HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/31/1986 SPECAPPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR.
SERGE DOYEN. JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 2S SOU,THOLD, L.I., N.Y. llg?l
TELEPHONE (516] 765-1809
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
JULY'31 , 1986-
A Special Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals
was held.on THURSDAY,.JULY 31, 1986 at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at
the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971.
Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Joseph
Sawicki; Robert J. Douglass and Serge Doyen. Member Grigonis
was absent (family bereavement). Also present were Victor
Lessard, Building-Department Administrator, and Linda Kowal-
ski, Board Clerk and Secretary.
A Waiv6r of Notice was e~ecuted for this meeting.
The Secretary indicated that both newspapers were notified
and a notice.was posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board
this past Monday.
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:00 p~m. and proceeded
with the following matters, as follow:
Appeal No. 3502 - GREGORY FOLLARI (pending deliberations/action)
Appeal No. 3499 - DA'NIEL T, JEROME (deliberations/action)
Appeal No. 3508 - DAVID MOORE (deliberations/'action)
Appeal No. 3515 - H'OWARD REINHART/C. HYDELL (deliberations/action)
Appeal No. 3529 - PAUL KELSCH (deliberations/action)*
Appeal No. 3521 ANDREW AND WILLIAM GOODALE*(delib./action)
Appeal No. 3517 - ROSALIE GOWEN* (deliberations/action)
Appeal No. 3522 - NORTH FORK BANCORP.* (deliberations/action)
Appeal No. 3428 - BERTHA KURCZEWSKI* (deliberations/action)
Appeal No. 3528 - RICHARD AND ALICE McMANUS*(deliberations/action
Appeal No. 3526 - BRLCE SIEVERMAN* (deliberations/action)
Appeal No. 3510 - RICHARD ZEIDLER* (deliberations/action)
Appeal No. 3527 , -~_ ~ -- (deliberations/action) .
A~peal No. 2531 ALBERT d. BRkNEISEN* (deliberations/action).
Appeal No. 3524 ~ ~bZb - HOE1 U~ LGYPT (deliberations/actions):
~ ~ Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -2= July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(*Member Douglass out on inspection per Chairman's request at this time.)
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3502:
Application of GREGDRY FOLLARI for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to locate
new dwelling with an insufficient setback from Long Island Sound
bluff. Location of Property: North Side of Sound Drive, Green-
port, "Map of Section Four-Eastern Shores" Lot No. 117, Map No.
4586; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-33-1-15.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on June 19, 1986
in the Matter of the Application of GREGORY FOLLARI under Appeal No.
3502; 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, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard, and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the north side of
Sound Drive, Greenport, is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps
as District 1000, Section 33, Block 1, Lot 15, and is more partiCular-
ly referred to as Lot 117, "Map of Section Four-Eastern Shores,"
filed in the Suffolk County"Clerk's Office as Map No. 4586.
2. The subj'ect premises is vacant and consists of a total area
of 32,007 sq. ft., lot width of 100 feet and lot depth of 322.70± ft.
The shortest distance from the southerly property line along Sound
Drive to the top of bank as scaled on the April 1~ 1981 survey
prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P~C. is shown to be 195 feet~
3. By this application~ appellant requests permission to
locate a new single-family dwell, ing with a setback from the edge
of the top of ban.k at its closest point at 60 feet, from the
southerly (front) property line at 76 feet at its closest point,
and with minimum sideyards of 10 and 15 feet (as provided by the
Bulk Schedule-Column "A").
4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, sub-paragraph A(1) requires
So~thold Town Board of Appeals -3- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3502 - FOLLARI, decision, continued:)
all buildings proposed on lots adjacent to Long Island Sound to be
set back not less than one-hundred (100) feet from the top of the
bluff or bank.
5. As noted in the June Il, 1986 Report received as requested
from the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District, it
was noted as follows: (a) that this parcel is vegetated with
herbaceous and woody plant materials with the general slope of
the land to the south; (b) that the bluff face is well vegetated
from approximately 12 to 15 feet below the top of bluff toe,
which appears stable at this time, which may be contr'ibuted to
numerous large boulders along the beach.
6. It is the opinion of the board members that: (a)
construction should be located as far back from the bluff's
edge as possible; (b) water runoff (including lawn ~prinklers,
etc.) be piped toward the south of the bluff, not to drain over
the bluff areas and to reduce saturation of the bluff face;
(c) no alteration of the land within 50 feet of the bluff
should occur.
In considering this appeal, the board also finds and
determines: (a) that sufficient practical difficulties have
been shown to warrant a g.ranting of a variance; (b) the
circumstances of the property are unique; (c) there will
be no substantial change in the character of the area or
detriment to adjoining properties; (d) the relief as
stipulated below is not substantial in relation to the
requi, rements~ (e) the variance will not in turn case a
substantial effect of increased population density or be
adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience
and order of the town; (f) the interests of justice will
best be served by allowing a variance, as noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by
Mr. Douglass~ i.~ was
RESOLVED, that a Variance for permission to locate
new single-family dwelling construction, together with all
future deck and pool areas, within 100 feet of the top of
bank along the Long Island Sound~ BE AND HEREBY IS AP.PROVED
in the Matter of the Application of GREGORY FOLLARI, Appeal
No. 3502, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CgN~ITI. QNS:
1. That all construction (new dwelling, attached
decks, pool areas, etc.) shall be permitted not closer than
~Sout~old Town Board of Appeals -4- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3502 FOLLARI, deci~ion~ continued:)
65 feet from the top of bluff;
2. There shall be no disturbance of land area within 50 feet
of the top of bank,jexcept for maintenance of vegetations shrubs, etc.
3. There shall be no fill or materials deposited over the bluff
face.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki~ (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
duly adopted.
PENDING DECISION: Special Exception Application #3499:
Application of D~IEL AND LISA JEROME for a Special Exception
to the Zoning Ordinance, for approval of an accessory apartment
pursuant to Article III, Section lO0-30(B). Location of Property:
45125 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-
75-02-3.1.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 19, 1986 in the
Matter of the Application of DANIEL Th AND LISA JEROME under
Application No. 3499; and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally view~d.~and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard~ and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. By this application, appellants request a Special
Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(B),
sub-section [15] for permission to create an ~accessory apartment
in an existing principal dwelling structure in accordance with
the requirements therein.
~Sout~old Town Board of Appeals
-5- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. '3499~SE JEROME~ de_ci.s~n, continued:)
2. No additions to the existing structure are proposed or
considered under this application fo~ an accessory a~a~tment.
3. The premises in question is located in t~e 'JA" Resi-
dential and Agricultural Zoning District, containing a lot a~ea
of 30,580± sq. ft. with 177-ft. frontage along the north side of
the Main Road (State Route 25), Southold.
4. The subject premises is presently improved with the
following structures: (a) two-story fram~ dwelling set back
54.feet from the fron~ property line and having~si, deyards of
56 feet and 83± ~eet, and.rearyard of 5'3+ feet; (~) two
accessory storage sheds located in the rearyard area; (c)
temporary farm stand at eight feet from the front property line
(which is to be removed, all as shown by survey dated~Septem-
ber 4, 1985 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. Submitted for
the record is a~co'py of a Certificate Qf Occupa.ncy of Noncon-
forming Premises ~Zl1499 dated February.24, 1983.
5. The existing dwelling presently contains a total floor
area, as shown by sketch prepared by the applicant, of 2,000 sq. ft.,
with 1229 sq.~ft, for the first floor and 771 sq. ft. for the
second floor. It is the intention of the applicants to increase
the first floor area to the minimum size required by sub-paragraph
(c) of Section 100-30(B)[15] to a minimum of 1,600 sq. ft. of
liveable floor area. The accessory apartment shall in ~o event
exceed 40% of the liveable floor area of the first floor and
shall contain not less than ~50 sq. ft.
~6. It is noted for the record this premises is the subject
of a prior action by the Board of Appeals rendered May 12, 1977
under Appeal No. 22Z7.
In considering this application, the board finds and deter-
mines that: (a) the use requested will not prevent the orderly
and rasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in
adjacent use districts; (b) the use will not adversely affect
the safety, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town;
(c) the use is in harmony with and will promote the.general
purposes and i~t~nt of zoning. The board has also considered
subsections Ia] through [1] of A~ticle XII, Section 100-121lC)[2]
of the Zoning Code.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by
~Sout~qold Town Board of Appeals -6- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3499-SE- JEROME, decision, continued:)
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that a Special Exception for permi~s~6~-to create
accessory apartment as provided in Article III, Section 100-30(B)[!5]
of the Zoning Code, applied in the Matter of DANIEL T. AND LISA
JEROME under Applicati_on No. 3499, BE AND HEREBY tS APPROVED SUBJECT
TO MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUB-SECTIONS (a~ THROUGH (p) as
follows:
(a) The accessory apartment shall be located in the principal
building;
(b) The owner of the existing dwelling shall occupy one of
the dwelling units as the owner's princi, pal residence. The other
dwelling unit shall be leased for yearround occupancy, evidence by
a written lease for a term of one or more years;
(c) The existing one-family dwelling shall contain not less
than sixteen-~hundred [1600] sq. ft. of liveable floor area;
(d) The accessory apartment shall contain not less than
four-hundred fifty (450) sq. ft. of liveable floor area;
(e) The accessory apartment shall not exceed forty (40%)
percent of liveable floor area of the existing dwelling_unit;
(f)
provided;
A minimum of three off~street parking spa~es shall be
(g) Not more than one [1] accessory apartment shall
permitted on this lot;
be
(h) The accessory apartment shall meet the requirements of
a dwelling unit as defined in Section t00-13 of the Zoning Code;
(~) The exterior entry to the accessory apartment shall, to
the maximum extent possibles retain the existing exterior appear-
ance of a one-family dwelling;
(j) All exterior a~terations to the existing building,
except for access to the.apartment, shall be made on the existing
foundation;
~Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3499SE - JEROME, decision, continued:)
(k) Certificate of Occupancy shall terminate upon the
transfer of title by the owner, or upon_the owner ceasing to
occupy one of the dwelling units as the owner's principal
residence. In the event of an owner's demise, the occupant
of an accessory apartment may continue in occupancy until a
new owner shall occupy the balance of the dwelling or one (1)
year from the date of said demise, whichever shall first occur;
(1) All conversions subject to inspection and approval of
the Building Inspector and ~enewal of Certificate of Occupancy
annually~
('m) The building which is converted to permit an accessory
apartment shall be in existence and have a valid certificate of
occupancy issued prior to January 1, 1984;
(n) The existing building, together with the accessory
apartment, shall comply with all other requirements of Chapter
1QO of the Town Code of the Town of Southold;
(o) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section lO0-30(B)
hereof, no site plan approval by the Planning Board shall be
required for the establishment of an accessory apartment;
(p) Suffolk County Health Department water and sewage
system approvals.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass,
Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent..) This
resolution was duly adopted.
Appeal No. 3515- 'REINHART.
(see pages 8-10).
,' Sout~old Town Board of Appeals -8- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
PENDING DECISION: APPEAL NO. 3515:
Application of HOWARD REINHART AND CHARLES HYDELL for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-118(B) and Article III, Section 100~30(A)
for permission to use existing building for woodworking shop and sales in this
"A-40" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District. Location of Property: 43305
Main Road, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-75-01-16.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on July 17, 1986 in the
Matter of the Application of HOWARD REINHART and CHARLES HYDELL under Appeal
No. 3515; and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question, its present zoning and the surrounding area;
and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard,
and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documenta-
tion submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is a described parcel of land containing an
area of 43,560± sq. ft. and lot width of 185± feet, and lot depth of 240± feet,
and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District
1000, Section 75, Block 1, Lot 16.
2. The subject premises is improved with three structures as depicted by
sketch submitted with this application. The building in which the applicant
proposes to establish this carpentry use is located in the rear of the property
which appears to be set back 16± feet from the rear property line and 67± feet
from the westerly property line. The subject building was and has recently been
used for antique storage and auction sales. The two front buildings are used
for storage and business use and are not part of this consideration.
3. This is a variance from the Provisions of Article XI, Section 100-
l18(B) for permission to establish business use of a lower classification than
the previous antique-sales nonconforming use, per Notice of Disapproval dated
April 1986 prepared by the Building Inspector.
4. Appellant proposes to establish an area of 29'8" by 40', more or less,
for carpentry working area, and an area of 29'8" by 40', more or less,both
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3515 - REINHART/HYDELL, decision, continued:)
within the rear building, for sales of the handmade wooden items. Parking is
proposed along the westerly side of the rear building, and although outside
storage is mecessary for the wooden sheds for sale, the area is not depicted.
5. It is the opinion of this board that a change from the previous
antique-sales use to a carpentry woodworking and limited sales of the items
handmade is practical and reasonable under the circumstances.
6. The property is located in the "A-40" Residential and Agricultural
Zoning District and the existing buildings have been in existence since prior
to the enactment of zoning in 1957. It is also noted for the record that by
prior Appeal No. 2210, a conditional variance was granted on November 4, 1976
for the reinstatement of a public garage, although the garage use has been
discontinued for quite some time.
In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines: (a)
that the use proposed is unique; (b) that the use will not prevent the
orderly and reasonable use of this and surrounding properties; (c) the use
will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of this district or adjacent
use districts; (d) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and
order of the town will not be adversely affected by this use; (e) the
interests of justice will best be served by allowing the variance, as fur-
ther noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Member Sawicki, seconded by Member Goehringer,
it was
RESOLVED, that a variance for permission to change use of existing rear
building from antique auction sales to carpentry and woodworking sales and
shop, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED UNDER APPEAL NO. 3515 IN THE MATTER
OF THE APPLICATION OF HOWARD REINHART AND CHARLES HYDELL, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW-
ING CONDITIONS:
1. If the use granted hereunder is discontinued for more than 30 days, this
variance will automatically terminate and become void in its entirety.
2. Within seven days of receipt of this decision, a six-foot stockade, or
slatted chainlink fence, shall be erected along the entire rearyard, commenc-
ing at a point distant 100 feet along the westerly line, extending along the
most northerly rear property line to the easterly line, extending a distance
of 100 feet along the easterly line. Before erecting said fence, appropriate
permits must be received after application to the Building Department.
3. All fencing must be maintained at all times in good condition.
4. Placement of any "outside storage buildings" for sale:
(a) are limited within the northwesterly section of the property,
commencing at a point three feet from the northerly property line,
~ Sout~old Town Board of Appeals -] 0- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3515 - REINHART/HYDELL, decision, continued:)
extending in a southerly direction 100 feet, with a width of 25
feet maximum (in an east-west direction 25 feet, in a north-south
direction 100 feet).
(b) shall be parallel to the west property line.
5. Limited to one ground sign having a maximum size 3 ft. by 4 ft.
6. No other types of advertising, on vehicles, etc., shall be permitted.
7. No outside storage within the easterly yard or any other yard areas.
8. Use granted hereunder is limited to be within the existing rear building
and within the 25' by 100' outside area at the northwest corner, only.
9. Any deviation from the above will require re-application for consideration.
10. Annual inspection and review by the Building Inspector as to compliance.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki.
(Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-ll-
July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3508:
Application of DAVID MOORE for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to locate new pool, deck and
fence areas with an insufficient setback from Long Island Sound bluff.
Location of Property: North side of Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-51-4-17.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action~
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 19, 1986, in the
Matter of the Application of DAVID'MOORE under Ap~eal No~ 35082 and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premi'ses in question, its present zoning~ and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard, and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located in the "A- 0"
Residential and Agricultural Zoning District along the"north side
of Soundview Avenue, Southold, Town of Southold, With frontage
along the Long Island Sound of 145± feet and along Soundview
Avenue of 158.75 feet.
2. The subject premises is identified on the Suffolk Coun'ty
Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 51, Block 4, Lot 17, contains a
total area of approximately 41,500± square feet,.~ and is improved
with the folloWing structures.: (a) singleafamily wood frame
dwelling set back 105± feet from the front prop~?ty line, 40 feet
from the westerly side property line, 40 feet from the 'easte~ly
side property line, 22 feet from the top of bluff, at its closest
points; (b) one-story frame cottage structure located in the
frontyard area at the southeast corner three fee.~ from the ~'east
side line, 6~ feet from the front line [at its closest points],
all as shown by plap #86-038 dated 6/4/86 pre'pared by Steve G.
Tsontakis Associates.
L~outh~ld Town Board of Appeals -12- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3508 - MOORE, decision, continued:)
3. By this application, appellant requests permission to
locate a 16 by 36' inground steel-frame swimmingpool and wood
decks along the westerly side of the existing dwelling as shown
on plan ~86-038 dated 6/4/86. The setbacks of the proposed new
addition are: (a) at the closest point from the westerly side
line, 15 feet; ~b) at the closest point from the top of bluff
area, 20 feet. The existing setback of the dwelling at this
northwesterly corner from the top of bluf.f scales to be 41± feet.
4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, sub-paragrap.h (A)[1]
requires all buildings proposed on lots adjacent to Long Island
Sound to be set back not less than One,hundred [100] feet from
the top of the bluff or bank.
5. Reference is made for the record of the June ll~ 1986
report requested from the U.S. Department Of~gricultur~_Soil
Conservation Service~ which as noted in its regort suggests a
location at the southerly end of the house as more suitable.
6. It is the opinion of' the board members that new
construction be located as far back from the bluff edge as
possible, which in turn would be the minimal variance necessary
and under the circumstances would allow more distance from
the areas actively eroding at the top lip of the bluff and/or
continued sliding of the bluff face.
In ~onsidering this ~ppeal, the board also finds and
determines: (a) that the percentage of relief requested from
the 100' minimum setback requirement is substantial, being
a variance of 80%; (b) the placement of the new construction
at this specific location is.not the most feasible area, since
the construction cou'd be moved to a more southerly direction,
towards the southwest corner of the existing dwelling; (c)
the circumstances are not unique; (d) the practical difficul-
ties given are not sufficient to warrant a granting of this
variance as applied; (e) the difficulty can be obviated by
some method feasibly for appellant to pursue other than a
variance; (f) that in view of the manner in which the diffi-
culty arose and in consideration of all the above factors, the
interests of justice will best be served by denying the
variance, without prejudice.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by
Mr. Doyen, it was
. Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -13-
July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3508 - MOORE, decision, continued:)
RESOLVED, that a Variance for permission to locate attached
inground swimmingpool with deck areas a distance of 20± feet
from the top of blur% along the Long Island Sound, BE AND
HEREBY IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUBICE as applied under-Appeal
No. 3508 in the Matter of the Application for DAVID MOORE.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass,
Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This
resolution was duly adopted.
At this point in time, Member Douglass was asked to
re-measure the distances of an alterna~.ve se~gested location
offthe fuel tanks in the Matter of Port of Egy.pt Enterprises.
(Member Douglass left for a shor~ while and returned after
20± minutes.)
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3529 - PAUL KELSCH (continued
on pages 14 and 15)
-14- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
Mouthold Town Board of Appeals
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3529:
Application of PAUL KELSCH for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct deck addition to
dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback, at 405 Wendy Drive, Laurel,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-127-08-19.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on July 17, 1986 in the
matter of the Application of PAUL KELSCH under Appeal No. 3529; and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question, its present zoning and the surrounding area;
and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard,
and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documenta-
tion submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
( 1. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from the Provi-
sions of Article III, Section 100-31 of the Zoning Code for permission to
construct deck addition of a size 18' by 22', which will leave an insufficient
rearyard setback at its closest point at 22 feet.
2. The premises in question is referred to as Lot #3 of Minor Subdivision
at "Rollingwood Estates," in the Hamlet of Laurel, and is further identified
on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 128, Block 08, Lot 19.
3. The subject premises contains an area of one-half acre and is improved
with a two-story single-family dwelling structure set back 35.5 feet from the
front property line and 40 feet (at its closest point) from the rear property
line. Certificate of Occupancy #Z12286 was issued on February 22, 1984 by
the Building Department for same.
4. Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, Column "A" requires
a minimum rearyard setback at 35 feet. The percentage of relief requested
is 13 feet, or a veriance of less than 38%. The board agrees with the
reasoning of the appellant, and finds that the uniqueness of the shape
and character of the parcel lends to the difficulties herein.
In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines: (a)
that sufficient practical difficulties have been shown to warrant the
So~thold Town Board of Appeals -15- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3529 - KELSCH, decision, continued:)
(Appeal No. 3529 - KELSCH, decision, continued):
granting of this variance; (b) the circumstances are unique and not
shared by ali other properties in the neighborhood; (c) the variance
requested is not substantial; (d) there will be no substantial change
in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to adjoining proper-
ties; (e) the relief requested will not in turn cause a substantial
effect of increased population density or be adverse to the safety,
health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the town; (f)
the interests of justice will best be served by allowing the variance,
as conditiomally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED, that a Variance for permission to construct 18' by 22' deck
addition to rear of existing dwelling as applied under Appeal No. 3529 in
the Matter of the Application of PAUL KELSCM, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS;
1. Deck shall remain unroofed and unenclosed;
2. No overhead lighting which would be adverse to neighboring areas;
3. Deck addition not be closer than 22 feet, as requested.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Sawicki.
(Members Grigonis anR Douglass were absent.) This resolution was duly
adopted.
So~thold Town Board of Appeals
-16- July 31, ',1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 352T GOODALE;)
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3521:
Application of ANDREW AND WILLIAM GOODALE for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to reduce
living area in preexist.ing, nonconforming dwelling unit in this "B-I"
General Business Zoning District, to less than 850 sq. ft. Location
of Property: 7655 Main Road, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-122-6-30.1 (or 30). ~.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on July 17, 1986
in the Matter of the Application of ANDREW AND WILLIAM GOODALE under
Appeal No. 3521; and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the preml'ses in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard, and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. By this application, appellant requests a Variance of
the provisions of Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of
the Zoning Code, as referred in the Notice of Disapproval dated
March 28, 1985 of the Building Inspector, for permission to reduce
the living area of this preexisting, nonconforming dwelling unit
.Sout~old Town Board of A~peals -17- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3521 GOODALE, decision, continued:)
to 767 sq. ft. (on the second level), in order to add office area
to the first floor for a total floor area for the business use
of 662 sq. ft.
2. The premises in question is located along the north
side of the Main Road (State Route '25)in the Hamlet of Matti-
tuck (near Laurel), and is identified on the Suffolk C~unty Tax
Maps as District 1000, Section 122, Block 6, Lot 30.1 (30).
3. The subject premises contains a total lot area of 1.12±
acres, with a frontage along the Main Road of 120 feet. Existing
upon the subject premises are two single-family dwelling structures
as noted by Certificate of Occupancy #Z10885 dated March 1, 1982,
and Certificate of Occupancy #Z12534, and more particularly shown
by sketch prepared by Anthony Lewandowski stamped April 11, 1986,
and sketch prepared by Penny Lumber dated July 18, 1986. The
subject premises is located in the "B-l" General Business Zoning
District. It is ~ understanding that'this application does no't
involve the enlarging of either of the existing buildings at this
time and is an alteration of the first-floor to add office area
to expand the present professional-business office use and not
for a separate business occupancy.
4. It is noted that one of the effects of the granting of
this variance is to reduce the nonconformity of the dwelling unit
in this structure, which is within the spirit of the zoning ordi-
nance.
In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines:
(a) that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to
the zoning requirements for this business zoning_district; (b)
there will be no substantial change in the character of the
immediate area; (c) the circumstances are unique; (d) the
practical difficulties are sufficient to warrant the granting
of this variance; (e) there is no other method feasible for
appellant to pursue other than to enlarge the existing building
[which is not feasible for appellant at this time]; (f) in view
of the manner in which the difficulties arose and in considering
all the above factors~ the interests of justice will be~t be
served by allowing the variance, as noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki~ it was
RESOLVED, that a Variance as requested under Appeal
No. 3521 in the Matter of the Application of ANDREW AND WILLIAM
GDODALE for permission to reduce nonconforming'"iivable floor
area of preexisting dwelling unit to 767 sq. ft., BE AND HEREBY
IS APPROVED AS APPLIED.
Sout~old Town Board of Appeals -18- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3521 GOODA.L.E, decision, continued:)
Vote of-the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen
and Sawicki. (Members Douglass and Grigonis were absent.)
This resolution was duly adopted.
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3517:
Application of ROSALIE GOWEN for Variances to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of:
(1) insufficient lot area, (2) insufficient lot width, (3)
insufficient lot depth, of two parcels as proposed in this pending
set-off/redivision of land located at the corners of Zena Road, Cpt.
Kidd Drive, and Central Drive, Mattituck, NY~ Cpt. Kidd's Estates
Filed Map No. 1672, Lots 134, 153 and 154; County Tax Map Parcels
No. 1000-1.06-02-32 and 43.
The following took the following action following delibenations:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on July 17,
1986 in the Matter of the Application of ROSALIE GOWEN under Appeal
No. 3517; 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, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard, and their testimony was recorded~ and
WHEREAS, the board has ~arefully considered all testimony and
documentation submitted concerning this application~ and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. By this application, 'appel-]ant requests reconsideration
of a recent decision rendered by this board under Appeal No~ 3~50
for a Variance from the Provisions of Article III, S~ec~_~on 100~31,
Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code for approval of insufficient area,
width and depth of two parcels prgposed on this 31,740 sq~ ft. tra.ct
of land, as follows: (a) 12,824 sq. ft~ in lot area~ 106.~.6~ front~
age along Zena ~Road, and dep~th of 133.59 feet for prop_osed P~cel
#1 (to the south), and (b) 17~916 ~q.~ ft. tn lot ~r~a, 135~ ft~
frontage along Cedar Drive~ 'and.~91~67 ~et along Zena Ro~d and
depth of 133.59 feet.for proposed Parcel #1 (to the so~th), 'and
(b) 1~,916 .sq. ft. in 1Qt a?ea, 135~7'~ ft~ frontage along Cedar
Drive, an~ 91.67 ft. "al_png Zena Rgad~ and d~th of 13~59 feet~
So'uthold Town Board of Appeals -19- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3517 GOWEN, decision, continued:)
2. The subject premises is identified on the Suffolk County
Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 106, Block 2, Lots 32 and 433
and is shown on a Map of "Cpt. Kidd Estates" filed January 19,
1949 as Lots #134, ~154 and #!53. The northerly half of the
subject premises is improved with a single=family dwelling set
back 35 feet from Zena Road at its near~t_point~ 37 feet from
Central ~rive, 22 feet from the proposed division line, and
with an accessory garage.
3. Submitted'for t~e record is communications from the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services indicating that
the proposal does not constitute.an increase in density since
the 1949 Map filed with the County clerk are exempt from the
new densi'ty standards provided th~ m~p is not abandoned. It
is also noted that the._Captain Kidd Estates Map was approved
on November 3, 1948 by the Southold Town Board?
4. Also submitted for the record is communications dated
May 2, 1986 from Captain Kidd Water Compa'ny, Inc. indicating
that water service ~an and will be from an existing water main
for the two lots.
5. In v~ewln§ the immediate area, the board finds all
of the lots on this block to be of a size similar to that
p~oposed 'by this re-dj, vision, and the existing dwellings are
serviced b~ a community wate~ system (Captain Kidd_Water Company,
Inc.).
In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines:
(a) the lots as proposed are similar in size to those existing
in the block and therefore there will be no substantial change
in the character of the immediate a~a; (b) the circumstances
are unique; (c) the practical difficulties are sufficient to
warrant the granting o~ this variance; (d) there ~s no other
method feasible for appellant to pursue; (~) there will be
no effect on available goyernment~l facilities; (f) in.view of
the manner in which the difficulties arose and in considering
all the above factors, the interests of justice will best be.
served by allowing the variance, as noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, Seconded by
Mr. Doyen, it was
So~uthold Town Board of Appeals -20-July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3517 GOWEN, decision, continued:)
RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3517
in the Matter of the Application of ROSALIE GOWEN..fo~ approval
of insufficient lot area, width and depth of. Parcels #T and #2,
as shown by survey map amended August 16, 1985~ prepared by
Roderick VanTuyl, P.C., SUBJECT TO THE~FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. No setback reductions to less~han that permitted by
Column "A" of the Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code;
2, Water service must be supplied and serviced by the
public water utili'ty company (presently Captain Kidd Water
~Ompany~ Inc.) for proposed Parcel #1~
V~te of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and
Sawicki. (Members Douglass and Grigonis were absent during
the adoptio~ of this re~olution.) This resolution was duly
adopted.
/Southsld Town Board of Appeals -2]- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3522:
Application of NORTH FORK BANCORP. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article VII, Section 100-70(C)[2] for permission to install: (1) large on-premises
identification sign in excess of the maximum height and width requirements,
and (2) second on-premises identification/directory sign, at premises known
as 9025 Main Road, Mattituck, NY County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-6-020.
Zoning District: "B-Light Business."
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on July 17, 1986 in
the Matter of the Application of NORTH FORK BANCORP. ~nder Appeal No. 3522;
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, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard,
and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has darefully considered all testimony and document-
ation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. By this application, appellant requests Variances to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70(C) for permission to erect: (a)
one ground sign for on-premises identification purposes which does not
conform to the 4-ft.-minimum height requirement from ground to bottom of
sign, and (b) a second ground sign for on-premises identification/direc-
tional purposes. The first ground sign for North Fork Bancorporation
identification is to be 16 ft. wide by 3 ft., the lower edge of which
is shown to be 2 ft. above average grade and the upper edge to be 5 ft.
above average grade, as mo~e particularly shown on Sketch C3 dated
April 15, 1986 prepared by Lawrence L. Smith Assoc. The second ground
sign for on-premises directories as shown by sketch received June 24,
1986 will be of a size 3 ft. by 3 ft., the lower edge at a minimum of
4 ft. above average grade and the upper edge at a maximum of 7 ft., more
or less.
2. The premises in question is identified on the Suffolk County
Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 122, Block 6, Lot 020, is zoned
"B-Light Business" and contains a total acreage of 8± acres.
'South61d Town Board of Appeals
-22-
July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3522 - NORTH FORK BANCORP., decision, continued:)
3. Article VII, Section lO0-70(C) of the Zoning Code permits one
ground sign not to exceed 6'6" high by 12'6" wide (max. 8%.25 sq. ft. in
area), the lower edge not less than four feet above, and upper edge at a
maximum height of 15'6", above ground.
4. The board agrees that applicant's requests are not unreasonable
under the circumstances due to the uniqueness of the property.
In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines:
(a) that sufficient practical difficulties have been shown to warrant
the granting of this application; (b) the circumstances are unique and
are not shared by other properties in the neighborhood; (c) there will
be no substantial change in the character of the area or detriment to
adjoining properties; (d) the relief requested is not substantial;
(e) the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect of in-
creased population density or be adverse to the safety, health, welfare,
comfort, convenience and order of the town; (g) the interests of
justice will best be served by allowing the variances, as conditionally
noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3522 in the
Matter of the Application of NORTH FORK BANCORP. for: (a) one ground
ID sign with its lower edge at two feet above average grade and (b)
Second ground ID/directional sign, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Bo~h~§ig~snshaltlbe~toc&tedd a minimum of 14 ft. from the front
property line, as applied.
2. Second on-premises-identification ground sign=shall not exceed
four feet by six feet (4' by 6') in area.
3. No deviation in location of either sign.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Sawicki and Doyen.
(Members Grigonis and Douglass were absent.) This resolution was duly
adopted.
South~ld Town Board of Appeals -23- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3428:
Application of BERTttAKURCZEWSKI for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk and Parking schedule, for approval of insuf-
ficient area and frontage (lot width) of two parcels in this pending set-off
division of land, located at the east side of Depot Lane, Cutchogue, ~;
County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-102-02-003 and 025.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on July 17, 1986 in
the Matter of the Application of BERTHA KURCZEWSKI under Appeal No. 3428;
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, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard,
and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documenta-
tion submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from the Provisions
of Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, of the Zoning Code for approval
of two parcels, as follow: (a) Parcel #1 of 43,560 sq. ft. in area and frontage
[lot width] of 97.13 feet, and (b) Parcel #2 of 22,132 sq. ft. in area and
frontage of 49.50 feet, as described by deeds at Liber 6419 cp 16 dated
September 10, 1968 and at Liber 1801 cp 409 dated February 12, 1985.
2. The subject premises is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps
as District 1000, Section 102, Block 2, Lots 3 and 25, and contains a total
lot area of 1.508 acres and 146.63 ft. frontage along the east side of Depot
Lane in the Hamlet of Cutchogue. Existing upon the subject premises is a
single-family dwelling set back 39½± ft. from its front property line and
having sideyards of 9½± ft. at the north side and 16± ft. at the south side.
Also existing is an accessory garage located in the rearyard area.
3. Submitted for the record is a copy of correspondence from the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services indicating that this project appears
to be exempt from the~requirements of Article VI of the Sanitary Code concern-
ing developments and subdivisions.
'SouthOld Town Board of Appeals -24- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3428 - KURCZEWSKI, DECISION, continued:)
In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines: (a) that
although the lots as proposed are not of a size and character of a majority
of the lots in this area, the lots have not been altered as previously existed;
(b) the circumstances are unique; (c) the practical difficulties are suffi-
cient to warrant the granting of this variance; (d) there is no other method
feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (e) there will be no
effect on available governmental facilities; (f) in view of the manner in
which the difficulties arose and in considering all the above factors, the
interests of justice will best be served by allowing the variance, as condi-
tionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED, to grant the relief requested under Appeal No. 3428 in the
Matter of the Application of BERTHA KURCZEWSKI for insufficient lot area and
lot width as more particularly shown on survey prepared August 1, 1985 by
Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. There be no setback reductions to less than that provided by
Column "A" of the Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code for Parcel ~2; and
2. There be no setback reductions to less than that provided by
Column "A-40" of the Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code for Parcel #1; and
3. There be no lot-line adjustments or other redivision of these
parcels.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Sawicki.
(Members Grigonis and Douglass were absent.) This resolution was duly
adopted.
Southold Town Board Of Appeals -25-
July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No, 3528:
Application of RICHARD AND ALICE MCMANUS for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Section 100-13(2B) for approval
of the construction of an open porch in excess of 30 sq. ft. in area having
an insufficient setback from the front property line at 710 Cedar Lane, East
Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-6-5.1.
Following deliberaions, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar
with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding
areas; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard,
and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and document-
ation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. By this application, appellants request a Variance from the Provi-
sions of Article III, Section 100-31 and Section 100-13 as disapproved by
the Building Inspector June 11, 1986 for approval of the construction of
a front open porch attached to dwelling, pursuant to Building Permit #14718
dated March 31, 1986, with a reduced frontyard setback at 33~ feet.
2. The subject premises is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps
as District 1000, Section 31, Block 6, Lot 5.1 and contains an area of .67
of an acre. A vacant land Certificate of Occupancy under No. Z9712 was
issued October 16, 1979 by the Building Department.
3. The subject premises is improved at the present time with a new
dwelling under construction as indicated by Building Permit #14718 issued
March 31, 1986 having setbacks of: (a) 33½ feet from the northeasterly
corner of the structure and 35½ feet from the southeasterly corner of the
structure; (b) 42½ feet from the southerly property line; (c) 72 feet
from the westerly property line and 120 feet from the northerly property
line, all as shown by survey amended February 24, 1986, prepared by Roder-
ick VanTuyl, P.C.
4. Article III, Section 100-31, Column "A" of the Bulk Schedule
requires a minimum frontyard setback at 35 feet; Article I-Definitions
-Sout~old Town Board of Appeals
-26-
July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3528 - MCMANUS, DECISION, continued:)
"building area" excludes open porches projecting not more than five feet
from the exterior walls and having an area of less than thirty (30) sq. ft.
5. The open front porch as constructed contains an area exceeding
30 sq. ft. and is not excluded as "building area."
6. It is the opinion of the board that the variance requested is
very minimal, being a variance of one and one-half feet (i½), and the
board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant.
In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines: (a)
that sufficient practical difficulties have been shown to warrant the
granting of this variance; (b) the circumstances are unique and not
shared by all other properties in the neighborhood; (c) there will be
no substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment
to adjoining properties; (d) the relief requested is not substantial;
(e) the difficulty cannot be obviated by some method feasible for
appellant to pursue other than a variance; (f) that the variance will
hOC in turn cause a substantial effect of increased population density
or be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and
order of the town; (g) that the interests of justice will best be
served by allowing the variance, as applied.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki,
it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3528 in the
Matter of the Application of RICHARD AND ALICE MCMANUS for approval of
the construction of front open porch with a frontyard setback at 33½ feet,
BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Sawicki.
(Members Grigonis and Douglass were absent.) This resolution was duly
adopted.
'~outhold Town Board of Appeals -27- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3526:
-Application of BRUCE AND'SHiRLEY SIEVERMAN for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article II:I, Section I00~31 for permission to
construct deck addition to existing dwelling and. attaching an exist-
ing swimmingpool, leaving an insufficient setback from the southerly
(side) property line on this corner lot. Location of Property:
50 Aquaview Avenue ~nd Rocky Point Road, East Marion, _NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-3-1.
Following deliberations, 'the board took the following action:
WHEREAS~ a public hearing was held and concluded on July 17~
1986, in the Matter of the Application of BRUCE'AND SHIRLEY SIEVERMAN,
under Appeal No. 3526; and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its pr~.~ent zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard, and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
l. The premises in question is located along the east side
of Rocky Point Road and south side of Aquaview Avenue, in the Hamlet
of East Marion, is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as
Parcel No. 1000-21-3-001, and contains a total area of 22,500± sq. ft.
2. The subject premises is presently improved with a
single-family, one-story frame dwelling with setbacks of: (a)
25 feet from its property line along Rocky Point Road and 51.2
feet from its property line along Aquaview Avenue, and contains
an accessory inground swimmpool, as more particularly shown by
survey dated April 1'8, 1986, prepared by Paul T. £analizo, Surveyor.
3. By this application, appellants request a variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule
So~thold Town Board of Appeals -28- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3526 SIEVERMAN decision, continued:)
for permission to attach the existing accessory inground swimming-
pool with a wood deck at the south end of the subject dwelling,
which would in turn create an insufficient setback of deck attach-
ment and fence enclosure (around the existing pool) to approxi-
mately one foot from the southerly property line.
5. It is noted for the ~cord tha~ by No. 13045, a Building
Permit was issued April 17, 1984 for the construction'of an
accessory inground pool, without decks, and with fence enclosure.
In considering this appeal~ the board finds and determines~
(a) that sufficient practi~.al difficulties have been shown to
warrant the granting of this variance;_ (b) ~he circumstances are
unique and not shared by all othe~ properties in the'neighborhood;
(c) there will be no substantial change in the character of the
neighborhood or detriment to adjoining properties; (d) the relief
requested is not substantial; (e) the difficulty cannot be
obviated by some method feasible for appellant to pursue other
than a variance; (f) that the variance will not in turn cause
a substantial effect of increased population density or be ad-
verse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and
order of the town; (g) that the interests of justice will best
be served by allowing the variance, as conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringe~, seconded by
Mr. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3526
in the Matter of BRUCE AND SHIRLEY SIEVERMAN for perm!ssion to
attach inground pool with decks~, creating an insufficient setback
from the southerly property line, BE'AND HEREBY IS~APPROVED SUB=
JECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Deck and pool areas must remain open and unroofed;
2. Lighting must be of a mushroom-type, preventing adverse
glare to neighboring properties.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Sawicki
and Doyen. (Members Douglass and Grigonis were absent.) This
resolution was duly adopted.
· Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -29- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No 3510:
Application of RICHARD-AND ROTH ZEIDLER for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to
locate proposed pool, deck and fencing within 75' of bulkhead or tidal
water. Location of Property: 100 McDonald's Crossing off the South
Side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; Edgemere Park Lots 12,
13 and 14;. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-145-4-15.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, public hearings were held on June 19, 1986 and July 17,
1986, in the Matter of the Application of RICHARD AND RUTH ZEIDLER,
under Appeal No. 3510; 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, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard, and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located in the "A" Residential
and Agricultural Zoning District, with frontage along Brushes Creek
and Peconic Bay, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as
District 1000, Section 145, Block 4, Lot 15.
2. The subject premises consists of a total area of approxi-
mately 28,355 sq. ft. as shown by survey dated April 17, 1979, and
is improved with a single-family, one-story frame house with
attached garage and deck areas, and gazebo.
3. By NOtice of Disapproval dated May 14, 1986, applicant was
deni6d a Building Permit Application for a swimmingpool addition
under the provisions of Article XI, Section 100-119.2 of the Zoning
Code, which 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
Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -30- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3510 - ZEIDLER, decision, continued:)
feet from the landward edge of the tidal wetland, whichever is greater.
4. In personally viewing the premises in question, it has
been found that the existing wood deck areas are not flush with
the average grade level, and it has been noted by the building
inspector that an up-to-date survey showing all above-ground
structures was not submitted at the time of the filing of the
building-permit application, and therefore he was not able to
determine compliance or noncompliance of the lot-coverage
restriction. It appears after inspections by the board members
and the building department that the existing deck areas must
be calculated in determining the percentage of .lot coverage.
Inasmuch as a lot-coverage variance was not applied for, this
board is without authority to act concerning same, except to
require further review by the Building Inspector and possibly
a subsequent variance application. It is therefore the sugges-
tion of this board that an accurate up-to-date survey prepared
by a surveyor showing and calculating the percentage of lot
coverage for all structures, above ground level, be submitted
to the Building Inspector before the issuance of a building
permit, and that a second Notice of Disapproval be issued
indicating the basis of his determination, in the event that
an alternative has not been accepted by the Building Inspector
and the applicants, for amended construction.
5. I't is the opinion of the board that the applicants
do not have any other method feasible for them to pursue in
this wetlands-setback application other than another variance;
and in considering the character of this property and the
immediate area, the most feasible location will be in this
westerly yard area, as amended, having setbacks of no closer
than 50 feet to the front property line and no closer than
30 feet to the water along the westerly pnoperty line, without
any encroachment into the westerly view easement, and as
further conditionally noted below.
In considering this appeal, the board finds and deter-
mines that by locating the proposed pool, decks and fence
enclosure as specifically noted below: (a) the variance will
be the minimum necessary; (b) the circumstances of the
propertY are unique; (c) the practical difficulties are
sufficient to warrant a granting of this variance; (d)
there will be no substantial change in the character of
'Sout~old Town Board of Appeals -31- July 31 ~ 1986 Special
(Appeal No. 3510 - ZEIDLER, decision, continued:)
Meeting
the district; (e) the relief as granted is not substantial,
being a variance of 40± percent of the existing setback, or
20± feet; (f) the circumstances are not shared by other
properties generally existing in the neighborhood; (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 best be served by allowing the variance, as
conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by
Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that permission to locate an inground swim-
mingpool, decks and fence enclosure, within 75' of tidal
water body, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED in the Matter of the
Application of RICHARD AND RUTH ZIEDLER, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. No building construction closer than 50 feet to the
front ~roperty line and no closer than 30 feet to the water along
the westerly side;
2. No encroachment into view easement along westerly side;
3. Screening along the westerly side (bushes, etc.) shall
be ma~ntained,(except for area within view easement).
4. Lighting shall be of a mushroom-type which not adversely
glare into neighboring properties;
5. Screening shall be placed and maintai'ned at the northwest
corner along yard area adjacent to the view easement;
6. Inasmuch as this application has not been determined
by the Building Department as to compli, ance or noncompliance of
the lot-coverage limitations, before issuance of a building permit,
a certified up-to-date survey must be submitted to the Building
Department for such determination, as well as any and all other
Bulk Schedule regulations of the Zoning Code;
7. In the event it is found that the lot coverage is
' Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals-32- July 31, 1986 Special Meetling
(Appeal No. 3510 ZEIDLER, decision, continued:)
excessive for all structures above ground level, applicant will
then be required to reapply or comply as otherwise authorized
by the Building Inspector.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Sawicki and
Doyen. (Members Douglass and Grigonis were absent.) This resolu-
tion was duly adopted.
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3527:
Application of ROBERT AND CHARLOTTE WISSMAN for Variances to the
Zoning Ordinance: (a) Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule for
location of new single-family dwelling with reduced sideyards, front-
yard, and rearyard setbacks; and (b) Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B)
for location of new dwelling with reduced setback from highwater mark
at Fordham Canal. Location of Property: 715 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-04-007.6 (referred to as Lot "C"
in prior subdivisi, on records).
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concl'uded on July 17, 1986
in the Matter of the Application of ROBERT AND CHARLOTT. E WISSMAN under
Appeal No. 3527; and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question~ its preEent zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard, and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concernin_g this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following 'findings of fact:
1. The premises in question ihs loca'ted along the-~ast side
of Gull Pond Lane distant 637.82 feet from the southeasterly side
of Middle (North) Road, in the Hamlet of Greenport, and is iden-
tified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District lO00, Sectio~ 35,
.S~outhotd Town Board of Appeals -33- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3527 - WISSMAN, decision, continued:)
Block 04, Lot 007.6.
2. The subject premises consists of a total area of 17,934
sq. ft. with frontage along Gull Pond Lane of 140 feet, more or
less, and lot depth of 170 feet. The premises is presently vacant
and constructed along the most easterly (rear) property line is a
bulkhead of lO0 feet, more or less, in length.
3. By this application', appellants request relief from
Articles: (a) III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Schedule of the Zoning
Code for insufficient setbacks from the rear line at 45 feet, from
the front line at 35 feet, and sideyards of 15 feet and 16 feet,
total sideyards at 31 feet, and (b) XI, Section 100-119~2, sub-
section (B) for an insufficient setback at 45 feet from the existing
bulkhead along Fordham Canal.
4. Column "A-40" o~ the Zoning Code was used as the basis
in the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval which re'quires
minimum setbacks at 50 feet in the front yard, 50 feet in the rear
yard, 15 and 20 ft. sideyards, and ~'otal sideyar'ds 35 feet.
5. Article XI, Section lO0-119.2(B) requires ~'ll buildings
and structures located on lots adja.cent to tidal wate~.~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.
6. It is the Position of this board that the applicants be
permitted to build in accordance with Column "A" of the Bulk
Schedule which pertains to lots having an are~ of less than 40,000
sq. ft. This parcel contains an area as noted previously of-
17,934 sq. ft. The proposed dwelling will be located in compliance
with the requirements of Column "A" for minimum setbaCks of 35
front and rear yards, 10 and 15 ~ideyards, total sideyards 25 feet.
7. Submitted in support of this application is information
indicating that parcels along the east side of Gull Pond Lane are
improved with structures set back from the bulkhead as follows:
(a) 42½ ft. Spitzenberger~ (b) 47 ft.-Rauch.
8. It is the position of this board that a setback of 45
feet from the bulkhead along Fordham Canal is not substantial in
view of the established setbacks in this immediate area and the
topography of the land in question.
In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines:
.Soutbold Town Board of Appeals -34- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3527 - WISSMAN, decision, continued:)
(a) that sufficient practical difficulties have been shown to
warrant the granting of this variance; (b) the circumstances are
unique and not shared by all other properties in the neighborhood;
(c) there will be no substantial change in the character of the
area or detriment to adjoining properties; (d) the relief
requested is not substantial; (e) the difficulties cannot be
obviated by some method feasible for appellant to pursue other
than a variance; (f) the variance will not in turn cause a
substantial effect of increased population density or be adverse
to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order
of the town; (g) the interests of justice will best be served
by allowing the variances, as applied.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3527
in the Matter of the Application of ROBERT AND CHARLOTTE WISSMAN
BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, PROVIDED THERE BE NO FURTHER REDUCTIONS
TO LESS THAN THAT REQUESTED H.E.RE!N..
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and
Sawicki. (Members Grigonis and Douglass were absent.) This
resolution was duly adopted.
PENDING DECISION' Appeal No. 3531:
Application of ALBERT ~. B~ENEISEN for a Variance to the Zon'i~g
Ordinance, Article XI~, SeCtion lO0-119.2(B) for permission to construct
pool, deck and fence enclosure withi~ 75 feet of mean high water along
Dawn Lagoon, 715 Dawn Drive, East Marion, NY; _~ounty Tax Map Parcel .
No. 1000-35-5-16; Cleaves Point Section III, Lot No. 71.
Following. deliberations, the board took the following action'
WHEREAS, a public hearing was~held and concluded on July 17, 1986
in the Matter of the ~pplication of'ALBERT J~ BRENEISEN unde~_.Appeal
No. 3531; and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question,__it$ pr~.6~nt zoning,'.and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
Southo~d Town Board of Appeals -35= July 35, 1986 Special Meeting
-(Appeal No. 3531 - BRENEISEN, dec'is~on, continued:)
were heard, and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
I. The premises in question is located in the "A" Residential
and Agricultural Zoning District along the south side of Dawn Drive
Greenport, New York, is identified on the Suffolk Count'y Tax Maps as
District 1000, Section 35, Block 5, Lot 16, and on the Major Subdivi-
sion Map of Cleaves Point, Section III, as Lot ~71.
2. The subject premises consists of a total area of approxi-
mately 20,000 sq. ft. with 75.19 ft. frontage along the south side
of Dawn Drive, and along Gull Pond/Dawn Lagoon waters edge at a tie
line of 164± feet. The premises is improved with a single-family,
one-story frame dwelling set back 60± feet from its closest point
from the ordinary highwater mark as more particularly shown on survey
dated May 5, 1969, prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C.
3. By this application~ appellant requests permi.ssion to
locate a 20' by 40' inground swimmingpool, together with eight-foot
wide decks, detached from the dwelling in the rearyard area, having
a setback not closer than 30 feet from the 110' retaining wall, all
as more particularly shown by sketch dated November 28, 1985,
prepared by Costello Marine Contracting Corp. A fence enclosure
is proposed along the'westerly property line and will not be
placed any closer than 30 feet of the mean high water mark, or
seaward of the llO-ft, retaining wall.
4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, sub-paragraph (B)
requires all buildings and structures located on lots adjacent
to tidal water bodies other than the Long Island Sound to be set
back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary high-
water mark of such tidal water body, or not less than seventy-five
feet from the landward edge of the tidal wetland~ whichever is
greater.
5. It is noted for the record that permits have been
issued by the Southold Town Trustees, Wetlands Permit #266
dated May 15, 1986, and by the N.Y.S. Department of Environ-
mental Conservation under Tidal Wetlands Permit #10-85-1498
dated April 28, 1986, for the pl~cemen~ of a 75' retaining wall,
llO' retaining wall, and the subject 20' by 40' swimmingpool and
deck construction. It was noted that the building construction
is above the existing 10-ft. contour elevation between llO-ft.
retaining wall and existing residence.
6. It is the opinion of the board members that: (a) the
Sdutho~d Town Board of Appeals -36-Ju~ly 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 353~ BRENEISEN, decision, continued:)
pool construction be located as far back from the retaining wall
and mean high water mark as possible, which in turn would be the
minimal variance necessary; (b) any draining or discharge from
the pool not enter the tidal waters at any time.
In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines:
(a) that sufficient practical difficulties have been shown to
warrant the granting of this variance; (b) the circumstances are
unique and not shared by all other properties in the neighborhood~
(c) there will be no substantial change in the character of the
area or detriment to adjoining properties; (d) the relief
stipulated below is not substantial; (el the difficulties cannot
be obviated by some method feasible for appellant to pursue other
than a variance; (f) the variance will not in turn cause a
substantial effect of increased population density or be adverse
to the safety, health, welfare~ comfort, convenience and order
of the town; (g) the interests of justice will best be served
by allowing the variance, as noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by
Mr. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED, that a Variance for permission to locate accessory
20 ft. by 40 ft. inground swimmingpool, deck areas, and fence en-
closure, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED in the Matter of the Application
of ALBERT J. BRENEISEN under Appeal No. 3531, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW-
ING CONDITIONS:
1. Pool construction be located no closer than 40 feet to
the mean highwater mark or rear property line, whichever is closer;
deck areas not to be any closer than 30 ft., as applied;
2. Pool not be enclosed or roofed;
3. Ground lights must be of a mushroom=type, not having an
adverse effect on neighboring properties;
4. Any change or deviation from the plan which would cause
a relocation of the pool will require a reapplication and recon-
sideration.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Sawicki and
Doyen. (Members Douglass and Grigonis wer~ absent.) This resolu-
tion was duly adopted_~
(Member Douglass returned from inspection Re: Port of Egypt.)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3524:
Application of PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to
locate marine fuel storage tank structures in this "C-Light~' Indus-
trial Zoning District with an .insufficient setback ~rom landward
edge of tidal wetland and from ordinary highwater mark, at 6230 Main
Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-56-6~4, 6, 6.1.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 19, 1986, in the
Matter of the Application of PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC. under
Appeal No. 3524; 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, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard, and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered alt testimony
and documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located in the "C-Light"
Industrial Zoning District along the south side of the Main Road
(State Road 25), in the Hamlet of Southold, and is identified on
the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 56, Block
6, Lots 4, 6 (record owner: Port of Egypt Enterprises).
2. The subject premises consists of a total area of
10.5± acres (including land under water) with 600± feet frontage
[lot width]. Premises adjoining this property on the westerly
side is presently owned by C & L Realty, Inc. which was not made
a part hereof. Existing are numerous buildings, all as shown on
the site plan mapped April 19, 1985, amended May 29, 1985, prepared
by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C.
3. By this application, appellant requests permission to
locate three fuel storage tanks within containment walls with an
overall outside dimension of 24'10" by 16'6", more or less, as
.Sou~hold Town Board of Appeal's -38- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3524 - PORT OF EGYPT decision, continued:)
shown on diagram dated October 31, 1985 prepared by Peconic
Associates (A-l), with a setback of 13 feet from the edge of
rip-rap along the water's edge at its closest point from the
outside containment wall, and 23 feet to the first fuel tank,
as amended.
4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2(B) of the Zoning Code
requires all buildings and structures located on lots adjacent
to tidal water bodies other than the Long Island Sound to be
set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary
highwa%er 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. Relocation and installation of
fuel tanks are required by Article 12 of the Suffolk County
Nealth Code, which limits the distances between the dispensing
pumps and fuel tanks, etc., and must be installed in compliance
with the provisions of the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) regulations and Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations,
6 NYCRR.
5. It is noted for the record that actions have been
taken under Applications No. 3494 and 3495 by this board con-
cerning similar relief, as noted therein.
6. It is the opinion of the board members that it would
be within the best interests and protection of the public,
customers., employees, etc., if the fuel-storage tanks were
located in area more distant than the area chosen~ as further
noted below.
In considering this appeal, the board finds and deter-
mines that by locating the proposed fuel tanks with containment
enclosure and fencing at a distance, noted below: (a) the
variance will be the minimum necessary; (b) the circumstances
are unique; (c) the practical difficulties are sufficient to
warrant a granting of this variance; (d) there will be no sub-
stan%ial change in the character of the district; (e) the
relief as granted is not substantial; (f) the circumstances
are not shared by other properties generally existing in the
neighborhood; (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 best be served by allowing the
variance, as conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
' Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3524 - PORT OF EGYPT dec.ision~ continued:)
RESOLVED, that a Variance for permission to locate
fuel storage tanks within containment walls as shown by
building p-lan view dated 10-31-85, prepared by Peconic
Associates, Inc., in the Matter of the Application of PORT
OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC. under Appeal No. 3524, BE AND
HEREBY IS APPROVED AS CONDITIONALLY AND SPECIFICALLY NOTED
BELOW:
1. Subject to all agency approvals, including the N.Y.S.
Fire Code, Suffolk County Health Department regulations, N.Y.S.
Department of Environmental Conservation regulations, etc.
2. Concrete flash 'Wall on water side must be the same
height as tanks, or higher; on other three sides, minimum of
four feet high; as well as g-foot chai'nlink, slatted fence
affixed into top of walls;
3. Top of fence (wall) facing water side must have barbed
wire curl to prevent scaling of wall or fence;
4. Setbacks to be.:
(a) from existing stack-rack building 135 feet to
west corner of tank and pump~
('b) 77 feet from southeast corner of existing one-story
motel building at closest point;
(c) 35 feet from southeast corner of loading ramp
sump no clGser than 25 feet to rip-rap;
5. Proper diking and cement walls containment to retain
any leakage of fuels;
6. Signs to be placed on fencing identifying danger and
requiring "no smoking" as per National Fire Protection Agency
standards.'
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass,
Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolu-
tion was duly adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -40-
July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3525:
Application of PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES for a Special Exception to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B) for permission to
install/relocate marine fuel storage tanks in this "C-Light" Industrial
Zoning District, at 6230 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-56-6-4, 6, 6.1.
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 19, 1986, in the
Matter of the Application of PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES~ INC. under
Appeal No. 3525; 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, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard, and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located in the "C-Light"
Industrial Zoning District along the south side of the'Main Road
(State Road 25), in the Hamlet of Southold, and is identified on
the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 56, Block
6, Lots 4, 6 (record owner: Port of Egypt Enterprises).
2. The subject premises consists of a total area of
10.5± acres (including land under water) with 600± feet frontage
[lot width]. Premises adjoining this property on the westerly
side is presently owned by C & L Realty, Inc. which was not made
a part hereof. Existing are numerous buildings, all as shown on
the site plan mapped April 19, 1985, amended May 29, 1985, prepared
by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C.
3. By this application, appellant requests a Special Excep-
tion to permit the installation and relocation of three new fuel
storage tanks within containment walls with an overall outside
dimension of 24'10" by 16~6'', more or less, as shown on diagram
(A-l) dated October 31, 1985 prepared by Peconic Associates, with
5outhold Town Board of Appeals -41- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Port of Egypt, Appeal No. 3525-SE, decision, continued:)
a setback of 13 feet from the edge of rip-rap along the water's
edge at its closest point from the outside of containment wall,
and 23 feet to the first fuel tank, as amended.
4. The newly proposed fuel tanks are to replace existing
fuel storage tanks which are presently located at the easterly
portion of the subject premises as required by Article 12 of the
Suffolk County Health Code and in compliance with the Provisions
of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) regulations,
Tidal Wetland Land Use Regulations 6 NYCRR, N.Y.S. Fire Code, etc.
5. Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B), subsection (16) permits
by Special Exception approval from this board the sale and storage
of fuel in the "C-Light" Industrial Zoning Districts and subject to
site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board in accord-
ance with Article XIII of the Zoning Code. By action taken March 24,
1986, the Southold Town Planning Board referred the site plan to the
Building Department for certification in accordance with Section
100-133 (C).
6. It is noted for the record that actions have been
taken under Applications No. 3494 and 3495 by this board con-
cerning similar relief, as noted therein, and action taken simul-
taneously herewith under Appeal No. 3524.
7. It is the opinion of the board members that it would
be within the best interests and protection of the public,
customers, employees, etc., if the fuel-storage tanks were
located in area more distant than the area chosen, as further
noted below.
In considering this application, the board finds and deter-
mines that by locating the proposed fuel tanks with containment
enclosure and fencing at a distance, noted below: (a) the use of
same will not prevent the orderly and reasona.ble use of adjacent
propeties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (b) the
use will not adversely affect the safety, welfare, comfort,
convenience or order of the town; (c) the use is in harmony
with and will 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.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
Southold Town Board of Appeals-42- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
(Port of Egypt, Appeal No. 3525-SE, decision, continued:)
RESOLVED, that a Special Exception for permission to
install and locate accessory fuel storage tanks within containment
walls as ShOWn by building plan view dated 10-31-85, prepared by
Peconic Associates, Inc., in the Matter of the Application of ~ORT
OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC. under Application No. 3525, BE AND
HEREBY tS APPROVED AS CONDITIONALLY AND SPECIFICALLY NO~ED
BELOW:
1. Subject to all agency approvals, including the N.Y.S.
Fire Code, Suffolk County Health Department regulations, N.Y.S.
Department of Environmental Conservation regulations, etc.
2. Concrete flash wall on water side must be the same
height as tanks, or higher; on other three sides, minimum of
four feet high; as well as 8-foot chainlink, slatted fence
affixed into top of walls;
3. Top of fence (wall) facing water side must have barbed
wire curl to prevent scaling of wall or fence;
4. Setbacks to be:
(a) from existing stack-rack building 135 feet to
west corner of tank and pump;
(b) 77 feet from southeast corner of existing one-story
motel building at closest point;
(c) 35 feet from southeast corner of loading ramp
sump no closer than 25 feet to rip-rap~
5. Proper diking and cement walls containment to retain
any leakage of fuels;
6. Signs to be placed on fencing identifying danger and
requiring ~'no smoking" as per National Fire Protection Agency
standards.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass,
Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolu-
tion was duly adopted.
~o~ut'hold Town Board of Appeals -43- July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
AMENDED APPLICATION PENDING: Appl. No. 35423 Special Exception
of CLIFFSIDE ASSQCIATES by Richard Pellicane, Esq. in accordance with
Article V, Section 100-50(B)[4] to construct 76 mQtel units in this
M-1 Multiple Zoning District. Middle Road, C.R. 48, Greenport;
1000-45-1-1 and 2. Acreage: 7.002z
This is an amended application, modified from Appeal No. 3349
which was initially a request for six multiple dwelti~ngs With eight
units per building, total: 46 dwellings units, filed on 4-18-85.
At a Regular Meeting of the ZBA held on May 2, 1985, a Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement was requested in accordance with a Positive
SEQRA Declaration. Also requested in the interim was that an
application be filed by the applicant with the N.Y.S. Department
of Environmental Conservation (Section 661.5(b)[46] and that their
reviews be coordinated accordingly. On May 21, 1985, Richard
Pellicane asked for an update concerning this._proposed multiple-
dwelling complex, and a response was returned on May 22, 1985
indicating the above. On 10-T7-85, the ZBA,(Planning Board, et al~)
were served with a Summons and Complaint.
Oh motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the application under Appeal No. 3542 as
Amended for CLIFFSIDE ASSOCIATES be ~nd hereb~ is deemed incomplete
at this time pending receipt of the following;
(a) N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation approval
in accordance with Section 661.5(b);
(b) Suffolk County Health Department approvals;
(c) Planning Board preliminary approval or written input
coordinating its comments under its reviews per Article XIII;
(d) copy of Building Inspector's amended certification as
lO0-1~3(C);
required by Section
(e) copy of executed agreement or contract with the Village
of Greenport concerning public water and/or public sewer;
(f) affidavit certified by the applicant/property owners
that the premises will be served by public water and public sewer
utilities.
It.was further noted that the SEQRA process has not been
finalized or further steps taken by the applicant concerning
this property as of this date.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehrinler Borgia§s,
(Member Grigonis was absent.~ ~his resolution
Doyen and Sawicki.
was duly adopted. , , ,
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-44-
July 31, 1986 Special Meeting
PENDING SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3478
CHURCH OF THE OPEN DQOR. The BQar~ is in receip~_of_rec~nt
~ommuni'cations dated J~ly 24th from the Planning Board to the
applicant's attorney, Paul Caminiti indicating that they do not
plan to consider site-plan approval at this time and will await
a determination by the Board of Appeals if evidence is found
to substantiate the granting of a ~pecial exception. ~was
unclear as to why the Planning Board would not_entertain or
coordinate any r~view under its purview for this site plan
application, and the Board asked that arrangements be ~ade
to ask the Planning Board for some communication, an~ if
necessary, that a Code Committee meeting or informaliconference
be held between departments. The ZBA nequested the foltowing
additional information before scheduling this matter for a
public hearing:
(a) copies of all certificates and licenses permitting
all uses proposed by this application, and
(b) the maximum number of students attending the
proposed religious schools.
CORRESPONDENCE: Pending Appeal No. 3533 - JOHN BREDEMEYER.
Dwelling with insuffaicient setback from ordinary highwater mark
along Orient Harbor. W/s Bay Avenue, Orient. By letter dated
July 24, 1986, %he Board was advised b~Abigail A. Wickham,
attorney for the Br~demeyers, that a Flood-Law Variance is
not being sought since they have decided to construct the
residence in compliance with the flood plain requirements.
CORRESPONDENCE: Pending Appeal No. 3462 - HERBERT MANDEL.
The Board reviewed the letter dated July 22, 1986 from Abigail
Wickham, attorney for Mr. Mandel in the area variance application
which indicates that their preliminary submission to the Health
Department is complete and the test hole results and test-well
samples satisfactory, although Article VI action has not been
~aken. Also~ the requested Pre-Certificate of Occupancy #Z14702
issued July 24, 1986 was received and placed in the file 7/29/86.
The Board indicated that they did not feel they were in a position
to schedule this matter f6r a public hearing without Article VI action.
~ Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals
-45-
July~ 31, t986 Special Meeti'ng
PENDING APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3537 - RO.~.D
Variance to locate new dwelling with insufficient frontyard and~i~
necessary with insufficient_setback from wetland g~asses. Breezy
Path, Southold. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by~
Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to hold the Matter of tile Application of ROBERT
AND SUSAN D'URSO temporarily in abeyance pending receipt of the
following:
Department of Environmental Conservation action;
To~n Trustees application and reviews.
Vote of the Board: -Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass,
Doyen and Sawicki. This re~olution was duly adopted. (M~mber
Grigonis was absent.)
PUBLIC HEARING FOR AUGUST 14, 1986: Appeal No. 3538 -
JEFFRE~ B~TTANCOURT.. .Variance forFp~oposed 16' by 44~ inground
pool, ~ttached deck and gazebo and 4' chainlink f~ncing, within
100 feet of top of bluff along the Long Island Sound. North
Side of Grand View Drive, Orient, New york.. The Chairman asked
that the Soil and Water Conservation District receive copies of
this file for their evaluation and report.
NEW FILE: Appeal No. 3540 - MARK AND LORRAINE LaROSA.
The Board ~e~bers reviewed the recent application of Ma~k and
Lorraine LaRosa. Member Douglass suggested that we require
N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation approval before
ZBA action. ~he~board~wa§~-~dvised that an application is
pending with the D.E.C. after recent conversations with the
~pplicant and should be forthcoming soon. This matter was
scheduled for public hearing for September 11, 1986, since
there is an existing dwelling and this is an application
for a deck (12' by 22') extending at the rear o~ the dwelling.
There being no other business properly coming before the
board at this time, the Chairman ~ec~ared the meeti_ng ~djourned.
lhe meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
p e ct fu~!~ y$ u bmi t t e d,
C[qS~a~. ~o~al skf, ~Sec-retary
Southo!..d Town Board of Appeals