HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/20/1986 APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS..IR.
SERGE DOYEN. JR,
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
Southold Town Board of'Appeals
MAIN RDAD- BTATE ROAD 25 soU~HDLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY-~ NOVEMBER ;~'C~:'i986
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was
held on THURSDAYz NOVEMBER 20, 1'986 at 7:30 o'clock p.~.. at the
Southold Town Hall, Maih.Road, Southold, New York 11971~
Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles
Grigonis, Jro; Serge Doyen,~Jr.; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph Ho
Sawicki, constituting all fi.~e members of the Board of Appeals.
Also present were: Victor Lessard, Building-Department A. dminis-
trator; Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary/Clerk, 'and approximatel'.y
35 persons in the audience at the beginning of the meeting.
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded
with the first matter on the agenda, as follows:
PENDING DECISION: Apoeal 'No. 3513:
Apolication of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ'for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to con-
struct condominium complexes within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal
water, at the west side of Sixth Street, Gree~port, NY; CoUnty Tax
Map District 1000, Section 49, Block 01, Lot 25.1. Zone DistriCt:
"M-Light Multiple" Residence.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
This is an appeal for an area variance of the setback require-
ments of Section 100-119.2(B) of the Zoning Code of the Town of
Southold.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3513 - SHILOWITZ decision, continued:)
Appellant's property is located on the west side of Sixth Street
at GreenpQrt, adjacent to the tidal waters of Pipes Cove and Peconic
Bay. The total property, including underwater_land, comprises an
area of 98,949~sq. ft. (2.26 acres), of which 56,997 sq. ft. (57.79%)
is located within the territorial boundaries of the Town of Southold,
and 41,497 sq. ft. (42.13%) is within the incorporated Village of
Greenport. The premises are designated on the Suffolk County Tax
Maps as follows: 1000-49-01-25.1 (Southold); 1001~007-01-16
(Greenport). The appellant.and/or his predecessor have obtained
grants for the underwater portion of the premises from the State
of New York.
By way of background, Appellant since 1982 has been actively
engaged in_obtaining all necessary permits and/or approvals required
for the construction o~ a nine-unit condominium complex oD the
premises, including zoning changes from both the Town of Southold
and the Village of. Greenport; site plan approvals; special condo-
minium permit approval from the Village of GreeDport; New York
State Department of E~vironmental Conservation Tidal Wetlands permit;
Southold Town Trustees' Tidal Wetland permit; U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers permit for bulkheads, dredgiDg and floating docks; and
a building permit from the Village of Greenport. In March of 1985,
the Southold Town Board amended the Town Zoning Code by adding
thereto Section 100-119.2B, which provides that all buildings must
be set back 75 feet from the tidal waters or wetlaads. On May 9,
1986, appellant applied for a permit to construct condominiums on
the site. Such application was denied for the reason, inter alia,
that the proposed construction did not conform to the 75-fo~t set
back requirement of Section 100-119.2B of the Zoning Code. This
appeal is from such denial.
Hearings were held by this Board on June 19, 1986~ July 17,
1986~ August 14, 1986; September ll, 1986; and_October 2, 1986,
at which hearings all parties and their attorneys were given
the right to present such testimony and documents as they deemed
appropriate. During the several months that this appeal has
been pending before the Board, the members have had an opportunity
to visit the premises in question and the review of all documents
introduced before the Board. The Board is also familiar with the
history of the site, its former uses, and the condition of and
uses of the structures located thereon. Prior to the purchase
of the premises by Appellant, an oyster-processing plant was
located thereon, which use had been discontinued for many years
and the buildings and bulkheads along the shoreline were.iD a
dilapidated condition.
Appellant has submitted a site plan, dated July 1, 1982,
~' Sout~hold Town Board of Appeals -3- November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3513 - SHILOWITZ decision, continued:)
which shows three buildings. Building l, containing four dwelling
units, is located entirely within~the Town; Building 2 containing
four dwelling units, is partially within the Town and partially
within the Village; Building 3_contains one dwelling unit and.is
located entirely in the Village. Building 1 on this plan is
located on the southerly poction of the premises with insufficient
setbacks at 20 feet from the southerly bulkhead, seven feet.from
the westerly bulkhead, and 25± feet from the easterly bulkhead,
at the closest points. Building 2 on this plan ~s located near
the center portion of the premises with insufficient setbacks at
26± feet from the easterly bulkhead, at the closest points
(Southold).
At the September Il, 1986 meeting, appellant submitted an
alternative plan which reduced the dwelling units in Building
1 from four to three units, resulting in an increase in the
setback from the westerly bulkhead from seven to 21 feet, and
from the easterly bulkhead f~om 25± feet to 45± feet. Building
2 on this plan is shown to be 29 feet from the easterly bulkhead,
62 feet from the northwest bulkhead, and 54 feet from~pthe Dorth
bulkhead (Southold), at its nearest points.
Appellant has submitted an affidavit which sets forth the
fact that be has spent the sum of $210,000 to purchase the
premises; $65,000 for architectural and engineering services;
$12,000 for consultants; $110,000 for attorneys' fees; and
$40~000 for advertising, telephone.calls and miscellaneous
expenses, or a total sum of $437,000 Q~ this project, to date.
As previously indicated, this is an application for an
area variance where the standard is whether strict compliance
with zoning ordinance will result in "practical difficulties."
Although the courts have_not defined the term "practical
difficulties," in the Case of Wachsberger v. Michaelis, 19
Misc. 2d 909, the Court said that the followieg~ma~te~s should
be considered: (1) how substantial the variance is in relation
to the requirement; (2) the effect, if the variance is allowed,
of the increased population density thus produced on available
governmental facilities; (3) whether a substantial change will
be produced in the character of the neighborhood or substantial
detriment to adjoining properties; (4) whether the difficult~
can be obviated by some~method, feasible for the appellaDt to
pursue, other tha~ a variance; and (5) whether iD vi.ew of the
manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of
the above factors, the.interests of justice will be served by
allowing the variance.
In applying the above considerations to the facts in this
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3513 - SHILOWITZ decision, continued:)
case, the Board finds: (1) that the variance requested is
substantial in relation to the zoning requirement; (2) that
the resulting increase in population.density if a variance is
granted will not produce an undue burden on_available governmental
facilities,_since municipal sewer and water service to the facility
has been approved, additional on-site fire hydrants are to be
provided by the appellant and the municipal fire department has
approved the project; (3) that the grant of a variance will not
produce a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood
or create a substanti.al detriment to adjoining properties. If
nine dwelling units are built on the site, which contains 98,494
sq. ft. of a~ea, the resulting density is approximately one unit
per 10,900 sq. ft. of area; if eight units ~ere built (as in the
altecnative plan), the density would be approximately 12~.300 sq.
ft. of area per dwelling unit. This compares favorably with
existing dwellings in the neighborhood; (4) this Board finds
that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible for
the applicant to pursue. Both the attorney for the appellant
and the attorney for neighboring property owners agree that if no
variance is granted, only 1-1/2 units could be built on the premises
located in the Town, and that the total number of units would be
reduced to four, a reduction of more than 50%. Considering~.the
investment made to date, in reliance upon the Town Code prior to
its March 1985 addition of Section 100-119.2B, the Board finds
that there is no method feasible to.the appellant to obviate
the granting of a variance; (5) the final consideration is
whether in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose,
justice will be served by the grant of a variance. A review of
the record in this matter demonstrates that the appellant, in
good faith, contracted to purchase the premises tn 1981 contingent
upon his ability to obtain all required permits and.approvals to
construct condominium units at the site; that he thereafte~
applied to the Village, Town, County, State and Federal agencies
for all required permits and approvals at a cost_of ma~y thousands
of dollars, and the expenditure of mQre than three year~ of time
and effort; that after obtaining the required permits and
approvals, the Town Zoning Code was amended requiring that the
buildings be set back 75 feet from the bulkheads on the site.
It is the determination of this Board that the appellant
has demonstrated that a strict application of Section 100-119.2B
of the Zoning Code would result in practical.difficulties a~d
significant economic injury. ~
The appellant has submitted an "alternative plan" to this
Board on 9/11/86 and his attorney has stated that the~Board
could consider the same in its determination of this mat~er.
The Board does hereby grant a variance of the provisions
of Section lO0-119.2B of the Zoning Code to the extent, and
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5-
November 20' 1986 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3513 - SHILOWITZ decision, continued:)
subject to, the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it~was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a variance from the provisions of
Section lO0-119.2B~of the Zoning Code to the extent, and
subject to, the conditions as follow:
1. There is no disturbance of land within wetland and
beach areas.
o
There is no surface water runoff into tidal waters
or neighboring lands~(shall remain on this site).
Updated Certification by Building Department and
Final Site Plan are approved by the Planning Board.
Two copies of the Final Map are filed with the Office
of the Board of Appeals.
This approval is not to be deemed an approval for any
other construction~ accessory buildings, or otherwise.
Conditions No. l, 2 and 3 of the Suffolk County Planning
Commission, as set forth in its letter~of recommendation
to this board dated October 9, 1986, which conditions are
as follow:
(a) T~e area of Building 1 should be diminished to allow
accommodation of only three dwelling units;
(b) Building 1 shali be relocated wi~h a westerly
bulkheaded setback of 21 feet along the PecQnic Bay~
(c) Relocated Building ljaccessory wood decking shall
have southerly bulkbeaded setbacks of 35 feet/30 feet,
respectively, along Peconic Bay. (Tbirty~five ft,
setback for the foundation of dwelling units. Thirty
ft. setback for open deck without..concrete foundation
attachment to dwelling units.)
There will be no overhead lighting which would be adverse
to neighbQring properties.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3513 SHILOWITZ decision, continued:)
8. Deck addition is to remain open and unroofed, and is to
be constructed on pilin§s (without a permanent concrete
attachment to dwelling foundation structure).
9. There is to be compliance with the lowest floor elevations
of the Floodplain Management Law.
lO. There wiil be no further setback reductions.
ll. There wiii be no new fenced or other structures within
75 feet of tidal water, (except as approved herein).
This Board declines to adopt Condition No. 4 of the Suffolk
County Planning Commission report, which condition provides as
follows: "Approval of the Greenport Fire Department," for the
~eason that it believes that it is not appropriate for this Board
to make its approval of a variance subject to the approval of a
fire department which provides fire protection to the subject
premises. This Board believes that it is appropriate for this
Board to consider recommendations of a fire department, which it
has done in this case, but not to condition its approval of a
variance upon the formal approval of a fire department to the
grant of such variance.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki.
This resolution was duly adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7-
November 20,'1986 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3487-SE:
Application of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR for a Special Exception to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,~. Section 100-30(B)[2] for permission
to construct and establish House of Worship with related religious
activities on a five-acre tract of land referred to as Lot #3, Minor
Subdivision of Salvatore Catapano, which received Sketch-Plan Approval
4/14/86 by the Town Planning Board. Location of Property: West Side
of Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000,
Section 69, Block 6, Part of Lots 8 and 2. (Current Owners: S. and
J. Catapano).
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on October 2,
1986 in the Matter of the Application of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR
under Application No. 3487; 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, applicant requests a Special Excep-
tion under the Provisions of Article III, Section 100-30(B)[2]
for a "House of Worship" to be located on a five-acre tract of
land along the west side of Main Bayview Road, Southold, referred
to as Lot #3 in pending Minor Subdivision of Salvatore Catapano
and more particularly shown on sketched subdivision mapped
October 15, 1985 by Roderick VanTuyl~ P.C~
2. The' premises in question is located in the "A-80"
Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and has received
Sketch-Plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board on
the pending subdivision on April 14, 1986.
3. The Site Plan under consideration shows a proposed
new church building with a setback of 70 feet from the
southerly property line, 185 feet from the west property line,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(Appl. No. 3487SE - CHURCH OF OPEN DOOR decision, continued:)
99 feet from the east property line.
4. It is noted for the record that this action is
for a House of Worship, as more particularly shown on
the Site Plan prepared June 18, 1986 and is not deemed
to be a Special Exception for any other construction which
should be proposed in the future.
5. Located along the south property line are parcels
improved with single-family dwellings, as ~ell as dwellings
to the west and to the northeast.
6. It is also noted for the record that this project
as shown on the _~ite plan _~nder consideration will meet the
requirements of sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section lO0-30B
of the Zoning Code as to minimum setbacks an~ maximu.~ lot
coverage as noted therein.
In considering this application as shown with a
minimum setback of 70 feet f~om the south proper'ty line
depicted on Site Plan prepared June 18, 1986 by Keillor Arch.:
(a) The House o~..~ors..hip~._w~ll not p~event the order'ly and
reasonable use of adjacent p_~gperties or of properties in
adjacent use districts; (b) The House of Worship wil-1 not
prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted_~?
legally established uses in the district wherein the
proposed use is to be located, or of permitted or legally
established uses in adjacent use districts; (c) the
safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or ~rder
of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed
House of Worship and its location; ~(d) the HoJse of
Worship will be in harmony with and promote the general
purposes and intent of this chapter. The Board has also
considered subsections [a] through [1]'of Article X'Ing,
Section 100-121(C)[2] of the Zoning~ Code.
Accordingly, on motion 'by Mr. Goehringer, seconded 'by
Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception for-a_"House~of
Worship" in the Ma~ter of the Apglication of CHURCH OF THE
OPEN DOOR, No. 3478, as shown b~ Site Plan prepared June 18,
1986 by Keillor Architects (in<icating.~etbacks at 70 feet
from the so~th property line, etc.)~'s~bject.'~o~'~e~e~'ving final
Site Plan approval ~by the Pi'~nning BO~<aS requi'red by Arti"cl~
III, Section IO0-30B Of the Zo~ing_'Code.
Vote of the Boa'rd: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki~ This resolution was duly adopted.
Southold To.wa Board of Appeals
-9-
November 20,1986 Regular Meeting
*7:53 p.m.
'8i00 p.m.
8:03 p.m.
*8:43 p.m.
*8:50 p.m.
*8:50 p.m.
*8:54 p.m.
*Public Hearings were held in each of the following matters:
*7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3573 - MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST.
*7:49 p,m. Appea'l No.'3571 - MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST.
Appeal No. 3568 - STAMATIOS AND ALENI RAPANAKIS.
Appeal No. 3569 -BOATMEN'S HARBOR MARINA.
Appeal No. 3572 - MICHAEL AND JOYCE MATTES.
Appeal No. 3565, FRANK FIELD REALTY INC.
Appeal No. 3566
Appeal No. 3570
Appeal No. 3576
FRANK FIELD REALTY INC.
PAUL HENRY.
BARBARA D. SCHRIEVER.
Following the hearing in the Matter of Barbara D. Schriever,
the board took action, as follows [continued on page 10 hereof]
Asterick (*) indicates hearing was officially concluded and
is pending deliberations and action at a later time.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -lO- November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
DELIBERATIONS/DECISION:
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 BARBARA D.
SCHRIEVER under Appeal No. 3576; and
WHEREAS~ at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testim~ny_~corded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered alt 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, appellant requests a withdrawal of
the conditional variance rendered by this Board under Appeal
No. 3393 on September 26, 1985, in which woodworking and metal
shop and artist studio, without residential use, was permitted,
and automatically terminating the 1969 conditional variance
rendered under appeal No. 1260 upon a transfer or conveyance
of the subject premises, or occupancy of the proposed wood-
w~orking/metal shop and artist studio uses.
2. The premises in question is situate along the west side
of Tabor Road commencin§ at a point approximately 1.15 feet south
of the Main Road (State Route 25) containing an area of .528
acreage, lot width [frontage] along Tabor Road of 123 feet, and
average lot depth of 187.24 feet. Properties to the north and
west of this parcel are zoned "A-Residential and Agricultural";
property adjoining this parcel along the south property line is
also zoned "B-Light" Business. Properties along the east side
of Tabor Road are zoned "A-Residential and Agricultural."
3. The building as exists contains an area of 6,903 sq.
ft. on the first floor and an area of 1,500± sq. ft. on the
second floor. The subject building is shown on survey as
Southold Town Board. of Appeals -ll- November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3576 - SCHRIEVER decision, continued:)
amended August 27~ 1985 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. to
be set back 22 feet from the front (east) property line along
Tabor Road [at its closest point], 15 feet from the south
property line along property now or formerly of William
Schriever, and 19 feet from the north side property line.
Town records show that the setback of the entire structure as
exists is 50 feet from the rear (west) property line along land
now or formerly of Tabor.
4. The variance conditionally approved June 12, 1969 under
Appeal No. 1260 permitted the use of a 5,600 sq. ft. existing
building for storage and repair of contractor's machinery and
equipment. The 5,600 sq. ft. building (without addition) is
more particularly shown on. survey_amended August 27, 1985
prepared by VanTuyl & Son (submitted with this application).
Subsequent to the 1969 variance, the subject premises was
rezoned by the Southold Town Board from "A-Residential and
Agricultural to "B-Light" Business. Under the "B-Light" Busi-
ness zoning regulations, such use is not a permitted use'.
5. The variance conditionally approved September 26, 1985
under Appeal No. 3393 permitted the use of the entire 6,903±
sq. ft. first floor area for small-scale fabricating without
heavy manufacturing of machinery or equipment, a mail-order
business, office areas, and manufacture of parts for portable
saw mills, in conjunction with an artist studio. This variance
did not permit residential use and called for the immediate
termination of the 1969 use variance upon a transfer or
conveyance of the property, or occupancy of the uses herein,
whichever occurred first. Upon information and belief, there
has been no transfer or conveyance of the subject premises.
6. It is the position of the applicant/property owner
at this time to continue the use of the premises in accordance
with the 1969 Variance under Appeal No. 1260, with or without
a conveyance of the land, rather than allow same to be auto-
matically terminated with a conveyance as stipulated by this
Board's 1985 decision (Appeal No. 3393). The subject premises
was never occupied for those uses permitted under Appeal
No. 3393.
7. It is the understanding of this Board that the use
of the premises (as conditionally permitted in 1969) has
not been discontinued and has not lapsed. Since there has
been no transfer or conveyance of the subject property,
the use of the 5,600 sq. ft. building for storage and repair
of contractor's machinery and equipment is still in full
force and effect. This Board does not, however, recognize
Southold Tow.n Board of Appeals -12- November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No 3576 - SCHRIEVER decision, continued:)
any other additional use, and hereby limits the property in
question to the "storage and repair of contractor's machinery
and equipment" and not in conjunction with any other use
which may be compatible under the proposed or current
zoning regulations (unless approval for such change or
addition is obtained after formal application to this Board,
or the 1969 use variance is withdrawn and terminated in
its entirety).
8. For the record, it is noted that the proposed Master
Plan under review currently depicts the subject premises to
..be rezoned to "B" General Business, which lists under Article
X, Section IO0~IOI(A), "Permitted Uses," at subsection [4]
"..obuilding,...~ontract~rs~ businesses ~r yards .... "
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to APPROVE the request under Appeal No. 3576
in the Matter of the Application of BARBARA D. SCHRIEVER
withdrawing the variance conditionally rendered under
Appeal No. 3393 September 26, ~1985, and reinstating the
variance conditionally approved under Appeal No. 1260
June 12, 1969, to allow the sole use of the subject 5,620
sq. ft. building for storage and repair of contractor's
machinery and equipment.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki.
adopted.
Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
This resolution was duly
Public Hearings continued, as follows:
9:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3552 JOHN SENKO. (Following
testimony, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded
by Member Sawicki, to recess this hearing until the
December 11, 1986 meeting of this board. This resolution
was unanimously adopted.)
9:55 p.m. Dennis Ketcham appeared in behalf of Boatman's
Harbor Marina and was informed of the status of the hearing
held earlier, which was concluded. The Chairman asked
Mr. Ketcham to bring in written confirmation of the exact
setback requested for the addition, which was believed by
Mr. Ketcham to be at 43 or 48 feet from the outer edge of
bulkhead. Mr. Ketcham said he would bring in the written
response within a day or so.
9:58 p.m. Stephen Angel~ Esq. advised the Chairman
that Roy Haje of Enconsultants Inc. was re-staking the
area he believed to be tidal wetlands and the written
information would be forthcoming soon.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
9:58 p.m. Motion was made by Member Sawicki, second(d by
Member Grigonis, to recess for three minutes, at which time
the hearings would continue.
10:02 p.m. Motion was made by Member Goehringer, seconded
by Member Grigonis, to reconvene. This resolution~was unanimously
adopted.
*10:02 p.m. Public Hearing - Appeal No. 3574 JOHN LORETO.
No one appeared in behalf of the applicant. No opposition from
the public was received.
*10:04 p.m. Public Hearing Appeal No. 3562 ANA G. STILLO.
10:22 pom. Brief presentation by Garrett A. Strang in
regard to the conditions imposed by the Board 11/3/86 in the
Matter of ROBERT EGAN, Appeal No. 3557. Mr. Strang urged
the board to reconsider and/or reopen the hearing in regard
to Condition No. 1 inasmuch as the property owner had planned
to use the existing foundation with setbacks at five feet and
12 feet, rather than 7 feet and 12 feet. The~Chairman
indicated that the board would discuss this matter later
in the meeting; however, in order for the board to readvertise
and reconsider this item, a written request and re-notice to
the adjacent property owners as required by Section 100-125
is necessary. Mr. Strang said he would submit his request
in writing early in the morning. 'The Chairman assured him
this matter could be advertised for December llth if the
board agreed.
10:27 p.m. Chairman Goehringer left the room, and
M~mber Grigonis Chaired the next hearing:
*10:27 p.m. Public Hearing: Appeal No. 3519 - STEVEN
~SANDERS & ANO..
*= Each hearing astericked indicates the hearing was officially
concluded.
[SEE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF ALL ABOVE HEARINGS PREPAR~
UNDER SEPARATE COVER and filed simultaneously herewith
with the Office of the Town Clerk for reference.]
10:45 p.m. Chairman Goehringer returned to the meeting at
this time following the last hearing.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3547:
Application of JOSEPH AND CATHERINE RIEMER for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article II!, Section lO0~31~for.approval of insuffi-
cient lot area, width and depth of two parcels known and ~eferred tQ
as Lots #96, 97, 98 and half of 99 at Peconic Bay Estates, Map #1124,
and identified on the County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 53,
Block 4, Lot 32.
Foliowing deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded.on October 2,
1986 in the Matte~ of the Appli~cation of JOSEPH A~D CATHERINE RIEMER
under Appeal No. 3547; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony cecorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has c~refully considered all testimony and
documentation submitted concerning ~bis application; and
WHEREAS, the board members h~ve pers~nal'ly viewed and are
familiar with the premises in questioD~ its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; ~nd
WHEREAS, the board made the followi.ng findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the south side
of Bay Shore Road in the Hamlet of Greenport, Town of Southold,
and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax ~aps as District.~lO00,
Section 53, Block 4, Lot 32,_containing a total lot area of
21,975 sq. ft, and 175 ft. frontage along Bay Shore Road.
2. The subject premises consists of Lots 96, 97, 9~ and
half of 99 as shQwn o~ "Amended Map'A, Pec~nic Bay EStates" filed
in.~he Suffolk County Clerk's Office as_Map No. 1124, and is
located i~ the "A" Residential a~d Agricultural ZQning District.
3. By this application, appellants request a Variance from
the Provisi_ons of ~nticle IiI~ Sg.~ti.on 100-31 of the Zoning Code
in this proposed.set-off division of land as_follows: (a~
proposed Parcel (I) to be set off containing 10,625 sq. ft. in
area and 85 ft. lot width, (b) proposed Parcel I~ containing
11,250 sq. ft. in area and 90 ft. lot width. The depth has
been established at 125 feet. The_dwelling parcel (II) is
improved with an existing single-famils~ two-stors framed
house and 20 x 20 ft. accesso~ garage.located in the rear-
yard area, all as shown by surveS mapped March 20, 1986 by
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3547 - RIEMER decision, continued:)
Roderick VanTuyl, P.C.
4. It is noted for the record that the Suffolk County
Department of Health, after hearing and by lette~ dated
August 7, 1986, g~anted the applicant's ~equest for a
waiver, allowing this project as proposed herein.
5. ~he subject property will be served by municipal
water~ upon which this variance is conditioned.
6. After investigation and research, it is noted that
a majority of the parcels in the immediate vicinity consists
of lots substantially smaller than the subject premises.
In considering this appeal, the board also-finds and
determines: (a) that the variance requested..is substantial
in relation to the zoning requirements; (b) that the
resulting increase in population density (one additional
dwelling) will not produce.an undue burden on available
governmental ~acilities, since municipal water service to
the proposed facil, ity will be connected; (c) that the
grant of this variance will not produce a substantial change
in the character of the neighborhood or create a substantial
detriment to adjoining properties since a majority of the
parcels are comparable or smaller than that proposed by
this application; (d) that.the difficulty_cannot be
obviated by a method feasible for appellants to pursue
other than a variance; (e) that in view of the manner
in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by
the grant of a ~ariance.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by
Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT the variances requested under
Appeal No. 3547 in the Matter of JOSEPH G. AND CATHERINE
RIEMER, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The dimensions o~'the parcels in this pending
set-off division of land shall be as more particularly
s'hown on survey mapped March.r20, 1986 by Roderick Van~
Tuyl, P.C~
2. Both parcels must be serviced by municipal water.
3. Any future-dwelling on the vacant parcel must
conform with all setback~requirements of the Zoning Code
without reduction in front, ~rear or side yards~
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer,
Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. This resolution
~as duly adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16-
November 20~ 1986 Regular Meeting
'UPDATE: Appeal No. 3259 - NICHOLAS ALIANO. Correspondence
was re~ed frQm ~nry E. Ra~nor, Jr. concerning the status of
the above matter. Th~ Chairman indicated that there were
several items awaited as noted in our September 24, 1986
letter, particularly, items #1, 2 and 4. The board indicated
that this matter would not be advertised for a public hearing
until the file was declared complete with these items,
(receipt of ~opy of signed Village contract for water and
sewage hook-ups; copy of Amended Certificate or other updated
review by Building Inspector concerning amended site plans for
either motel complexes or garden-apartment complex, which was
submitted to the Planning Board as of 9/3/86; copy of waiver
or action by the Suffolk County Health Department for Article
6.
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR DECEMBER Il, 1986: The board members
reviewed the following matters and ~oted field inspections
would be made. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr.
Do~glass, it was
RESOLVED, that the following matters be and hereby are
scheduled for public hearings to be held on THURSDAY,
DECEMBER'Il, 1986 at the Southold Town Hall, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that Board Secretary L~nda 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.
7:40 p.m.
7:45 p.m.
7:50 p.m.
7:55 p.m.
8:00
8:10 p.m.
8:15 p.m.
Appeal No
Appeal No
Appeal No
Appeal No
Appeal No
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
Douglass and Sawicki.
Appeal No. 3216 - EUGENE DAVISON;
Appeal No. 3577 - FRANK AND DELORES DAVIES;
Appeal No. 3578 - ARTHUR ESSLINGER~
3579 - CHARLES AND SANDRA BLAKE;
3580 NICHOLAS BABALIS;
3572 - MICHAEL AND JO¥CE MATTES;
3557 ROBERT EGAN;
3552 JOHN SENKO.
Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
This resolution was duly adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
REVIEW~ Appeal No. 3582 , LARRY AND SANDRA STAHL. Variance
filed November 18, 1986 for the prop. osed construction of an
attached pool with deck area and fence enclosure with an insuffi-
cient setback from riprap near ordinary highwater mark along
Wickham Creek, West Road, Cutchogue, NY~ 1000-110-7-26.
On motion by Mr. DoUglass, seconded by Mr. GOehringer,
it was
RESOLVED, that the Matter of Appeal No. 3582 for LARRY AND
SANDRA STAHL be held temporarily in abeyance pending receipt
of the following before scheduling and advertising this matter
for a public hearing: ~ ~
1. Approval or other action from the N.Y.S. Department
of Environmental Conservation;
2. Approval or other action from the Southold Town
Trustees;
3. Flagging the nearest construction (fence) proposed
near the riprap;
4. Two prints of the survey (showing the entire parcel).
Vote of the Board: Ayes- Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki This resolution was duly
adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: After review of each of the
following matters, the board took the following action:
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis,
it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declara-
tions on each of the following matters in accordance with the
N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Section 617,
6 NYCRR and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold:
(a) Appeal No. 3569 - BOATMAN'S HARBOR MARINA;
(b) Appeal No. 3571 MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST;
(c) Appeal No. 3573 - MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST;
(d) Appeal No. 3574 - DR. JOHN LORETO;
(e) Appeal No. 3566SE - FRANK FIELD REALTY INC.;
(f) Appeal No. 3565 z FRANK FIELD REALTY INC.;
(g) Appeal No. 3568 - STAMATIOS AND ALENI RAPANAKIS;
(h) Appeal No. 3572 - MICHAEL AND JOYCE MATTES;
(i) Appeal No. 3570SE - PAUL HENRY;
So~tnold Town Board of Appeals
-18-
(Environmental' De'clara~t.i~ons, continued:)
November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(j) Appeal No. 3575 - BARBARA D. SCHRIEVER;
(k) Appeal No. 3552 - JOHN SENKO.
(a)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONFiENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significancn
APPEAL NO.: 3569
PROJECT NAME: BOATMEN'S ~A~BOR MARINA
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:COnstruct 'addition to existing dwelling with
an insufficient setback from existing bulkhead.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly kngwn as: 3350 West .Creek A~e.., Cutchogu~ NY. 110.-01-12
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) Separating the project in question from the waterfront or
--~na~onm~nta/ area is a bulkhaad or concrete barrier in good condition.
(3) The relief requested is a setback ............................
variance regulated as pro-
vided6 NYCRRin Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality REview Act.
SoUtnold Town Board of Appeals -]9-
(Environmental' D'ec'l'ar~iOns, continued:)
November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(b)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONblENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~
APPEAL NO.: 3571
PROJECT NAME: M3~RG~E'Ta'n~d 'J'O'SE~PH BE'ST
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:Construct-addition at the southerly-side of
existing dwelling with insufficient-setback from bulkhead along tidal water
area and insufficient setback ~rom rear property line
LOCATION OF PROJECT: To~n of Southold, County or, suffolk,' more
particularly knQwn as:Private right-of-way.extending Off the east side
of Camp Mineola Rd., MattitUck 1~3-06-17 -
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETErmINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the shorn 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
-~un Se~n-~t-7-~-3..of the SEQRA~6 NYCRR
Sout~old Town Board of Appeals
-20-
(Envirorimen'tal D'e~clara~i~o~ns, continued:)
November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(c)
SoE.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3573
PROJECT NAME: ~A'RG~RET and-~J'OSEPH B'EST .....
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Permission to locate 'acce'ssory garage structure
in the frontyead area.
'LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly kngwn as:Private right-of-way _extending 0~f the east side
of Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck 1~3-06-17
REASON('S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short fOrm hasbeen
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 s~ructures.
Soutnold Town Board of Appeals -2]-
(Envir°nme'ntal D'e'cl'ar~iOns, continued:)
November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(d)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Si~nificanco
APPEAL NO.: 3574
PROJECT NAME: DR. JOH'N L0~ETO
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: CDnstruct storage building with an-insuffi-
cient · setback from bluff along L.I: Sound
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold,'County of, Suffolk, more
particularly k~wn as: N/S Glen Court, Cutchogue, NY 83-01-D8 & 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 premises in question is at an elevation of 10 or more feet
(3) The relief requested is a setback variance--regulated as pr~id---~
in Section 617.13 of the SEQRA, 6 NYCRR
Soutnold Town Board of Appeals
-22-
(Environmental D'e'cTara't'i~o~ns, continued:)
November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(e)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significancn
APPEAL NO.: 3566-SE
PROJECT NAME: FP~AN~ FIEL'Df REAL'TY INC. - .....
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below. --'
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [- ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Establis'h two-family use
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, more
particularly kngwn as: 320 Linnett Street., .Greenpo~t, 'Ny 48-02-36.1
REASON(-S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) This is an application concerning use of the premises and is
not dir~c~-l~-i~e~a-ted to new construction.
Soutnold Town Board of Appeals
-23-
(Environmental D'ecl'ara'ti~ons, continued:)
November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(f)
S.E.Q.R.A. -
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Si~nificanc~.
APPEAL NO.: 3565
PROJECT NAME: FRANK FIELD"REALTY INC.
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 simiI~r
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [::] Type II ~ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:~s£ablisb-two-family dwelling on parcel of land
containing less than 160,000 sq.ft: in area, 270'~ width, 400' depth, and
with insufficient front, rear, and sideyard setbacks
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~ Suffolk, more
particularly k~gwn as: 320 Linnett St., G~eenpor~ 48~02-36.1
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) Is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other
~i-t-i~T-~n-~i~-O~-m~ntal area.- ..... .
Soutnold Town Board of Appeals
-24-
(Envir°nmen~al~ D'e'cla'r'~i~ons, continued:)
November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(g)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significanca
APPEAL NO.: 3568
PROJECT NAME: STAM3~TI'OS 'a'n~d' AL'ENI'R3~P'AN~K'I'S
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 simil~
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [>~] Type II ~ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:'Establish one accessory apartment-in the
existing dwelling structure.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly k~Qwn as: 2030 Boisseau Ave., SQuth6~d 55-06-40
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) This is an application concerning use'of'the premises and is
.~noe ~r~l~._u~ed to new_qg~structlon.
Soutnold Town Board of Appeals
(Environmental Uec'lara'tions, continued:)
November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(h)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRON~.NTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significancn
APPEAL NO.: 3572
PROJECT NAME: MI'CH'~EL a~nd '~'YCE ~T'T'ES
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: [3~] Type II IX] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Establish"Bed and Breakfast Use". in owner
occupied building where lodging and breakfast is provided for not more than
six casual, translent'roomers, and renting not more than three rooms
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, more
particularly knQwn as: 50 Luthers Rd., Mattituck 113-03-~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) This is an application concerning use of the premises and is
-nuL dlzec~lT--z-e-l~%ed to new-~c~struction.
So~tnotd Town Board of Appeals
-26-
(Environmental D'e'clar~i.ons,. continued:)
November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(i)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3570-SE
PROJECT NAME: 'P~AUL ~ENRY .....
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: [i'] Type II IX] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Establis~ "Bed and Breakfast Use" fn owner
occupied building where lodging and' breakfast is provided for not m~re tha~
six casual, transient roomers, and renting not more than three
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of South~ld, County of, Suffolkr°°ms
particularly kngwn as: 236 North Rd., Greenport, NY 33-05~13 , more
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) This is an application concerning use of the premises and is
~uu u-z~t~-~el-ate~ to ne~ co~-struction.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -27~ November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations, continued:)
(J)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRON~iENTAL DECI~AP~ATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~
APPE~ NO.: 3576
PROJECT NA~E: BARBARA SCHRIEVER
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 envirorn~ent for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II IX] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Withdraw Variance #3393 9/26/85~and
reinstate in fuji ]969 Variance #]260 C0nditi0na]] Approved in ]96,9
permitting the use of 5,600 sq. ft. building for storage & repair.of machinery &
LOCATION O~ PROJECT: Town of Southold, Count~ or, suffolk equipment.
~articula~iy known as: West Side of Tabor Roads 0rien%, NY; , more
1000-.18-05-12.
-REASON('S)' SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION:
(i) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significan: adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) This is an application concerning use of premises and
is not directly related to new construction.
FOR FURTHER INFOP~TION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda KowalsRi, Secretary,
Southold Town Board of Appeals,..Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516-
765-1809 or 1802.
Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted
on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -28-
(Environmental Declarations, continued:)
November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(k)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~
APPEAL NO.: 3552
PROJECT NAME: JOHN SENK0
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [×] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Sh0pping-.center use-tn this "B-I"--
Genera] Business Zone, c0ntai~.i_ng .302084 sq. ft. in ]0t area.
LO~ATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 49295 Main Road (a~ ....
._ Intersection with
Ackerly Pond Lane)~ Southold, NY.
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) This is an application concerning multiple uses on the
premises and is not directly related to new construction.
(3) The premises is not located near or bordering wetlands.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 3519 - STEVEN SANDERS
and ALB£RT SCHWARTZ. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
So~tnold Town Board of Appeals
-29-
November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
(Environmental D'ecia'r~a't'i~ons,. continued:)
RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declaration in
accordance with the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
Section 617 and 6 NYCRR, and Chapter 44 of the Town Code~
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3519
PROJECT NAME: STEVEN SANDERS ~ND'ALBERT SCH~WARTZ
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 indicaued
below. -~
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or simil&r
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [~.~] Type II IX] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approval'~f insufficient lot area,-width and
setbacks in this pending set-off d~vision of lan~
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk,' more
particularly k~gwn as:
Private right-of-way located' off-theN/S of
Bay Avenue, Mattituck, NY 106-06~36
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 ~~ variance regulate~ as provided
-~6.1/~L3~_of the SEQ,_.6 NYCRR.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Chairman Goehringer was absent at this time.) Thins
resolution was declared duly adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
REVIEW: Appeal No. 3216 = EUGENE DAVISON. Written response
was received from the Town Planning Board concerning the status
of the Minor Subdivision in the above matter concerning premises
located at the South Side of Sound Avenue, Mattituck, referred to
as "STRAWBERRY FIELDS." The Planning has indicated that they
have not received ArtiCle 6 approval, although the sketch approval
has been rendered on the map. The Board Members agreed to
schedule this matter for our next Regular meeting, particularly
since ~he lots were in excess of the 80,000 sq. ft. r.equirement.
REVIEW: Appeal No. 3564 - JOHN DEMPSEY. Written response
was received from the Town Planning Board concerning the status
of the Minor Subdivision in the Matter of Raebury and Murphy
concerning premises located along the L.I. Sound extending off
the north side of a private right-of-way from Oregon Road,
Cutchogue. Our application pending under Appeal No. 3564 for
John Dempsey concerns Lot #2. Communications was received
October 27, 1986 from Mary Elizabeth Murphy (prior owner)
indicating that the subdivision has not been finalized and
necessary approvals for this subdivision and rights-of-way
were not obtained, and that the lot is unbuildable. Ms.
Murphy has also indicated a court stipulation dated August 17,
1978 which she plans to present at the time of the hearing
on this matter. The Chairman advised the Board members that
he would consult with the Town Attorney before scheduling
this matter for a public hearing. Per letter received
today from the Planning Board, there is no record of approval
of the subdivision. 1000-73-2-3.6 (part of 3.4).
REVIEW: Appeal No. 3581 GEORGE DAMIEN. The board
reviewed Mr. Damien s area variance application concerning
insufficient area, width and depth of two proposed lots at
Jackson Street, New Suffolk.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
it was
RESOLVED, to hold Appeal No. 3581 temporarily in
abeyance pending receipt of: (1) County Health Department
Article 6 approval, or other action~ (2) input from the
Town Planning Board concerning the subdivision elements
or layout.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted~
So~hold Town Board of Appeals -31- November 20, 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 subdivision which would not result in
insufficient area. Kirkup Lane, Laurel. **Await DEC
a~d.'Co. Health Departmant approvals of pending subdivision.
Appeal NO. 3412 - THOMAS CRAMER. Variance to construct
within 75' of wetlands. E/s Meadow Lane, Mattituck.
**Awatt Trustees action/approval. (Health Dept. approval
and.-DECiwaiver received.)
Appeal No. 3355 - PAUL & MARIETTA CANAL[ZO. Variance to
construct with ins~~ setback Tn frontyard and
from wetlands. ~*Await DEC and wetland setbacks map.-
Trustees reviews pending.
Appeal No. 3214 - HANAUER & BAGLEY. Variance for
approval of two lots 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 Lane
and S/s North La~e (privateS, 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 par~ ~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 appro~als/action.
Appeal No. 3252 - JOHN CHARLES & M. SLEDJESKI. Variance
appealing dectsion~~ng 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 ~60,000 sq. ft. (~xcludes weLland
grass areas) for an existing two-dwelling usage.
E/s Narrow River Road and S/s Main Road, Orient.
**Await Co. Health Art. VI and SEQRA.
Appeal No. 3367 - LOIS AND PATR[CIA LESNIKOWSKI. Variance
for approval of two parc--~-~-~-~-having insE~f-~-~ient area and
width. S/s North Qrive, Mattituck. **Await DEC. Build-
l~g envelo?s and s~tbacks not shown since enactment of
Loca~ Law Wetlands Setbacks.
So~hold Town Board of Appeals -32- November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
other Hatters Pending Public Hearings (**awaiting additional
information asnoted), continued:
("~,) Appeal No. 3371 - FLORENCE ROLLE. Variance for approval
of two parcels having insufficient area, width and depth.
£/s Ole ~ule Lane and N/s Kraus Road, Hattltuck. **Await
Article VI application/approval by Co. Health and poss. DEC.
(-) Appeal No. 3342 ,'PHILIP R. REINHARDT. Variance for
approval of two parcels ihavtng insufficient area and width.
**Recessed from 5/25/83 as requested by attorney for County
Health Department Art. VI approval/clearance(and DEC)~
living quarters over stable. **Ap ' - =- ~. requested
~~ cT~ and Planning Board reviews.
{ ). Appeal No. 3191 - HERBERT MANDEL. Variance to change
lot line and construct garage in front/aide yard areas.
E/s I~ilet Lane Extension, Greenport. Premises of R.E.
Clempner and Herbert Mandel are contiguous. **Await DEC & PB.
(~ ) Appeal No. 3249 - DONALD P. BRICKLEY. Variance fur
approval of lots having insufficient area.and width.
S/s Bay Avenue and E/s Broadwater Drive, [utchogue.
**Await DEC, Art. VI by County Health, and contour maps.
( ) Appeal No. ' :- L~ : .... ~-_.;- Variance f~~f.
Condition No. 7 and the ~ay 27_~k3--d~~dered in
Appeals No. -'- : :-.-- - Recessed from 9/13/84 ~s
~ica__t~~_e_s._t_s_for status have been
,,,ad~,.(',~i'~ho'u,. ~?Sl~X~rrsc). Prcmiscs have been sold~,
(.;) Appeal No. 3268 - J. KATHERINE TUTHILL. Variance for
approval.:of parcels having' insufficient area, width and
depth in this "C'[ zone. A*Am6it 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 Truste~ after formal
applications to complete ZBA file.
Appeal No. 3545 - PATRICK STIGLIANI Main Bayview Road
Soul, hold. 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 - GREGORY FOLLARt. Relief of ZBA condi-
tion requested concerning disturbance of soil at Sound bluff.
Await DEC action to alter bluff areas before proceeding.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-33-
November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting
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
wetland grasses]. [Building envelopes of buildable areas
not shown.]
Appeal 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
[previous lot-line changes and conveyances?]. PB comments
received.
Appeal No. 3461 - HELMUT HASS. Variance for approval of
two business lots as proposed with insufficient area and
width. S/s C.R. 48, Peconic. Co. Health Art. VI
Planning Board comments received.
'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~eeparcels having insufficient area, depth
and width. N/s Main Road, East Marion. **A~ait 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 depth.
W/s First St. and N/s King St, New Suffolk. **Await
Co. Health Art. VI app,. and approval/waiver.
Appeal No. 3426 - GERALD 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. 3411. 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 J GEORGE P. SCHADE. Area, width and
depth variances._ (Await C Health Art. 6 waiver before
-aCver~ls~ng).
()
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, JR~ Cabana/beach
house structure wit.hin 75 feet of water along Cutchogue
Harbor. N/s Old Harbor Road, Cutchogue. (Await Co.
Health approval before advertising).
. Southold Town Board of Appeals
-34-
November 20, 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 l0 motel units for transient use, and an office
building of 2,500 sq. ft. in area on this 3.72t-acre
parcel, zoned "B-Light." S/s Main Road, Greenport (along
the east side of ?-ll). **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 EGYPT/C & L REALTY. Variance
to construct fortyyunit motel on insufficient buildable
upland of 4.83 acres and having insufficient sideyards.
S/s Main Road (prey. Southold Fishing Station/Morris),
Southold. **Await corrected site plans, topographical
survey including lowest floor elevations above mea sea
level, Suffolk County Health Department approval, N.Y.S.
Department of Environmental Conservation approval, comments
or input after review of the site plan by the Planning
Board. 10/9/84~
Appeal No. 2929 - SAL CAIOLA. Project proposed is ques-
tionable as to representation~ Status/clarification awaited.
N/s C.R. 48, Southold.
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.
There being no other business properly coming before the board
at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The
meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
~'~"Approved Dece~ber?}q', 1986
Respectfully submitted,
· Kowalski, Secretary
Southold Town Board of Ap.peals
SOUTHOLD TOI~N BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST
THURSDAY,_NO~EM~ER 20, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING
7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3573 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of ~LARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST. Variance to locate ac-
cessory garage in frontyard area (as amended from Appeal No.
3551). ROW off the east side of Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey date which
is cut off. I believe it was produced by Young and Young in-
dicating.~a ga~age~to~be constrUeted df 22 or 24 feet~by.~30~-feet
and I have a copy of the survey indicating the approximate dis-
tances (which I will ask Mr. Best) from the present cottage which
is in more toward the center of the property then the dwelling
that is on the water. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area.
Would somebody like to be heard? I notice the microphones are
not put out tonight. How are you tonight?
MR. BEST: Fine thank you°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Best, I have a copy, the most latest
copy which you sent me which gave me the distance from the cot-
tage. I think it was 65 feet.
MRo BEST: That's right.
CHAIPdW_AN GOEHRINGER: So that's correct. It's funny. I took a
copy of it when I went out for the field report and maybe I took
that copy. I could have done that. Do you have another one?
Thank you very much. It was 65 feet approximately from the corn-
er of the cottage. That corner would be the northwest corner.
FIR. BEST: 'That is correct.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:ItlS approximately 12 feet from the property
line.
MRo BEST: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The garage entrance is going to be On the
north side of the building.
MR. BEST: As agreed.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I should point out for the record that of
course we did have a prior determination by the Board and it was
somewhat adjusted more than what they could live witho So this
is the reason why they've come back with another application.
Asking the same questions that we've asked you in the other ap-
plication and that is; the same conditions that we would place
on the property; and that is the garage only be used for storage
purposes and not specifically contain any extensive plumbing or
heating of any type. I thank you very much.
P~.ge~ 2 ~- ~.November 20, 1986
Public Hearing - Margaret and Joseph Best
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. BEST .. Thank you.
C-HAIRMANGOEHRINGER: Don't leave though because we have the
hearing. Hearing the applicant, is there anybody else who
would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody
like to speak against the application? Questions from Board
members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion
closing the hearing reserving decision until later.
All in favor - aye.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF ~IARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST
THURS.D~Y~ NOVEMBER 20, 1986,~ pUBLIC HEARING
7:49 p.mo Appeal No. 3571 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of MARGARET AND JOSEPH BEST. Variance to construct ad-
dition with insufficient setback from rear property line and
bulkhead along tidal water area. ROW off the east side of
Camp Mineola Road, MattituCk.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a similiar copy to the survey
again produced by I believe Young and Young indicating an ad-
dition to the front of the main dwelling of approximately 14
by 330 14 feet in depth protruding toward the Bay toward the
bulkhead and 33 feet across. And I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in
the area. Would you like to be heard again sir? We still have
to ask you some questions. Do you have any idea Mr. Best how
close you are to the actual bulkhead? I did not have my 100 foot
tap~and I noticed you're putting new sod down there and I didn't
want to roll over the top of it with my roll.
MR. BEST: You mean from the existing houSe now?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
onto that.
Yes~
Well we can always add a plus 14
MR. BEST:~ 43 feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
house.
You're 43 feet right now from the existing
MR. BEST: From the bulkhead.
CHAIRMAN 'GOEHRINGER: That's the inside of the bulkhead.
MR. BEST: The inside of the bulkhead.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
feet.
So you're looking to reduce that to 29
MR. BEST: Roughly, 29, 30 feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. And this, as I see it, is an enclosed
porch and a portion of the kitchen area which will be an intri-
cal part of the dwelling. Not just a deck or something of that
nanure. It will be fully heated~ I thank you very much. We'll
see what else develops. Is there anybody else who would like to
speak on behalf of this application? Is there anybody who would
like to speak against the application? Well we are on a roll here.
I wish they were all this easy~ I make a motion closing the hear-
ing reserving the decision until later° Thank you very much for~
coming ino
Ail in favor - aye.
SOUTHOLD TOtfN B'OARD OF APPEALS
MATTER 'OF STAMATIOS AND ALENI RAPANAKIS
THURSDA~.,L NOVEMBER 20,. 1986, PUBLIC HEARING
7:53 p.m. Sp. Ex~ No. 3568 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of ST~ATIOS AND ALENI PJIPANAKIS. Special Exception to
establish "Accessory Apartment" in existing dwelling structure
(100-30(B)[15]), at 2030 Boisseau Avenue, Southold.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:. They were representing in'the legal no-
tice or that they were represented in the legal notice and does
not specifically add any additional information. It is however,
indicated for the record and signed by both applicants on the
9th day of October, 1986. And I have a copy of a sketch plan
.indicating the first' and second floor of the dwelling, the pre-
sent dwelling. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr.
Rapanakis. How are you tonight? Could you come up here one
second if you don't mind? How are you tonight? Are you intend-
ing to use the entire second floor for the apartment? Is that
what we're doing?
MR. RAPANAKIS: No. The house being 2 separate entrances.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. So you're going to use a portion of
the downstairs for the apartment also?
MR. RAPANAKIS: One side.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: One side?
MR. RAPANAKIS: One side is one apartment, another side is another
apartment. Up and down. The house you have the key to; the living
room, the dining room, the upstairs have the bedroom.
CHAIR}lAN GOEHRINGER:
in there?
Ok. Are you going to install another kitchen
MR. RAPANAKIS: They both have kitchen.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There are 2 kitchens now?
Milo RAPANAKIS: Yes siro
toilet on the outside°
Two toilets, 3 toilets actually° One
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just don't indicate the other kitchen
here. Maybe you can show it to me on this thing here° Where
is the second kitchen? Is there a second kitchen?
Page 2 November 20, 1986
P~blic Hearing - Stamatios and Aleni Rapanakis
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. RAPANAKIS: This is the second floor.
floor. We have one more plan,
This is the first
CHAIRMAIN GOEHRINGER: You have one more plan.
It's on the other plan, Now I see.
Ok. I see.
MRo RAPANAKIS: This is the second floor. We have an entrance
door right here°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have another door here?
MR. RAPANAKIS: Then you walk that way. So this is the steps
that go up. We have 1, 2, 3, bedrooms. Downstairs we have a
dining room here, a kitchen here, a living room here.
CHAIRMAIN GOEHRINGER: And this is the upstairs which goes back
to this right over here?
FRt. RAPANAKIS: No.
is another side.
This is different,
This is one side and this
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. So these are 2 separate. Oko That's
what it is. You see I was trying to compare this one to this one
end.that's where I was running into the problem. Ok. For the
record, you intend to (so long I am at a loss for words) dealing
with the normal conditions that the new accessory apartment law
have been placed within this zone code, You're not going to
change those in any way? You're going to have owner occupancy
on one side?
~. PJtPANAKIS: Yes.
mostly summer place.
I have to live there because I live in a
CHAI~CAN GOEHRINGER: I see. So you're moving out here and you
will be renting the other side of the house, Have you provided
for any parking on site?
MR, RAPANAKIS: Parking° I have plenty, We have a garage in
the back and a barn in the back too~ A big barn,
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you furnish us with a survey just
indicating those and where.
MR, RAPANAKIS: The surveyors are figuring thato They are doing
this a!ready~ I have a garage, I have plenty of space in the
back, We have about 1 acre of prop~rtyo
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know what happened to this survey, I
took it with me when I did the field inspectiono The same thing
I did with the Bests,
MR. RAPANAKIS: I have a big barn and a garage.
-Page~3 - November 20, 1986
P~blic He'ring - Stamatios and Aleni Rapanakis
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. I am aware of the property. As
you know, this is the second time aroundo Where would the
tenants normally park for the second apartment? Where are you
going to ask them to park?
MR. RAPANAKIS: Right nox~, I have on the left a large paved
driveway which you can go all the inside. No problem. If
you want to park in the back, you park in the back or you want
to use the garage, use the garage and I use the barn and pull
the cars inside because I have a light inside°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are very happy this law has been placed
in place because we did feel bad about turning down your prior
application. There was nothing that we could do about it however,
because we did not have this law in place at that particular time~
and we'll see what develops with the hearing. We thank you very
much for coming in~
MR~ RAPANAKIS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will not be voting on it tonight° We
are just going to close the hearing tonight, So you'll be hear-
ing from us by mail as you did the last time and it will be
shortlyc Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to
speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against
the application? Questions from Board memberS? Hearing no fur-
ther questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving de-
cision until later.
Ail in favor - aye.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF BOAT}.~N'S HARBOR ~iARINA
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1986, PUBLIC HEARING
8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3569 - Public Heaming commenced in the
Matter of BOATMEN'S HARBOR ~RINA. Variance to construct ad-
dition to dwelling with an insufficient setback from bulkhead
along tidal water area. 3350 West Creek Avenue, Cutehoguee
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey produced by
,R0~er~¢k VanIuy], P.C. dated April 8, 1986 indicating the entire
Mattes' properny and showing a penned in area east of the present
one family 1~ story dwelling, a garage of approximately 32 by 40.
And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
and surrounding properties in the area. is there somebody that
would like to be heard? This is for Boatmen's Harbor. Oko Mere-
ly questions specifically. I think we're going to have to write
them a letter and ask them how far they are from the existing
bulkhead. We can scale it but..° Just write them a letter and
we'll close the hearing pending the receipt of that letter asking
how far he is from the drainage basin bulkhead° Is there anybody
who would like to speak in favor of this application? Raise your
hand quickly because we go real fast. Anybody like to speak against
the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further
questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision
until later.
Ail in favor - aye°
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF MICHAEL AND JOYCE ~iATTES
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1986, PUBLIC HEARING
8:03 pom. Sp. Ex. No. 3572 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of MICHAEE AND JOYCE ~IATTES. Special Exception to es-
tablish "Bed and Breakfast" in non more than three rooms of
existing structure for a maximum of six casual, transient
roomers. 50 Luthers Road, Mattituck.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a sketch of the plan indicating a
rather large 2-story framed dwelling on a piece of property which
is on the corner of Mill Road and Luther right in Mattituck. The
surveyor's name is Frost. I have a copy of the floor plan of the
proposed unit. And I have a copy of the~S~ffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mrs. Mattes,
we normally would let you do a presentation. Could I just ask Mrs.
Shaw what she's referring to and then we'll go back to the situa-
tion. Ok. You want to tell us ~{rso Shaw, what you're referring to.."
MRS° SHAW: What I'm specifically requesting is that the adjacent
property owners and there are property owners immediately adjacent
to their property, be given the opportunity to be formerly notified
in accordance with the town code which states you are properly no-
tified by a certified or registered letter. I happen to find out
about this purely by chance° The other property owner was not no-
tified. Either the front property, I have not been in touch with.
They're not here. ObviouSly they're not aware of the situation.
I think it is only fair given the nanure of the request and the
community that the case simply be readvertised and properly posted
via certified letters to give all interested parties the opportuni-
ty to be present at the hearing,
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to say that we Have 2 written
notices in the file if you would like to look at them~ I don't
know if you were notified.
}~S. iSHAW: We were not.
CHAIP~iAN GOEHRINGER: You were not. You're considering yourself
one of the three? There's 2 otherso
MR%i~SHAW : One would be the property belonging to Cyd
Brancif0rte and the other property belonging to Henry and Mary
Regina Hahn. Those are the adjacent property owners. I did
speak with the Hahnso They were in Florida~ And they indicat-
ted that they had not received notification at the time of their
departure nor at when they had talked to their .... Whoever it
was~ The fellow who is picking up the mail. They said they
hadn't received any notices. They sent a letter on the basis
of the notification that I believe you have.
~age 2~- November 20, 1986
Public HeaFing - Michael and Joyce Mattes
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. I have an express mail letter from
them. Ok. You're welcome to review the file after this and
we'll make a determination. I think it only fair however, that
the applicants by law, present whatever portion of the case that
they want to present unless they want us to rule on this or what.-
ever the question might be at this point. Why don't you address
the Board concerning this Mr. Mattes.
MR. MATTES: First of all, I'd like to thank the Board for the
opportunity to speak. I have indeed fulfilled the requirements
of owner notification. Mr. and Mrs~ Shaw who just addressed the
Board, are not entitled (according to town law) notification
finally by certified letter.
MRS. ~TTES: Mro Lessard actual!v took me and he showed me that
the nwo property o~ers;E~ Branc~f0r~e and Mr. and Mrs° Hshn were
notified and he-did send notices. In fact, I know you have a copy
of the folder but I also made other photostats so I do have those
here.
Mit. ~IRTTES: I can see no reason for delay of these proceedings
because a non-adjacent property o~er would object to this hear-
ing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alrighto
assume the Shaws live there.
see where I am pointing?
Let me just show you a copy. I
Is that correct? Did you want to
MR. SHAW: I'm quite familiar with the survey.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a tax map copy right here° You no-
tified these people. It appears it touches here~ There's a ques-
tion that you didn't have to notify them?
MR. MATTES: Yes.
That's what I was told also.
MR. SHAW: The property does intersect on the property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just let me ask them another question~ I
am sorry about this. The fact that th~ other 2 people that you
have connaeted, the Hahn's of course know that the hearing is
occuring tonight.
MR° SHAW: The Hahn's are aware of it because I called them on
(I believe) Tuesday morning, t had contacted Mr. Hahn's secre-
tary and asked for the telephone number of the hotel they were
staying at in Orlando and t discussed the matter with them and
Mrs° Hahn indicated that she and Mr. Hahn would be sending you
somethingo
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
letter.
That's what 9~e__c-~p~ta~ed? the express mail
Page 3 - Npvember 20, 1986
Public Hearing - Michale and Joyce Mattes
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. SHAW: Yes. And they were aware of the situation and felt
and I believe they left on Saturday morning of this past weekend,
as whatever notification may have been sent to them was not re-
ceived at that time.
MR. MATTES: Mr. Goehringer, can I object? This is all heresay.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm just trying to .... I should... I'm
just trying to give you an indication of .... The code itself is
quite explicit Mr. Shaw. And that is that they have to send oun
the notices.. They do not specifically .... I assume the nonices
do not specifically have to be received by the people. In other
words, there's a possibility that it could be placed in a dead
letter file some place. That is not the case usually. Secondly,
there is also a statement in the code which clearly states that
as long as it's properly advertised in the paper of record, then
it is sufficient notice. So we basically do two things as in t]he
Town of Riverhead where they post. We are not posting any. We
don't post in this town. In fact, the To%~ of Riverhead has stopped
posting and they are going to our system at this particular point°
The question about proper notification to you is a situation that
we'll have to discuss after the meeting, after this particular hear-
ing and we'll see what develops at that point. We'll allow the
Mattes' to continue with their hearing.
MR. }.~TTES: Indeed Mr. and ~s. Hahn were well aware ~f the pro-
ceedings because they have already submitted to you documentation
or actually comment-s on this hearing. So I would submit therefore,
that they are well aware of this° Their allegations they have made
that they did not receive the letter or whatever the case may beo
This is all heresayo But indeed they were aware of this hearing
and I suggest therefore, that we can go forward. Mr. Goehringer,
would it be proper if I submit to the Board at this time, additional
documentation?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure.
Mit. MATTES: I submit here to the Town Zoning Board of Appeals an
original and 4 copies of some answers to some objections raised by
Mr. and Mrs. Hahn. May I read them very briefly? Before the
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals the matter of appeal number
3572; we, Michael and Joyce Mattes, petition the above caption ap-
peal before the Board this evening, wish to respectfully submit
the following: the adjacent property owners Mr. and Mrso Hahn
already enjoy the same or similar zoning as that for which we now
apply. A copy of Mr. and Mrs. Hahn's certificate of occupancy num-
ber Z9307 is submitted herewith. Their dwelling is stated on their
certificate of occupancy of being seasonal non-conforming multiple
dwelling° We only ask for propriority of use and do not seek to
establish anything which does not substantially already exist in
the subdivisiono
MRo SHAW : ExcUse meca minute.
Mrs. Shaw to ....
Would the Board kindly allow
Page 4 - November 20, 1986
Publid Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes
Sohthold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm aware of that situation. That's what
I was just going to do. Mrs. Shaw, why don't you come over here
so you can read Mro Mattes lips while he's speaking. You're wel-
come to come up here if you want tOo
MR. MATTES: Two: our ,property is the only property in the sub-
division with 2 means of entrance and egress of Bed and Breakfast
would be by our own paved driveway which exists on our property
at the intersection of Mill and Luther Road. A sign on our proper-
ty would direct guests to use this roadway which is our main or
formal entrance, our use of the right-of-way is incidental.
and Mtso Hahn already have on their frontyard, 2 large multiple
car parking lots. So it appears on our submitted survey, we will
simply enlarge and improve our existing sideyard parking area which
has been in existance for over 100 years. There is no provision in
the town law for expansion of Bed and Breakfast use in such
and Mro and Mrs. Hahn statement is purely whimsical and fantisical.
We are proud of our home and community. We are certain that the
restoration of our home in such is listed on the national register
of historic places, have helped to boost the image of Mattituck
and Southold Town. Saving of a small portion of Southold History
is ample proof that we are concerned about our cormmunity. It~,~was
our wish to share that part of history with otherso As we have
already done through newspaper articles, house tours for local
historical society and encouragement of others to embark in simi-
lar projects° But most of all, this is our homeo One which we
wish to protect. Not something that we would jeopardize on a
whim. Our concern is our bond in our request before you. If our
home, given it's size and the size of the property, is insufficient
or unsuitable for a limited Bed and Breakfast use~ we can take a
few other houses i,n~Se~_~o_,.~d~To~m ,~hat ~n!d~quatzf~. We respect-
fully request that you approve of our application~
CHAIP~LAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you~ Let me reserve comment or ques-
tions until the later part of the hearing and we'll go into the
specifics of it if you don't mind° Thank you very much° Was
there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of the appli-
cation? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes.
MRo SHAW~ I would like to preface my remarks to the Board by
saying at the outsen that they have a lovely home. They've done
a marvelous jobo If you ever have the opporunity to visit it
during the open house, please doo It's beautiful~ However, I
do have some concerns as to a Bed and Breakfast application be-
cause of the concern. I~m opposed to the application and granting~
And I would like to just outline briefly my reasons° This par-
ticular home is located on a 4 lot subdivision under the name of
Marvin~ property. It is a rather unusual subdivision created by
the Planning Board in that one of the conditions that the Planning
Board placed on the map that was access to all of the lots would
be over a 25 foot right-of-way° The paved driveway that Mro Mattes
referred to is part of the pre-existing particular driveway° I
would like to point out that the entrance., one part of the driveway
lies within the right-of-way which is technically on the Hahn proper-
ty and the other end of the driveway is on the Mattes' property.
However, it should be noted that that driveway is right at the
intersection. But my point is that the subdivision as it was pro-
~age %~NOvember 20, 1986
Public Hea~ing - Michael and Joyce Mattes
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MItS.SHAW (continued)
posed is a very private type of a community. Access to all 4
lots is a 25 foot right-of-way. The. PIanning Board could have
put a public road ino They could have required that a 50 foot
right-of-way be put there. Because directly to the north of
our property and I will present a tax map'for it, this is a
hagstrom map of the general area and this is the tax map of
the subject subdivision that is right at the corner of inter-
section of Coxneck and Luther Breakwater Road. And behind to
the north is the lot, Mr o Bugdin's farm and other properties
to the north, The Planning Board could have said ok~ l~en
that Marvin property is subdivided, we want a 50 foot right-of
way to go through with an eventual connection to the basic line
to the north 130 feet of interior road servicing all that from
property to the north° But they didn't for whatever reason. !
don't know° I wasn't there at the time. They chose to say that
all 4 lots would have access over a private right-of-way° It's
not a public thoroughfare; It is a private right-oz-wa? which lies
on the property of the Hahns and my husband and Io The effect of
this right-of-way is basically to create a very secluded private
type of community. This right-of-way is used only by the people
who live thereo It's also only maintained by the people who live
there. Because the Planning Board did not set up a homeowners
association or some other legal mechanism, the construction main-
tenance of this right-of-way and it's necessity is by the co~on
agreement of the 4 property owners who agree; well ok. We're
going to split up the cost proportionately among all 4 property
owners. Inconsequently, the matter of fact of this is to create
a very private type of a community° I don't think that this right
of-way was ever intended to be used as commercial access° And I
find it difficult to believe that in the operation of a Bed and
Breakfast that you're going to necessarily prevent people from
using the driveway. It's a circular paved driveway and inevita-
bly people are going to use this. It was intended to be a pri-
vate driveway. Not something for commercial accesm. The second
point that I would like to make is that the increase in the num-
ber of cars and vehicular traffic° At present, the Mattes' own
4 cars° All of which are parked in what is their frontyard. Now
this particular piece of property happans to have 3 frontyardso
It has frontage on Coxneck Road that becomes Mill Road°
(CHANGED TAPES)
~S. SHAW: It has frontage on Breakwater, Luther and Breakwater
Road and it also has frontage on the right-of-way. All of the 4
lots frontyards have front yards facing this right-of-way. That
point was made quite clear to me when I went to apply for the
building on my particular piece of property. Mro Lessard in-
formed me that the house would have to be set back 50 feet from
the right-of-way protecting that in the frontyard. So you have
an unusual situation by they have a house with 3 frontyardso
Currently, they park the 4 cars on one of those frontyards and
that frontyard that they .happen to use is the one that faces the
right-of-way. They could park the cars on the grass. The or-
dinance requires, a special exception requires that they provide
.P~age 6 November 20, 1986
Puhlic~Hea~%ng - Michael and Joyce Mattes
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. SHAW (continued)
parking for the guests. Now they're allowed to have 3 rooms
and up to 6 transient guests which means that in addition to
the 4 cars that now exist, you can have a potential with 3 to
6 additional cars. You can either have 1 car per couple or
you can have the very interesting possibility that you have 6
people in 3 rooms each with their own car. So you have the
possibility of 5 to 10 cars total in a frontyard. That's get-
ting to be on the line of a parking lot in the sense that what
is to be a frontyard is now a depository for 5 to 10 cars. I
noticed in the special exception requirement that it shows that
in subsection 8 of 122 it shows that the necessity for patillion
surface space for the purpose of offstreet parking for vehicles
incidental to the use and whether such ~pace is reasonably ade-
quate and appropriate and should be furnished by the owner of
the property. And I'd just like to say that they do not have
such parking° They have the lawn and I don't feel that a front-
yard is an appropriate place for 5 to 10 cars. The other thing
that I wish to concern .... One of my concerns .... Most residen-
tial subdivisions do have single and separate lots fronting on a
public thoroughfare~ And consequently each lot has it's own
separate driveway onto a public streeto This particular subdi-
vision happens to be the type of a subdivision where all the
lots front onto a private driveway and access is from that drive-
way onto the street° It's sort of a more secluded type of a sub-
division. Itts not your usual 'run of the mill thing° And I
would like 'to add that my huSband and I have paid a premium for
a lot in this particular situation. It's an unusual situation.
It seems to me that the intrusion of a commercial use into this
type of residential development was not something that the Plan-
ning Board ~envisioned and I don't think it's something that the
Town Board envisioned either when it adopted this Bed and Break-
fast piece~ t recognize that if we, all of our lots were on a
Main Road or Sound Avenue. and close proximity to the Hamlet like
on Pike Street in Mattituck, I Would. not be here objecting to
it becuase that's a logical place to have a Bed and Breakfast.
We're talking about a side street ab'out a mile and a half north
of Sound AVenue° It's on a small rural country road. We're
sort of in the backwater. This isn't' Main Street. And I just
feel that having 'this commercial' use is a detriment. A real
detriment to our community° One of the other things is the bluffs.
This particular subdivision is very close to Howard Creek which is
an arm of Mattituck CreekWhich stretches out into the Soundo
These 4 lo.ts also share access to that creek over a 25 foot right-
of-way. At the present time, we do not have a dock there but it
is something that has been talked about by at least 3 of the proper-
ty owners (the Mattes" included) that we do put something ino My
concern .is that when you have a Bed and Breakfast place, the way
the ordinance is set up, there is no way to prevent this from mush-
rooming° We have the possibility of 5 to 10 cars in the frontyard.
We also have the possibility of someone saying; well golly, let's
go down to the water or let's arrive by boato Let's come in this
wayo The=&"s nothing to stop the Mattes' from'obtaining a mooring
permit and saying we~tll arrive by boat and.row up to our dock and
walk up the street and you're in our Bed and Breakfast place~ And
~age 7 - November 20, 1986
Public He~ring,~.Michael and Joyce Mattes
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. SHAW (continued)i
again, I would resent intrusion into the whole nature of the
community. It's hard enough getting 4 people to agree on main-
taining much else dealing with 4 persons plus a business and I
think that this is something the Board should look into for con-
sideration when it reviews this application° As I said before,
this is a unique residential communityo It's something you don't
find very often and I would just like to be able to preserve
these qualities there 'which is that secludenesso And I don't
think that adding the commercial aspect of a Bed and Breakfast
is an asset to it. Particularly in light of the fact that thel
way the ordinance is intended there~is no way of preventing it
from being abused and I'm not applying that Mr. Mattes would
abuse ito Two months down the road someone could make them an
offer.they can't refuse and that special exception still holds
and someone else can run this Bed and Breakfast. Then where are
we? Those are my objections°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much.
MRS. SHAW~ You're welcomeo
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you go~ I got one more question~
Did you want to rebutt anything that was said there sir?
Mit. MATTES: Yes I would Mr. Goehringer. As I stated in the
comments filed with the Board this evening, I do not intend
the Bed and Breakfast guests to use that right-of-way. I think
that argument ~would be irrelevant~ Second of all, mine, again,
I stated to the Board, is the only property of the 4 which has
2 entrances and exits° The other properties must use~that right-
of-way. I do not. I have a separate entrance on the road and
that's the entrance I purely use any way becauSe the other one
kind of takes me away from the corner and so on and so forth,
That's the one I would intend the Bed and Breakfast people to
use. I don't own a boat. I don't intend to use that right-of-
way there on the Creek becauae basically that~thing is all silted
in any way° It's muddy and not much use to anybody° It does run
with the property but I have no intention of using ito I havenWt
used it in the 8 years I~'Ve lived there~ As far as the secluded
area, it~ concern and the fine area which we live, I couldn't agree
any more with anybody else. I think~MattituCk is a great areao
That's why I've stacked 8 years of building, sweat and soil un-
der that house° Not only for this matter of personal satisfac-
tion for my wife and myself but also that I feel I~m giving some-
thing back to the community.which I enjoy~ I respect my neigh-
bors° I respect the community~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any type of screening that you
would be placing around the parking area?
MR. MATTES: Well I was going to do some additional landscaping
and I would suggest maybe putting up maybe evergreens or ferns
or something.
Page 8 - November 20, 1986
Public Hearing - Michael and Joyce Mattes
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. MATTES: Part of our property boundary there is shrub~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm aware of thato
MRS. MATTES: There is also a berm which separates us from the
Hahn house. It is on the Hahn property but it runs about the
length of the Hahn house and the shrubs are really mature pine
trees and they're like 15 feet high now. But we are planning
on doing a lot of new shrubbery outside, The place where the
cars are parked now, it is gravelled rather than just on the
grass and we realize that we would have to up grade that to
black top and improve that° We're aware of that.
MR. MATTES: As far as our frontyard being used for parking, I
would state that the Hahn's have 2 parking lots in their yard
facing their right-of-way and they park there any where from 3
to 5 cars, They also have a garage there additionallyo
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mro Mattes, when you had mentioned the c,o,
of the Hahns, that was non-conforming°
MR. MATTES: I submitted it P~, Goehringer. Yes they are of a
seasonal multiple use, So I'm not asking for something they
don't already have°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're referring to the, not specifically
the way the property is now 'but when it was originally a carriage
house as it exists.
MR. MATTES: Mr. Hahn has a lot of visitors over thereo I can't
tell you exactly how he uses the property. He's in presently .....
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm talking about since its most recent up-
dating when it was rebuilto
MRo MATTES: I am not that familiar with all the people that come
over thereo There are a lot of people that visit and stay over
the weekends, I don't know if they're getting paid°
MRS. MATTES: This is the current c.o, they came for when they
came to file and their ocCuring CoOo
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well it would probably carry right on through.
It wouldn't change. You know what I'm saying? Because you have a 2
family house, 2 family status right now also. So it just perpetuates.
MR, MATTES: Right, The'Other 2 family has the multiple. So I'm
non asking for anything that one of my adjacent property owners
doesn't already have.
Page 9 - November 20, 1986
Public Hea~ing - Michael and Joyce Mattes
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oko Let's see what else~ We still have
not discussed the issue of proper notice but we'll see what de-
velops. I'm trying not to carry this too lengthy. Thank you.
Milo MATTES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes~ ~fr.~'Shawo
MR. SHAW: There is something I would like to say. I don't think
that my wife and I, I don't believe .... We're not unalterably op-
posed to the establishment of a Bed and Breakfast.but we are fa--
miliar with the law. And the law is regrettably vague in terms of
the requirements, the standards that are to be met. It makes no
provision for inspection. It makes no provision for a number of
things. Now our experience with the Mattes' is that they keep
their house very nicely. They do a great deal with ito But as
my wife pointed out, the exception runs with the property~ And
the law as it is written, does not address the whole range of
things that ordinarily that kind of a law would address. To just
assume you can do it in ~3 rooms, we,ve all been over that before°
I think that if there were a specific set of (t don't know if I~m
using the correct term.) convenants and restrictions that would
run with the property that is spelled ou~ ~ery clearly and explicitly
exactly how the Bed and Breakfast operation will be run, we would
feel rather differently° But I don't know even if the public hear_
ing is the place to bring that particular thing Upo Based on that
thought, we feel obliged to oppose it. I would like to resolve
certain key questions. One of which is liability for the right-
of-way° The terms Df the subdivision very specifically states that
the second entrance .... I don"t know how the pre-existing thing
works but ! guess that's what makes it useable and we would have
to do a little more research on that. But it specifically states
that access for all lots is over the 25 foot right-of-way which is
shared and which we've already had quite a go around~. Not with the
Mattes's but trying to hammer out an agreement to serve this proper-
tyo Anyway, as I say, not to delay at this point, I wouldn't throw
that one issue out° A very clear and detailed covenant that would
run with the property and which would be en'forceable by any of the
other owners in the subdivision Would make a difference in our
stand on this issue°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a very interesting point you bring up
because this Board is. not a Board that usually places covenants°
We place restrictions but they are 'not necessarily deeded cove-
nants and so on and so fortho I should however, point out to you
Mro Shaw, that (I'11 probably get in trouble by saying this but
I've been in trouble recently anyway so it doesn't make any dif-
ference) the public hearing did occur° I did go to the public
hearing and I did mention to those particular members of the Town
Board that I felt that additional things shOuld have been placed,
east within this particular law. And they had, through their wis-
dom, felt (I assume) that it wasn't necessaryo So we all know the
type of people we're dealing with hereo And of course living around
Page !0 - November 20, 1986
Public Hea~ing - Michael and Joyce Mattes
Southold Town Board of_Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~(continued)
the corner from them, I know the Mattes' i've known them for
many years° I've never been in their ho~se since they've pur-
chased the house° But what you are saying concerning the pos-
sibile selling of the house or whatever the case might be, cer-
tainly has merit in this particular case~ I think at this par-
ticular point we should deal with the issue of notice. As for
the area of ingress and egress over the common right-of-way,
(I'm going to address this question to the Mattes') you pre-
sently use the common right-of-way for mainly egress. Is that
correct?
MR. MATTES: Yes sir.
MRS. MATTES: It's mo~e of an incidental~ We use the basic en-
trance which is at the corner. Most of the time it's more con-
veniento
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you go around the Port of Gull at all?
MATTES: Yes~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You do go around it.
MRo MATTES: You mean I go through the porto
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you make a turn coming in if you're
using the right-of-way in question? Can you enter that as easi-
ly as you enter it from a reversal side or from the train track
side?
MR° MATTES: Usually I don't because it means driving north.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you're going through the big tree and
usually up and around°
MRo MATTES: Up through the big tee and through the Port coming out°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: AIrighto How staunchily opposed are you ~o
Shaw about us closing this hearing 'tonight?
MR. SIL~:2 Well I think we 'have said just about everything that
concerns uso I believe the issue of notification is something that
had we'd been notified and actually our reason to wanting to adjourn
it was that it would have been good if we could have had time to dis-
cuss with the Mattes' directly and perhaps informerly some kind of
an arrangement to properly and clearly define what the use of the
property will be~ AS I say, I'm not staunchily opposed to closing
the hearing. I don't know what the Hahns said° I know they've ex-
pressed themselves and I don't know whether or not the Brandts are
for or eve~ aware of the situation° I don~t know~ What do you
think? Should we hold it over? DO you want an adjournment?
Page 11 - November 20, 1986
Public Hea~ing - Michael and Joyce Mattes
Southold Town Boar. d of Appeals
CHAI~IAN GOEHRINGER:
placing it on...
We haven't voted on this yet so we're just
MRS. SHAW I would suggest that we adjourn it for one reason.
I think that because of the egress situation that it will be use-
ful to the Board if they had a site inspection sometime without
prior notification to see the site.~ ~And if the Board determines
than it wants to put some Conditions on it, they could at least
put on them on the knowledge of what it's dealing witho
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have all made site inspection. Not in-
eriorily. I know the houseo I have not made an interior°
MR. MATTES: Noo I would welcome an inspection by the Board, inside.
MRSo MATTES: I would be glad to meet with any of the neighbors that
want to discuss it because we have very detailed plans, what we plan
to doo We have travelled the country and gone to some of the very
best Bed and Breakfast inns that the country has to offer getting
ideas because we put so much into the house that we're not going tOoo.
We're going to be very specific about who would stay there and who
would run it. And we have been working very hard to restore the
house very accurately and to put period furniture in there and we
want those things to be taken care of too°
MRo SHAW:. As we said befors~, our true concern is not how the
Mattes' are going to run the Bed and Breakfast because we have
seen how they've restored their house. Our concern is what runs
with the property. In that sense, we are saying we don't object
but we object unles there is something that we can enforce either
here coming into the town that we can through section 78, force
the town into enforcing or running directly with.our lando We
would like the use of the right-of-way clarified° Both rights-
of way, etco, etc. Exactly how it'-s going to be done.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Mattes, do you have any Objection (I
should address both of you~ I apologize.) if I had gotten a legal
opinion during the period of the next 3 weeks and we reconvened
the hearing for a short period of time and 'just close it at that
particular point concerning the convenants that these people are
referring to which we.are not totally privy to~ I'm being honest
with you° We do not deal with the imposition of covenants as the
Planning Board does. And they in many times, don~t even vote on
something until those covenants are undellabily placed on the
propertyo That does not necessarily mean we're going to do it.
Ail t want is a legal opiniono
MR° MATTES: Certainly. But I mean as a general statement. I
would not object to a covenant or a restriction being placed by
the Bed and Breakfast guests on the use of the right-of-way°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see~ Ok~ We are scheduled'~to~ ha~e~the
next meeting on December 11 which is only about 3 weeks away°
We are not hoping that it's not going to be a lengthymeeting
in any case° I would like to reconvene this for about 5 minutes
at than particular point if' you don~t have any tremendous object
tion at this particular time. And maybe' you coul~ meet with the...
Page t2 - November 20, 1986
Public Hea~ing - Michael and Joyce Mattes
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued)
i got into a little of trouble about 3 weeks or a month ago
suggesting that neighbors meet~ And in any case, I don't think
that we have the problem here that we had at that particular hear-
ingo So I sincerely hope that you do and would come back with
some constructive things~ And I thank you very much. The both
couples for being (your family) so courteous. This has really
been an absolute pleasure of a hearing and I thank you° So I'll
make a motion recessing the hearing to the next regular scheduled
meeting~ We'll attempt to have it on the early part of the evening
and wrap it up and then we'll make a decision° Hearing no further
questions, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing again.
Ail in favor~- aye.
SOUTHOLD .TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF FRANK FIELD REALTY
T~URS_D~Y~,_~ ~.OVEMBE~R 2~0,. !9~86., PUBLIC HEARING
8:43 pom. Appeal No. 3565 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of FRANK FIELD REALTY INC. Variance to permit a two
family use with less than 160,000 square feet in area, 270
feetowidth, 400 feet in depth, insufficient front, side and
rear setbacks. 320 Linnett Street, Greenport.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a plan indicating a present
dwelling of stucco on lot #71 and I assume that lot #72 is vacant
from original inspection done by R.VanIuy], P.Co amended April
3, 1986. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicat-
ing this and surrounding properties in the area° Mr. Field how
are you? Would you like to come up here and address the Board?
See if we have any questions here.
MR. FIELD: What I am proposing gentlemen is to remove a house
that's about 60 years old that has concrete walls about 12 inches
thick, 10 foot high ceilings. Ik's just almost impossible to make
it energy efficient, to do anything to improve its The thought
being; let's remove this house and then we'd have what normally
would have been before later design~ 2 building lots in the area
where they've built most of the houses on 50 by 100 lotso So what
I'm proposing is to put in one 2-family house which would give you
more open space, more space for the kids to play~ One story high.
And that it would fit with the community and also it would get rid
of an old house that really isn't worth saving. If you're concerned
about the demolishing of historic structures, there's been two other
cement houses in the neighborhood, so it won't be the last one to go.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you° I'll see what develops. The
proposed 2-family dwelling would be built across the center of the
two lots as it presently exists~
MR. FIELD: That's correcto
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean the lots exist, not the house, dwel-
ling. Would it be similiar to the type of dwelling that you build
on Brown Street?
MR. FIELD: It would be identical. The same plans.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you tell me When you built the existing
house as we in this application, did you buy both the house and
vacant lot at the same time?
MR. FIELD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And when did you buy those?
Page 2~- November 20, 1986
~__~Rubiic Hearing - Frank Field Realty, Inc.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. FIELD:
or two.
I would have to say about 1975 plus or minus a year
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Thank you very muCh. Is there
anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this applica-
tion? Is there anybody who would like to speak against the ap-
plication? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further
questions.°. Is there anything you'd like to add to the record
Mr. Field.
}~. FIELD: No. Just that I think it could be considered af-
fordable houSing which is one of the problems here. The fact
that I'm building a 2-family houSe versus 2 single family there
is some economy that you have in construction.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you again.
in yet did they? They're going too
They didn't have the sewer
~. FIELD: There is village sewer and water on Linnett Street
and we'll tie into the village sewer.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. Thank you. Thank you for asking
that. That was a question that I had forgotteno Hearing no
further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving
decision until later°
Ail in favor - aye.
SOUTHOLD TOArN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF PAUL HENRY
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1986, PUBLIC .HEARING
8:50 p.m. Sp. Ex. No. 3570 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of PAUL HENRY. Special Exception to establish "Bed and
Breakfast" use in not more than three rooms of existing single
family dwelling for not more than six casual, transient roomers.
68555 C.R. 48 (and 236 McCann Lane), Greenport.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The special exception reads as follows:
for the issue of Bed and Breakfast indicating a survey plus a
parking plan it was referring to from R. Van luy], P.C. dated
July 31, 1985 indicating a rather large structure on the proper-
ty and a stoned or stoned driveway parking area° A building which
has presently 2 apartments in it. And I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the
area. Is there somebody that Would like to be heard?
~. HENRY: I really have nothing to add to my application but I'll
be glad to answer any questionso
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are Mro Henry?
MR. HENRY: Yes sir.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In view of the plans here, where is the en-
trance to the area that you're going to be using for the Bed and
Breakfast?
HENRY: Well there must be 7 or 8 entrances to the house.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So basically the separate part of the house
will be used as the Bed and Breakfast. The entire houSe will be
used. The bedrooms are just very simply the areas you're going
to want...
MR. HENRY: I have actually a lot of options. What I'll probably
do is just, you can offset the Bed and Breakfast°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That'S what I was asking°
MR. HENRY: I have lots of house. I have lots of room°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
using
Ok. Alright.
That's what is, will you be
MR. HENRY: This is my bedroom here and tKere is 2 bathrooms here
and a living room and a sitting room and a kitchen. The kitchen
will be a common area for the bedrooms to the west here~ This,
we're considering turning into a common area for the Bed and Break-
fast guests and then we have 2 bedrooms upstairs which come right
down to the kitchen and ail have their own entrance° Every room
has their own bathroom~
Page 2~- November 20, 1986
Public Hea~ing - Paul Henry
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So everything~marked_~ih-!b.lueais
going to be utilized for the Bed and Breakfast.
MR. HENRY: Correct°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you°
MR. HENRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else that would like to
speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody that would
like to speak against the application? Questions from Board mem-
bers? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the
hearing reserving decision until later. Thank you very much for
coming in.
Ail in favor - aye.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF FRANK FIELD REALTY
THU, RSD~Y. ~NOVEMBER 20, _1 98~6, PUBLIC HEARING
8:50 p.m. Spo Ex. No. 3566 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of FRANK FIELD REALTY INC. Special Exception to estab-
lish two-family use at 320 Linnett Street, Greenport.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAI~iAN GOEHRINGER: The special exception form reads the struc-
ture will be a one story residential as most of the houses near
it are one, two-family houses. It leaves more open space than
2 one-family homes. Village water and sewer will be used. Pre-
sent one-family house in poor condition will be removed.
And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
and surrounding properties in the area° Everything that you said
in the last hearing, would you like to place in this hearing?
MR. FIELD: Yes sir.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
say?
Is there anything additional you'd like to
MR. FIELD: I would just thank you for hearing it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak
in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against this
application? This has to be the fastest hearing° Hearing no fur-
ther questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving
the decision unnil later°
Ail in favor - aye.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF BARBARA D. SCHRIEVER
THURSDAY, NOVEmbER 20, 1986, PUBLIC HEARING
8:54 p.m. Appeal No. 3576 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of BARBARA Do SCHRIEVER. Application to withdraw vari-
ance conditionally approved under No. 3393 on 9/26/85, rein-
stating in full the 1969 Conditional Variance under No. 1260
permitting the use of a 5,600 square foot area of existing
building for storage and repair of contractor's machinery and
equipment. W/s of Tabor Road, Orient. "B-Light" Business Zone°
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey in the file
that we are well aware of, the survey as it presently exists.
A copy of a survey dated June 27, 1969 indicating this property
which consists of a large barn in the contractors yard. And I
have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Cuddy would you like
to be heard?
MR. CUDDY: I represent the applicant Barbara Schriever who is
here. Our problem is a variance. We, in 1969 had a variance
as you indicated in 1985. We sought a further variance from this
Board in the 1985 application as you may recall which~: prompted
that problem to be 3-fold. For a machinery shop, an art studio
and also an upstairs apartment° You granted 2 of these requests
but denied the upstairs apartment. At that time we were going to
sell the property and the application was made both by the seller
and the buyer. And if you recall the young people who wanted to
buy it came in and made the plea that they use the upstairs for
an apartment. The Board, in its discretion, denied that. And
when you did deny it, the contract came to an end°but it's part
of the decision that you made. You indicated that the variance
that is the'existing 1969 variance, would be void in the event,
of a transfer conveyance of the property~ We now want to sell
the propertyo Not to the original buyers but to other buyers.
The condition that you attached is condition number 3 of your
1985 decision prevents us from doing that and having the old
variance in place° We would~like the old variance in ptacee
The only reason for the other one was because we were selling
ito We therefore, ask the Board if~they would please permit
us to withdraw what had previously been submitted and to have
in place the 1969 variance~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok~ I thank you very much sirs Is there
anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this withdrawal?
Is there anybody who would like to speak against the withdrawal?
Any questions from Board members? I'll make a motion withdrawing
the variance in 1985 and reinstating the variance of 1969o
Ail in favor,~- ayeo
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF JOHN SENKO
THURSDAY,. NOVEMBER 20., ~986, PUBLIC REARING
9:00 po.m. Appeal Ro.~ 3552 - Public Hearing commenced in the
~datter of JOHN SENKO. Shopping-center use in this "B-I" Gene-
ral Business Zone containing 30,084 sqo ft. in lot area~ In-
tersection of W/s of Ackerly Pond Lane and N/s Main Road,
Southold. (Reconvened from 10/2)
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had read the legal notice at the last
hearing and we had opened the hearing and we had takenr, a_~%gnifi-
cant amounn of testimony from both the applicant's architect and
from the community. And we'll start by opening the hearing and
asking Mr. Angel what he would like to say.
MR. ANGEL. We're the applicant° I wasn't here last time as you
probably .... Well, I was here last time requesting an adjournment.
I wasn't here the first time when testimony and evidence was pre-
sented to your Board° As I see it, this is an application that
started before the Planning Board° The application°.. Do you
have a copy of the site plan, proposed elevations? If you don'n,
I've got it here° Mr. Strang, the applican['s architect, began
this application before the Planning Board as I understand it.
And the Planning Board looked at the plan[_and!interpre~ed that
there was a provision in the zone. ordinances I believe it's sec.-
tion 100-62 which defines shopping centers and imposes certain
conditions on shopping centersc and interpretated, this par-
ticular site plan and elevation to be a shopping center in the
code and suggested the application come before you. I believe
the application was passed before Mr. Lessard who gave a pro
former denial and we're here. The application itself as the
use comtemplated whi6h is general business and possibly office
space, ms clearly permitted. The property is located in the
"B-.I" general business zone. I believe that the application
itself except for this heze interpretation for involving this
section that defines shopping center, is conforming° There's
enough parking° It doesn't exceed the square footage° The
difficulty is that if you consider this type of application to
be a "shopping center", the provisions contained in 100-62 would
require among other things, a minimum acre area° This is 30
thousand square feet° I think that you probably ~called him
initially to file the application. And If I thought about the
application before I prepared it, I would have asked for relief
alternatively both as a variance and or an interpretation~ I
read your ordinance and it's not clear in my mind that this par-
ticular configuration of stores should be considered a shopping
center under your ordinanceo If you look at section 100-62, the
definition includes words to the effect that shopping center or
certain groups I guess of stores and offices that are quite
commonly known as shopping centers require all those different
provisions including the one acre area. Now I'm not to sure
that this in my mind, at least look at this elevation and this
Page 2 - November 20, 1986
P~bli~ Hearing - John Senko
Southold Town Board of Appeals~
Milo ANGEL (continUed)
perhaps plan., is what is comtemplated ~h.en they were referring
to the ordinance provisions t.o what is commonly known as a shop-
ping center. I particularly, when I think of a shopping center,
I think of Bohack type shopping center~ Not one free standing
building like this with a small shop right in the road° Now,
obviously there'~s a difficulty or a practical difficulty caused
by this interpretation~ The difficulty is that it appears as if
you can't have multiple retail or office uses on a lot unless tile
lot meets the area requirements of a shopping, c~n~er-even though
~'B I" g~neral zone°. Now what's
these uses are permitted in the
the purpose of that? I!-m not sure~ And I believe that your
Master Plan does not have this relatively unusual distinction be- ,
tween normal business uses and Shopping center uses. I~ve combed
through the Master Plan. I didn'~t see it. I believe Mr. Strang
asked Mro Emilito, your Plann~ Dick Emilito confirmed that there
is no separate designation now in the "B-i" general business zone
under the Master Plan~to distinguish between regular. ~'B-1'' use
and shopping center uses° So as you'wouldn't get into th'e dif--
ficulty we're here with today~ Another point to be made besides
the Master Plan point is that appears to be created, the shopping
center c~onfigurations which appears to control the number of uses
on the property° As I interpret it, I maybe wrong because I don't
have as much familiarity as you do~ It can be interprette~ to re-
quire that when you have multiple uses on a particular piece of
retail or business property, you become a shopping center° That
would be most restrictive~ Not the most restrictive° The tremen-
dous interpretation and perhaps that's the interpreta~ion~th~ ~lan-
ning Board usedwhen:~iti~.Rihked.!it
peals in this case. I don't see the 'policy behind that° I'll give
you an example~ The fact that you have one business use on a 30
thouSand square foot parcel, that business use could~e a convenience
store, a deli, a 7-1I~ It could generate an enormous amount of
business° On the other hand, you could have a very expensive
boutique and an architects office° Architects don't have a lot of
trouble. They don't have clients all the time~ The same business
type permitted~somewhat when divided into several could result in
substantially less dense use or heaVY use than one type of retail
use that's permitted under this ordinance. Perhaps that's~h'~crea-
son why the Master Plan does'n~t have the distinction that's in the
code. I understand from speaking with Mr.. Strang
last time, that there was some opposition. And the fact that there
was opposition, one of the people who was here in opposition, led
me to comb through some of your old files which is' always an in-
teresting experience° And I believe one of the persons who was
here in opposition was (Mr.) Dr~ S~tkin who owns the property im-
mediately to the east on the other side of ACkerly Pond Lane or
Acker!y Pond Drive~ And Dr~ Sl°tkin made an application to your
Board in 1982 where he requested a use. variance to change the resi-
dential use of this particular piece of property to a business fur. a
medical professional office° Something that Would be permitted in
"B-I" general business zone. And in fact, he had a use variance
application. The property at the time was owned by Mrs° Lathamo
And your Board granted the variance and it granted the variance
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF DR. JOHN LORETO
THURSDAY ,__NOVEMBER 2~0L,~, 1986, PUBL%C HEARING
10:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3574 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of DR. JOHN LORETO. Variance no construct storage build-
ing with an insufficient setback from bluff along L.I. Sound for
storage purposes accessory and incidental to existing dwelling
adjace to these premises. Lots #3 and #2 Vista Bluff, N/s Glen
Court, Cutchogue.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record..
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey on behalf of John
Loreto referring to his map of Vista Bluff lot #2 from Frank Atkinson
L.S. of Setauket New York indicating the house lot and adjacent to
the house lot a vacant lot which belongs to the applicant not speci-
fically shown on this survey indicating a gazebo area overlooking
the Long Island Sound. Adjacent to that a proposed storage size of
10 by 14 approximately 30 feet from the top of the bluff and 10 feet
from the east property line. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the'.g~eao Is
there somebody who would like to be heard? Dr. Loreto~ Anybody like
to speak against the application? This is going to be a beauty. I
can see it now. Does anybody have any questions of Dro Loreto or
shall we close the hearing and place our normal conditions as we so
choose or deny it? The gentleman is not here to deal with the appli-
cation.
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF ANA G. STILLO
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1986, PUBLIC HEARING
10:04 p.m. Appeal No. 3562 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of ANA G. STILLO. Variances for: (1) Approval of insuf-
ficient lot area, width and depth of three proposed parcels;
(2) approval of access per NY Town Law, 280-a. ROW along the
North Side of Main Road, Orient.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey from Robert Van
YUYL, P.C. map, OCtober 25, 1985 amended March 7, 1986 indi-
cating lot #1 on Long Island Sound and 1.2 acres, Lot #2 on the
center'lot of 1.0 acres, Lot #3 which is the most southerly lot
of 1.0 acres in the back of the Bro Corp property approximately
300.43 feet of the Main Road in Orient° And I have a copy of the
Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties
in the area~ Would you like to be heard?
MS.~MOORE: Aha Stillo wishes to create a minor subdivision in
Orient. The 3 lots which would be created would each be at least
40 thousand square feet and meeting the one acre, each being over
1 acre or 1 acre. These resulting in undersized lots and that's
why we'~re here° We have gone to the Planning Board for the sub-
division but they had referred it to you for the creation of the
undersized lots as well as the 280-a access to lot (I believe) #3.
The lot furthest south of the 3o The standard reviewed, as you
know, is practical difficulties, their relief as requested is not
substantial under the circumstances° The first that I'd like to
say is that the 3 lots will create a minor subdivisiono Two lots
being one acre. The third being 1.2 acres~ If you refer to the
survey, you'll see that it shows that the building envelopes are
of sufficient size to accomodate a one family residents And if
you look at the survey, the lot that is adjacent to Long Island
Sound has no consideration that the setback requirements from the
bluff and we're 100 feet from the back of the bluff and that~build-
ing envelope will be outside.~iAll three trustees of the Zoning
Board put a 75 foot setback as. the D.E.Co We have a letter from
the DoEoC. stating that they waive jurisdiction and I'd like to
place that on the record already if you don't have it in your file.
And I have several copies of that to pass around. The second item;
we also have access to lot #1 and lot #2 on (if you see on the sur-
vey that we reserved) a right-of-way and we are seeking 280-a ap-
proval just so that's a record and right-of-way. We are obviously
approved for this within the 20 feet that we granted in the deed so
that we will take that into consideration~ The second element is
that by granting the relief requested, the character of the neigh-
borhood would not be adversely effected or changed° I have a tax
map showing surrounding subdivisions. And if.you note that north
of Main Road in this area of ours is quite developed. There are
several one acre lots. O~e which is adjacent to the property in
question and then west of it. So that we will be conforming to
the area and the surrounding area.
TAPE ENDED
Page 2 - November 20, 1986
Pnbli~ H~a~ing -Ana Go Stillo
Southold Town BoaDd of Appeals
MS. MOORE (continued)
The properties will be created. We are proceeding with the Health
Departmento We are taking into account cesspools wells and the
Health Department requirements. On the survey you'll see that tests
have been donw and we are really (right now) waiting for Health De-
partment, notice from the Health Departmento Do you have any ques-
tions? Finally, that the interest of justice will be served on nhe
variance in light of the adjacent one acre subdivisions in the area
and the time and expense that Aha Still has incurred in going through
this application. We'have gone to the Planning Board. We started
our application in February of this year and we got kind of held up
with the SEQRA. As you know, it was going back and forth between the
Planning Boa=d and the Zoning Board and to who was going to make SEQRA
determination. We went on for about 4 months. We finally got the
SEQRA so we could proceed with .the Health Department and we've been
going now steadily hopefully toward the completion of this project.
I would also like to point out, I'm sure you have in your file and
you are concerned with the recommendation the Planning Board made
on this project° After reviewing this (if you don't have it there)
they recommended that the parcel be retained just~one piece. And
their reasoning was that this area is zoned as 2 acre and the area
just south of the parcel is zoned or for 100 and the proposed Master
Plan would have been 10 acres° That's no longer the caseo When we
started the application that may have been in fact what the zoning
was going to beo But since then, the area that we're concerned with
right here is proposed as 2 acres but still that doesn't eliminate
the availability of this Board to come and get approval from you. So
there is no change from the existing zoning to the proposed zoning.
We are still before you and we still seek to create a minor subdi-
vision. That!won't change when the proposed plan comes into effect°
As far as the 10~acre zone, they were mistaken or possibly they were
not mistaken when the proposed (plan) Master Plan in February was out.
The cut of Main Road for 10 acres was south of Main Road and above
that was going to be 2 acre zoning~ That's no longer the caSeo W~
no have .... It's going to be 5 acre zone but substantially south of
Main Road along the 5 foot contour° Along the contour° So it is
substantially further south than what the Planning Board had in mind
when they first made their recommendation~ So we're hoping that your
approval of a 3 acre substandard lots and the 280-a, we could proceed
with the Planning Board and convince then that their rezoning if Febru-
ary does not really hold water now°
CHAIRMAN ~0[HRtN~[R: Is there any reason why you choose to seek a
tour of the area over the .....
MS. MOORE: We had access to the back lots through the deed on t]he
easterly most right-of-way that goes through I think it's B.D.B. ~
properties as the property owner now. That'only allows use, cur-
rently in contract or in the contract it allows for just access 'to
the 2 back lotso We, in the contract, we agreed to reserve the 25
foot right-of-way on the east to provide for that southerly lot so
that we wouldn't overly burden the right-of-way of the development
to the east° So we are trying to keep in mind that there is a de-
velopment on the east and we didn"t want~to over burden that right-
of-way for the adjoining property owners.
Page 3~- November 20, 1986
P~blic~'~aping -Ana G. Stillo
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRtNGER' There is presently nothing really there.
It's virgin soil is it not?
MS. MOORE: Are you talking about the easterly right-of-way
because there are 2,
CHAIRMAN G0. RRRI'NGER: I'm talking about the west.
MS. MOORE: The westerly right-of-way I don't think has been im-
proved at all. There's nothing there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRI~GER:
you would.
Maybe you can give us a picture of that if
MS. MOORE: We are entitled to 20 feet of that right-of-way°
viously for the people ....
Ob-
CHAIRMAN GOEHRIN~G~: Is it 20 feet of the right-of-way that they
just cut? It's two different rights-of-way.
MS. MOORE: I'll show you right here. The 3 lots are right here,
There's a subdivision on the easto This right-of-way here is be-
ing improved by the B~D..B. properties. Right now Davis has already
given his recommendation. That'~s not the eight-of-way we're talking
about. There's a right-of-way here° The 3 lots right here. There"s
a separate right-of-wayo That's the one we want approval Oho
MR. WELLS · He put a fence acress the shclfo
MS. MOORE: Over here?
MRo WELLS : Yeso It's fenced all in with a gate°
MS. MOORE: It may be but they are not (legally) allowed to prevent
us from using that rig~t-of-way where we've already reserved it in
the deed.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There'~s an entrance to ito
MR. WELLS : There's an entrance there but it's all fenced ino
~{S. MOORE- It doesn't matter as long as they provide access to
out lots~ So it can remain fenced.in as long as our property
owners have a keyo That's alrighto
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there' anything you want to say about
the conditions of the right-of-way?
MS. MOORE: We know what the conditions are for the easterly right-
of-way. Mr. Davis° I have a record of that. We hope there will
be reasonable .... We're willing to .... We have up to 20 feet to
improve but obviously you want to keep a residential nature~ It's
almost like a long driveway~for this one property° So if at all
possible, we'd prefer to have it just a black top or stone° Pro-
bably the most inexpensive way possibleo
Page 4 - November 20, 1986
Pqblic~H~ar~ing -Ana G. Stillo
~ -Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRING~R: I thank you. Is there anybody else who would
like to speak in favor of the application? Against the application?
MS. KIKERAS: Yes. I just want to argue against it. Actually I
have no argumento I just want to establish the fact that ....
CHAIRMAN G0~E.HRINGER: Could I just have your name for the record?
You have to come up. We're taking this downs
MS. KIKERAS: I'm speaking for my fathers I just want to establish
the fact that we are against it basically because of the 2 zoning,
2 acre zoning that's in effect right now° And also because we o~n
the property previously owned by Peter Sledjeski and there is proper-
ty behind us owned by Bennet and Bro Corp. And in the event that
permission is granted for these subdivisions, in the event that
Bennett and Bro Corp, decide to sell their property and divide it
into one acre lots, they will have reason to base it on this deci-
sion. And we fear that it might become like a small community.
It's over populated and we lived in the city° When we bought the
home we bought it basically with the intention of coming out to re-
lax, have peace and quiet and it's not a very strong argument° Ba-
sically that's why we bought the houSe. And if it becomes extremely
populated, it will ruin the whOle effect of Orient Point in our
opinion°
CHAIRMB~ GOEHRINGER: Just for the record, there is a subdivision
presently on B.D.'B~
MS. KIKERAS: Yes I believe it's already been subdivided and they
can't subdivide it any further~
CHAIPJYAN GOEHRINGER: This is what it looks like on the tax map.
This is where you live here~ Those lots are presently existing.
They've already been divided. What in effect this lady is doing
is for these 3. This is the right-of-way over here that she's
talking about.
MS. KIKERAS: And what about this piece of property right here?
MS. MOORE: Right there it's in-one property 'en~ner. I believe
it was subdivided already way back in '72o So they can't°
MS. KIKERAS: They probably could come back and subdivi.de but
they'd be subdividing on one acre piece to even smaller°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRI~NGER: That was a part of the original Sledjeski
subdivision. Thank you. Is there anYbody else that would like
to speak against the application?
MR. MOORE':-~ Before you close, I,~m sorry. If you want, I had one
more exhibit_that was our deed and what we have~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRIN~ER~: That would be great. Sure.
MS. MOORE: I don't have the deed but I have the title report for
the Bro Corp piece that we would be using.
Page 5 - November 20, 1986
Public~ea~ing -Ana Go Stillo
~S6uthold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And it names you in that title?
MS. MOORE: Yeso It reserves a 20 foot right-of-way,
CHAI~iAN GOEHRINGER,~ Thank you. Hearing no further questions,
(did you have any other questions?) closing the hearing and re-
serving the decision until later,
Ail in favor aye.
Transcribed from recorded cassette tapes.
BM
Nadia Moore
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF STEVEN SANDERS & ANO
N0V MB E 2 O, 19S6, PUBLZC HEARING
10:27 pom. Appeal No. 3519 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of STEVEN SANDERS & ANOo Variance for approval of in-
sufficient lot area, width and setbacks in this proposed set-
off of lando ROW off the N/s. B~y View Avenue, Mattituck.
Chairman Goehringer was absent auring the entire hearing.
Chairman Grigonis read the legal notice and application for
the record~ Member Charles Grigonis was Chairman Pro Tem for
this hearing.
CHAIRMAN GRIGONIS : I have a copy of Suffolk County Tax Map in-
dicating the surrounding properties in the area. I have a sur~'
vey dated December 6, 1985 by ~derick VanTuy] . If you'd like
to add. to w~at has been said so far,
MS. MOORE: Mr. Sanders and Mr. Schwartz want to set off an
existing non-conforming dwelling from the present non-conform-
ing property° We have 2 houses on one lot as the application
states. Each houSe Creates an insufficient setback° But this
is merely because we are drawing what essentially is an imagi
nary line between 2 existing houSes. As you are certainly aware
the Southold Town Code Article 1 Section 100-10 states that the
purpose of the comprehensive zoning code is to gradually elimi-
nate non-conforming uses° So we are asking you to (by this ap-
peal) eliminate a non-conforming use° I have the language from
the code. I high lighted it for the record° Again the standards
are practical difficulty. And the first question is how substan-
tial the variance is in relation to the requirements. First, it
is not substantial to the neighbors and to the Board because the
homes exist today° We are going to have the same use, the same
property and the same houses today as tommorow assuming you grant
us the variance, So there is actually no change being down to the
property, no construction, nothingo It's just separating what are
2 houses on one lot into 2 separate houses. Each house or each
dwelling has it's own certificate of occupancy~ And I have for
the record, the certificate of occupancy for the house from '71
when it was issued and the certificate of occupancy from December
13, 1985 when it was reissued based on an affidavit stating that
that house was there and being used as a residence and that~they
are legally 2 separate dwellings~ SO I have (you're tired so I
won't spread them out) lots of copies that I'll present for the
record. The denial of the variance application would produce
practical difficulties and in fact a financial hardship for the
owners. Based on a letter partially objection the definition of
market value which I received from Celic Realtors who was the
realty agency involved in this° The bottom line was after all
the language that state how it was that they decide on or de-
termine an appraisal, the bottom line is that the market value
of the property as it presently exists today on a lo5 acre par-
cel with 2 houSes on it is 345 t~ousando It's a lot of money°
The market value of lot 1 which is shown is the 27 thousand
square foot area which is improved by a 2 bedroom home, is valued
at 267 thousand 500 hundred° And the second lot which is a sepa-
rate lot with a 36 thousand square foot area which is improved by
a one bedroom home is valued at 240 thousand. So the difference
Page 27,- November 20, 1986
P~blic~e~ing - Steven Sanders & Ano.
~"S6Uthold Town Board of Appeals
MS. MOORE (continued)
is almost doubled by separation of 2 separate lots and 2 separate
homes. I have the original here and copies which I'll present for
the record and I'll give you a copy of this. The Planning Board
again with the setoff, has been .... We went before the Planning
Board and they made their recommendation and this time we agree
with their recommendation. They resolved that it is noted that
there is 2 existing houses on the property and that this property
lessens the non-conformity of the situation~ So that the proposal
lessens the non-conformity of the situation. So that our appeal
would benefit zoning and planning in the creation of 2 separate
lots. I have that language high lighted in read° The effect, if
the variance is allowed, of the increase population density does
produce on available governmental facilities is another element
which I have to show. There is no difference in the governmental
facilities° There's no difference to the property. We're just
creating as I said, an imaginary line between the 2 houseso So
that standard is easily met. Also another..element, whether the
substantial change will be produced in the character of the neigh-
borhood or substantial detriment to adjoining propertieso This
property, I don't believe is and our clients don'.~ believe is that
the creation of the 2 lots wouldt~.be in conformity with the surround-
ing areas° What I did was take the tax map and I took the tax roll
and I cut about 40 different lots in that areao And within that
immediate vacinity, I found that the average lot size is 0509 acres
which is a little over a half of acre~ And therefore, the setoffs
would conform to the existing zoning. And I have the tax map show-
ing the property in'relation to other properties in the area~ There-
fore, in view of the manner in which the difficulty raised, that is
2 houses were built prior to zoning and they are existing now and
~ith all of the above factors which I've mentioned~ In the interest
of justice or justice will be served if~the setoff is granted and you
grant us a variance. Any questionm?
MR. CHAIRMAN ~RI~0NIS~ Thank you° Anyone else to ~speak for?
MS. MOORE: ~57 was when the zoning ordinance went into effect~
MRS. WELES: That was built way after that. It was a garage. We
lived there for 30~ years and that was a garage. It was built af-
ter, way after.
MS. MOORE: The garage was built?
MRS. WELLS: The apartment that you're talking about°
MR.~%~LLS: The apartment was a garage.
time. You still got over ~ acre.
It was connected at ~ne
MS. MOORE: We have existing cesspools on the properties that are
existing today~
MRS. WELLS: Going just to the main house.
MS. MOORE: Nooo I believe they each have separate systems.
Page 3 - November 20, 1986
Public~e~aring - Steven Sanders & Ano.
~S~uthold T6~wn Board of Appeals
MRS. WELLS: I would like to ask you about these lots that you
are talking about with the .59 because all fo the homes there
are in excess of an acre. Which ones are you talking about?
MS. MOORE: I don'~ have the exact chart that I took but you
can see from here. These are two for the cut line through
here.
MRS. WELLS: You're talking all about Ziegler's property there
but all these surrounding areas are more than what you stipu-
lated. Not o5 what you said it was because these homes are all
(as my husband said) over an acre.
MS. MOORE: Can you get all this?
MRS. WELLS: I was just saying that they are all over an acre.
The existing Ziegler property which is now Sanders; that was
all chopped upo These are all tiny but none of the surrounding
areas at all. YOU can go to the LockWoods and you can go to the
Fests and the old Bergnon property, Ruthers property, Sweeneys
house; they're over an acre.
MS. MOORE: Are you finished?
MRS. WELLS: I'm sorry. Yes~
MS. MOORE: I would just like.to respond to that, What I did
was I took 40 lots and the average came out to .509. That does
not mean that maybe next door to them there is a one acre parcel
but the average of all 40 came out to that number. I can stand
corrected. If you'd like, I can redo the numbers and present it
to the Board but that is the number I came up with.
MRS° WELLS: 40 was in this area you"re talking there off of
North Drive.
MS.~MOORE: 40 lots, I don't really reeal! the numbers because
it's been a while. I took 40 lots and it Would probably be with--
in this general~vacinity.
MRS. WELLS: Well we're here with 2 lots and we have over 3~ acres
right there. And this was my'husbands~mother's land here that has
been sold and I believe that was 1 3/4 acres, Then we come over to
the Campbells and that is way in excess here about an acre and a
half. So it couldn't be in this area. Not here with our water and
so forth.
MR. WELLS: If this is going to be bOught after acre zoning, we
should break ours up.
}fRS. WELLS: Maybe we ought to break ours up, We.'ye got 3~ acres
and then we can put them into ~ acre lots also.
MS. MOORE: You;d have to go to the Board if you want to do that.
WELLS: I'm worried about over population out there already.
Page 4 November 20, 1986
Public~Z!e~ar~ing- Steven Sanders & Anoo
~F~0uthold T~wn Board of Appeals
MRS. WELLS: That apartment was built after '57 because we were
married in '56. That thing was built way after '57 because
Ziegler did not come out here full time until after he sold his
place in Rockville Center and that's when they put that garage
apartment in above that garage. That was done way after zoning.
MS, MOORE: That's just oneo It's a private one-family dwelling
for the main house and the prior certificate of occupancy was
probably just for the garage which was a garage. To may have
been reissued. That's all I can tell you. Both properties have,
probably contains 2 one story and one family°
SECREYARY: It must have been built after '57 because there
was a c.o~ on it~ The other c~o~ was issued in '71o
MS. MOORE: If it was~built prior to ito.o I see what you're
saying. The houSe .... Somehow or another, those are the c.o.'s
we haveo
S~ECRETARY:
There was a CoO° issued after 1975.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
actively.
But it may have been for bank purposes retro-
SECRETARY: The building.permit was issued on May 4, 1971 for
a new houseo So that must have been one of the 2 houSes you're
talking about with the prior certificate of occupancy~
MS. MOORE: It's possible. I don't know~
MR. CHAIRMAN : I'll make a motion closing the hearing.
Ail. in favor - aye.
Town Clerk, Town of Sou'~no~d
Page ~3 - November 20, 1986
P~blic HeaTing - John Senko
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. ANGEL (continued)
which was attempt to a rezoning of residential to commercial
property in large part because of the existence of businesses
around ito What Mr. Senko wants to do in this application is
put in a permitted business use on this particular piece of
property. He doesn't want to do anything dramatic or perhaps
in fact more dramatic than what Dr. S~ tkin did. It maybe
have not been in fact dramatic, but it was dramatic by zoning.
A use variance, as you know, is a very unuSual type relief.
So we have an interesting situation here where this Board in
the past 4 years ago because of the existance of traffic for
businesses in the area, granted the use variance. Now today,
part of the argument against the application even though per-
mitted, is that there is traffic. So you're being asked to
deny the application for~the same reasons that you granted a
prior application. It's sort of a logical conundrum and it
points out (I believe) the lack of merit in opposition to the
application and also the insignificance of it. At least from
a zoning or planning viewpoint. It really won't change things
dramatically. The property is properly zoned "B-I" general
business. I believe the proposed MasEer Plan map continues
it in that particular zone. We are seeking permitted uses
and nothing is really going to change. The only thing is that
there is a difficulty created because of this interpretation
of shopping center which is in my opinion a distinction without
a difference° Mr. Senko is here. Mr. Strang is here. I should
call ~r. Strang up because he is the one that had the conversa-
tion with Dick Emilito. And I also want him to comment on the
general practice when you construct buSiness property. You con-
~truct the such as Mr. Senko is interested in construct-
ing, as to not limit yourself to one particular tenant. When you
build a building like this, it may become because of the market-
place, may have 2 or 3 tenants that want to have space in there.
On the other hand, Mr. Senko could build this building and find
out a good tenant comes for the whole thing. It could be one
use after the fact, though it is designed primarily for retail
space on the bottom and office space on the top.
MR, STRANG: To address the issue that was brought up with re-
spect to my conversation with Mr. 'Emilito, the Planning Consul-
tant for the town, given the fact that we were thrown into this
situation of the definition of a shopping center and being aware
of the fact that there is a change in the code in the making with
regard to the Master Plan, I felt it important as well as possibly
beneficial to look at the Master Plan and the proposed zoning and
see what ramifications may come of that with regard to shopping
centers° And I was unable as Mr. Angel was unable to find any
reference to specific methods with'respect to shopping centers,
a definition of shopping centers as in the buSiness zone. It
Page 4 - November 20, 1986
Pnblic.He~ring - John Senko
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. STRANG: (continued)
prompted me to question the Planning Consultant, Mr~ Emilito,
as to how that was addressed° And his response to me was that
the whole section (100-62) has been deleted from~the code and
replaced by another section totally unrelated. And that any
reference to shopping cen~r~u~es (so to speak) are referred
to in the general code by each business distinction° That's
a multiple tenancy (if you'will) as can exist in any of the
business districts provided it meets all than the conditions
that we have been thrown into in this particular case under
present zone use business to be phased out in the shortcoming,
hopefully soon to be adopted Master Plan and revised codec To
comment a little further on the use of the building° The build-
ing we're ]00k~ng at 15 not 10 thousand square feet of building or
20 thousand square feet of building~ We have a small propor-
tionate and in scale at the site building proposed. It can es-
sentially, it is small enough that it could house a single ten-
and, being only 26 hnndred square feet total. A tenant who may
have a need for that type of facility or for that much space
could certainly use it as a single occupancy~ By the same token,
when designing commercial space, one allows buildings in the
flexibility to partition it off in any reasonable amount of
rental spaces. There are some tenancies that request or I
shouldn't say request but require 800 square feet and some 1,000.
Some 1,200 and some as much as 2,600 which we have presented
here° So the building has taken that into consideration and is
adaptable to occupy or house a single tenant~, or several tenants°
But again with the restriction of 2,600 square feet, we're cer-
tainly not going to have 20 tenants in there° It's just not
going to happen. We're looking at a relatively small unit here~
Also I would like to call to the Board's attention the fact that
the development of the lot is only 8% lot coverage~ Certainly
8% lot coverage is not by any means a dramatic development to
the property° And I think if you look at the type of partition
that we've made, it is my clients intention to do something there
that's going to be an asset to the town. It certainly would.
It exists~on the site~ It's underdeveloped and it could use some
improvement and I think that the Board really couldn't deny the
fact that what we propose here is certainly an improvement to the
site.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you~
MR. ANGEL: Unless you'have any further questions or questions
of Mro Senko, we just assume sit down at this point.
CHAIP~AN GOEHRINGER: We had asked or I had asked Mro Senko to
confer with counse]~ And in order to relay the message that I
have, I had certain, this is my personal opinion, feelings about
the application after the first~.visit to the site. The second
visit however, brought additional feelings° I have no personal
objection to the 2,600 square foot building~ I do however, would
like to know what you plan on doing with the present 1,100 square
foot building which I assume is shown here as 700 square feet°
Page 5 - November 20, 1986
Public Hea~ing - John Senko
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIPd~kN GOEHRINGER: (continued)
This is the existing house which is only a duplex type of
business possibly non-conforming or whatever the ease might
be. And is there some what of discontinuing the business use
of that particular house either by changing the conformity of
the size of the building? I certainly don't want you to re-
move it from the site. I think in my opinion and I have non
discussed this with the Board, I would not like to see it~go be,-
cause it's residentiality and being rented as one of the af-
fordable units that we have in the area° But as you know,
there"s a matter of concerno The gentleman to my left has men-
tioned the (in the audience this is) concern of the cars in
that particular area, the parking problems alongside the road
and so on and so fortho ~'think as much of a discontinuance
so that could exist with this building and the open area of
visibility to that building, I think would lend itself a much
better situation to the community. And then I'll address the
issue of ingress and egresso
MRo STRANG: Well I think that's what the original idea was°
Correct me if I'm wrong. Was to maintain that business use
of the property° It may be to clean it up a little bit but
I believe that the parking and square footage of retail area
increases that building in all parking computationso So the
plan, for example, the required parking spaces added the nec-
cessary spaces for the square footage of the floor area of
the existing building that's close to the roado I don't think
that there was any thought about creating that into a different
type of use than it is today~ I'm not saying that we can't
think about it now but it was not discussed with meo It's a
brand new idea°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's right. That was the reason why
I asked Mr~ Senko to come in~ Certainly I could have relayed
that to this gentleman here and then it couId have been bounced
back and forth and I don't want to clearly state that that has
to be done right at this particular moment.or ,any determination
has to be done concerning it. Is that building 1,100 square
feet or is it 700 square feet?
MR. STRANG:, The footprint of the building is 1,100 square feet°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~ That includes the porch.
MR. STRANG: Including the porch. When we do our computations
for parking, it's based on net retail or useable floor area
which is 1,700 square feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~ Right~ Ok. Do you want to talk about
that situation and we'll either recess and we'll of course con-
tinue the hearing here? I know there are people in the audience
that still want to speak~
Page 6 - November 20, 1986
Publi~ Hearing - John Senko
S~uthold Town Board of Appeals
MR. ANGEL: We should discuss it because it come out of the blue.
MR, STRANG: I'd like to just hold up (by the way) for your
record, a copy of the determination that I referred to before
to Dro S10tkin. It's dated May 6, 1982, I'd like to make it
part of the record,
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? The 8% lot
coverage that you were referring to Mr~ Strang, encompasses the
entire 2',600 square foot plus the house?
MR. STRANG:-Yes sir~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm referring to his house. We kn~w there
is a non-conforming duPlex business type of use at this particu-
lar area° I_think an antique shop.
MR, STRANG: Yes, It includes all structures on site as included
in the lot coverage.
CHAIRMAN STRANG: We'll go on now and ask if there's anybody else
who wonld like to speak in favor of the application~ Is there any-
body who would like to speak against? Kindly state your name again,
MR. SPATES. I have some prepared comments and I'd like to say a
few other things~too. My name is DOnald Spates~and I've addressed
this Board before and I have a copy of the comments which I made at
the last public meeting to consider the request for variance to
Main Road and Ackerly Pond Lane in Southold. I'd like to submit
these to you becuase I think it was a little confusing at the last
meening, At the end of these comments "I ask the Board not to al-
low the repetition of such commercial disasters such as the con-
venience store east of town to reoccur now". I wish to clarify
the situation to which I made that unclear reference in my com-
ments. The 7-11 store located on Main Road on the east end of
town is in effect a mirror image of the problems facing the proper-
ty under consideration tonight. The town asked for the side road
to be uSed entry and exit for the 7-11 parking lot in an attempt
to elleviate the obviouS hazards of trying that same entry and exit
from Main Roado This is just what is being proposed now for the
property at the corner of Main Road and ACkerly Pond ~ane. It will
non work. It will not work on the east side of town° The idea of
an entrance be maintained on Main Road for use ~of emergency vehicles
only is not valid and certainly does not address itself to the real
problems at hand which is just normal vehicular traffic, There is
no way to prohibit the use of suCh an entrance by any who would wish
to use it, And experience again at the 7-1t store suggests, in fact
guarantees that the Main Road entrance will be a m~re~.'prefe~ed means
to enter and exit the proper~yo Probably the most thought provoking
idea concerning the similar location zs that the Southold Town Police
in spite of their deligence, have found that the Route 25 at the 7~11
property is impossible to keep clear of illegally parked vehicles
and that the site has already produced numerous motor vehicle acci-
dents. Please do not allow these similar conditions to repeat them-
selves at the other end of to~ Please do not grant this variance.
I urge this Board to consider not the go'Od intent' of the applicants
Page 7 -November 20, 1986
Public Hea~ring - John Senko
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. SPATES (continued)
and rhetoric which we have all displayed but rather the
facts as they appear to us~ The dangerous nature of the
intersection and the inability of anyone to regulate the
traffic patterns of two driverso The similiarity with
another location on the other side of town and the inabili-
ty to control that other situation. The many other factors
which have not surface because of the lack of available time
to pursue this matter, such as drainage problem possibilities
in ~the area which has now cauSed the town establishing a sump
in the area and that the fact that the area in question drains
directly into Jockey Creek° And reactions of those who have
not read the legal notice and thus have not come into share
the reactions of having residential Ackerly POnd Lane turned
into a main thoroughfare. I have not read the regulations re-
garding definitions and uses of shopping centers and I probably
wouldn't understand it if I did. So I-can"t comment on that.
It seems to me though that for ~a lay person, any multiple use
in business terms be considered in some way a shopping center°
Certainly not something as extensive as we have in Cutehogue
but even mini shopping center if you will. The size of the
building with the nature of business these days, get down into
boutiquey~type of stores means that the tenancy there could be
quite substantial° 800 square feet is by no means an-average
business rental space any mores It's lowering every day. And
I believe that the stores in Greenport across the street from
Snargate, I don't know the name of the shopping development
there, indicate that small stores are what is coming out here°
This means a lot more traffic° Working under this~law is~t~_
guess what we'reodoingo I d0n.'tknow-abhut~Mr~TEmilit~a~d the
Master Plan. But I would think that the decision is made under
the existing law and not under what would be perhaps coming in
in an unofficial comment~
CHAIRMAh~ GOEHRINGER: That's correcto
MR° SPATES: As far as Dr~ S~tkin goes, I happen to be a patient
of his partner, Mr. Simon, Dr~ Simon~ And I've been in his office
many times and he has a sign in the office warning his patients as
they exit his pmrking lot not to go down onto Main Road because
of the danger there but to take Ackerly Pond north to North Road°
I think that's an indication of not only the concern but the ob--
vious danger that he feels is there regardless of the fact that
he received a variance or something in order to establish his
office there° Finally, We're talking ab'out technicalities it
seems with the use and appearance of an attorney in the room~ I
think that basically the 'technicality is the objection that I
originally had and that I~d like to stress~ And that was that
the property, in my opinion, is ~grossly ~dersized. It's not
by a matter of a few percentage points and I think that's the
main part that the Board should consider. Thank you.
Rage 8 - November 20, 1986
Publi~ Hegring - John Senko
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
for the record.
Thank you siro Yes.
JuSt state your name
MR. ROSS: Wickham, Wickham, and Bressler~for John Schalner in
opposition. Mr. Schalner owns the property to the immediate
west of the subject parcel.' First I just want to reveiw the
arguments I made at the first meeting with regard to the his-
torical nature of the area and the traffic problems and most
important I think there is the question that there's no hard-
ship been shown, no economic hardship has been shown. But the
important question that was raised by Mr. Angel is the purpose
of the code and the definition of shopping center. I think'the
purpose is rather clear. And the purpose ~s to prevent multiple
business uses on less than an acre whiCh.rseems a reasonable ap-
proach considering this plan and the nature of the community.
As far as a definition of shopping center, it may be difficult
to define. But when we see one, you know what it is. And on 3/4
of an acre, you have over 30 parking spots and multiple business
use, retail use, that's a shopPing~ center~ And thei~anning
Board sent it here because they did- ~ interpretate it as a shop-
ping center° They defined it as a shopping center because it is
one. At'the first hearing there was some testimony as to the
number of units, the number of retail units~ the number of busi-
ness unitso It's not too clear how many units are being proposed
now. I believe at the first hearing it was somewhere between 6
and 8o Correct me if I'm wrong° That sounds like a shopping
center. That's all.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir.
like to say in rebuttal?
Is there~anything you'd
MR, ANGEL: Two things, I'd like to have the Board's permis-
sion to ask Mro Spates a ~ew questionso
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
swer any questions°
I don't know if Mr. Spates wanes to an-
MR. ANGEL: It's up to youo You can ask him to answer them,
I would request some information.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Most of the stuff he said though is a mat-
ter of opinion° We can ask.
MR~ ANGEL: I'd'~like to know where Mro Spates wants'.~.this business
because I have a belief that he's right in the area there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would ask' him that question.
you run yourT~bn~imessssiC?
l~ner e do
MRo SPATES: I am the owner of Harts Hardware which is located
adjacently across the corner from the property in question°
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: DO you mind answering these questions?
Page 9~- November ~0, 1986
Public Hea~ing - John Senko
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. SPATES: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What else would you like to ask him?
MR. ANGEL: Ok. So that's a hardware store across the street
on the Main Road and you're in business.
MR. SPATES: Yes o
MR. ANGEL: And you sell things° Not one line of products?
MR. SPATES: I beg your pardon.
MR. ANGEL: A line of products right?
SPATES: A grouping of oroductso
MRo ANGEL: All.if it is har.dware?
in cars right?
People come to your store
SPATES: Yes°
Mit. ANGEL: From the Main Road right?
~iR. SPATES: I'm on the corner alsoo They come from Main Road°
I also have the entrance and exit onno Jockey Creek Drive°
MRo ANGEL: So it's simiiiar to this property in that you have
2 accesses onto Main Road? One from Main Road, one from the
side streeto
FIRo SPATES: It is to a degree, yes°
MR. ANGEL: And people enter and exit off those 2 streets?
that correct?
Is
MR. SPATES: Yes that's correct°
MRo 7~GEL: Thank you.
CHAIP2~AN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much sirs
MR. ANGEL: My rebuttal is an attempt to put this thing in per-
spective and I don't want to beat around the bush. There are 2
people here who don, t want this property used for business pur-
poses. That's what I hear. They talked about technicalities
and it's true. I mentioned techniealities~ I interpretate the
shopping center provision in a technical fashion so as to allow
you to, on an interpretation without proving there's a hardship,
to allow the application. But the reality is, as you very well
know, the hardship is the necessity of perhaps destrOying the
building and coming in with one commercial building. It may be
more expensive to do that. It's self evident~ That. Mr. Senko
Page 10 - November 20, 1986
Pu~lic~Hear&ng - John Senko
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. ANGEL: (continued)
can do as a right. This is in the B-! zone. He can put a busi-
ness use on this property. We're 'not seeking anything dramatic.
He can come in there, put in a business use. If the Planning
Board denies him a business use when he's done the necessary land-
scaping, the necessary parking spaces, designed it in accordance
with code and zoning ordinance,.if he wants to hire me, I can com-
pell the Planning Board to approve it becauSe it's permitted sub-
ject to site plan approval.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you a question? I don't mean
to destroy your train of thought. You're referring to the destruc-
tion of the dwelling that presently exists on that property?
MR. ANGEL: Well yes. This interpretation that we're talking about
has to do with the nUmber of uses. Isn't that correct?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct.
MR. ANGEL: So what would happen if we either added onto that par-
ticular building and made it into one use and tried to add to it
in such a fashion so as not to increase the non-conformity or we
just simply take a bulldozer in there. It costs us more money.
We're going to put up more space and build one building. We can't
do that under your code? We can't use that area for parking? I
mean it's business property no matter how you interpretate it even
with existence of the shopping center provision. If Mr. Senko wants
to come and put in a one use building without partitions, then he
goes to the Planning Board and the Planning Board looks at the site
plan. And then we go to Mr~ Lessard and show him a building without
partitions in it, we're going to get a building permit° I mean the
Planning Board may in connection with' site plan approval, may move
access around in a certain way, but as you well know because you're
as familiar with it as I am, once you have a permitted use subject
to site plan, the only thing that can be done is impose reasonable
conditions. You can't zone a permitted use out of existence by de-
nying it. So what we have here is something that is not going to
change. What we're seeking is in following the tradition of the
normal area variance, we seek to avoid the necessity of replicating
space. We don't want to make it one use. I'm not even addressing
the issue of whether if we built the building and the existing struc-
ture there whether you could use it as one use. It wouldn't even
be a shopping center situation. But the reality is that it's per-
mitted and the denial of a variance may cause economic hardship to
my client but it won't change the reality~ He may not do it, some-
body else will and somebody else will use~it for a buSiness purpose.
I just don't think it's in the cards. I think we're talking apples
and oranges here and that's my rebuttal. I think we have to come
back to reality and deal with this as a business property° The
variance doesn't change that essential character° And should the
Board deny the variance and should we be in a position where we
have to go out and spend extra money, we can always build one com-
mercial use that would be permitted under the code.
Page I1~ -, November 20, 1986
Pub~lic Hearing John Senko
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
respond to that?
Thank you sir.
Mr. Ross would you like to
MR. ROSS: Yes. I think that is the point. And it's not that use
but the number of uses that's at issue here. And to bring up the
fact that there are other businesses in the area, no. The question
here is how many uses are being proposed and we still haven't gotten
a definite answer on that. That's the key issue.
SiR. ANGEL: That's a problem. I can answer that questions I'm sure
that if somebody came to ~fr. Senko and said I want to rent the new
building plus the old building and I'll pay you a really good price
for it or even a co~m~ercially reasonable price, we will have one use.
i mean, ! can make that representation for him right now without even
talking to him because we discussed it. I think that the number of
uses in commercial spaces is generally dictated by the needs of the
economy, i mean'if there are a few people who come by and they only
want a 600 square foot store and nobody else is available, you put
in a partition for a 600 square foot store and try to re~ the rest.
We don't know. We don't have a tenant for that new building. So
the answer is I don't know.
~. ROSS: ~nat we have is a non-conforming use that's existing there
now and a request to expand on that non-conforming use.
Mil. ANGEL: No. That's not true.
MR. ROSS: That's what the request is. That's what the application
is. And if the application is different than that, it should be
filed as such.
MR. ANGEL: Well if I could add to that, we don't have a non-con-
forming use. We have a non-conforming structure that's being used
as a permitted use. It's in the "B-I" zone and there's business
in there.
MR. ROSS:
There's 2 businesses.
MR. ANGEL: Sure.
is retail use.
I don't see the distinction.
I think retail use
MR. ROSS: It might be a shopping center now.
~,~. ANGEL: If they define it as a shopping center, then we do and
we already have a shopping center and perhaps we can solve the prob-
lem since we're already there. But it's a permitted use, what's
there now. It's a non-conforming structure° It use to be an old,
little house but it's used for a business purpose, 2 purposes or 3
business purposes. I just don't see the distinction between the num-
ber of business purposes°
CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: Thank you°
would like to add to this?
l~r~ Spates is there anything you
Page 12 - November 20, 1986
Public'Rearming - John Senko
So~thold Town Board of Appeals
Mit. SPATES. I wanted to submit to the Board a copy of today's
page 16 of Suffolk Times which details the fact that a Mr~ Donald
B. Gross of Old Shipyard Lane in Southold died Sunday at SUNY
Stony Brook Hospital of injuries sustained in an automobile ac-
cident at the corner of Locust and Main Road where the 7-11 is
that I was referring to as being similiar to this application.
That's all.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ok. I propose that, and I
know I get in trouble with my Board members, we recess to Decem-
ber llth and discuss, kick around the idea of what to do with
the existing retail unit. At that particular time or I'll ad-
dress the issue right now, that I am opposed to the egress on
the Main Road. We can either address this at this particular
time or we can address ....
MR. ANGEL: I'd like to heam the feelings of the Board.
certainly proper concern which is reasonable.
That's
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Joe, how do you feel about that? Do you
object to the entry onto the Main Road? I'm talkiqg about~from-
the parking lot area ....
MRo SAWICKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
at this time?
.... Which we presently really don't have
MR. SAWICKI: It's not too good especially in JulY.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have it just as an exit westbound only.
MR. ANGEL: Is it the Board's concensus that there should be no
exit off of 25 on this premise?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's the Board's concensus since we are
all firemen probably and I will not answer for them. This is
probably about the first time that the Board, since the incep-
tion of my being~on it, has ever been polled for anything. But
to be honest with you, we could live with, assuming we all were
in favor of this application, I have no idea how my fellow 4
Board members feelo I could live with a solid chain barrier of
which the chief of the Southold Fire Department would be given
a key.
MR. ANGEL: Garrett jusn suggested that to me.
CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: That is the only thing that I would be...
And it would be restrictively placed in caps within this de-
cision. Again my decision, my opinion. It does not necessari-
ly reflect the other 4 members. That if at any time that par-
ticular chain was opened, that the 'Building Inspector would then
have to serve a notice of violation to the present owner indicat-
ing that he is violating the terms and conditions of the variance.
Page 13 ~ November 20, 1986
Public Healing - John Senko
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. SENKO: Well it puts me in an awkward position° Because I
was being chastised for being out of town on a weeked a viola-
tion occured. I don't know the answer to it. I certainly don't
take this job on a 24 hour basis. I have other things to do with
my life and I just would not always be around.
MR. STRANG: We have no objection to doing something like that°
Some sort of structure. It doesn't have to be chain linko Some
sorn of obstruction that would be acceptable to the Board would
not be a problem to our client° I would say to you that if you
put a chain across there with a lock and anything that resembles
a flame, the Fire Department would not like it. They'd go right
through it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're not only trying to protect the appli-
canE's chain. I have a question from Mrs. Spates.
~fRS. SPATES: I'm not sure if it's a question or a statement. I~s
a little of both. It occurs to me, I'm hearing some good arguments
from everybody including my husband. Ail of a sudden now you're
talking about shutting off any exit out of the parking lot onto
Main Road. That means all the exits have to be on Ackerly Pond and
a lot of peopl~ would then go up the Main Road that that's exactly
where the problem~is. Locust down by 7-11 (at least in my Opinion)
is a lot safer to come ou~ of. It's not safe but it's a lot safer°
Ackerly Pond is not safe for all the reasons Don gave last time or
the.time before~ But it didn't include one big point. And I think
in all this that if you come down off of the west end of Main Road
into the village, you're coming down off of a hill and you're coming
around a curve. I know becuase I go to work that way and I come home
that way and I cross Ackerly Pond to ~ain Bayview 3 or 4 times a week
at least~ It's very dangerous~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To answer your question Mrs. Spates, I had
written a letter, and I don't know if Mr. Angel had been given a
copy of it, to the SUperintendent of Highways in the Town of Southold
asking him if he was every considering making Ackerly Pond Road a one
way street, ingress only. And I did receive~a latter back from him
on the 14th which he says due to the hardship of the residents who
live on Lara Road and particular during the winter months and that
he has no intentions of doing that. I will tell you however, this
Board is not a Board.~that does not specifically sit on it's morals
and I hate to bring up its past applications° But we have had peo-
ple, we have required people to place within the roadbed put in park-
ing signs. It Would not be out of the question in a situation like
this that we would ask of the Highway Superintendent to produce a
sign indicating no left turn coming out of Ackerly Pond Road. That
is non beyond our control. That's the only thing I can say in some
type of feeling toward what You're saying but we have done this be-
fore~ We have required people not to park in front of their proper-
ty in Mattituck on what we consider to be a high risk area of Matti-
tuck Auto Parts. We have asked no parking and t'11 give you the name
of the applicant, Mr. Strong° And that has worked out very nicely in
a high risk area. So I propose that we think about that use and that
we get back together for a short period of time on the llth and see if
we can close this hearing in an expeditious matter. I know that is
Page 14 - November 20, 1986
Public~ear~ing - John Senko
So~thold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (continued)
not always the case but I want to close it at that particular
time giving me some idea as to what you will do or what you
can do with that one story framed building and we'll come back
if the Board has any objection to that. Hearing no further
comment, I'll make a monion recessing the hearing to the next
regularly scheduled meeting.
Ail in favor - aye.