The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-09/11/1986Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD ~-5 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y, 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWl 0KI MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER ll, 1986 A Regular Meeting of the Southo]d Town Board of Appeals was held.o.n ThurSday, s~ptember ll, 1986 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road., Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grfgonis, 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 Administrator, Linda Kowalski, Board Clerk, and approximately 30 persons at the beginning of the meeting. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded with the f61lowing deliberations and decision..pending in the Matter of PAUL LEARY under Appeal No. 3489 concerning premises of FRANK E. AND MARY BROPHY, 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY: Application of PAUL LEARY for a reversal of decision of the building inspector for a nullification of actions by the Building Department to issue a modified Permit and Demolition Permit, and that the property owners be left to regular procedures of law, to be allowed o.n'l.y after review by the Board of Appeals and in accordance with all other provisions of law. Name of Owners and Location of Property in Question: FRANK E. 'AND MARY BR~PHY', 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-10-2D.7. This is an ApPeal of Paul Leary of two determinations of the Building Inspector with respect to (1) the granting of Building mSouthold Town Board of Appeals -2- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3489 - LEARY/BROPHY, continued:) Permit No. 14319Z, dated October 3, 1985 to Peter R. Brophy, as agent for Frank and Mary L. Brophy, to make alteration and addition to an existing dwelling at premises located at 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, New York (Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 117, Block 10, Lot 020.7) and (2) the granting of a building permit No. 14638Z, dated March 11, 1986, to Peter Brophy, as agent for Frank and Mary Brophy, to partially demolish existing dwelling at premises located at 75 Second Street, New Suffolks New York. Hearings were held by this Board on May l, 1986, June 19, 1986 and July 17, 1986, at which hearings the~attorneys for the Appellant and for Mr. Brophy introduced in evidence numerous docu- ments and presented extensive oral arguments on numerous issues. From the Appellant's petition, it appears that Appellant bases his appeal on the following: (a) That under Appeal No. 1597 rendered by this Board on July 27, 1972, it imposed a condition in its decision that "no improve~.ents be made to the property wi~thout approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals." _ (b) Th~ an Environmental Impact Statement should be required pursuant to Article 8 of_%he Environmental Q~al~ty Review Act (SEQRA) and Chapter 44 of the Town Code. (c) That the issuance of the Building Permit was in violation of the Flood Management Prevention La~_ (Chapter 46) of the Town Code. (d) That the Building Permit issued violated the Zoning Code in that it permitted the construction and/or alteration of a building with an area in excess of 20% of the lot area. The issues raised will be considered in the order set forth above. (a) Under Appeal No. 1597 decided on July 27, 1972, this Board authorized the divi~_~on of premises _at~ New Suffolk into six separate lots, one of which was the premises which are the subject of this appeal. In its decision, the Zoning Board of Appeals imposed five conditions. The second condition, which is at issue here, provides as follows: "No improvements can be made without approval of the Board of Appeals by the provisions Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- September II, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3489 - LEARY/BROPHY, decision, continued:) of the Ordinance relating to lot coverage." It is the position of the Appellant that this condition must be construed to mean that any improvement requires the approval of this Board. The Attorney for Brophy maintains that such condition should be construed to mean that the approval of this Board is required only in cases in which such an improvement results in the building area exceeding 20% of the lot area. This Board con- strues condition 2 to mean that this Board s approval is only required when improvements would result in the building area exceeding 20% of the lot area. (b) With respect to the SEQRA questions raised by Appellant, this Board can find no provision of Article 8 of the Environmental Quality Review Act or the rules promulgated pursuant thereto, or Chapter 44 of the Town Code which confers upon this Board jurisdiction to pass upon determinations of an administrative officer with respect to SEQRA proceedings, nor does this Board believe that it has jurisdiction to pass upon determinations of an administrative officer with respect to SEQRA proceedings, nor does this Board believe that it has jurisdiction to review its own SEQRA determinations made in a previous appeal. It would seem that review of SEQRA deter- minations are reserved to the courts. (c) The Appellant's claim that the Building Inspector issued the Building Permit in violation of the Town's Flood Management Protection Law is without merit. The record contains Development Permit No. IOOF issued on March 11, 1986, pursuant to the Town's Flood Management Protection Law. (d) The assertion that the building area exceeded 20% of the lot area is not borne out by the several maps introduced at the hearing. The only map indicating lot coverage in excess of 20% was the Sealand map dated May 13,_]986, which erroneously included the area of the patio at ~.he rear entry to the dwelling, which, since it was at g~ound level, should not have been included in the calculation of building area pursuant to the definition contained in Section 100-13 of the Zoning Code. In his petition, appellant dwelt heavily on the question of the demolition permi.t being issued during or after the fact and that the Building Permit first permitted an alteration and was thereafter amended to permit the reconstruction of the subject dwelling. Since no evidence was presented on these issues tending to show that such acts by the Building Inspector ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- September II, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3489 - LEARY/BROPHY, decision, continued:) were improper or illegal, such contentions are dismissed. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. G6ehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that for all of the above reasons, the appeal herein is in all respects dismissed. Subsequent to the close of the hearing., Appellant's attorney, by letter dated JU~Y 24, 1986, subm~ted_.se~ral Photo- graphs of the..subject dwelling showing "radius" steps at the rear entry; an open porch and steps at the front entry, and a retaining wall in the front yard area. Such letter and photos were returned by the Chairman on July 28, 1986 with a letter advising that the hearing was closed and no further evidence would be considered. By letter dated August 1, 1986, Appellant's attorney resubmitted his photographs and moved to reopen the hearing. For the purpose of deciding the motion to reopen the hearing, the Board reviewed such letter and photographs. Section lO0-13 of the Zoning Code defi. nes "Building Area." Subsection 2(b) thereof excludes from such definitions "steps and open porches projecting not more than 5 feet from the exterior walls and having an area of less than 30 sq. ft." It would appear from such photos that the steps and open porch fall within subdivision 2(b), and therefore, are to be excluded from the calculation of "building area." The "structure" located in the front yard is obviously a retaining w~ll and is excluded from the definition of a "building" in Section 100-13(3) of the Zoning Code. The receipt of such evidence would, in the Board's opinion, add nothing to Appellant's case~ and no useful purpose would be served by reopening the hearing and, accordingly, the motion to reopen the hearing is denied. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting 7:37 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal .No. 3540 - MARK AND LORRAINE LaROSA for a deck addition at the rear of existing dwelling within 75 feet of ordinary high- water mark along "Horton C~eek," N/s Albo Drive, Laurel. No ~me was present either for or against the application. (S6e transcript of hearing prepared under separate cover filed simultaneously with the Office of the Town Clerk.) 7:40 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3551 RIAL REALTY COR~. for Variances for insuffi- cien~ lot width of three proposed parcels. Location of Property: North end of ROW extending from north side of Oregon Road, Mattituck. Mrs. Sophia Greenfield was present and spok6 in behalf of the applicant. No opposition was received. (See verbatim transcript prepared and filed under separate cover.) 7:50 p.m. Public hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3~51 - MARGARET BEST AND ADUYN SYVERSON for a Variance to locate accessQry ganageTstorage building in ~ frontyard area. South Side of ROW extending off the east side of Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. Mrs. Margaret Best spoke in behalf of the application. No opposition was re.ceived during the hearing. (See verbatim tras~ncript prepared and filed under separate cover.) The Board requested exact coordinates/setbacks from all property lines and staking of building for reinspection. 7:55 p.m. Public hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of JOHN BREDEMEYER, which was recessed from the August 14, 1986 meeting. Variance to locate new dwelling with insufficient setback from ordinary highwater mark along Orient Harbor, West side of Bay Avenue, Orient. Abigail Wickham, Esq. spoke in behalf of the applicant. (No opposition was received at this time.) The board asked for a copy of a vacant land Certificate of Occupancy ~6~ this property from A~torney Wickham. (See verbatim transcript of hearing.) 8:00 p.m. Public ~earing was held and concluded in the Matter of WILLIAM AND KATHERINE HEINS which was recessed from August 14, 1986 for coordination/comments from the Planning Board. Variance for approval of insufficient a~ea, width and depth of two parcels in this proposed set-off division. Anthony B. Tohill, Esq. spoke in behal.f of the applicants, who were also present. No opposition was received. (See verbatim transcript of hearing~). Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Public Hearingss continued:) 8:02 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of JAMES F. WARWICK for a Variance to.lift condition of prior ZBA #1729 rendered 3/8/73 to allow construction of a new dwelling. South side of Fasbender Avenue, Peconic. Bailey Park Map Filed 9/26/32, Lot #11. ~. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq. spoke in behalf of the applicant. Rudolph H. Bruers Esq. and legal assistant, Patricia C. Moore spoke in opposition in behalf of their clients. The board will be furnished with copies of the July 30, 1985 letter pertai~ing to the contrac~ cancellation by Mr. McLaughlin. (See verbatim transcript of hea~ing.) _ 8:47 p.m. Publi~'-hearin§ was held and concluded in the Matter of ROBERT WADDINGTON for a V~.~iance to construct addition to exist- in§ building wi~h~insufficient side and rear yard Setbacks. 13175 Main Roads Mattituck. "B-1~' General Business Zone William Moore, Esq. spoke in behalf of th~ applicant. The verbatim transcript of the hearing has been prep~e.d and filed with the Town Clerk for reference. 9:10 p.m. Public hearing was Op65ed in the Matter of JOSEPH AND LIND~ SCHOENSTE~!N for Variances: (a) to expand nonconforming use of wel~Tng business~ (b) to construct new building and expand nonconforming welding business use within 75 feet of wetlands. S/$ Main Road, Greenport. Peconic Bay Estates. "B-Light" Business Zone. Stephen R. Angel, Esq. was present in behalf of the applicant and requested a postponement inasmuch as the appraiser was not available this evening. J. Kevin McLaughlin Esq. was present in behalf of opposing neighbors~ Mr. and Mrs. Nicoletti. The hearing was recessed as request until the second October meeting. 9:15 p.m. P~blic hearing was held ink,the Matter of JEFFREY BETTANCOURT for a Variance for an inground pool with fence enclosure and gazebo within 100 feet of top of bluff/bank along L.I. Sound. 2410 Grandview Drive, Orient. Grandview Estates Subdivision Lot #5. Mr. Bettancourt spoke in behalf of his application. Mrs. Ruth Oliva ~poke]~concerning detriments and erosion pro6]ems in this area. (See verbatim transcript of hearing~) The public hearing was recessed until the second October meeting to allow re-inspection of the bluff, etc. 9:46 p.m. Public hearing was be~dnvened in the Matter of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ for condominium construction within 75 feet of bulkheads and tidal waters. West Side of Sixt~i~treet, Greenport. Stephen R. Angel, Esq. spoke in behalf of the application. Lawrence M. Storms Esq. spoke as Attorney for. Southold Town Board of Appeals (Public Hearings, continued:) -7- September Il, 1986 Regular Meeting opposing area residents. Plan "B" was furnished to each of the board members at the open of the meeting as received earlier today. The board asked tbat.~.~ll'~he requested setbacks be 'placed on the maps, as well as the square footage of the ground and second floor living area. Six of the maps were returned to Mr. ShilOwitz at the hearing as requested and he indicated he would return them within a few days with the requested information. Each attorney was permitted one week to submit a brief and counterbriefs. The submissions would be accepted until September 25th and the board agreed that no fur~er oral'public comments would be accepted after tonight, and that upon receipt 6f the corrected maps and briefs, the hearing would be officially concluded on October 2nd. (See ~erbatim transcript of hearing.) The public hearings concluded at 10:05 p.m. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDITIONS: Appeal No. 3475. Matter of the Application of JOSEPH H. SAWICKI. Member Grigonis reported on his recent inspection of the right-of-way improvements and recommended approval. Motion was made by Member Grigonis, seconded by ~hairman Goehringer, to accept the improvements as inspected, subject to the following requirements: 1. That the right-of-way be continuously maintained in good condition at all times. 2. That the improvements be within the legal perimeter of the right-of-way. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehrin~er Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass~ (Member Sawicki abstained.j ~his resolu- tion was duly adopted. m Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- September 11, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3478: Application of BECKY JOHNSTON. Variances for: (1) Building Inspector to issue building permit allowing existing structure to be weatherized, prior to final 280-a access approval, and (2) approval of access in accordance with New York Town Law, Section 280-a, over private right-of-way extending from the northerly end of Bridge Lane Extension and Oregon Road, over lands of Bokina, identified on the SUffolk County Tax Maps as 1000-73-2-4, to premises of Johnston, ~identified on the Suffolk~Coun'ty Tax Maps as 1000=73-2-1. 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 BECKY JOHNSTON under Appeal No. 3478; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present'zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The~propemty~to. which appellant is requesting New York Town Law, Section 280-a approval, is located in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District as more particularly shown on survey amended August 7, 1985 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. #4508-6, contains a total lot area of 25,072 sq. ft., average lot width of 100 feet and lot depth of 287 feet, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 73, Block 2, Lot 1. The subject premises is improved with a single-family dwelling under substantial re-construction. 2. The right-of-way over which appellant has requested 280-a consideration is situated at the north side of Oregon Road (and Bridge Lane Extension), and extends in a northerly direction along the east side of Baxter's right-of-way and over lands of Bokina, a distance of 1868 feet, more or less, to a survey monu- ment, then extending in an easterly direction along a no~%herly ~ mSouthold Town Board of Appeals -9- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3478 - JOHNSTON, decision, continued:) portion, over lands also of Bokina, t6 the premises of the appellant, a distance of 510 feet, more or less. 3. In this application, appellant requests a Variance pursuant to the requirements of New York Town Law, Section 280-a, for: (a) the Building Inspector to be permitted to issue a build- ing permit allowing the existing structure to be enclosed and weatherized, prior to final 280-a access approval, and (b) final New York Town Law~ Section 280=a approval. 4. At a Special Term, Part II of the Supreme Court of the State'of New Y~rk, Couhty ~f Suffolk~under' ~ndex NOt 86-11849, a proceeding js pending betwee~_~th9 appellant and the ~owne.rs of th~ premises over which the right-of-way is claimed concerning the.question of the applicant's easement and .rights thereto. 5. The applicant and her attorney are aware that this board does not have authori'ty to determine or grant right-of-way easements,, and that this act]on is merely a t~mporary 280-a variance, for the issuance of a limited building-permit by the Building ~spector, which m~st conform with all other town, cou..pty,_'and other governmental rules and regul_ations~ for the enclosure of the dwelling presently under constr~ction for protection from bad weather conditions, and is subject to the appellant having legal rights to enter over and upon these l~nd~, and as is .ordered _]by the Courts in settlement of the _pending proceeding. ~. Assurance has been given by the applicant and her attorney that physical' accel9 to the structure is available by reasgnable means and that there ~ill b~'~o occupancy of the premise~ once the structure is enclosed for weather protection. 7. It is noted for the record that under Appeal No. 2609 a conditional 280~a variance was granted on Janua.ry ~22, 1980 concerning premises to the west an~ conditions of which have not yet been complied. 8~ After i~nspection, it is the opinion of the board members that some improvements will be necessary upon the right-of-Way for sufficient acces6_ by fire and .emergency vehi~le.~, as further noted below. (a) In granting this temporary 280~a variance, the board finds: the relief requested is not substantial; (b) there will Sou'thold Town Board of Appeals -10- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3478 - JOHNSTON, decision, continued:) be no substantial change in the character of this district~ (c) the relief as conditionally granted will not cause a substantial effect or detrimen, t to adjoinin§ properties~ (d) the circumstances of this appeal are unique and there is no other method feasible for.appellant to pursue other th than a variance; (e) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on mo~ion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was - . RESOLVED,.that a temporary 280-a approval is hereby GRANTED~-'ALLOW'ISSUANCE.'OF'A~'TE~PORA'R¥.AND L~MITED BUILDING i.~ERMIT S~BJE~T TO.'THE FQLLQWING_".CQNDITIONS: ...... ~.-' ~at the applicant have an easement and r~ghts over the r~ght-of-way in qgestion; 2~ That this approval is subject to the action of the Court~ pehding concerning %his matter; 3. That the applicant and/or future property owners must re-apply for final 280-a approval in accordance with New York Town Law after Court settlement for reconsideration; 4. That-~his ~emporary 280-a approval include t~e following'improvements for sufficient access within the base ~f ~he right-of~way~ _ Extending from the rear of the existing barn to the most norther'ly survey monument, a distance of 800 feet, more or less be excavated six inches deep and replaced with six inches of bankrun (20% stone content), a minimum width of ten feet. 5~ Proper issuance of a temporary building permit shall be permitte~ by_the Building ~nspector only for the enclosure of the dwellin~ under construction for prR~ection ~from bad-weather conditions. No further construction shall be permitted until final 280-a has been filed and re-considered (see Condition No. 3, supra.) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen, Dou~ass ahd Sawicki. Messrs~ Goehringer, Grigonis, This re~ol~tion was dK~y.~dopted. c~Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3539: Application of MICHAEL HERBERT, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(B)[16] for permission to establish "Bed and Breakfast use," an "owner-occupied building other than a hotel where lodging and breakfast is provided for not more than six casual, transient roomers, and renting of not more than three rooms. Location of Property: 795 Pike Street, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-2-23. Zoning District "A" Residential and Agricultural. Following deliberations~ the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing washeld and conclude~n August 14, 1986 in the Matter of the Application under A~plication No. 3539 of MICHAEL HERBERT; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the north side of Pike Street in the Hamlet of Mattituck and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as DiStrict 1000, Section 140, Block 2, Lot 23. 2. The subject premises consists of a total area of approximately one-half acre with 85± ft. frontage along Pike Street and a.n average, lot depth of 238± feet, and is improved with the following structures: (a) a two-story framed, single- family dwelling shown on survey dated October 9, 1985, having a rsetback of 39± feet from its front property line and sideyards of 26 feet and 34 feet, and (b) an accessQry garage located in the rearyard area with an insufficient setback of one foot, Sou'thold Town Board of Appeals -12- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3539 - HERBERT, decision, continued:) more or less, from the easterly side property line. 3. The subject premises is located in the "A" Residential and AgricUltural Zoning District; the adjacent parcels to the west and east are also in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District. Other parcels, along the south side of Pike Street are in the "B-l" General Business Zoning District. Abutting the subject premises to the north is the Long Island Railroad; north of the Railroad are premises located in the "C-Light Industrial" Zoning District. 4. For the record it is noted that the applicant purchased the premises on October 29, 1985 (Liber 9907 cB_338), and a Certificate of Occupancy of Nonconforming Premises #Z13944 was issued October 18, 1985 for a single-family dwelling. 5. It is further noted for the record that a use variance under Appeal No. 3472 was denied without prejudice on May 28, t986. Subsequent thereto, on July 1, 1986, Local Law No. 5-186 entitled, "A Local Law in Relation to Bed and Breakfast Facilities" was adopted permitting such uses by Special Exception in the "A", "M", "M-I", "B", "B-l", "C", and "C-l" Zoning Districts. 6. Applicant proposes to the use the subject dwelling in accordance with the requirements of Article III, Section lO0-30(B), subsection [16], and all other town, county and state regulations pertaining to this "bed and breakfast" use, with owner-occupany, where lodging and breakfast is provided for not more than six, casual, transient roomers and renting of not more than three rooms. 7. A minimum of five 10' by 20' parking spaces will be installed at the rear of the premises for the rented rooms. 8. Article III, Section lO0-30(B), subsection [16] makes exception for site-plan approval and reviews of the Planning Board for this use. In ,considering this application, the board finds and deter- mines that: (1) the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (2) the use will not adversely affect the safety, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (3) the use is in harmony with and will promote the general purposes and intent of zoning. The board has also considered subsections [a] through [1] of Article xII, Section 100- 121(C)[2] of the Zoning Code~ ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- September ll, 1986 Regul'ar Meeting (Appl. No. 3539 -HERBERT, idecision, continued:) Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that a Special Exception for permission to establish Bed and Breakfast use within existing single- family dwelling for the renting of not more than three rooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to not more than six casual and transient-roomers, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED S.UBJECT. TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That a minimum of five l0s by 20' parking spaces be installed at the rear of the subjegt premises; and 2. That this use comply with all other rules and regulations as apply, including but not limited to the N.Y,S. Construction and Building Codes. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. adopted. Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, This resolution was duly PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3442: Application of JOHN J. NEWMAN for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinae~e, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permissio~ to construct additions to dwelling within 75 feet of high water and existing bulkhead along James Creek, at 430 Sailors Needle Road, Mattituck~, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~144-5- 29~1 and 30, Fol]owilng delibera~tions, 'the board took the folio.wing 'action, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on August 14, 1986 in the Matter of the Application of JOHN J. NEWMAN, Appeal No. 3442; 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 documeht~tiOn submitted concern~n~t~is applicati~n~ and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are So~thold Town Board of Appeals -14- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3442 - NEWMAN, decision, continued:) familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning~ and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is located at the north side of Sailors Needle Road, Mattituck, along James Creek, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District lO00, Section 144, Block 5, Lot 29,1 and 30. 2. The survey revised August 5, 1986, prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. indicates that the subject premises contains a total area of 33,780 sq. ft., including land underwater, and is improved with the following: (a) s~ngle-family dwelling of 1,595 sq. ft. set back 32± feet from the westerly ed§e of bulkhead and 33± feet from the easterly edge of concrete seawall and 45± feet from the westerly ordinary highwater mark; (b) accessory garage of 878 sq. ft.; (c) pool, cabana and deck areas of 3,360 sq. ft.; (d) accessory "lighthouse" structure of 662 sq. ft. The percentage of lot coverage at the present time is shown to be 19.2%. Applicant has indi- cated that althDugh the total lot coverage is shown to be proposed at 22.4%, modifications will be made to the deck areas acceptable to the Building Inspector to comply with the maximum 20% lot-coverage limitation. 3. By this application, appellant requests permission to: (a) locate a proposed addition extending 12 feet from the westerly side of the existing dwelling having an insuffi- cient setback at 20± feet from the ed§e of bulkhead, and (b) locate a covered deck 25± feet from the edge of concr-ete seawall, at their nearest points. 4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, sub-paragraph (B) of the Zoning Code requires all buildings and structures located on lots adjacent to tidal water bodies other than the Long Island Sound to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary highwater mark of such tidal water body, or not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the landward edge of the tidal wetland, whichever is greater. 5. The setbacks as exist are substantially less than the requirements and were established many years ago, prior to the enactment of this local law. The setback as established for the westerly side at 32± feet would meet only 45% of the So~thold Town Board of Appeals -15- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3442 - NEWMAN, decision, continued:) requirements, and the easterly side would meet only 60% of today's requirement from the ordinary highwater mark. 6. It is the opinion of the board members that variances of 12± feet at the westerly side and six feet, more or less, at the easterly side, is not the minimal necessary, and will be a substantial reduction of the requirements. In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines that with an increase of the setbacks as noted below: (a) the variance will be the minimum necessary; (b) the practical difficulties claimed are sufficient to warrant a granting of relief; (c) there will be no substantial change in the character of the district; (d) the relief as granted is not substantial; (e) the circum- stances are not shared by other properties generally existing in the neighborhood; (f) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (g) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of all the above factors~ the interests of justice will be served. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that a Variance for permission to construct additions with amendments as noted below, in the Matter of the Apoplication of JOHN J. NEWMAN under Appeal NO. 3442, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Easterly setback at the closest point from the edge of concrete seawall to be not closer than 27 feet; 2. Westerly setback at the closest point from the edge of bulkhead to be not closer than 24 fee.ti 3. Compliance wi~'b the 20% maximum-permitted lot coverage limitation as accepted and recommended by the building Inspector, or additional variance(s) will be necessary; 4. All construction must be in accordance with the Flood Plain Laws~ 5. All exterior lighting not to be obtrusive to area Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3442 - decision, NEWMAN., continued:) properties and must be of a mushroom-type shielded down to the ground. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki~ Messrs. Goehrin§er, Grigonis, This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3532: Application of ARTHUR AND BERNADETTE BURNS for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Ar~s l~T~-3-~-~C) and 100-32, for permission to construct accessory tennis court in the frontyard area~ at 3525 Private Road #13 (right-of-way extending off the end of Ruth Road), Mattituck; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-105-1-4. 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 ARTHUR AND BERNADETTE BURNS, Appeal No. 3532; and WHEREAS~ at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is located at the north side of Private Road No. 13 in the Hamlet of Mattituck and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 105~ Block 1, Lot 4. 2. The subject premises contains a lot area of 5.483 acres and average lot width of 227± feet and is shown on survey revised May 23, 1986 by Young & Young Surveyors to be improved with: (a) a single-family, one-story frame house set back very closely to the bluff along the Long Island Sound and 677± feet from the Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3532 BURNS, decision, continued:) southerly (front) property line and 50± feet from the easterly (side) property line, (b) accessory in§round pool distance 75± feet south of the dwelling structure, (c) 8I by 22~m accessory shed situated 327± feet from the southerly property line and 58± feet from the westerly (side) property line. 3. By this application, appellants request permission to locate a 60' by 120' tennis court approximately 190 feet south of the existing dwelling in the front yard area. No fencing is shown or requested at this time, and it should be understood that this variance does not include an excessive-height relief for the fence. 4. The board agrees that the topography of the land and location of the existing structures lend to the practical difficulties in this matter and that there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance. 5. It is also the understanding of this board that the tennis court will be limited as an accessory incidental to the single-family residential use of the premises and not operated for gain. In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial; (b) the practical difficulties claimed are sufficient to warrant a granting of relief; (c) there will be no substantial change in the character of the district~ (d). the circumstances are not shared by other properties generally existing in the neighborhood; (e) there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (f) the setback of the proposed accessory tennis court will be substantiallY farther than that provided for new principal structures~ (g) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that a Variance for permission to locate tennis court structure accessory and incidental to residen- tial use of this parcel, in the Matter of the Application of ARTHUR AND BERNADETTE BURNS, Appeal No. 3532, BE AND · Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No, 3532 - BURNS., decision, continued:) HEREBY IS APPRDVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: l. The accessory tenni~ court be located not closer than 365 feet from the front property line as requested and not closer than 30 feet to the west property line; 2. No outside lighting around the tennis court structure, as proposed; 3. Excessive height of fencing, if any~ is not to be considered part of this approval and may require another variance application for consideration after formal applica- tion to the Building Inspector. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer~ Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3536: Application of GEORGE AND PAT BROWN for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance~ Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with reduction of existing nonconforming sideyard setbacks at 150 Briarwood Lane, Cutchogue, NY~ County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-136-1-3. 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 GEORGE AND PAT BROWN; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard ano their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application~ and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is located at the east side of Harbor Lane in the Hamlet of Cutchogue and is more particularly Sou'thold Town Board of Appeals -19- September ll, 1986 R6gular Meeting (Appeal No. 3536 BROWN, decision, continued:) identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 136, Block l, Lot 3. 2. The subject premises contains a lot area of 16,609 sq. ft. and average lot width of 70 feet and is show~ on survey dated June 3, 1986 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. to be improved with one single-family, 1½-story frame dwelling and attached garage set back 127± feet from Harbor Lane, six feet more or less from the southerly property line and 13± feet from a right-of-way along the northerly property line. 3. By this application, appellants request permission to construct an above-ground deck addition at the southwest corner of the existing dwelling with a setback of approximately 1½ feet from the southerly property line. 4. The present nonconforming setback is 4~ feet, and the amount of footage for further reduction requested is 4½ feet, for a total of 8½ feet~ leaving an insufficient setback at 1½ feet. It is the opinion of the board that a reduction to 1½ feet is not the minimal necessary, and the setback can be increased without unusualldifficulties. In considering this appeal, the board also finds and deter- mines that with an increase of the setback as noted below, this variance: (a) will be the minimum necessary; (b) will not substantially change the character of the district; (c) is not substantial; ~d) there is'no~o~her method feasible for ~ppellants to pursue~other than a variance; (e) relief would be warranted; (f) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of all of the above factors, the interests of justice will be served. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, i't was RESOLVED, that relief be and hereby is GRANTED for permis- sion to construct open-deck addition at the southerly side of existing dwelling with a setback of not less than three feet, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the deck remain open and unroofed at all times; 2. That the northerly yard area not be reduced to less than the 13 ft. from the right-of-way as exists. Sodthold Town Board of Appeals -20- September ll~ 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3536 - BROWN_~ decision, continued:) 3. That the southerly setback not be less than three feet. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. PENDI'NG DECISION: Appeal No. 3530: Application of RAYMOND T. GOODWIN for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance: (1) Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct kitchen addition with an insufficient westerly sideyard setback and insufficient total sideyards; (2) Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to construct kitchen and deck additions with an insufficient setback from the highwater mark along Peconic Bay, at 4450 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-128-4-22.2. 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 RAYMOND T. GOODWIN~ Appeal No. 3530; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: I. The property in question is located at the end of a 15-ft. right-of-way extending off the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard in the Hamlet of Laurel, along Peconic Bay, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Sec- tion 128, Block 4, Lot 22.2. 2. By survey revised May 16, 1986 prepared by Young & Young Surveyors, the premises is shown as containing a total So~thold Town Board of Appeals -21- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3530 GOODWIN~ decision, continued:) lot area of 28,124 sq. ft. and average lot width of 96 feet, and improved with the following structures: (a) a single- family, one-story frame dwelling set back 45± feet from the edge of existing wood bulkhead and 59± feet from a tie line along the average high water mark, having nonconforming side= yards at 22± feet at the west side and 9.4 feet at the east side [nearest points], (b) accessory frame garage in the frontyard area set back 2.7 feet at its closest point from the easterly property line, and (c) 10' by 10' accessory frame shed also located in the frontyard area. 3. By this application, appellant requests permission: (a) to construct and locate kitchen addition along the westerly side and rear of the existing dwelling with a proposed setback from the wood bulkhead at 49± feet and the average high water mark 67± feet, ; (b) to construct and locate wooden deck addition at the rear of the existing dwelling with a proposed setback of 34± feet from the existing bulkhead and 44± feet from the average highwater mark; (c) to construct 14' by 24' kitchen addition with insufficient total sideyards of 22± feet, and an insufficient westerly sideyard setback at 12.7 feet [at its closest points. 4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, subparagraph (B) of the Zoning Code requires all .buildings and structures located on lots adjacent to tidal water bodies other than the Long Island Sound to be set back not less than seventy-five feet from the ordinary highwater mark or not less than seventy-five feet from the landward edge of tidal wetlands, whichever is greater. 5. Article III, Section lO0-31, Column "A" of the Zoning Code requires minimum total sideyards at 25 fee% and not closer than 10 and 15 feet. 6. For the record it is noted that the premises was the subject of prior Appeals under Nos. 2076 rendered September 25, 1975, and 2146 rendered June 10, 1976, for area variances. In considering this appeal~ the board finds and determines: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirements; (b) the difficulties are sufficient to warrant a granting of the variance; (c) there will be no substantial change i~ the character of the district; (d) t.he circumstances are not shared by other properties generally existing in the So~thold Town Board of Appeals -22- September ll, 1986 R~gular Meeting (Appeal No. 3530 - GOODWIN, decision, continued:) neighborhood; (e) there is no other method feasible for appel- lant to pursue other than a variance; (f) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by allowing relief, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No.3530 in the Application of~RAYMDND T. GOODWIN for permission to construct. 14' by 24' kitchen addiction with setbacks of not less than 12.7 from the west side line and not less than 49 feet to the bulkhead, and construct deck addition as shown on survey revised May 16, 1986 prepared by Young and Young, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No further sideyard reductions on either side'~ 2. Proposed wooden deck addition remain~ppen and unroofed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehri~ger, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3423: Application of GAIL DESSIMOZ and MICHAEL RACZ for a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law, Section 280-a over a private right-of-way known as Hallock Lane and referred to as Private Road #10, extending off the north side of Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York (over and along lands of Charles Simmons and Edward Harbes). County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-112-1-7 & 8, and to Parcel No. 1000-112-1-4. 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 GAIL DESSIMOZ and MICHAEL RACZ; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were .~Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (~peal No. 3433- DESSIMOZ AND RACZ, decision, continued:) heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property to which appellants are requesting New York Town Law, Section 280-a approval, is located in the "A-80" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District as more particularly shown on site plan dated November 1, 1985, prepared by Peix and Crawford Architecture, contains a total lot area of 1.940± acres and lot width of 124± feet, and is improved with the following structures: (a) single-family, one-story frame dwelling; (b) 12' by 22' garage located in the frontyard area; and (c) a 9' by 16' accessory building, as referred in Certificate of Nonconforming Premises No. Zl1990 dated October 11, 1983 (Carel DeLeeux and Edward Urbanello). This parcel is identified on the Suffolk ~ounty Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 112, Block 1, Lot 4, and is referred to as 4255 Private Road No. l0 (Hallock Lane), Mattituck. 2. By this application, appellants request a variance pur- suant to the requirements of New York Town Law, Section 280-a, as more particularly shown on surveys, #3876-2 revised May 20, 1986, and Survey Map of Farm for Herbert M. Reeve Est. dated July 7, 1966, all prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C., Surveyor. 3. The right-of-way over which appellants have requested 280-a consideration is situated at the north side of Sound Avenue, and extends in a northerly direction over lands partly of Simmons and partly of Harbes, a distance of approximately 4~000 feet, to the applicants' property. 4. Road Engineer Report No. 523 dated July 7, 1986 indicates as follows: The first 2200± feet is fairly level, with variable widths from 20 feet at Sound Avenue to 10 feet. The material in this .Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3433 DESSIMOZ AND~-RACZ~ decision, 'continued:) area consists primarily of a mixture of sand, loam., with small, medium and large gravel. There are numerous 3" to 8" deep pot- holes. The next 400± feet has similar materials as above with some potholes and depressions, and average road width of llz feet. The remaining distance varies from a ~lat profile to a plus grade, with some washout and backfill with large gravel. Material in this last length is sand, loam, small, medium and large ~ravel wilth occasional stone blend and averaging ll± feet in width The existing base, except for depressed areas~ is hard- packed and stabl.~. Correctign~ are recommended for improvement. 5. Appellants have also requested some rel"ief from the greatest requirements normally placed for rights-of-way of this nature inasmuch as they are ~pplying for a building permit only for renovation and repairs to the existing accessory structure (referred to as "cabin" without kitchen facilities). 6. It is noted for the record that the premises in question was the subject of a prior Appeal under No. 3431 rendered March 10, 1986, and that 280-a access is pending with the Town Planning Board concerning a division of land for Charles P. Simmons. 7. The board finds that under the circumstances, the improvements as noted below should be the maximum at this time, to allow for the issuance of a building permit for a renovation and repair of the existing accessory building, and the minimum for proper, sufficient, and safe access by emergency and other vehicles. In granting this limited 280-a variance, the board finds~ (a) the relief requested is noz substantial; (b) there will be no substantial change in the character of this dis- trict; (c) the relief as conditionally granted will not cause a substantial effect or detriment to adjoining properties; (d) the circumstances of this appeal are unique and there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (e) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -25- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3433 - DESSIMOZ AND RACZ, decision, continued:) RESOLVED, that a variance pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a, for temporary approval of access, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED under Appeal No~ 3433 concernin-g-- premises of GAIL ~DESSIMOZ'AND MICHAEL RACZ, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That this 280-a approval is limited requiring minor improvements to the right-of-way in order to allow proper issuance of a building.permit for the renovation/repair of existing accessory (cabin) structure. No other building permits shall be issued for this property or other properties having this same legal access route until final 280-a has been filed and_ ~.~-considered. 2. Improvements, Within the legal perimeter of the right=of-way for a minimum width of ten (10) feet, without disturbance to nearby trees along the right-of-way, as follows: (a) commencing approximately 2200 feet north of Sound Avenue, regrade with bankrun having a 20% stone content; and (b) filling all potholes and depressions. 3. Continuous maintenance of right-of-way for safe and sufficient access by vehicles. 4. Any other building permits, new subdivisions, set-offs, or construction on this or other premises along this right- of-way shall also be subject to additional application for New York Town Law, Section 280-a, updated access approval° Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting CORRESPONDENCE: Appeal No. 3259 - NICHOLAS ALIANO. Pending Special Exception application, Art. VI, See. lO0-60(B)L1](b), Article V, Sec. 100=50(B)[4] for permission to establish/build four two-story motel build~ngs containing 10 motel units for transient use, and an office building of 2,500 sq. ft. in area on this 3,721-acre parcel. S/s ~ain Road, Greenport. B-Light Business Zone. Written_inquiry was received August 29, 1986 from Henry E. Raynor, Jr., as Agent for Mr. Aliano concerning a determination as a result of the recessed hearing. In checking with the Planning Board, it appears that two different plans are before them, one for motel units and the other for 25-garden- apartment complexes. It was the Planning Board's concern that the garden-apartment proposal was over-intensified (as to density), and ~beLPlanning Board and the applicant are continuing reviews on this newly received proposal. It is the position of th~s board that once the following have been received, We would be in a position to sch6dule the Special Exception for the motel complex, if this was the step desired by the applicant: 1. Per discussion with applicant at 8/23/84 ZBA meeting, await receipt of signed contract between the applicant and the Village of Greenport concerning the sewage and water system hook-ups necessar~ to determine maximum-permitted density in this zoning district'and well as environmental reviews); 2. Comments or recommended changes, if any, by the Planning Board on the amended site plan (when filed in complete ~6~ ~th the Planning Board); 3. Copy of amended Certification or other response from the Building Inspector concerning the amended site plan for either the motel complexes or the garden~apartment complexes, (whichever is confirmed by the applicant for consideration). 4. Suffolk County Health Department, Art. 6 approval or other action or waiver for this proposed development. The Secretary was directed to respond to Mr. Raynor's inquiry advising him of the above status. Unanimously.agreed. Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting MATTERS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS OCTOBER 2, 1986: On motion by Mr. Goehringe~, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, itrwas RESOLVED, to schedule the following matters for public hearings to be held at the October 2, 1986 Regular Meeting of this Board at the Southold Town Hall, Main Roads SoUthold, New Yorks and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to advertise notice of same in the Suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman a~ required 'by law: 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3559 - LEONARDUS AND MARIE VANOUDEN- ALLEN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinances Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition to dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback, at 230 Sailor's Lane, Cutchogue, NY; District lO00s Section lll, Block 14, Lot 07; 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3555 - SHIRLEY HOMAN. Variance to the Bulk~Schedule for permission to construct addition to dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback, at 160 Smith Drive, Peconic, NY; District 1000, Section 98, Block 3, Lot 38; 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3554 - NORMAN AND KAREN REICH. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback, at 1809 Right-of-Way off the East Side of Rocky Point Road, East Marion, NY; District 1000, Section 31, Block 3, Part of Lot 10; Kimon and Retzos Minor Subdivision #81, Lot #2; ~50 p.m. Appeal No. 3547 JOSEPH AND CATHERINE RTEMER. Variance to the Bulk Schedule for approval of insufficient lot areas width and depth of two parcels known and referred to as Lots #96, #97, #98 and half of #99, at Peconic Bay Estates, Map #1124, and identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 53, Block 4, Lot 32; 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3503 GEORGE D. DAMIEN. Variance requesting confirmation of Building Inspector's action and prior Z.B.A. Decision Rendered under Appeal No.~949 of 9/1/66, recognizing two separate building lots, having insufficient area, width and depth as required by Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule. Corners of Jackson, Fifth and Main Street, New Suffolk. 1000-17-9-12; Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (~earings for 10/2/86, continued:) 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3484 - PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO. Variance to construct addition at rear of dwelling with an insufficient setback from wetlands along Great Pond, 7455 Soundview Avenue, Southold; 1000-59-6-8; 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3552 JOHN SENKO. Variance to establish shopping center use in this "B-I" General Business Zoning District with insufficient lot area, 49295 Main Road (a/k/a Ackerly Pond Lane), Southold; 1000-70-7-1, containing 30,084± sq. ft.; 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3553 EUGENE BOZZO. Variances: (a) to construct dwelling with an insufficient setback from wetlands/tidal water along Great Peconic Ba~; (2) relocate accessory garage build- ing in the frontyard area;(3) lot coverage of all structures in excess of maximum-permitted 20 percent. S/s Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck; 1000-123-6-27; 8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3557 ROBERT EGAN. Variances: (1) to reconstruct dwelling with insufficient total sideyards, northwest- erly side yard, and front yard; (2) addition and reconstruction within 75 feet of wetlands along Spring Pond, Orient Harbor. 330 Knoll Circle, East Marion~ Gardiners Bay Estates, Map of Section Two; 1000-37-5-12; 8:25 p.m. Appeal No. 3486 CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR. Con- struct and establish House of Worship with related religious activities on a five-acre trace of land referred to as Lot #3, Minor Subdivision of Satvatore Catapano, which received Sketch- Plan Approval 4/14/86 by the Southold Town Planning Board. Location of Property: W/s Main Bayview Road, Southold; lO00- 69-6-parts of 8 and 2; 8:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3560 - EDMUND AND JOAN PRESSLER. Appeal from Building Inspector Notice of Disapproval dated 1/2/86 and ZBA Action #3463 dated 5/6/86, and Variance to the Zoning Ordinance to establish a second retail/business use in conjunction with existing nonconforming two-family dwelling and antique sales business use on this parcel of 68,912 sq. ft. in area and 95.44 ft. lot width. Location of Property: "B-l" General Business Zoning District. N/s Main Road, Southold; 1000-63-3-26. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting NEW APPLICATION: Review-Appeal No. 3549 KALIN AND GIBBS. Upon reviewing the file, it was noted that the following informa- tion was missing, and the board indicated that upon receipt of same, a hearing date would be scheduled: (1) Planning Board coordination, (2) County Health, Article 6 action. Proposed set-off of parcel, N/s Main Road, Orient. 1000-18-2-28 and 29.1, with tw6 existing dwellings. UPDATE: Pending Application~Appeal No. 3548 FRANK R. ZALESKI. Receipt was acknowledged concerning DEC subdivision approvals expiring December 31, 1987, Permit #10-85-1401. As initially requested in our August 19, 1986 letter to Mr. Henry Raynor, agent for the applicant, the board awaits copies of the County Health Art. 6 action and Planning Board coordination/comments, prior to scheduling this matter for a public hearing. NEW APPLICATION-Re~i6w: Appeal No. 3552 JOHN SENKO. Variance to establish shopping center use in this "B-l" General Business Zoning District with insufficient lot area of 30,084± sq. ft. Ackerly Pond Lane and N/s Main Road, Southold. The board authorized scheduling of this matter for a public hearing, subject to sending an inquiry to the Suffolk County Department of Health concerning status under Article 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was On motion by Mr. Goehringer, RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declarations on each of the following matters determining each project not to have an adverse effect upon the environment for the reasons indicated below and in accordance with the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Section 617, 6 NYCRR, and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold: Appeal No. 3540 - Mark ~nd Lorraine LaRosa; Appeal No. 3541 - Rial Realty Corp~; Appeal No. 3551 - Margaret Best and Adlyn Syverson; Appeal No. 3533 - John Bredemeyer; Appeal No. 3477 - William and Katherine Heins; Appeal No. 3544 - James F. Warwick; Appeal No. 3534 - Robert Waddington~ (continued on next seven pages) SoOthold Town Board of Appeals -30- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRON~IENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAl, NO.: 3540 PROJECT NAME: MARK AND LORRAINE LaR0SA 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 depart~mnt or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or si~nilhr project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted { ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Deck addition at rear of existing dwelling within 75 feet of ordinary highwater mark along "Horton Creek'!. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of $outhold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: N/s A]b0 Drive, Laurel. REASON(S) SUPPORTING T}{IS DETERMINATION: (1) a~ Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2} The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -3t- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAPJkTION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPF~L NO.: 3551 PROJECT Nfd~E: RIAL REALTY CORP. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the To~nl of Southold. This board'determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the envirop~nent for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other depar~nent or agency which may also have an appl£cation pending for the same or similhr project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: L0t-]ine variance (10t width) of three parcels in this pending subdivision. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of SOuthold, CountYof Suffolk, more particularly known as: N/s right-of-way extending off the N/s of Oregon Road, Mattituck. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~4INATION: (1) ~kn Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted ~%hich 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 ]0t-line variance regulated as provided in Section 6]7.]3 of the State Envir0nmenta] Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. (3) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction. Sou'thold Town Board of Appeals -32- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environm'ental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAPJtTION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3551 PROJECT NAME:'MARGARET BEST AND ADLYN SYVERSON 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 enviro~unent for the--~-~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Setback of proposed accessory garage structure would place same in the front yard rather than in the required rea~.yar~. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of'South61d, County of Suffolk, more particularly khown as: Right-of-way off the east side of Camp Mine0la Road, Mattituck. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted ~hich indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Th~...relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act~ 6 NYCRR. Sou'thold Town Board of Appeals -33- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONblENTAL DECLARAT ION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3533 PROJECT NAM]]: JOHN'BREDEMEYER 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 pro]ect. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted I ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Placement of proposed dwelling with an insufficient setback from bulkhead. LOCATI°N OF PROJECT: particularly known as: Town of S0uthold, County'of Suffolk, more W/s Bay Avenue, Orient. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) A~ Enviro~nmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 N¥CRR. (3). A permit under Wetlands #358 was issued by the Southold Town Board of Trustees~ N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation has determined th6t no%~ermit is required by their agency. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -34- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAl, NO.: 3477 PROJECT NAME: ~WILLIAM AND KATHERINE HEINS 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 signif~- cant adverse effect on the enviro~ment for the~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: set-off of parcel. LOCATION OF PROJECT: particularly known as: Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] Area/10t-l~ne variance for proposed Town of SOuthold, County'of Suffolk, more North Side of Main R0ad, 0ri·ent, NY. REASON'(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) ~n Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the enviror~ent are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a lot-line/area variance regulated as provided in Section 6]7.]3 of the State Environmental Quality Revie~ Act, 6 NYCRR. ~(3) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -35- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.RoA. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination Of Non-Significance APPFJIL NO.: 3544 PROJECT NAM. E: JAMES F. WARWICK 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: To lift condition of prior ZBA area/lot-line variance #]729 rendered 3/8/73 which prohibited construction of new dwe]l.ing, allowing only accessory building(s). LOCATION OF PROJECT:. Town.of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: South Side of Fasbender Avenue., Pec0nic. Bailey Park Map Fi]ed 9/26/32, Lot #]]. REAsoN(S) SOPPORTING THIS DETEP~M~NATION: (1) ~ Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction; refers to prior area/lot-line variance action rendered 3/8/73. (3) The premises is at an elevation of 10 or more feet above mean sea level. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -36- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONF~ENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Si~nificance APPEAL NO.: 3534 PROJECT NAlV[E: ROBERT WADDINGTON This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the To%rn of $outhold. 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: Insufficient setback from property lines of propo§ed addition in this B-I General Business Zoning District. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: North Side of Main Road, Mattituck, NY. REASONIS) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted w~nich 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 6]7.]3 of the State Envir0nmenta] Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was dul.y adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -37~ September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting *'10/2 **10/2 **10/2 MATTERS UPDATED: OTHERCMATTERS pending public hearing; awaiting additional information, as noted below: {a,) Appeal No, ~511 -'KAPELL REAL ESTATE/LIMPET. Area, h an~ dgpth varj_onces.. -~F6~'n St., Greenport; Await Co. Health approval/waiver before advertising deadline. {b) APpeal NJ. 3514 - GEORGE P. SCHADE. Area, width and depth variances. Await' Co. Hea]-~h Dept. waiver before adver~'ising deadline. (c) Appeal No. 3487 , CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR. Await additio~al..input as requested Re: Special Exception on portion of premises pending subdivision approval ~Yent. 10/2. the Plann]ing Board. W/s Bayview Road, Sguthold. (d) Appeal' No. 3519 - SANDERS AND SCHWARTZ. Area, width and ~etb~ck v2riances ~' proposed set-off of undersized parcels. Await Article VI approval/waiver and D.E.C. Shores Acres, Mattituck. (e) Appeal No. 3503 -'GEORGE D. DAMIEN. Area, width and depth variances 5th and Main Streets, New Suffolk. Await Co. Health apprOval/waiver and P.B. reviews. (f) Appeal No. 3495 - JOHN AND GLORIA SHIRVELL. Area, width and depth variances. N/s Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. Await Co. Health Art. VI approval/waiver. {g) Appeal No. 3496 FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR. Cabana/ beach house structure within 75" o~water 'a~-~ng Cutchogue Harbor. N/s Old Harbor-Road. Await Co. Health approval. (h) Appeal No] 3484 - PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO. Addit'~on to dwelling with insufficient setback from fresh water. Privat~ Road off N/s Soundview Avenue, Southold. Await D.E.C. (i) Appeal No. 3464 - TED DOWD. Variance to construct new dwelling with': (1) excessive lot coverage, (2) insufficient front yard, (3) insufficient side y6rd, (4) insufficient setback from wetlands. 350 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. Pending Town Trustees reviews/action. **~entatively scheduled for hea, ring. Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting Appeal No. 2439 - ARNOLD AND KAREN BLAIR. Variance for re-division into two. lots with insufficient area, and width at Cedar Lane and Beach Court, East Marion. Gardiners Bay Estates Lots 151 thru 172 incl. adjoining roads, **Await .~PB, Health Dept. Art. VI approvals/input. [Possible Town Trustees jurisdiction-upland Contains wetland grasses]. [Building envelopes of buildable areas not shown.] (k) Appeal No. 3445 - JULIUS ZEBROSKI. Variance for approval of two lots having insufficient area. E/s Waterview Drive and N/s Bayview Road, Southold. **Await Article VI ~pproval and copy of C.O for existing land and buildings previous lot-line changJs and conveyances?]. PB comments received. Appeal No. 3461 - HELMUT HASS. Variance for approval of two business lots as proposed with insufficient area and width. S/s C,R. 48, Peconic. **Await Co. Health Art. VI. Planning Board comments received. (m I 'Appeal No. 3462 HERBERT MANDEL. Variance for approval of three parcels having insufficient area. N/s Main Road, East Marion. **Await Co. Health Art. VI and copy of C.O. (n) Appeal No. 3449 - FRANK AND ETHEL BEGORA.' Variance for approval o~'th~eeparcels having insufficient area, depth and width. N/s Main Road, East ~Marion. **Await County Health Art, Vt, corrected maps and P.B. reviews after submission of maps. (o,) Appeal No. 3403 - ANNA, LORIA. Variance for approval of two parcels having-insufficient area, width and depth. W/s First St. and N/s King St, New Suffolk. **Await Co. Health Art. VI app<l, and approval/waiver. Appeal No. 3426 - GERALD DOROSKI. Variance for approval of access (280-a). N/s C.R. 48, Peconic; **Await additional information to clarify ROW and P.B. input. Appeal No. 3411. ANDREW FOHRKOLB. Variance to restore existing building for habitable use (additional dwelling unit). W/s Lipco R6ad, Mattituck. **Await scaled floor plans and C.O. or PreCO. Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- September II, 1986 Regular Meeting Other Matters Pending Public Hearings (**awaiting additional information as noted), continued: ("r,) Appeal No. 3371 FLORENCE ROLLE. Variance for approval of tWO parcels having insufficient area, width and depth. E/s 0la Jule Lane and N/s Kraus Road, Mattltuck. **Await Article VI application/approYal by Co. Health and poss. DEC. ('s) Appeal No. 3342 - PHILIP R. REINHARDT. Variance for approval of two parcels having insufficient area and width. **Recessed from 5/25/83 as requested by attorney for County Health Department Art. VI approval/clearance(and DEC)~ { ~) Appeal No. 3216 -'EUGENE DAVISON. Variance to establish living quarters over stable. **Applicant has requested postponement until ~urther notice and Planning Board reviews. ~/s Sound Avenue,_M0ttituck. ("'u) Appeal No. 3191 - HERBERT MANDEL. Variance to change lot line and construct garage in front/~ide yard areas. E/s Ihlet Lane Extension, Greenport. Premises of R.E. Clempner and Herbert Mandel are contiguous. **Await DEC & PB. (:v) Appeal No. 3249 - DONALD P. BRICKLEY, Variance f(~r approval of lots having insufficient area.and width. S/s Bay Avenue and E/s BroadWater Drive, Cutchogue. **Await DEC, Art. VI by County Health, and contour maps. (w) Appeal No. 3263 - ROGER' MUNZ. Variance for Relief of Cox~dition No. 7 and the May 27;-~'~83 decisions rendered in Appeals No. 3100 and'3101. **Recessed from 9/13/84 as requested by applicant. Requests for status have been made,:(witbout responseS. Premises have been sold. (~x) Appqal No. 3268 ~ J.'KA:THERINE TUTHILL. Variance for approval.:of parcels having insufficient area, width and depth in this "C". zone. ~*Await DEC and Co. Health Art. Vt application/actions. Planning Board recommended denial 9/84. (y)' Appeal No. 3537 - ROBERT AND SUSAN D'UR~O. Breezy Path, Southold. Await D.E.C.,~Co. Health and Trustee after formal applications to complete ZBA file. (z) Appeal No. 3545 - PATRICK STIGLIANI. Main Bayview Road, Southold. Await Co. Health Art. VI and PB coordination. (aa) Appeal No. 3542 as Amended - TIDEMARK/CLIFFSIDE ASSOCIATES. Await copies of DEC, Co. Health and PB to complete SE file. SEQRA process pending. (bb) Appeal No. 3546 - GREGORY FOLLARI. Relief of ZBA condi- tion requested concerning disturbance of soil at Sound bluff. Await DEC action to alter bluff areas before proceeding. (cc) Appeal No. 3543 PETER AND BARBARA HERZ. Wetlands setback of~.proposed dwelling. 170 Cedar Drive, Southold. [Await Trustees review and action before scheduling for hearing.] ~,~uthold Town Board of Appeals -40- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting Other Matters Pending Public Hearings (**awaiting additio'nal information as noted), continued: Appeal No. 3299 - DOUGLAS MILLER. Variance to include wetlands in subdivision which would not result in insufficient area. Ktrkup Lane, Laurel. **Await DEC a~d.'Co, Health Department approvals of pending subdivision. (e) Appeal No. 3412 - THOMAS CRAMER. Variance to construct within 75' of wetlands. E/s Meadow Lane, Mattituck. **Await Trustees action/approval, (Health Dept. approval and.'DEC'waiver'received.) Appeal No. 3355 - PAUL & MARIElTA CANALIZO. Variance to construct with ins~'fficient' setback in frontyard and from wetlands. **Await DEC and wetland setbacks map.~ Trustees reviews pending. Appeal No, 3214 - HANAUER & BAGLEY. Variance for approval of two lots having insufficient upland, build- able area. DEC waiver and Planning Board received, **Await Co. Health and Trustees. Lighthouse Road and S/s Soundview Avenue, Southold. (hO Application for LOIS AND FRANK THORP. E/s West Lane and S/s North Lane ~private), off the E/s Orchard Lane East Marion. Variance for approval of lots having insufficient area, width, depth, etc. **Await Notice Of Disapproval after application to Building Department retssuance of filing fee, postmarked certified-mail receipts, etc. (il Appeal No. 3293 - HAROL~D AND JOSEPHINE DE,NEEN. Variance for approval of three p~arcels having insufficient area, width and depth. W/s ROW off the S/s Bayview Road (west of Waterview Drive), SOuthold. 280-a not requested. **Await Co. Health Art. VI and DEC approvals/action. Appeal No. 3252 - JOHN.CHARLES & M. SLEDJESKI. Variance appealing decision of Planning B~ard of 41/2/84 that buildable area in proposed division is less than 80,000 sq, ft. (excludes wetland grass areas) for a one-family dwelling, and less than 160,000 sq. ft. (6xcludes wetland grass areas) for an existing two-dwelling usage. E/s Narrow River Road and S/s~Main Road, Orient. **Await Co. Health Art, VI and SEQRA. (kk) Appeal No. 3367 - LOIS AND PATRICIA LESNIKOWSKI. Variance for approval of two parcels having insufficient area and width. S/s North Qrive., Mattituck. **Await DEC. Build- ing envelopes and s'~tba'cks not shown since enactment of Lo6al Law - Wetlands Setbacks. 'S~uthold Town Boar. d of Appeals -41- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (11) (mm) (nn) (oo) (PP) (PP) (qq) Other Matters Pending Public Hearings (**awaiting additional information) continued: Appeal No. 3259 - NICHOLAS ALIAND. Special Exception to establish and build four twO-story motel buildings contain- ing lO motel units for transient use, and an office building of 2,500 sq. ft. in area on this 3.721-acre parcel, zoned "B-Light." S/s Main Road, Greenport (along the east side of ?-ll). **Recessed hearing from. 8/23/84 a~aiting Village of Greenport contracts to which this plan is contingent upon before approval may be given. Appeal No. 3298 - PORT OF EGYPT/C & L REALTY. Variance to construct forty,unit.motel on insufficient buildable upland of 4.83 acres and having insufficient sideyards. S/s Main Road (prev, Southold Fishing Station/Morris), Southold. **Await corrected s~te plans, topographical survey including lowest floor elevations above mea sea level, Suffolk County Health Department approval, N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation approval, comments or input after review of the site plan by the Planning Board. 10J9/84~ Appeal No. 2929 - SAL CAIOLA. tionable as to representat~n. N/s C.R; 48, Southold. Project proposed is ques- Status/clarification awaited. Appeal No. 3183 - MARY N. CODE. Smith Drive, North, Southold. Proposed reseparation of lots. Await DEC and Planning Board applications to be completed and filed for'input. Appeal No 3274 - BEST~ SCHMITT, SYVERSON. ROW off E/s Camp Mineola R~ad along' Great Peconic Bay, Mattituck. **Await Co. Health, DEC and Planning Board.before public hearing. Appeal No. 3458 - FRANK Z~LESKI. Three-lot division with lots having insufficient area, width and dep~'h. Await Co. Health Article VI and D.E.C. approvals. Appeal No. 3549 JOAN KALI.N AND BETSY GIBBS. Insufficient area, width and depth of parcel:in this proposed-set',off, at the north side of Main Road, Orient. Await Co. H~alth Article 6 waiver or action and Planning Board coord./comments before scheduling for public heari'ng. Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting BUILDING-DEPT. MEMORANDUM: Private right-of-way located at the East Side of South Harbor Road, Southold. The Building Department has asked for a response concerning the condition of Private Road #10 (Old Woods Road), Southold, which concerns the pending building-permit application of Charles Blake and pending Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. and Mrs. John Holzapfel applied for a 280-a variance under Appeal No. 3432 from the beginning of the right-of-way along South Harbor Road up to the Holzapfel property monument. Conditions were placed with the approval in this matter on April 3, 1986~ and subsequent thereto, the improvements to the right-of-way were constructed and accepted. Page 2, paragraph #5 indicated that the conditional 280-a approval was not to be recognized as an automatic waiver for any other lots along this right-of-way, unless so recommended in writing by the Building Inspector and filed with our office. I~ reviewing the length of the right-of-way and access to Mr. Blake's structures, it was determined that a separate application for 280-a approval is necessary for Mr~ Blake, particularly since the Holzapfels' 280-a did not include the additional 240± feet past their parcel and did not include any other parcels. The Chairman ~ndicated a letter would be sent to Mr. Lessard in response to his September 8, 1986 memorandum. PENDING APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3543 - PETER AND BARBARA HERZ. Correspondence was received from the Board of Trustees dated September 4, 1986, and the Bba~d~m~mbers authorized and directed the following response: ... In response to your September 4th letter concerning the above matter, please be advised that we have no objection to your declaring Lead Agency status on your pending Wetlands Application. Inasmuch as our jurisdiction deals with the setbacks, as regulated by Part 617.13~ sub~ections (d)[2], the variance would not be subject to SEQRA [see copies of SEQRA regulations attached]. Please feel free to continue the SEQRA process as you deem necessary. If information is found, howevers that the location of the dwelling, excavation, etc. would directly disturb wetlands or the environment in any manner, please coordinate such findings with our office since the same could affect our initial Type II Declaration. If we may assist you, please don't hesitate to let us know ..... Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS: Appeal No. 3475: Joseph H. Sawicki, Jr. Member Grigonis reported that he recently inspected the improvements constructed within the subject right-of-way as required by conditions rendered April 3, 1986, in this 280-a application, and recommended acceptance of same. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the improvements ~ithin the right-of-way as required by Conditional Variance, No. 3475 rendered April 3, 1986, as inspected by Member Grigonis of r~Cent date, BE AND HEREBY ARE ACCEPTED, subject to continuous maintenance at all times in good condition. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki abstained ~rom discussions and vote.) SIGN RENEWALS: Mr. Doyen, it was On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by RESOLVED, to approve the following annual 5~cial Exceptions (concerniNg off-premises-advertising signs) for a period of one year, subject to the ~6deral Highway Beautification Act and funding laws for highways: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. l0 11 12 13 14 15 Appeal No Appeal No Appeal No Appeal No Appeal No Appeal No 279 - M~ttituck Merchants 442 Young's Boatyard 889 - Joseph Cherepowicz 907 - Orient Country Shore 930 - Silvermere Bungalows 935 - Mattituck Plumbing and Heating Appeal No 962 - Raynor-Suter Hardware Appeal No. 1003 - Richard MacNish Appeal No. 1013 - Russell Silleck Agency Appeal No. 1020 Southampton Lumber Corp. Appeal No. 1025 Frank and Robert Klos Appeal No. 1028 - Frohnhoefer Electric Appeal No. 1029 - ~teve J. Doroski Appeal No. 1042 ~ Porky's Restaurant Appeal (Reeve) No. 1072 Thomas and Florence Jurzenia · Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- September ll, 1986 Regular Meeting (Special Exception annual renewals, continued:) 16. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23. 24. 25. 26. Appeal No. 1084 - Edna Brown Appeal No. 1124 - Greenport Shores Civic Association Appeal No. 1165 - JoAnthony's Appeal No. 1166 - Goldsmith's Boat Shop Appeal No. !224 - San Simeon By the Sound Appeal No. 1252 - Sound Shore Appeal No. 1428 - Armando's Barge Appeal No. 1441 - Fred and Harold Reese Appeal No~ 1582 - Volinski Olds~ Appeal No. 17~4 - Village Marine of Mattituck A@peal No. 1725 r Matti~uck Inlet Marina and Shipyard 27-2~ Appeals No. 1~27, 1726, 1752, 1321, 1322_-"Ma~ituck Inlet Marina and Shipyard 32. Appeal No. 1898.~ Agway 33. Appeal No. 1927 Drossos 34. Appeal No. 1785 Drossos 35. Appeal No. 2026 Mattituck Motel 36. Appeal No. 2037 Puerto Verde 37. Appeal No. 2075 - Wells Pontiac-Cadillac 38. Appeal No. 2374 ~ Advent.Lutheran Church 39. Appeal No. 2438 - Rhumb Line, Inc. 40. Appeal No. 2443 - Southold Rotary Club, Inc. 41. Appeal No. 2599 thru 2608, 2744, 2875 thru 2880 - Southold Town Republican Club/Committee 42. Appeal Nos. 2619 thru 2626 - Southold Town Democratic Club/Committee. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. There being no other business properly coming before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pp, 1-44 _~outho]'d !Qwn Board of Appeals (T~ansCript of Hearings September 25, 1~2~--) ~ ~.~ attached hereto) ~~~ _..~~_ ~er~q~. d ~ ~. Go6 b r i~ ge~.~ Ch a i rma~ ~pprove~ - Octobe~./~2', 1986 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF MARK AND LORRAINE LaROSA 'THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 7:37 p.m. Appeal No. 3540 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of MARK AND LORRAINE LaROSA. Deck addition at rear of existing dwelling within 75' of ordinary highwater mark along "Horton Creek", N.s Albo Drive, Laurel. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of survey indicating the application for the addition of a deck at rear of existing dwelling. ~And 16 on the south side including the steps for a stairwell. And I have a copy'of the Suffolk County Tax~ Map indicating this and surrounding p~operties in the area. Is there anybody who would like to speak in favor of this appli- cation? Anybody like to speak against the application? We did get a call. from Mr. and Mrs. LaRosa and they did indicate tO us that they would not be at the hearing and they were both Working this evening, Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion to close this hearing reserving the decision until later. Ail in favor - aye. (Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded electronically at the meeting by Linda Kowalski, ZBA Clerk.) Nad]a Moore SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF RIAL REALTY CORP. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3541 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of RIAL REALTY CORP. Variances for insufficient lot width of three proposed parcels. Northerly end of ROW ex- tending from N/s Oregon Road, Mattituck. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN: I have ~$everal copies of the existing subdi- vision map which was produced by Peconic Surveyors, most re- cent date was January 30, 1986.whiCh indicates 47± acres sub- division~and it also indicates the three lots. Basically the nature of this particular application, although we are in ef- fect creating four One of which is a 40 acre lot And we're not creating it but we're dealing with it. The Planning Board creates it. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I think that's enough for the record. Would you like to speak. I've got to ask you to use the mike if you don't mind. Maybe you can pull it over a little bit your way. SOPHIA GREENFIELD: I'm coming before you as a representative of Rial Realty whose variance hearing is being held tonight. Forgive me for being redundant, i will repeat a little bit but I will hope to minimize that. I'm working from notes, again bear with me. The owner seeks to divide this 47 acre property into four lots. Three waterfront and one remainder parcel. The variance sought is insufficient lot width. With the advisements, suggestions and counsel of our professional planner, David Emilita, Mr Lessard .~ and Southold Town Planning Board members this waterfront parcel designed di- vided the parcel of property into three lots, four lots. Three with at least over 80 thousand square feet of buildable upland area. The total square footage of the lots was 94,795 .95,100 and 1~11,50~0. The design Obviously expands green space. The lot widths are 150 feet, 150 feet and 163 feet. On an average, the variance that we're requesting is less than 10% above or 10% different than the required minimum. I'm not an expert appearing in front of you. However, I did spend some time over the. last few days talking to four or five real estate brokers. And I was advised with a goodly amount of agreement that if these parcels as designed were marketed currently, the owner would anticipate a return of about $250,00 per lot and I'm saying three lots as described. With the owner forced to divide the property into two lots which I feel would be awkward and unyielding the most likely comparable, we gather at the moment, would be about $325,000 per lot making it $650,00 as adversed to $750,000. The owner could sustain a loss of $100,000. For your information, I presented you with a pasted Page 3 - September 11, 1986 Public Hearing-Rial Realty Corp. Southold Town Board of Appeals MS, GREENFIELD : To my understanding, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Have they asked for anything in particular? MS. GREENFIELD : We are to see them after our meeting with you and we expect to meet whatever standards required. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And is the electric service going to be underground or overhead? MS. GREENFIELD : I have not addressed that. I don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you. Hearing no further ques- tions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. All in favor - aye. Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded electronically at the meeting by Linda Kowalski~ ZBA~C~erk. _~ Nadia~MQore ........ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF MARGARET BEST AND ADLYN SYVERSON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1986, PUBLIC !HEARING 7:50 p.m. Apeal No. 3533 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of MARGARET BEST AND ADLYN SYVERSON. Accessory ga- rage/storage building in frontyard area. S/s ROW extending off the east side of Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of survey with the name cut off and the date cut off indicating one two-story framed house on the property. It appears on the Bay. And to the rear of that which would be the frontyard area, another one story framed house and a shed somewhat directly to the rear of that and some stables more towards the right-of-way area and an X showing the specific spots that they are proposing to place a garagerof approximately 22 by 30. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and sur- rounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Could you use the microphone and state your name because I want to ask you a couple of questions if you wouldn't mind. Could you state your name for us ma'am. MRS. BEST: Margaret Best. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. I had a little dif- ficulty in finding exactly where this building is being placed. When I was over last Sunday, I did speak to your next door neigh- bor and he showed me the monuments that are in the common drive- way. But in no way can I understand where this building is to be placed. Possibly you could stake the position of the build- ing for us and then we can come back and look at it. Maybe the four corners someplace. And I have to know the distances from the right-of-way which is a right-of-way coming in and the side yard distances from east or west because we have to reduce a decision of this nature to writing and we can't do it without giving those at least coordinates on the map. So after you stake it, give us a call and we'll try and come down within an adequate amount of time so the stakes don't get knocked down or whatever the case might be. MS. BEST: Fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you very much. Is there any- body else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against this application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, let me just ask one question Mrs. Best. Mrs. Best this is going to be used only for storage purposes. Is that correst? Page 2 - September 1I, 1986 Public Hearing-Margaret Best and Adlyn Syverson Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. BEST: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Pending the investigation (of course ) the actual position of the building. All in favor - aye. (Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded electronically at the meeting by Linda Kowalski~ ZBA Clerk.) Nadia Moore SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~TTER OF JOHN BREDEMEYER THURSDAY, SEPT~M~E~R.i.1, .1986P~BLIC HEARIN~ 7:55 pom. Appeal No. 3533 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of JOHN BREDEMEYER. (Recessed from 8/14/86). Dwelling wi%.h insufficient setback from ordinary highwater mark along Orient Harbor. W/s Bay Avenue, Orient. The Chairman Read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: wanted to say? Yes. Ms. Wickham is there anything else you MS. WICKHAM: I can always think of two.or three. Really very briefly. I looked at the yard decision which your office gave to us that you mentioned last time and I just want to make a couple of comments. Because although that property was in a C zone, I'd just like to go through it and analyze it briefly for similiarities. And perhaps we should incorporate that de- cision number 3118 and survey into the record and I ask that you do that. That was only a 3,800 square foot lot we're deal- ing with. We're dealing with a much larger lot. The setbacks in that case were probably comparable for the lot size of what we're asking for. There were 4 foot 6 inches on the first floor and only 2 feet on the deck On the second floor. And it looks to me that the reasons I would argue, that the appeal was granted in that case, due appear to apply to the decision. Specifically, there's really no feasible way for the Bredemeyers to obviate the need for a substantial variances because the way the property is~ conformed. And also, as far as the second reason in that case, there are similiar circumstances to the adjoining properties~ and in this case, most of the neighborhood. The other reasons I think are also comparable and they're governmental facilities not adversely effecting the suggestions and what not. But I think the reasoning in that case would apply and I ask if you do have any questions, Mr. Bredemeyer is here and we'll try and answer them for you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My only question is a cliff hanger. And that is; how far can you actually reduce the width of the build- ing and still make it a house? MS. WICKHAM: Beyond what's proposed now? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MS. WICKHAM: Oh Boy. They've really scaled it down. To make it livable, I think it would be difficult going lower. If you had any foresight, we would like to hear them. But just for adequate room size, you have the plans there and that· is the type of' house (a small salt box) that they would be planning on building. Page 2 - September 11, 1986 Public Hearing- John Bredemeyer Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. MS. WICKHAM: We could go close to the road which is the case of some of the other properties specifically to the north that have a house right on the road but I don't think he wants to do that. He'd rather maintain the setback in the front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did they apply for a vacant land c.o. also2 MS. WICKHAM: Yes. I think we have one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I didn't see it in the file. It's just that I would like to have it for part of the record, if you don't mind. MS. WICKHAM: I think I have one. If not, I'~ll~get you one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't have to give it to me now. You can send it to me. No I don't think so. Let's see if anybody else have any comment or discussion. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Second time around. Anybody like to speak against the application? Ques- tions from Board members? You have anything to say Mr. Douglass? You've been down there again looking at it. No. Alright. I guess we'll close the hearing now Ms. Wickham and we thank you for coming back. MS. WICKHAM: Mr. Bredemeyer's only comment was he just can't narrow the house. It's already smaller than... MR. BREDEMEYER: It's smaller than the other houses in the area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm aware of that. MS. WICKHAM: that's all. And the lot is about comparable to those. No CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserving the decision until later Ail in favor- aye. (Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded electronically at the meeting by Linda Kowalski, ZBA Clerk.) Nadia Moore SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF WILLIAM AND KATHERINE HEINS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3533 - Public Hearing commenced in %he Matter of WILLIAM AND KATHERING HEINS. Insufficient area, width and depth of two parcels in this proposed set-off di- vision. (Recessed from 8/14/86). The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a recessed appeal from the 8/14 meeting-on behalf of William and Katherine Heins. Is there anything he would like to add? Nothing. Then I'll tell you what I did. We met with the Planning Board, I think it was the 29th of August and it was merely a general meeting. I asked them specifically why they suggested their letter and (I don't have the date in front of me) they said they were concerned with possibly future owners trying to divide the house and the cottage parcel in half. And I then said to him, that would never be the case because we would place a restriction that there would be no further subdivision. And so based upon that information, I don't think there was any other objections to the proposal that (the second proposal) you had brought down for us I should say. But we'll deal with it to the best we possibly can. I'm sorry to bring you all the way down here from Calverton. At least it's not rain- ing or anything tonight. MR. HEINS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody in the audience like to say anything? No. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing until later and reserving the de- cision until later. Ail in favor - aye. (Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded electronically at the meetin~ bye. Linda Kowalski~ ZBA Clerk.) ~ Nadia ~Moore ....... SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF JAMES F WARWICK - APPEAL NO. 3544 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER ll, 1986 8:02 p.m. Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of Appeal No. 3544 for JAMES F. WARWICK for a Variance to lift condition of prior ZBA #1729 rendered 3/8/73 to allow construction of a new dwelling at the south side of. Fasbender Avenue, Peconic. BaileY Park Map Filed 9/26/32, Lot #11. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map showing Lot #11 as a 50 by 140.45 ft. lot.from Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. on March 14, 1986, who was the surveyor. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? J. KEVIN McLAUGHLIN, ESQ.: If it may please the board. My name is Kevin .McLaughli.n, and. I'm appearing in behalf of Mr. Warwick's applications. Back in. 1973, there was an appli- cation by a Patricia and Margaret Walsh for a variance to allow them to subdivide certain property that they own, and sell a portion of that, being the subject lot, to a Mr. DeVito and Mr. Clark. That appliCation was granted with the condi- tion that the subdivided lot-&theilot'in.qQ6stion tonight-- be used for residential accessory purposes only There is some question as to how that application back in 1973 was made because there was indication that at the time Patrick and Margaret Walsh owned the property but in fact their mother did and that's ~who DeVito and Clark bought the property from. But be that as it may, there was a decision rendered and the variance was granted on the condition that I just stated. In 1976, my client, Mr. Warwick purchased the property, and then the deed, he got two parcels of property, one of which current residence is located, ~an.d the subject property. Mr. Warwick indicates to me that he had absolutely no know- ledge of the restriction on the vacant property, and back in ~1975 he made application and in fact received a vacant land _Certificate of Occupancy on that property. In reliance on this C.O. that had been issued, he went out and applied for and received a second, mortgage on his present home. He contr~acted to buy a package type of house. He made various other inquiries regarding contractors, et cetera. He spent a considerable time and money in good faith reliance on this Page 2 - Public Hearing ~,M.~ tter, o ~:?.J A~_~:~ S. ".F',!, :.W]AR~W~! C K S6ptember ]1~ '1986 ZB'A MR, MCLAUGHLIN (continued): C,O~ On March of this' year, 'that C.O~ Was rescinded on the baSis of the 1973~decision, stating'that this lot Could only be used for accessory 'residential purposes~ Mrs~ Sharp, who is a realtor, is here tonight and she can explain basically the value of the property as a separate building lot verses the value of th'at lot, if any, as an accessory use to my client's other lot. I do have a letter from her today _which I would like to hand up to the Board. It indicates t.hat as a separate lot, that property would be worth somewhere between $55,000 and $75,000. It'.s my further understanding in talking to Mrs.-Sharp, that the value of that property as an accessory residential use to the other parcel is virtually nothing. I've also brought this evening copies drawn to scale of the surrounding neighborhood, and if I could hand up a couple of copies to the Board ,- (copies were given to the Chairman and Board). I think that by referring to the exhibit that I just handed up, it becomes evident that this neighborhood is very much a neighborhood of small lots with houses on there. Many of the lots in the neighborhood are of substantially similar sizes to the lot in question. Several of these lots have been built upon since my client purchased his property in 1976, in fact, the two parcels directly to the west of Mr. Warwick's property have been built upon since 1976. In fact, I believe in about 1980 or 1981 by Mr. Waddington. There are also several other lots within the immediate neighborhood of substantially similar sizes on which houses of at least equal size have been built, and included in that is a house directly to the west of Mr. Kelley's house on which there is a house substantially larger than the house that my client intends to build. I believe there has been some question and by reviewing the file as to the location of my client's well and cesspools. Should there be a variance granted and building taking place. Mr. Kelley has raised a concern about this. In fact, both our cesspool and our well in the event we are given permission to build on this lot would be substantially further away from Mr. Kelley's water than his own cesspool. His own cesspool and well are approximately 40 feet away from each other, Ours would be at least 100 feet from his. So I don't really think that's a legitimate concern at this point. ~age 3 - Public Hearing Matter of JAMES F. WARWICK September 11~ 1986 ZBA MR. McLAUGHLIN (continued): If we're not allowed to get this variance and build pursuant to our plans, the only uses we have left are to leave the lot as it is, and it's virtually useless, or put in another type of structure, a garage-type,accessory use or perhaps some kind of big plastic building back there which I understand would be within our rights under the zoning ordinance. It's my position that neither one of these or any Of those uses to leave it vacant or to build according to the accessory use would be more harmful to the neighborhood than in fact the building of this house would if anything enhance the neighbor= hood. It is a small lot but it's a small house that we're talking about, and it's definitely in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.., Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Before you sit down, just let me ask you a couple of questions. Do we have any plans for that house in the file? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I don't believe so, but I do have plans that I can hand up to you this evening. My understanding is that the house that's being planned is approximately 24 by 28 feet and would be a one and one-half story house. (Handed Chairman plans.) CHAIRMAN: Was there at any time when Mr. Warwick went into contract and has the physical existence of a contract that he could give'to this board indicating that he has signed a contract based upon the vacant land C.O. he received and/or a building permit indicating that he has 6kpended a sizeable amount of money? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I believe there was at least a deposit made on the basis of the plans that I just handed up. I do have a copy of a letter from Acorn Structure, Inc., which is an acknowledgment of the receipt of the order for the building package. I believe there was a downpayment of somewhat over $3,000. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a copy of that or could we see that? MR. McLAUGHLIN: If we don't have that this evening we will provide it for the board. CHAIRMAN: Fine. If that's an original-- Page 4 - Public Hearing Matter of JAMES F. WARWICK September 11, 1986 ZBA MR. McLAUGHLIN: original? Could I furnish you with copies, this is an CHAIRMAN: Yes. Can I just see it. I won't write on it. It's dated July 30, 1985. I'm going to read the letter into the record, or you can read it. MR. McLAUGHLIN: This is a letter from Acorn Structures ~nc. dated July 30s 1985 addressed to James F. Warwick, Box 367, Peconics New York. ".~.Dear Mr. Warwick: I am returning your check and purchase order to you marked void. We received your cancellation notifica- tion the same day that we received your deposit check and purchase order from Joe M~ngles so it was a simple matter of not processing your order. I'm sorry that you find yourself unable to proceed with your build- ing plans at present, but we will be able to assist you when the timing seems better .... " CHAIRMAN: Thank you. And you that? 'Il furnish us with a copy of MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application? Kindly speak your name for the record. PATRICIA MOORE: My name is Patricia Moore from the Office of Edson and Bruers and Mr~ Bruer is here. We represent Mr. and Mrs. Kelley, who are seated here, Mr. and Mrs. McGuire and Mr. and Mrs. Walsh. Mr. and Mrs. Walsh unfortunately had car trouble in Queens, and they called me at 6:00--they had been in the process of trying to get a tow and a rental cars so if they run in halfway through the meeting, you will know who they are. The first thing I would like to do is read the minutes of the 1973 hearings which I believe is the strong argument against rescission of this condition in light of the code Page 5 - Public Hearing Matter of JAMES F. WARWICK September 11, 1986 ZBA MRS. MOORE (continued): existing in 1973, and even more strongly in the code that exists today, because the conditions are only tougher to meet now than they were in 1973. Mrs. Walsh states, "would there be anything against our selling this lot?" It was the understanding that the Board understood at that time that this was going to be a set-off and the lot that was being set-off was going to be sold to Mr. DeVito and Mr. Clark. The Chairman stated, "No; however, it could only be used as an accessory use. It is less than one-fifth of the present requirements." One fifth of the 40,000 sq. ft-acre. It was one-acre zoning at the time, and this lot was one-fifth of that. So as you see, for a 40,000 sq. ft. it doesn't get any better. The findings of the board are "that this division will not increase the density of the population." So a~ the time because it was going to be used as an accessory lot, accessory to a main lot presumably, otherwise it would be no accessory--that consideration was made and the density to the population was considered~ It was resolved through Patrick and Margaret Walsh to grant permission to divide and permission to sell what was considered Lot 11 at that time to Clark and DeVito on the condition that it not be used for residential purposes. This was clearly stated in the Zoning Board's records--had any effort been made it would have been seen immediately. In 19-- my records reflect in 1980 that he purchased this particular lot--I'may uhclear from the Assessors Card when ~actly the lot was purchased, whether it was pur- chased together with the 6ther lot or at a different time. But in any case, he claimed that he did not know the condition of this parcel, however, Mr. Kelley who pur- chased the lot in 1980, Mr. and Mrs. Kelley were well aware of the condition. Mr. and Mrs. Walsh were aware of it obviously because their family had been involved Page 6 - Public Hearing Matter of JAMES F. WARWICK September 11, 1986 ZBA MRS MOORE (continued): in the set-off of this parcel, and Mr. and Mrs. McGuire knew of this condition. It just raises doubts as to the-- if any effort had been made~ it would have immediately been seen in the Zoning Board records. If he did not know, it should have known. That is our contention. Also, the condition creates a lot -- assuming it's a separate lot from the other--that it hasn't merged-- it's a lot that's .161 ac'res. That's a little over 7,000 sq. ft. That is a postage stamp size lot that hardly permits a residence on it. When I went back to the Assessors Office and I have a list of all the subdivision lots--all the lots in that subdivision~ and there are only two lots of that size. Those are the two smallest lots. The other lot is again Mr. Warwick's lot which is adjacent to,his and contiguous with his, which again is also .161 acres. So the only two lots which are the smallest lots in the sub- division inlthat particular subdivision are Mr. Warwick's. He is really requesting that you waive the condition so that he builds-- assuming that as we believe, the Building Department is correct that the properties have merged--and that they are two contiguous lots, Mr. Warwick wants to build a nonpermitted use. That's two principal structures on one lot. Lot 7 and 14 together create a reasonable size lot for one house, and Mr. Warwick has on that parcel, whether he bought it at the same time or at a separate time, he has a house and he has a garage. That is using the lot to its furthest--to the most of ~ts benefit. This leads us to the determination by the Building Inspector. On March 25, 1986, the Building Inspector rescinded the C O. that was issued--pulled back the C.O.-- and determined that the accessory lot merged with the main lot. That's pursuant to the 1973 ZBA decision. " We also believe that it merged for the following reasons: When two-acre zoning came into effect in May 20, 1983, all contiguous lots in the same name were merged. Both these-- Mr. Warwick owned both these lots--assuming that he had bought them separately, now they were together and now they had merged. The Town Board did not specifically exempt Bailey Park Subdivision. His lots are in Bailey Park Subdivision and this subdivision was never grandfathered~ Page 7 - Public Hearing Matter o~._JAMES F. WARWICK September 11~ 1986 ZBA MRS. MOORE (continued): so it was never really recognized as a subdivision. And I believe Mr. Lessardwould agree with me on our fi~nding. Also, according to 'New York State Town Law, 265-a, a filed map is protected for three years upon upzoning. So assuming that this was a legitimate subdivision that was grandfather from the time that Mr. Warwick--from the time this lot was created assuming by the Zoning Board by that time--they had three years in which they could go and grandfather it and any parcel that was in the same name that could then go and checkerboard it, or somehow get into someone else's name so that he would be protected from merginge Assuming that is that the ZBA decision did not merge it, which we don't believe occurred. Although he has been receiving separate tax bills and we have had several applications to you where the taxi6ill~ had been--they were never combined. The Assessors Office does not determine the legal status of a parcel. The Building Inspector is the one who determines whether a parcel has merged or not. And rightly so, he determined that the parcel had merged. When he bought the property and assuming it,s 1976, he had not requested a vacant land C.O. at that time. For that separate parcel. In 1985 br 1980 he comes in and says, "Well I want to build a house there. I want a vacant land C.O." It kind of falls through the cracks and one was issued. 'However, he did not buy in reliance on that vacant land C.O. Assuming at best for Mr. Warwick that he is permitted to-- if the condition is allowed to be taken off the lot, he still cannot do it. He has to come before you and the Planning Board, assuming the lot's merged--he has to go to the Planning Board to get a set-off, he has to come before you because they are undersized parcels--presumably he has to come before you for setback requirements, and further bulk and parking schedule requirements--so he's creating one application after another. Really it's a self-imposed hardship. He bought what should have been knowingly that this was the lot that was unbuildable. As far as the Health Department application is concerned, I called the Health Department and I found out what stage his application is in. The Health Department could tell me over the phone that he has--the application is in, however, the Page 8 - Public Hearing Matter of JAMES F, WARWICK September 11, 1986 ZBA MRS. MOORE (continued): Health Department has returned a notice to him Stating that he needs further information as to cesspool and wells of adjoining properties. The Health Department has been very strict on a 40,000 sq. ft. lot with a private cesspool and well. I can only imagine how strict they are going to be on a 7,000 sq. ft. parcel. This is a very small parcel. He states that the cesspool and well on Mr. Kelley's property is very close to each other. That's not the issue. The issue is bow far the cesspool and well is from other properties. Mr. McGuire states in the letter of September 6, 1986 that the well is going to be approximately 40 feet from his building line. That's quite close. That's closer than 100 feet-that the Health Department permits. Mr. Walsh has estimated that it's approximately 70 feet, and most importantly Mr. Walsh has determined that it's a downgrade so that even if the distance is proper, the downgrading will contaminate his well. So one way or another his parcel does substantially impact on adjacent property owners. Mr. Kelley has presented a survey to me at the hearing that s~ates where his cesspool and well is, and I'd like to submit it to you. (Submitted original:survey dated 8/25/86 prepared by Peconic Surveyors.) That is an approved house. The distance is proper; it was approved by the Health Department, otherwise the house wouldn't be there. But it also shows ~h~ d~st~ce to Mr. Warwick's property, and it is quite close. Thirty-five feet. So we really predict and really hope, and will send correspondence to the Health Department informing them of the distances to the cesspools and our opposition to the granting of a Health Department approval~ And we only hope that the Health Department will also consider this. Mr. Warwick also claims that the other properties have been built on. I went back to the Assessors Office, and I checked the property cards. The only one that I found in that subdivision which was built is of Brooks and that's tax lot #15. That lot is .321 acres. That's almost three times the size of Mr. Warwick's lot--or given the benefit of the doubt, twice the size of Mr. Warwick's lot. That's the only one I could find. I can stand corrected because Page 9 - Public He.ari~ng .Matter of~.JA_~ES F. WARWICK September ll, 1986 ZBA MRS. MOORE (continued): there may be others. That's the only one that the Assessors had of record right now. The only ones that I could see that were built very recently. As far as when he bought it in the lines--just briefly, the title company will not insure against ordinances, zoning, or otherwise° I have a typical from Chicago Title but all of them have the same thing--they say that they won't insure title except for any laws, ordinances, or ordinances including but not limited to zoning, building and environmental protection. They're not about the insure property that the zoning--that the town has been involved in. They say, "Ok, it's a buildable lot and fine, you own it." But that's about all a title company will insure. And I ~resent that to you. (Submitted copy of title insurance schedule of exceptions.) Mr~ McLaughlin made some statements in his presentation and I~d just like to respond to them. i~He'says t_he lots were bought at the same time and in reliance on the C.O. Well, there may have been a C.O. for the hoe~e and the garage and a vacant land C.O., but still the vacant land C.O. still says that it's subject to any ordinances. And there you' are~ The variance was clear and apparent and if i~'had just been researched, it wou'ld have been found. I believe that you've read into the record that the contractor returned the check, so he did not--he has not paid the contractor--he informed the contractor he was having problems in getting this house built, and the check was returned, so there is no reliance between as far as paying out the contractor. Sure there are a lot of costs involved in this, but we have lots of applications like that. RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ,: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kelley has pointed out to me I should mention to the Board that if you go back to the 1973 application, that was an application with respect to road frontage and area based upon the 1973 Code. We now have a 1986 code, which is a two-acre code, and the b~lk and parking schedule as applicable today for lots under 40,000 sq. ft. really.shouldn't be considered here because they had a definite bulk and parking schedule at that time in 1'973. He also noted.to me that we do have an upzoning here and that Page lO - Public Hearing Matter of JAMES F. WARWICK September 11, 1986 ZBA MR. BRUER (continued): the cod~--what was granted then there's no application now. This was a piece of property that was never developed. During that period of time. It is now subject to and is included in the 80,000 sq~ ft. area and it should be subject to the requirements, so he's asking to have a 7,022 lot in an 80,000 sq. ft. zone today. I don't think you can take the based value or the application here and just apply it to a lifting of the 1973 covenant. The 1973 covenant dealt with the 40,000 sq. ft. area. This is not the situation today. This is an 80,000-- that has merged. That is as if like you were dealing with Cedar Beach. Cedar Beach is not exempt from the code in terms of merger~ if it hadn't merged in 1976, it merged in 1973 with respect to the upzoning. This property has been upzoned. Definite upzone. The whole application is more than just a lifting of that covenant which was the only reason that covenant, that application was granted. I think 6 review of that file will determine that was done on a basis of a swap so that the new owners would have access to their existing property and to use it as storage. And it was explicit at that time that it was not to be used as a residence. It's not like various applications that were made over the year where the board said, "Well if you're going to make any further changes with respect to putting a building there, come back and talk to us.' "This was one of these things, don't come back and talk to us. This is the way it is, Pal. You can sell it but you can't build on it. You can put a barn. You can grow vegetables. Whatever you want." "But no you cannot put a residence on it." And they were very explicit in that and they were very happy with that. And you can read it in the minutes, this will not increase the density because we're not adding a building--a residence. MRSi MOORE: Just reference--Wissman, the last condition I think you've seen is the Wissman application. And that was by the zoning variance created in 1975, and the language there said that the residence-- prohibiting this property for residential use without prior approvals of the Board of Appeals. So they left the door open that if for some reason there's a cba~ge in the community, you take new ~age ll - Public Hearing Matter of JAMES F, WARWICK September 11~ 1986 ZBA MRS. MOORE (continued): factors into consideration, come back to us and maybe we'll consider allowing you to build a residence. This one did.not allow any back door, front, side door, in getting back into the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the passing, I guess we would like to raise that in the Town Law, the Zoning and Planning, S6~tion 267-Section 6, it does state that upon motion G~'it states as a rehearing that it's a possibility that this is a rehearing, which means that upon motion initiated by any member and adopted by unanimous vote of the members present, so on and so forth, the Board of Appeals shall review at a hearing held upon notice given as upon an original hearing, any order, decision or determination of the Board not previously.reviewed. Upon such rehearing and provided it shall then appear that the rights vested prior thereto in persons acting in good faith and reliance--that means adjacent property owners--Mr, and Mrs~ Kelly, McGuire and Walsh, were there prior to the 1973 decision, they~were living there--prior and after. Acting in good faith and reliance upon the order decision or determination reviewed will not be prejudiced thereby. We believe the adjacent property owners will be prejudiced. Any questions? CHAIRMAN: No, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? (None) MR. McLAUGHLIN: I think a couple of points have to be made. First of all, I think you'd be hard_pressed if you look at the tax map~to find any parcels in there that are going to be the two-acre, 80,000 sq. ft~ If we had 80,000 sq. ftc, we wouldn't be here this~evening, and the purpose of a variance is to vary the zoning ordinance~ Obviously, we don't have any where near that amount. Secondly, if you get an opportunity to review the map that I handed up tonight, I think you will find that there are substantially more lots in the immediate area that are very similar in size on which parcels have been built, specifically, parcel 16 which i's two parcels directly west of Mr. Warwick's house--it has a house built on it--it is identical in size to the subject lot that we are talking about tonight and a house was built on that lot I believe in 1980 or 1981 by Page 12 - Public Hearing Matter of JAMES F, WARWICK September 11, 1986 ZBA MR. McLAUGHLIN (continued): Waddington Builders. MRS. MOORE: Would you repeat the name of the property owners? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I believe the property owner is Buckley, which is directly west of Brooks. The Brooks parcel is approximately twice the size of the subject parcel, but on which there is a much, much larger house has been built also by Mr. Waddington. As to the house and garage that -- let.me go. on from there -- the fact of the matter is, there's no question the check was returned to my client; however, approximately I think $300 or $400 in expenses were deducted, so we did incur those expenses including the drawings that we had submitted up tonight were deducted from the return check that he received. The fact is that both Mr. Warwick's garage and his house are within the confines of what is known on the tax maps as Lot #14; Lot #7 is totally vacant; and again there are several other lots in the immediately surrounding neighborhood on almost identical sizes. In fact the house directly to'the west of the Kelley's is built on a lot only very marginally larger than the subject lot we are talking about. And on this basis, my contention is that there is no adverse affect to the neighborhood. There are already many houses within the neighborhood built on lots of similar size or larger houses on slightly larger lots. Thank y~ou. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. McLaughlin. something else you would like to say? Mrs. Moore, is there Mr. Bruer. MR. BRUER: Very briefly. You have to take into ¢on~der6~ion that these lots when they were put together they were put together into two separate--two separate subdivisions. One I believe in 1929 before we even had a Health Department, and I think one in Dickerson or whatever-1933, t think the board is supposed to consider the relief as requested with respect to the ordinance that we have here. In 1973 when they originally granted this with the strict stipulation that there would never be another residence there, the relief granted was the difference between 7,022 sq. ft. and the 40,000 sq. ft. requirement was like 17% ~now in terms of the 80,000 sq. ft., you are going to have a lot that's 11% that's required in the ordinance; and even looking back to 1973, it was 17%. It was a great relief at that point. It was substantial in terms of what was asked for. This is a 40,000 sq. ft. require- ment. And this is 7,022 sq. ft. You know yourself going back Pa e 13 - Pul)lie-Hearing ~ Ma~t.er of JAMES 'F~Z ~WA]RWZCK S e p t e m b e_r,.~.~~i~T_ Z~B.A .... MR. BRUER (continued): to the history at the time, one of the reasons the town was pushed to go into the 40,000 sq. ft. other than development at that time was the Health Department when we had quarter acre zoning up until that point. It wouldn't have proved anything unless it had at least a half acre going back to 1971. So even in those days you had a Health Department problem, they would accePt anythi, ng if I recall correctly at less than 20,000 sq. ft. And now you have your Article 6 here and your merger here. If the Health Department knew other than going by their reliance on the tax map, I'm sure they would consider that this is a merged lot too. And I believe there are two reasons to consider it merged. One on the basis of the hearing itself, if you delve into it and two, the upzoning in 1983. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr~ Bruer. Is there anybody else to speak 6n either side? Mr. McLaughlin. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Just one statement. The Buckley lot, which is Lot 16, two lots west of my clients lot, is in fact smaller. It's a 47 by 100 ft. lot. In 1980 or 1981, I'm not sure which, a variance was granted to allow a house that i~ bigger than the house we propose to put on our lot to b~ibuilt on that lot. At that time it was my understanding there was a one-acre or 40,000 sq. ft. requirement and a house larger than the one we're talking about was allowed to be built on a smaller lot. CHAIRMAN: Can I just ask you, was that lot in single and separate ownership? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I'm not sure on that. My understanding is that the builder may have owned both'that lot and Lot #15 which is immediately to the east, but again a house was also built on Lot 15 which is 100 by 140 and a much, much larger house than we're talking about tonight. CHAIRMAN: If you have a' chance, would you--since you are bringing that into the record--placing that into the record, maybe you could investigate that and also return that investigation along with the other information that you're going to return to us. Page 14 - Public Hearing Matter of JAMES F. WARWICK September 11, 1986 ZBA MR. BRUER: Just to point out that B~ckley a two,story house, and remember for the record here--I don't think it has been clearly stated, that this lot is 50 by 145-140. What he is citing here is 100 by 150. It definitely is a case of merger here. The man had these-,he could have bought it in separate names. ~ bought it separately Ne could have protected himself if he knew what he was doing, and that's what you have. You have merged property there. MR. McLAUGHLIN: The faCt of the matter is Lot #16 is 47 by 140, whic'h is smaller than_the lot at issue tonight and on which there is a house that had been built in 1980 or 1981 that is larger than the 100- sq. ft. house_that we're requesting to build. CHAIRMAN: 1,000 sq. ft~ MR. McLAUGHCIN: Right. CHAIRMAN: Thank you everybody. Hearing no comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER SAWiCKI: Second. The hearing was declared concluded at 8:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals September 16, 1986 SOUTHOLD TOW1J BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF ROBERT WADDINGTON THURSDAY. SEPTEMBER Ii, 1986 PUBLIC HEkRING 8:47 p.m. Appeal No. 3534 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of ROBERT WADDINGTON. Addition to existing building with insufficient side and rear yard setbacks. 13175 Main Road, Mattituck. "B-i" Gen. Business Zone. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map which is dated May 9, 1986 from Roderick Van Towl, P.C. indicating a proposed addition, in this particular case it reads 2 feet from the easterly property line in the rear and 19.3 feet from the rear property line. An addition to be added to the existing build- ing which is an irregularly shaped building at this particular time; the proposed addition' is 30 by 70. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding prop- erties in the area. Mr. Moore, would you like to be heard? MR. MOORE: Good evening. My name is William Moore from the law firm of Richard Lark, Main Road in Cutchogue. As you pointed out Mr. Goehringer, we're here for a variance for the side yard and rear yard for the proposed steel storage build- ing that Mr. Waddington would like With your permission to erect. We're here because we have to get the area variance. As you know, to get the area variance, we have to prove prac- tical difficulty. The Board has to balance the needs of the applicant, the potential harm and if any, possible alternatives. Court cases have held that there are tests that you can use to see if a practical difficulty exists. And one of the first things that you want to look at is how substantial a variance is in relationship to a requirement. It appears substantial when you first look at it in this case. We're loOking for a side yard of 2 feet and a rear yard of 19.3. It's quite a reduction from the bulk and parking. However, it's my under- standing that the former or a former zoning ordinance had no side yard requirements in business districts anyway. So that's a factor. This particular area is the old well established Mattituck business district in which many similiar variances have been needed-and granted because the properties were small in relation to the code now requiring. I think you already have it but I'll submit exhibit number one a tax map of the subject parcel. I've outlined it in red.and you can see the surrounding properties. I don't remember if I made that part of the application or not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I forgot to ask you a question. The question I forgot to ask you I should have asked you in the beginning of the hearing.was; I am a commissioner and an elected official in the Town of Mattituck, commissioner in the Mattituck park district and we do own adjacent lands to this parcel. Do you have any objection to me sitting in on Page 2 - Septen%ber 11, 1986 Public Hearing- Robert Waddington Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued): this hearing? R. WADDINGTON: I didn't hear what he said. MR.. M00R~ : He's a commissioner to the Mattituck Park District. Do you have any objections having Mr. Goehringer sit on our hearing and rule upon this? R. WADDINGTON: No objection. MR. MOORE: Thank you for bringing it up. I wasn't aware of that. I did some homework on the secretary's file a couple months ago (a month ago anyway) and I dug up a list of appeals granted (I believe) solely within the tax map section that I've provided you; section 140 in which similiar fOrms of relief have been granted~and I'll just spin through real quick. I'll give you a copy of that list that you've got on appeal 2681; the Board granted for insufficient front yard. Number 2981 was an exten- sion to a garage-again, the side yard I believe on that one. Number 239 was a reduced setback. Number 3327 insufficient width was approved. Here's a significant one, more pertinent. Number 2906 approving a 5 yard side yard for a building addition. I believe that was (if I recall now from my.notes) the Roy Reeve building for the 5 yard. Appeal number 752 approved a side line of 4 feet in the front and 1 foot at the rear of the building. I didn't pull that one out. .I'm curious by the use of the word side line. If the property was irregular and at one point the building was 4 feet away and one foot at the end or if the were front yard to rear yard. I didn't pull the file. My fault. Number 2133 an addition was allowed that thereby'caused insuf- ficient parking. In 2368 the Board allowed a structure that would have side yards on one of 5 feet and the other side of the building 6 feet. Appeal number 2643 approved a four and a half foot side yard and a three and a half foot front yard. Appeal number 768 an insufficient setback was approved. 1872, insufficient rear yard and off-street parking. 2569, insuf- ficient width and area and off-street parking. 1918, insuf- ficient area and parking approved~and the same. I'm sorry. On 3203 insufficient area and width. So the point of going through that drill was merely to show that small pieces of property in the recognized and existing business district, have been the subject of numerous variances before the Board. Front yards,'side yards, rear yards, recognizing that the small properties there when you're put through the code, come up short every single time. So I give you that list as exhibit number 2. If I had been better, I would have' collated the appeal number with the tax map number and been able to point out which pieces of property they were~but I didn,t do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's sometimes very difficult. Page 3 - September 11, 1986 Public Hearing-Robert Waddington Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. M00RE: Yes that was. The file was very good. I ran into some difficulty. I was just using the card catalog. I didn't go and ~ull the actual file. I used the description from the cards in your office. It was very helpful. Going back to the test that has to be met to establish practical difficulty, you have to consider the impact if any of variances allowed on the increase population and the impact on governmental facilities. I don't think we have that here. I'm talking residential struc- tures so we can say there are no impacts there. The third cri- teria is whether a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or there's a substantial detriment to the adjoin- ing property owners created by the granting of the variance. I don't think you're going to change the area of the neighbor- hood here by the granting of the variance. I don't think we are going to change the area of the neighborhood here. As I pointed out on my list, it seems to be that almost every proper- ty owner within the confines of Love Lane, Pike Street, Wickham and Main Road have been in for variances of one form or another. So I don't think we're going to change the character of the neigh- borhood by doing that which we propose to do. As far as the ad- joining property owners, the property to the west is owned by Mr. Dome and our impact will be along the easterly side of the property line. So I don't consider this an impact on his par- cel. We have, as you pointed out Mr. Chairman, Mattituck Park District behind us which I do not believe ever intends to have any through traffic come to the Main Road at any point. There's a parking area there. Mr. Cohen abutts our parcel to the rear and he's a residential property owner. I don't believe his here in opposition. I won't say that he is in my favor but I don't know that he's opposed either. The most significant impact if any would be to our easterly property owner and that's a restau- rant and bar there and we have a fence between the properties right now and that area in that parcel to the east is used for parking. So I don't know that we're going to impact there by putting this steel structure there. CHAI~LAN GOEHRINGER: is? Can you tell me how high this structure MR. M00RE: Fourteen foot in the front and 12 feet in the rear. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Fourteen feet in the front and 12 feet in the rear. What is going to be done concerning the drainage in rear? I assume the building is going to be pitched to the rear and that's the reason for the difference. MR. MOORE. It's going to be pitched to the rear and lead around to the driveway to the front. The one ~urvey from Mr. Van I believe showed drainage basins. I don't about the site plan you have. Page 4 - September 11, 1986 Public Hearing-Robert Waddington 'Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. I see them. MR. M00RE : The next criteria that considers whether the difficul- ty can be obviated by a method feasible to the applicant other than a variance and the problem here is that the property is nar- row. We raised in the petition, the possibility of a separate accessory structure but the building (and assuming we even met the code) with a 13 foot wide building which isn't practical for the purpose. I've got Mr. Waddington here. He may be able to discuss it better if you have particular questions as to how he might al- ter this. He really really impressed upon me that this was the best possible structure and its location that we could use. The significant factor being turn around and access in and out along- side the building and into the rear. He is widening or is in the process of widening the westerly access to the rear of the property by taking off some 5 feet of the building. And he's in the process of doing that right now in fact. If you have any particular ques- tions he may be able to discuss that. I don't know turning radi- us for the machinery that he's got there but one of the goals of putting storage back there is to eliminate the crowding of the equipment he's got in front which is eating up the parking that he's supposed to have. He'd like to get that to the back and store it and where the building would be located then has a bear- ing on whether he can get in and out. But he's here if you have any questions. Finally, in view of all the above whether justice is served by allowing the variance I think for all the reasons we have stated here, that in this case it is. We've got the busi- ness district, narrow pieces of property and I leave it at that. Any questions, I would be happy to answer them or Mr. W~a~dington can answer them.if he's able. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only question I have is a similiar ques- tion that I asked Abigail Wickham tonight and that is; what is the bear minimum on the east side approximately 2 feet that this gentle- man can still place a building on this property and be able to use it in the normal manner that he wants to use it~ MR. M00R5: The question is just how wide a easterly side yard that you could live with? We asked for two. We asked for the most, what could we get? MR. WADDINGT©N: Naturally you know I have a 63 foot width in the° back. If I put a 30 foot wide'building up which I.,d like to see it wider but I just don't have the room, and take 2 to 3 feet off of the building on the easterly side, that gives me 30 feet to turn around. Sure we could live with less but what's the reason to live with less. I don't need more than 2 or 3 feet to maintain a 12 height for this building. Believe me I don't. In fact, I hope that I don't have to live that long to maintain it ever. Page 5 - September 11, 1986 Public Hearing-Robert Waddington Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER S. DOYEN: Ok. Will you explain what is in this drawing. It isn't clear what you did on what wo~ld be I guess, the westerly side of the building~to allow access to the rear. What did you do here. It's not clear on here. MR. WADDINGTON: This drawing shows (hopefully) behind the building. And what I've done here and in the process of, is up to here, removed 5 foot off the building. I have no way to get back here naturally with 2 or 3 or 4 foot here. I had 9 foot 6 or 9 foot 3 from my point here along the building side. He's been very nice letting me drive through there and so forth but who knows what thel, future is going to be. So I'm just trying to protect myself. What I've done by removing this here is just:to 14 foot 5. I show 14 but actually it's 14.5 and I checked it out. And I have room to back the tractors out through here, unload the equipment in here and still room to drive through here because it's 20 foot wide doors right in this area here. So it makes a possible lot possible. MEMBER DOYEN : In other words, this is the first time you really have access to the rear of your lot. MR. WADDINGTON: Exactly. MR. MOORE: And that site plan was prepared with the knowledge that that footage would be taken off. It doesn't show the struc- ture that was on there up until about a week ago. He's in the process of tearing it down right now if you go by. It's now the 14.5. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody speak against the application? Questions from Board members2 Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later~ Ail in favor - aye. (Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded electronically at'the meeting by Linda Kowalski, ZBA Clerk.) Nadia Moore SOUTHOLD TOWN' BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF JOSEPH AND LINDA SCHOENSTEIN THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 9:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3550 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of JOSEPH AND LINDA SCHOENSTEIN. Variances (a) to ex- pand nonconforming use of welding business, (b) to construct new building and expand nonconforming welding business use within 75' of wetlands. S/s Main Road, Greenport, Peconic Bay Estates. "B-Light" Business Zone. The Chairman read the legal notice .for the rec'0rd~ (as~ indicated on pa~e two). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I received a letter from the attorney. Oh, that's right, yoU're going to speak on, his behalf. Go ahead. S.,ANGEL, ESQ.:The only... I spoke to Linda today and I re- quested.that 3ou adjourn this to your next meeting. The per- son we hired is an appraiser and can't testify tonight and may not be able to testify. We may have to get a new appraiser. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a problem with the next hearing, the next meeting and that is; that we are completely loaded, a full calender. So we're going to have to recess without date. I'm going to have to put it on the next hearing after that. MR. ANGEk : There's just no way it will fit on next meeting? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. But it's been brought to my attention that with the scheduling, it appears that we were going to be having two meetings in October anyway. Now, I can read the proper information into the record'at this time and open the hearing or I can wait until that time and do it. I just want to poll the audience and see if there's anybody here to speak on behalf or against the Schoenstein matter. K. McLAUGHLIN ESQ: I'm here representing one of the adjoining property owners in opposition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well ok. What I will do then is open the hearing and just take a brief amount of testimony from you or a statement from you then we'll recess it without a date. MR. McLAUGHLIN : I was made aware of the fact that there was going to be an adjournment of this matter and would prefer to put forth any evidence that we might have at that time the ap- plicant puts forth their proof. Page 2 - Schoenstein hearing S~outhold_ Town Board of Appeals September 11, 1986 Regular Meeting SECRETARY: Would that be for the 16th or 23rd of October? CHAIRMAN: Maybe the 23rd. We'll 'have to readvertise it any way. MR. ANGEL: Wh~ don't you open it and then you don't have to readve~tise it.f SECRETARY: Recess it with a date? MR. ANGEL: Is it not within your policy? CHAIRMAN: It's in our policy. MR. ANGEL: Because notice was given. I would prefer that you .open the meeting and then I make my application ~for the adjourn- ment. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I have no objection. ~q% )not~ (£.egal Notice was CHAIRMAN: ~ will read ~gal C~ll not read the read to the public at t ~me. application, ana I'll at this particular.time recess this hearing until the second meeting in October, and I'll ask for a second. MEMBER SAWICKI seconded the motion and the resolution was duly carried. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded electronically at the meeting bY Linda K°walski' ZBA Clerk')Na~di~a~M~oot~re~F~,~~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF JEFFREY BETTANCOURT THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 9:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3538 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of JEFFREY BETTANCOURT. Inground pool with fence en- closure and gazebo within 100' of top of bluff/bank along L.I. Sound. 2410 Grandview DriVe, Orient. Grandview Estates Sub- division Lot ~5. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey on behalf of Jeffrey Bettancourt produced by Edward A. Barth, Jr. dated 8/29/85 indicating a two story framed dwelling approximately centered on the property penciled in or inked in to the east northeast of that it would be a pool as indicated proposed 16 by 44 with 7 foot deck on the north and south side and a 15 foot deck on the east side and a 10 foot deck on the west side. And forward of that a (I assume) gazebo enclosed within the deck and approximately... I don't have the width. But it shows 24 feet from the top of the bank. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and sur- rounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? MR. HARUTHUNIAF: My name is clients; the designer of the ~pool. the deck. We had a lot -- Haruthuniaf . We're the We designed the pool and CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could we have the spelling of your last name for the record? Maybe you could stand a little closer to the mike because we have to. Thank you very much. MR. HARUTHUNIAF: H-a-r-u-t-h-u-n-i-a-f. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. HARUTHUNIAF: We have a lot to consider in reference to the Bettancourt's 9ool and the deck as far as keeping the existing foilage, not to excavate the existing plantings and also they had a drain put in at Mr. Bettancourt's property because the land contours leading to the drain. So we had to keep the pool away and we can not put the pool in the lower level of the land. So we have done this. We have picked the highest point on the land and we have kept the deck about 3 inches above (the bottom of the deck) the highest point and then we have the level of the deck which comes out to about 24 inches above at the highest point. So the deck at some points will be some- what higher. So the pool that we had is not a fully inground pool. It's a semi-inground because of the parts where it's above the ground. There are other reasons of the location and the angle of the pool because (as I said again) the foilage sur- rounding the pool area. We would like to keep a lot of the ex- Page 2~- September 11, 1986 Public Hearing-Jeffrey Bettancourt Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. HARUTHUNIAF~ (Continued): the angle of the pool because (as I said again) the foilage surrounding the pool area. We would like to keep a lot of the existing greens there on the land at the moment, plus adding many to the Bettancourt's and the next door neighbor's property. We are also adding a berm about t0 foot wide and the highest point about 4 foot.as far as regulation for having the 4 foot surrounding around the pool. Above that we are ad- ding a rail, an enclosure rail around the deck. And we have also considered the angle of the sun at which will give Mr. Bettancourt full use of the pool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have a copy of the plans there? MR. HARUTHUNIAF: Well I thought maybe you would have it but I had brought up the original because it was easier to throw over- lays and show you the topography of the land. I could mail you one or send you copies. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are aware that we had the Soil and Water Conservation Service look at this parcel and they did render an opinion and we do use that to deal with applications of this nature in making decisions. And I would like to know (at this time) if you have anything you'd like to say either pro or con concerning that particular August 19 letter from the Soil and Water Conservation Service. MR. BETTANCOURT: I'm afraid we never saw it. I did receive it but CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Ok. MR. BETTANCOURT: I don't g.e~t mail at --~ that address. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. What I would like to do at this par- ticular point is this; you intend to build this .... Excuse me for asking the applicant. Do you intend to build this this Fall? MR. BETTANCOURT: Purposely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. What I would like you to do is read the Soil and Water Conservation Service letter. Bring the copies back for us~ at the (next) second meeting in October and let's complete this so you understand exactly what their feelings are concerning the property and the water runoff and so on and so forth. And we'll have the copies and we can point at it and look at it and so on and so forth. And we'll close the hearing at that particular time. Do you have any objection to that Mr. Bettancourt? Page 3 - September 11, 1986 Public Hearing-Jeffrey Bettancourt Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. BETTANCOURT: No. Just that it might prohibit my being able to do it in the Fall. I don't know what their requirements will be as in reference to the foilage; if there is any adjustment that I could make about the foilage and the property or whatever. It seems that (I haven't even been there a year) I have put in about 60 trees already. I'm very concerned and very aware of the environmental impact on the plantings around the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to admit to you that I have not been up to this particular site. I haven't because I was all set to come on Sunday. And I personally don't like to view these properties On Sundays but sometimes it's necessary. And I didn't realize it got dark as quickly as it did. And so there- fore, it was getting dark about the time I left Mattituck. It would have been completely dark by the time I got out to Orient. Do you have the entire area staked so that we can understand ex- actly where everything is going to be placed? MR. BETTANCOURT: Well, the pool has been'staked there but I think that it's pretty close. It's not exact. It's got to be adjusted in some way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you adjust that for us so that we can come back and look at it? Ok. And we'll make every attempt to reschedule this hearing as quickly as we possible can. Alright. But I would like you to look at the Soil and Water Conservation Service letter because there are certain things in there (and we'll give you another copy if you don't have one) that we have to be concerned with in dealing with this application. When will you have the staking done? Can you call us so that we can come up and look at it within the next week or so? MR. BETTANCOURT: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What I'm trying to say to you is that I don't want to short change you in this decision. I don't want to take anything away from you that you might want but there may have to be some adjustments. Particularly in the area of the gazebo because of the extension that goes out or protrudes out toward the bluff. So we're going to recess the hearing. We are going to try and get you on as quickly as we can. You are going to call us in a week or so and let us know when all the staking is'done all the way out to the edge of the cliff where the gazebo and the deck goes and then we'll come down and look at it. You'll bring us copies of that at the next meeting and we'll be all set to go then. And then we'll be able to render a decision as quickly as we can after that. Ok? So then you can still get going on this, hopefully, this Fall. Thank you. ~He&ring no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing. Page 4 -September 11, 1986 Public Hearing-Jeffrey Bettancourt Southold Town Board of Appeals RUTH OLIV A: Mr. Goehringer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Pardon me. MRS.OLIVA- May I first just see where this piece of property is in Grandview? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's alq the way up to ~h-e old house. Ail the way out'on the point. I ~hink it~'s the first house east of the old summer home up on the pOint. The reason why I recollect it...~ RQIH 0LIVA,NFEC:We don't have any objection (persay) to a pool or a gazebo. But putting it that close to the bluff in that area, is not onl~ going to be detrimental to the bluff but to the own- er himself because he might end up having it fall in the drink. Bob Douglass knows that that whole area has been subject to tre- mendous erosion problems. And especially too, because there's that new house right to the east of the turn around there. And they stripped away (all the topsoil) to the edge of the bluff and then sand was dumped over the bluff. The last time I had been up there which is now before the house was completed, the bluff had started to erode. And I have deep concerns about putting anything more than closer than 100 feet on the whole line there from Pennys Point all the way up to the next point because these people don't know it. There just here new. But that whole area there; that cove, has eroded back about 50-60 feet in the past few years. So I'd be very careful about put- tinq anything because it just might go in the drink on.you, fr~ankly~. MR. : I just purposely visited the property and there is a problem there. On this particular property where the pool is situated, there hasn't been any erosion for years. MRS. OLIVA: Well, I would just like to state for the record that there's a piece of property called (what's their name?) Brickner. And the owner was in here saying that his piece of property had not eroded in 30 years. Storm Nelson came along and a third of his property is starting to erode on that bluff line. So just be aware. That is my main concern because you don't want to ruin the bluff and you don't want to have your house go in the drink or your pool go in the drink either. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So we'll see you back. Excuse me Ruth. I'm sorry. I didn't realize you wanted to say anything. So we'll see you back as quickly as we can and you'll have those things for us. And you'll call us when you have the staking done. I recess the hearing until the second meeting in. Octo- bar. Member Grig0nis seconded the motion. All in favor - aye. (Transcribed from cassette tapes.) Nad~i a _Moo. re SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING - MATTER OF STEPHEN SHILOWITZ REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER ll, 1986 9:30 p.m. Public Hearing reconvened in the Matter of Stephen Shilowitz, Appeal No. 3513. Variance to locate condominium construction within 75 feet of bulkhead and tidal water. Location of Property: West Side of Sixth Street, Greenport. The Chairman distributed copies of the maps received today concerning this pending application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a reconvened hearing in the Matter of Stephen Shilowitz. I'll ask Mr. Angel if he would like to speak. STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: microphone? Is it important that I speak into the CHAIRMAN: As long as you speak loud enough. MR. ANGEL: AS long as I speak up. Is this all right? SECRETARY: That's fine. MR. ANGEL: As you all know, we've been here on numerous occa- sions, starting back I believe in June, and we presented a whole bunch of facts and legal arguments in favor of the application. Tonight I don't intend, at least in my initial presentation right now which is going to be short, to re-hash all that was said before. ~t's very obvious to me as you all took out your files that you received a new drawing prepared by Mr. Shilowitz. This new drawing was made in response to a comment of the Board confirmed in a letter made at the last meeting, which I did not attend. As you recall, my partner attended in my behalf~ I was on vacation. Now, as I was saying before, this has been deliberated for several months and it's now September. And I'd just like to state my opinion that-- first, state- reiterate one thing that I think I brought out from my client when we first started and was anxious to get his approval so he could start construction. But I wanted to add an opinion to that, and I think that at this point, you have sufficient evidence--certainly Page 2 - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): sufficient evidence to make a determination. And I think sufficient legal evidence to make a determination in our behalf, whether on the original application or as suggested in this additional drawing. I think as stated initially you all know this is an area variance application. Somebody here tonight stated that an area variance application is based upon a showing of practical difficulty, which as you know, is a ~ery flexible standard. We've shown you financial evidence in that initial meeting-we submitted a detailed affidavit from Mr. Shilowitz showing how much it's going to cost him to build and what his potential return is. We've given you a whole bunch of legal evidence based upon all the approvals, previous plans filed. Explained the unique nature of the property. And should you grant us any relief, I believe that your grant of relief would clearly be sustained under the law. I'm sure you are all familiar with the basic presumption in favor of your determinations, If your deter- mination is supported by any rationale basis, the Courts will uphold it. And it's that principle -- was reiterated by the Court of Appeals--the highest Court of the State of New York in Conway verses the Town of Brookhaven Zoning Board in an area variance case. Now, all I'm going to say tonight beyond what I've just-- this brief summary~-- is that I'm familiar with the legal issues that have transpired in the past inlthe course of preparing this appli- cation and submitting the numerous documents I submitted. I reviewed all the applications before the other Boards. I'm familiar with a lot of the facts surrounding this. Mr. Shilowitz is here tonight. If you have any questions from either of us, we'd like to be able to answer them. We'd like to have a sense of where this is going. And if it's quite possible we would like a determination. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Angel, I'm a little confused at the -- and I honestly do appreciate the new application, or the new set of drawings that Mr. Shilowitz has brought in through our office this afternoon, but I'm confused at your letter. I don!t know what it means. You'll have to explain that. MR. ANGEL: I~di'dn't want the new drawing to be considered an amendment to the application but clearly we would allow you to consider it. It's just a lawyer's way of preserving rights. Page 3 - September l l, 1986 Public Hearing - Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: So in other words, we can now assume that this would be another -- MR. ANGEL: We didn't submit it to you with the view of rejecting it, let's put it that way. We submitted it to you for your careful consideration, and it's something our client designed that would be aesthetically acceptable to him. Is that clear to you? CHAIRMAN: Yes~ MEMBER SAWICKI: So we can use it in our determination? MR. ANGEL: Sure you can use it in your determination. CHAIRMAN: Ok. In dealing with that particular set, I think that it's=-it would be unkind of this board not to allow the people on my lefthand side to see it, so what I'm going to do is recess for approximately three minutes and allow them to come up and to look at it. And if that precipitates any questions from their attorney, then they should mention it to their attorney and have him ask any questions that he might have, and hopefully.we can get this hearing over with tonight. So hearing no objection to that-- (No objection) CHAIRMAN: Then'we'll take approximately three minutes to recess and put a few of these down for everybody to look at. (The Chairman distributed several copies for public viewing on the tables at the front of the room.) On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to recess for three minutes, at which time the hearin~ will be reconvened. This resolution was unanimously adopted. 9:46 p.m. Hearing reconvened. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to reconvene the public hearing in the Matter of Stephen Shilowitz. Unanimously adopted~ CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you would like to say, Mr. Angel? Page 4 - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL: No. is anything-- I~d like to reserve my right to comment if there CHAIRMAN: Certainly, at all times. MR. ANGEL: No, I have nothing further to say, unless--just to reiterate if you have any questions, we're here, CHAIRMAN: t do, but I'll wait~ Mr. Storm? LAWRENCE_'STORM, ESQ.: Good evening. A couple of brief comments. First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to look at the sketch plan. The _significance ( ), I haven't the fogg~ist idea what it's all about. I'm a bit unclear and if the applicant's attorney can explain to us and to the board what is the significance, again what ~urpose is this n6w.sketch plan being submitted. It's clearly a change or a modification from the existing plans that I understand have already been approved by various bodies, Village of Greenport and_Town of Southold. Just briefly glancing at the plan, a number of things immediately stand out. For instance, you~ may note that the width of the existing condominiums -- strangely enough are now wider -- they appear to be wider than the initial plan submitted previously. You'll also know, I believe, an additional parking space. You may also-- I apologize, this is being done under unusual circumstances-- for instance, I believe that the Greenport sited buildings are approximately five feet wider than previously and I believe they may be as much as seven or eight feet wider in the Southold side~ I also believe now you've got one additional boat slip th6n you have buildings. As I say, in comparing the new sketch plan, either it's a change, either it's something new, or it's not. And I would suggest that either the Board can consider it as something substantial as a new proposal or shouldn't be looking at it at all. I share the Chairman's comment about certain perhaps lack of understanding about Mr. Angel's letter. Again, I just have seen it myself. I would ask the Board--you indicated you would like to wrap this up this evening. I think we all would. However, in light of these new documents which again we have just seen, I'd like the opportunity to respond in writing to these things, or if not, then at the next scheduled hearing. Also, Page 5 September ll, 1986 Public Hearing Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. STORM (continued): I am in receipt from the Soil and Water Conservation District, Mr. McMahon. Again, I haven't had an opportunity to really review that. I'd like the opportunity to respond t6 that in writing also. Briefly, again, I don't want to take up too much of the Board's time this evening. I'd like to respond, however, to some comments made earlier. Contrary to the applicant's attorneys' representations~ as a matter of law, he has not provided a sufficient showing of practical hardship--practical difficulty, excuse me. There has been no showing to satisfy the legally required test of significant economic injury. I will be submitting this evening an appraisal by Mr. John Glander indicating the fact that this, the applicant can made more than a reasonable return on his money and be in compliance, as long as he is in compoliance with the existing zoning requirements of both Greenport and the Town of Southold. Subject to what else goes on this evening, I would certainly like the opportunity to respond. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir. Mr. Angel, anything else? MR. ANGEL: Yes. One, I donLt think you have an obligation to start anew when you've gone three or four months and based on a suggestion from the board to remove the unit. Two, as Ive said to you, it's a drawing that the applicant says you can consider in making the determination in this case. Three, there is no additional ~parking space. Four, the Greenport side has not changed in width. Five, ih order to recoup some of the loss from one unit, there's a minor increase in width of the Southold side-- it's not an increase in width of what was there because we've lost the unit, but one of the units has been expanded in width slightly. I don't know what to to~l number of feet-- maybe Steve does. STEPHEN SHILOWITZ: that is, two. I expanded three feet on each end unit, MR. ANGEL: So, the units left --the middle unit is the same, the two side units are three feet wider than the previously designed units, except that one of the entire units is missing. Page 6 - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): I have a little problem with something that Mr. Storm said. Lawyers all quote law to you, and they try to use the law as the way of bolstering their argument. I have a little problem with such a strong statement of the law as a matter of law. You can't do anything. I differ. It is my opinion, and I will tell you I'm not a judge. It is my opinion from reading the cases and based upon my practice as a zoning.lawyer that a practical difficulty standard applies in an area variance case. That there's numerous factors to _determine that. In my opinion, we've proven enough to establish a var~ahce under that practical difficulty standard. I really don't see very much to say. I would object to any further adjournments. I see no reason why there has to be further study. The Soil Conservation study has been out for awhile. Interestingly enough, I know that Mr. Storm received the letter with the Soil_ and Water Conser~.ation Study at least a day before I did because he calle.d me to tell me that _he wanted to see my client's plans before I knew that somebody had filed them here. So, I donJt see any need to prolong this thing. It's been studied to death. I'd like to end it. And again, as I said, we're here. Ask away if you've got anything. CHAIRMAN: Well, the only thing that I find missing on the newest plan is I would like the square footage of the buildings shown on the plan. I would like the setback of every part of the framing on the buildings.-iThat includes the decks. Are they flush to the ground? MR. SHILOWITZ: off the grade. The drawing states that they are 16 or 18 inches CHAIRMAN: So therefore they are part of the actual framing of the building. And.I would like the size of those, the distances of those to the bulkhead, and again the square footage of each one of the units shown on the drawing that you have so nicely given us. Upon receipt of that,.we will call Mr Storm's office. We will then give him a copy of it, and he will be allowed--be permitted, I should say,. to reduce any of his opinions concerning the drawing to writing, of which you will Page 7 - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals ~HAIRMAN (continued): have time also to see, Mr. Angel. And we will close this hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting and there will be no public comment--no comments from anybody. It will be written comment and a matter of formality to close it. Do you have any objection to that? MR. ANGEL: The only thing -- Mr. Shilowitz pointed out to me that the sizes of the units are on some of the submissions that were previously made. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but you've changed those. The three units that we now have in the adjusted copy. So if you would just pencil in the square footage of each one of those. So that we don't have to scale it ourselves, and we know what the-- ~qR'. SF~LOWITZ: Am I permitted to say anything-- CHAIRMAn: Surely. Please come up and we'll show you what we want. All I want is these distances here. There were minor changes, and if you would just put the numbers in. Twenty-one feet, 32 feet, whatever the difference is, and the square footage of this, this and this. Distance from here to here, on the decks, and then we'll consider-- you can go right up to here on the Southold Town line for me-- MR. SHILOWITZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN: I would really appreciate it. MR. SHILOWITZ: Everything else was there. CHAIRMAN: Just so w6 know what we're dealing with in reference to the units. Ok? MR. ANGEL: If we're going to do it that way, Mr. Chairman, why don't we set up a precise_ schedule. We'll get the plans with the additional information by a certain date. We'll deliver a copy to Mr. Storm. He gets his comments to us 6t a certain date. We'll have an opportunity to reply. Page 8 - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - StePhen ShilOwitz Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Let's start with Mr, Shilowitz first. When can you have this done, Mr. Shilowitz? MR. SHILOWITZ: Tomorrow. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Let's work-- MR. ANGEL: Let's work then until Monday or Tuesday of next week, right, and assume everybody gets copies on Tuesday. '. ii And then he can -- how long will it take you, Mr. CHAIRMAN: Storm? MR. STORM: CHAIRMAN: MR. ANGEL: .CHAIRMAN: SECRETARY: CHAIRMAN: MR, ANGEL: CHAIRMAN: A week, Which is the following Tuesday. So we"re talki"ng the' 16th till the 23d. And our meeting is scheduled.'for what date? The second? The 2nd of October, Second of October, Right. Because we're not doing anything but coming in and saying, "Have you submitted everything you wanted to submit'~ and hopefully he will say yes. MR. ANGEL: I will submit a week before that meeting so you will have it. If I have any commehts, ~s I said before-- CHAIRMAN: But you have the right to review anything that he-- MR, ANGEL: That's right, He's going to give it to me. I'll submit it and he'll have an even further chance. CHAIRMAN: Right. Fine. Page 9 - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - Stephen Shilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. SHILOWITZ: May I ask a question? 9:00 ferry boat tomorrow-- I was scheduled for a CHAIRMAN: Please don't worry. Next week will be fine. MR. SHILOWITZ: I have a specific reason for everything. You have seven prints. I can take any ferry~boat~ If I can take those seven drawings while I'm here ~in Greenport-- you know I am in New York-- not that the mails don't work. I can sit for an hour and mark those drawings up completely. CHAIRMAN: You can take six of them, but you can't that seven. We have to retain one. MR. SHILOWITZ: Would that be acceptable? CHAIRMAN: That's fine with me. MR. SHILOWITZ: Instead of reprinting everything all over again. CHAIRMAN: Fine. We'll give them to you right now. (Mr. Shilowitz was given six prints to be marked as requested.) MR. ANGEL: And what do we have to give? MR. SHILOWITZ: Areas of all the buildings that are in Southold, and all the significant setbacks of every corner. CHAIRMAN: Town side. MR. ANGEL: CHAIRMAN: fl oor. Right. Areas of all the buildings in the Southold You want lower and upper? First floor, unless second floor overhangs the first MR. SHILOWITZ: I'll give you the worse-case condition. what you're really looking for. To me, we always use the foundation. CHAIRMAN: Unless of course something hangs over. That's Page l0 - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing - Steph~n S~ilowitz Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL: of the building. Ok, you want the square footage within the perimeter MR. SCOTT: Excuse me? Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN: lng you. MR. SCOTT: CHAIRMAN: MR. ANGEL: floor if there's an overlap. I thought ybur attorney was represent- He aoes but I also have a few things to say. I apologize. Ok. The areas of all units, the first floor, second You don't care CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. ANGEL: All setbacks. CHAIRMAN: MR. ANGEL: CHAIRMAN: Including decks. Is that it, Jerry? Yes. Could we just have your name for the record? AL SCOTT: A1 Scott. MR. SCOTT: Are these the ones being submitted to the Building Department? CHAIRMAN: No. These are b6ing submitted to us as a "B" plan. We have received an "A" plan and assuming, this can be construed as a "B" plan. MR. SCOTT: The setbacks that he's showing here are what we are now going by. Not the original? Because. these'have changed. MR. ANGEL: Size of units. about the'interior, right? That's the exterior. CHAIRMAN: Size of the units. Not only square footage but dimensions of all the buildings. Page ll - September ll, 1986 Public Hearing Steph~n Sh~16witz Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: That's correct. We're using everything to make a decision when he gives us what we want, ok? We're not using-- we make take a piece of one or whatever the case might be. We don't know at this point. MR. SCOTT: You're only considering setbacks. You're not considering elevations? CHAIRMAN: We are not specifically dealing with elevations here, ok, because this is a setback app!-- MR. LESSARD, BUILDING DEPT.: The elevations belong in the Building Department.. (Several discussions from other persons in the audience were taking place at this time which were ihaud~ble.) MR~ SHILOWITZ: Ok. I have six. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Storm, did you have something else to say? MR. STORM: Thank you. I would just like to correct one comment by Mr. Angel concerning my access to the new sketch plan. When I spoke to him yesterday, my understanding was that was the final version and subsequently understood that an additional sketch plan was going to be made which included things which may or may not be significant depending on the viewpoints of the setbacks. I considered that therefore as much as the sketch plan that he had in his office including that other document would be the one that was in fact submitted this afternoon. CHAIRMAN: Anything else? (Nothing) Hearing no further comments~ I'll make a motion recessing this until the next regularly scheduled meeting--not for public comment. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. i ECEIVED AND FILED BY iTHE SOUTHOLD TOV~I[ CLERK DATE Z 0 -~i~&_ HO~~ /~ ~ Town Clerk, Town of Southoid Respectfully submitted, ~/~fi nda . ', y Southold Town Board of Appeals September-15, 1986