Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/22/1986Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD ~-5 -qOUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. llg?l TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI M I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1986 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1986 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting all five members of the Board. Also present were: Mark Wooley, Reporte~.f~om the L.I. Traveler, Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary/Clerk, and approximately 35 persons in the audience. The following public hearings were held. (The verbatim transcripts of each hearing have been prepared under separate cover and filed with the Office of the Town Clerk for reference.) 7:35 p.m. - 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3538. JEFFREY BETTANCOURT. Inground pool with fence enclosure and gazebo within 100 feet of top of bluff/bank along L.I. Sound. 2410 Grandview Drive, Orient. Grandview Estates Lot #5. Following d~scussions, the hearing was concluded. 7:45 p.m. 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3464 TED DOWD. Variances to locate new dwelling with: (1) insufficient front yard, (2) insufficient side yard, (3) insufficient rear yard, (4) total lot coverage in excess of 20%, (5) insufficient setback from wetlands. 350 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. Following discussions, the hearing was officially concluded by unanimous.vote of the board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- October 22, 1986 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings, continued:) 7:55 p.m. 7:58 p.m. JOHN SENKOo Stephen Angel, Esq., appeared representing the applicant and requested a postponement until the board's next meeting. The heari.ng was open for those who wished to speak and was then recessed, after motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and duly carried, until the November 20, 1986 Regular Meeting of this board. 7:58 p.m. - 8:02 p.m. THOMAS WICKHAM. Addition to dwelling within 75 feet of wetlands and highwater mark. West Side of West Creek A%.enue, Cutchogue. Following discussions, the hearing was officially concluded by~l~' unanimous vote of the board. 8:02 p.m. - 8:09 p.m. RITA F. GLEDICH. Variances to construct deck and dwelling additions with: (a) total lot coverage in excess of maximum-permitted 20% of lot area, (b) an insufficient setback from tidal wetlands and highwater mark along Eugene's Creek. East Side of Oak Street, Cutchogue. 8:09 - lO:O0 p.m. JOSEPH AND~LINDA SCHOENSTEIN. Variances -to: (1) expand nonconforming use of welding business~ (2) construct new building and expand nonconforming welding business use within 75 feet fo wetlands. South Side of Main Road~ Greenport. B-Light Zone. (Recessed from 9/11/86). Following discussions, the hearing was concluded subject to receiving as agreed between Stephen Angel, Attorney for the Applicants, and J. Kevin McLaughlin, Attorney representing opposition, receipt within seven days of written briefs. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLV.ED, to declare the followi..ng Environmental Declarations on_eaCh 05 the foll'owi~ng mat'ters in-acPc'ordanc:e'~i'th~th6 Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Section 6t7, 6 N~CRR, and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold: Ia) Appeal No. '3538 - Jeffrey Bettancourt - Type II; (b) Appeal No~ 3567 ~ ?ho~as'~'Wickham Type II"~ (c) Appeal No. 3563 - Rita F. Gledich - Unlisted Action; (d) Appeal No. 3464 - Ted Dowd - Unlisted Action; (e) Appeal No. 3550 - Joseph and Linda Schoenstein-Unlisted Action: Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- October 22, 1986 Regular Meeting October 22~ 1986 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3538 PROJECT NAME: 'JEFF~EY''BETTAN'COU~RT 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:inground-pool with fence enclo~u~e'~nd gazebo within 100ft. of top of bluff/bank along L.I. Sound LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~Suffolk, more particularly k~own as: 2410 Grandview Drive, Orient, NY REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitte~ which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) New construction is' proposed landward of lO' elevation contour~,'no disturbance of land along bluff area shall occur; (3) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated by Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowals~i~ 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. lk Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- October 22, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) October 22~ 1986 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3567 PROJECT NAME: T'HOM3~S WI'CKHAM 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 th~ 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:Addition-to dwelling within 75 fee~ of wetlands and highwater mark. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of..Suffolk, more particularly k~own as: W/s West Creek Ave..~ Cutchogue, 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) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Q~ality Review Act, 6 NYCRR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowalski, 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 -5- October 22, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) October 22~ 1986 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3563 PROJECT NAME: RITA F. GLEDICH 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: Construct deck and dwelling additi6ns with total lot coverage in excess of maximum-permitted 20% of lot area and insufficient setback from tidal wetlands and ~igh~ater_ mark~ .. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, uoun=y ot~Suf~o±K, more particularly known as: E/s Oak Street, Cutchogue, 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) Location of new construction under consideration herein is landward of 10' elevation contour; and no disturbance of land seaward of the 10' contour will occur. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowals~i, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appealed. 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 -6- October 22, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) October 22~ 1986 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3464 PROJECT NAME: TED D©WD 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 944-4 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 [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Locate new dwelling With insufficient frontyard, sideyard and rearyard setbacks, total lot coverage~in excess of maximum=' permitted 20% and insufficient setback from wetlands LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~ Suffolk, more particularly known as: 350 Rabbit Lane, .East Marion, NY REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitte~ which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality'Review Act, 6 NYCRR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowals~i, 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 -7- October 22, 1986 Regular Meeting (EnvironmenTal Declarations, continued:) October 22~ 1986 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3550 PROJECT NAME: 'JO'SEP~AND' LIND~ 'SiC~HOENST~EIN 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: Expand n~nconforming use' of welding business and construct new building and expand nonconforming welding business use within 75 feet of wetlands LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~.Suffolk, more particularly known as: S/s Main Rd., Greenport, 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 No disturbance of land within lO feet of existing drainage ditchl ~nd wetl ands, whichever is closer. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, 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 -8- October 22, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of the Board: Douglass and Sawicki. Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, This resolution was duly adopted. SET-UPS FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer~, it was RESOLVED, to schedule the following matters for public hearings for the next Regular Meeting of this board, to wit: November 20, 1986, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND FURTHER AUTHOR~T~O~T of each file by Member Douglass prior to advertising: 1. Appeal No. 3568 - S~ Rapanakis. Special Exception for accessory apartment. East Side of Boisseau Avenue, Southold. o Appeal No. 3565 - Frank Field Realty. Variance to change use of premises to two-family. North Side of Linnett Street, Greenport. Appeal No. 3566 - Frank Field Realty. Special Exception for two-family dwelling. North Side of.Linnett Streets Greenport. Appeal No. 3571- Best and Syverson. Addition to dwelling at southerly side with insufficient setback from bulkhead (tidal water area). Right-of-way off the East side of Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. Trustees waiver expected 10/30. Appeal No.-3569 - Boatmen's Harbor. Variance to Construct addition to dwelling in this B-1 Zone within 75 feet of existing bulkhead (tidal wetlands area). West Road and West Creek Avenue, Cutcbogue. (Trustees waiver expected 10/30) Appeal No. 3552 - John senko. Shopping center use in this B-1 Zone. 30,084 sq. ft. At intersection with West Side of Ackerly Pond Lane and North Side of Main Roads Southold. Vote of the~Board: Douglass add Sawicki. Appeal to Withdraw prior Action rendered 9/85, subject to receiving complete application with the next few d~ys. Property of Barbara Schriever, W/s Tabor Road, Orient. Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- October 22, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDI'NG DECISION: Appeal No. 3484: Application of PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section~lO0-119.2(C) for permission to construct addition at rear of dwelling with an insufficient setback from wetlands along Great Pond, at 7455 Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 59, Block 6, Lot 8. 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 PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO under Appeal No. 3484; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony ~ecorded; 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, ~ppeliants request a Variance from the Provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2, subsection C, for per- mission to locate an 8' by 13'8" addition at the rear of an existing single-family dwelling structure shown by survey prepared December 12, 1980, by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. to be setback from the cattail-area proposed at 29 feet at its closest point and 44 feet from a tie line along the shoreline along Great Pond. Plot Plan prepared by Noel Phyllis Birkby, Architect dated January 28, 1986 shows a setback of the porch extension at 50± feet from the tie line along Great Pond. 2. The premises in question is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 59, Block 62 Lot 8, and contains a total area of 10,321.24 square feet, more or less, and frontage along Private Road of 50.61 feet. The premises gradually widens to 93.24 feet at the rear of the premises. 3. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, sub-paragraph (C) requires all buildings proposed on lots adjacent to any freshwater body $outbold Town Board of Appeals -10- October 22, 1986 Regular Meeting (~ppeal No. 3484 - BELLOMO decision, continued:) to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the edge of such water body or not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the landward edge of the freshwater wetland, whichever is greater. 4. The relief requested is 46 feet, or 61% of the requirements, which is in the board's opinion substantial. 5. It was found after inspection of the premises, that the contour of the land along the Pond area is shallow and prone to flooding. It was also noted that the highwater line was not depicted on the maps submitted with the application and the distances to the shoreline appeared at variance from those shown on the December 12, 1980 survey. 6. The area chosen for the proposed addition is not the most feasible and is not the minimal necessary. In considering this appeal, the board also finds and deter- mines: (a) that this project as proposed is not consistent with those generally existing in the neighborhood; (b) the relief requested is substantial in relation to the requirements, being a variance of 61%; (c). that by allowing the relief as requested, there will be a change in the character of the area, setting a precedent; (d) the circumstances are not unique; (e) the variance will in turn be adverse to the safety , health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (f) that in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose and in view of the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by denying the relief as requested under Appeal No. 3484. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3484 for a proposed addition with a setback of 29 feet from the edge of cattails (shown on survey prepared December 12, 1980), and 44 feet from a tie line along the shoreline along Great Pond, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringe~, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. So.uthold Town Board of Appeals -ll- October 22, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal ~o. 3560: Application of EDMUND AND JOAN PRESSLER, Appealing Building Inspector Notice of Disapproval dated 1/2/86 and ZBA Action #3463 dated 5/6/86, and Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, Bulk Schedule, and Article VII, Section lO0-70(A)[1](d) for ~ermission to establish a second retail/'business use in conjunction with existing nonconforming two-family dwelling and antique-sales business use on this parcel of 68,912 sq. ft. in area and 95.44 ft. 10t width. Location of Property: "B-I" General Business Zoning District, North Side of Main Road, Southol~, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-63-3-26. Following dei'~beration's, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on October 2, 1986 tn the Matter of the Applicati. on of EDMUND AND JOAN PRESSLER under Appeal No. 3560; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony ~corded; 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 zonin§~ and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellants request a Variance from Article VII, Section 100-71, Bulk 'Schedule, and Section IO0-70(A)- [1](d) for permission to utilize premises as a continuing nonconforming two-family dwelling, one retail store-use (antique sales), and a newly proposed barber shop, all within building as existing in this "B-I" General Business Zoni.sg District. 2. The premises in question is situate along the north side of the Main Road commencing at a point 329.70 feet east of Boisseau Avenue, with 95.44 ft. frontage and average depth of 737.87 feet, and contains an acreage of 1.582. 3. The subject premises is improved with a two-story framed .Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- October 22, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3560 PRESSLER d'ecision, continued:_) structure set back 31 feet from its front property line along the Main Road, 15 feet from the west side line, 16 feet from the east side line. The swimmingpool and fence enclosure which previously existed in the rear yard have been removed from the premises and the area is now slated for additional parking. 4. "Store #1" is occupied as an antique-sales business containing a floor area of 1,247 sq. ft. "Store #2" is proposed for rental as a barber shop~, and would contain 630 sq. ft. in floor area. Both stores are on the first floor. 5. For the record, the existing westerly second-floor apartment contains 630 sq. ft. and t'he easter].y second-floor apartment contains 1,084 sq. ft. 6. It is further noted that Certificate of Occupancy #Z-4897 was issued November 7, 1972, which indigoes that the use as a nonconforming two-family dwelling, with accessory doctor's office conforms to all the a~plicable pr.ovisions of law. It is the understanding of this bQard that the doctor's office was a home occupation use, accessory to the doctor-owner's principal resi- dental use of one of the dwelling units, and not a separate princi.pal business use. 7. Prior actions were taken by the Board of Appeals as follows: (a) under Appeal No. 1415.on April 15, 1971 in the name of Genevieve Albertson for a.~set-off of this lot from an adjoining lot with e.xisting dwellings with insufficient frontage (lot width) along the Main Road, (b) under Appeal No. 3463 on April 16, 1986 granting permission to establish the subject "antique-sales" shop (retail store) in conjunction with existing nonconforming two-family use, with conditions. In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines that in allowing a small-scale barber shop with a floor area not to excess 630 sq. ft.: (a) the use will be consistent with and will promote the general purposes of the zoning code, zoning maps, and Master Plan amendments as proposed; (b) the circum- stances are unique.; (c) the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of this district or adjacent use districts; (d) the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of this district or adjacent use districts; (e) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the town will not be adversely affected; (f) the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by -Sour'hold Town Board of Appeals -13- October 22, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3560 PRESSLER decision, continued:) Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3560 to add a barber-shop use not to exceed a floor area of 630 sq. ft. as applied in the Matter of EDMUND AND JOAN PRESSLER BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Parking for this additional use as required and approved by the Southold Town Planning Board; 2. No parking in front (south) yard area. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3551: Application of MARGARET BEST AND ADLYN SYVERSON for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate accessory garage/storage building in the frontyard area, at premises located on the south side of private right-of-way extending off the east side of Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-123-06-17. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on Septem- ber ll, 1986 in the Matter of the Application of MARGARET BEST AND ADLY~ SYVERSON under Appeal No. 3551; 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 questions its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellants request a Variance from the Provisions of Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate an accessory 22' by 30' garage structure in the front yard area as shown by sketched survey received September 18, 1986. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- October 22, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3551 - BEST AND SYVERSON, decision, continued:) The distances proposed from the southerly side of the private 50' right-of-way is 362 feet, from the westerly side property line 6½ feet, from the existing two-story frame house 123'6" and on an angle to the northwest from the existing cottage structure 56± feet. 2. The premises in question is a described parcel containing a total area of 1.3± acres, with 89 ft. frontage along the private right-of-way and an average depth of 597 feet to the rear property line along Peconic Bay. The subject premises is more particularly identi.fied on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 123, Block 6, Lot 17 and is improved with the followin.g structures: (a) two-story frame dwelling, overall dimensions 36.4' by 36', set back from the existing wooden bulkhead 43± feet; (b) one-story 20' by 32' accessory cottage structure, set back 132± feet from the bulkhead; (c) 8.3' by 12.3' accessory framed shed set back 2.8 feet at its closest point from the easterly Side property line; (d) 12.2' by 20.2' framed accessory stable structure set back 21.7 feet at its closest point from the easterly side property line. 3. Article III, Section 100-32 restricts accessory structures to the rear yard area. The board finds placing this proposed accessory garage structure in the rear yard area would not be feasible due to the provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2 which prohibits new construction within 75 feet of a tidal water body. 4. It is the opinion of the board that there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance and therefore the accessory structure should be located in the frontyard area, as noted below. 5. The proposed accessory garage structure shall used only-for garage and storage purposes accessory and incidental to the residential use the premises and not for sleeping or living quarters. be In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines: (a) that the project as proposed is not out of the character with the neighborhood; (b) the relief requested is not substantial; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique; (d) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, con- venience or order of the town; (e) there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance~ (f) there will be no substantial detriment to adjoining properties; (g) in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose and in view of the above factors, the Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- October 22, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3551 BEST AND SYVERSON, decision, continued:) interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to approve the location of a 22' by 30' accessory garage structure in the frontyard area in the Matter of MARGARET BEST AND'ADLY~ SYYERSON under Appeal No. 3551, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. There be a minimum setback from ~he westerly side property line at 25 feet (or more); 2. There be a minimum setback from the northerly property line at 275 feet; 3. This structure be used only for garage purposes accessory and incidental to the residential use of the premises and not to be operated for gain or living or sleeping quarters. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. adopted. Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, This resolution was duly CORRESPONDENCE: Appeal No. 3520 - THOMAS SHALVEY. Mr. Henry ~yno~, agent for Mr. Shalve~ i~_a~.£ecen~ decision of the b~ard rendered October 2, 1986 denying an area variance in this proposed set-of~ of lan6, ~/s Case Road, Cutchogue, requested a rehearing by !e%ter received Octobe~ 21, 1986. The Board directed the Secretary to return the letter advising Nh. Rayh6r that a formal application, by notice, etc. is necessary in a request for a rehearing, including the "n'ewly discovered evidence" t~ be considered before granting or denying the rehearing request. Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- October 22, 1§86 Regular Meeting SPECIAL MEETING: The board agreed to meet one evening at 7ZOO p.m. at a Special Meeting to bring those matters pending from October up,to-date (pending deliberations, actions, etc.) during the first week;in November. (Meeting date~was held ll/3). There being no other business properly coming before the board at this tj~me, the Chairman declared the mee%ing adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 o[clock p.m. Respect'fully submitted, Linda F. ~owalski, Secretary ~f~~~~ Southol_d_ Town Board of Appeals '_ Town of SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF JEFFREY BETTANCOURT THURSDAY~ OCTOBER 22, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3538 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of JEFFREY BETTANCOURT. Inground pool with fence en- closure and gazebo within 100 feet of top of bluff/bank along L.I. Sound. 2410 Grandview Drive, Orient. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a recessed ~earing on behalf of Jeffrey Bettancourt. I will open the hearing and ask Mr. Bettan- court if there's anything he would like to add to the record. MR. BETT~COURT: I think you already have my proposal. I just reread the letter from the surveyor, the estates person that came out to survey the land and he even pointed out that the bluff was heavily vegetated and it was on an incline that was satisfactory and that the problem could be if the water runoff was allowed to accummu]ate- and run off down the bluff. I'll make every effort to see that that doesn't happen. I don't think youfre going to see any impact on the erosion of the bluff by this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When I was down there and inspected the property again, you had mentioned to me and I always restate everything-that's mentioned back on the record, the possibility of moving the gazebo more toward the west. MR. BETTANCOURT: That's possible. CHAIRP~N GOEHRINGER: Do you ~ave any suggestions to what degree ~nd what distance or anything of that nature? MR. BETTANCOURT: As I pointed out, I don't have my map with me. CHAI~.iAN GOEHRINGER: We'll give you which ever one you'd like. MR. BETTANCOURT: It can be swung around a little bit so that instead of coming out this far and being here, it can be moved back out here some what, The reason we didn't do that initially was because there are some trees there I don't want to destroy and I thought this was the best plano If you think it's neces- sary, I can move it back. CHAIP~LAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I thank you for abiding by our wishes and thank you for giving us this other architectural draw- ing. It's very helpful in understanding and the second view is also helpful in reference to the topography of the rear yard of the property and the dry wells and so on and so forth that you have for the natural drainage. So I thank you very much for that. While you're up here, I just want to ask Northfork Environmental Council° Ruth had a question at the hearing on this one concerning the erosion factor. Have you been up and viewed the property at all? 'Page 2 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Jeffrey Bettancourt Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. 0LIVA : I've been on the east side of that property but not on the west side directly underneath that property~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am, of course, not an engineer or any- thing of that nature but this is a heavily vegetated bluff and I could see almost no erosion. From what I could see in looking at it, it's a very very low bluff alsoo It's only about 25 or 35 feet high. MR. BETTANCOURT: It's even different from the house around it. MRS~ 0LIVA : I know. I've walked by it many times° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Seriously, I'd like you to go up there and take a look at it. I'm sure Mr. Bettancourt wouldn't mindD MR. BETTANCOURT: Sure. I'll be there all weekend. MRS. 0[IV^ MR. BETTANCOURT: MRS. OLI~A an old one. You're in the existing house near the point. Actually the other one. There's an old one. There's one up the point, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: cottage. Just south of the old one. The old summer MRS. 0LIVA : I know where it is. ~. BETTA]~COURT: I just bought the land next door and on that piece of proper~y.Jthere~is~some~erosion. I'm very concerned about it naturally. Sol can appreciate any advice you can give concerning this property.' MRS. 0LIVA ~: Well actually just to bring to your attention, The Soil~and Water Conservation people spoke before the Conserva- tion Advisory Council. And if you get in touch with them, there is some sort of a new type of spray that they can spray with cer- tain seed or fertilizer and everything and it really seems to work with bluffs that are eroding° But the main t.hing is to keep it heavily vegetated. MR. BETTANCOURT: i've been halting that erosion very succesfully with the seeding and all that stuff. MRS. 0LIVA : That's very good stuff. You're going to be there this weekend? What time on Saturday morning? MR. BETTANCOURT: I'll give you my number. MRS. 0LIV^ : Oko Good. Pa~e 3 - October 22, 1986 PuBlic' Hearing of Jeffrey Bettancourt Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are there any questions from anybody in the audience concerning this hearing either pro or con? Ques- tions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later, All in favor - aye° By: --N~-d i a Moore SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~ MATTER OF TED DOWD THURSDAY~ OCTOBER 22~ 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 7~45 p.m. Appeal No. 3464 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of TED DOWD. Variances to locate new dwelling with: (1) insufficient frontyard setback, (2) insufficient sideyard setback, (3) insufficient rearyard setback, (4) total lot cover- age in excess of maximum permitted 20%, (5) insufficient set- back from wetlands. 350 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a sketch of a survey pro- duced by Roderick Van Tuy], P.C. The last date was December 5, 1984. The most recent date is cut off. It does show 1985 how- ever and it does indicate a proposed house with a i0 foot deck on this Bay front lot approximately 19 feet from_~t~he~a~er. 'The original here, of 19 feet from the water, 23 feet from Rabbit Lane, 5 feet from the east property line, 15 feet from the west property line. The house is approximately 30 by 54. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surround- ing properties in the area. Mr. Dowd would you like to speak? Maybe use ~he mike if you wouldn't mind. MR. DOWD: Since then, I've filed 2 letters with the data reflect- ing the setbacks in the area of the houses along Route 9. !'ye also, I think you have a letter from the 21st with some more in- formation. The 19 foot setback was obtained after the D.E.C. sent a tidal wetlands representative down to measure how the 19 feet even started. And the reason I submitted through the process from that point on was the D.E.C. permit stated my 19 feet. The DuE~C. permit specified such a thing on the other side of the road. There was much negotation between the Health Department with the filing as a plan in the original application. Finally I obtained that approval. By that time I had gone past the Board of Trustees new law at which time I had to go through the whole trustee process where again, the Bay front portion of this property was signifi- cantly scrutinized. If I were to follow the setbacks of the property, I would end up with about a 600 foot square home. And If you look at that answer, the questions that have to do with the correspondence I just made with you, the application itself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The house is being serviced by the well that~was placed way up the end of Bay Avenue? MR. DOWD: Yes. The way that'evolved was that was a requirement upon when I got to the Health Department level. Of course that required the hearing plan and what not. I've been through that stage. The Health Department has approved that also. The water is down at that portion of the property but not at that dwelling site. Page 2 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Ted Dowd Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIR}LAN GOEHRINGER: 'Is there any particular reason why you choose to build a one story house as opposed to a two story house? MR. DOW-D: Neighbors primarily. The two story house that's to the left, caused a great deal of consternation because it was so high, so larg~ and blocked views etc. The houses in the area are primarily .... There are two story houses in the area~ The houses in the area are generally of very Iow profile. I was trying to keep the house down to a one story level. If set- backs get reduced, if I lose more of the area to'build and I end up with a very tall boxy type home similiar to the one that yom'ye probably seen to the east of the particular site. C}~IRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that house built on a single lot or is that house built on a double lot? MR. DOWD: The house that is presently constructed? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. The one that you're referring to. MR. DOWD: ~It's about a 50 foot lot like myself. It has the septic system on the lot but that was thus the approval I guess because earlier than I've come across. It may have a c.o. now. I don't know if it's completed. CHAI~IAN GOEHRINGER: You intend to conform to all the federal flood plan laws and regulations in reference to height, the Iow- est one? 'MRo DOWD: Yes. I believe I pcesented a diagram I had as a pro- file of the house. That gives it about a 12 foot elevation. It does mean sea level. It's approximately 3 feet abo~e the A-7 flood zone of 9 foot requirement. As you can see, I tried to keep the profile (again) low by not jacking it way up to 15 feet which makes it very low towards the road side but higher toward the Bay side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When you refer to the map of the survey and you have it typed in where it says over 20% requested at 14.85, you're referring to a percentage over the 25%? So in effect, we're referring to... I'm not giving you a chance to answer the question, but in effect we're referring to a 34°85 percent of saturation or lot coverage. MP.. DOWD: Yes. Also, part of that (of course) is a deck. I also, depending upon... I'll probably have a 4 foot side deck on the property on the home but that's included inRe footprint that's shown. The one that would probably run down the easterly side and would not impose on the neighbors on the west who have a house. Actually I just had the property surveyed not from the water, just for the specific side setback and they're 3 feet to the Bay side. I was trying to keep the house further away from them. I'm not familiar with if we could possibly do it. Page 3 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Ted Dowd Southold Town~ Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the record, we basically have 4 par- cels. One of which is yours which does not have a bulkhead in front of ito Is that correct? MR. DOWD: There 1, 2, 3 parcels actually and a portion of a ~fourth that doesn not have bulkheads° The water there, in dis- cussing with~the DoE.C., shifts a great deal. Many times the bulkheaded portions which are-to the east primarily, are in 2 feet of water there. At the present time it's a regular beach but it shifts with a storm. The property there actually, if you look at the tax map, is 105 to 110 feet deep and even the survey shows there's 94 feet which is not using the_ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Thank you very much° We'll see what developes throughout the hearing and it's good to see you. Is there anybody who would like to speak in favor of this appli- cation? Anybody like to speak against the application? For the record, there is a letter of objection from the west property owner I believe. Any questions from any Board members? I guess that's about it. Mr. Dowd we thank you very much for coming in. We'll close the hearing and reserve decision. Hearing no further comments, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving de- cision until later. Ail in favor - aye. Nadia Moore SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF JOHN SENKO THURSDAY. OCTOBER 22~ 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3552 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of JOHN SENKO. Shopping center use in this "B-I" Gene- ral Business Zone, containing 30,084 square feet in lot area. 49295 Main Road (at intersection with Ackeriy Pond Lane)~ Southold. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. MR. ANGEL: I have another question. In the minutes it talks about an environmental impact at that property~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to say about it% It's not necessary because it's a setback application. Can you. give us a letter asking for an adjournment? MR. ANGEL: I don't have a letter prepared~ I came here myself requesting an adjournment. Mr. Senko came into my office the day before yesterday and retained me and I havefl~t had time to prepare and I respectiful!y request an adjournment~ I understand that Mr. Ross appeared here last time from Wickham, Wickham and Bressler. I called his office and advised him and I advised him that i would be making this application. CHAIP~iAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. We'll 'take it under advisement. We'll have to open the hearing anyway and see if there's anybody here that would like to speak. Anybody object to the recessing of this particular hearing? This is the John Senko hearing from the prior meeting of which Garrett Strang had represented the applicant who was the architect~ Yes szr. MR.'SPATES: Could I ask some questions regarding the recess? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you use the mike and state your name again. If we can answer them~ MR. SPATES: My name is Donald Spates and I~d like to ask some ques- tions about the request to recess~ i'd like to know if anyone was allowed to ask for a recess on the Z.B~A. CH_AIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: It h~ai~been the policy of this Board to grant (normally) one recess. The pur~pose of the recess was a recess that, (how can~'.I say this) it was requested by us at the last meetzng be- cause I had questions of the applicant ~_ of which his agent could not answer. And it was brought to my attention, ~! believe it was this morning, that when Mr. '~ngei came down to our office, he in- dicated to us that it was the first time that he had been reviewing the file. And since he was representing another party tonight at this hearing on another matter, that he did not have time to pre- pare for it. So in my opinion, I would recormnend to the Board that we grant him one recess because now this is a recess that they're requesting. Page 2 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of John Senko Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. SPATES: So you'll reschedule it now if it's granted. Thank yoBe CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right° Is there anybody else that would like to speak concerning the Senko hearing prior to granting of a recess if the Board so desires? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing to the next regularly scheduled hearing approximate date sir is November 20° Ail in favor - aye° ~Mo'o~re SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF THOMAS WICKHAM THURSDAY~ OCTOBER 22~ 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 7:58 p.m. Appeal Noo 3567 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of THOMAS WICKHA~Mo Addition to dwelling within 75 feet of wetlands and highwater mark. W/s West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record° CHAIRMAN GOEHR!NGER: I have a copy of a survey dated November 26~ 1980 indicating the house in question with a proposed addition which is basically covering or completing the outside of the house in an area that was cut out to include the two stoops and that basically what's being enclosed. It"s not placing a house any far forward to the creek in any way° And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax ~ap indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr~ Wi~ckham, I saw himz walk ino How are you sir? Would you like to be heard? MR. WICKHA_M: I'm speaking for my son Tom Wickhamo I have a sur- vey in my pocket that Jim Van Tyle put the elevations on~ The house stands about 22 elevation~ The ground slopes very steeply and it's heavily wooded° I~m sure that does not violate the spirit of the law. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you° Would you just give us an idea and maybe call it into us or whatever, what the actual distance is to the mean high water mark because it do,snOt show it on my survey. MR. WICKHAM: Well this survey shows ito It's about 60 feet on the horizontal. So it would, on the s!ope~to the ground, about 65 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I have that one? Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who woutd 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 the decision until later. Ail in favor - aye° By~~~~~j~- Nadia Moore SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF RITA F. GLEDtCH ~THURSDAY~. OCTOBER 22, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 8:02 p.m. Appeal No. 3563 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of RITA Fo GLEDICHo Variances to construct deck and dwelling additions with: (a) total lot coverage in excess of maximum permitted 20% of lot area, (b) an insufficient setback from tidal wetlands and highwater mark along Eugenets Creek° E/s Oak Street, Cutchogue. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAI~fAN GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is on behalf of Rita F. Gledicho I keep on being tongue tied by this one° I have no idea why. have a copy of a sketch of 'a survey indicating an addition of approximately 41 by 25 to the existing house which is 18 by 20 which sits approximately on the road showing a distance from the normal high water mark of 48 feet. And I have a copy of the Suf- folk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Would you like to say anything for the record? Could you use the mike. We always ~ave a couple of questions. Going down there, I noticed that there is a neighbor that has a rather large deck elevated above their property ahd~tkey're'..~mewh~a~f c,l~ser ko the water~than what you're requesting. I don't remember if it was to the right or left of you however. I did look at a couple of the other houses in the area and I noticed that some of them had ground level decks. Is this going to be an elevated deck? Will it be elevated above the ground on the same level of the house? MRS. GLEDICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MRS. GLEDICH: No. I think that's our plan. Will it be roofed in any way? CHAIP~IAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. The reason why I'm asking that question is because the house, of course, is going only going to protrude, or the proposed addition to the house is gozng to protrude 36 feet from the existing dwelling. However, the deck is the area that is of most concern because that places it that much farther forward. Is there anything else you'd like to say for the record? Other than your hoping° MRS. GLEDICH: I'm just hoping that we get this and don't have any problems with the variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much for coming in. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this appli- cation? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Nadia Moore Page 2 - October 22, 1986 ~ Public Hearing of John Senko - S~uthold Town Board of Appeals MR. S~TES: So yot~ll reschedule it now if it's granted. C~I~ '~EHRINGER: Rig~.: Is there anybody else that wo~!d~ l~ka to soe'~k concerninz the..Senko hearing prio~ to granting,~or a rgcess if ~,e Board s~ desi~s? Hearing no f~g,ther co~ent'~, I'll make a mo~ion recessing th~. hearing to the n~t regularly" scheduled heari~g,~.approximate da~"e,~ sir is November g,0o Thank All in favor - aye~ Nadia Moore SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF JOSEPH AND LINDA SCHOENSTEIN THURSDAY~ OCTOBER 22, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 8:09 p.m. Appeal No. 3550 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of JOSEPH AND LINDA SCHOENSTEIN. Variances to: (1) expand nonconforming use of welding business; (2) to construct new building and expand nonconforming welding business use within 75 feet of wetlands. S/s Main Road, Greenport, B-Light Zone. (Recessed from 9/11) The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of 2 maps. One of which I received resently. The latter one first which was received 8/21/86 which is a rather lengthy map to go over for the purpose of the record. However, it Should be pointed out that the existing build- ing is placed in the same position as the prior hearing. The only thing that has changed in the elevation. We're talking about a building of approximately 50 by 90. The most recent or I should say the date on that one is 4/20/86. The date on the new one is 10/9/86 and the only difference on this one is that we have ele- vations in the rear of the building of 6, 7, 8 and the other one we had e%-evations of 5, 6, and 7 on the similiar topographical area. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Angel, would you like to be heard? MR. ANGEL: Yes. Before I introduce the application, I would point out one addition to that most recenn map that you've got. The one dated 10/9/86. It also shows the New York State title wetlands inventory boundary. Do you notice that line on there? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes I do. MR. ANGEL: The reason that's important is it appears, based upon that published boundary line that Peconic Associates has shown on the plan, that the second portion of the variance ap- plication may not be necessary. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. MR. ANGEL: It looks like we make the 75 foot setback. see what I'm talking about? You CHAI~CA_N GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. ANGEL: I'll draft that deed for you in my presentation. To begin, we're dealing here.With the welding business, North- fork Welding and it's operated on this property since approxi- mately 1979. The application before your Board is in fact, an application for permission to put a new building on the property or an additional building on the property and the building ....... Page 2 - October 22, 1986 Publi'c .Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): is shown on the site plans that we have submitted. It's approxi- mately 50 feet by 90 feet and it's (of course) easy to figure out. It's got about 2,500 square feet of floor area. As you probably know, the site plan was approved by the Planning Board of the Town of Southold subject (however) to your review. And I~d like to introduce in evidence a letter from the Planning Board dated ~5/22/86 reflecting that approval. Now, this application has a bit of a history before your Board. The welding shop that is currently on the property, the property is located in B-Light business district. So that's the way to characterize it, B-Light business district. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Don't get too use to it though because it's going to change soon. MR. ANGEL: I bought ~my copy today. I paid my 28 dollars. It's there by virtue of a use variance granted by this Board back in 1979. The use variance that was granted back then contained 2 conditions. Really 3. One was Suffolk County Planning approval which was obtained. The other 2 operative conditions were that there shouldn't be no outside storage of equipment or work that was to be completed by the applicant. And 2: if the proposed number of employees on the premises becomes larger than 2, the applicant shall return to the Board of Appeals for a review of this action. We're back and we're back to confirm that and we're back to confirm or seek permission to add to the structures on the property. The structure, of course, would be used in the welding business operation for both storage and some shop work. Now, the second application before your Board is much more re- cent. In the beginning of this year, an application was made on essentially the same site plan that is before you now. That was denied by your Board without prejudice to this new applica- tion. Again, here we are today. The first comment I want to make is sort of legal in nature and it involvea the nature of the application itself. In the first application this year and in the application that We filed, we characterized our request for relief as one for a use variance. And as you people are aware, a use variance conotes a very strict series of crupes that we have to sustain.' We have to show unnecessary hard- ship. Unnecessary hardship has certain meaning. The level of proof is well reflected in your decision denying the applica- tion without prejudice. We intend to meet the burden of the use variance proof. We have planned our presentation in that regard. However, In reviewing the application and in doing some legal research, I'm not 100% sure that it's proper to characterize this application as a use variance application. It's something dif- ferent I think. At the risk of being a little bit academic about it, I did some research. And under the law, once a use variance is granted, the use of the property becomes a conforming use. It becomes a legal use. For example, the best way to look at it is to distinguish it between a conforming and a nonconforming use. If you built a restaurant in the residential area pursuant to a use variance and it burned down and the ordinance provided that you couldn't reconstruct nonconforming uses, if that res- Page 3 -'October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linde Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): taurant was there by virtue of a use variance, it could be constructed even though it was still in a residential zone° It could be reconstructed. And the courts have so held. It is a conforming use. On the other hand, if it were a non- conforming use, if it was there by virtue predating zoning and the ordinance provided that it couldn't be reconstructed in the evenn that of fire, it couldn't be rebuilt. So we have here a use variance that was granted in 1979 with some condi- tions. That property, once the use variance was granted, be- came (in fact) a conforming use subject to the conditions that you gave in 1979. But nevertheless, a legal conforming use~ The question now before you, at least in this alternative aspect of my application is, how do you judge an application like that? Do you judge it on the use variance standard? I submit you don't because the use has already been changed to the property. Your Board already changed.i~theuselba~k~in'iI979. Do you view it under an area variance standard, practical dif- ficulties rather than unnecessary hardships? I think that's a very difficult logical leap to make because we're not seeking an area variance. The location of the building itself is per- mitted. The question is can the building be put there on this piece of property. The Planning Board has given it site plan approval. And as we see tonight with the location of the wet- lands line, it doesn't appear that we need any area variances. Your third alternative and..° The third alternative is some- thing in the nature of perhaps the review that you gave is special exception. Looking at it, we have an existing use that has been confirmed by this Board. We're not seeking to change it. We're seeking to add a building to store things in and do shop work in. Perhaps your Board should review it in light of public health, safety and welfare just generally and impose rea- sonable conditions on the use or on the expansion. Not the use, on the structure if you deem it necessary° As I said before though, we are going to present'it. We feel that we can meet the use variance standard nevertheless and I'm going to present testimony and evidence to support that argument. It's our po- sition that we meet the unnecessary hardship standard. We can show you, through the testimoney of an expert real estate ap- praiser that the property will not yield a reasonable return for us for any of the (permitted) current permitted uses under the zoning ordinance. We can show you and I think it's self evident, that the plight of the owners, due to unique circum- stances obviously adhere to the necessity to put the storage building is due to the expansion of the legal business. It is unique in that it exists by virtue of a unique use variance in and of itself. We will also show and I believe it's also self evident, that it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in than the use is there already. We are not going to make an alteration. We are not bringing in a different type of business, a different type of industry, a different type of use. What we are trying to do is put it under a different roof or an additional roof. I do, at this time, I think I'd like to Page 4 - October 22, 1986 Public.'Hearing of Joseph and Linda S~hoenstein Southold Town Board of~Appea!s ANGEL (continued) hand up an additional document. And this is a letter from the trustees of the Town of Southold reflecting that the wetlands code has been... Well, it's been approved under the wetlands code and it's a letter from the trustees to Mr. Wiggin dated 3/28/86~ I think that should be part of the file. I-also have (Mr. Chairman) a technical request~ I ask that you deem the file and the previous, applications part of this file if that's ok with you. There were some people who testified at that hear- ing. I'd like to have that in this record° Now the necessity for the application is that the business of Northfork Welding has expanded substantially over the years. We have people here tonight from various different business and also the applicants themselves to tell you about the need for this business and it~ expansion. They're bursting at the seams at their site~ You probably all went down there in connection with the prior appli- cation and are familiar with the site. The purpose of the build- ing is to bring a lot of the .... It's to make it possible to do a lot of work indoors. It is difficult to do it in the current location~ For example: I was down there one day last week and a large trailer from Jernick Moving and Storage was there and it ripped it's top and they had to cut some aluminum welding on the top and The had to do it on top of the truck under plastic be- cause they didn't have a structure that they could pull into~to do the work. It's also going to become evident to you if it isn't already from the prior one, that Northfork Welding really provides a service to the community° Expecia!ly the marine community° I mean it does for for all sorts of governmental entities~,private business. But the marine business ms a major portion of this business. It~ proximity to the docks and to the fishing boats it works on is quite important. Now, I've also reviewed the zoning map under the current zone~ In fact, I was down here to- day looking at the map. And I ask you to note (I don't haue a copy of it with me~ but ! ask you to note) that there are very few places in the Town of Southold that have C-1 zoning which appears to be the only type of zoning that a welding shop would f~t in tOo And I say appears to be because welding is in an enumerated use under your existing ordinance~ Nor does the existing ordinance have the catchall that the Master Plan has with this type of fabrication type business. Finally, in my introductory comments, I'd like to point out 2 additional things. One is that; very close to the property and in fact, across the street to the west, this Board granted a use variance -- an ap- plication that was made by Gail Wickam~ The contract.vendee at the time was Mellrose and it's a marine contractors yard. It's an over 3 acre parcel on 25 and on a side street and work has been done and the yard has already been opened. In addition, the new Master Plan which I purchased and I looked at the Master Plan new zoning map itself, indicates that the property, the Northfork property, the Northfork Welding property will be placed in the L-I district° And as I read the L-I district, the zoning uses, the welding operation will be permitted. So we are. Page 5 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing for Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): not seeking to do anything that will be prohibited in the event your Town Board ultimately deems to do something about that Mas- ter Plan. The only indication of their intention right now is favorable to us. They might not do it right away however, and our need is immediate. Now at this point, I would like to in- troduce Richard Winters who will testify on the issue of the value of the property. MR. ANGEL: If there's opposition, I would like to ask him a couple questions about his credentials. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you like to use the other mike?. I am talking about Mr. Angel. MR. ANGEL: I'm perfectly happy here if everybody hears me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can everybody hear him? MR. ANGEL: Mr. Winters, What's your occupation? MR. WINTERS: Mortgage consultant, mortgage broker and real estate appraiser. MR. ANGE~ ..... And as a real estate appraiser, could you tell me what's your preparation and background? MR. WINTERS: Background is principally as a mortgage lender at- tending many of the appraisal seminars, schools~ I do hold the senior residential appraiser designation with the society of real estate appraisers. · MR. -^N~L~: And have you given appraisals in the past? MR. WINTERS: Yes. MR. ANS5L: ~ -~And have you given appraisals to various insti- tutes and governmental entities? MR. WINTERS: Yes. MR. ANGEL: ' ~ Could you give me a sample of some of them? MR. WINTERS: We represented - we don't represemt but I provided appraisals for a number of lending institutions° provided testimony for this Board as well as the Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals as well. MR. ANGEL: Did there come a time that I asked you to take on a task in this matter. MR. WINTERS: Yes. MR. ANGEL: Can you tell me what I asked you to do? ~ Page 6 - October 22, 1986 Publi'c Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. WINTERS: You asked me to look at the property, subject property and arrive at an estimate of fair market value as currently zoned in B-Light business. MR. '.iANGEL 5: And did you arrive at an opinion? MR. WINTERS: I arrived at an opinion. MR. ANGEL ~: And what was your opinion. MR. WINTERS: My opinion is the property now existing in its current zoning, the fact that there are 2 parcels that I looked at specifically; tax map lots 13 and 15 which was the road front- age. As to the. land only 25 thousand. Lot number 12 which' is a land locked parcel with no road frontage; approximately 35 thous- and dollars for land only. However, there are improvements to the land. Principally a brick and frame structure of vintage years and questionable condition that would require considerable amount of renovation if it were to be upgraded and used for the various permitted' uses under the present zoning. My opinion is that if the property were going to be purchased for a use of the current zoning, quite probably the building would best be demolished and a new structure built. Demolition cost, approximately 4 thousand dollars in a statement from a local contractor which led~. me to a conclusion of about 30 thousand dollars. Now that's a relatively shocking numbero I was shocked by the number. My research how- ever, I started by going back to 1984 to the sales within that tax map section and there were a number of sales that led.. me to that fina'l conclusion as to land value: There's a parcel ap- proximately 1 acre in size adjacent to the east of the subject which was sold in June of '84 for 12 thousand dollars vacant, There's a parcel one lot removed to the west (and these are all similiarly zoned incidentally) which was improved by a very small (I would guess) 6 or 7 hundred square foot single-family residence. That sold in May of '85 for 62 thousand dollars° Deducting the estimate and the depreciated cost of the house, that would lead me to believe that lot (which again is approximately an acre) had a value at that time, in or around 20 thousand doltars~ The same exposure. There's a piece of property on Kirwin Boulevard. It doesn't front on 25. I'll grant you that~ It's approximately a quarter of an acre in size,'that sold in February of '86 (a very recent sale) for 7 thousand dollars° That's not an isolated caseo There's another piece almost adjacent to it, sold in April of '84 for 8 thousand dollars. There's a number of sales in this price range. And looking at all of them tells me that that particular area, the Greenport/Southold area on Route 25 with that zoning is not particularly appealing to commercial industries° I don't know why. I can only reflect what I see from sales. Higher numbers of course can be obtained if you want to go up to Route 48 in Southold. Significantly higher numbers can be found there. But I view that as a totally different market° Higher numbers can be found as you get closer into the village of Greenport where you have sewer and a more active commercial markete Again, I didn't feel it appropriate to bring those numbers into this general vi.- cinity but to stay with the numbers that I found within the im- Page 7 - October 22, 1986 Public He,ring:of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. WINTERS~(continued)~ mediate neighborhood where the subject property is located. MR. ANGEL: Mr. Winters, could you give me a list if:-you have it om tell me what uses of zoning you'd consider. MR. WINTERS: There's a whole list of them if you'd like me to recite those. MR. P~ANRE:L; ..... I'd like you to recite those. MR. WINTERS: You'd like me to recite them. Very well. Under the B-Light business the various permitted uses; buSiness pro- fessional, government offices, banks and financial institutions, retail stores, restaurants, bake shops for on premise sale at retail, laundromats and similiar establishments, personal 'service stores and shops, marinas for the docking, mooring and accomoda- tions for noncommercial boats including the sale of fuel and oil primarily for the use of the boats accomodated in such marina, boarding and tourist homes, commercial agricultural operations including keeping and raising animals, building structures and leases owned and operated by the Town of Southold. There are other additional special exceptions provided by the Board which include; 2-family dwellings, places of worship, private schools and coll~ges, libraries, charitable institutions, hospitals, nursing and rest homes, private utilities rights-of-ways, fra- ternity houses, golf courses, membership clubs, beaches, swim- ming pools, tennis courts, children's recreational camps, labor camps, boat docking facilities for noncommerical boats, veter- narian offices and animal hospitals, cemeteries, stables and riding academies, funeral homes and undertaking establishments, wineries, hote!~, motels and tourist camps. I did 10ok at those° The only possible uses_that I saw that might provide a higher and better use than is now existing would be as a professional build- ing. But as a professional building, one has to consider the cost of improving that existing brick and frame structure that was ~ used as (not that many years ago) a potato house° Many many years ago as a school house. The cost to renovate that up to a stan- dard that would be acceptable for a doctor, lawyer or whatever other professional use'might come into playo Possibly as a res- taurant~o But even taking a restaurant into consideration with the sale of (again) simitiarly zoned propprty to the east of the subject, formerly a tavern, that sold in 1984 at a price of 90 thousand dollars. That was 1.1 acreso It certainly would lend itself to renovation as a restaur~ant more than the subject proper- ty. So I didn't think that was a probable use for this after renovation. I think the cost would be just too great to convert it to one of those uses. There are other categories that can be grouped together and thrown out totally° Boating facilities. There's no water there. There's swamp land in the back. In- stitutions; I don't see a banking institution going in. So those are basically the 2 that I view as having a potential use. But economically, it just didn't make any sense to me. Page 8 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. _-~ ANGEL:. : Is your opinion as to,:the market value, a fair market value of the property (like I Said before) are different after considering all those various specific types of uses? ~ WINTERS: No it isn't because I don't believe that a per- son who is going to create a professional building, would do it in that spot. I think he'd be more likely to go to a more active commercial area suCh as Greenport or in the developing area on Route 48 in Southold. MR. ANGE[: I have no further questions at this time° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. MR. McL~UGHLIN: Would we be allowed to ask the witnesses ques- tions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would like to finish the entire presenta- tion if you don't mind, Mr. McLaughlin, and then it is entirely up to.Mr. Winters if he would like to answer the questions. As you know, the interrogation is usually done through the Board and not individuallye Ok. So if you choose to ask Mr. Winters questions, we'll ask-him if he's going to be around throughout the entire hearing. Will you be here sir? MR. WINTERS: I've been retained by Mro Angel's office. prefer to confer with him before I agree. I would CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you going to allow him to stay? Mit. ANGEL:- I think the question is whether he's going to answer the questions or whether he's going to have out here. Do you want me to ask them right now or take a break? CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. ANGEL: I have no objection to him being cross examined by my opposing counsel. It's up to you whether you'd like to do it now. He's just finished his testimony. Or whether you'd like to bring him back for it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well basically, is it going to change any contents in your particular part of the case if we (or the appli- cation) allow for some sort of questions at this point? MR. ANGEL: I would prefer to do it now while he's here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Would you use this mike siro~ Mr. Winters would you stand over there. Would you direct your questions through the Board to Mr. Winters please. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Yes. The first question I would like to know is what he (Mr° Winters) deems the highest and best use of this property presently° Page 9 -October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: These are statements of opinion now. that correct Mr. Winters? Is MR. WINTERS: T~ie~h'ighTest and best use I believe of the property right now as zoned and as improved, would be its present use. I don't believe it would be economically feasible to improve its highest and best use. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you know what the purchase price was for this property back in 1979 when the applicants purchased it? MR. WINTERS: I was lead to believe that it was .... No._ I went back as far as 1984 and picked up the adjacent piece at 12 thous- and dollars. I did non research back to 1979. I feltlthese n~m- bets were ...... 1984 was far enough° In fact, maybe it's too far back to go. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Did you do any study and out of any such study did you come to any conclusion as to whether or not the existing welding business is running at a profit? MR. WINTERS: NOo I wasn't retained to review that. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: have. Thank you. That's all the questions that I CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir° MR. ANGEL~ I'd like to call Fir. Schoenstein, Joseph Schoenstein~ He's one of the applicants° MR. SCHOENSTEIN: I'm Joe Schoenstein, owner of Northfork Welding. MR. ANGEL~ I prepared a list of some of the customers and also expenses related to the property, and I'd like you to look at that list and tell me if it's accurate. MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN: Yes it~is. MR. ANGEL: I'd like to submit this to the Board. It's a sum- mary and I'm going to have him read the expenses related to the property° Now~Mr. Schoenstein, one of these sheets is called expenses related to the property. Es that correct? MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN: Yes.sir. MR. ANGEL: and were. Would you please tell me what those expenses are MR. J, SCHOENSTEIN: thousand dollars. The purchase price of-~the property was 20 MR. ANGEL: Now which parcel is that? Page 12 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linda Scheonstein ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL: Are there any mortgages on the property? MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN: Yes there is a mortgage on the main piece of property with the welding shop on it of approximately 18 thousand dollars. The mortgage is with my grandparents because at the time that I purchased it, I didn't really have any credit with North Fork Bank and Trust or any banks in this area and I am self-employed. So the purchase of the property is through my grandparents on a legal mortgage at the interest rate I would believe in 1979. It was just like a regular mortgage. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I have no further questions of Mr. Schoenstein. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no further questions at this time. MR. DOBEK: I live next to the welding place and I've known Mr. Schoenstein since the day he bought the place. We never had as much as a harsh word between us and we have got along very good~ We never had no fault at all. Well to come right down to it, i think we need his business (Joe over there) more than Joe needs the building. For all the work that he does for this community is unbelievable. The people that he helps° I've seen kids with bicycles asking Joe to fix them. A young boy pushes a lawn mower with 3 wheels on it, Joe can fix it. A fisherman coming with his boat and trailer to fix it. A farmer with some farm machinery to fix ito -Somebody building a house, Joe has a high beam climber and all that. I can go on and ono Even the railing for a 75 year old man to hang on to go up on the steps to his house. I think we need Joe in our community and the building too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. MR. COSTELLO: I'm in the marine contracting business in Green- port and have been for the last 24 years. I think Mr. Schoen- stein has definitely got a hardship° Ail of the businesses in- cluding myself and any of the business in Southold Town have a hardship° They got a good kick in the teeth last year with in- surance. Laborers is an existing crisis in Southold Town. Joe has got the problem. I doo I believe every business does. Find- ing a piece of property that is useable in Southold Town to ac- comodate some of the existing business and any possible expansion in that business is pitiful. I can't find one in Southold Town from my business. There zs no commercial waterfront property in Southold Town besides a couple of pieces in Greenport available for my business and I'm sure Joe is having the same problem. This particular area, we have a lumber yard~ We have an asphalt plant. A recent'dock building company, a fish market° There's a restaurant and there's an existing welding shop. He does have a problem. He has a severe hardship° His business is expanding. One of the reasons it's expanding is because mine is° I need someone like Joe to fix equipment. I wish I didn't but I do. There are fishing boats that like to come to this area° Hope- fully there will be fish. Greenport is trying to promote it. Southold is trying to promote it. Suffolk County is trying to promote it. New York State is trying to promote ito We do have the waterfront. We can accomodate the boats° They need service Rage 13.-- October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. COSTELLO (continued): and I'm sad to see that there aren't a few of the fishermen that Mr. Schoenstein and his brother probably got them equipped. and got them fixed and they're out fishing. They're usually here and when they're here, they're done at that shop. That's all I have to say. Thank you. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I'd like to ask him one question. To your knowledge, who besides Northfork Welding provides this marina welding service around here in the Town of Southold? MR. COSTELLO:~ Well I can say from my-experience for the last 20]plus years, I would have gotten Paul Blacksmith in Green- port. I'm sure everybody's familiar with him, to do any of the emergency repairs or the Greenport Mel Burke. Mel Burke has since retired and I don't believe Paul can ac- comodate one tenth of the work that's in the area now. Pre- sently it's left up to the Schoenstein brothers. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. SAMUELS: I own a company called James H. Rambo Inc., a marine contractor and a company called Rambo Dredging Corpo which is a hydraulic dredging company° I've known Schoenstein since they set up shop there° They're a tremendous addition to Southold Town. As a matter of fact, they're a tremendous addition to the east end because they are covering clients ~ greater than or just not in Southold Town. We just about al- ways have something over there being rebuilt. They built us a barge in our dredging company. They are constantly rebuild- ing cutter heads on the hydraulic dredge whiCh is an art form to do them to get the curves they do is just fantastic. Very very gifted people. The type of people that are very hard to find. They're master mechanics. They just don't teach it any more. They have a tremendous work effort. They've made a great success out of nothing and it's their ability that led them to do it. The perception of the productive community in Southold Town is that we need them. The nearest operator who does simi- liar work is Eastern Welding in Riverhead which isn't too far but it's quite a ways and they have similiar labor problems~of getting the type of people that Joe and Freddy represent. The kep to that operation is that they're so good at what they do. In addition, it's the type Of business you don't know where else they'd locate in Southold Town. It would be very very difficult for them. They are not as close to the water as I'd like to see them but 'they're close enough.~ They're very innovative'that launching barges and things that it's amazing how they can get some of the stuff to the water that they do. But they have to, they need this building. They have to be able to work inside. You can't do the type of stuff they do in the winter months and spring essentially when there's a lot of rain and still keep operating. They've increased their payroll. They have quite a labor force there now of good people° They're training peop].e. Page 14 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals MR.. SA>fUELS (Continued) .~ I can't express enough admiration for what they.tw'e done really and we definitely need them. We. not only need them in Southold, we need them in Southampton. We bring a lot of stuff out from Southampton. There's a. very good welding shop in Southampton that's just... Thatts Loui&~'s. What we have' found and what's been created in the east end is that there just isn't any room and there seems to be very little public opinion that room be made so we~have to do with what there is. So this particular site is a good site for what they are doing. It's not the best but it's a good one~ It would be a great loss to the community if they were forced to leave~ They are in the position finan- cially, in my opinion, now to buy a very expensive site. One of the few heavy industry sites. It would be very difficult. There's very little of that left. The necessity of them using this parcel is just part of what the problem is~ The problems are with the businesses in the end of town especially with this type of fabrication business which is not romantic but boy do we need it. We just have to have it to keep operating~ We do~.o We've been fortunate in being low bidder in most of the Suffolk County dredging projects on the east end. It would be hard put to keep that dredge going without them in Greenporto We would be doing a lot of truCking up west at great delays in time° There are problems up there too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir° MR. MIDDLETON: I'm with Harbor Fisheries in Greenport, New York. Just on a lighter note, I'd like to tell my good freind John Cos- tello that I have 3 acres of waterfront commercial property if he's really interested, recently zoned. Getting back to it, I~m non really privy to exactly what Joe is doing down there all the time. Ail I know is that they're a bunch of hard working people° I'm in the food processing businesse We're trying to pull an in- dustry out of the dulldrums into a modern operation out there as well as Bob Cooper. As far as getting the people to do the kind of work on my type of equipment which is predominately stainless steel is few and far between° Especially out in this area° These people have cooperated with me on more than one occasion. One in particular comes to mind. I had 2 engineers here from the State of Michigan with armor exhauSting stainless steel exhausting at a cost that was exhorbant in the first place. We had tractors. We are in need of their services as far as rigging. They're the only people around that had a mobile for the equipment, nUmber one. It was running. We couldn't weld with~the equipment that we have. I'm barely a half a .... welder myself° And if it wasn't for people like Joey and particularly Freddy willing to jUmp in and do something that they weren't exactly hired for that day. That is something that will always be appreciated by me and my crew. I have quite a few people working for me and down time is obvisously paycheck money and is production time. Recently Page 15 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold ~own Board of Appeals MR. MIDDLETON (continued) not by the owner of the company but R.T~ Cooper has purchased a piece of equipment that was builn in the country on the other side~ These fellows were not reluctant at all to climb inside a fish mill piece of equipment and put in something in excess of 2 weeks, a lot of hard labor to do this kind of work. I~m sure than if we went further up the island and tried to find people to do that kind of work and spend that much time and dedication, Mr. Cooper would be keeping one hand in the other pocket at this point in time. As far as the building, I'm not quite sure. Maybe I'm not privy to some of the information. But it seems to me that when I come over the bridge and go past Mill Creek, I see an asphalt yard. As John said, I see a lumber yard, a lot of the same similiar buildings. I see boats up on planks° I see a new boating construction yard across the way. I see people selling baskets. I see a house. I see a motel. I see ice cream parlors. To me, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consistency in the area number one and period. Maybe this Master Plan will straighten this out. I don't really think so~ I think it's a good idea. What it seems to me that these gentlemen are trying to do right now is add a little con- sistency to the area° They're trying to put some things under- neath a building where they can work on a year around basis and maybe c!aa~ ~p the si~e~ Maybe provid~ services for people ~ho have to tell them when the s~ow up and it's raining and they say we can't do the work. So the fishing boats and these men must stay in and that product never reaches the table. It can be done on an indoor basis° I think that's entirely up to site plan as far as how they want to make the outside of the place look. I dont' see any real inconsistency with putting up a building that would probably greatly improve the visual effect of the area at this point in time. Just a few little things. One being em- ployment. Seems to me at this point in time, that Boards of all nature whether it be Greenport, Southold, should not be flinching when a group of young men come in and ask for permission to im- prove on a basis that's providing employment in this town. If anything, it seems to ma that they should be walking into a con- ducive atmosphere. One that says; gee you want to give us more tax money for more buildings and you want to provide more jobs, well this is what we want° Me have wineries. Mr. Swager just provided us with an in depth report. This is a food based in- dustryo It has tremendous amount of vats, distillery work, stain- less steel work° There will be a great need for people with their expertise in the very short future if not already now. As I said, I'm not aware of exactly what Joe does° Ail I know is that every time I try to go sea hime, I can't find him. He's either on a late night call or an early morning call. So the only time I can get in touch with the man... So it seems to me that this is a fellow and a family and to me it's an all out family effort on their part because I always talk to somebody that's related to them. When I need something done, this seems to be an all out family effort to provide the services that are always needed~ These men never tell you that they can't do the work. Now that seems to Page 16 - October 22, 1986 PUblic Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. MIDDLETON (continued): me that there's a great effort to keep people working, to train them as it's already been mentioned. To train people in an in- dustry out here that we need. What good is affordable housing if you don't have people out here that are willing to work and have people that are earning a living to move into that hope- fully in the near future. It's the Board's scheme of things that elude me at this point in time. I've just gone through similiar things myself and hopefully I can fulfill a lot of my dreams. But it takes cooperation between municipalities and and the people running businesses. It should not be a confron- tational thing. You have a group of young men here that are looking to build a building, looking to pay taxes on it. They are not asking for any changes in their tax base. They're look- ing to pay for what they want. They're looking to clean it up. They're looking for people to work. And I think it behooves the Board (all Boards) to look on this in such a way that if they were in such a position. We*re not talking about heavy chemi- cals. We're not talking about major polluters and we're cer- tainly not taking a useable waterfront that we have to worry about. I think that's what we need here is a little bit more cooperation. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. MR. ANGEL: I have several letters here that I'd just like to submit as one group from some of the near neighbors. Some closer than others. You can identify them or read them as you see fit. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further to present° I'd like to have the opportunity within a time period that you suggest to me, to give you a short synopsis of my presentation in writing and I'd like to present some of the authorities that are referred to in the first portion of my presentation regarding the use vari- ance versus the expansion of an existing use° It's there by virtue of a use variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When would you like to do that? MR. ANGEL: I'll do it promptly. I have all the stuff in my file. I can do it within the next 7 days. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is ~here anybody that hasn't spoken in favor of this application that would like to speak? Yes sir. MR. THOMPSON: I live down on Bayshore Road which is an exten- sion of Kirwin. It's called the Peconic Bay area. It's also supposedly represented by the Peconic Bay Association. We have an annual meeting and the dues are one dollar. Very few people join it and when you are presented with the idea that anyone from the Peconic Bay Association represents all the people down there, it's a small group of people. One who was elected and a group gets together and say they represent everyone down there. No one has been told. No one has even been called. There have been no mailings on'this. The decision was made by them what is Page 17 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linde Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. THO~fPSON~(continued): best for us. I live down there. I work in Greenport. My wife works in Greenporto We have lived here for several years. We have owned a house for several years. We have no opposition. We are very much in favor of the building. I would like to see the property a little more attractive and I think that~machinery under a building would be one of the best uses of the property. I think it!~s wonderful they come out here and start a business and can be successful. And now in a logical sequence, he wants to expand and grow. I'm very much in favor of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Mr. Hargrave. MR. HARGRAVE: Thank you° I'll keep my comments brief. Basical- ly they reiterate what's been said by the other users of their services. The reason I'm hear tonight is that for about the tenth time this Fall, I've needed immediately something like this. They had to cut a whole in that welder to hold onto it. These are the only guys on the east end that can work stainless steel like butter. There is no darkening of the weld anywhere. They do it immediately. I.was without a pump to handle my grapes this Fall and Joey had it for me the next morning. He had to combine aluminum and stainless steel. Rolle Brothers have begged me, don't come again. It's so hard to work with This stuff because if you don~t have the te~era- tures right, it doesn't sen on it. They can come to our o~ proper- ty site in Cutchogue. They're a tremendous resource for the com- munity and they do a top notch job9 a really top notch professional job and it's very very impressive; the work they do. They can't weld a broken heart or fix a crack of dawn but basically they do a wonderful job. You might also be interested to know that they have a swear box in the office. No profanity is allowed or they cut off your tongue° And this is not heavy industry. The last comment that I would have is that, where else is a use like this going to go? The other side of the tracks? They're already on the other side of the tracks. It seems like a good location to me. I certainly can find them. But they are really a tremendous resource° I think you should encourage them and speak on behalf of their application. I hope you can find a way to do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes sir. Thank you sir. Anybody else like to speak? Mil. CLARK: I work for Northfork Welding. And I can reall attest first hand about their operating conditions. And another~thing that they did bring across and that is the building we work in now is on 3 different levels. That's a lot of climbing stairs all day. And as far as inclement weather, that's pretty rough.' You can't weld outside. So another thing is that the guys that work there. Ther&'s 3 other guys including myself and they've all .... I've lived he=e all my life and the guys that work here are local. One guy came from up the island and he tried to move in but he couldn't find adequate housing. But anyway, he does provide work and it is the kind of work that I'd like to see more Page 18 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CLARK:(continued): guys get into and also that basic type of work. It's a good craft to get into. You can make a decent dollar out of it which is pretty hard to do around here which t think a lot of other young people can attest to. And I'd like to see him con- tinue on. Thank you. CHAIR}LAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Is there anybody else. Fred, you want to say something? MR. F. SCHOENSTEIN: I'd just like to say one thing. That the letters that Steve had handed up to you, I think are quite im- portant myself because I went to these people and asked each one of them individually. And these letters that are there, are not just a petition. We have one of these too. But in all hones- ty, the reason this room isn't full tonight with fishermen and contractors, a lot of other business people is I just didn't want to have to bother everybody that we work for to try to be here tonight. And the letters, getting back to that, zs just that those people I went to were directly effected by my business. Mr. Frank Dobek who is here, spoke. Mrs. Carmella Verona is Frank Dobek's next door neighbor which her corner of her lot ad- joins my rear lot. She wrote a nice letter there. She isn't able to make it tonight because she had a dinner engagement. Mr. Ciacia, Gus Ciacia, I'm sorry. After Carmella Verona's house is what my dad just bought. My father and myself just bought a house. It used to be the Locke house and we're working to try to fix the house up now. The next house to the left is Mr. Gus Ciacia who has a boat building shop there and has for many years and he's a very nice man and I've been through his shop many times. He has built small and so on. There's a little notice there from him and his signature. Also across the street, Ray Ciacia who we all know, gave me a letter also. And Joe Busch who is on Albert- son Lane there. People I talked to who are directly effected by myself. Even Pat Drosso. They've been there. We assumed finan- cially, a small golf course. I went to the people that I thought were directly effected by myself. You know we can get signatures from friends and people all over the place. But really it doesn't mean that much. It's people that are effected by your business directly I think that are important here. Thank you very much. CHAIR}MN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Alright. Who would like to speak in opposition of this application° I'm sorry Fred. Excuse me Mr. McLoughlin. MR. F. SCHOENSTEIN: I'd just like to say that I'm a partner in the business and some of these people we didn't ask to be here tonight. They showed up any how and I thank them for coming. ! would just like to express the working conditions. In the winter time it's grueling. There's no other words for it. It's grueling. It's pretty hard for a man to ask an employee to go out and crawl underneath that truck or go out and crawl underneath a trailer or a piece of equipment that a man absolutely has to have. He needs it right away and he's got a broken whatever underneath this piece of equipment. There's snow on the ground and it's raining out and Page 19 - October 22, ~1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. F. SCHOENSTEIN (continued): you're busy doing something and you have to ask an employee to go out there and crawl in the mud or the dirt or in the snow and perform this repair and there's no way we can do it in our shop because our shop is not big enough. It's something you think about every day and ev&ry time you say something to one of your men or employees that you have to go out and do this today. I just turn my head and shake my head because it's not right° It's just not right that you have to ask people to do this and that's what we're doing. It's not that they do it, we all do it. My brother does it, I do it. Everbody that works there has to work outside in the winter time. There's only room in the shop right now for 1 job to be performed at a time. If you have 2 or 3 jobs that day, 2 or 3 guys go outside and one. man goes in the shop. It's pretty hard working like that° You all know why we're here and I sure would like to see a building go up. Thank you° CHAIRMAIN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. McLaughlin. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: T~ank you.~I'm here this evening representing Mr. and ~s. John Nicolleti. They're adjacent land owners to the Northfork Welding~ A couple of statements made earlier. I think if you look back at the 1979 application and the variance granted, you'll find~that this was granted on a fairly small scale welding business. And what you have here, perhaps ~r. Angel is correct. You've got a conforming use here. But conforming only to the ex- tent of the prior variance. They certainly did not get a variance to add on as they saw fit. And in fact what they got was a vari- ance conditioned on at least two very important things. One: no outside storage of equipment or work in progresse I don't know how many members of the Board have been by this place but they~mgy~now that they're coming in to do that. This has been going on (to my understanding) for years. They've just blantantly flaunted the conditions that were imposed on them in a prior use variance. Al- so the other condition is, if there were going to be more than 2 employees at the welding shop, they were supposed to come back in before this Board and get subsequent approval° Again, they've gone ahead on their own. Their business has expanded greatly according to everyone here. That's fine except for the fact that they've flaunt~~' these conditions. And in order to be able to get a further use variance for this property, the burden of proof that they have to show is dollars and cents proof that the property can not yield a reasonable return under the existing use or any cOnforming use under the zoning ordinance° What I think you've heard tonight through all the testimony is business is so good there that they need to expand. It's not that they can't ma~e a reasonable return on the property. They're obviously doing quite well there° And on that basis alone, they have failed to meet their burden of proof. They can make a reasonable return on the property as it exists and therefore, a further use variance can not be legally granted to them. Othe~ things that have happened at that site that show their disregard for the zoning ordinances and prior decisions of this Board. An antique shop was opened Page 20 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linda Scheonstein Southold Town Board of Appeals FIR. MCLAUGHLIN (continued) .. up on that premise without any building permit, C.Oo or any other prior approvals~ It was just opened to my understanding~ Additionally, there was an agreement entered into with the Nicoletti~ that a fence would be erected between the welding company and his property° No such fence was ever erected dis- pite the fact that there was an agreement to do that° I think what you have to see is a pattern of total disregard for the zoning ordinances, for decisions of the Board, for agreements. And now they come in at this point in time after they've al- ready violated all of those conditions and say; our business has expanded so greatly, we need to build another buildi~g~o.n the site. The natural assumption is that maybe their business is going to continue to improve that greatly and they're going to be back in 5 years from now, 3 years from now after they've already been having their work in progress outside. Again af- ter they've greatly expanded their business and they're going to be looking for the same thing. And what they're doing zs intruding upon a neighborhood that consist to a large degree around them of small single family homes. I believe that the Board has another file, a petition that we have sent in con- taining approximately 44 signatures of neighbors that are op- posed to this application. I didn't feel it was necessary to parade in 44 witnesses for you this evening to all say the same thing. That they're opposed to it. I don't think anyone is opposed to--the idea of a welding shop. I don't think that there is probably very many if any people he could get to come in to refute that these people are not a good business° But the fact of the matter is, that legally they can not be granted this vari- ance on the proof that they've offered to you this evening. Another factor is; when they took on this business in 1979, they knew what they had there. They knew what the use variance was that they got. They knew what the operation was and they choose this site despite that. What they have done here is creating upon themselves a self imposed hardship. They knew from the very beginning what this site was like and yet they choose to put their business there. And I think they have to realize that there has to be some limitations on the expansion of the business into neigh- borhoods like this. The final pOint that I would like to make is that this is not a small expansion° We are talking about a very very substantial expansion of the existing business, especially in relation to the existing building. And what you're going to do is obviously expand their capability t'o do further work there~ And I just dont believe that upon the information that's been supplied to this Board tonight and the presentation that's been made that the applicants have met their burden of proof and that they've shown that they can not get reasonable return on their property° Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Anybody else like to speak against the application? Yes.sir. ~i~i~. BANCROFT: I'm a past president twice removed of the Peconic Bay Estates Property Owners Association which is slightly irreia- rant because much of what I'm saying is of personal comment. I went to Stony Brook today and on the way back on 48, I often go down through Riverhead and come back through on Route 25. What Page 21 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linde Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. BANCROFT (continued): I saw on my way back from Stony Brook about half way do~n Sound Avenue is what has happened in the Town of Southoldo I have a sign on my car that says I love Southold Town~ I think it has a wonderful future but it has a very poor future compared to what it could have if we go on the way we're going° Some time ago, 12/15 years, Cornell University did a survey of the Town of Southold. The survey asked 2 questions~ One; what was the main industry, the main money producer of the Town of Southold. The answer was overwhelmingly tourism. Second question was to ask those people why they toured in Southold Town. The answer was, open space. Open spaces are disappearing fast on the two ave- nues; Route 48 and Route 25 which come into and go out of the Town of Southold. I personally, and I think a fair majority Of the people in the Peconic Bay Eastates Association have no ob- jection whatsoever and understand completely the need which has been testified to here tonight adequately for a welding shop or a welding business in the Town of Southold. That is not the point. We have spent most of our time tonight on something that doesn't have to be proved, the need for a welding shop. The ques- tion is where. My contention is that is not a place for it. ]For example; there are 2 historic sites adjacent (old schoolhouse) which could be so beautifully turned into a schoolhouse park of some sort and made into a museum which would encourage this major business, m~jor indusnry; tourism_in the Town of Southold. It seems simplistic and I suppose naive on my part to urge along 'this line when all of the business people have been urging for this weld- ing ship. I also recall, I don't know for sure it's been in existence, that once upon a time town fathers forsaw this very problem° The nee4 for an industrial park for such businesses that would be wel- come and have access no all the property that is needed~ I think that was some where near the dumping area in Cutchogue. I'm not sure. I'm not sure of the amo~nn of space but something well over 100 acres were available. Does anyone know? Is that still availa- ble? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Under the present zoning of C-1 sir? MR. BANCROFT: I don'n know that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is some substantial acreage around the dump that's still C-1 to my knowledge. BANCROFT: And C-I is? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Heavy industry. MR. BANCROFT: That refutes at least in part the idea that there is no place for such a business. I don't know what the financial ele- ments of a park on the property are. It probably would be less than what would be involved in trying to get waterfront property and ac- cess property in other parts of Route 25. I think it would be too bad to go ahead with this expansion in that neighborhood. For the tourisns coming and their main reason for coming is open space and they can't see any open space from the 2 access roads to what end. Thank you. Page 22 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Bancroft. Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application. Mr. Angel. MR. ANGEL: I just would request that you grant them the relief we sought. As I said, I will provide you within 7 days, some sort of summary of my testimony and some authority for the pro- position. So that may help . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't believe you were present at the last meeting. But for the record, I had asked Mr. Joseph Schoenstein what he intended to do with all the paraphanelia that was sitting out there in the yard at this particular time. And he did tell me at that time, that he intended to put it in the building. That's the new proposed building that's before us I assume tonight and was before us at that particular time also. At that time, there was some question concerning the antique shop. Are there property c.o.'s. Are there any violations on any of these buildings at this particular time? MR. ANGEL: My understanding is that that antique shop-was in ex- istence at the time of the original application and it always has been an antique shop. Is that correct? MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN: That's correct. When I came to the Board to originally apply for my welding shop variance before I purchased the property~ we explained to the Board what we wanted to do. We wanted a welding business and my wife have an antique shop. The Board said that the welding buSiness is going to require a vari- ance, a use variances The antique shop is a conforming business with the area and there wouldn't be any problem whatsoever° Now we got our variance for the welding business and also opened up an antique shop in the building and we were never notified. I under- stand now after a year of working with the Board, I understand now that if you took a building like that even though it is business zoned and you can make it into a store. Even though we asked for it and you said we had to have a variance for the welding business and nothing' for the antique shop. I understand now why we have to come to the Board. Yes. But we opened the antique shop 8 years ago and it's basically a weekend business for my wife and we re- stored the little building on the side of the property where it is. We came to the Board about this house when I started this whole application and they said the first thing I have to do is close the antique shop. And I said but why. And you said it's opened for so long now..-. CHAIRIIAN GOEHRINGER: to? This is the '79 application you're referring MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN: No. No. I'm sorry. This application. They told us we would have to close the antique shop. When I went for the building permit and the application for the expansion of the welding shop, they said we'd have to close the antique shop. And I said why. We went around for a little while and they said some- thing about you don't have a c.o. on it and you don't have a build- ing permit. Well it turns out that we got Mr. Taska who was our Page 23 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Zoning Board Of ApPeals MR. J. SCHEONSTEIN (continued): attorney at the closing on that property and we spoke with him about it and he tried to rectify things somewhat with the town. We came down here to get our building permit and a c.o. for that small building and we found out that the building was erected be- fore bmilding permits were issued° So that took care of that. The next thing we found was that we didn't have to have a co. I guess. It's funny. I get a letter in the mail from 'the Town of Southold. And on a little yellow piece of paper it said; antique shop c.o. not required. That was it. No signature, no nothing. I brought that down here and I could not find who sent that little piece of paper. I know that we stepped out of bounds. I can't deny that. I~'s perfectly obvious. Is it alright if I try to clear up on two things quickly? I would just like to say and I really think it's important, I did agree to erect a fence to go up by the shrub- bery to the adjoining piece of property that we did not hear about tonight. I have a small parcel of property on the Main Road to the west of the welding shop. To the west of the welding shop there's a small parcel 95 feet on the Main Road. That adjoins Mr. John Nicolletti's property to the east. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That adjoins Mro Nicolletti's property. I did agree to put a hedge or a shrub or a fence on that boundary if we were able to expand. That was the agreement. Mr. Clark from Peconic Bay Estates, the president, came to me and asked me, could you try to calm things down a little bit. Can you try to work something out with him. I said yes I would do it. I told John and I think he knows this; he said something to me recently. I'm going to put a fence up. And I said John; I had told him in a letter to ~.{r. Clark (his sig- nature) that I am going to put up a fence or hedge or whatever Mr. Nicolletti preferred along that property line. I don't have to do that but I feel it was only right. That's what the man wants, I'd like to work with him. The funny thing that upsets me very much about this whole thing is that I went to John Nicolletti about this application a year ago and I proposed my first site plan to him and we did get along quite well before this. And he said to me; I will help you. I only wish I had a tape recorder because the man sat there at his kitchen table with his wife present and said I will help you put the building up with my own two hands. But I want that piece of property next to you for my buffer zone and I will say that. That's what the man told me. He wants the piece of property next to me. And I said John; I don't want to sell that property but I promise you it's not going to be a welding shop. It's not going to be a storage facility for steel like it had been because I didn't own that back lot and I had steel and I had a container of scrap steel on that property at the time and we did clean it up. There's a few things there down in the grass right now but it's just a vacant lot right now and I'm not selling that lot. Nobody can force me to sell that lot. I would love to buy his house but I'm sure he doesn't want to sell it. Now I have done as much as I could. He hollered about the pile of dirt out front and I moved the pile of dirt and I understand. It didn't look good but that's where I was made to put it so to speak. Now I moved it in front of my welding shop. That was fill hopefully for the new building and we put it too close to wetlands and I Page 24 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN (continued) was summonsed for it and have to move it away from the wetlands and away from a stream even though we found out now from the D.E.C. that the stream is not wetlands. That's what the Build- ing Department based all my applications on to build; that the stream was wetlands and I was in all kinds of problems with that stream. TAPE ENDED MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN: I don't think there's anything else I can say. Are there any questions at all?.~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So to your knowledge, going back to the original questions, the buildings that exist now on the proper- ties in question are legal? There are no violations on them at this particular time. And the only violation is what you admit- ted to before and that is the violation of the conditions of the 1979 varianca which is exceeding the amount of people that you have working there and the paraphanelia there that's laying out on the ground at this particular time. MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN: Right. You asked me about nhe paraphanelia, the machinery. There's a lot of machinery. There's no place to put it. I have to have it for my work. When I started here, it was neat. A truck, a welder and a set of trenches are there but I can't help it ghat the people leave me here and that my busi- ness grew. I hgd no idea I was going to have 5 employees 8 years ago. I had no idea that was going to happen. And to be all honest with you, it's taken so long just to try to find out about a building permit, I don't know how long I would have had to wait to hire somebody. I didn't know that at the time, but I was wrong by not coming to you previously to this and ask for an extension on my amount of people. The pressure on us was extremely heavy. I didn'n think I was going to make it here tonight and I don't know if my man is still there to do work on Greenport Water Authori- ty right now piping in a new purifying system down in Southold and it has to be read by 8 o~clock tomorrow morning. I was noti- fied about it two days ago. We had to supply all the pipe and all the work and it's a tremendous job. The pressure is a lot and we really feel that you know we've looked in other places. We have really. We have really tried hard. We just~.o I want to get back that machinery and stuff. The building is going to house the machinery and a good majority of our stock. Some stock that we have that was extremely long and has to be taken and cut up. That has been kept in that rear yard which is shown on your map of the site plan as a storage facility. It's fenced in and we are including some shrubbery on the back of that if our proposal goes through. I'm not going to start putting in driveways and make a nremendous expense to myself now if I can not expand. I will just have to drag the stuff in the back and I don't know what we can do. We just don't know what to do next. Page 25 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. BANCROFT: Under the plans, this area will be zoned how? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sir I didn't look at the map and I believe... MR. ANGEL~ I have a copy of the map of this section. This area is L-I. MR. BANCROFT~ Does that mean light industry? MR. ANGEL: I think it's meant to mean light industry. MR. BANCROFT: What does it mean? MR. ANGEL: I would permit this type of use. MR. BANCROFT: Well I didn't here it read by Mr. Winters. MR. ANGEL:-~You mean under the Master Plan? MR. BANCROFT: Well he read a long list. MR. ANGEL: Well he didn't consult with the Master Plan. The Master Plan is not in effect yet. MR. BANCROFT: I wasn't asking about the Master Plan. I wondered how this area was zoned at the moment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Light business sir. MR. BANCROFT: Light business. I was wondering under what kind of rationalization we're talking about the business being im- proved under light business. If you go by there daily as I do, there's no conceivable way that you could imagine that it was light industry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mro McLoughlin. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: I would just ask the Board if I could also have the opportunity to present anything in writing that I wish to in the next week in opposition. CHAIRMAI~ GOEHRINGER: Do you want to critique what your ~associate and I said in opposition? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Noo I don't really want an opportunity to neces- sarily to respond to whatever he puts in writing. I would be with- in the same week period, just an opportunity, cases of law that I feel would be in our favor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. J.~SCHOENSTEIN: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Bancroft. Yes sir. Page 26 - October 22, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Linda Schoenstein Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that alrig~t with you? MR. ANGEL: Yes. We'll just both submit within that week° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~ So there will be no cross refer~encing at that particular time MR. MCLOUGHLIN: I don't see a necessity for that myself~ MR° ANGEL: If we see the necessity, I guess either one of us could ask the Board's permission° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's where the problem is as you know with the closing of the hearing., MR. ANGEL: Well then I will forget about my right to do that. I'll submit within 7 days° CHAIPdV~AN GOEHRINGER: MRo MCLOUGHLIN: Yes~ CHAIt~LAN GOEHRINGER: You'll do the same Mr~ McLoughlin° If there's no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving the decision until later~ All in favor - aye. Nadia Moore