Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/02/1986-%, APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR, ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11cj'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 M I N U T E S OCTOBER 2, 1986 REGULAR MEETING A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2z 1986 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town H~ll, Main Road, Southold, New York ~19~1. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., Serge Doyen, Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting all five members of the Board of Appeals. Also present were: Victor Lessard, Building-Department Admin- istrator, Linda Kowalski, Board Clerk, and approximately 120 persons in the audience. CDNCLUSION OF HEARING: Appeal No. 3513. Matter of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ. Condominium construction within 75 feet of bulkhead(F), west si. de of Sixth Street, Greenport. Plan 'B" submitted 9/11/86. Verbal testimony concluded 9/11/86 subject to receiving two written briefs from both attorneys, pro and con. Final submission was received 9/25/86. The following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Messrs. Douglass and Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to declare the Matter of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ, officially concluded (closed) at this time'in order to commence deliberations and decision as required by law. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs, Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Saw~ki. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting 7:35 p~m. Public Hearing wag held and concluded in the Matter of LEONARDUS AND MARIE VANOUDENALLEN - Appeal No. 3559. (No public opposition). [See verbatim transcript of hearing prepared under separate cover and filed simultaneously herewith.] 7:40 p.m, Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of SHIRLEY HOMAN - Appeal No. 3555. (No public opposition). [See verbatim transcript of hearing prepared under separate cover and filed simultaneously herewith.] 7:45 p~m...Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of NORMAN AND KAREN REICH = Appeal No. 3554, (No public opposition). [See verbatim transcript o~ heari~§ p~epar~d under separate cover and filed simultaneously herewith.] 7:50 p.m, Public. Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of JOSEPH AND CATHERINE RIEMER Appeal No. 3547. (No public opposi- tion). [See verbatim transcript filed under separate cover and filed simultaneously herewith.] 7:55 p~m. Public Hearing was held'and concluded in the Matter of GEORGE D. DAMIEN - Appeal No. 3503. (No'public opposition during the hearing~) [See~vefbatfm transcript~prepared under separate cover and filed simultaneously herewith.] 8:03 p.m. PQblic Hea~i~g was held and concluded in the Matter of PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO - Appeal No. 3484. (No public opposition.) [See verbatim transcript of hearing prepared'~,~nder separate cover.] 8:09 p.m. Public Hearing was held and recessed until October 22, 1986 pending receipt of elevation "overview" map in the Matter of JOHN SENKO - Appeal No. 3552. Public opposition was recorded. See verbatim transcript of hearing prepared under separate cover and filed simultaneously herewith.] 8:42 8:50 Temporary recess~6f the me~ting. 8:50 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of EUGENE BOZZO - App, eal No. 3553, pending receipt of response from applicant (through his agent, G. Strang) to consider moving the garage further back 2way from the street. (No public o~position.) [See verbatim transcript of hearing prepared under separate cover.] 9:02 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of ROBERT EGAN. Opposition was received. Public Hearing was recessed between 9:12 and 9:20 for discussion between the applicant's agent, G. Strang, and Ralph Milne (opposing). Public Hearing was reconvened at 9:20 p.m. and a further-~recess for 20 minutes, was requested by both sides. [See verba~tim transcript of hearing prepared under separate cover.] See continuation at 10:08 Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting 9:25 p.m. Public Hearing was held and recessed? in the Matter of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR. Testimony was received from Paul Caminiti, Esq. representing the Church of the Open Door, and others, and from Richard J. Cron, Esq. concerning legali_ties of ~rmitting multiple uses which may be lt.mited by the town codes. The hearing recessed at 10:08 p.m. and continued at 10:15 (see below). 10:08 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of ROBERT EGA~ Opposition from Ralph Milne was withdrawn. [See verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover.] 10:10 - 10:15 Five-minute recess of meeting. 10:15 p.m. Meeting reconvened after motion-by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. SaWicki, and duly carried. All members present. lO:15 p.m. Public Hearing was reconvened in the Matter of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR. ~aul Caminiti, Esq. and Richard Cron, Esq. continued testimony concerning legalities. Mr. Caminiti indicated Special Exception must be granted based on court precedents, regardless of activities or number of activites, and was asked to furnish copies of the court cases for the record. Mr. Cron indicat~d'th2tCthe zoning code requires a Special Exception for each of the following: House of Worship, and parsonage, and school, etc. The hearing concluded at ll:O0 p.m. [See verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover.] ll:02 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter.of EDMUND AND JOAN PRESSLER - Appeal No. 3560. Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. spoke in behalf of the applica~tsi~ (No public opposition.) [See verbatim transcript of bearing prepared under separate cover.] The public hearings ended at approximately ll:20 p.m. and the board proceeded with the next item on the agenda, ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS, (continued on pages 4 15, inclusive): Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO.: PROJECT N~2~E: 3554 NORMAN AND KAREN REICH 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 siqnifi- cant adverse-effect on the environ/nent for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County o,f ~ffolk, more particularlv known as: ]809 Right-of-Way off the ~ass~lae 0~ Rocky Poi~f Ro~d~ East Marion.. "' _ 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 regulate'd as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting APPF~AL NO.: 3547 ' '~ PROJECT NA~: JOSEPH AND CATHERINE RIEMER 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 Envirornmental 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: Insuf~i.cient area,~ width and d.ep.~h of two parcels as re-separated, known and referred to as Lots 96 thru 98-and . hail of 99, at Pedonic Bay Estates, Greenp0rt. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of.Suffolk, more particularly known as: West Side. of Bay .Sh.0re Roa~, P6c0ni~ Bay Estates, G~enport, NY. REASOn(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~4INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project~ be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is an area/]ot-]i'ne'variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. Southol.d Town Board of Appeals -6- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO.: 3503 PROJECT NAME: GEORGE D, DAMIEN 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 envirornment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or simil~ project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Confirmation of prior actions by B.I. and Appeal No. 949 of 9/]/66, recognizing two. separate building ]0ts, having insufficient~ . area, .width and depth. Corners of Jackson, Fifth and Main _Streets, New Suffolk. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold,~ C.o.u. nty ,of. Suff~o. lk; ~ore particularly known as: Corners of Jackson, rifEn anG Main mEreeEs, New Suffolk, 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 not di'rectly related to new' construc- tion. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO.: 3557 PROJECT NAPIE: ROBERT EGAN 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 Enviror~aental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse-effect on the enviror~nent for the' reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency whick may also have an application pending for the same or simil~ project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION- (]) Rec0ns. truct dwe]]in§ wit. h insufficient t0ta] sideyards, insufficient NW sideward, i. ns,ufficien, t~fro.n.tyar, d; ~2) ad~dition~and, .r, ec,onstruction of dwelling within 75 Tee~ of ~iaai wet/anas, a/cng ~pring Pone,'urieHt Harbor. -- LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of .Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: 330 Kn01] Circle, East Mari0n~ Gardiners Bay Estates. P~EASON[S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~4INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; The relief requested is a setback vari-ance regulated as pro- vide~2~n Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO.: 356~ PROJECT NA~IE: ANA G. STILL0 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: ~iance f0r~appr0va] of insufficient area and depth of three proposed parcels in this.pending minor subdivision. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~ Suffolk, more particularly known as: Right-of-way off the North Side of Main Road, Orient, Ny; 1000-14-2-26, containing a ~bfal of 3.2 acres'. 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 lot~line/area variance r~gulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO.: 3553 PROJECT NAME: EUGENE BOZZ0 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 nou to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the envirornment 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 simila~ project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ .] Type II [ X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF .ACTION- (l) New. dwelling with-insufficient setback from wetlands/tidal water; (2) reloc'ate accessory garage in front yard; (3) construction, . in excess of maximum-permitted 20% lot coverage. LOCATION OP PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: South Side of Ca~p. Mine0]a R0~d, Mattituck. 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 setback as exists is less than tha't p'rQposed by'the relocation/reconstruction of single-family dwelling and accessory gara~§) The premises is bulkheaded along Gbeat' Peconic Bay. Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO.: 3555 PROJECT NAME: SHIRLEY HOMAN 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 shoulQ 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 with an insufficient rearyard setback, 160 Smith Drive, P~conic, NY. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County~..Suffolk, more particularly knQwn as: ]60 Smith Drive.? ~ec0nic? . 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 Envir0nmenta] Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. Southold Town Board of Apipeals-ll- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO.: 3559 PROJECT NAME: LEONARDUS'AND MARIE YANOUDENALLEN .... This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining tolArticle 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 pro j ect. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Kdditi0-n to dwelling with an insufficient fr0ntyard setback. 230 Sai]0rs Lane, Cutchogue. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of. Suffolk, more particularly known as: 230 Sailors Lane,- C-utchogue, 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 vari'ance regu]atsd as provided Tn Section617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- October 22 1986 Regular Meeting APPF~L NO.: 3513 PROJECT N~iE: STEPHEN SHILOWITZ This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementinq 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 ToM of Southold. This board dete~ines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse-effect on the enviroru~ent for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: ~ermiss~on to construct c0ndom~n.ium comp]exes within 75 feet of bulkhead or tidal water. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of.Suffolk, more particularly known as: West Side of Sixth Street, Gr6enp0rt, NY; 1000-49-01-25.l. Zoning District: "M-'Li~ht Multiple. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setb'ack variance regulate-d' as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. . (3) Other State, Countv, Town and Village permits for this and similar construction are in effect at %~is time. Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO.: 3487 PROJECT NAME: CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR 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 similA~ project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] Dw.~CRT~TIO~ OF ~T~. Special Fxception to construct and establish TNor - ~. ~ ....... . .. House o~' s-~ip with rel~a'te2 act]vlt]'es on a five-acre tract referred to as Lot #3, Minor SubdivisiOn of S. Catapano, sketch approved 4/14/86 by Planning B~ard. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more . particularly known as: West Side of Main _Bayview_Roa~, S0utho]d~ NY. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~MINATION: (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; /~t The subject premises is not located within 300 feet of tidal Wet]ands. This application is related to use of the subject premises pursuant to the requirements of Article III, Section ]00-30 of the Town Zoning C0de. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting APPF~AL NO.: 3560 PROJECT NA~IE: EDMUND AND JOAN PRESSLER This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [ X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Appeal f-rom Notice of Disappr0va] 0f-Building Inspector dated 1/2/86 and ZBA Action_ #3463 dated 5/6/86, and Variance to establish second retail/business use in conjunction with existing nonconforming two-family * LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of..Suffolk, more particularly known as: REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP=MINATION: (1) An Environmen=al Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) This application is not related to new construction and concerns occupancy of an existing structure. (3)~Thq subject premises is not located wifh~n 300 feet of tidal wetlands. FOR FURTHER INFOP~TION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowals~i, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals,..Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1899 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. *dwelling and antique sa]es business uses on t~s parcel of 69 9]2 sq. ft. in area and 95.44 ft. lot width. ' Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting aPPEAL NO.: PROJECT NAME: 3484 PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Envirornnental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse-effect, on the environment for the--~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or a~ency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar ~oject. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Addition at rear 0f dwe]]ing w~i'th an insufficient setback from wetlands along Great Pond. LOCATION OF PROJECT~:~_ 7 §SO ~dVlew Avenu _To_WnuO~f .S out.hold, County of Suffolk more particularly knQwn ao. . ' _~ . e, S0u~h0ld REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~iNATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned: ( ) The relief requested is a setback vari'ance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3520 - THOMAS SHALVEY. Application of THOMAS SHALVEY for a~Varjance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 1QO~31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient area, width and depth of two parcels tn this proposed division or set-off of land located along the south side of Case Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-116-2-15 and 16. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on August 14, 1986, in the Matter of the Application of THOMAS SHALVEY under Appeal No. 3520; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zonings and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is a des'cribed parcel of land containing an area of 33,750 sq. ft., frontage (1Qt width) along Case Road of 225 feet, and frontage (lot depth) along Bay Road of 150 feet, and is more particularly designated on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 116, Block 2, Parcel Nos. 15 and 16. 2. The entire premises is improved with a single-family dwelling as shown by map prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. surveyed May 27, 1986 with a setback of 41½± feet from Bay Road and setback of 35½5 feet from Case Road. 3. By this application, appellant requests approval of the proposed insufficient area of Parcels: (a) No. 1 of 18,750 sq. ft. in area, 125.0 ft. frontage along Case Road and 150.0 feet alQng Bay Road, which would retain the existing dwelling; and (b) No. 2 of 15,000 sq. ft. in area, 100 feet along Case Road and 150 feet deep. 4. Town records show that the premises was conveyed from Southold Town. Board of Appeals -17- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3520 - SHALVEY, decision, continued:) the M.T. Case Estate during or after September 1963 into three parcels. Town records also show that the abutting premises on the east was also conveyed into three parcels from R.B. Case Estate. No town approvals for these divisions have been found. 5. The board also finds that lots of a size proposed by this application would change the character of this block since two other parcels within this residential block are substantially larger, to wit: Parcels 1000- 116-2-14 and 22 (22~3). 6~ Article III~ Section lO0~31 and Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code requires a minimum: (~) lot anea of 80,000 sq. ft., (b) lot width of 175 feet; (c) lot depth of 250 feet. The proposed area of each parcel meets 23% or less of these requirements. The percentage of relief requested is substantial in relation to the requirements. In considering this appeal, ~he board also finds and determines that the relief mus~ be denied since: (a) the practical difficulties claimed are not sufficient; (b) the circumstances are not unique; (C) a precedent would be set since there are other similar circumstances in the neighborhood; (d) this proposal is not consistent with those generally existing on this block; (e) the relief requested is substantial in relation to the require- ments; (f) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, and in considering the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by denying the variance as applied. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, i_t was RESOLVED~ that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3520 for insufficient lot area, width and depth of two parcels, as applied in the Matter of'THOMAS'SHALVEY, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass, Sawicki, Doyen and Grigoni~. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR OCTOBER 22, 1986: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the following matters be and hereby are scheduled for public hearings to be held at the Regular Meeting of this board of ~£DNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1986, and BE tT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, is hereby authorized and directed to publish'notice of same in the local and official news~papers off,he town~ to wit~ '~Suffolk'~Times~ 'tnc~ and Long I~lrand Tra~ler~atchman, Inc.: 7:35 p,m, Appeal No. 3538 JEFFREY BETTANCOURT (recessed from Sep~e~b6r 11, 1986); 7:4Q p.m. Appeal No. 3464 - TED DOWD. New dwelling with (a) insufficient frontyard, (b) insufficie~tlsideyard, (c) insufficient rearyard, (d) excessive lot coverage, (e) insuffi- cient setback from tidal wetlands (Trustees, DEC and County Health Department permits received). 350 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3552 JOHN SENKO (recessed from 10/2/86). 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3567 THOMAS WICKHAM. Addition to dwelling within 75 feet of wetlands..W~st Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3563 RITA F. GLEDICH. Open deck and dwelling additions ~ith: (a) excessive lot coverage, and (b) ¢~sufficient setback from tidal wetlands. East Side of Oak Street, Cutchogue (Eugene Heights). 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3550 JOSEPH AND LINDA SCHOENSTEIN (recessed as requested by applicant's attorney on 9/11/86). Variances to expand nonconforming use and construct new building within 75 feet of wetlands area. Peconic Bay Estates, South Side of Main Road, Greenport. "B-Light'! Business Zoning District. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, G~igonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting ACCEPTANCE OF ROW IMPROVEMENTS: Appeal No. 3337 KIMON and RETZOS. Right,of-way located off the east side of Rocky Point Road, East MariQn, as more particularly shown by County Tax Map Parcel Nos. 1000=31-2-10 (and 14), and'John W, Davis Road Report #444 dated April 23, 1985. A conditional 280~a variance was rendered by this board on June 13, 1985. Inspection of the ri ht-of-w~s improvements vere ~ade by Chairman Goehrinqer on Octobe~ 1st fo//owin§ a request on. bep~. ~8t~by David V~ri~y and Norman Reich, contract vendees of two lots in this.M~nor Subdivi- sion #81 (1973). The following action was taken: O~ motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Gri§onis, it was RESOLVED, to accept the right-of-way improvements as inspected October l, 1986 and conditioned by Appeal No. 3337 in the Matter of KIMON AND WOODENE RETZOS~ SUBJECT TO CON- TINUOUS MAINTENANCE AT ALL TIMES. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringen, it was RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the following Meetings: September 11, 1986 Regular Meeting; (pp. 1~44) July 31, 1986 Special Meeting (pp.~ 1-45). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. DATE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The Board agreed to call a Special Meeting for the Week.o~ Qctober 6th to continue the agenda items. ~6ti6h was made ~y Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and duly carried to adjourn. The me~ting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Respecti~ul ly submitted, ? ~ Southold Town Board of A~p-~s AND FILED ~G/.~ Gerard P. GOe~i~en~~ ~/ chidha~¢mah ~ TB~ SOUTHOLD TO%?N C~ Town Clerk, SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF STEVEN SCHILOWITZ THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A rather lengthy hearing that we've been dealing with which is the Steven Schilowitz condominium project and to be considered a Type II Action. I make a motion closing this hearing pending the receipt of the Suffolk County Planning Commission critique of the file and I'll look for that motion. Ail in favor - aye. Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing. Nadia Moore 10/21/86 ~ ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF LEONARDUS AND MARIE VANOUDENALLEN THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3559 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of LEONARDUS AND MARIE VANOUDENALLEN. Addition to dwel- ling with an insufficient frontyard setback. 230 Sailors Lane, Cutchogue. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: First hearing for the evening is Appeal num- ber 3559, Leonardus and Marie Vanoudenallen. The application reads as follows: I have a copy of the survey amended September 16, 1986 indicating a proposed addition 32 feet 2 inches from Sailors Lane and I will ask the builder how big the addition is. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County tax map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Hortonl would you like to be heard? MR. HORTON: The addition is 42.6 to the (I don't in which direc- tion) eastwest. MR. GOEHRINGER: And how deep is it? Do you recollect? MR. HORTON: I don't remember that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything else you'd like to say be- fore you sit down? Is this a two-story addition or one-story? MR. HORTON: One-story. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. And it's not a deck or anything major. It's a natural addition to the house and added square footage to the dwelling itself. MR. HORTON: Yes. It's a natural addition. The purpose they want to do it for is; on the basis of a sunroom. They suppose as they get elderly, they would have a bedroom on the lower floor and with- out going upstairs. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Is there availability to get to the rear yard on the east side of the property where you have that 12 feet? You talk about a large lawn in the back. If they have to get around, can they get around the back? MR. HORTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They can. Ok. Alright. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? In favor of it? Anybody like to speak against it? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion to close the hearing reserving the decision until later. Ail in favor - aye. Page 2 - October 2, 1986 Public Haaring of Leonardus and Marie Vanodenallen Southold Town Board of Appeals Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing. Nadia Moore 10/21/86 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF SHIRLEY HOb[AN THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3555 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of SHIRLEY HOMAN. Addition to dwelling with an insuf- ficient rear yard setback. 160 Smith Drive, Peconic. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a sketch of the survey dated July 18, 1962 and it shows an inked in area at the north side of the exist- ing dwelling of an addition of approximately 16 by 39. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surround- ing properties in the area. Would somebody like to be heard. Peter. How are you? Is that your signature? PETER STOUTENBURGH: Sorry about that. The most part of why I'm here is to answer any questions. We have spent a fair amount of time with these people. Mrs. Homart has owned this land for quite a while. She's a member of our community. And whenil.,they Originally". · .t~divided that small development, that house was part of the corn- er. Actually 2 residences were in there. And as you could see when you gentlemen were down, a large amount of room there. We've tried to set up the addition in such a way that it is not imposing on the homes to the south. The house is insufficiently insulated -- other things we re noticeably wrong. It also presided too close to the (north) garage of the neighbor. Any interference to the west of it, there are two 0utbui]dings -- almost on the property line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any floor plan of the addition that you could furnish the Board. Thank you very much. You're in effect, making this a year around house. Is that what some of the purposes are? (Copy of f]00r plan was handed for the record.) MR. STOUTENBURGH : It is year around now but it's such a small size that it's more a cottage. It has been year around. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: this part? Are you putting a full basement underneath MR. STOUTENBURGH: it's a slab.,~, Yes. There is no basement underneath what exists -- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But it's strictly a one-story structure? MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes. That's what we're keeping with. In fact, we're leaving the elevations. The height doesn't Change at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you very much. MR. STOUTENBURGH: Anything else? Page 2 r October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Shirley' Homa~n SoUthold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. Let's see what develops. Any neigh- bors have any feelings about it? Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Any- body like to speak against it? QueStion from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion to close the hear- ing reserving the decision until later. Ail in favor - aye. Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing. Nadia Moore 10/21/86 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF NORMAN AND KAREN REICH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3554 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of NORMAN AND KAREN REICH. Dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback. 1809 ROW off the East Side of Rocky Point Road, East Marion. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the'record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated August 5, 1986 indicating a 44,216 square foot lot, indicating as was in the application, appears to be a 50 foot front yard setback, 37 foot rear yard setback, 100 foot from the south property line. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard for the Reich application? Anybody in the audience like to speak in favor of it? Anybody like to speak against it? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - aye. Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing. Nadia Moore 10/21/86 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF JOSEPH AND CATHERINE REIMER THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3547 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of JOSEPH AND CATHERINE REIMER. Insufficient area, width and depth of two parcels as re-separated, known and referred to as Lots #96, 97, 98 and half of 99 at Peconic Bay Estates, Green- port. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey produced by Van Tyler, P.C. dated March 20, 1986 indicating the house lot as men- tioned in the application of 90 by 125, total area of 11,250 square feet and the parcel to be set off of 85 by 125 which is 10,625 square feet. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map In- dicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Reimer would you like 'to speak? How do you do sir? MR. REIMER: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. You have in your possession, a copy August 7, 1986 from the County of Suffolk Health Department. One of the paragraphs in that says; that based on the information submitted the Board will grant a request, for a waiver and allow the two lot development as proposed. The area is served by public water and the area is not considered to be part of the water budget area. Therefore, the increase in density will not adversely impact the ground water resources. As it is, I did provide your secretary with a copy of that letter and this is the file. And in addition to that, I have received (all officially stamped up from which you have probably seen hundreds) again a copy of the survey from Mr. Van Tyler excepting that it enjoys stamps again from the Health Department of Suffolk County approving the lots for the Board of Review determination dated the 7th of August, 1986. Underneath that, on the date of August 19, 1986, this certifies that the previous arrangement for the water supply and sewer disposal for it and believe it or not, this is called the Reimer development in the Town of Southot~ with a total of two lots as approved on the above date. Consent was thereby given to the filing of the map in which this endorsement appears in the office of the County Clerk in accordance with provisions of the public health law and the Suffolk County sanitary code. Thank you. It does not as it was announced, have any adverse impact in terms of the environment what so ever. Prior to filing even the very original application, I discussed this face to face with the neighbors across the street and on either side of it and there's no objection on the part of any of them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not to put you on the spot Mr. Reimer, but what essentially, maybe you could explain to the Board what could happen here. Did you buy these parcels in two separate pieces? MR. REIMER: No. We bought them separately. Page 2 ~.~ October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Joseph and Catherine Riemer Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. And then you constructed a house on one or was the hoUse already there? MR. RIEMER: No. The house was already there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So basically you are stating .... I am simply restating what your hardship is and that is of course; that there are lots in the area that are undersized based upon the size of this piece of property. Is that correct? In other words, the lots themselves are 50 foot lots. It was a 50 foot subdivision. MR. RIEMER: If you were to grant this to us; the lot (for instance) on the right as you face this property, we would be 12~050 square feet larger than and to the one on the left where the house present- ly is would be 2,500 square feet larger. So it doesn't change the neighborhood at all. If anything, it would be (in essence) creating two lots larger than those immediately adjacent to us. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. MR. RIEMER: Thank you. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Is 'there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application. Would anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - aye. Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing. Nadia Moore 10/21/86 SOUTH©LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF GEORGE D. DAMIEN THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 PUBLIiC HEARING 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3503 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of GEORGE D. DAMIE.N. Confirmation of prior actiQns by Building Inspector and Appeal No. 949 of September 1, 1966, recognizing two separate building lots, having insufficient area, width and depth. Corners of Jackson, Fifth and~Main Streets, New Suffolk The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I 'have a copy of the survey done by Van luy]~ and $on~amended on September 3, 1986 indicating what we assume to be the smaller lots in question. Of lot A; 12,663 square feet and a lot of also 16,256 square feet. I have a copy of Mr. Damien's prior decision. And I have copy of the Suffolk County' Tax Map. indicating this and surrounding proper- ties in the area. M~ ~mien~ w0u]d you ]i~e to be heard~ Would you like to use the mike if you don't mind. MR. DAMIEN: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board o5 Appeals. As I explained in my appeal and the petition that you have, the building inspector provided me with one of the evidence that you have in different exhibits. And Mr. Lessard refused to recognize this ~rom a different policy but I did not apply. ~s I explained in my zoning appeal there was in the ordinance at that time there was absolutely no rules stipulating what I have to do. And when I went the next day or the day after they %0Id me to- see the building inspector. He said to me~"lhere is nothing to do. You are within the law. And therefore, any time you want to give them covenants and I have given the original permits of the second lot" which is now under dispute. So I asked kindly to be informed of this decision which was takeD in 1966. I never believed-~ the last ~ette~ which I got from Mr. H. le~y was in 1975. And now, of course, I have 3 children. They are grown up and I am interested in this lot and I don't know what I'm going to do in view of this code. That's why I had requested an official confirmation of this de- cision which I had been made' in 1966 on the basis of the peti- tion as it was presented. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have read over the files several times and I think that's puetty much everything that we have available here. In effect, what I'm saying, there really isn't much else I can ask you. I guess the only thing I can really ask you is; in 1966 did you ever apply for Health Department approval? MR. DAMIEN: Yes~ At that time I still -- the main p0Jnt was to have enouqh distance for the well and the c~sspool and I have plenty space which has been no problem what so ever. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have ~orrespondence from the Health Department indicating that you got Health Department approval at that particular time? Page ~ - ©ctQber 2, 1986 Public Hearing of George D. Damien Southold Town Board of ApPeals MR. DAMIEN: In 19667 I haven't checked these papers. I'm sorry. I have this for 8 years. I never believed that this would be. I can't believe it. I was convinced that I have to ask from the basis of 0ffi-cial documents issued to me. CHAIRMEN GOEHRINGER: Well, we'll take a look at it again and we still have two gentlemen on the Board who were on the Board in 1966. These two gentlemen to my left. And we'll go over the file and do the best we possibly can for you. We thank you for coming in. MR. DAMIEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this. application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Qeustions from Board members. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion to close the hearing reserving the decision until later. Ail in favor - aye. Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing. Nadia ~'4oore 10/21/86 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 8:03 p.m. Appeal No. 3484 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO. Addition at rear of dwel- ling with an insufficient setback from wetlands along Great Pond, 7455 Soundview Avenue, Southold. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map dated April 3, 1986 indicating an existing a one-story dwelling with an area enclosed on a dotted line indicating the proposed addition. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. For the record, the addition appears to be 8 by 13 leaving a setback of 44 feet from the shoreline of Great Pond. ~nd I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? MR. BELLOMO: I am Mr. Bellomo. If there's no questions... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's always questions. Woud you step up to the mike? Is there going to be an existing foundation under- neath this or will it be kind of level to the deck or what is it? MR. BELLOMO: Well it's going to be partial. It's not going all the way to the edge of this new structure. There's going to be about 3 feet in towards the house, the foundation. So if the new structure is going to be 8 by 13, the foUndation is going to be mo~e like 5 by 18. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And is there an extension of the existing screen and porch or is it actually an enclosed structure? MR. BELLOMO: The porch right now is going to be extended. will be an enclosed porch. It CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: so on and so forth? An enclosed porch. Will it be heated and MRm BELLOMO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It will be heated. Will there be any other addition? If the Board would say grant this application, would there be any other addition that you would be asking for on this structure? MR. BELLOMO: Yes. off of the kitchen. for anything. There would possibly be a bathroom upstairs~ As of right now as of yet, we haven't asked 2 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearihg of Philip and Ellen Bellomo Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I think you very much. Is there any- body else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody who would like to speak against it. Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - aye. Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing. Nadia Moore 10/21/86 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF JOHN SENKO THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 8:09 p.m. Appeal No. 3552 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of JOHN SENKO. Shopping center use in this B-.1 General. Business Zone, containing 30,084 square feet in lot area. 49295 Main Road (at intersection with Ackerly Pond Lane), Southold. Garrett Strang, agent. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIP~{AN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey dated August 8, 1986 indicating the building which is placed pretty much di- rectly in the center of the property. Maybe a little more to- wards the west~ Surrounding parking areas and those parking areas used in conjunction with the original building or the existing building on the site. This property (again) is on the corner of Ackerly Pond Lane and Main Road and I think it presently houses an antique shop and an ice cream parlor. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding proper- ties in the area. Mr. Strang would you like to be heard? MR. STRANG: Thank you. Good evening. As the application states, we're before the Board (basically) subsequent to a meeting we had with the Planning Board in which it became apparent that the proper- ty that is undersized and was to be considered a shopping center is basically not undersized in that classification. The property does meet all the other zoning criteria. However, one may pose a definition of a shopping center in the excess of 40 thousand square feet. Minimum lot area we don't have. In as much as there's only 30 thousand square feet presently there. The existing use that is there I guess by some definition, would constitute shopping center in as much as it's a multiple occupancy where there is more than one tenant occupying the building. The existing building there (as I~mentioned) ~s occupied by both an ice cream parlor and an antique shop. The net area of that building is about 700 square feet in that retail area and it's about a 1,100 square foot build- ing. The remainder is service area and the like. What we're pro- posing is a new structure in addition to this one that would be detached, free standing nearby connected by sidewalks at the ex- isting structure. Its total net retail space (if you will) or useable space is; at this point, approximately 2,600 square feet over 2 floors. Or 1,300 square feet per floor. The building that we are proposing is essentially, if you want to get an idea of the size, it's about the size of a residence. A relatively good size residence. The size is to this building, the new building is; on the first level is retail. On the second level is professional office space. So I'm sure you're familiar with the site. It does slope from west to the east or we will use that as a point of orientation for the moment. Given that the Main Road is run- ning eastwest, the high end would allow us to access the second floor of the building to grade the lower end of the site to ac- cess the lower level to the grade which does allow us therefore, to have a two-story structure and the whole structure can be easily P~age 2 ~ OctOber 2, 1986 Public Hearing of John Senko Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. STRANG (Continued): accessible. As I mentioned earlier, the lower level being here towards retail, we anticipate maybe 2, at the most, 3 tenants in that lower level. Just give the fact that we've only got 1,300 square feet or we're only commanding 1,300 square feet of development. And on the secon~ floor, 1,300 square feet again we anticipate 2 maybe 3 at the most, tenants. So in- cluding the 2 tenants that are in the existing building if they were to remain and I can't see where that building could house any more than 2 tenants, it's just too small. More like- ly than not, it may revert back to one tenant at some point in time. We could have anywhere from 6 to a maximum 8 tenants in that site. Certainly I don't envision this as a large shopping center quote unquote, type of a project. Although it does fall under that definition of zoning. As I'm sure you can see, the size of the property and the building that's on it and the ten- ants that are there are the limit of 2 tenants, really is an under utilization of the property. And to not be allowed to develop this property to its potential without over developing it, would present financial hardship to my client. As I men- tioned in the application, the property is compatible to with the neighboring area. The fact that we have a marina across the street, a hardware store across the street, a gas station on'the other corner. There's apparently a proposal for some sort of a retail complex behind the gas station and there's a a doctor's office or a doctor's suite across the street. We feel that it's compatible with the area and we certainly feel that the size and scale of the building is compatible to the area. We're not trying to over develop. We've met all the other criteria of the zoning as I mentioned earlier as far as setbacks, lot coverage, parking criteria and the like. Other than that, I don't have anything more to say. Any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any comment about the Planning Board. And I realize this is not a total part of the applica- tion. However, if the Zoning Board does grant you a relief re- quest, then you can of course build this structure. So it's not specifically putting the cart before the horse. Is there any question that the Planning Board had concerning the egress out onto the Main Road? MR. STRANG: The Planning Board has expressed a concern about the egress out onto the Main Road. So you can see from the site plan, the main or principal ingress and egress is off of Ackerly Pond Lane. The principal reason for that on the Main Road was intended as an exit only, never to be an entrance. An exit only directed either west bound direction as you can not or would not be likely to cut across traffic in the east bound direction. And purposely, that exi~m is also for ease of emergency vehicle egress from the property. Given the na- ture of the configuration of the site, if you had to bring a fire truck or whatever in there, it would be a lot easier for him to just pull right out onto the Main Road and go around the block than it would be to try to back out of that site. Page 3 ~ October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of John Senko Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Is there any indication on what type of retail businesses would be placed within this structure? MR. STRANG: There have been none. And as far as my client is concerned, he'hAsn't even offered the premises for any sort of rental at this point until he sees if it can be done. Based on the fact that we now need the variance and secondly,'we have to contest the Planning Board's aspect of it. Again, we're looking at the first floor of 1,300 square feet. We would be lookia~ at small type of retail. Possibly a 700 square feet rental space and a 500 foot square foot rental space. Nothing of a large type of shop. It will be a small shop. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I never really asked this question. But since we are getting closer and closer, I'll ask it. Do you feel or have you seen the most recent map of the Master Plan? And does this conform to the present zoning of that particular plan? MR. STRANG: I attempted to see the most recent Master Plan map last week. But unfortunately it was not made public at that time. In as much as the Town Board had not had an opportunity to see it. As I understand it, unless there's been a change in this most re- cent revision, it was proposed that that site of "B-I", general business, or~I~betieve they're chan~ing that designation of "B-I" to "B". But it wa~, under the former maps of the Master Plan, still designated as business parcel. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: just let us know? If there are any changes in that, would you MR. STRANG: I certainly will. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much Mr. Strang. You an- swered most of our questions. We'll see if the Board has any towards the end of the hearing. Any Board members I should say. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? Ok. Can we start on this side of the room, please. State your name for the record. DONALD SPATES : My name is Donald Spates, and I'm the owner of Harts Hardware located on Main Road across from the site in ques- tion. My store is open 7 days a week, year around. Thus in the last 5 plus years, I have become 'very familiar with the intersec- tion where the variance is proposed° This intersection is (in my opinion) very dangerous now and can not support additional high traffic retail stores. Particularly when the property is not even sufficiently sized to legally have these stores. I ask the Board to note the following factors which I believe make the request for a variance an unwise choice. P'age 4 ~ October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of John Senko Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. SPATES (continued): 1. Main Road, Route 25, Crest Willow Hill just west of this intersection, and because of this hill crest; a). traffic travelling east on 25 has insufficient time to adequately see the intersection and also see traffic and or obstacles at or around that intersection, b). All other traffic from Ackerly Pond Land and Bay View Road as well as Route 25 westbound have insufficient time to adequately observe the presence and speed of that eastbound traffic. 2. Main Bay View Road enters RQute 25 at this intersection. Main Bay View Road is the primary entrance and exit to Great Hobneck, the ~heavily populated are of Southold. My own home is located on Main Bay View Road and I am familiar with the great amount of traffic that it creates. Bay View Road enters Route 25 at an extreme angle with only a yield sign for traffic control. Drivers are in a difficult position to view the traf- fic they are supposed to merge with on Route 25 in order for them to continue east. A left turn is virtually a hairpin 180° turn and is almost impossible. Turning almost 90° from there brings one across two lanes of RoUte 25 to Ackerly Pond Lane. This is the primary method one uses .to .... " (Changed tapes.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Go ahead. I apologize for stopping you in the middle. MR. SPATES: This maneuver is dangerous in tha~[..the driver has a poor view of too many areas where traffic may appear. 3. Route 25 westbound is a fast and heavily travelled road which curves to the rzght and rises up Willow Hill. Drivers have a dif- ficult time watching for cars exiting from Main Bay View Road and either making that left turn to go west or attempting to cross 25. Also exiting from Ackerly Pond Lane to make a left or right turn ortrying to cross 25 to go into Main Bay View Road. Many times cars are stopped on Route 25 westbound in order to make a left turn onto Bay View Road. This presents an additional hazard for all other traffic. 4. Worst of all is Ackerly Pond Lane itself; a small primarily rural road which presents unique problems. Drivers seeking to exit this road face the mirror image of the problems already de- scribed, a). Much traffic on Route 25 making a_right or we.st- bound turn. The only logical choice. Many however, want to cross Route 25 to Main Bay View Road or to make a left to go eastbound on Route 25. b). The eastbound traffic coming over the crest of Willow, making Route 25 very difficult to see until traffic is virtually upon oneself. And c); Traffic exiting ~Page 5 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of John Senko Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. SPATES (Continued): from Main Bay View usually just slows at the intersection be- cause of the yield sign I mentioned. It does not stop and then proceeds. One does not know if that car is going to enter Route 25 eastbound meaning no left turn possible from Ackerly Pond Lane. Or if it is going to go across 25 onto ~ckerly Pond also meaning no left turn from Ackerly Pond Lane. Or thirdly; if that car is going to go left to enter Route 25 westbound precluding any turns at all from Ackerly Pond Lane. If all this seems confusing to you, it is. But is even more so to the driver who must face it. I ask you to not add to the confuSion which is there. Do not approve this varience. With so many problems in this area, the additional traf- fic would be unreasonable. To shift the cars onto Ackerly Pond Lane is no solution. The only solution is not to allow a 2,600 square foot retail store and office building on a piece of property which it is never meant to hold. And a lot with 31% insufficient area is not a small matter and the Board should consider any owner that lacks 31% of the requirements should expect to be turned down. I ask the Board not to allow the repetition of such commercial disas- ters such as the convenience store east of town to reoccur now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. State your name for us. The gentleman in the middle. MR. GREEN: I wasn't going to be quite that hard. I was going to ask that with this permit or if it's possibly given, that the Board stipulate that they leave a line of site open for the exit of Acker- ly Pond Road traffic. That means that there could be no advertising signs, no parking in the line of site of pedestrians, motor vehicles, bicycles exiting Ackerly Pond Road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: sir? Could you just state your name for the record MR. GREEN: The name is Richard Green. I live on Oak Lawn Avenue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Anybody elss ~ver here? MR. ROSS: Dan Ross for John Schalner. That's the applicant's neighbor to the west. In opposition to the application on three bases. One is traffic which has been brought into the applica- tion. As we heard tonight, the proposal is to increase from 2 to possibly 8 tenants on that parcel which would create a lot more traffic in an already hazardous traffic pattern there. The second reason is that I would urge the Board to consider the his- toric nature of the area. Joyce Baers booki Historic Homes, dis- cusses 4 of the homes in that very immediate vicinity. Three of which were built in the 1600'So Mr. Schalner's house was built in the early 1700's. That's something that should be considered in developing the area. The third most important matter is that there has been no hardship shown here. It hasn't been shown that the property is uneconomical to its use as it exists now. In'as Page 6 ~ October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of John Senko SoUthold Town Board of Appeals MR. ROSS (Continued) -. much as the code requires 1 acre for shopping centers, that does not seem unreasonable and adds a nonconforming use as exists now shouldn't be extended on the argument that it's under utilized. On that basis, we urge the denial of the application. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Mrs. Stantonbear. Pardon me ma'am. J0¥CE STANTON ~B[AR: I lived directly to the north. I don't now -- I own a piece of property directly to the north. I used to live there. As it has been discussed, I think traffic probably is the one biggest concern anybody who has a business in that area or property in that area or lives in that area. I am not sure how anyone could permit any sort of access onto the Main Road from that piece of property and feel good about it if you've, stopped there for an ice cream cone or you've ever gotten gas across the street. I think if the Board really consider thi,s, they should also consider shutting Ackerly Pond off to the Main Road and making sure that all traffic moving in the other direction to the North Road or something. It's not uncommon on a summers day to sit there for 10 or 15 minutes. And then for you to take a shot or decide to go the other direction coming out of that intersec- tion. It was at its best when there was a light there. At least you got your shot at it coming out of Ackerly Pond. Hopefully we're not looking at going back to something like that. We have enough street lights. I don't know. It's a lot that's been there for quite a while and it's operated and I think it's operated relatively well. It might be some consideration for some sort of exception. But when we turn and talk about .... I haven't seen the application. What sort of parking area are they going to de- sign? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you take one of these and if any- body else would like to look at it. Is there enough concern in the audience~ I assume there is that people would like. to re- cess for a couple of moments so you could look at this. Ok. i will ask the Board to grant a 3 minute recess at %his time. We will put a copy of these down so you can look at them. Ail in favor of recess - aye. Hearing continued at 8:50 p.m. f0]]0w- ing a three-minute break in the meeting. CHAIR$~N GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak against this application? Sir. MR. GREEN: I'd also like to make another comment. Most of your deliveries today come by trailer. Figure out how a trailer can adequately pull up the road, come into that establishment and deliver. Dage 7 v October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of John Senko SouthOld Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sir. I'm sorry. DR. SLOTKIN: I have the medical office across the street and it's where my office is located. And again, I just want to ex- press my concern about the traffic. If I'm not mistaken, when we applied for our vari nce, the Board did request that we move our access off of Ackerly Pond Lane and we've done that. And in fact, we've encouraged our patients to try to avoid the Main Road. My concern is with the excess traffic it would aggravate the al- ready dangerous situation that exists at the corner. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Peter. Just a little bit louder. PETER STOUTENBURG: A brief comment. If you look at the plans, has the Board seen an elevation to see how a piece of property with such a change of topography is going to parallel park to that property? I can understand the building having one entrance on one side for the second floor and the other side of the first floor. But it just appears as though on a piece of paper the parking might be nice and orderly. But when we're changing it on the place, I think it's got to be 15 feet (I think) from one end to the other for that small of an area. Just to make some sort of an elevation or some sort of a view particularly from the corner, might be quite interesting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I was going to ask Mr. Strang for a copy of plans of the building in hopes that they did in- clude the elevation. Anyone else? Mr. Strang. is there anything else you'd like to say? MR. STRANG: Yes I would. In response to your last comment about plans of the building, as of this point, the plans have been done in a very conceptual sketch from just taking up with a footprint of the building. Given the fact that we have various boards and hurtles to get over, I've advised my client not to incur exten- sive costs in designing the building which may not get necessarily all of the approvals. So we really haven't gone too far. However~ the concept is to regrade the front area of that property to ac- comodate the parking. There will be ~some topographic changes which will be presented to the Planning Board at the next meeting. And the elevation of the building (if you will) of the type of design of the building again, is going to be compatible with the historic nature of the Town of Southold. We're not going to do a contemporary building. We're going to do a building which I don't want to go so far as to say colonial will be very compati- ble with the surrounding architecture of the area. Some of the other points that were brought up this evening are very valid and I certainly can sympathize with all of them. There is a defi- nite traffic situation that exists. Whether this approval is granted, the traffic problems are still going to exist. If it is granted, it's not going toD .in my opinio~ make a significant ~if- ference in the traffic. I do agree with. the fact that there will be added cars entering Ackerly Pond and exiting Ackerly Pond. Rage 8 - October 2, 1986 Public ~earihg of John Senko Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. STRANG (Continued): Again, we're not looking at a King Kullen type of shopping center there or major strip store operation~that are going to have a tre- mendous amount of cars in and out every minute. We're looking at a small, complex. And again, the reason we did attempt to address the traffic problem adding the one principal ingress or egress on Ackerly Pond and limiting access to the Main Road was exit for westbound only. Principally for emergency vehicles. Essentially when we first got into this project, when we first sat down and started talking about it, the traffic control device was there and operational. It was (at that point in time} unbenounced to me that that traffic control was temporary only because of the detour on the Jockey Creek Bridge. I was under the impression that that traffic light was a permanent fixture. Obvi0u$]y~ it's now gone. I think, again regardless of whether this project pro- ceeds or does not proceed, is a lot of other deVelopment happening on the Main Road which is going to increase traffic. The state will have to, at some point in time, address a traffic control device at that intersection. I guess the point that I'm getting at here is; this project is not'going to have a signifi- cant impact on the traffic one way or the other. And to preclude this project from happening because the state hasn't addressed an on going and present traffic situation, I think is unfair to the owner of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you sit down Mr. Strang, can I ask you two things? Number 1; can we ask you please to submit to us the elevation plans (so to speak) or what you intend to sub- mit to the Planning Board at their next meeting. Secondly, can you please ask either the agent which I realize you are an agent for the owner, or the owner to be present at the next hearing~ So that we might ask him specific questions upon the use of the existing building. And at that particular time, if the Board sees fit, the Board will then close the hearing. I thank you very very much. I thank all the people that have come in to- night and spoken to us. We will go back and look at the proper- ty in the interim. I'm recessing this hearing with the date of October 22nd. It will be placed on that calender or roster. And hearing no further questions, recessing the hearing to that date. Ail in favor - aye. Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing. Nadia Moore 10/21/86 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF EUGENE BOZZO THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING 8:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3553 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of EUGENE BOZZO. (1) new dwelling with an insufficient setback from wetlands/tidal water; (2) relocate accessory ga- rage in front ?'~ard; (3) construction in excess of maximum permitted 20% lot coverage. South Side of Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey. Excuse me. A sketch of existing nonconforming dwelling garage. Again produced by Garrett Strang, dated August 5, 1986 showing the existing dwel- ling with movement and an existing garage to be relocated. And I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and sur- rounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard Mr. Strang? MR. STRANG: Yes. Thank you. The nature of this application is one in which my client met on some time back and he was discussing with me certain things he wanted to accomplish. One: of course he wanted to do some renovations of the interior of the building. But most important to him was to try and elevate the constant inun- dation of flood ~?~aters that he is experiencing. The nature of the area is such that in severe storms and unfortunately from the time that he purchased this house about 2 years agor we've experi- enced two of them. Both times he had from a foot to a foot and a half of water in the house. And storm Nelson in particular which did severe damage to his bulkhead which had to be replaced. So he his an immediate concern of how he's going to protect his house from any further damage in the future. The way in which we elected to address this concern was two fold. One was to raise the eleva- tion of the house. And secondly; was to pull the house further away from the Bay. That in any event that the bulkhead would be breached again a% some point in time in the future and if the storm were severe enough and erosion did occur behind the bulkhead that his house foundation wouldn't be damaged. So we are proposing to do just that. Number one; pull the house back away from the bulkhead approximately a distance of 20 feet. And secondly; ele- vate the house. We're probably looking at elevating the house from 3 to 4 feet. Just completed this week was an updated survey of the elevation of the house and it was referred to a bench mark. And the present first floor elevation is only 5 to 8 feet. The requirement by femor is 8 feet. So we have to be at least 8 feet and I would prefer to be even 9 feet. So in any event, we have to raise the house to do anything. That brings us to the point whereby moving the house, we now need to address the issue of getting the necessary approval of variance to construct (if you will) within the 75 foot setback from the bulkhead. We're going to be moving it back 20 so we are improving upon that condition. Page 2 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Eugene Bozzo So,%hold Town Board of Appeals MR. STRANG (Continued): The other situation which arises with respect to that is; his existing garage which has been there for some time, faces the wrong way. The garage doors themselves, fast to the east or onto the public beach as opposed to the road. It's his desire to, (basically) while the house mover is there moving his house, to ask them to pick the garage up and rotate it 90° as well.so the garage doors face the street and he can utilize the garage as it was intended. That now, since we're moving the garage, puts in front of you for relief from the fact that we have an accessory structure in the front yard which has always been there and he just wanted to rotate it around so it can be used. So we are asking for relief from that aspect. The third con- dition that exists there is both existing buildings that were on the site, the development of the site presently, exceeding the lot coverage. In that the present lot coverage is 21.7 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Percent. MR. STRANG: I'm sorry. 21.7%. Thank you. The part of the project of the renovation of the interior was the intention of adding a deck on the water or south side of the house in the area where the house is presently located after it's pulled back. So essentially, the deck itself would in no way be any closer to the bulkhead than the present building was. But by building this deck, we are increasing that lot coverage by 4%. Or basically, lot coverage would be, inclusive of the deck; 25%. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How big is that deck Mr. Strang? MR. STRANG: The deck will run the full width of the house which is about 25 feet and we are going to go out 12 feet with it. Ba- sically with the deck being limited to the 12 feet, will put the deck back (again) further than the present house is in relation- ship to the bulkhead. So essentially we are asking the Board's relief from those 3 items. The 75 foot setback requirement, the accessory use of the garage in the front yard and the lot cover- age percentage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The Board noticed that, of course, the garage is pretty much in the road. We'll take that first. Is there any reason why he does not choose to have the garage back a little bit further back towards the house? MR. STRANG: That was never discussed. I certainly will speak with him about that particular situation. Most of the garages in the area have been built and do exist right up in the road. Page 3 ~ October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Eugene Bozzo Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: were faced due west. It's my understanding that the garage doors MR. STRANG: East. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They're presently east. MR. STRANG: They're presently east. they'll face north of the street. When we rotate the garage, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think the least amount this Board has granted in a reasonable sense was 20 feet. He may choose to re- design that and turn them west which would allow ingress and egress to the garage without backing out onto the right-of-way. You might want to get back to us about a reasonable setback to see if he chooses to turn it to the north. MR. STRANG: Ok. So we can either rotate it and face the garage doors to the west and leave it in its present location or move it further onto the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In that particular case, I don't know how the Board would feel. But we would certainly not go~a!ong ~ith~.2 feet. It would have to be a little more reasonable other than 2 feet. Secondly; if he choose to put them to the north, it would have to be a substantial movement to the south. We are not trying to cause problems that already exist in that community of tremen- dously undersized lots. As you know, the park and playground area where the beach front is directly to the west of this. So there are constantly people walking in front of this property during the week or weekend at any time when it's a nice day going to the beach area. So we Would not want to have a hazardous problem exist there. Not that this gentleman would cause it but I think it would cause a unique situation other than the unique situation dealt with in that manner. Secondly; as for the deck. Would the deck be elevated above the... I should ask the question. How high would the deck be elevated? MR. STRANG: Ok. The intention was for the deck to be built flush or within 6 inches of the finished floor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: tion? So you're talking about a 3 or 4 foot eleva- MR. STRANG: Elevating the house, elevating the level of the deck to be near that elevation and then we would may be espiriting the exposure of 3 feet or so with lattice work or something of that nature. ~a~e 4 - October 2, 1986 PUblic ttearing of Eugene Bozzo Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. So if we close this hearing as far as this evening, I don't know if we should close it. Ok. We will close it then. We'll close it receiving the informa- tion from you and the possibility of which way he intends to turn the garage. And if we hear nothing from you, I'll 'make a suggestion and set it back 20 feet. So hopefully we will hear something from you. Not that we wouldn't hear something frOm you. Let's see what else develops during the hearing. I thank you sir. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the applica- tion? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further ques- tions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing pending a letter from Mr. Strang. Ail in favor - aye. Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing. Nadia ~4~ore 10/21/86 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF R©BERT EGAN THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 9:02 p.m. Appeal No. 3557 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of ROBERT E~J~N. (1) reconstruct dwelling with insuf- ficient total sideyards, insufficient [northwesterly] sideyard, and insufficient frontyard; (2) addition and reconstruction of dwelling within 75 feet of tidal wetlands, along Spring Pond, Orient Harbor. 330 Knoll Circle, East Marion (Gardiners Bay Estates) The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map again from Garrett Strang, dated September 5, 1986 indicating a proposed addition to be 2 feet on this existing lawn..'reduei~'g~.t~e~se~a~k.~om the bulkhead 40 feet plus or minus and a proposed deck which is to the south of that reducing the setback to (I believe that's) 33 feet plus or minus and an addition to the one side which again appears to be a reduction of one foot to 14 feet. And I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Again Mr. Strang, would you like to be heard. We're on a roll tonight with yours. MR. STRANG: I'll leave you alone after this one. The applica- tion in front of you is one in which essentially, this house is an old bungalow which was built quite some time ago. And it was not of much value structurally. Not that it's invaluable. It's valuable but the owner of the property intends to retire, not the distant future, and to relocate to this area and make it his permanent residence. He presently lives out of state. He has summered here for quite some time. The house as it is and it's layout and configuration, is not adequate for his put.poses. What he would like to basically do is tear th~ bungalow down to the foundation and rebuild a new structure which would have a proper living configuration to suit his needs on top of this existing foundation. Tow things that we are doing as part of this is extending the house towards (on one side) to what I'll say is south or the bulkhead side by cantalevering 2 feet over the foundation. And likewise, along what would be considered the easterl'y side, we're going to cantalever about a foot and a half over the existing foundation. In addition, if you look at the site plan; immediately behind the proposed deck, the area that's cross hatched in, that larger rectangle, is an inset on ~he present foundation which will be squared off and built over. So essentially, it will be constructing a rectangular house instead of what he has now which is a cottage or bungalow that had a series of additions and alter- ations and bumps and jogs all over the place. This is going to be a story and a half addition or construction. And the deck again, on the south side which goes out towards the bulkhead, will extend beyond the limits of the proposed addition by another Page 2 - October 2, 1986 PubLic Hearihg of Robert Egan Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. STRANG (Continued): 5 feet. That dimension that you made mention to, has a setback of 33. So this deck is actually 35. And this deck again, was elevated. It's at the level of the first floor of the house which is... The property does slope. As it is, the house, the finished floor of the house would probably be about 3 to 4 feet above the existing grade which it's pretty close to that now on the south side. And it would be in excess of 8 feet above the grade on the bulkhead side which is just a natural flow or lay of the land. The deck itself would be about 8 feet up in the air and· that's what necessitates the stairway that's projected on the eas~ end to get the grade. The concrete wall that's shown, has been there for years. I guess it served at one time, as a sea wall prior to the installation of the bulkheading which is these and relatively new and in serviceable condition. Again, we're at the point where the nature of the construction is such that we fall within the requirements of the setbacks. We have noneconforming setbacks on all sides. In two cases we are reduc- ing those. The front ~ard setback is being reduced almost insig- nificantly just by the nature of the fact we're extending even a foot and a half of the property where the house does lay so far to the property line. So we are reducing that setback to ..... TAPE ENDED INTERRUPTING REMARKS CHAIRMkN GOEHRINGER: 28? MR. STRANG: It shows to be 28. That would be the size. So I would assume that the existing is 29 or there about. The side yard setback was 13% according to the surveyor and it will now be 12 with that foot and a half setback at the closest point on the easterly side. The westerly side setback was existing at 5. It will remain as such. And the setbacks on the bulkhead side of the property essentially to the existing house or the existing foundation from the furthestJ most point that the bulkhead pro- jects out of the Spring Pond is about 70 feet. So that would be reduced to 68 with the cantalever section that that would take into account. Although, again, the cantalever section is 8 feet or better in the air and it doesn't go down to the ground. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: from? Do you have a survey that you.~re reading MR. STRANG: I have a site plan that you have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The same thing? MR. STRANG: It should be. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because mine says 14 on the east side. Page~ 3 ~ OctOber 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Robert Egan Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. STRANG: 14 feet is at the point where the deck is rotated at the property line. However, towards the road you'll notice that there was a 13.5 dimension as an existing setback at the corner of the house. As I mentioned, we're going to cantalever a foot and a half over that side. So it will be done at 12 feet. So at the closest point, we are 12 feet off the side line. Al- though again, it does fan out and increases yst ~fu~ther back on the site. I think in this case, the lot coverage does meet the requirement with all proposed additions as shown. So we're look- ing for those yard reliefs. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are aware that this Board is quite em- phatic about ingress and egress. Particularly on (I was looking at it) the south side and you're referring to it as the east side. And 12 feet is closest point and 14 as you go down a little bit further you have a stoop involved. And although that's not an actual part of the side yard, it does preclude the use of machinery to go down and either deal with the cesspools or the bulkhead or whatever the case might be. So I have no idea what the Board is going to feel about that particular area. We will be down there and remeasure it. I was down there Sunday. MR. STRANG: Presently the condition is 13½ feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you very much. I will see wD~at develops. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes sir. Could you state your name for us. MR. LONG: I didn't get a drawing so I don't... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You didn't see the drawing? MR. LONG: I haven't seen the drawing. CHAI~{AN GOEHRINGER: Could I have your name for the record sir. MR. LONG: Yes. Ralph Long. I'm a neighbor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now I marked up that drawing. If you want to look at the one underneath~i~ that's the one that's not marked up. Now if you'd like to study this for a couple of minutes of what you're looking at~ If the Board will indulge this again, we'll take a 2 minute recess. All in favor to recess - aye. Meeting was rec0nvened and hearing continued: MR. LONG: First indication we had of this change was when Mr. Regan mentioned it about a month or so ago. I think I let you, showed you his house when you were down there. If you look at the drawing, you'll see that his house is only 2 feet from the property line on one side. And I think any change, no matter what kind of a change it is, would be an improvement on that house. It seems like every time somebody wants to make a change, has to get a variance to make it whether it's for 2 feet, a foot Page 4 - October 2, 1986 ' Public Hearihg of Robert Egan Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. LONG (Continued): and a half, whatever. We do have a real estate commi~He there and I'm here on behalf of them and all I can do is~.~aice~an~.Job- jection to it. But we would be willing to discuss it further if we saw more of the plan. I can't make heads or tails of it. It looks like the proposed addition is just a little extra strip. Now you have it 40 feet from what? It's 40 feet from wha~ ~ MR. STRANG: From the existing foundation. It's 40 feet from the property line at the existing foundation. It's a canta- lever over that foundation by 2 feet. So we would grade rather than extend the foundation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just a minute. We are running into a lit- tle problem here. And that is; every question that you ask Mr. Strang, he has to react to and we can't get that on the tape. We can do one of two things here. We can recess that until the next regularly scheduled meeting or you can go out in the hall and discuss it with Mr. Stranq and come back in and voice any Other objection over and above what he might solidify for you° MR. LONG: I understand. I don't want to be here until 11 o'clock. Are you willing to do that? Can we recess for a couple of minutes or you take the next one and we'll come back after. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It depends how long Mr. Strang... have any o ~ections to that Mr. Strang? Do you MR. STRANG: I have no objections. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Are you going to supply us with any sort of plans on this other than what you've given us? MR. STRANG: I can give you the plans and elevations of the house which is shown (at this point and time) as nearly completed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Why don't we do that. Then we'll close this hearing after the next one and you can go out in the hall and discuss it with him or whatever you have to do. Ok? MR. LONG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing for about 20 minutes hopefully. Ail in favor to recess - aye. Ail in favor to reconvene - aye. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: name. I apologize. Sir, would you like to speak? I forgot your PAge 5 - October 2, 1986 Public ~Hearing of Robert Egan Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. LONG. After going over this blueprint, on behalf of the association and as a neighbor, we have no objection whatsoever. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Thank you very much for voicing your concern and I'm glad we could do it expeditiously without having to recess or something. Is there anything else you'd like to add Mr. Strang, for the record? MR. STRANG: No. I think we've pretty much touched base on everything there as it was presented. I appreciate your concern about the access adjacent to the building and lot line. But again we did try to keep that expansion and the need for the variance to a minimum. Obviously it's down to a foot and a half. So I'll ask the Board's consideration on that. If there's any question, I'd happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think so. Alright. Thank you. Thank you for speaking to the association. Hearing no further comment, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving the de- cision until later. Ail in favor - aye. Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing. Nadia Moore ...... 10/21/86 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR ~H~RSD~Y, OCTOBER 2~ 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 9:25 p.m. Appeal No. 3487SE - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR. Special exception to con- struct and establish House of Worship with related religious activities on a five-acre tract referred to as Lot ~3, Minor Subdivision of S. Catapano which received sketch Pl. an~.ap.pr~ov.~l 4/14/86 by the Town Planning Board. W/s Main Bayview Road, Southold. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey which shows the 5 acre parcel, March 6, 1986 in question which has 142.19 feet on Bayview Road or what we refer to as Main Bayview Road. I've seen in the application in reviewing it several times, a copy of the subdivision plan approximately 22.95 acres of which this one lot of which is dated October 15, 1985 being lot 93; shown indicating a building envelope of 50 feet from the south side, 75 feet from the north side and approximately 150 feet in width. A copy of a pencilled in, colored in area indicating the building which now shows a distance from the south of 111 feet as phase one construction and 60 feet from the north side approximately north. It's a little more to the west. No. It is almost due north. And I have a copy of the site plan dated June 25, 1986 indicating the building plus a little bit further to the rear is the one prior that I just read. Again, a simi- lar type of building and parking spaces so on and so forth. And I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there anybody who would like to be heard? I think it's Mr. Caminiti. Would you like to be heard on this matter? MR. CAMINIT'I: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, Mr. Lessard. This is a big evening for us tonight. As you can tell, there are a number of people from the church. They're not all going to speak but they are here to indicate their support for the application. We have been waiting a long time for this tonight. So we are somewhat excited about it. So our enthusiasm shows. I see also though unfortunately, some other faces that I don't know. I might as well address that issue right now. I have reason to believe that there is some~'~opposition. Unfortunately, in cases of this nature there is opposition. But the law is very clear in New York and in the constitution of the United States I'd like to make two points in this regard. I don't think it's necessary to go through the application because it's fairly clear. We're making an appli- cation for the house of worship with all the specifications. All the activities, everything we need are completly in the fila. Of the two points that I would like to make, the first point is this; under the town code, under section 30 sepcifically, numerates the permitted uses in A-Residential zone. And in section B of that same section, it clearly states that the following uses are per- mitted as special exceptions. The code lists 14 categories. And it starts off with the most advantageous use of the property and Page 2 - October 2, 1986 Public H~arin~ of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITt (Continued): that is two-family. The second is a place of worship. And than it goes on to colleges, libraries, hospitals, nursing rest homes, sanitarians, fraternity houses, golf courses, recreation camps, labor camp, (if you so wish) docking facilities, stables, ceme- taries and wineries. What I would like to call to mind is, we are making an application for a house of worship which is the second most on the list. The most advantageous use of the proper- ty that it be used... It's not for a labor camp. It's not a sanitarian. And in this regard, I'd like to make one point, if I may be permitted to read something from Mr. Andersen and his book on zoning as far as what may be permitted. I'd like to have him treat this bluntly. It subsequently pointed out in his book that I can't elaborate any better on it and it reads; the courts re- peatedly emphasize a high purpose and morale of religious insti- tutions. The contributions of religious use to the public welfare is regarded as beyond discussion or dispute and the fostering rather hindering of such uses is considered to be the established policy of this state. It logically follows that zoning regula- tions which must be reasonably related to help safety, morals or public welfare, are difficult to justify when they propose limi- tations on a religious use. The constitution of the United States and the State of New York guarantee freedoms of religion. Reli- gious uses are unique in their management. Of this application, the courts have invoked these sections and support decisions which limit municipalities to impose zoning regulations upon churches and their institutions. If you will bear with me, it goes on just a little further. Religious uses possibly to a greater extent that is true of most uses, must be centrally located. Commonly, they serve a limited primary area. The efficiency of their service would be impaired if they were required to locate in places incon- venient or unaccessable to their members. In addition, they serve neighborhoods by providing a meeting place for civic and charita- ble groups. Some of these events can be achieved only if the building which houses the use is within walking distance of homes. The need for a central residential location has set religious uses apart and justify special treatment. If a religious use if broadly defined, it may include schools, recreational facili- ties which do produce traffic, noise and litter luxurious to a residential district. The second point I think really is the crux of the matter inas far as there is opposition from adjacent neighbors. And again reading from Anderson the next point, con- siderations of what he is discussing, section 121 of our code, He says; these considerations presently are not relevant where religious use is involved. A permit for a religious use may not be denied because the use will be detrimental to the neighborhood and the neighbors thereof. The church may not be excluded simply because it will have an adverse effect on the land values in the vacinity. The high purpose and moral value far out weiqh losses of a few persons. And there is no other inconveniences or insufficent basis for a denial of a permit. A special permit for a religious use may not be denied on the ground that the use will generate traffic, congestion or that it will diminish property values. So I felt those two points should be made right from the Page 3 ~ October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINIT'! (Continued): beginning so that they can be kept in mind as the hearing pro- gresses. The balance of time remaining to us; we would like to break into 3 segments if it pleases the Board. Number one; our pastor, Pastor Hansen would like to address the Board and introduce some of the members that will explain to the Board about our church and very briefly indicate why we're here, where we came from and what we expect. And then the second segment we have a parish where we are presently located, Mr. Mulgraff who would like to read a short statement into the record. And then there are one or two other people that would like to indicate their support for the application who are from the Grange Road and Bayview area section. And finally if the Board has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to ask you one question Mr. Camini~ . This is a question I've never asked anybody. We have had this room inundated with people probably at the point of 150 maybe 200 people when we had an application for windmill towers in Orient. I'm going to ask you a question and I'm going to ask you to think about it during the period of time that the remaining people and part of the congregation are speaking. I'm going to ask you how you can best tell us how we can grant this application to you and I will further expound on that towards the end of the hearing. Ok. But this is something that is rather difficult for us to deal with. There is screening involved here. There are noise level areas that we have to deal with. And I want you to think about that and see what you can do to help us in granting an application of this nature. MR. CAMINITI: I think I can give the answer now Mr. chairman. Section ]00-30 of special exceptions indicate... Paragraph indi- cates the permitted uses in an A zone. Paragraph B shows the following uses are permitted as a special exception which means that with your approval. That's why we're here, for you to grant this special permit. It is specifically permitted. The next sentence is the important part. Subject to site plan approval. Why we're here is to have you say yes. Under the law you're al- lowed to build a house of worship in a B zone but we have to regu- late how it's going to be done. These are all subjects, all areas for site plan approval. At that time we can discuss buffers, light- ing, location, any limitations that are within reason can be dis- cussed and final. Everybody can have input on it. At this point, I see no reason a special application, special exception can not be granted subject to site plan approval. At that time, whatever the objections are, whatever problems there are... Page 4 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean site plan approval by the Plan- ning Board? All right. I thank you and we'll continue. I just want to say to the people that are in the audience, and I apolo- gize for interrupting the people who are going to speak and pos- sibly change somebody's train of thought and I am not doing that intentionally. There are certain people in the audience that are waiting for decisions tonight and I doubt seriously if we are going to get anywhere. I 'know I see Mr~ Warwick in the rear of the room. I see the gentleman from Metro Electric in the front of the room. And I doubt seriously if we're going to get to any of those tonight. And not totally because of the length of this hearing, but because we do have one hearing after this one. And the only application that I know we will be voting on tonight is the application out in New Suffolk. I believe the name is Thomas Shalvey. So if you're here to wait, we'll not be dealing with anything other than that (to my knowledge) tonight. MR. HANSEN: Good eveningoMr, chairman and members of the Board. I am a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and I'm also a gradu- ate of the Boston University. I earned my master of divinity de- gree from Gordon Cahnwell. We are evangelicals. We are members of the national association of evangelical of 32,000 evangelist churches in the United States with a constituency of 10 million people. So we are not just some little group on the coin. We are Christians. We are bible reading Christians. We love the lord Jesus Christ.- The god of whom it serves and to whom I repre- sent tonight who are natives of heaven and earth of whom has said the earth is the lords and the followers thereof, would like to use 5 acres of his land. That it is why we are here. And I know it sounds like a big thing but we have a building on one tenth of an acre. We are purchasing 5 acres. Fifty times more than what we have. On some Sundays we have to ask people to stay outside. 160 people at the Sunday service, that is a lot of people to cramb into a little building. You understand. So this building now sits on 75% of it's property. We are seeking to build on 4% of 5 acres. These things are not unreasonable. They're absolutely within our rights. They're god given privileges as well as our constitutional privileges. The amendment to the constitution that congress will make no law restricting an establishment of religion. New York State does not have a church incorporation code. It has a religious incorporation code. It has a broad, a wide reading as interpreted by the state. I know this because we had to do this time and time again with the state. In their application in 1981 for special exception, it was granted to us to be there. We have grown. God has blessed us. The people of the community I know have profited from the ministry there and they also would like to. And I'd just like them all to stand (if they would) and show those that are here from the church. They are in favor of going ahead with this project. You guys may all be seated. The rest are home watching their children or their elderly or something like that. But I do ask that you look favorably upon what is my life's work. I have put all my energy since I came here in 1976. Working in a shipyard, start- ing bible study in a shipyard. The church grew from that base. We had no outside support. The-money raised from this land for the purchase doesn not come from yard sales, bake sales, anything. Page 5 -~Octo~er 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. HANSEN (Continued): It was the free gifts of the people of Southold Town that want us to go ahead. I'd just like to say that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Pastor. that would like to speak? Who is the next person MR. CAMINIT~: I believe Mr. M'algraf would like to read a short statement into the record. MR. M~LGRAF~ : No. I'm not a member of the church but we have been neighbors since 1979 when I first rented the building from the Grange and we've found them and considered them to be most cooperative as neighbors. I own the building next door. I work in my shop every day. I remained in my house for two days and I've got no complaints to the church, children, meetings, study, worship or anything else that's going on over there. I just want you to know that I'm in favor of this church being granted a spe- cial exception to build a house of worship. I hope that they sell the facility and the new neighbors will be cooperative as they've been. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. MR. CAMiNITI: Miss Jane Bender would like to make a br~e~f state- ment also Mr. chairman. MiSS BENDER: I just want to state that my husband and i have purchased a lot on Grange full- we~T: ~ knowing that the church intends to be built almost directly behind our house and we feel that it's a good use of the land and that we have no objection. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: your name. Thank you very much. Sir. Kindly state MR. BENDER: John Bender. Rather than go through a rebuttal later on, you addressed the noise level. And if you would care to come up to my house some Sunday morning and you want to hear a noise level with little sons of parents riding their motor bikes across this area and the constant pounding of air cannons and water can- nons, I would just assume hear a little choir and carolling. MR. CAMINIT~I: Sandy Kaiser (Mr. chairman) would also like to speak. MS. KAISER: My name is Sandra Kaiser. My family and I live across the street from Grange Road. We've lived there for a good many of years. As a matter of fact, the land the church is now hoping to build on was once owned by my grandfather. We have no objection to this church and school becoming part of the neighborhood. As a matter of fact, we welcome it. For many years my family has been associated with local education and there can be no two finer as- pe~ts of stability in the neighborhood than a church and school and we really are in favor of such a thing. And I can attest to what Mr. Bender said. The other Sunday evening when I took a walk Page 6 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. KAISER: (Continued): on Grange Road to visit a friend, there was a motor bike going back and forth and some sort of a gathering at a house with loud music. So there is noise there and I think that the as- pect of a church and schohl being run by responsible people who do care about the area that they're in and they are responsive to the criticisms or feelings of the neighbors and they are al- so caring about the way the children would behave. So we're in favor of this coming into our area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. MR. CAMINIT'I: I don't know of anybody else that I know of that would speak before the Board tonight. But by all means if any- body in the audience wants to speak on our behalf may do so. If not, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Board might have at this time or if there's no on ~else to speak. I know the time is getting late. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you just tell me how far away from the south property line you intend to build the church. The reason why I ask is I have 110 feet on one application and I don't have any footage on the other, on the actual site plan I believe which was submitted to the Planning Board. You don't necessarily have to give me that right away. MR. CAMINITI.': It's 5 acres. And we've been back there and it's extremely, appears to be flat. And originally, we thought we could just locate the church as far away as possible from the back yards of the people on Grange Road. And it's not that we haven't given it some consideration. We did before we even contemplated buying the land and we did send out letters and have a joint meet- ing with all the people on Grange Road. And our plans were openly discussed with them and we indicated to them just about where we intend to place the building. The final site plan you have takes into consideration the contours of the land. We were hoping that we could utilize the natural contours of the land by putting in a lower ground floor that would accomodate the handicap so that we could have an entrance from the ground leve~ right into the ground floor very similar to the special exception and the plan that was granted to the Mattituck Community Fellowskip~wheze ~hey do have access to the ground level without the benefit of an elevator. I don't know what the final results were there but that is basical- ly why the site plan was submitted in the form that it was. I be- lieve the distance from Grange to the back house would be between 2 to 3 hundred feet from the rear of anybodys house. And the~way the church is presently contemplated, it's going to be a sufficient distance. That's not a final site plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. ~ ~lso thank the group of people here tonight for their courtesy and I thank Mr. Caminiti fOm~3Placing groups of people to speak rather than having each individual pe~.son speak and I think that was extremely helpful. Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application. Mr. Cron? Page 7 - October 2, 1986 Public H~ari~g of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals RICHARD CRON ESE: Mr. chairman, members of the Board. I'm here to represent a group of property owners that border on the proposed use of this property. And that is to wit: the various owners that live in the Grange Road ar~a~ I can agree with Mr. Caminit~? when he had indicated that there axe people that he doesn't know. I share the same sentiment. I think it's wonderful that the people that are present here reflecting their support for this particular project. However, I want to make it especially clear to the Board and to the people present that I'm not here in terms of speaking' on a religious issue for that is not the issue that is coming before this Board. I will be the last person to stand here or on any other occasion and speak against god. That is not the issue here. The issue is one of zoning. The issue is one of a proposed Use of land. The issue is one as to whether the application as it is presented to the Board, is one which this Board can grant under the zoning ordinance. i would like to rephrase your question to Mr. Caminiti and then I will answer your question. And that is; how can I best serve the Board by showing the Board why it can't grant the application. The application as it is proposed, is under section 100-30B2 which is a section that exists under article 3 which is the residential section of the zoning ordinance. What the applicant's seeking is a special exception to (and his notice has indicated) construct a house of wor- ship. Now within that area, there are a treat number of other pro- posed uses. However, if the Board looks at the application itself, it is clearly confined to section 100-30B2. The other uses that would be forth coming, i would submit, would have to come under I00-30B3. The Board is confined and subject to what the ordinance says. I am well aware of what the New York State Constitution pro- vides. I'm well aware of what the United States Constitution pro- vides in terms of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. I am also well aware of what the courts have said in terms of religious uses and how they construe them. However, the courts also go further and are no~ oblivious to the fact that reasonable rules and regulations promulgated under a zoning ordinance in order to control land use in terms of the public health, safety and welfare and comfort of the general community are clearly recognized and can be applied if they are fair and reasonable. I submit to you that the proposed uses of the land would require a total of 12 acres of land use. You're going to ask me how i arrived at that and I'm going to tell you. Under a house of worship since it's in a residential area, it requires a total of 80 thousand square feet or approximately (under our ordinance) 2 acres. Excluded from a house of worship is a parsonage which is eventually a proposed use by the applicant. Since it's excluded, it too would have to have its own 80 thousand square feet of land area or approximately 2 acres. So there you're required 4 acres of land use. I would, submit to you, if you would examine the site plan~ on the southwest corner there is a parcel delineated of a size which is obviously less than 2 acres or 80 thousand square feet as being a proposed parsonage area. Now this is all on this 5 acres of land. On top of the 5 acres, the application also seeks a number of school type of institutions. Now you can talk about these as being church related. You can talk about them as non-public. Or as the ordinance says, they're educational institutions. The point being is that the ordinance clearly delineates that if you're going to seek as a special exception a school of whatever nature it is, you're going to have to comply with the requirements of section 100-30B. And that section Page 8 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of the Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CRON: (Continued): requires that if you're going to have a school of any nature, you're going to have to have 5 acres of land plus one additional acre for every 25 students. If my recollection serves me in terms of what was indicated to the Planning Board as the anticipated pupil capacity of the project which I believe was somewhere be- tween 14 or 15 students per classroom with the site plan or the drawing that accompanied the site plan, indicating a total of 5 classrooms, you're somewhere in the area of 70 or 75 students. That being the case, you're going to require 3 additional acres on top of 5. So you've got 8 for the school~ 2 for the parsonage and 2 for the house of worship. The 5 acres clearly will not do the job and I understand what the applicant is doing and it's nice work if you can get it. But they're packaging everything under a house of worship and you may be able to argue that. I'm not saying that you can't. However, our ordinance specifically says you can't. Now I think you as a Board, are obligated to follow the dictates of the zoning ordinance and you can't seek all the things that the ap- plicant is seeking under the B2 special exception because B3 re- quires you use special exception with respect to the school. Another factor that has to be considered is; that since the land area would be totally insufficient to do all the things that the applicant seeks. An area variance would be required. Now you're going to run into a lot of difficulty. Because the area variance that would be sought would be so substantial that (in my opinion) the Board could not legally grant it. It would be going contrary to the spirit and purpose of the ordinance. It would require (if you ex- cept my argument) approximately a 60% deviation from what the or- dinance would require which would be very substantial. The case law of the State of New York also recognizes that when you're deal- ing with zoning ordinances, you can impose reasonable rules and regulations which are intended to promote the public health, wel- fare and safety of the community. And~when you're dealing in areas of side yard, front yard and height and area, you (the Board) are bound by the dictates of the ordinance. Oh sure, you can make in- substantial deviations by nothing which is going to not promote the public health, welfare and safety of the community. I would refer the Board to the ordinance itself in terms of what the powers and duties of this Board are under section 100-121 and those specifical- ly that deal with special exceptions. The Board can't disregard those specific requirements. I understand some of the cases in terms of what they indicate, has to be the leniency or so called leniency that you would give to areas of noise and so forth. That may be fine with the church use. ~I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is your ordinance which says you must give consideration to all those areas in determining the application. Under A, you have got to give recognition to the change in the character of the area by virtue of the particular land use. You've got to give (by the Board) the consideration to the conservation of property values. I'll conceive that that may be a difficult thing to es- tablish at this point but there is the possibility that the land and the residences in the vacinity of the particular application Page 9 - Octo~ber 2, 1986 Publlic Nearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Tovrn Board of Appeals MR. CRON: (Continued): would lose their marketability value. In which event, the next step down is the loss of market value. You can't marke~ some- thing when the price goes down. You've got to consider what ef- fect the vehicular traffic will have in terms of congestion in the area. There's a whole group of things. I would venture to say that from A to I, there must be at least 9 of those that this Board would have to consider in terms of ruling ~on this application. I just don't think that the Board can grant the application as it is proposed on the basis of the fact that sufficient land does not exist to do all of the things that they propose. In addition, I have no ~dea what the applicant proposes with respect to the 40 by 80 building which is in another phase. It's clear that on the basis of what the applicant proposes under B2, they're only locking at 40 parking spaces. That doesn't consider at all the parking that might be available for the parish or the school. It's strictly the number of parishoners that are anticipated which I think they indi- cate to be 200. I think in the light of what I have said, I think the Board has to look 'at this as being an application that strictly confine to section B2. There is no application pending for a school under B3. There is no applicaiton pending for a variance from area requirements. Which in fact in my opinion if it were made, I don't think you could grant it. So I hope that in terms of what I have indicated, it may be of some direction to the Board. In futherance of the things that I've said, I secured an expert opinion from Ed- ward Hinderman, the former Building Inspector which I ask toi'be made part of the record. Thank you. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? Excuse me just one second. Would you like to take a l°ok at this affidavit that Mr ..... What I'm going to do at this time, if you don't mind, is recess for approximately 5 minutes and let Mr. Strang finish his hearing if you don't mind. Mr. Strang let me just recess this and I'll be right with you. ,10:08 Two,minute recess(t.o =:continue with Egan hearing). 1,0 10 FivE~,mi~n-ut~.e break in metering. 10:15 Church of Open Door Hearing reconvened. CHAIRM~AN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Caminit , could I have that back. That which I have given you. I'll give you a copy of it if you'd like. (Mr. Caminiti paused for ~ few minutes.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any time you're ready. MR. CA34INITi~: I have so many th0ughtsthat are on my mind at this point Mr. chairman, And'three years ago, I~ probably would have some fire coming out of my n0stri]s ~0n what I heardl I can't believe the prep0sterous idea that he just proposed 12 acres. If he wants us to buy 12 acres, take ~ 12 acres back there, we'd be more than happy to do that. He's complaining abOutfive acre$.~ We Want ~ Pag~ 10 - October 2, 1986 Public Hsari~g of Church of the Open Door Southo!d Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI (Continued): to put 12. We'll gladly put 12. We're operating out of a lit- tle school right now. One tenth of an acre. We'd be more than happy to do that. But we're not here to insight or to argue. We love our neighbors. We love the.people on Grange Road. We want to accomodate them. Some day I hope that this Board per- mits, we will move our church down there and some day I hope that they'll even attend our services and our parishoners will welcome them with open arms~.~ I want to address this to a point of view that we have Mr. Hinderman's letter. Let the record show that Mr. Hinderman is not here. He can not be cross examined. I won't go into Mr. Hinderman's record. The record speaks for itself. He states that it's his opinion only that he blatantly indicates in paragraph 2 that section 100-30 permits houses of worship and underlines the word only. It does not say that. It says it specifically authorizes special exception for the construc- tion of a house of worship. What does the case say about house of worship? What is a house of worship? I'll quote you cases that I just happen to have. It just so happens these happen to be New York cases. They're all public cases. What is a church or house of worship? It's been held that the term is not to be so narrowly construed as to limit strictly to formal worship and the use of the premise for the construction or establishment of a church. But on the contrary, it is to be considered to be broad enough to include a permit of related activities such as a men's and women's social club, religious teaching and training, use of the premise for cor- porate meetings, meetings for girlscouts and boyscouts, Sunday schools, kindergarten and p!ayschool facilities for children, pro- visions for sleeping quarters for retreatants and parking accomo- dations. An example: see ~ommunity Synagogue vs. Bates a 1956 caseo Diocese of Rochester ws. Planning Board, 1956. Zoning or.di- nances permit the use of property in a residential district for a church or similar place of worship, parochial school, rectory, con- vent, see section: held that the comtemplated use of the estate is permitted by the ordinance. And that since, there is nothing to indi- cate that such would adversely effect the health, safety and morals o~ general welfare of the town, the Zoning Board would be directed to is- sue a certificate. A mere statement that health, morals and public welfare is at stake, is a general statement and there's nothing in the record to indicate that a church would indicate any moral decay of this town. When you're fighting beer parties, you're fighting distribution of p0~ and everything else that goes on, you strip away the proVado and you strip away all the legal arguments. What are we complaining about? A school of 24 kids that they are laugh- ing. Is that what they're objecting to? People, kids are going to laugh and scream in the playground. That seems to be their basic objection is that they're against the school. I want to continue. The courst said that the uses proposed can, within the true intent of the ordinance, they can permit places of worship. Schools and it allows buildings for a community looking for the purpose of re- ligious study, education and followship. Stark's appeal, the build- ing in the rear of a Roman Catholic church is sleeping quarters for retreatants was upheld by the court. Another case, common law sis- ter's home was to be considered an intrical part of any Roman Catho- Page 11 - October 2~ 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI: (Continued): lic church project. Another case, in terms of the zoning ordi- nance, churches were permitted in residence district. And para- graph 10 of 211 for accessories to buildings, upheld at the Board's discussion, granted the permit, was consistent with the Board's interpretation of section paragraph of parking allows for church members and staff was ok. I have a couple left. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you furnish the Board with copies of those actual cases? MR. CAMINIT I: I would be happy to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ('6;hange:d~,~t~¢ Tape 3.) Thank you. MR. CAMINITI: The word package deal was mentioned in the oppo- sition. Diocece of Rochester where the court would refrain to so called package deals submitted at an application by a church organization for a permit to build a class A residential. The church being more than merely an edifice affording the people an opportunity to worship god. The court said a church is more than merely an edifice affording the people the opportunity to worship god. Strictly religious uses and activities are more than prayer. And sacrificing all churches recognizing that the area of their responsibilities are broader in leading the congre- gation of prayer. Churches have always deviated social groups for adults and youth for the fellowship of the congregations with the result of a parish, church or school. All these cases, I don't make these cases up. These are reported cases of public cases. I think Mr. Cr0n's silence in referring to these cases, screams out loud. You can't disregard them. This is the law of the State of New York. The law, the law of the United States, the law for 2,000 .years. 2,000 years unfortunately, is on my mind because for 2000 Y~rs people have opposed churches and for 2000.y~ars, they've not been successful. And to this day, there is not one city, one little town that hasn't had the same argu- ments raised. They have no approval and this town certainl~'~(I think) is bounded by the tradition of the United States. If this town wants to be the first to say no to God, fine. The notoriety will go forth and I don't think we could ever come to grips with that. Mr. Cron says he doesn't want to a~gue against God. He is arguing against God, I'm sorry to say. When he stands there and opposes the application of a house of worship on a novel idea that we need 12 acres, I'd like to point out the very section 121 that he reads. He didn't read all of it. Let me read you Article I. I beg your pardon. It's Article L. It lists A through K whether the use is incidental; obnoxious gas, electrical dis- charges. But in L, the last item says; is the use to be .... Under the use to be operated ms unreasonably near a church or school or a theatre. So all your previous paragraphs A through Page 12 - Octgber 2, 1986 Public H~aring of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINIT I (Continued): L were all for one purpose. That's to protect the church, pro- tect the school. You don't want these other items close to the school. 121 absolutely gives the Board the right to look at the questions on a site plan. It gives the Planning Board the right to look at it to see that these various parts of the site plan do not interfer with the church, do not interfer with the school. Not to be against the church or the school. I don't want to go on. The reason that I made the two points that I made, I read from Anderson. Let me make this point. Every field of endeavor has a bible. We have a bible that we follow. The zoning has a bible. And~as far as I know, this is the lead- ing authority. This is the bible for zoning. Robert M. Anderson, New York Zoning and Practice. He devotes a whole chapter on uses of land by religious institutions. I read the pertinent parts and each one was called to your attention. The cases they they site with respect to zoning restrictions, New York adheres to the majority view. Majority view that religious institutions are beneficial to the public welfare by their very nature. Consequently, a proposed religious use should be accomodated even when it would be incon- venient for the community. There is a case in 1983; Unification for all Christians against Roosevelt. An~0ther case application. Garden City Jewish Center Diocese of Rochester which there are more than 40, for a religious use permitted in a residential district only after a permit. A permit can not be withheld solely on the ground that the use may compound traffic problems. First West- minister Presbyterian, have a community church and are permitted to construct a church and a parochial school may not be denied solely on the gro~_that the use will create traffic. State of New York against Miller, ~mmunity Synagogue vs. Bates also with mention to religious uses, there's a whole paragraph on it. The church is merely more than an edifice supporting people. Again quoting the Diocese of Rochester. Consistent with this view, activity related to the purpose of a religious organization is a religious use. The concept has been held to include the~churCh itself, a parish house, a convent, a parochial school, recreational facilities and accessory parking areas. The very package deal that we are talking about. The same conclusion was reached in the case for a school for teaching of secular projects. Subjects operated as an intriCal part of the synagogue. Westbury Hebrew Congregational against Dowser - 1969 directly and to the point. Let me just read you something also very important. Faith of Today, Inc. 1952. An organization engaged in conducting televised religious services and operated a religious correspondence school and acquired a building in a residenital district and remodelled it to include an office and a stuido. Equipped the office with postage meters, address-a- graphs, offset press. The organization sought a permit for further remodelling to add a print shop, storage room, bible classrooms, kitchen and dining room. The 0rde.r~ was denied. The special permit was denied. However, the A~pe]late' Division-Second Department, this department Suffolk County reversed the court and the Board holding that the ordinance did not prohibit the philantrophic or elemontinary corporation from carrying.out its functions in the manner proposed. The court of appeals affirmed that in their opinion. The highest court in the state affirmed. That was 1960. Page 13~- October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINIT I (Continued): Faith of Today, Inc. Application for Faith of Today, Inc. gives a parental judicial sanction to use of commercial and even indus- trial equipment by the religious organization. So that's the law we're faced with. Those are the regulations. That's the zoning that we have and that's the law that we must follow today~ Any other departure from that is setting new law. Setting new law in the entire country. We've been in touch. You're going to in- timidate, I'll intimidate. We've been in touch with many organi- zations. We're a member of the national association of evangi- cals. They're looking for a test case. By golly if this town wants to adhere to regulation of a religious use by zoning to come up with 12 acres for a proposterous little school that has 24 students, we'll make history. One other point. I would like Mr. Hinderman's letter to be reviewed by town coun ~1. I would like that to be reviewed. It's blantantly in error. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any~.0bJ-ect-~0n tb that, Sir? MR. CRON : I have no objectiOn. I find it interesting that Mr. Caminit~ seems to think that I'm opposing that which is pro- posterous. I think it's the zoning ordinance that has the require- ments which obviously he feels that he would not wish to fulfill. Let me take each of some of his things that he has said in the least of importance first. That I consider to be of the least im- portance because I did not propose that 12 acres had to be secured. I'm saying that the ordinance seems to dictate in the way the or- dinance is written, that you would require 12 acres for that which they seek to do. Period. And I'm not making this a religious is- sue that Mr. Caminiti would seem to like me to do that. It's strict- ly a zoning issue. It's strictly what the ordinance provides. That's the law that you're faced with. If you want to construe of the cases in the courts of the State of New York, that's fine too. But I'm saying to you the~ law that you're stuck with is the law that you've got in front of you. The Southold Town zoning or- dinance. And I say that that ordinance shows you've got to do cer- tain things and that the applicant has got to do certain things, when he wants certain things. Mr. Caminit~ referred to letter L in the 100-121 powers and duties of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I don't know how he reached the distorted conclusion that since L provides that you must take into consideration in granting a special exception, churches etc., that are in the surrounding area. I thought thiS. was an attempt to create one. Not to put something where one already exists. Now going back to one of the more cru- cial issues of the case. Mr. Caminit~ refers to the fact that the house of worship incorporates a number of things and I don't dis- pute that. The case in the courts seem to indicate that. However, we're not dealing with zoning ordinances here in which that is the only provision of the ordinance. His argument may have some merit if the only thing in the ordinance says a house of worship may be granted by special exception. You might get away ~ith that argu- ment. However, we go one step further in our ordinance. Our town fathers in adopting the ordinance says, hey; we're going to look Page 14 - October 2, 1986 Public ~eari~.g of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CRON (Continued): into the uses that are going to be employed in the terms of the special exception. One of which is the house of worship which re- quires (in an A zone) 2 acres. The second special exception is that which deals with the school_ and there is no delineation of what a school is defined as. As far as I'm concerned, a rose by any other name is still a rose. A school is a school and it does not fall within the ambit of the special exception of the house of worship. Now if you want to over rule your own ordinance, if you want to find your own ordinance unconstitutional in its appli- cation, that's your perogative. I can't stop you. But the ordi- nance says you've got to treat them separately. And if you've got to treat them separately, they can't do what they want to do with the application that's pending before this Board. Is is simply that simple. You can broaden it all you want. But Mr. Caminity's argument would then reach the logical conclusion that the land re- quirements in terms of the public health and safety and welfare, is such that you dan do anything you want if you're a religious organi- zation, on 2 acres of land. That's what he's proposing because that's all the ordinance would require him. to do. If his argument is to stand, he can put his parsonage, he can put his house of wor- ship and he can put his school which incidentally, by their own ad- mission, is not 24 students. I understand when they appeared before the Planning Board, they already had 48 and they anticipated approx- imately 70 or 75. But be that as it may, that's what you've got to deal with. And you can address all[i of the case laws in the State of New York as to what's incorporated in a house of worship. That's wonderful. But your zoning ordinance tells you what you've got to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Cron . Mr. Caminiti~ dO you have anything to say before we close the hearing? MR. CAMINIT%: That's exactly the point I'm making. It's a religious institution. All the cases. Anderson and his book, the two points I initially raised. There is that special consideration that is given to churches, religious institutions, in zoning. Paragraph B says very clearly the following uses are permitted in an A residential zone. Places of worship. What is a place of worship? We discussed that. It includes everything in the package deal provided it meets with site plan approvals and meets with all the other regulations of safety, traffic and so forth and we're willing to address that issue in our site plan approval. We're here only for special ex- ception. The only two requirements are no building shall be erected nearer than 50 feet to any street. We're not nearer than 50 feet and the total area is 20 feet. Paragraph 3; and Mr. Cron is insistant that we be ~s ~a private school. We are not a private school. We are not a college. It says or other institutional edu- cational institution. It says any such school. Paragraph c shall be a not for profit corporation within the meaning of internal reve- nue. We are not a not for profit educational school under the mean- ing of internal revenue. What is a ministry? A ministry of the church and it is not a private school. It sometimes is called a Christian school and it is sometimes called parochial school. It Pa~e 15 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearimg of the Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINIT¥I (Continued): is sometimes called jewish school. I don't know what you call it but it is a ministry of the church. It is not a private school in no stretch of the imagination. No amount of badgering is going to make it a private school. It is a ministry of the church and protected under the United States constitution and State of New York in all the reported cases that I know of. I have given you the cases. I will be glad to give you a photostated copy of these cases. It has been decided by Mr. Task~rand the attorney general in 1981 when we opened up on Beckwith Avenue; that the school was permitted and a special exception was given by this very Board that we were allowed to operate a school as part of our ministry. And to change that now in midstream because we still don't know how many people are objecting to it. Mr. Cron never saw fit to respond to my letter that I wrote to him in response to a suggestion made by this very Board and we still have no idea of how many people are opposing it. Whether it be one or two or four. That's not ma- terial at this point. The question is, is that we come under 2 or do we come under 3. I would respectfully suggest that this matter be referred by this Board to Mr. /asker for his opinion. And I have no doubt at all as to what his decision would be. We are not a private school and no stretch of the imagination can make it. As far as numbers, we have 24 studen=s in our classroom. We have 24 students in the pilgrim school. There are 6 little kids in each school. We have a nursary school which we have 2 and 3 4-year old kids and we have a kindergarten with 5 and 6 years. In the pilgrim school there's 24. The good lord be willing, the most that couldt.happen is that that would double and that certainly does- not mean 12 acres of land for 48 kids. Even the catholic school Sac- red Heart, would laugh if you ever told them they needed 12 acres down there. Sacred Heart school in Cutchogue certainly doesn't have 12 acres. At the most, they have a couple. Christian Science, you gave them special exception to the Christian Science church right here just within recent times down on Indian Neck Lane and no question was ever raised about schools or their bible school. So I resp~ct- fully submit to this Board that the matter be referred to town at- torney for their opinion before any credance is given to considering the Church of the Open Door as a section in 2 or 3 category. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Caminit% just before you sit down, you said in the beginning of the hearing that you had met with certain people on Grange Road and I don't know if those people were in favor or opposed. Was there any specific buffer and footage that was spok- en about or anything of that nature that would construed to be a noise level buffer? MR. CAMINIT'I: Right now there's a natural buffer right behind Mr. ( ) property. Right behind Mr. Bu ( ) property on the corner property, there's a natural hedge right there now. We would be happy to comply with any site' plan provision for buffer or scenic trees or whatever pleases the neighbors. As I said before, we're not looking to antagonize anybody. The bible says 10ye thy neighbor. It's difficult at times but by golly, that's what we want to do. We don't want to an=agonize. If you want to have a buffer ..... There's all kinds of rumors in the streets. I can't believe the streets. I hear about the ball fields and the lights and the lights Pa~e 16 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI (Continued): we're going to have on all night long. It's fear. Fear of their own making that they are projecting these ideas. Yes we met with them. We discussed buffer area. And in response at the meeting that we had with them, they wrote a letter to the Planning Boar.d voicing their objection and I would like to say to you, the letter says we have two serious, very serious objections. Number one; that this property can be u~e~ to build a church in a strictly resi- dential agricultural zone. That was their objection. That it's being built in a residential zone. That's the only place you can build a church. That's what the law specifically says. It's the only place you can build. Number two; it's going to come off the taxrolls because we don'~ pay any tax. That land doesn't pay any tax now. It comes under the agricultural exemption. We are paying - ~ ~ a 100 dollars a yearaor?4002~dot~.a~s . '~ear. We sell our building, com- merical property more than pay. for ~he tax loss. Those are the only 2 objections they raised. This is the first time (in all honesty) that I knew the objection was based on section 3 of the code. It was anticipated of course. I wouldn't have had the cases here avail- able. But this is the first time that it's been raised. We were happy to meet with them. We were happy to have a liason. One of the neighbors on Grange Road has volunteerd to act as an inter-medi- ator. To this day, we haven't met. We're happy to do so. We're happy to submit all our plans to the Planning Board and go over it in great detail so there's no disillusion. Other than that, I don't know what else we can do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Caminit~ can I just ask you. Mr. Cata- pano owns all the property now. Is that correct? All 1, 2, 3, 4. All lots. Have you approached him at any time or is he aware that any time there could be a modification of site plan where this or- ganization may require additional land? MR. CAMINIT~I: Well I'll tell you very frankly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm asking the question because it was asked tonight. I'm not specifically asking the question. MR. CAMINITI: No. It was never specifically put to Mr. Catapano. I don't want to delay the point but the story is quite long. He offered to sell us 5 acres. We were trying to buy that land our- selves from the man that he pur.chased it from and he offered to sell it to us for exactly what he paid for it. And I know it's a great financial burden to him at this point to sell us the land at the contracted price that he bought it from Mr. Sta]]er. He did a minor subdivision purposely so that we could have his house on the corner of South Harbor and Main Road and his nurse, ry on 14 acres. I believe he reserved the other 2 acres so that his daughter could eventually build a one-family house. I might also add while I'm talking about one-family houses, the code section 2 specifically allows the creation of a parish house. Not that we intend to do it, but it specifically allows it. A house of worship. I don't under- stand the other aspect of what Mr. Cr0~ is referring to about the extra 2 acres for the house of~ parsonage. The code specifically says Pa~e 17 - October 2, 1986 Public ~e~ri~g of Church of the Open. Door Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Just let him finish his statement. MR. CAMINIT~: The code specifically says, place of worship in- cluding a parish house. So section 2 does allow a parish house and it doesn't say you need another 2 acres. I would think that 5 acres would be more than enough toacc0mm0date 200 parishOners, a small school and a parish house if ~necessary. if Mr. Catapan0 would like to address that issue, I would be happy to hear from him. MR. CATAPANO: On the additional acreage. At this time I have to .... At this time I don't know whether I can truthfully say anything on that subject. But I really feel that this is not an issue here. The issue, I really feel, stands on the fact the you gentlemen are here tonight to give us a special exception for a church. It's a place of worship. It's not going to be a place of roWdiness. It's not going to be a place where we're going to hang out. It's going to be a place where we are going to worship. It has not even been denied to anybody else in the Town of Southold. And in the code it says that we need to have 7 acres, 10 acres, or 14 acres. I thought at that time that 5 acres would be a suffi- cient piece of land to offer to the church. If need be, I would take that under consideration. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just say this to you Mr. Catapano while you're up and I appreciate you're speaking so frankly to the Board. Any decision that I recommend to the Board and we drum out in deliberation, is always open to the public, will be to crowd the north line. Ok. And it might be better for the Church of the Open Door to eventually purchase more land or re- draw the subdivision map to a certain degree. Now I realize that that is something that costs money. At the same time, I realize that the Planning Board has given you sketch plan approval. But it's something that we're looking at. An imaginary buffer between the residentiality of what exists there now and the church which appears to be a very active church and something of which we have no objection to in any way, manner or form. But I just want to point that out to you and that is the reason why I asked. MR. CATAPANO: Is that the buffer on the north side that would be adjoining my side of the property? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. On the north side. We haven't dis- cussed it. We have looked at it but we haven't measured it. We haven't done anything at this particular time. MR. CATAPANO: As I spoke at the other Board, my intentions were fully to stay in the greenhouse and nursery business for my life- time. It may be today or tomorrow or whenever the lord calls me home. My son is in the same thing. He will continue on in the business and hopefully stay on in the Town of Southold for his lifetime. We do no~ plan at any time within the future to take me off that property° I plan to live happily ever after in my retirement out there. You know my hair is white on top of my Pa~e 18 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CATAPANO (Continued): head. I'm not that old but I'm still able to do a days work~ But as I see it right now, I don't feel that in any stretch of the imagination that the Board can deny them any kind of use of that property for a church. Being my heartfelt situation was that I could not afford to give them the property at the time, I still can not afford to give them the property. I am not one of those big westerners that come into town. I gave it to them what it cost me and I did it out of my love for the lord and my love for the church. Whether it be thlis church or some other church that I belong to, that's what I would have done. The lord has laid that upon my heart by now. I would truly like to ask the Board to agree to a special exception on that piece of proper- ty. I do not want to fight my neighbors. I love my neighbors. I don't know any of them but I would at any time, speak at length with any of them. We were up in Hicksville. I was born in Hicks- ville which is the western end of Nassau County. My father was established in 1919 on Flatbush Avenue coming off the boat from Italy. So we are Long Islanders at heart. We have seen the rava- ges of what they did in Nassau County. We can understand truly and lovingly what you peopl~ are trying to do and uphold. That's why we moved out here. We tried to keep it in that rural ~ane~ So we do want to see that you do grant a special exception for this purpose as far as the church is concerned. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. CRON : I just want to make one observation. I do agree with Mr. Caminiti that under B2 a house of worship would include a parish house. However, their application doesn't ask for that. The application says we may be seeking a parsonage and that is excluded and would require 2 additional acres of land. Secondly, he said I have not indicated the people whom I represent. So I would like to read that into the recordo They are: Mr. and Mrs. Seaman, Mr. and Mrs. Savage, Mr. and Mrs. Baldwin, Henry Freidman, John Buffer, and Mr. and Mrs. Mariccini. Filing one last point, I have~o objection to the Board consulting with the town attorney. I am sure the Board realizes it must be their decision that,s rendered on this matter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I now come to the point where the Board and myself sometimes do not agree~- So I'll mention this point and we'll hammer it out one way or another. We have a situation where we can do one of two things. We can close the hearing at this poiht and render its decision within 60 days or we can recess the meeting until October 22nd in hopes that you will meet with these people and come up with what we would construe to be a buffer that we can work with. I have no idea if the Board would go along with that and I have no idea if council objects. I'll leave it open for discussion. Sir. Page 19 -~Oc%ober 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door $outhold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINIT~. Mr. chairman, wouldn't the creation of a buffer be the pr0p~er element of the site plan? What authority does the Board have to set up a regulation on a buffer? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Caminit%, we had spent 2½ hours ago- nizing over a buffer for a funeral home in Cutchogue. And after we agonized for 2½ hours in front of the applicant, several peo- ple on the block came before us after that and we received letters and they stated they didn't want a buffer. Yet at the hearing, they stated they wanted a buffer. MR. CAMINIT~: We'd be happy to comply with a buffer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: to a scenic easement. to plants. When I referred to a buffer, I'm referring Be it of a green character, god given tree MR. CAMINIT~: We plan on doing that. That's no problem. MR. CAM. IN~tI~Z . Which is the proper form to do that in? We have no objection to the scenic barriers, scenic buffer. We want to . I don't like looking at Mr. Bowman's swimming pool either. I don't like looking at Mr. Duffy's swimming pool. There's other things I don't like about back yards. So we want the bu['~er area as well. I'm just trying to determine where is the proper f0r'u~? I'll meek with them. I'm more than happy to do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We haven't established that yet. The point in question is, we have the right to reasonably place the building where we feel the building should be placed based upn the testimony and evidence that has been presented before us. Ok. MR. CAMINIT~: We're not against asking for a little contour sur- vey and the building is located based on an engineer's report. To have 72,000 square feet to accomodate the buffer scenic area, would be construed as an unreasonable limitation on the use of the property by a religious use. I'm not meaning to get into an argument with the Board on this point but I'd like to establish the perameters of the proper forum. CHAIRMAIN GOEHRINGER: The parameters of my recommendation may be to crowd the north line unless there is a redrawing of the sub- division which will place the line some 145 feet north which would place the building in the center of the property. MR. CAMINIT~. We have sketch plan approval for the subdivision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm aware of that. Page 20 ~-:Oc%ober 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINIT~: Whether the.~special exception i~s granted or not, the subdivision would be approved. Mr. Catapano could do what- ever he wants with that 5 acres. We have entered into covenants already, recorded copies not to subdivide lot 4 any further. There is a copy of that also being placed on record that he's not going to subdivide. It's starting at square one all over again on sketch plan approval to a buffer. We can establish a buffer area without changing the sketch plan or without changing the line distribution. I don't have any objection to that. But to redraft... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. I'm not saying that you have to redraft. I'm just saying that we w0u]d like to place it closer to the north line than what you have proposed so as to create a buffer on the south line. And I didn't say we. I should say I'm making that recommendation. I have no idea what the other 4 gentleman on this Board are going to do and they don't listen to me. So that's neither here nor there. That's not true. Now the point in question is, do we close the hearing at this point or do we recess it to the next meeting in hopes that we can arrive at some buffer which everybody can live with. And let me just give you a brief explanation of how this situation has worked in the past. About 80% of the time, it's worked out very very nicely. We have had people that come into this Board that are ready to have a fist fight. We have called police and had them escorted from the room. And that is the 25% or the 20%. In the other case, we have them go out into the hall for 20 minutes as you have seen tonight between the architect and one of the mem- bers of the organization, and they usually come back arm in arm as they did tonight and the gentleman did not object because he under- stood the application. I can't say that that's the case in all cases. We have had several applications in the past couple months have gone 3 hearings. One of which concerned 2 people down in New Suffolk who age not speaking to each other. And I specifically told them that was a very upsetting thing to the Board. But they still substanti- ated in those 3 hearings that they had no Other choice but to deal with it in this particular manner and we (of course) don't like those adverse conditions. Everybody has been extremely courteous to everyone tonight. I personally think this group can work to- gether. Regardless if there's a school involved or not in the future, we have an application before us for a church and that's the application we will entertain. Yes. MRS. LONG: For you, my name is Susan Long, East Marion. I do attend the Church of the Open Door. I do want to go on record as being in favor of the application as submitted. However, be- fore you choose to take any action to close this meeting or re- cess it, I do have some signatures here that are in favor of the application and I would like to put it on record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: be? Mr. Caminiti~'. Definitely. Thank you. So what will it MR. CAMINIT~: I would just urge the Board to close the meeting, grant the special exception and take a buffer. CHAIRMAN GOE~RINGER: Mr. meeting with this group? Cron? Do you have any objection to Page 21 - October 2, 19 86 public ~ea 1 g of the Church of the Open Door SoU~hlold Town Board of Appeals MR. CRON : I can't answer that question without consulting with my clients firstly. Secondly~ I have no objection (I also) for you to close the hearing and make a decision. The only de- cision you can make is one you can't grant them what they want. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving the decision until later° Ail in favor - aye. Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing. Nadi-a Moore 10/21/86 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF EDMUND AND JOAN PRESSLER Tt~URSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 11:03 p.m. Appeal No. 3560 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of EDMUND AND JOAN PRESSLER. Appeal from Notice of Dis- approval of Building Inspector dated 1/Z ~6 and ZBA Action ~3463 dated 5/6/86, and Variance to establish second retail-business use in conjunction with existing nonconforming two-family dwelling and antique sales business uses on this parcel of 68,912 square feet and 95.44 feet lot width. "B-I" General Business Zone. N B Main Road, Southold. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have before me a survey from August 31, 1981, Roderick Van luy] ~ P.C., indicating the house and parking area as it presently exists. And I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. You're on. MR. OLSEN: May it please the Board, Mr. Lessard. My name is Gary Olsen. I'm the attorney for the applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Pressler. The reason we're before the Board is that the proper- ty in question, since we were before the Board at the last meet- ing at which time you granted a variance for two apartments and one business use, a lot has happened. And I think if you look at the property, you can see what's been done. Mr. and Mrs. Pressler have greatly improved both the interior and the exterior appearance of the property. What could have been construed as an eyesore in the past, is now (I think) a true asset to the community. The plantings are beautiful and they have done a lot as far as the parking is concerned. They have been able to create on this piece of property a driveway to qet to the back part of the property which has plently of room for parking, for ingress. And they've also been able to create on the west side of the existing struc- ture, a driveway for egress to get out of the parking area onto the Main Road. To some extent, I'm not sure why I'm before the Board with what we want to do. I think there might have been some confusion at the last meeting because of the interpretation of the code by the former assistant Building Inspector. This property is zoned business. What we are asking the Board tonight is to permit us to have 2 business uses. Presently this is con- sldered in a B-1 zone, to be quoted; a shopping center. Although in the normal colloquial sense of the word, shopping center~ it's anything but a shopping center. Mr. and Mrs. Pressler are using part of the downstairs portion of their building for an antique shop. What we would like to do is to have a separate business unit on the west side on the ground floor level for another busi- ness use and they have been approached by Fred Warren of Warren's Haircutters in Southold who would like to come in and re-estabLish his business in their building. And when Mr. and Mrs. Pressler went to the Building Inspector, he indicated that we have to come back before the Board to get you to lift your condition saying ~Page 2 - October 2, 1986 Public ~e~a~fhg of Edmund and Joan Pressler Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. OLSEN (Continued): that we can only have one business use. Now as I say, this is zoned B-1. And as a definition of a shopping center, we must have 1 acre and we have more than one acre. We have 1.5 plus acres. There is plenty of room for parking. There is no rea- son for the Board to limit this B-1 to only one business use in my opinion. I think it's a matter of law. The reason that you gave for limiting the one business use is in your former decision under appeal number 3463; is that it's the opinion of the Board that the creation of the extra office business as that's proposed, would not be within the spirit of the zoning ordinance and is not compatible with the land use pattern in this area or within the township. Now, the ordinance permits us to do it as long as we have more than one acre which we do. I don't think that we need a variance to have a second busi- ness use. Now as far as the pattern of the community is con- cerned, first of all; it's in the spirit of the ordinance be- cause it's zoned B-1. The zoning code permits business uses on this piece of property. As far as the pattern of the com- munity, I went down there tonight just to refresh my memory as to what's in the area. Directly across the street from this building is Mullen Motors with parking lots for cars that they are selling and a showroom and so on. Directly to the east on the south side of the Main Road is a little shopping area called Colonial Corners which contains Middlemay Shop with children's clothes. Behind that there is a fabric shop called Fabrics East. To the east of that in the same building is a beauty shop. There is a shoe store next to that. There is a cleaners next to that. There's a health food store and on the front side, on the street side, there's a doll shop and a video shop. That's all on one piece of property. On our Side of the stmeet_to~the ~est>~ of us on the corner starting, we have Wayside Market. Then east of that is Thompson's store. And in conjunction with that piece of property, there is another building which has, which is where Mr. and Mrs. Pressler are by the way, it now houses a health center, offices (I guess) and optician and office for a building by the name of Morizo. Just east of that piece of property there is a vacant house. Then there's our parcel. Directly to the east of us, there's Mr. Albertson's house. And I understand from Mr. and Mr. Pressler, that Mr. klbertson has in fact written to the Board indicating that he has no objection to what they want to do. Di- rectly to the east of Mr. Albertson is another store or business piece of property that houses the following: Albertson's Realty, Minite Graphics, (I'm not quite sure what that is) a financial service called Equitable Financial Services. And in addition to that, Seaman's Boat Works. Now if you look at that piece of proper- ty, there's 4 business uses that are there. I don't imagine that they've been before the Board. And if you know the property, you can't argue that there's the parking that we can afford. We have more than enough parking to meet the code requirements. Just east of that is a florist and on that piece of property, there's another building that has separate rental units for business purposes. I don't think that I know of any situation that's ever come before 'Page 3 - October 2, 1986 Public ~a~ing of Edmund and Joan Pressley Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. OLSEN: (Continued): the Southold Town Zoning Board that has required anybody to come before the Board that has B-1 property to ask for more than one business use other than this one. And I think ih is because of a misinterpretation of the code at the time. We've been noncon- forming and the Board has granted the 2 apartment use. And as I say, I really don't know why we're here and I don't that that the Board has ever requested it before. As far as the area of the antique operation of our building, it contains 12,047 square feet. And the area that would be a separate business use, would hope- fully be for Fred Warren's shop, contains 644 square feet. A total of 18,091. In doing the mathematics according to the bulk schedule, we need 19 spots for the parking for the 2 business uses and 2 spots for each of the apartment uses for a total of 23. We have more than enough room. As a matter of fact, I think we .... Do you have the 23 spots now? MR. PRESSLER: 22. MR. OLSEN: There's 22 parking spots now. There's handicap ramps. The other thing I'd like to bring to the Board's attention is that Mr. and Mrs. Pressler did submit their appliance for the 2 business uses to the Building Department. He made his renovations. He put in his ramps and put his parking and so on in. And you have in your file a certificate of occupancy that was granted to him and it does show the 2 separate uses. One other thing. Just looking where Mr. Warren is now for the haircutting business', he is in the East End Insurance building which has 2 business uses. We have the in- surance business use in the front. That's a relatively brand new building. Certainly since the code has been in effect. And in the rear portion, we have Mr. Warren and there isn't near the park- ing that Mr. and Mrs. Pressler can afford. I don't think there's any purpose in denying us the use. As a matter of fact, I don't think you can deny it. I think we have it as a matter of the law and I don't think we should be before the Board on this particular issue. Also I may state that the Planning Board did grant site plan approval on that project with the 2 business uses. So I re- spectfully request that you permit to us the separate west side portion of the building downstairs for a separate business use. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much Mr. Olsen. I was just going to ask the square footage but I noticed he put it in here. 630 square feet. MR. PRESSLER: There are 2 ways of looking at it, 644 and 630. When I did the parking layout, I based it on 644. MR. OLSEN: The pertinent section of the zoning Code if you're wondering, is section 100-62 subparagraph B. The main topic is called retail shopping centers. The lot area shall not be less than 1 acre and shall not have a width of less than 150 feet but this is a pre-existing building on a pre-existing parcel. Pa~e 4 ~, O~tober 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Edmund and Joan Pressler Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No comment~ Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor? Anyone against? Questions from Board mem- bers? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision Until later. Ail in favor - aye. Teanscribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing. Nadia Moore 10/21/86