly identified on the' Suffolk County Tax.Maps as District 1000, Section 48, Block 2, Lot 36~1. The premises is improved with a one-stOry stucc dwelling_.$tructure set back 19½ feet from the front proper'ty line and four feet from the west side property, line. 3. By this application, app.ellant requests permission to establish and construct a two=f~mi].y residence to be located 35 feet from the front property line, 22 feet from ~'he east side property line, 42 feet from the rear property line and 14 feet from the west property line, as depicted on survey amended April 3, 1986, prepaned by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. 4. The applicant propos~ to remove the ~xisting structure which is in poor condition. Certificate of Occu Nonconforming Premises No~ Z15038 issued October 24, 1986 indicates the premises (combined Lots 71 and 72) for one-family use. 5~ Article III, Section lO0~30(B)[l] of the Zoning Code permits two-family dwelling~ as a special 9xception, subject to site-plan ~pprova.1 by the Planning Board, and in accordance with the bulk req.~irements, Column A-160 of the Zoning Code. 6. Column A-160 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum lot area of 160,000 sq. ft., ~70 ft. lot width, 400 ft. lot depth, and fron'tyard setback at 60 feet, sideyards at 30 and 50 feet,, and rearyard a~ 75 feet. 7. A variance ~s requested for more than 90% as to insufficient lot area, which is substantial in relation to the requirements. 8. The "Greenport Driving Park~' Map was filed in 1909 with the. Suffolk County Clerk, and'there is no record of town approval for this subdivision. Lots #71 and #72 So~th~old Sown Board of Appeals -20- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3565 - FRANK FIELD REALTY, decision, continued:) have not been held in single and separate ownership and therefore may not be recognized by this Board as two separate building lots. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) the percentage of relief requested is substantial, being a variance of 90% of the lot area requirements; (b) the circumstances are not unique; (c) the practical difficulties and hardship are self-imposed; (d) a grant- ing of the variances would affect the character of the neighborhood, setting a precedent for other properties in the area; (e) th~s project is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance; (f) the parcel in question has been and is zoned for single-family use as permitted by Section lO0-30(A) of the Zonipg Code~.. and a granting of the variance would not be consistent with the spirit of the zoning ordinance; (g) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (h) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by denying the variances applied. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to DENY the Variances requested under Appeal No. 3565 in the Matter of the Application of FRANK A. FIELD REALTY INC. for insufficient lot area, width,-depth, front yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks, for this two-family dwelling proposal. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki~ (Member Grigonis was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appl. No. 3566SE: Application of FRANK FIELD REALTY INC. for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(B) for permission to establish two-family use at premises referred to as 320 Linnett Streets Greenport, NY; Map of Greenport Driving Park #369, Lots #71 and #72; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 48, Block 2, Lot 36.1. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on Novem- ber 20, 1986 in the Matter of the Application of FRANK FIELD REALTY INC. under Application No. 3566; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located in the "A" Resi- dential and Agricultural Zoning District, containing a total lot area of .258 acreage, or 11,261 sq. ft. and lot width of 100 feet along the north side of Linnett Street, Hamlet of Greenport, Town of Southotd. 2. The subject premises is referred to as Lots #71 and #72 as shown on the 1909 Subdivision Map of "Greenport Driving Park, and more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 48, Block 2, Lot 36.1. The premises is improved with a one-story stucco dwelling structure set back 19½ feet from the front property line and four feet from the west side property line. 3. By this application, applicant requests a Special Exception to permit establishment of a two-family residence to be located 35 feet from the front property line, 22 feet from the east side property line, 42 feet from the rear property line and Southold Town Board of Appeals-22- December ]l~ ]986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3566SE - FRANK FIELD REALTY, decision, continued:) 14 feet from the west property line, as depicted on survey amended April 3, 1986, prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. 4. The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure which is in poor condition. Certificate of Occu-pancy Nonconforming Premises No. Z15038 issued October 24, 1986 indicates the premises (combined Lots 71 and 72) for one-family use. 5. Article III, Section lO0-30(B)[1] of the Zoning Code permits two-family dwellings as a special exception, subject to site-plan approval by the Planning Board, and in accordance with the bulk requirements, Column A-160 of the Zoning Code. 6. Column A-160 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum lot area of 160,000 sq. ft., 270 ft. lot width, 400 ft. lot depth, and frontyard setback at 60 feet, sideyards at 30 and 50 feet, and rearyard at 75 feet. 7. For the record, it is noted that simultaneously herewith the application for variances from the provisions of the zoning code Bulk Schedule, was denied under Appeal No. 3565 for the reasons stated therein. 8. It is further noted for the record that the "Greenport Driving Park" Map was filed in 1909 with the Suffolk County Clerk, and there is no record of town approval for this subdivision. Lots #71 and #72 have not been held in single and separate ownership and therefore may not be recognized by this Board as two separate building lots (as indicated in the application). 9. Considering all of the above, the board finds that it cannot approve this Special Exception request which is not in conformance with the requirements of the zoning code, and that it is without authority to grant legislative relief accordingly. In considering this application, the board also finds and determines that (1) the proposed use will prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (2) the proposed use will effect the safety, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the town; (3) the Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3566SE- FRANK FIELD REALTY, decision, continued:) proposed use is not in harmony with and will not promote the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance; (4) that the land in question can yield a reasonable return if used only single-family use allowed in this zone district; (5) that the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself; (6) the proposed use will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The board has also considered subsections [al through [1] of Article XII, Section 100-121(C)[2] of the Zoning Code. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to DENY the Special Exception request under Application No. 3566 in the Matter of FRANK A. FIELD REALTY INC. for this two-family dwelling proposal. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. REQUEST FOR REHEARING: Appeal No. 3520 THOMAS SHALVEY. The board discussed the request received November 26, 1986 from Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr., as Agent for Mr. Shalvey for reconsideration of this Board's decision rendered October 2, 1986 which denied the area variances for this two-lot division of property. Each of the items were considered in Mr. Raynor's letter and the board members agreed that the information submitted was not sufficient to warrant a rehearing. It was noted that none of the facts had changed, and the Board is not authorized to grant a variance for personal hardship. On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to deny the rehearing request received November 26, 1986 in the Matter of Appeal No. 3520 (rendered October 2, 1986) concerning premises identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 116, Block 2, Lots 15 and 16. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Sawicki, Douglass and Doyen. (Chairman Goehringer abstained from vote. Member Grigonis was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of .Appeals -24- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appl. No. 3568: ~pplic-ation of STAMA~IOS AND ALENI RAPANAKIS for a Special Exception to th~ Zpning OrdinanCe, to establish one accessory apartment in the existing dwelling structure in accordance with the requirements of Article III, Section lO0-30(B), subsection [15]. Location of Property: 2030 Boisseau Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 55, Block 6, Lot 40. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concl'~ded N~vember 20, 1986 in the Matter of the Application of STAMATIOS AND ALENI RAPANAKIS under Application No. 3568; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, applicants request a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(B), subsection [15] for permission to create an accessory apartment in an existing principal dwelling structure in accordance with the requirements therein. 2. No additions to the existing structure are proposed or considered under this application for an accessory apartment. 3. The premises in question is located in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District, containing a lot area of 35,688.71± sq. ft. with frontage along Boisseau Avenue of 183.05 feet, and is improved with the following structures: (a) two-and-one-half story frame house set back 35 feet from the front property line and 44 feet from the most northerly line [exclusive of right-of-way]; (b) accessory garage structure in the rearyard area, (c) accessory barn structure at the most northeast corner of the property, all as shown by survey dated June 25, 1985, prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. The subject premises is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District Soft'old ~own Board of Appeals -25- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3568 - RAPANAKIS decision, continued:) 1000, Section 055, Block 6, Lot 40. 4. The present dwelling contains an area of 1778 sq. ft. on the first floor and 1192 sq. ft. on the second floor, all as depicted by the Assessors Property Tax Card, which includes the established apartment of a minimum of 450 sq. ft. and which shall not exceed 1188 sq. ft, as required by paragraphs #4 and #5 of Section 100-30(B)[15] of the Zoning Code. 5. It is noted for the record this premises is the subject of a prior action taken by this Board January 21, 1986 under Appeal No. 3405~ In considering this application, the board finds and deter- mines that: (a) the use requested will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (b) the use will not adversely affect the safety, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (c) the use is in harmony with and will prompte the general purposes and intent of zoning. The board has also considered subsections [a] through [1] of Article XII, Section 100-121(C)[2] of the Zoning Code. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that a Special Exception for permission to create accessory apartment as provided in Article III, Section 100-30(B)[15] of the Zoning Code, applied in the Matter of STAMATIOS AND ALENI RAPANAKIS under Application No. 3568, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Any and all accessory buildings shall not be converted for habitable, sleep or living area, and accordingly must remain for garage or storage purposes incidental to the residential use of the premises; 2. Compliance of Subsections (a) through (p) of Article III, Section 100-30(B)[15] of the Zoning Code, to wit: (a) The accessory apartment shall be located in the principal building; (b) The owner of the existing dwelling shall occupy one of the dwelling units as the owner's principal residence. The other dwelling unit shall be leased for year-round occupancy, evidenced by a written lease for a term of one or more years; (c) The existing one-family dwelling shall contain not less than sixteen-hundred [1600] sq. ft. of liveable floor area~ (d) The accessory apartment shall contain not less than Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3568-SE - RAPANAKIS decision, continued:) four-hundred fifty (450) sq. ft. of liveable floor area; (e) The accessory apartment shall not exceed forty [40%] percent of liveable floor area of the existing dwelling unit; (f) A minimum of three off-street parking spaces shall be provided; (g) Not more than one (1) accessory apartment shall be permitted on this lot; (h) Th~ accessory apartment shall meet the requirements of a dwelling unit as defi'n~d in Section 100-13 of the Zoning Code; (i) The exterior entry to the accessory apartment shall to the maximum extent possible retain the existing exterior appear- ance of a one-family dwelling; (j) All exterior alterations to the existing building~ except for access to the apartment, shall be made on the existing foundation; (k) Certificate of Occupancy shall terminate upon the transfer of title by the owner, or upon the owner ceasing to occupy one of the dwelling units as the owner's principal residence. In the event of an owner's demise, the occupant of an accessory apartment may continue in occupancy until a new owner shall occupy the balance of the dwelling or one (1) year from the date of said demise, whichever shall first occur; (1) All conversions subject to inspection and approval of the Building Inspector and renewal of Certificate of Occupancy annually; (m) The building which is converted to permit an accessory apartment shall be in existence and have a valid Certi- ficate of Occupancy issued prior to January 1, 1984; (n) The existing building, together with the accessory apartment, shall comply with all other requirements of Chapter 100 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold; (o) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section lO0-30(B) hereof, no site plan approval by the Planning Board shall be required for the establishment of an accessory apartment; (p) Suffolk County Health Department water and sewage Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3568 - RAPANAKIS decision, continued:~ system approvals. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3569: Application of BOATMAN'S HARBOR MARINA for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct addition to existing dwelling with an insufficient setback from existing bulkhead. Location of Property: 3350 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 110, Block Ol, Lot 12. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on November 20, 1986 in the Matter of the Application of BOATMAN'S MARBOR MARINA under Appeal No. 3569; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and (continued on page 28) Soft'old ~own Board of Appeals -28- December ll, 1.986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3569 - Boatmen's Harbor Marinas decision, continued:) documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from the Provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct a 32' by 40' two-story addition attached to the existing dwelling at the west side, as more particularly shown on sketched survey prepared for Charles C~ Galardi by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated April 8, 1976. The variance required for this project is an insufficient setback at 32 feet from the outer edge of the existing bulkhead to the new proposed addition. 2. The premises in question is a described parcel consisting of approximately four acres total area with 587± feet along West Creek Avenue and fronting along Wickham Creek. The premises is located in the "B-I" General Business Zoning District, and is improved and used as more particularly shown on survey dated April 8, 1976 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. and on the Town of Southold Property Assessment Card; County Tax Map District 1000, Section llO, Block 1, Lot 12. 3. The setback of the existing 1½-story dwelling structure is shown to be 26± feet at its nearest corner to the outer edge of existing bulkhead. The setback requested for the proposed garage structure is at 32 feet. 4. Article XI, Section lO0-119.2(B) requires all buildings proposed on lots adjacent to tidal water bodies other than the Long Island Sound at not less than 75 feet from the ordinary highwater mark. 5. The Courts have held that the area setback variance must meet the "practical difficulties" standard, considering as follows: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirement; (b) that the project as proposed is not out of character with the neighborhood; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique and are not personal in nature; (d) that the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (e) that the variance requested is the minimal necessary; (f) there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other Soft,old Town Board of Appeals-29-December II, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3569 - BOATMEN'S HARBOR MARINA decision, continued:) than a variance. 6. It is the opinion of the board that the relief requested is the minimal necessary under the circumstances, leaving no other method feasible for appellants to pursue. 7. It is noted for the record that a conditional waiver was granted by the Town Board of Trustees dated November 5, 1986 for this proposal. In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines: (a) that the project as proposed is not out of character with the area; (b) the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the existing established setback, although the relief requested is substantial in relation to the requirement; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique; (d) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (e) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (f) there will be no substantial detriment to adjoining properties; (g) in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose and in view of the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly~ on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to APPROVE an 32' by 40' addition attached to existing 1½-story frame dwelling structure with a setback of not less than 32 feet from the existing bulkhead as applied under Appeal No. 3569 for BOATMAN'S HARBOR MARINA, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the addition be used for garage and storage use at the first-floor level, as applied; 2. That all parking must be on the property~ 3. Any and all future construction will require parking and site plan approvals by the Planning Board for this commercial zoning district. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals December Ils 1986 Regular Meeting NEW REVIEW: Appeal No. 3589: ApplY'cation for Variances filed b~"ii~[~y_MQ_oD.eyzGetOff in a p.rQposed division of land at_Waterview D~ivg,'Southold. The board reviewed the file and the following resolution was adopted: was On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it RESOLVED, to temporarily hold in abeyance Appeal No. 3589 of MARY MOONEY-GETOFF pending the following: (a) receipt o~ acti~'n from'{h'e Suffolk County Health Department concerning Article 6; (b) clarification in writing by the applicant as to the number and size of lots proposed in this project; (c) input or comments from the SoJthold Town Planning Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS (SEQRA): After review of each of the following matters, the board took the following action: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declara- tions on each of the following new files in accordance with the N.Y.S. Environmental Qu.a]ity Review Act (SEQRA), Section 617, 6 NYCRR and Chapte~ 44 ~f the Code of the Town of Southold: (a) Eugene Davison - Appeal No. 3216; (b) Frank and Delores Davies - Appeal No. 3577; (c) Arthur Essli.pger - Appeal No. 3578; (d) Nicholas Babalis - Appeal No. 3580; (e) Charles and Sandra Blake - Appeal No. 3579; (f) Robert Egan Appeal No. 3557; (continued on pages 31 through 36) Southold Town Board of Appeals -3]- December 11, 1986 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3216 PROJECT NAME: EUGENE D~V1SON ~i _ / 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: [17~] Type II ~ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Establish-apartment over horse stable (second dwelling unit upon 9.8 acre parcel). LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~ Suffolk, more particularly known as: S/s Sound Avenue, Ma-ttituck-, NY 121~03-.05 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is not directly ~elated to new building construction. )3) This is an application concerning use of the premises and is not directly related to new construction. SoutholdTown Board of Appeals -22- December 11, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations~ continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAP~ATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3577 PROJECT NAME: FRANK AND DELORES 'D~VIES This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination ~ade 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:Replace accessory shed in the north side- yard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more particularly known as: 2285 Pine-Tree Roa~d~ Cutchogue, NY .104~03-02 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has'been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned;~ (2) Construction proposed is landward of existing structures. Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- December 11, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3578 PROJECT NAME: ARTHUR ESSLINGER 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: Locate accessory storage ~ed within 75' of existing bulkhead/wetlands area LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, more particularly known as: 1515 Arshamomaque_Ave., Southold, NY 66-03-11 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) Separating the project in question from the waterfront or environmental area is a bulkhead or concrete barrier in good condition. (3) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. Southo!d Town Board of Appeals -34- December 11, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificance APPEAL NO.: 3580 PROJECT NAME: NICHOLAS BABALIS This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.So Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the--~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or simil~ project TYPE 'OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance-.to construct new dwelling with insufficient north sideyard and total sideyards. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kngwn as: 3360 Rocky. Point RQa~, East_Marfon, NY 21-04-09 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided- in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. Sopt~o!d Town Board of Appeals -35- December 1].~ 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q~R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificance APPEAL NO.: 3579 PROJECT NAME: CH~RL'E~S~ND 'S~ND'R~ B'LAKE This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the--~asons indicated 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: [7[] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for approval of access over Old Woods Path LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County ~ Suffolk, more particularly known as: Private Road ~10,.. ~outhol~, 87-01-23.7 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned;. (2) The relief requested zs not directly related to new building construction. S~ut~old Town Board of Appeals -36- December 11~ 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3557 PROJECT NAME: ROBERT ~EGkN 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 th~ Town of Southotd. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the--~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project TYPE 'OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance'to Amend Conditional Approval Ren- dered 11/3/86 to allow reconstruction of dwelling with insufficient set- backs upon foundatio~ as exist~ 5 and 12' rather than 7 and 12' LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southoldf County of, Suffolk, more particularly known as: 330 Knoll. Circle,..East Mar~on, NY 37-05-12 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned;. (2) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- December 11, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. NEW REVIEW: Application No. 3586 MR. AND MRS. ROBERT DIER For a Special Excepti.q_~_to establish and ~perate Bed and Breakfast Facility. In reviewing the file, it was noted that there has been an e.~is~ing apartment in the ~.ccessory garage structure which is not reflected in the June 6, 1977 Certificate of Occupancy #Z7701 submitted with the application. The Board directed that a letter be sent to the applicants as to proof of the date of establishment of the apartment, or town approvals, if any, before scheduling this matter for a publi'c hearing. NEW REVIEW: Appeal No. 3593 - THE QUIET MAN INN for a Variance to construct addition for restaurant/seating with an insufficient frontyard setback from Hobart Road, Southold. The~.Board directed that this matter be held in abeyance, in accordance with its usual policy, requesting review by the Planning Board for the proposed addition and increased seating, as well as reduction of parking area, etc. (Art. XIII, and Art..~II, Section lO0-70A). The Board~also~indicated that before this hearing is advertised, three copies of the approved parking layout is required for our record and referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission. NEW REVIEW: Appeal No. 3590 - MR. AND MRS. THOMAS J. ZIMMERMAN. Variance to e~pand nonconforming second dwelling strect~re in excess of 50% of existing. The Board reviewed the file and took the following action: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to hold temporarily in abeyance the Matter of Appeal No. 3590 for THOMAS J. AND CATHERINE ZIMMERMAN pending receipt of the following: Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Zimmerview, Review, continued:) Copy of an Amended Certificate of Occupancy (or corrected) of Nonconforming Premises (if available), clarifying legal use of the building in question shown on survey dated April 4, 1986 as "fr. cottage." Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted, PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR JANUARY 8, 1987: On motion by Mr. Douglass~ seconded ~y Mr. Goehring.~r, it was R~SOLVED, that the following matters be and hereby are scheduled for public hearings to be held on THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 1~987 at the Southold Town Hall, and be it further RESOLVED, that Board Secretary Linda Kowalski is hereby authorized and directed to advertise notice of same in the Suffolk Times and Long Island Traveler-Watchman at least five days prior to the date of hearing: 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3587 ROBERT AND EILEEN M. JOHNSON. Addition to existing dwelling with an insufficient setback from tidal water area. 430 Corey Creek Road, Southold. 7:40.p.m. Appeal No. 3594 - ANNE C. MASON. Deck addition to existing dwelling with an insufficient setback from tidal wetland area. 1250 Lupton Point, Matt~tuck. 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3585SE - ALVIN AND PATRICIA COMBS. Special EXception to establish "Bed and Breakfast" use. 2500 Peconic Lane, Peconic. 7':50 pom. Appeal No. 3588SE - MARY J. MOONEY-GETOFF. Special Exception to establish "Bed and Breakfast" use. 1475 Waterview Drive, Southold. 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3591 PAUL STOUTENBURGH, JR. Accessory windmill tower in excess of maximum-permitted 18 ft. height~requirement. 4015 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3583 - FREDERICK AND HELEN HRIBOK. Insufficient southerly sideyard, total sideya~-~-~, and setbac~-k-- from existing bulkhead along Arshamomaque Pond for garage addition. 90 Carole Road, Southold. 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3461 HELMUT HASS. (1) Insuffi- cient lot area and lot width, (2) establish existing residence as principal use in this B-1 Business Zone; (3) insufficient liveable-floor area in existing dwelling of northerly parcel. 35350 C.R'..48, Peconic. 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3552 JOHN SENKO. Shopping- center use in this "B-l" General Business Zone with 30,084 sq. ft. N/s Main Road and W/s Ackerly Pond Lane, Southold. Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting ~PUbl'~'c 'He~i'ngs f~o]~.. January'8th_, continued:) 8~30 p~m. Appl. No. 3572SE MICHAEL AND JOYCE MATTES. Special Exception for Bed aDd. Breakfast use in existing building. Breakwater Road, Mattituck. 8:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3584SE DONALD AND JOANNE RITTER. Special Exception to convert existing one-family dwelling to two-family dwelling use. 2585 Peconic Lane, Peconic. Vote of the B6ard: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawickio (Member Grigon~s was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. DELIBERATIONS PENDING: Appl. No. 3570 PAUL HENRY. Special Exception for Bed and Breakfast Facility. The Chairman indicated that the board will act on this matter at the next Regular Meeting. DELIBERATIONS PENDING: Appeal No. 3574 - DR. JOHN A. LORETO. Variance to place lO' by 14' she'd on parcel abutting his dwelling parcel. N/s Glen Court, Cutchogue. Prior building-permit and Certificate of Occupancy files for both parcels were reviewed and the following were noted: 1. 10' by 10' tool shed on dwelling parcel (Lot #2) - Building Permit #10807~Z and~Certi~ficate of Occupancy #Z-13329 dated April 5, 1985. Coqditional Variance for 10' by 10' gazebo-type structure to the west of existing dwelling and not closer than five feet to the west side line. 2. Gazebo-accessory structure Certificate of Occupancy #Z-13326 dated April 5, 1985 with a minimum setback of three feet from the east property line. 3. 14' by 14' gazebo-type structure shown on assessment records on dwelling parcel. 4. Gazebo structure as sketched on survey has no building permit of record. Assessment records show Lot #3 as vacant. The Board directed that a letter be sent to the applicant requesting a clarification of the structures, as exist, and whether the Certificate of Occupancy and Building Permits are for the structures on the dwelling parcel (which are not shown on the sketched survey submitted with this application). No record was found for a permit on the vacant parcel. A corrected survey of both parcels showing existing and proposed is required~ Southold Town. Board of Appeals ( ) -40- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting Other Matters Pending Public Hearings (**awaiting additional information) continued: Appeal No. 3259 - NICHOLAS ALIANO. Special Exception to establish and build four two-story motel buildings contain- ing lO motel units for transient use, and an office building of 2,500 sq. ft. in area on this 3.721-acre parcel, zoned "B-Light." S/s Main Road, Greenport (along the east side of 7-11). **Recessed hearing from 8/23/84 awaiting Village of Greenport contracts to which this plan is contingent upon before approval may be given. Appeal No. 3298 - PORT OF EGYP~J~ & L REALTY. Variance to construct fortyrunit.motel on insufficient buildable upland of 4,83 acres and having insufficient sideyards. S/s Main Road Iprev, Southold F~shing Station/Morris), Southold. **Await corrected site plans, topographical survey including lowest floor elevations above mea sea level, Suffolk County ~ealth Department approval, N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation approval, comments or input after review of the site plan by the Planning Board, 1019/84~ Appeal No. 2929 -'SAL CAIOLA. tionable as to representation. N/s ~,R. 48, 'Southold. Project proposed l's ques- Status/clarification awaited. Appeal No. 3183 - MARY N. CODE. Smith Drive, North, Southold. Proposed reseparati.on of lots. Await DEC and Planning Board applications to be completed and filed for input. Appeal No, 3274 - BEST, SCHMITT, SYVERSON. ROW off E/s Camp Mineola Road along Great Peconic Bay, Mattituck. **Await Co, Health, DEC and Planning Board.before public hearing. Appeal No. 3558 - NI'~K AND ANNA PALEOS. 3 lots-insufficient area, width, depth. S/s CR 48, Peconic (formerly Hass). Await Art. 6 subdivision approval before scheduling. (P.B. review 10/6/86). Henry Raynor, agent. Area, width, depth R. Bruer, Esq. Appeal No. 3561 - DOROTHY L. ROBERTSON. two lots. S/s Northview Drive, Orient. Await Art. 6. () Appeal No~ 3581 - GEORGE DAMIEN. Jackson Street, New Suffolk. Area~ width, dePth.variances. Await Art. 6 per Co. Health Department communications. SouthoJd %own B~a-~R_~.f__A.p_p_e~ls .rJl- December_Il, 1-9~-.Re~u-l-~r--M'ee-6-ti~---'-- Appeal No. 3429~- ARNOLD AND KAREN BLAIR. Variance for re-division into two. lots with insutficient area, and width at Cedar Lane and Beach Court, East Marion. Gardiners Bay Estates Lots 151 thru 172 incl. adjoining roads. **Await iPB, Health Dept. Art. VI approvals/input. [Possible Town Trustees jurisdiction-upland Contains wetland grasses]. [Building envelopes of buildable areas not shown~] ( ) Appeal No. 2445 - JULIUS ZEBROSKI~ Variance for approval of two lots having insufficient area. E/s Waterview Drive and N/s Bayview Road, Southold. **Await Article VI approval and copy of C.O for existing land and buildings [previous l°t-line changes and conveyances?]. PB comments received. (~) Appeal No. 3458 FRANK ZALESKI. Three-lot division with lots having insufficient arqg, width and depth. Await Co. Health Art. 6 and DEC. ( ) Appeal No. 3549 - JOAN KALIN AND BETSY GIBBS. ( ~ Appeal No. 2462 - HERBERT MANDEL. Variance for approval of three parcels having insufficient area. N/s Main Road, East Marion. **Await Co. Health Art. VI and copy of C.O. Appeal No. 3449 - FRANK AND ETHEL BEGORA.' Variance for approval of~threeparcels having insufficient area, depth and width. N/s Main Road, East Marion. **Await County H~alth Art. VI, corrected maps and P.B. reviews after submission of maps. ¢) Appeal No. 2403 - ANNA, LORIA. Variance for approval of two parcels having insufficient area, width and depth. W/s First St. and N/s King St, New Suffolk. **Await Co. Health A. rt~ VI app,. and approval/waiver. Appeal No. 3426 - GERAL'D DOROSKI. Variance for approval- of access (280-a). N/s C.R. 48, Peconic. **Await additional information to clarify ROW and P.B.. input. Appeal No. 2411. ANDREW FOHRKOLB. Variance to restore existing building for habitable use (additional dwelling unit). W/s Lipco R6ad, Mattituck. **Await scaled floor plans and C.O. or PreCO. ( ) Appeal No. 3514 -'GEORGE P.' SCHADE. Area, width and depth variances. ]Await C. Health Art. 6 waiver before ..................... a"vd~t~'§ing)~ () Appeal No. 3495 - JOHN AND GLORIA SHIRVELL. Area, width and depth variances. N/s Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. -(Await Co. Health Art. 6 waiver/approval before adv.) () Appeal No. 3496 FREDERICK KOEHLER, JRt' Cabana/beach house structure within 75 feet of water along Cutchogue Harbor. N/s Old Harbor Road, Cutchogue. (Await Co. Health approval before advertising). 'Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -42- December ll~ 1986 Regular Meeting Other Matters Pending Public Hearings (**awaiting additional information as noted), continued: (' .) Appeal No. 3371 - FLORENCE ROLLE. Variance for approval of two parcels having insufficient area, width and depth. E/s Ole Oule Lane and N/s Kraus Road, Mattituck. **Await Arttcle VI application/approval by Co. Health and poss. DEC. (') Appeal No. 3342 - PHILIP R. REINHARDT. Variance for approval of two parcels having insufficient area and width. **Recessed from 5/25/83 as requested by attorney for County Health Department Art. VI approval/clearanceCand DEC)~ ( ) Appeal No. 3 ........ ,~ ~v,~v,. var~anca~sh living quarters over stable. **A~ ~.' _ requested .t~ and Planning Board revie,s. ( ) Appeal No. 3191 - HERBERT MANDEL, Variance to change lot line and construct garage in front/side yard areas. E/s Ihlet Lane Extension, Greenport. Premises of R.E. Clempner and Herbert Mandel are contiguous. **Await DEC & PB. (. ) Appeal No. 3249 -'DONALD P. BRICKLEY. Variance f<Jr approval of lots having insufficient area.and width. S/s Bay Avenue and E/s Broadwater Drive, Cutchogue. **Await DEC, Art. VI by County Health, and contour maps. A eal No. ~ ................................. Condition NO~---- - -'- '~, rendered in Appeals No~sed ?rom 9/13/8~ as ~ leant. Requests for status have be~n .,ad~,.(w~hou~ i-c-~po~sc). ~rcm~scs have been so!d~ ( ) Appeal No. 3268 - O. KATHERINE TUTHILL. Variance for approval_of parcels havi~g insufficient area, width and depth in this "C". zone. ~*Await DEC and Co. Health Art. VI application/actions. Planning Board recommended denial 9/84. ( ) Appeal No. 3537 ROBERT AND SUSAN D'UR~O. Breezy Path, Southold. Await D.E.C.,.Co. Health and Trustee after formal applications to complete-ZBA file. Appeal No. 3545 PATRICK STIGLIANI. Main Bayview Road, Southold. Await Co. Health Art. VI and PB coordination. ( ) Appeal No. 3542 as Amended TIDEMARK/CLIFFSIDE ASSOCIATES. Await copies of DEC, Co. Health and PB to complete SE file. SEQRA process pending. ( ~ Appeal No. 3546 - GREGDRY FOLLARI. Relief of ZBA condi- tion requested concerning disturbance of soil at Sound bluff. Await DEC action to alter bluff areas before proceeding. ( ~ Apgeal No 3564 - JOHN DEMPSEY. No record of approval of lot #2, Mino~ Subdivision of Raeburn-Murphy (1979). ROW off N/s Oregon Road, Cutchogue. R. Bruer, Esq. Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- December ll, 1986 Regul'ar Meeting Other Matters Pending Public Hearings (**awaiting additional information as noted): [continued] () Appeal No. 3511 KAPELL ~REAL ESTATE/LIMPET. Area, width and depth variances. Brown St, Greenport. **Await Co. Health approval/waiver by advertising deadline. () Appeal No. 3439 - ARNOLD AND KAREN BLAIR. Variance for re-division into two lots with insufficient area, and width at Cedar Lane and Beach Court, East Marion. Gardiners Bay Estates Lots 151 thru 172 incl. adjoining roads. **Await ~iPB, Health Dept. Art. VI approvals/input. [Possible Town Trustees jurisdiction-upland Contains wetla'nd grasses]. [Building envelopes of buildable areas not shown.] () App.eal No. 3445 - JULIUS ZEBROSKI. Variance for approval of two lots having insufficient area. E/s Waterview Drive and N/s Bayview Road, Southold. **Await Article VI approval and copy of C.O. for existing land and buildings [p~revious lot-line changes and conveyances?]. PB comments received. ) ~-~1 No. 6~._4.~.~- ~ELMUT HASS. Variance for~ tw6~ '~ . clent ~rea and wi' ' h Art. VI. () Appeal No. 3462 HERBERT MANDEL. Variance for approval of three parcels having insufficient area. N/s Main Road, East Marion. **Await Co. Health Art. VI .and copy of C.O. () () () Appeal No. 3449 - FRANK AND ETHEL BEGORA. Variance for approval of th~eepa.rc~ls having insufficient area, depth and width. N/s Main Road, East Marion. **Await County Health Art. VI, corrected maps and P.B. reviews after submission of maps. Appeal No. 3403 ANNA, LORIA. Variance for approval of two parcels having insufficient area, width and dept.~. W/s First St. and N/s King St, New Suffolk. **Await Co. Health Art. VI appt. and approval/waiver. Appeal No. 3426 GERALD DOROSKI. Variance f'or approval of access (280-a). N/s C.R. 48, Peconic, **Await additional information to clarify ROW and P.B. input. Appeal No- 3411. ANDREW FOHRKOLB. Variance to restore existing building for habitable use (additional dwelling unit). W/s Lipco Road, Mattituck. **Await scaled floor plans and C.O. or PreCO. '"'S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -44- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting Other Matters Pending Public Hearings (*~awaiting additio'nal information as noted}, continued: -(, Appeal No. 3299 - DOUGLAS MILLER. Variance to include wetlands in subdiv'ision which would not result in .. insufficient area. Ktrkup Lane, Laurel. **Await DEC and.-Co. Health Department approvals of pending subdivision. ('-~ Appeal No. 3412 - THOMAS CRAMER. Variance to construct within 75' of wetl'ands. E/s Meadow Lane, Mattituck. **Await Trustees action/approval. (ltealth Dept. approval and.'DEC'waiver received.) ('~ Appeal No. 3355 - PAUL &'MARIETTA CANALIZfl. Variance to __ construct with insufficient setback in frontyard and from wetlands. **Await DEC and wetland setbacks map.-.. Trustees reviews pending. Appeal No. 3214 - HANAUER & BAGLEY. Variance for approval of two lo~s having insufficient upland, build- able area. DEC waiver and Planning Board received. **Await Co. Health and Trustees. -Lighthouse Road and S/s Soundview Avenue, Southold. .- Application for LOIS AND FRANK THORP. E/s West [.ane and S/s North La~e (private), off the E/s Orchard Lane East Marion. Variance for approval of lots having insufficient area, width, depth, etc. **Await Notice of Disapproval' after application to Building Department reissuance of filing fee, postmarked certified-mail receipts, etc. Appeal No. 3293 - HAROLD AND JOSEPHINE DENEEN. Variance for approval of three parcels having insufficient area, width and depth. W/s ROW off the S/s Bayview Road (west of Waterview Drive), Southold. 280-a not requested. **Await Co. Health Art. VI and DEC approvals/action. Appeal No. 3252 - JOHN CHARLES & M. SLEDJESKI. Variance appealing decision' of Planning Board of 4/2/~)4 that buildable area-in proposed division is less than 80,000 sq. ft. (excludes wetland grass areas) for a one-family dwelling, and less than 160,000 sq. ft. (~xcludes wetland grass areas) for an existing two-dwe)ling usage. E/s Narrow River Road and S/s Main Road, Orient. · **Await. Co. Health Art. VI and SEQRA. Appeal No. 3367 - LOIS AND PATRICIA LESNIKOWSKI. Variance for approval of two parcels having insuf{~ent area and width. S/s North Drive, Mattituck. **Await DEC. Build- trig envelopes and s"etbacks not shown sinc(~ enactment of Local Law - Wetlands Setbacks. Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- December ll, 1986 Regular Meeting The Chairman explained details of a new proposal by the Town for exchange of property near Ryder Landing, Sound View Drive, Orient for public access to the Sound. It was indicated that a division of the land for conveyance only in part to the Town would be subject to Coun'ty Health Art. 6, N.Y.S.D.E.C. and possibly Town variances, if part were to be retained by W. Lieblein, particularly since the use of the remaining parcel would remain for use as a single-family dwelling. Being no other business properly coming before the Board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals HEARING EUGENE DAVISON Z.B.A. DECEMBER 11. 1986 APPEAL NO. 3216 7:35 p~m. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 p.m. the read the notice of hearing and appeal application for the record. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Robert J. Douglass, Serge DoyeD~ and Joseph H. Sawicki, Members. Absent was ~6mber Grigonis (due to illness): Also present were the applicant and approximately 25 persons in the audience. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the subdivision map dated January 7, 1986 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl~ P.C. which shows this 9.8-acre parcel, which comprises of many paddocks, a training area and a large stable which has been mentioned in the application. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Davison, would you like to ex~lain to the board why it has taken since 1984 to hear this case so that we don't confuse anybody. EUGENE DAVISON: Our farm is 12-1/3 acres and it has three dwellings from many years, 50 years ago some of them, on there, and I asked for this variance~ on that date which seems like years ago, and I got tangled up with the Planning Board that i should get a subdivision before this go through. So this is what has happened~ I got caught Qp in Planning Board and Suffolk County Board of Health and everything is resolved finally as far as the subdivision goes, so I put this through again. This variance for the dwelling. CHAIRMAN: I just didn't want the public to think we were holding it up since 1984, MR. DAVISON: No, no. Page 2 - Eugene Davison Hearing Transcript-ZBA Regular Meeting 12/11/86 CHAIRMAN: Can I just ask you while you're standing. What is the approximate square footage of the li~ing quarters going to be? MR. DAViSON~ It'll come out 1,020 feet, something like that. CHAIRMAN: And will the ingress and egress for those quarters be on the outside of the building or the interior of the building? Will the stairwell going to $.he quarters be inside-- ~- MR. DAVISON:--inside the building. Actually ~he whole part will be inside the building~ The~e are no addi.%ions or anything needed for it. ~CHAIRMAN: You have potable water in that building already. So it only requires a-- ~. MR, 'DAVISON: Potable water, toilet and sanitary system and ev'erything that we will connect to. CHAIRMAN: I see. Thank you very much. Let's see what develops in the hearing. Is t..here anybody else that would like to s. peak in favor of this application? Anyone against the application?~ (No owe). Th~is~ will be"on the east side of the building, is that correct? MR. DAVISON: Yes. CHAIRMAN: There was one other question. Are you going to provide any type of parking for the use of this stable, or will it be just. the normal parking that you have up there_now presently. MR. DAVISON: adequate. I think the parking there now is more than CHAIRMAN: Ok. I thank you again° Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserVing decision until later. MEMBER sAWICKI. Second. (Motion was duly carried.) The hearing was concluded, pending deliberations and a decision at a later date. Prepared by cassette tapes recorded during.the hearing. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER. OF F~ AND DELORES DA~!ES. 7:42 p.m. Appeal No. 3577 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of FRANK AND DELORES DAVIES. Variance to replace ac- cessory shed in the north sideyard area, 2285 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. Lot #15, Map of Nassau Farmso The Chairman read the legal notice and application fo~ the record. CHAIP~,~AN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey produced by Peconic Surveyors and Engineers most recent date is 6/23/86 indicating a 1% story houSe and a concrete patio approximately 2/3 of the way toward the water in referance to the distance of the lot which is approximately 254.7 feet deep on the south side. And I have (what I assume) was an aluminum shed which was removed which was approximately adjacent to the house to the north. Which in this particular case, shows 2.4 feet from the north property line. And I have copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the areao Is there .somebody who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and mention again to the Board~that sometimes it's a difficult situation when the appli- cant does not appear because there are usually questions that we ask them in reference to setbacks. In this particular case we will have to do it to the best of our ability. Ail in favor - aye. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF ARTHUR ES SLINGER THURSDAY, DECEMBER !1~ 1986, P~L!C HEARING 7:46 pom. Appeal No. 3578 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of ARTHUR ESSLINGERo Variance to locate accessory storage shed within 75 feet of existing bulkhead/wetlands area, 1515 Arshamomaque Avenue, Beixedon Estates, Southold. (Lot #21)o The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record° CHAIP~iAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey. Excuse me. It's a copy of a map of the entire subdivision indicating the house in question which appears to be on the old farm map lot #21 and it shows an approximate shed of which I will question the applicant in reference to size and the rearyard which is toward the water. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? MR. LESSARD: This gentleman called me that he had to go to the naval hospital and it would take him 5 months to get these plans and he said he hoped there wouldn't be any problems here or maybe I could answer them. I don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have to write hima a letter and ask him how far from the south property line he intends to place it and how far is it from the water so on and so forth. I have no indication of where he intends to build it from the south property line~ So again we will have to use our indescretion in this particular case. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hear- ing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - aye. SOUTHOLD TOW!{ BOARD~ OF APPEALS MATTER OF CHARLES AND SANDRA BLAKE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11 ,. !986..,~ .PUBLIC HEARING 7:50 p.mo Appeal No. 3579 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of CHARLES AND SANBP~ BLAKE. Variance for approval of access over Old Woods Path (Private Road #10), Southold. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey with the most recent date of June 3, 1985 indicating a 2~ story framed home on a parcel of several acres and with a copy of the right-of- way (excuse me) elongation on the survey of the right-of-way to the home which I assume is part of the 280-A request and the denial by the building inspector. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map~indiCating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? FIR. HOLZAPFEL: If I could just say that Charlie Blake can't make it and he asked me to come down if you had any questions° CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: Would you use the mike. of course, we know you sir° For the record MR. HOLZAPFEL: I'm a neighbor of Charles Blake and he asked me to come down if there were any questions that I would be happy to answer them for you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's my understanding that when we re- quested you to, we don't request, but you were denied the 280-A by the building inspector and then we imposed conditions. Those conditions went to the edge of your property not necessarily your driveway. Now we are going another 242 feet basically to the edge of Mr. Blake's parcel of property. Is that correct? MR. HOLZAPFEL: I think so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any idea Mr. Holzapfel if Mr. Blake objects to (I assume there's some objection) any type of conditions imposed by the nature of the way this application is written. Do you have any idea if he objects to the normal con- ditions that we have placed similiar to the ones that you placed on your right-of-way? MR. HOLZAPFEL: I'm not sure. I can't really say deliberately. The only thing I would say is that he built a house under the conditions tha~ he thought he wasn't going to have to do any- thingo Then when he applied for it, he then found out after the house had been completed~ So I think that was his only po- sition. And obviously if he could avoid spending 2 or 3 thouSand dollars, he would prefer not to spend those 2 or 3 thousand dol- lars. Page 2 December ll, 1986 Publih Hearing Charles and Sandra Blake Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you suppose we should recess the hear- ing and have hima come in and discuss this with us on another eveni~g!'_hgp~l~y~_in January? MR. HOLZAPFEL: I would say that is much more fair to him. His son's birthday was tonight and he bought tickets to the city for the both of them to go to something~ He was unable to come. So he thought it would be just an automatic thing that would be taken care of. I don't know what he expected to be taken care of. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MR. HOLZAPFEL: questions. He asked me to come down if you had specific C HA IP~iAN GOEHRINGER: year around? Well we'tl send him .... Does he live here MR. HOLZAPFEL: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. He doesn't. I have a suggestion to the Board that we're certainly going to impose some conditions and I think that it's probably a little unfair to you. It's nice of you to come down. It's a little unfair to you to make decisions, dispute, whatever the situation is in this particu.- lar case. So I think what we'll do is recess this until one of our January meetings. I don't know if it will be the one in the beginning of the month or the one toward the end of the month., In this particular case I guess we'll close the hearing and we will impose our conditionso Yes sir. MR, NODINE: I don't understand most of the conditions or what the problem is. Would you explain a little bit? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. Thank you very much Mr. Holzapfel. Under New York Town Law 280-A, a right-of-way is supposed to support the normal ingress and egress for vehicles such as fire and emergency vehicles 12 months of the year, 24 hours a day. And so right-of-ways based upon '~(I would say ) probably I'll give you percentage of about 85/90% requires some type of substandard excavation. The application of either back run with a 20% stone content, stone blend, one inch, 2 inch, 4 inches, whatever the case may be based on the recommendation of the build- ing inspector. I'm sorry. From the town engineer. And the most recenn type of surface that we are dealing with on private roads is crushed concrene which appears to be something that is, in some estimation, some opinions from people, far superior to the stone blend. So in this particular case we are extending a right-of-way past Mro Holzapfel's house to the edge of this gentleman's proper- ny to allow for that type of access that the town engineer feels is adequate. Minimum standards to make the right-of-way adequate for proper ingress and egress for there 12 months. We are not particularly worried about this time of yearo We're not totally worried about the summer months. We are worried about the spring fall when, if you would have to put a 40,000 pound vehicle some '~age ] - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Charles and Sandra Blake Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIP~AN GOEHRINGER: (continued) 20 tons on that road, we would not want to see it sink down to the axles and thereby preclude fire and emergency aid (so to speak) to that piece of property~ I hope that answers your questiono MR. NODINE: Ok. about. I just didn't know what you were talking CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just have your name for the record. ~R. NODINE: Joseph Nodineo CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? Alright. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - aye. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF NICHOLAS BABALIS THURSDAY, _D~CEMBER 11~ 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 7:59 p.m. Appeal No. 3580 Public Hearing commenced in the ~TTER OF NICHOLAS BABLIS. Variance to construct new dwel- ling with insufficient: (a) north sideyard, (b) total side- yards, at 3360 Rocky Point Road, East Marion. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a faint copy of the survey with a most recent date of July 21, 1985 indicating a lot of ap- proximately 68 feet on Rocky Point Road, 210o47 feet on the south side and 211.27 feet on the north side. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and sur- rounding properties in the area. Ms.°Moore would you like to be heard? MS. MOORE: In this case the denial of the variance to build a home residence with sideyard setback of 10 and 11 feet would create practical difficulties. Mr. and Mrs. Babalis who intend- ed on being here but with the terrible weather, unfortunately couldn't make it. They wish to build a one story house without a garage° It's just a simple home on their property. I have an original survey that was prepared by Mr. VanTyle revised today. So it's hot off the press with the proposed construction. I only have 4 so I have to retain one for my file. So you can see by the size of the lot, there is only 68 feet along the road and 52 feet in the rear which creates a very narrow and long lot. And when the house which Mr. Hill, (the builder) he and Mr. Babalis chose one of the designs that he has, they realized that the house was small but the lot was even smaller. So they rea- lized they had to come before this Board for a variance. At this time we come to you and we need relief from the bulk and parking schedule. If you notice the property owner to the north is Mr. Arnold. Mr. Arnold very kindly provided us with a letter stating that he was not in opposition to our variance request. He would be the most effected by the variance since that northernly portion along the northernly line which will be deduced from the ordinary setback requirements and I have the original here. Also in going to that property, I took some photographs which, for those of you who were unable to go to inspect the property or will be inspecting the property, if you would like to look a~.the photographs, it shows the location of the property and the house whoch is Mr. Arnold's house and you can see that the distance, I have photo- graphs showing the house with the driveway which cuts in between our property owner and the neighbor's property~ It shows a sub- stantial distance between the homes. So although our setbacks ~. are not going to be in accordance with the bulk and parking schedule, they will be tolerable to the neighborhood and in con- formity with the neighborhood. And as you can see by the letter, approved by a neighbor. So I have 2 photographs which I've labelled as number 1 and just shows the home and an angle from the corner lot across to the property owner to Mr. Arnold's pro-- petty. The request does conform to other properties in the area. Page 2 - December 11, 1986 ~Public Hearing - Nicholas Babalis Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. MOORE (continued) The 'properties there are quite narrow and the homes are modest homes in that areao There's some very large homes that have been allowed and some smaller homes. I have photographs of homes that were built there° One that is quite recento I be- lieve a building permit was issued very recently in '85/'86. It's a very beautiful home, quite a large home. And this one has, I have the tax lot number underneath the photograph so it can be identified. Also another photograph, our property owner, the property adjacent to his is a vacant parcel. And adjacent to the vacant parcel is another home which is small and in con- formity with what Mr. and Mrs. Babalis wish to build and I have a photograph of that so you can see that it's similiar to and coincides with what is in that area. Also a very recent photo- graph of a very recent construction with a foundation where I wasn't able to locate the tax lot number but it's along that Rocky Point Road and I have a photograph of the foundation. Their relief is their request as I mentioned, is only to re- duce the sideyard setback by 4 feet° That is not a substantial requesto And in light of the circumstances and evidence that I have presented to you, I hope that you will grant Mr. and Mrs. Babalis a variance. Thank you° CHAIPdIAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Ms.~Moore. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? For the record I happened to visit the site last Sunday. I will concur with the attorney in stating that there are at least 4 lots down there contiguous to this particular parcel that are the same size and conformity. Three of which are constructed with houses and one of which is vacant. MS. MOORE: One more request. I know this is difficult around this time of year but the builder would like to start (obviously) and break ground before the ground freezes. So if at all pos- sible, you could expedite the application. I know everyone would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further comments, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later° Ail in favor - aye. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF MICHAEL AND JOYCE ~TTES THURSDAY,.LDECEMBER 11, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 8:10 p.m, Appean No. 3572 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of MICHAEL AND JOYCE MATTES. (Recessed from 11/20). Special Exception for Bed & Breakfast. Luthers Road, Matt. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIPd~AN GOEHRINGER:Would you like to state anything for the record? MS. COUGHLIN: I'm the attorney for the Mattes and I'm hereon their behalf tonighto I'm at 130 Ostrander Avenue in Riverhead. There are a few things that I'd like to say tonight with respect to the requirements of special permit. However, I believe that Mro Mattes would like to read something into the record first° Ct[AIR, lAN GOEHRINGER: Anytime. Could I ask you to use the mike if you would Mr. Mattes. Thank you very much. ~R.~ MATTES: Ok. Very good. Mro Goehringer, members of the Zoning Board~'~of Appeals, In an effort to clarify some of the speculation concerning our appeal, we Michael and Joyce Mattes would like you to review these facts. The minor subdivision of Edgar and Arlene Marvin was approved and filed in April, 1978. The Town of SouthOld itself created a community with mixed zoning. Two months ago a parcel was zoned single family. One existing structure, ours, was zoned two family and one structure, the Hahn's was zoned multiple dwelling. The special exception we're now requesting is far more limited than that which the Hahns now enjoy. Any use of our property for limited Bed and Breakfast pur- poses would be incidental to our use as our home as a residence. Our home given the special exception, must be occupied by us, the owners. ~fhereas the very liberal zoning of the Hahn's property would allow them to rent to several unrelated groups While they themselves could live elsewhere. All the tenants of the Hahn's property must, of necessity, use the right-of-way. The use that we seek is restricted and limited in comparison.~ We have two means of egress and exit~ While everyone involved in this pro- ceeding realizes that our appeal is not necessarily a popularity contest. We do welcome our neighbor to knock on our door, come in and see for themselves what we~are planning to do. If ques- tions arise, we are most willing to discuss them and try to an- swer them. The right-of-way used in common by the four lots is not the approved legal entrance but rather a rutted road located to the north of the approved entrance. We have every intention of contributing our share of m'aintenance to this road once it is laid out in conformity with the subdivision map. A family mem- ber who will be present at all times if the house is used as a Bed and Breakfast. Ail the guests will be carefully screened. Page 2 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - ~ichael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ~ATTES: (continued) Our neighbors might live next door to our guests but we will live in the same house as our guests. Given the effort that's gone into decorating our house, the highest level of supervi- sion is of concern to no one more. than us. Our concerned ef- forts have saved the Richard Cox house from becoming another hard tramp house tragedy. We took on the responsibility of a house that was seriously neglected and was on it's way to be- ing an eyesore and a disgrace. That same house is now indi- vidually listed on the national register of historic places and has done a lot to improve the community. Our neighbors share in the glory of our house~and are afforded only two other structures in the entire town of Southold. When our neighbors say they paid a premium to live in our community, they're not alone. No one has paid a higher price than us in terms of per- sonal committment and laboro Our payments began over eight years ago and continue even as I speak to you. Love for this old build- ing and love for our tradition has sustained us through extended efforts. Onr house, while requiring hard work and effort, has given muCh in return. We're not about to do something to jeopar- dize its history and integrityo We know that our house is uniquely suited for uses.and owner occupied limited use Bed and Breakfasto,~ Very few properties in the town function as well or conform with the letter and spirit of the law as ours does° We respectfully request this Board of Appeals approve our appeal. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir° ~fS. C~OUGHLIN: I have a number of elements that I'd like to go through with°you. Would you prefer if I use the microphone so you can get it on the record? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think with the size of the audience, I'm afraid you're going to have to if you wouldn't mind~ MS. £OUGHLIN: In pursuant to the ordinance with respect to spe- cial exception, there are a number of elements that the ordinance wants you to review before you grant a special permito I'd just like to go through each of those. First of all; there's no evi- dence that the use, this Bed and Breakfast use, will prevent the orderly and reasonable use of the adjacent properties or of the properties in adjacent use district~ There is no evidence here that the use will prevent the orderly and reasonable use that are permitted or legally established uses in this district~ This is especially so in light of the fact that this is a large house on a large piece of property. There is a~pre-exiSting use next door, seasonable multiple use. And this particular dwelling it- self, has a c~o. for a legal two family home~ They are willing to forego that use in order to take on a Bed and Breakfast use. So it would be going from a pre-existing non-conforming use to a conforming use. There is no evidence that the safety, the health, the welfare, the comfort, the convenience, or the order of the town will be adversely effected. The use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this chapter° In fact Page ~3 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. QOUGHLIN: (continued) this is precisely the type of home which should have a ~Bed and Breakfast. This house, the Board in their wisdom, deter- mined that a Bed and Breakfast should be a permitted use by special permit in an"A" district. Here you are presented with a large beautifully restored victorian home. I have to say my~house, that I went through it myself yesterday and it was absolutely gorgeous° They've restored it to perfection. They spent years lovingly restoring it. You can tell by one walk through it. It seems only right that others should be allowed to benefit from their work and experience a lot of history while doing so. This would happen by allowing people to stay at it as a Bed and Breakfasto Furthermore, the charac- ter of the e×isti~g and probably developments of uSe in the dis- trict are amendable to this type of thing. Again as I stated, there is a seasonal multiple dwelling existing next door and this house now has a c~o. ~or a two family. The location it- self is good for this type of thing. It's right on the corner° It can be easily located by people who are coming to use the house.~ There is no evidence that the property value will de- crease if this house is granted a special permit to operate as a Bed and Breakfast~ In fact, it may increase the property w~lue as it is anticipated that the Mattes will want to Upkeep the home to draw people to it as a Bed and Breakfast. Most likely there's only three extra cars that would come. Your ordinance limits three rooms to be used in the Bed and Breakfast. This is not a large increase in the traffic that will happen. The three extra cars will most likely~not be entering,~ coming in and leaving at the same time. The availability of adequate and proper water supply is already there. It's a large home. As I stated, it's a two family home. It's already adequate as it exists. The num- ber of bedrooms are 7, the baths are 2 and these are not being in- creased. There are no materials incidental to the use that would give off noxious gases or odors, smoke or soot. It will not cause disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, dust, vibrations or noise. I mean there's only going to be at top, six extra people. It shouldn~t be a large increase in the noise. There is a large piece of property that the house itself is surrounded by acreage. It will not interfer with the orderly enjOyed by the public for parking and recreation facilities. There are none right in the area~ With respect to a parking lot, the Mattes are amendable to doing what the Board will require them to do for adequate park- ing. They do have a parking lot right now located next to their home. It's about 40 feet from their side yard. It's been there for about 100 years. It can be expanded if you want° If you want it to be surfaced, they will do that. The property is easily accessible. FiretruCkS. can get there easily if there's any emer- gency. The structure, as I stated, already exists. So there will be no over crowding of land or undue cause of population. The plot is more than adequate house this type of use° It's an acre and .6° And it's not unreasonably near a church, school, theatre, recrea- tional area or other place of public assembly° There's a few other Page 4 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. COUGHLIN (continued) factors that I would like to point out; that there was a nega- tive SEQRA determination, that there is a righty-of-way on the side. As Mr. Mattes stated, the Planning Board in 1978, ap- proved the subdivision of 4 lots. l,~en they approved the sub- division, the house next door was a seasonal multiple dwelling. Their particular parcel was a two family. So the Planning Board was aware when they directed that that right-o~ way be used, that it was not just a single family; the Mattes property, that was going no be using it. It was a two family. So the number of cars are about even from what may happen with this Bed and Breakfast. Moreover, their entrance° The only reason they use the right-of-way is for exit. Their entrance is located on the corner of Luther Road and Mill Road. The living quarters are large and spacious. In fact, I think you have a plan there of the house. It indicates, when I was in it yesterday, it's very easily divided into two parts. You walk in to the front entrance and the common areas the §uest$ ~0u]d use are right to your right. They're easily separated from the kitchen facilities and the fami- ly quarters. Upstairs is the same as well. Half can be used for the family, half can for the guests. The applicants have improved the quality of the area by spending 8 years restoring this home~ It was a mess when they bought ito It's now listed on the regisner of historical places. I would encourage all members of the Board to go and view the house yourself. It's really a treat. It's such a beautiful home. Again, I stated that it would be going from a non-conforming use (a legal two family home) to a permitted use under the ordinance. Moreover, the use will not be as heavy as the permitted use since generally it would only anticipate this Red and Breakfast would be used during the summer and weekends. Ok. If you have any questions of myself or the Mattes, we'd be happy to answer them. CHAI~fA_N GOEHRINGER: You have a question Mr. Shaw. MR. SHAW: Just a question. To clarify, do I understand that the Mattes' will change the type of c.o. to a single family and then ~Jth permitted use of a Bed and Breakfast? MS. C~OUGHLIN: Right. They ~0,'~ be any MR. SHAW: 0k~ I just wanted to clarify that° two family~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Thank you very much for your presentation. MS~ C OUGHLIN: I do have some pictures here that you might want to look at too° This is a picture of the home. I'm sorry~ There are already 3 baths in the houSe. This is the parking area over here. There's some screening already existing between the private right-of-way~ This is a view of the house from the road° And this is the neighbor'~s parking loto There's one other parking lot. Page ~5 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes. MS. MCCAFFERY: I have known the Mattes about 4 years now and I b~ve watched them change their house into a very glorious look~ ing place~ They have a very strong sense of history and I know they would never do anything to either destroy that house or destroy what makes their area the lovely place that it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mso.~McCafferyo We'll go to the not specifically the con but the opposite side and we'll start with Mrs. Shaw and Mro Shaw. Could I ask you to use the mike° MR. SHAW: Sure. I hate to say it although it looks like we're going to have to drag through some more stuff this evening° CHAI~iAN GOEHRINGER: You're not going to read all that? MR. SHAW: Noo Anyway, the way we left this last time, my wife and I were going to get together with the Mattes' and the Hahns and work out some covenants and restrictions on the Bed.and Break- fast use that would protect all of our interests~ However, there were a couPle of things that we didn't anticipateo The first, was that we assumed that the Hahns would think the same way that we did. That is to say that they would want to compromise with the MatteS[o. An assumption that wasn't necessarily fair for us to make considering that the Kahn's house is about 300 feet closer to the Mattes' house than ours iso So when they got back from Florida and we talked about it, they wanted the Board to deny the application altogether and Henry can speak for himself on that. After much discussion and I ihope Henry won't mi~d my say%rig it, they grudgingly agreed to go along with the idea of covenants and restrictions. But after a whole slew of phone calls, we finally got a meeting with our attorney in the middle of last week and it was only five o'clock this afternoon that we got back a set of covenants and restrictions which we haven't had a chance to go over with the Mattes' yet. I gave them a copy out in the lobby but that was as far as we've gotteno Anyway, I had asked Mike last Thursday if we could ask for a further recess and he said he'd geCk'back to. He never did~ So here we all are. But as I said, at five o'clock today we got them anyhow. The second thing that we didn't anticipate was some of what we found in the appli- cation file when we finally copied it to give it to our attorney. Henry and Mary Jean Hahn kept telling us that they never received notification. We've touched on this before but I think it's worth touching on again. And when I called up Sid "BrandsSord~~ who's here tonight who is building the fourth house in the subdivision, she said she hadn't gotten anything either~ Now if you remember from the last time we met, the Mattes' admitted they never sent my wife and I notification at all. Anyway, when we looked in the file, we found out that the Hahn's letter was sent to Wading River Road, Wading River~which is where the house they sold more than 2 years ago was so they could buy the house they have now. Sid "Bransiforty's" letter went to an old address as well. We didn't get one. Now, I was pretty upset about that practically speaking. None of the people who would be most effected by aBed and Break- ~age 6 - December 11, 1986 Publ{c Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals MR, SHAW (continued) fast would have found out that it was happening or what was happening with the Mattes' application if my father-in-law who is retired has a lot of spare time on his hand hadn't picked it up in the legal section of the Suffolk Times for the hearing. Now'technicality speaking, there is only one violation of the letter of the law and that was with regards to notification of Valerie and I since we are adjacent proper- ty owners. As it turns out according to section 125 of the Town Code which does talk about the notification, the address the assessor had is the one that is to be used for notification° And when I called the assessor, sure enough, Valerie's and mine was the only one that was current but it does upset me that the Mattes' were so secretive about the whole thing especially con- sidering that they have said so much about wanting good neigh- bors and the contributions they made to the community and so on. This isn't a game of poker where you try and bluff people° We all live in the community together and considering the post of- fice renurned the letters to the Mattes' after 5 days, the least they could have done in keeping the spirit if not the letter of the law, was run next door and let the neighbors know what was up. Another upsetting thing, we didn't find this out until last Sunday evening was that the ~ttes~ submitted an out of date coo° for the Hunt house when they made the argument that the use they proposed is in keeping with the neighborhood° The old C~Oo was for a non-conforming seasonal multiple dwelling. Over five years ago, Bob Bailey who did the renovations on the Hunt house, applied for a permit to do it over as a single family house. And the CoOo which was granted in October of 1983 reflected that. Also the CoO. that the Hunt's got for their pool and pre-existing garage and pump house last summer which combined all of that stuff into one c.o. makes specific reference to the single family nature of their house. The documentation for this is in the file of John -- that we're going to submit to you. Anyway, we all would have been a lot happier if they'd been a little more care- ful in researching that particular matter~ Another thing I didn't consider when I was running around nrying to work up some sort of a compromise is that I never asked the other neighbors what they thought about things. I just sort of went zooming off on my own estimate of the situation~ And when I got around to asking them, all of them including the Hahns, were against the application. Although as I said, the Hahns grudgingly agreed to covenants and restrictions° Two things concerned everyone; their privacy and their property values. I was worried about the first and that's what the covenants and restrictions address primarily~ But stu- pidly, I never thought about the second. I work for a bank so I called up somebody in the mortgage department and they called the appraiser who off the top of his head said that while such a use would have little or no effect on the value of the subject proper- ty (that is the Mattes' house) it could effect the marketability of adjacent properties by as much as 20%. Now, that clearly, I would ask him if he would come and testify to that effect and he back peddled saying that he would have to do appraisals and com- paritive work before he could do that. He couldn't possibly have it done by tonight° But for purposes of argument, let's say he was way over on his estimate and the effect is only 5%o That's Page 7 - December 11, 1986 Publi~ Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals SHAW (continued) still $10,000 off the value of my house. Not to mention the Hahn's and Sid Bransiforty's house that are worth a good $100,000 more than mine is and the Trojanowski's that live across the street. Add it up, and the surrounding neighbors stand to lose somewhere between 50,000 and in the extreme case if it was 20%, something like $180,000 in equity in their homes so that the Mattes' can rent three rooms on some- thing like that. If you feel that isn't the case, we can call in an appraiser of anybody's choice and confirm what their op- inion would be concerning the effect of the Bed and 'Breakfast use on the adjacent properties. Because if you have two equiva- lent houses in which every other aspect of them is equal, the one that's next to a Bed and Breakfast use would be less de- sireable than the one that isn't. There's also one more issue which wasn't brought up the last time and it sort of bugs meo This will be the last thing I'll talk about and let the other neighbors say what they have to~ I want to get straight who has to prove what to whom~ The last time it sort of seemed like that the applicant (Mike and Joyce) were entitled to these special exceptions and it was up to the rest of us to prove harm to stop it. As I read it, that's the other way around~ I did a little research in the state law and I'm not going to read over again the stuff that we just went through° But there are some other things that are important here. A special exception is just thato It is an exception to the accepted use and there's a number of things the Board must consider before they grant the exception. Anyway, for every6ne's benefit, not yours obviously because you guys know this stuff but I would like to exerpt Anderson's New York State Zoning Law and as little of the Southold Town Code as I can~ If anybody thinks I'm quoting parts out of context, I'll read the whole thing but I'm just guessing that's not what you want. Anyway from Anderson's section 24°02 they were discussing special permits and exceptions° Many zoning ordinances provide for exceptions to the zoning regulations and delegate to the Zon-.~ ing Board of Appeals the power to determine whether the facts exist upon which exception is warranted and blah, blah, blaho The most common and significant use~hich is made of this authority to dele- gate miscellaneous powers to'the Board, Zoning of Appeals the en- actment of ordinances which permit certain uses only by special permit. These regulations empower the Boards to issue permits after notice, hearings, and findings. Commonly they detail cer- tain standards which must be met before a permit may be issued° Usually they authorize or require the Board to impose conditions designed to protect the abutting land owners and preserve the character of the nieghborhoodo The special permit technique is employed to control uses which are regarded as especially tro~les and to soften the impact of certain uses upon areas where they will be incompatible unless conditioned in a manner suitable to a particular location~ Since the exception and special permit device is for need flexibility and individuality to the other-- wise rigid controls enclosed by the equidian zoning regulations, the use of these methods of land use control has expanded in re- cent years. The wisdom as well as the legality of special per- mit procedures has been challenged bu~ the practice of control- ling uses in this manner has grown until it commands a major ~age ~8 December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals MRo SHAW (continued) portion of time of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ok. There's a lot more but I'll spare you° But I did warm certain aspects of that on the record. That the right of the Board to impose the conditions that it sees fito Anyway. CHAIR~iAN GOEHRINGER: Before I forget, I just wanted to mention to the surrounding property owners that we have granted at least one of these particular uses and we have of course one or two others pending before the Board~ And I might, one gentleman who's house we did grant this particular special exception to is present in the audience and I would like the (Board, excuse me) the audience to be aware of the fact that possibly they might want to stop over and see that it was not necessarily any specific change in the esthetic value of the house in the grant- ing of this special exception~ I am not suggesting that Mr. Herbert personally show you his house but that you at least be aware of that type of situation. MR. SHAW: We are at this time. I know Valerie later on wants to address that. Well anyway, this has been°.. We really did start out in the spirit of compromising. TAPE ENDED ~o SHAW: ...you may or may not use. up while that goes? Do you want me to shut CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: sent ence. No we got it back again° We only lost a MR. SHAW:. Ok. But anyway, considering how the neighbors feel about the effect on our privacy and the matter of property values we really have to look at this extremely closely. At the very least, the covenants and restrictions that are in the declaration that we had drawn up. I mean perhaps not exactly as drawn but certainly in spirit should be reprised plus on more and that is that the special exception be granted to the ~ttes' directly if you do indeed grant the exception not to run with the land and that the exception be for a specific term. As I said the last time, I don't really .... And I'm not speaking for anybody else right now when I say this. So don't anybody hit anybody° I'm not inalterably opposed to the idea. And knowing the Mattes':, I have no concern at all if they would run a very nice Bed and Breakfast but we really have a big problem with the idea of this running with the land. It is in effect a change of zone to a commercial use and I've gone on long enough. It's time for everybody else to say what they came to. So thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me ask the attorney for the Mattes' if she wishes to say anything in rebuttal for each individual person that stands up rather than do a blanket rebuttal. MS. COUGHLIN: That might be easier. ~age 9 - December 11, 1986 Publ{c Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok~ If you'd keep it fairly shorto MS. C,OUGHLIN: First of all with respect to the notification, the requirement (I believe) in the ordinance says that you only must notify~ the abutting property owners, adjacent and abutting. Your property I don't believe is adjacent or abut- ting° There are two lots that are. Mit. SHAW: You can not be any closer than intersecting. Onr properties touch.on one corner. We share a common corner. MS. ~EOUGHLIN: Ok. At any rate that is irrelevant at this point° They are here. They have been able to express their opiniono As you stated, the addresses were taken off the tax rolls which is the place that they are supposed to be taken° With respect to the appraisals from the gentleman he talked with on the phone; I don't know if that gentleman was aware that it is presently zoned two family. Was he? MR. SHAW: Yes~ I discussed the whole situation. MS. C.OUGHLIN: Because that seems to make a big difference to men,nd I wouldn't really want to talk appraisals unless we had something you for you from an appraisar or someone Who is li- censed to do that. The problem of privacy concern; I believe screening can solve that problem° You can impose reasonable conditions so that they screen the area. The parking lot is mostly what I think the privacy issue is all about. Again, I want to stress that this is a permitted useo This is not a change of zone° The zoning; the Town Board has declared this to. be a permitted use. It is a special exception° However, as Mr. Shaw quoted Anderson and one of the quotes that he said was that the conditions imposed usually are designed to protect abutting land owners and preserve the character of the neigh- borhoodo A case that is cited right after that by Anderson, I took down and the case states; unlike a variance which involves varying other zoning ordinance, a special exception deals with compliance of the ordinance and it poses upon a Board of Zoning Appeals the dutY to grant an exception once the conditions speci- fied in the ordinance have been met. This is not a variance ap- plication. They don't have to show practical difficulty or un- necessary hardship. It is a permitted use but I do understand that there can be conditions imposed and the Mattes' are willing to comply with conditions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Pardon me. Oko Mrs. Shaw~ By the way, I should inform the audience, the reason why Mrs. Shaw is sitting up here is because she's reading our lips. So she is facing each speaker for anybody that has any specific reason to know that° We have certain other~.~questions why Mro Lessard is up here but we put up with him° We always have to have a little levity. Excuse me. MRS. SHAW:~ Ok. If you will forgive me, I will read from a prepared statement because I have a number Of points that I wish to make and I don't want to take up too much of your time° So if you'll forgive my reading and not addressing you personally. This Board is empowered by the Town Code to ~age 10 - December 11, 1986 Publ{c Hea~ng - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. SHAW (continued) permit the use of a residential home located within a resi- denital zone as a Bed and Breakfast provided that the Board can make certain specific determinations as specified in the code° Specifically section 100~121, subsection B, subsection 182o A careful view of the facts concerning this particular application will show that first, before the~Bed and Breakfast use will prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent property excepting that the use will not be in harmony with and promote the general purpose and intent of this chapter° Further, the establishment of the proposed Bed and Breakfast is not in character with the existing and probable pattern of land use in the immediate areao The proposed Bed and Break- fast has not been sho~n to conserve property values or to en- courage the most appropriate use of the land in this particu- lar area and zoning district. And finally, the applicants have not shown whether this property is adequate and uSable area for the Bed and Breakfast uSe particularly with.regards to parking and otherwise screening the activity of the Bed and Breakfast from the neighborhoodo Can you give me my~o. Section 130 subsection 16 of the Town Code states that some- one applying to use their house as a Bed and Breakfast may rent not more than three rooms of a owner occupied dwelling for lodging and the serving of breakfast to not more than six casual and transient roomerso The court goes on to say that adequate off street parking spaces shall be provided for the rented rooms in addition to parking spaces for the use of family of the owner° Those are specific conditions of the special exception, not the general condition. The Mattes' in their application, propose to provide accomodations for up to six roomers. This could develop into an additional three to six cars on their property. They said that their home is currently a legal two family home and there are in- deed two families living thereo The Mattes' and Mtso Mattes' parents° There are currently four cars and a big carrier type trailer that is stored in the front yard facing Mary Jean's and Henry Hahn's front yard. So if the Mattes' in their application thati~I saw last Friday, did not show how they intended to provide for the additional parking spaceso A ten car parking area requires a space of approximately 90 by 42 feet in dimension and you figure 9 by 18 per space and then you need 24 feet of back up space. So we're talk, ing 90 feet in width and 42 feet in depth. The house has a 75 foot front yard facing the Hahns. They also have, as you will see on the subdivision map, they have cesspools near the right-of-wayo They have two trees and a shed in the area. If they propose to put parking in there, they're going to have to be some fitting of spaces around what already exists in the yard and I did not see anything in the application in- dicating how they were going to actually provide for their additional parking spaces. The application also shows entry to the property by way of a driveway which enters the property at the intersection of Coxneck Road and Breakwater Road. The ~age ~11 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. SHAW (continued) application failed to note that the remainder of the driveway from the parking area northward lies within a right-of way and on the property of the Hahns and I would like to submit to the Board a marked up version of the subdivision map which shows the subject property in blue, the concrete driveway in yellow and the right-of-way in red and green. So that you can see what I'm referring to. This right-of-way was mentioned before and was established by the Planning Board when they adopted the minor subdivision of Arlene Marbely and the following conditions was placed on the map and it is underlined on your copy. That access to all lons shall be over the 25 foot right-of-way sho~ thereon and the dotted curb in yellow on the subdivision map is in fact the pre-existimg circular driveway° Only a portion of which is shown on the ~pplication which was submitted. And this right-of-way poses a u~ique problem. Because although it runs across the proper~y of the Hahns and the property of my husband and I, neither party'o¥ the third party, neither party can deny the other property owners the right to pass over the drivewayo The proposed Bed and B[eakfast use is a commercial use incidental and secondary commercial use b~t nevertheless a commercial use. And I don't think the ~lanning way be used for commercial purt earlier about the two homes be~ it otherwise would have requir~ 50 foot right-of-way d~dicated enough property on the combine~ right-of-way to have g~ne nortt which is an 11 piece a~d furth~ planning design could ~ave req~ in to service that pro~erty wh! Board intended that this right-of- ,oses in spite of what was said .rig multiple family homes. Because ~d the construction of a standard as a public street. There is four lots to have put in a 50 foot to what is Allen Firgins property r on up to the nursery. Standard ~ired a 50 foot road have been put .ch is otherwise landlocked. But as it was, you didn't ~nd the planning Board did have this pri- vate right-of-way. As it stands, if the Board issues a permit for a Bed and Breakfas on the Mattes' property it will in ef- fect force the adjoining property owners to bare the cost of maintaining a right-of,way tha$ is being used by one of the own- ers for personal commercial gain. The Mattes' has also stated in their application that they will erect a sign instructing their guests to use just the s~uthern portion of the driveway. However, they haven't Suggeste~t how they will ensure that guests who use the miss the f{rst dri~eway entrance will know not to use the northern porti6n of th~ driveway. Such is the fact that visually that driveway looks l~ke it belongs to the Mattes' house and originally it did. I thin] that most visitors to ~he Matt~ of the driveway for one major which they gave to you and if notice that the southe~ gerously close no the The entrance is approx the Town Code requires than 50 feet from an i' fic safety. In this p a newcomer to the area ticipate the second dr summer when people dri residents of the area ~n porti .ntersec~ .mately that a ~tersect ~rticula~ as many _veway i~ ze much ~now the · it's fair to say at this point, s' house use the northern portion ~eason. If you look at the pictures ~ou go to the site itself, you will ~n of the driveway is located dan- ion of Breakwater and Coxneck Road. feet north~of Coxneck Road. Now ~riveway to be located not closer _on presumably for reason of traf- ~ case, it's logical to assume that guests will likely be, will not an- . terms of time particularly in the ~oo fast do~n this street. I'm sure ~olice have been speed trapping Fage J2 - December 11,i 1986 · Public Hearing - Mlcha~el and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. SHAW (continued) along there because people drive too fast. And the other rea- son that most people use the northern entrance to their house is that they~hav.e a porch in the front of the house and it makes it rather difficult to turn into the front yard from the southern when you're going north from nhe southern parn when you're going north to turn right into the driveway. It's easier to turn into the parking area by going in the northern entrance and turning into the parking areao If you look on the maps~that I gave you, I sort of drew in a little parking lot so you could see what I was referring to. The Mattes' (to get back to what I was saying) say that they will instruct their guests to leave from~the southern portion of the driveway. And again from a standpoint of traffic safety, this is not the safest place to exit on to Breakwater Road. For one thing, the exit runs almost parallel to Coxneck Road and it's separated from it by several large trees and a considerable amount of shrubbery which again, particularly in the summer, would obscure the oncoming traffic° If the guests were trying to go southward on Coxneck Road which they would go in order to leave the property in order to go down to Sound Avenue. The Board should consider that a lot of the current residents may be aware of the danger a take extra precaution when leaving the southern part of the driveway. It's not reasonable to expect someone leaving from that driveway for the first time to make their departure safely and it's non in the best interest of the public or the future guests to subject them to any unnecessary danger. In fact, the Mattes' themselves have rarely been observed to go in that property from the southern driveway and I think it's for that reason° On another note, the declaration of covenants and restrictions which we have proposed, attempt to address what we consider the unfor- tunate statements of the ordinance with respect to Bed and Break- fast uses~ Again as I mentioned before, ordinarily a special ex- ception is granted to allow a use into a district where it ordi- narily would not be allowed to come because it's not compatible with the uses for which the zoning district was established° Mean- ing that the use has a potential to be obnoxious in the seAse it's an obnoxious use relative to the other uses around it. And ac- cordingly, specific restrictions and conditions are usually placed on a special exception use in order to prevent any negative intru- sion on other existing and allowed uses in the district. A com- mon example of the special exception use is a utility substation° A utility substations are not inherantly attractive but they are essentially a provision of electrical service in a residential neighborhood° In order to~.'provide a needed public service in an obtrusive fashion, a Board'of Appeals might for example, require that a substation be screened from view by a planting of evergreen trees that might be set a certain number of feet away from adjoin- ing residential structures and that might exceed a certain height. The Town Code however, does not require any restriction other than that the number of rented rooms can not exceed three and that there must be adequate numbers of parking spaces off of the street and that the guests must be of casual and transit nature~but the code does not define casual and transit nor does it define adequate parking. Is it one space per guest or one per room? What if there are six single beds in three rooms? What if six people de- cide to rent the rooms for two months during the summer? Well ~age ~13 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. SHAW (continued) this might not happen at all but nevertheless it could and the code doesn't specifically prohibit it. And if the code doesn't specifically prohibit it and this Board doesn't define the terms under which a Bed and Breakfast use may operate within a strict- ly residential community and the potential to abuse the rights of the people who live in the neighborhood, will always be pre- sent as long as that special exception is in effect. Further more, the code does not address the situation such as this one which happens to be a unique situation where the applicant~is part of a private residential subdivisiOn. And the application sha~e not only a vehicular right-of-way, they also share a right- of-way access to Mattituck Creeko And the question that~I put to the Board are the other.three property owners to be forced to bare the cOst,Of the additional wear and tear on the right- of-way entrance in order to allow one of the owners to reap personal monotary benefits from using a commercial uSe? Are the other three property owners to be forced to bare the cost of maintaining a dock or a bulkhead that could be used by paying guests of the fourth property owner? These are questions that I think the Board should think about in this particular application and I would like to close by just mentioning one thing. And that is the applicant is already enjoying a legal and non-conforming two family houSe and that's a privilege that no one else in the immediate area has. Granting a special e~ception would be grant- ing them another privilege and this would further increase the degree of non-conformity in the district which brings me to the point of one of the general guiding principals in the code which is that there would not be an undue concentration of population on the land. And I would say that this is a case of undercon- centration. There is already two families on 1.6 acreso~ And what the application is saying is that you will add to that. Not only two families not up to six more people, transient but still an intensification of their already non-conforming use. The Board has granted only one special exception permit for a Bed and Breakfast use up until that and that permit was granted- to Michael Herbert on Pikes Street in Mattituck. And Mr. Her-- bert's house is located across the street from a municipal park- ing lot and diagonally across from the Mattituck firehouse. Ail I know of traffic is directly behind the house. Two doors to the left lies a small boat repair yard and next to that a small retail center which include the Michele's Beauty Salon and Mattituck Floor- ings. Diagonally to the west on the same block adjoining is the Hardware° There are several other residential homes on this block~ None of which is a residential/agricultural zoning district which is what this current application is in. The location of a Bed and Breakfast on Pike Street makes sense because it's in a mixed use district. Guests are within the walking distance of the commer- cial business district. The house is just off the Main Road, State Route 25A. It's very easy to find right in the business district. The neighborhood such as this, the Bed and Breakfast use can actually increase the value of the neighboring properties by stabilizing the quality of the residential homes there and I refer you to a letter that was submitted by John Myrle of the Silkwood Agency, on behalf of Mr. Herbert' s application. It ~age ~14 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals !~S. SHAW (continued)' is in his file. In which he al°ofs to that. And I think that it would be good of the Board went back to that case to see the true difference in thertwo applications. Finally, I just'. want to make a general note and it refers to the Town Board more than this Board and I think it would be a good way to sum up my point. And that is that if the Town wishes to pro- vide additional room for tourists, it seems logical to pro- vide for that need in the best location possible° Additional room for tourist was the main argument that the founding of this ordinance made to-encourage the Town Board to pass it.,, Some of which lie in or are on the border of mixed use dis- tricts, near to Main Roads and restaurants are the best can- didates. The application before you involves a location that is almost a mile from~the Main Road. There are two miles from the Main Road, Route 25 and it's at least a mile from the restaurant which hasn't always been open year around. It's about a mile from the nearest commercial prOperty which hap- pens to be a boat yard. Moreover, the applicants already en- joy the use of a two fap~ily use in the neighborhood where there aren't any others and i Uhink the Board should~ I ask the Board to consider it very carefully on whether the applicant~ should be granted to take their property even further out of conformi- ty with the establishment of permitted uses of the property in the area. And also to carefully consider the precedent that will be set by this case and to review the Herbert case care- fully° Thank you. CHAI~AAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mso C:oughlin. MS. C,OUGHLIN: Quickly, I think Mrs. Shaw may have missed the fact that I stated that they are willing to give up their non conforming use and this is a permitted use° It will not be ex- panded on any non-conforming use. They relinquish their non- conformity~and:in fact going to a permitted use. With respect to'the Board's requirements on parking, the Mattes' are willing to accept what the Board wants to impose with respect to the parking requirements. That is your area and they will comply with them. I might suggest that there are parking requirements for rooming houses, Perhaps this would be similar to a rooming house under section l12-B which says at least one for each guest room which will be parking slots. With respect to the exit, I would have to agree that it should be through the right-of-way which Mrs. Shaw seems to suggest because it may be a dangerous intersection. CHAIP~LA~ GOEHRINGER: Ok. This gentleman I' think wanted to speak. Could you state your name and uSe the mike if you wouldn't mind sir? MR. HAHN: I am directly opposite of the Mattes' house. This is the first time that I'm here as I was in Florida the last time. And very frankly, Mr. Shaw called me up indicating what was going on. I was totally unaware of it. I'm still totally shocked, It's only been now two weeks that this dilemma has been going on in front of me. Apparently the originally the ~Page ~15 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals I~Ro~HAHN (continued) letter that the Mattes' mailed out was some time in October. We see each othero We wave to each other. I happen to be very neighborly by nature. That's my European background. It's the way I like to be and I wave to them the whole time and they even knew I was going to Florida saying they would keep a look out on my houses I would be gone for a week with my wife° They said fine, see you around. And in the overall attitude, in my opinion does leave sort of a nasty taste in my mouth. But getting to a little bit more objec- tive point of view, originally I always used to have clients in this area in MattituCk and seen the Mattes' house before they even purchased it as well as my carriage house which used to be then light and multi-family wa~ run d~wn and was a terrible eyesore in the neighborhood and it was for sale and extremely inexpensively but no one even thought of buy- ing it. It went from one owner to another owner. It just basically fell ~part. As time went on, I had gone back and forth in that neighborhood. I saw a lot of t~e Mattes' house which I fully agree is a beautiful home which the Mattes' hawa been working all summer long actually painting the house him- self not only on the outside but also on the inside. They've gotten contractors in there to either lift the house up and make it stronger° They've got a new porch on the outside. I was very pleased and I was very happy to see my fellow neigh- bor would be the way I am and try to improve our own property because this whole thing use to be an estate. A very wealthy estate where there was a carriage house and there was a laun- dry house and a lot of land and all those gorgeous estate trees that take hundreds and hundreds of years to grow to reach that level of nobility. The reason why I fell in love with it was because actually I'm jumping the gun here. Then Mr. Bailey bought my carriage house. They actually picked up that house, moved it backward, put a little foundation down and made it into a beautiful masterpiece all by its own self. Mr. Bailey is an architect and also very well known in the Town of Southold and he turned this into a one family home. The C.Oo that I bought that house from with the banks; first Southold and I remortgaged this time with the Northfork Bank is on a one fami- ly home. That what's my c.o. says. I can't have multiple families in there. It's a one family home and that's just the way it iSo So the mere fact and really as a rebuttal to the attorney, indicating a. bit pompously (I must say) that~it'~ a multiple homeo 'And since they have a multiple, why can't we? I would like to use that as a rebuttal that this is a one fami- ly, the Shaw is a one family. The beautiful home that these people have spent a fortune on because of the beautiful es- tate value, is also a one family I would say. Across the street, the Trojanowski's is a one family. We're all one fami- ly here except for the Mattes'. They're the two family and there is nothing wrong with that all. The house is big enough for it. It is divided up into one family here and one family there. It's basically, Joyce's parents live with the Mattes'o~ There's nothing wrong with that. And it currently is presumed the estate flavor of history that is a beautiful estate and Page ~16 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. HAHN (continued) we are all enjoying it. I'm not going to erect any fences between the Shews, between the Mattes' or between these new~ neighbors hereo We don't want fences. It's a beautiful es- tate. (Beep at~end of tape causing statement to be inaudible) .... Mattes' that~have fences here. We are breaking up this whole entire beauty that will never be found again in the en- tire area there because everything is zoned up maybe one or two acres° But that particular piece has always been one great big estate° As for the parking, they don~t have a~parking loto They have a driveway and they park their cars right on the lawno There is no parking area at this moment and I can't foresee one. But I can foresee that if the ground had a park- ing area, there's again tractors coming in, again bulldozing everywhereo And nothing against you all, but I've been living on a construction site now for two years~and I don't mind be- cause it's almost over with. And we were.~planning to put our driveway down and get it pretty and put lights there and keep this estate flavor which is the reason I bought this beautiful home. Whether the Mattes' were going to participate in that, I don't really know because they really don't use much° They have their own drivewayo They don't really use all that much but we sure do and for us to now go home and see a ten car park- ing lot where the grass is now eliminated and we have a concrete city~ hey, I might as well pack it up and go back to New York City and that's not what I bought the house for. I would like to see green grass around me. So what is it I'~ forced to do, either we have, if the Board says__we're still going to offer the Bed and Breakfast everything, we don't really careo That's whet it is, we're going to offer it~' And in addition to that the covenanns are non considered by-the Board, I have no other alternative but to put all these hedges myself and these fences myself and so on and this destroys the beautiful estate flavo~c. And at the same time, we can get as many appraisals as you want but any reasonable person can obviously see that the value and the flavor of this small site (inaudible) a private small com- munity within a private residential community will be lost for- ever. Abuses will always take place. We don't know what tran- sient mean.~ I mean are they going to have an application to find oun exactly where these people come from? Heck, you live down in the southfork where they make a lot of liberal deci- sions on their Board. Now look at it. They use to have mul- tiple families. Fifteen people living in one rented house. Fifteen private vehicles. I know the Hamptons have gone to- tally crazy. I worked in the Hamptons. I went to the north- fork because it's more conservative. I felt that the people of the town leadership is much more concerned with their peo- ple living here and that they certainly don't want to have the groupy type situation. Not that the Mattes' would do that because they are very honorable people. They're very concientious. They're hard workers. But you know a business is a business and what if one day they say let's sell this business. Are we going to sell it to who now? We don't know who. Then we're standing here in five years again be- cause they want to change it into an inn. How far can it Page ~17 . December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of~ Appeals MRo HAHN (continued) go? I may be exaggerating a little because I'm obviously emotional about thiso If I have to TAPE ENDED CHAIRMAi~ GOEHRINGER: Anytime. MSo COUGHLIN: I believe in the affidavit that the Mattes' presented to the Board last week, they stated that the park- ing area has been there for over a 100 years and I think they have got it in records with various pictures. It is gravel. The gravel, as the gentleman stated, is in the ground and it is a lot of grass. I believe I presented pictures to you which indicates his tw0 driveways on'the other side of the property which are not screenedo They are willing to screen the property. I understand that he likes how it is not but he really doesn't have that much control over private proper- tyo They would have the right to pave their driveway.now as it iso That's within their rights as private property owners~ Again, he's worried about an inn° Well an inn isn't a permit.- ted use in that area° And transient is defined by something like (in the Funk and Wagnall dictionary) as a lodger or border who remains for a short time. It's not permanent~ It's tem- porarya It's within the powers of the Board to interprete the ordinance. So I believe that shouldn't be a problem when you are defining ito Thank you~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. like to express an opinion. see:you raise your hand. Is there anybody else who would Yes ma'am~ Sorry~ I didn't SID BRAN CIFORYE: I'm building the home that's going up there now° My main concern is the value~ I'm very concernedo I bought the piece of property and built the kind of home° I went to each of these people right with the plans and said this is what I'm doing. Do you like this~ When I ~looked at the property, the whole thing that struck me was that it was this nice estate area that is convenient yet it is set up pri- vately. That is how I'm marketing the home° I'm very concerned than the way to get to the house, to the house that I'm build- ing, I have to go through this right-of-way. I have to pass their home. In there you're going to see the parking loto You're going to see the people~ You're going to see every- thing. I'm very concerned when you.go through there how I'm going to present it to a buyer and say hey; isn't it wonder- ful that you're going to have this nice private house. Don't look over here. I bought that property and I built a house so that I could bring up their property values The house is now in the market for $350,000. I have no idea what could possibly ever happen having a little Bed and Breakfast next door. I'm also very concerned about the liability on the two right-of-ways. Who is going to be responsible for that? How am I going to tell somebody buy this house and by the way~ if something happens to one of their borders on that right-of- way, you might be responsible. I'm very concerned. Page '18 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Michael and J°yce Mattes Southotd Town Board of Appeals CHAIPdVLAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, would like to speak? Is there anybody else who MRS. TROJANOWSKi: I live across the street from the Mattes' directly across from the right-of-way~ And first let me pre · face what I'm going to say that I've known the Mattes' for 9 years and I have always admired their integrity and and their love for the beauty of the land and their home. I bought my house a year before they bought their house and my husband and I have put 9 years into a home that was also in deplorable con- dition. I left a home in Jamesport because it was located near a seasonal motel which changed ownership and became a motel that had welfare people in it. I know Mike and Joyce would never al- low something like that but thei~ guests (I'm sure) they will make sure their guests are good people but how do you know? Do you say well I don't know if you're going to fit into the scheme of things for renting a room. You can't do that° When people come and ask to rent a room, you can't put... I can't express what I'm trying to say here but you just can't regulate it. That's the word I'm lOoking for. Thank you. Like I said, my husband was one of the contractors that helped Mike and Joyce do some of the work in their home and I feel badly. We've been through some good and some bad times together. That I found out about this a few days ago from neighbors. And I had seen Mike and Joyce a few days after this notice was put in the newspaper. And I'm angry that nothing was said to us, any of us prior to this going on and I don't want to see the lights blaring through my house coming down that right-of-way. I don't want my pri- vacy disturbed. We all live in a nice community and I know Mike and Joyce bought there because it was just lovely and they knew it had potential and I feel you should really carefully consider this and I guess that's all I have to say. It's just that I don'n want the beauty of the area destroyed either. This is a residential area and we all enjoy living there the way it is. Thank you. CHAIRMAI~ GOEHRINGER: like to speak. Thank you ma'am. Yes ma'am. Would you MS. POOLE : I'd like to tell Pamela what would her house be worth having our, Mike and Joyce hadn't come in and straightened that house. That house was being vandalized. She use to come over crying when we were looking at it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is becoming counter productive at this particular point. MS. POOLE : If that house hadn't been taken by them with all their sweat that they put into it, they could forget it. Than would be down the drain. Let me tell you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes Mike. Go ahead. Would you just please mention the lady's name that just spoke for the record° Page ,19 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. MATTES: That was Ms. Poole. I'm concerned about the area and I stated this before. I'm concerned about my neighbors. They're looking to build a house. The Shaw§ are looking to live thereo The Hahns live there. The Trojanowskis live there and I have respect for all these people° I hope they respect me. Our area changed over the last 8 years. As my mother-in law just stated, it was a vandalized house there. It was rapid- ly becoming an eyesore. There were kids hanging around. There Were beer parties going on inside the house.~ Bob Bailey, the owner before Mr. Hahn of his house, renovated that house large- ly because of my efforts and my wife's efforts in that house. The Shaws were drawn to the area~ They came to use and said it's a nice area because of the Bailey house and my house now and they decided to build there. I don't know exactly the mo- tivation behind MSo Brandsborde but I know that she had been by the areao And I can state in publicly this forum that I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of heavy impact on that area. Nobody loves that area or that house more than me. I intend to die there° I hope not soon but some day maybe~ I have no intentions of selling, t have no intention of moving out. When I came~ in there this area was absolutely beautiful. I want to live here the rest of my life and I hear your con- cerns. I just wanted to tell you that. CHAIRMAN~iGOEHRINGER: While you're up there Mike, can I just ask you one quick question? Do you have any problem with re- directing the (again) what refer to it as the driveway and I won't talk about it as ingress and egress because they can both be in or out, the one that transverses the right-of-way. Do you have problem redirecting that parallel to that ri§hr-of- way and going out on your own property? MR. MATTES: Explain this to me again~ CHAI~CAN GOEHRINGER: Let me draw it for you. With redirect- ing this right-of-way back over here and bringing it so it does not transverse their property. MR. }~ATTES: way. In other words, I go down the straight right-of CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:No. On your property bringing it down here. Do you have any objection to that? MATTES: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does the Board have any specific ques- tions at this time? I have discussed only briefly the matter on a legal technicality concerning the right-of-way and the person that we were dealing with is of course the Town At- torney and he has requested the deed to the Mattes's property and we have so gotten one from the assessor's office and we are going to give it to him. I don't know if that's going to generate any more questions:. What I would like to do very simply is recess to the next regularly scheduled meeting with Page 20 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (continued) no testimonyo Ok. With no testimony. If I had a specific ques- tion that I asked the Mattes' and somebody wants to specifi- cally wants to ask me a question which I will then tend no relate to the Mattes', I will do that and I will allow than. The hearing will take approximately four and one half minutes and that is it. And I'm doing that specifically for one rea- son and that is I have no idea what legal question might arise after further investigation of this deed. So hearing no furth- er questions I will make a ..... I'm sorry. I apologize. MR. FOSSETT: I live next to the Trojanowskis and yes their house is very nice, They've gone through a lot of reconstruc- tion work. My wife and myself just built a house. We started three years ago. Post and Beam construction° We have all of our life in that house. And my concern is property value, The statement was made by the attorney that they see no reason why the property value should depreciate but again~ there's been no proof saying that it is going to appreciate. Currently, I'm on the market° I bought into the area because of the area just like everybody else has stated. It's unique, And now am I to go and all of a sudden I see a sign out front saying that we have rooms no renn here and figure that my property value is now going to decrease. Is my marketability going to down like their marketability is going to go down. That's my only question and that's my only concern° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Shaw. Quick. MR, SHAW: I just have some general points to hand to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: just ask the question. this or just one? Yes. I was waiting for that. Let me Are you furnishing us two copies of MR. SHAW: Do you want two? CtLA IRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. LOUGHLIN: I'd like an opportunity to read over the cove- nants and restrictions and respond to them if I could, MR, SHAW SUBMITTED TO CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER THE SET OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ~ICH WERE OBTAINED FROM HIS LA~ER AT 5~O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON AND MORE IS TO COME. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you everybody very much for speaking and we'll see you some time in January. You may call our office. I would suggest calling us the last week possibly the day... It will probably be the 8tho Call us the first week in January and we will tell you exactly when the meeting is going to beo MR. HAHN: or a no? The next meeting, is that going to be just a yes Page ~21 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The next meeting is very simply to gather all the information that has not been gathered to very simply tie uP the loose ends and it would be not fair to either side if I was to close the hearing and had to ask one very impor- tant question that I felt was necessary or the Board felt was necessary and that's the only thing I'm doing is avoiding any further re-opening of hearings or what ever the case might be until a decision is forth comingo So again I think you and I wish everybody a happy holiday season and make a motion reces- sing this hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Ail in favor - aye. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER~OF~ROBERT EGAN THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11~9~6~L, PUBLIC HEARING 9:27 p.m. Appeal Noo 3557 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of ROBERT EGAN. Variance to Amend Conditional Approval Rendered 11/3/86 to allow reconstruction of dwelling with in- sufficient setbacks upon foundation, as exists at 5 and 12 feet, rather than 7 and 12 feet, at 330 Knoll Circle, East Marion. Lots 27 and part of 28, Gardiners Bay Estates. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Strang. MR. STRANG: As the application reads, we are appealing_ one of the conditions of the prior variance granted. That being the condition which stated that there must be a 7 foot sideyard on the one side and 12 feet on the other. The 12 foot was the vari- ance that we initially soughto The 7 feet I think, somehow came up in error. May I remind the Board that what we are doing here is reconstructing on top of an existing foundation of a new dwel- ling and the existing foundation is presently 5 feet on the line and we would like to maintain that 5 feet for obvious reasons. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You said 7 feet? MR. STRANG: 5 feet. CHAIR}fAN GOEHRINGER: Now wait a minute. Give me that again. MR. STRANG: The existing side yard setback being at the exist- ing foundation is 5 feet. The condition placed upon the prior variance granted indicated that there would be a 7 foot sideyard on that side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have no objection to... I'm sorry. MR. STRANG: We are looking for relief from that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: yard as imposed? You have no objection to the south side~- MR. STRANG: None whatsoever. CHAIR}fAN GOEHRINGER: I think at its closestFpQint~_it-~waskt2ffect. MR. STRANG: It was 12 feet at the closestl~pQint.:and~!~hat~s~.%~!~at we intend to have and maintain. Page 2 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - Robert Egan Southold TOwn Board of Appeals CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: We'll do the best we possible can to aCcomodate you on. this from the rehearing type of applica- tion as expeditously as we can after the Bed and Breakfast. Is there anybody in the audience? Did you want to say any- thing Barbara? Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later° All in favor - ayeo SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF JOHN SENKO THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1986, PUBLIC HEARING 9:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3552 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of JOHN SENKO. (Recessed from 11/20) Shopping-center use in this "B-I" General Business Zone containing 30,084 sq. ft. in lot area. Intersection of W/s Ackerly Pond Lane and N/s Main Road, Southold. The Chairman reconvened the hearing. (The legal notice ~and application were read during the initial hearing,) CHAIP~iAN GOEHRINGER: We'll ask Mr. Angel if there's anything would like to say briefly° MR. ANGEL: We don't really have very much to add to what was presented before hand. We've discussed the chairman's sugges- tion that the front parcel be considered for affordable housing° Non~the front parcel. The front building be considered for af- fordable housing° And with all due respect, we disagree with your opinion. And I think the rationale for that was expressed in a letter to the Board from Mr. Strang. And we're here of course if you want to discuss that further. Mr. Strang is here again. Mr. Senko is here again and so am I. We of course would be willing no discuss it with you° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no idea what the Board intends to impose, if anything. I know that we're not particularly happy with changing the subjectwith the access on Route 25 and we may avoid that problem couched within any decision of the Boardo I have not discussed this application with anybody or any of my Board members or any of our immediate Board members to either my right or my left. And so I have no idea how they feel other than what we had previously discussed. MR. ANGEL: Let me point out without .... I didn't mean to in.- terrup you but I'll re±terate what I said before. As far as the access goes, the plan was submitted with an emergency access, emergency vehicle only on Route 25. We are not whetted ~to that. And as far as we're concerned, the application is one to approve the existing structures and the multiple use within the existing structures. As far as traffic is concerned, we will certainly abide by any determinations of the Boardo Our plan for traffic is you don't represent it to be the best possible. Also, was that reviewed by the Planning Board? MR. G. STRANG : It was initially reviewed by the Planning Board and referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. They have not taken any action on that. MR, ANGEL: And we were discussing that briefly before hand the few minutes that we waited outside (among other ~'things) includ- ing philosophical questions, sports and the weather. But it's a difficult, perhaps ir'sa difficult question there and we're on a state road and part of the problem, the Board c0u]d take this position .and the Board could take a position for example, that ~age 2 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - John Senko Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued) you approve access to emergency vehicles and we show it on the plan. And it's virtually a possibility that the state could disagree with that. But it ~s thelong way of saying that we are open to any suggestions on traffic certainly from this Board, the Planning Board and ultimately from the State De- partment of Transportation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you. Dan do you have anything? We!l! see what develops° MR. DAN ROSS : I0 assert withQut repeating our prior comments and also an opportunity if there's been any written testimony submitted. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Only a letter from Mr. Strang. While he's reading that, I'll direct one other question to you and that is; do you h~ve any other specific suggestion as to use of the existing building on the site other than what it is used for now? MR. ANGEL: Other than commercial retail and other than this specific use? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Commercial retail. MRs ANGEL: Ihey're saying potential professional use but I think it lends itself too well to that. Do you (to G. Strang)? MR. SIRANG : I don't see that there's a serious problem with the potential to have it leased by a tenant of professional or business use other than retailo But again we don't know what the market is and what the interest would be~ CHAIRP~A_N GOEHRINGER: As we said essentially, we want to screen that to the best of our ability for the sole purpose of avoiding people stopping 'on the highway and walking onto the properny as they do in the summer, (they don't specifically do it at this time). I observed the property four ~ times since the last hearing and I've not seen anybody park on the highway. But during the summer months, to gain access to the ice cream parlor, I have seen as many as 3 or 4 cars (and also 4 cars in the parking lot) parked on the highway. And that's what we're essentially attempting to do away with. Not specifically to decrease the owners rental aspects of the buildingbut to try and curtail so much activity from the street onto the property. MR. ANGEL: When we were here last time, we took into considera- tion your suggestion about affordable housing and we understood the motive for that. It was some extent differently than it appears. It seems to us that you had a two-fold motive. One was to resolve the planning problem of cars parking along the front because the commercial use of that front structure and also to add another unit of affordable housing in the community° ~age 3 - December il, 1986 Public Hearing - John Senko Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If it could be done. MR. ANGEL: Now we didn't pick up on that first goal of yours. We just thought that you were talking about affordable housing for the aspect of affordable housing. We hadn't considered the problem that you see with the building. We just went out and tried to brainstorm in 5 minutes to see how we could address that problem along the street, And to be honest with you, we have not come up with anything, I want to say two things about that, One; if you have any thought that you'd care or any of the other Board members have any thoughts about how that could be resolved, let'us know. Garrett is going to be going on vaca- tion in a little while but I'd like to be able to address this concern either in a plan or a letter from him or in a letter from me within a short period of time as we can between now and the next meeting so that we can give you some other alterna- tives if at all possible. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~ Why don'~ we just close the hearing pend- ing the receipt of a letter and we'll say within 7 days .... MR, ANGEL:~ Give me more time, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You need more timeo MR, ANGEL: Give me as muCh time as you can give and reasonably have a chan~e to.~get it before the Board given the fact that they might want to comment on it, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~ Well then why don't we .... You want to recess it? MR. ANGEL: I wouldn't min~ having... MEMBER SAWIEKI : I'd ra~her not recess it. I'd rather close the hearing'p~nding and make sure everybody gets coDieso MR. ANGEL: No problem with copies. You just tell meo Give me as muCh time as yOu can. If it's only 7 days, I'll take 7 days. If you can give me more time, give me more time. When is your next meeting? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER January 8th. ' MEMBER SAWICKI : There's no problem with giving C6unsel '~ more time-is 'the~e,Je~y? MR. ANGEL: Then I'll sen~ it out to him on the 14th day.the same day I send it out to you if I wait that extra 14 or the full working days. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We should give you after Christmas to do ito Say the 28th, We!Il give you until the 28th. Is that alright with you? You have until the meeting to respond -- the Sth~ ok. We would not make a decision before the 8th anyway because we wouldn't reconvene until that time anyway. Page 4 - December 11, 1986 Public Hearing - John Senko Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL: And if anybody on the Board has any suggestions now before you close the hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My only suggestion is what I had And to be perfectly honest with you, is what Mr~ Strang said and that is; that thereis definitely a certain feel- ing that the structure itself would not particularly lend itself for any type of housing because of its proximity to the road° But I would tend to think that it would be an excellent spot for professional office use. I really do and I think it would behoove you to deal with it on that particu- lar basis because of the nature of the fact that it does have some visibility. But at the same time, the visibility is not the high traffic problem that we have with having a retail business in there, and everything can be contained within that specific parking plan. I mean it could be adopted and modified. You see that lends itself to a problem if you have to modify a plan and we close the hearing and this is what I am saying° If they intend to modify the plan in some way, then we have the hearing closed, Then we have to have another hearing to re-open it° We really should recess. I think we should recess. ~R. ANGEL: I don't know what we're going to come up with. It may not be another plan modification but it's theoretically pos- sible because we just haven't given it any consideration yet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the 8th and thenoo. Oko Let's do that~ We'll recess until MR° ANGEL: You'll hea~ from us by the 28th. As usual, on the 28th at 5 o'clock some messenger will come flying into Linda's office trying to catch her on the way out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much and we're sorry to bring you back out again Mr. Senko and have a happy holiday. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until January 8, 1987. Ail in favor - aye.