The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-10/27/1983ROAD-STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD L I., N Y 11cj'7'1 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H, SAWICKI MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1983 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, October 27, 1983 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge Doyen; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Also present were approximately 20 persons in the audience. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded with the first public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3175. Application of WILLIAM L. MUSSER, by Michael F. Doyle, A.I.A. as agent, 506 East 84th Street, New York, NY 10028, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct detached accessory garage in the frontyard area at premises known as Lots 1 and 2 at Chocomount, located on a Private Road, at Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 10G0-004-05-5.4. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:34 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey indicating the future garage and its placement on a rather unique site as mentioned by Mr. Doyen, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the immediate area. Is there somebody here in behalf Of this application? (None) Is there anyone wishing to speak against the application? (No one). MEMBER DOYEN: The survey and the application speak for itself. Due to the topography, it would indicate that it is the most prac- tical location. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did he indicate the exact size of the garage? MEMBER DOYEN: Apparently not. I suppose I could have measured ~outhold Town Board ~{ Appeals -2- October ~-/, 1983 Regular Meeting ~ppe~l NO. 3175 - WILLI~LM L.~ MUSSER, continued: MEMBER DOYEN: the slab which is shown in the picture. MR. CHAIRMAN: They probably have it in the building permit appli- cation. MEMBER DOYEN: I think it is to scale. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3120. Application of WARREN AND ELLEN HUFf, by Marcia Z. Hefter, Esq., 108 East Main Street, Riverhead, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Articles VI, Section 100-60, and VIII, Section 100-80(B) [1] for permission to establish a machine shop for manufacture of hardware, a use permitted in the "C-Light Industrial" Zone. The subject prmeises is zoned "B-Light" Business and is located at the South Side of C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-59-10-005. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:40 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the site plan revised 3/25/83 (further revised 9/1/83) indicating a proposed building of approxi- mately 39' by 100' on said premises. I also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the properties in the immediate area. Mrs. Hefter, would you like to be heard? MARCIA Z. HEFTER, ESQ.: Good evening. I'm Marcia Hefter. I represent Warren and Ellen Hufe, the applicants. Mr. and Mrs. Hufe are in the audience and are available to respond to any questions that the board might have or that anybody else might have. They've asked me to present to the board the relevant facts which they will be pleased to swear to the accuracy to following my presentation. The premises which are the subject of this application are located on the south side of the north highway in the zoning dis- trict known as "B-Light Business." At the present time, they are unimproved. The parcel contains an area of approximately one-third of an acre, has a distance on the North Road of about 73½ feet. To the east of the property lies a parcel of unimproved real property. To the west is an improved piece of property on which Elco Machine Shop is operated; it's improved by a one-story concrete-block build- ing that's used also for light manufacturing purposes. It is my Southold Town Board 6f Appeals -3- October ~7, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3120 -WARREN & ELLEN. H~FE, continued:) MRS. HEFTER continued: understanding that a warehouse has been recently constructed I believe within the last year a little further to the west on the north highway containing about 5,000 sq. ft. Across the street on the north side of the highway is another parcel of property that's owned by Mr. and Mrs. Hufe on which their present business is located. W~at they wish to do is cease operations on the north side of the north highway, construct a building directly across the street on the subject parcel, and conduct their business--the very same business that they now conduct on the other side of the street from this prop- erty. There is also another piece of property adjoining theirs on the north side of the highway that is also improved by another structure on'which another manufacturing business is conducted. This piece of property was purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Hufe in 1968. It was pur- chased at a time when the zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold did in fact permit the use which they seek to make of the property at this time. It is my understanding that the use was that the zon- ing was changed subsequently to prohibit it in this district. The business which they operate on the other side of the street has been operated there for maybe a dozen years. At first they rented the premises from which they operate, and then in 1973 they purchased it. It has been used as a machine shop and the building has an area of approximately 1,600 sq. ft. What they would like to do and what we have submitted the site plan to the Planning Board for is to construct a building of about 3,900 - 4,000 sq. ft. The site plan shows parking for 12 cars and two loading areas. The increased space .that this building would offer to them will more than double the size of their present loca- tion. They have grown out of their present location. They would like to buy some new machinery. There is no room to put it. They have about a dozen employees in their present location. They have no facilities for their employees for them to have lunch, for them to take a break. The plans for this building on the subject property would incorporate the facility for a lunchroom for the employees and for space so that they can purchase new equipment and machinery, with the idea that perhaps at some time in the future, they will hire a few more employees. At the present time, we anticipate just working with the employees that we have in this new location with larger--greater amounts of equipment and newer kind of equipment. We need to move to a space that is in this locality because the employees that have been trained to work for Mr. and Mrs. Hufe live in this area. MOst of them are CETA employees. Some of them walk to work. Some of them depend upon other people who work their for transportation, so we need to relocate in this area. As the board is aware, Mr. and Mrs. Hufe appeared before about year or two ago in connection with another piece of property also Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- October 27, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3120 - WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE, continued:) MRS. HEFTER continued: on the north highway a little to the east on the north side of the north highway; and at that time the board -- at that time, Mr. and Mrs. Hufe intended, had plans to relocate on that piece of property whiCh already was improved by a building which is smaller than the size of the building that they wish to construct here. And the building's configuration is long. It's long on the highway and with a narrow depth. In reviewing the kinds of equipment that they want to purchase and in reviewing the size of that building, they realize that the size of the building was not adequate and that it's conver- sion for their purpose would be very difficult because of the config- uration of it. They need more of a !'squarer" building, if you will, rather than a long, extended building; and therefore they do not plan to use that piece of property for the relocation of their business, and that's why we're here tonight. We believe that this particular application -- that the appli- cation of the ordinance to this particular piece of property will in fact produce practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship which are unique to this particular piece of property. The piece of property that we are here for has been listed for sale with various real estate brokers. It has not been sold. As a matter of fact, we have not even received one offer to purchase it. We believe that we have not been able to sell it because of the uses that are permitted in "B-Light Business" Districts, which it lies. The property is located at a portion of the north highway, which is a four-lane highway--there's a 55 mile an hour speed limit. It's not on a corner. It's a small piece of property. It's one-third acre. It has a rather narrow frontage on the north highway--73½ feet. Furthermore, the piece of property immediately to the west is improved by a concrete-block building which is just three feet off our property line. This is a very difficult piece of property to sell for the uses which are permitted in the Business District. It's too small for a farming operation. It's too small for a town structure or a boarding house or for retail stores or for a restaurant. In short there's no market for it. Furthermore, we are unable to find another piece of. property in the immediate environ which would be fitting for the purpose that we seek to use this piece of property. We can't find anotherp~ of property zoned in the C-Light Industrict District that would fit our purposes. Therefore, we feel that the application of the ordinance does in fact produce both practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship, which are unique to them. Furthermore, we do not feel that the variance which we're requesting will change the character of the area because in fact the property used to the west and to the north of this property is used for the very same purposes which we seek to use it for. ~6uthold Town Board ~ Appeals -5- October 2,~, 1983 Regular Meeting (~ppea't No. 3120 - WARREN ~AND 'ELLEN 'HUFE, continued:) MRS. HEFTER continued: We have come before this board to ask not only for a use variance but for a Special Exception use, which would perm%t' us to use the property-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Next hearing. Normally I open both of them up at the same time, but I didn't choose to do that. tonight because I really didn't know what kind of testimony you were going to give us. MRS. HEFTER: Well, I have Mr. Albertson here who I would like to offer testimony that is pertinent to both applications. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the testimony that he intends to give us pertinent.to both the applications -- we can't divide them and say that one is more pertinent to the change as the other one would be more pertinent to the Special Exception. MRS. HEFTER: Well, what we can do perhaps is Mr. Albertson can give his testimony now and then when you open up the hearing for the Special Exception, if you would like I can have him-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Recapitulate. MRS. HEFTER: Right. I don't know the procedure before this board as to who swears him in. MR'. CHAIRMAN: It's really up to the Chairman to make the determination if he has to be sworn in, and at this particular time I don't think he has to be sworn in. MRS. HEFTER: Would you like him to speak from there--I would just ask him a few questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MRS. HEFTER: Would you let us know your full name and your business address. ALBERT W. ALBERTSON: Albert W. Albertson, Jr. Business add- ress' is East Main Road, Southold, real estate. MRS. HEFTER: How long have you been engaged in the real estate business? MR. ALBERTSON: Nine years. MRS. HEFTER: And has your nine years been spent in the Southold area? MR. ALBERTSON: Yes. MRS. HEFTER: Are you actively involved in the purchase and sale of business and commercial property? MR. ALBERTSON: Yes. Southold Town Board ~f Appeals -6- October ~, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3120 - WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE, continued:) MRS. HEFTER: Are you familiar with the parcel of property which is concerned in this application? MR. ALBERTSON: Very much. MRS. HEFTER: Do you know the applicants, Warren and Ellen Hufe? MR. ALBERTSON: Yes, I do. MRS. HEFTER: Did Mr. and Mrs. Hufe list this particular piece of property with you for sale? MR. ALBERTSON: Approximately eight years ago. MRS. HEFTER: Have you been able to show it to any parties who were interested in viewing it? MR. ALBERTSON: I have shown it twice and I have never had an offer. MRS. HEFTER: Are you familiar with the zoning district in which this property lies; namely, "B-Light Business" and its permitted uses? MR. ALBERTSON: Yes. MRS. HEFTER: Are you familiar with zoning District "C-Light Industrial" and its permitted uses? MR. ALBERTSON: Yes, I am. MRS. HEFTER: Are you also familiar with the business which the applicants operate known as Future Machines across the street from the subject property? MR. ALBERTSON: Yes, I am. MRS. HEFTER: The property is now zoned "B-Light Business." In this particular zoning district, one of the permitted uses is farming and farm structures. Do you feel that this particular piece of property has any value to be marketed for this use? MR. ALBERTSON: For farming, about $6,000 an acre is what we're getting for farm property. MRS. HEFTER: Do you feel that this particular piece of property could be sold for farming purposes or for farm structures? MR. ALBERTSON: I think it's too small. MRS. HEFTER: Another permitted use in this district is for a town structure. Do you feel this particular piece of property could be used for a town structure? MR. ALBERTSON: Number One, it's too small--I'm sure the Town Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- October 2~, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3120 - WARREN.AND 'ELLEN HUFE, continued:) MR. ALBERTSON continued: wouldn't want any structure on a 55-mile an hour highway. MRS. HEFTER: Another permitted use is for a boarding house. What is your feeling as to the applicability? MR. ALBERTSON: Not room enough. MRS. HEFTER: Another permitted use is for business, professional and government offices. Do you think that the property is usable for that purpose? MR. ALBERTSON: I don't think it is big enough for government offices. And we don't need another real estate office. MRS. HEFTER: How about using the property as a bank or as a retail store or restaurant? MR. ALBERTSON: I don't think it's the proper location. Particularly with a factory right next door to it and one across the street. MRS. HEFTER: The other permitted uses in this area are bake- shops, laundromats, and marinas. Do you feel that the property could be used for either of those three purposes? MR. ALBERTSON: No, I don't think they'd be allowed to put a bakery shop there, or marina wouldn't work, too. MRS. HEFTER: In your e~pert opinion, what do you feel that the value of the property is if it were to be permitted to be used for the purpose which the applicants seek; namely, for manufacturing purposes? MR. ALBERTSON: I would say it should be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $25,000 to $30,000 for that particular use if they're allowed to use it for that reason. MRS. HEFTER: In your opinion, if this parcel of property were improved by Mr. and Mrs. Hufe with a building in which they could operate the business that they now operate across the street, do you think this would have an adverse effect on the adjoining properties and their use? MR. ALBERTSON: No, I think it would be a big asset. I think anything that Warren has done mn the past proves that any building he owns is beautiful. MRS. HEFTER: Are there any parcels of property mn the Southold area to your knowledge which would be available in Zoning District "C-Light Industry" which could be used by Mr. and Mrs. Hufe? Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- October 27~, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3120 - WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE, continued:) MR. ALBERTSON: Not in the local Southold area that I know of. MRS. HEFTER: I have no further questions to ask him at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let me run through and I'll ask you a question, ok? Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? (No one). Anyone wishing to speak against this application? (No one). You did elude to the fact, and I'll direct this to you and you can direct this to the appli- cants, that in 1968 when they purchased the property that they were with the opinion that they could.use this property for manufacturing purposes. I'm not aware of what happened in 1968. In fact I'll be honest with you, I was in college in 1968, but I had no knowledge of the fact that there was any change done in the ordinance from 1957 until the present (as to zone districts). I would assume "B-Light" was "B-Light" at that particular time. Maybe they could shed some light on that subject. M_RS. HEFTER: I think that perhaps when it was purchased, it might have been purchased with the belief it could be used for their business purposes because they were in fact operating the business across the street, and perhaps this belief was not an accurate belief. I'm not familiar with the history of the ordi- nance, so as to make the statement tha~ they could legally use it in '68 for this purpose would, of course-- MR. CHAIRMAN: So you're not familiar with any specific change that might have existed. MRS. HEFTER: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Because I'm not either. Would you be willing to research that in any way and find out if there WOuld have been any change? I have no knowledge of it. MRS. HEFTER: I would be happy to. MR. CHAIRMAN: I know of nothing at that particular time of a change. This is of course a one-story structure, is that correct? MRS. HEFTER: Yes, it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: When we use the word "metal," you're referring to metal on all sides, three sides, or-- MR. HUFE: Metal on all sides. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. I guess that should sufficiently take care of it. Hearing no further questions -- did the board members have any questions? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision, pending any infor- mation that Mrs. Hefter might have concerning the change of the zoning on this in 1968'. SoUthold Town Board Of Appeals -9- October 27, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3120 - WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE, continued:) MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr, Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision, pending any information Mrs. Hefter might have concerning a change of zoning on this in 1968, in the matter of the application of WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE, Appeal No 3120. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and SaWicki This resolution was unanimously adoPted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3119. Application of WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE, by Marcia Z. Hefter, Esq., 108 East Main Street, Riverhead, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-80(B) for permission to establish a "C-Light Industrial" use in this "B-Light Business" Zone, at premises located at the South Side of C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-59-10-005. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:04 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the same sketch plan dated 3/25/83 (revised 9/1/83). We also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties. Mrs. Hefter. MARCIA Z. HEFTER, ESQ.: Mr. and Mrs. Hufe would like to use this property for the manufacture of the machinery, which operation they are conducting directly across the street. Electrical power is used for the manufacture of this machinery which is used in the aerospace industry and in surgical supplies. The use of this electrical power will not create any adverse effect on the environment. There are no odors or smoke emitted from it, nor are there any extraordinary emissions of light or sound as can be witnessed by just viewing their present operation. The board is really in the unique circumstances in able to determine exactly what is going to happen by just looking across the street and seeing what is happening right now, because we envision conducting exactly the same process, the same business--just across the street. There will be no increase in traffic as a result of this Special Exception use. We plan to engage the same number of employees at the present time. On an average day, we have perhaps two salesmen coming to the location. It's not open to the general public; therefore, there will be no increase in traffic. There will in fact not only be a conservation of property values but an increase in property values as was testified to by Mr. Albertson before (see prior hearing minutes of Appeal No. 3120, same applicants). The property in his opinion is more valuable if it were to be used for Southold Town Board o~ Appeals (Appeal No. 3119 - WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE, continued:) -10- October ~7, 1983 Regular Meeting MRS. HEFTER continued: .................. the purpose that we seek tonight. The character of the existing uses in the area are similar. The property immediately to the west is used for manufacturing purposes. The property across the street to the north is used for manufacturing purposes. Therefore the character of the neighborhood would not be changed. There are no churches, schools or recreation areas in the vicinity which would be adversely affected by this use. The public safety will not be affected as there will nou be any increased possibility of fire or flood as a result of the operation of the business. As a matter of fact, as far as the public safety is concerned, I would think that the use of the property for manufacturing purposes as opposed to retail purposes would be far more beneficial because of the existence of this four-land, 55-mile-an-hour highway that traffic would be coming off of and coming on to in the case of a retail business or a retail use. In In sum, what we are position is, is that there would be absolutely no adverse effects at all to the use of the property for manufacturing purposes as a Special Exception. Instead, what this use would do would enable use to retain jobs which have been created for local residents of Southold by this business and possibly create some future jobs for additional Southold residents with better working facilities they may now have. What we're asking to do is take the business from one side of the road and move it to the other side of the road, all which we feel will be in the best interests of both Mr. and Mrs. Hufe and of the Town. If there are any questions that the board has that they would like to address to either me or the applicants, we would be more than happy to respond. MR. CHAIRMAN: Because of the nature of this particular piece of property and the nature of use variances, it is the customary opinion of the board to come down and visit the site and as you did so nicely state, that you do have this business in operation--so this board will be contacting you in the very near future, and Mr. Hufe, when we do go out on inspections, and we will be coming down preferably on a Saturday morning and view his present site. And there would be no decision until some time after it. So I would tend to think within the next two or three weeks we will be doing that. I would like to say, and my opinion in general, and the opinion of the board, and anybody can correct me at this particular point-- because of the nature of this piece of property and if this application was granted, I could possibly see no further additions being placed on this particular building because of the nauure of this particular piece of property. Thirdly, I have no idea and what the update of the Master Plan, of what affect that might have in this particular area. I have not seen it. It was presented in a preliminary state last week and I Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- October 7?, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3119 - WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: did not completely review that area to see what the firm is dealing with and the Planning Board in this area. Fourthly, the plan itself appears to be crowding the ease line to a certain degree. I want to ask Mr. Hufe how high the walls would be on this building. MR. HUFE: Fourteen feet high. MR. CHAIRMAN: And the board will take that into consideration. I have no further questions at this particular point. Let me ask to see if there is anybody else to speak. Anybody like to speak against the application? MRS. SHIRLEY BACHRACH: I have a question. Will the present building be used after the new one is operated? MRS. HEFTER: Mr. and Mrs. Hufe plan would hope to be able to lease the building for some other purpose. They don't intend to use the building that they're now in for the operation of their business. They want to move their complete operation across the road. MR. CHAIRMAN: That was my last question, Shirley. Thank you. Any questions from any board members? (None). Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until after our inspection. Thank you very much everyone for coming in. Have a good evening. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearinq and reserve decision until after inspection, in the matter of the application of WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE, Special Exception Application No. 3119. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PENDING APPLICATION OF WILLIAM L. MUSSER - Appeal No. 3175. The public hearing was held earlier this evening. Mr. Michael F. Doyle, A.I.A., agent for Mr. Musser, appeared at this time. Mr. Doyle showed pictures to the board members which denoted the topo- graphy of the land (very steep). Mr. Doyle said there would be no opposition to the best of his knowledge. The structure proposed is a one-story, 1½-car garage, approximately 24' by 24', at 15'2" high, which will be lower than the roof line of the existing one-family dwelling structure and lower than the tree line. No vegetation or large trees will be disrupted. Mr. Doyle assured that the proposed garage will not have habitable quarters, as well as no heat. The hose for the garden will be the only plumbing. Mr. Doyle apologized for his tardiness. The board returned the pictures to Mr. Doyle and thanked him for coming in. S~thold Town Board o~-~Appeals -12- PUBLIC.HEARING: Appeal No. 31'77. October 2~-~ 1983 Regular Meeting Application for GEORGE J. WIESER by Garrett A. Strang as~agent, Box t412~. _.So~thold, NY fQr_a_~.riange~- due to lack of approved access, New York ToWn Law~. ~r~_, 16, Section 280-A, over a private right-of-way located at~Zhe East S~ of Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, NY; premises in question: County Tax Map ~a~cel ID No. 1000-97-06-010. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:17 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice o~ hearing in its~entirety ~nd.appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We ha~e a copy of a survey September 24, 1980,[ indicating the nature of two traveled roads, pnepff the premises and one on the premises and the one on Parcel 2 appears ~o b9 ~a 1.5' by 207.96' road. And I have a copy of the SuffQ~k County Tax Map i~dicat- lng this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Wieser, would you like to tell us about your application? I'm sorry~ ROBERT KELLY, ESQ.: Robert Kelly, 277 Mill Road, Westhampton Beach. The difficulty arose when he went to the Town Building Depart- ment to get a building permit. The house that he's mn zs 30 years of age and doesn't need any exceptions to do what he wants to do to the house, which was t~ipp6d up on ~his-town law with the access ~that he had across the property owned by Klam. But anyway, he owned the strip within 20.0' of the public road, Harbor Lane, and his wife owns the next 200' His wife has granted an easement which was recorded in the Office of the clerk~0f Suffolk County--I myself took it over and recorded it,.. and t have a cop~ here. I haven't received the official one back from the Coun't~ Clerk's Office, but I have a copy of the easement stamped with the Arthur Felice's stamp showing that i{ was recorded on such and such a date, but unfortunately they haven't gotten it back to us and it takes about 6 to 8 weeks. He had hoped to get working on his housing permit--the Building Inspector told him there's no problem there; he doesn't need a variance for that. So he now has an unimpeded 15' access across land straight to his house. It's only for egress and ingress. It's not property sought to be dedicated ~s a town road, and it's not going.to cost the town any money. Do you have any questions? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, on Parcel ~2, Mr. Kelly, I have two roads penciled in--one in red which is a~ straight one which I assume is the one-- MR. KELLY: That's the easement one, that's, correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. And the other one was a traveied road which i~s~ferred to as a traveled road and ~h6wn in y~llow~ That road now exists, is that correct~that traveled road? MR. KELLY: Probably. It exists. MR. CHAIRMAN': Is it being used? MR. WIESER: Yes. It can be used. It was used temporarily in Southold Town Board o2 Appeals -13- October 2~ 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3177 - GEORGE J. WIESER 280-A, continued:) MR. WIESER continued: the summertime but it's not used by my family. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you be relinquishing that use in lieu of the other use? MR. WIESER: Yes, I would be, because my ihtention is to push a driveway across Parcel ~1 where it is on the map there where the house is located, out to Parcel ~.2. MR. CHAIRMAN: On that northerly line? MR. WIESER: In that area. MR. CHAIRMAN: When you go through Parcel #2, it will be that straight penciled-in red area right out to Harbor Lane, is that correct? You will not be using the existing traveled road? MR. WIESER: I would like to maintain the existing traveled road simply because it is existing and improved. SECRETARY: Are they speaking about this road-- MR. KELLY: No, no. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, go ahead. Did you want to answer, Mr. Kelly/ MR. KELLY: Yes. The fact which we was taken up with the Building Department was that the existing road was no legal right to use it by the dominant parcel, which is the parcel his house in on. (Parcsl~i$1). MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. KELLY: Now we have a clear cut existing legal right to cut across that property--for a private road, driveway, easement. MR. CHAIRMAN: And he is going to bulldoze that, or cut it or whatever way it has to be? MR. KELLY: Whatever way the town requires it, to be cut. I really don't think it has to be paved or anything else according to town -- it's just a p~i~ate driveway. It appeared that the Building Inspector was concerned that there was no real definition of how to get from the road down to his property except by this one over on the adjacent landowner's property. MR. CHAIRMAN: The board is familiar with this particular piece of property because of the storage building that was granted to this gentleman, I believe it was last year. However, due to the fact that I am a fireman in Mattituck, we did not make it down to inspect Parcel $2 last Saturday, and therefore the board does want to go back and inspect the area that is going to be bulldozed. So, I think you're S~uthold Town Board ~f/Appeals -14- October~27, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3177 - GEORGE J. WIESER 280-A, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: going to have to bear with us at least the next week or so and allow us to go back and reinvestigate. A house fire -- ah. explosion actually so I'was detained. I have no further questions. Let's see if there's anybody else that has any. Is there anyone else to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from board members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision follow- ing an inspection. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. 3177, application 6f GEORGE J. WIESER. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. TEMPORARY RECESS: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to recess temporarily for approximately five minutes, at which time the Regular Meeting will be reconvened. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. RECONVENE: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to reconvene the Regular Meeting of this board. The meeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC RE-HEARING: Appeal No. 3139. Application of ROBERT W. GILLISPIE III, by Stephen R. Angel, Esq., 108 East Main Street, Riverhead, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient area, width and sideyard setbacks of building in this proposed two-lot division of property located at the northeast corner of Main Road and Beck~ith Avenue, Southold~ NY; County Tax Map Parcel Nos. 1000-61-02-005, 006 and 007. Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- October~27, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3139 - ROBERT W. GILLISPIE AND OTHERS, continued:) The Chairman opened the hea~ing at 8:36 p.m. and waived the reading of the legal notice, which was consented to by all inter- ested persons. STEPHEN R. ANGEL, ESQ. of Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel: of Riverhead, and I represen~ that applicants, who I believe you know. They're right here, Mr. Gillispie and Mr. Caminiti and Mr. Kaplan. I did no~ represent them in the first application before your board and at that hearing. What we have before you is a division of property on, I believe it was August the llth, 1983, you granted the division of property. The property is located I guess--the best way to describe it is the northeast corner at the intersection of Beckwith with Main Road. You granted a division of property subject to two conditions, and the two conditions were that Parcel ~1 shall contain no more than two separate unrelated professional businesses, or one nonprofessional business, and that Parcel #2 shall contain no more than one business, i.e. real estate, with accessory use only of existing barn building. Now as you are all probably aware there are two separate structures on the property and these conditions refer to the-- the first set of conditions refer to Parcel ~1, being with one parcel that they applied for with the large house that used to be a doctor's office and residence; and Parcel 2 is a small struc- ture that had been used for numerous things, I understand in the past. Now, I think I said, but if I didn't I'm going to repeat it-- the fact that the conditions were imposed is what lead us to come here tonight and which led them to retain me. The condition imposed on Parcel 91 that it not be used for more than two professional offices or more than one nonprofessional or one business use imposed a severe financial limitation on my clients. When they consulted with me it was my opinion that it was a condition that really should not have been imposed. As I analysed it and as I at least referred to it briefly in my letter requesting re-argument, it was my opinion that the board should have just granted the division as a matter of right, which I'll explain a little bit further in my statement here tonight. I wrote the letter to you on, I think it was September 12, 1983, requesting the rehearing, and I cited a whole series or'reasons in that letter. With your permission, I'd like you to incorporate that letter by reference to the minutes of this hearing. Is that all right? MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine. The attached four-page letter dated September 12, 1983 is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes: WilliAM W. ESSEKS MARCIA Z. H EftER CHARLES R. CUDDY STEPHEN I:~. ANG EL S~uthold,~ Town Board ~/Appeals -16- Octobe<~, i983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3139 - ROBERT W. GILLISPIE AND OTHERS, continued:) LSSEKS. I~EFTER. (JUDDY ~ ~NGEL COUNSELORS AT ~AW ~IVE~h EAD, N. Y. ilgO{ TELEX-EHCA 685~315 UW September 12, 1983 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman and Members of Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Robert W. Gillispie III Dear Mr. Goehringer and Members of the Board: We are the attorneys for applicant Robert W. Gillispie III and his partners, Irwin Kaplan and Paul Caminiti. On or about May 25, 1983 an application was made by Mr. Gillispie to divide into two parcels certain improved property located on the northeast corner of Beck-with Avenue and Main Road in Southold. A hearing was held by you on July 28, 1983. You made a determination granting the division, subject to condi- tions, at your meeting on August 11, 1983. This determination was filed by the Town Clerk on August 24, 1983. A copy of the determination is annexed for your convenience. We have been retained to request that the Zoning Board rehear this matter and give us the opportunity of appearing before the Board to present further testimony in support of the application. In our opinion, a rehearing should be granted for the following reasons: 1. By Imposing Conditions on This Division of Property~ the Board Is, in Effect~ Controlling Ownership and Not Use of Property It is well established that zoning controls the use and not the ownership of real property. This principle was just confirmed Southold Town Board ~jAppeals -17- October~i~, I983 Regular Meeting (Appea~ No. 3139 - ROBERT W. GILLISPIE AND OTHERS, continued:) Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman and Members of Southold Town Board of Appeals September 12, 1983 Page Two by the Ap~ellate Division in the North Fork Motel case. The property in question is located in the B-1 zoning district. In our opinion, the applicant has the right to use the structures on the property for permitted B-1 purposes, without a variance from this Board. The Zoning Board, however, has limited the two-story structure to two "professional" businesses or one~non- professional business and further limited the one-story structure to a real estate office. These conditions, in effect, discrimi- nate solely against the form of ownership. Without the variance, the only limitations on use would be those contained in the zon- ing ordinance for the B-1 district. One owner of the entire parcel would be able to choose among all B-1 uses. On the division, the Board drastically limited the uses available for the property. The division does not change the structures, their location or the density of the property. We respectfully submit that the Zoning Board should simply have granted the division to reflect reality; that the uses of the property should be determined by what is permitted in the B-t District. 2. The First Condition Does not Relate to the Actual Use of the Property. Condition 1 provides the following: 'What Parcel 1 shall contain no more than two separate (unrelated) professional businesses (or one non-professional business)." The actual use of the property will not be limited by the number of different business establishments located within the structure. For example, ass,,me that the property will be used by one medical and one dental office which would be permitted under this condi- tion. Both of these offices could be high-volume businesses. S'outhold Town Board q~_lAppeals -18- October ~_~, 1983 Regular Meeting (~ppeal No. 3139 - ROBERT W. GILLISPIE AND OTHERS, continued:) Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman and Members of Southold Town Board of Appeals September 12, 1983 Page Three The dental office could be one that advertises in the newspapers and accepts full Medicaid assignments. The same could be true of the medical office. Under this circumstance, the property would be extensively used even though there would be only two unrelated professional businesses. On the other hand, the property could be divided into four or. even more professional office suites, each occupied by professionals such as architects who have limited public interaction. Four architects may have one or two client visits a day whereas two medical offices may have more than 100 visits. Each medical office could have several doctors or dentists. The same is true if one limits the property to one non-professional business. We submit that this condition does not accomplish anything except impose a burden on the owners of the property. The proper limita- tion on use is the square footage of the building and the avail- ability of the rest of the area for parking spaces, not an arbi- trary determination that it should be used for one or two entities. 3. The Word "Professional" is Ambiguous. The first condition provides that there can be two separate "pro- fessional'' businesses. This term is not defined. Certainly the Board is aware that different people can disagree as to what is "professional" business. a The Second Condition is Ambisuous. The second condition provides as follows: 'What parcel 2 shall contain no more than one business, (i.e. real estate), with accessory use only of existing barn building." It appears, by reading this condition, that the Board intends to limit Parcel 2 to a real estate business. If this is the case, ~S~uthold Town Board o. ~ppeals -19- October 27 983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3139 - ROBERT W. GILLISPIE AND OTHERS, continued:) Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman and Members of Southold Town Board of Appeals September 12, 1983 Page Four we submit that such a limitation is not justified. If it is not the case, the condition should be re-drafted in the following manner: Either (a) delete the words in parentheses, or (b) change the initials "i.e." to "e.g." 5. The Board Failed to Address the Portion of the Application - Seeking an Enlargement of the One-Story Frame Structure The application requested permission to expand the one-story frame structure but the Board failed to address this request in its determination. In summary, it is our opinion that the Zoning Board should grant the rehearing in order for us and our clients to present evidence and arguments in favor of the application. We will be pleased to provide additional information at your request. SRA/es Really submitted, S~ep~nR.~ Angel~ -- Encl. · ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- October 27, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3139 - ROBERT W. GILLISPIE AND OTHERS, continued:) MR. ANGEL: Thank you. The first reason that I felt that the condition should not have been imposed was that -- this one happens to be the one that I think is the most important -- is that by imposing those conditions, you're in effect discriminating against the ownership Of the property. For example, I think that under your ordinance, I believe it's Section 100-118 which involves nonconforming uses, you can convert a nonconforming building to a permitted use. So in this case we have a nonconforming building, which is the doctor's residence, that can be converted to a conforming use, w~'re in the "B-1 General Business District." There are a series of "B-l" permitted uses. I think it can be converted. Now, let's assume there were no division by this board or they would withdraw their application. Under those circumstances, they could not divide the property but convert that existing residence structure to one of the permitted "B-l" general uses, "B-1 Business District" uses--professional office, regular office building, restaurant, store--they have to meet building code regulations as they would apply to existing structure--but nevertheless the structure, I believe under your ordinance--that ordinance provision pertaihihg to nonconforming uses would allow its conversion without an application to your board. So they're in the situation where, if they step back the point they were at before the application, or in effect give up their application before you, they would not have those conditions imposed the use of their building. They could use that building for what's permitted in the "B-1 Business District." Your conditions imposed additional limitations that are not inherent in the "B-l" commercial district. As I'll get into it in a little while, I think that that was incorrect. I think~.~hat what should have happened is that -- in position anyway -- that you should have just allowed him to divide the line so as not to change the permitted uses of the property. I mentioned a series of other things in that letter that the condition on Parcel One, which limits it to the use of two professional office buildings is not really related to any limitation on the use of the property and I use this as an example that you could have two high traffic high-intensity-type medical offices as opposed to maybe a few architect's offices that have very little traffic, so by limit- ing it to two professional offices, you don't necessarily limit the use or limit the intensity of the use. One office could be a very intensive use. Five offices, if they're just mail drops, could be virtually no intensity of use. I mentioned that professional was undefined. I believe your code doesn't include it as a definition of professional. I raised a question whether the condition that applied to the second parcel-- whether that was limited to its use as a real estate office, because you say, "...Parcel 2 shall cohtain~o more than one business, 1.e. real estate .... " I read that to mean, that is, real estate. Limit- ing to real estate only. Not to the general retail or office uses permitted in the "B-1 District" and I wonder whether that was your intent. Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- October 27, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3139 - ROBERT W. GILLISPYE AND OTHERS, continued:) MR. ANGEL con'~inued: ........................ And finally I added that you may have failed to address the request for an extension of the one-story frame structure that was made along with the initial application. But as I said in the beginning, what we're really concerned about are those conditions-- that's why I'm here tonight. Now I understand from speaking to the clients, specifically in this case, Bob Gillispie, that the physician's home and his office has been used as a physician's home and office for many years. I also understand that the small structure to the east of it, which is the one that you refer to as Parcel 2, was also used as an inde- pendent entity for many years. It was a millinery shop. What else-- ROBERT W. GILLISPIE: An artist's studio. Insurance office. MR. ANGEL: Artist's st~di6. Insurance office. General store. And consistent with that, the town building inspector, based upon an affidavit issued by the owner, issued a certificate of occupancy for both buildings--one certificate of occupancy referring to both buildings which reads that the use of the building on Parcel ~1 for a residence -- well-- here it is: "Building parcel 91 nonconforming residence & doctor's office. Building on parcel ~2 - office, studio or retail store .... " And that certificate of occupancy was issued to a predecessor in title. And I'd like that to submit that to the board and be considered part of the record. (Certificate of occupancy dated 5/16/83 ~Zl1668 was submitted and made part of the record.) Now, in addition, I understand also that until just a couple years ago, the two parcels in question were owned as three separate parcels and the Suffolk County Tax Agency's maps reflect that. There was a merger of those parcels into one ownership within the last couple .of years. Consistent3with that, the Town of Southold has treated the parcels as three separate lots for tax purposes, and I have copies of the, I guess, current tax bills 1982-83 which apply to the year we're in right now and ending in a month showing the three separate parcels. And I'd like that also to be submitted for the record. (One photocopy was submitted showing the three separate tax bills for I982-83 for Parcels 1000-61-2-5, 1000-61-2-7, 1000-61-2-6 in the name of Joseph B. Hartranft.) Now it was owned in the past as three separate parcels and it was treated by the town as separate parcels, and it was shown on the tax map as separate p~rcels. There are separate buildings on each one of the parcels. We're not concerned about the barn. We're not concerned abQut dividing into three parcels. But there are separate buildings on both of the two parcels we have before you. It seems uncontroverted that they have been used separately--the little building, at least not within recent memory, was not accessory to the big building, and I think if it's not divided they can be used separately and I think in this situation you should grant the divi- sion so as not to discriminate against the form of ownership. Southold Town Board o~-Appeals -22- October 27, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3139 - ROBERT W. GILLISPIE AND OTHERS, continued:) MR. ANGEL continued: i've prepared a short Memorandum of Law, we're really up on this issue--and there's a case in it that was decided in New Jersey by one of the New Jersey Appellate Courts that is very close to the facts 6f this case, except it didn't involve commercial structures--it involved bungalows. In that case which is cited in here, a New Jersey community on the shore dealt with a bungalow colony. They had five bungalows on a very small parcel of land. Each one of the bungalows was usable by one family--you know, it had kitchen facilities and bathroom~facilities and they were rented to individual families for cottage uses. Well, the owner wanted to divide, in effect subdivide the property so he could sell each one of these bungalows but the lots that they were going to create by the division would be very small; much smaller than was currently permitted under the zoning ordinance. And the New Jersey equivalent of the Planning Board denied the subdivision, and the people went to court and the New Jersey Appellate Court held that by denying this subdivision what they were doing is really dis- criminating against'the ownership of the property, ~hat if it were going to be used by one family as a rental unit and continue to be used by one family as an owner-occupied unit, the use as far as zon- ing did not change and that it was an abuse of discretion on the part of this New Jersey board to deny that division. I think that the same logic applies to this case. That zoning does not control an ownership of property. That our client should not be discriminated against because they want to divide the property. We're not asking you to increase the uses-- we're not asking you to give them permission to do something that they're not already permitted to do in the "B-1 District." All we're asking you to do is to reflect the reality that there are two independent uses on that parcel, and which reality was reflected in the fact that they owned as separate parcels of them until just a couple of years ago. By the way, the New York Courts, though they haven't grappled with this particular issue, have dealt with a lot of situations where they expressed that same view point that zoning controls the use of property, not the ownership of the property. And a lot of those cases as you people are very well aware are involved in the coop or condominium situation when there's quite a bit of law now in New York State involving control by zoning over use as opposed to owner- ship. Now, I don't expect you people to read this, but I have it here and let me give this to you, Mr. Goehringer, and I have prepared a copy for everybody Iboard members]. (Mr. Angel submitted a copy of the Memorandum of Law containing six pages and exhibits for the record.) The xerox machine is very helpful. And that cites with some particu- larity the case in New Jersey that I was talking about which is the Beers Case, and quotes from some portions so that you can understand. Of course, if you feel that you'd like to read the entire decision, I can get it for you. It's not as easy as it would be in a New York Southold Town Board o~~ Appeals -23- October 27/ 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3139 ROBERT W. GILLISPIE AND OTHERS, continued:) MR. ANGEL continued: case because we don't keep the New Jersey Reporters in the office, but it's available in the Supreme Court Library in Riverhead, where I can run off the copies. I think that we have a situation very similar to that case, and I think that by imposing those conditions and limiting the use of the property in the "B-1 District", what you've really done is you've discriminated against the ownership as opposed to the use. You've discriminated against ownership. You put the people in a position where they're wedded-together in order to get the maximum use out of that property. But, you know, there has to be a wedding because without the variance, if they walk away from your variance they could say-aWell, you know, we can do this as a matter of right." They still would have to go to the Planning Board for site plan approval if there's a division. As I read your ordinance, it's a little questionable. All permitted uses in the "B-1 District" require site plan. It doesn't distinquish between a conversion of one use if it's nonconforming to a use that's permitted. It may be that the Planning Board will exercise jurisdiction. They have been before the Planning Board initially on their proposed site plan which was, I don't think officially approved but I think you've all seen the letter.' Iti's ih the file, I think, that says that the Planning Board didn't see any problem with the site plan although they denied the subdivision, which I think they did properly because I don't think they have the authority to grant the subdi- vision where the lots being created are less than 30,000 square feet--your board has that. By the way, I just went through the building,. ~nd there's been some substantial repair work done inside. They reallY did a nice job. They've resided the building. You know, it's not like we're asking for an expansion of use of the property where people have restored the exterior of the building so that it's beneficial in downtown Southold--it looks good. I respectfully request that you reconsider ration, and simply draw the line and don't impose the condition that makes the ownership of the building, especially Parcel ~1 onerous financially. Now, if you have any other questions, everybody's here. MR. CHAIRMAN: During the time of the granting of the rehear- ing and tonight, I've had several people approach me. I would just like for the purpose of the public to have Mr. Caminiti again, or Mr. Kaplan, tell us again who's going to be using this building; how many--he doesn't have to specifically state the size of the suite, if you want me to call it that; but what approximate number of professionals will be using it assuming this application is granted? MR. ANGEL: Do you mean, what's thei~ present intentions? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Southold Town Board o~Appeals -24- October 27~1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3139 - ROBERT W. GILLISPIE AND OTHERS, continued:) PAUL CAMINITI: I have no problem. The ground floor is divided presently into two suites-- the left suite on the west side of the building which is four rooms, which will be occupied by myself as a law office. The right side is the east side consisting of three rooms--that's vacant at the present time. The second floor is presently under a lease agreement to a fellow by the name of Lance Larsen, who is a real estate appraiser which would be a sole occupant. The right side is under the same agreement with a single proprietor by the name of Fred Miner, who is a graphic designer. Right now the building has three tenants--three individuals. The vacant office right now I have no idea who that would be rented. I would like very much to have a stock broker in which would involve more than one person, but it would be one business entity. MR. ANGEL: I would point out that I think some of this was discussed a little bit &t the last hearing-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it was. MR. ANGEL: And also from my look through the place it is my understanding, and conversations with Mr. Caminiti tonight, they haven't added any rooms to the building, and it's just basically a division of the existing rooms in the building, is that correct? MR. CAMINITI: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: The reason why I asked that is because there are certain people that are present tonight that were not present at the first hearing. MR. ANGEL: Oh, ok. MR. CHAIRMAN: Going to Mr. Gillispie for a moment, the same question Mr. Gillispie has spoken at some great deal at the last hearing concerning his proposed use of the Parcel $2, and we need it again stated. ROBERT W. GILLISPIE III: Our present intention is to operate a real estate office, but I would not like to be precluded from renting the building under the allowed use in the "B-l" Zone. MR. CHAIRMAN: What about the proposed addition? MR. GILLISPIE: I would like the board to consider granting the proposed addition. I do not plan to build it this year, but I felt originally that I should apply for it that it would possibly save coming to the board a second time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody lime to speak against the application? Any questions from board members? (None) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision. We will however be going out on a tour of another Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- October 27, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3139 - ROBERT W. GILI,ISPIE AND OTHERS, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: application on tonight, and we may ask possibly next Saturday and we'll give Mr. Gillispie a call--maybe we could take a tour of the building again. Since we'll be out looking at another one in Southold, it would be rather convenient for us as long as it's convenient for you. And we'll give you a call before. It'll probably be between 10:00 and 11:00, but we'll give you a call before. MR. ANGEL: This coming Saturday? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the' following Saturday. MR. ANGEL: A week from this Saturday. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. ANGEL: I'm sure there's no problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. I don't think I asked for a vote. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. 3139, ROBERT W. GILLISPIE III AND OTHERS. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigohis, it was RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the following Meetings held by this Board, to wit: September 29, 1983 Regular Meeting September 13, 1983 Special Meeting August 31, 1983 Regular Meeting October 11, 1983 Spe6ial Meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- October 27, 1983 Regular Meeting DATE FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the date and time for the next Regular Meeting of this board is hereby scheduled for WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1983, commencing at 7:30 o'clock p.m., to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. APPEAL NO. 2912 - FRANK CURRAN by Environment East, Inc. WHEREAS, on November 5, 1981, this board granted conditional approval of Appeal No. 2912 to FRANK CURRAN for permission to construct an accessory shed 200 sq. ft. in area in the sideyard[ area at premises known as 780 Fishermen's Beach Road, Cutchogue; WHEREAS, Condition ~1 of the board's November 5, 1981 deci- sion was that the shed not exceed 200 sq. ft. to maintain the maximum permitted 20% lot coverage; WHEREAS, on September 13, 1983, the Z.B.A. received a written request from Environment East, Inc. as agent for Mr. Curran, for the board to consider reconstruction and enlargement of a porch,_which enlargement would be approximately 146 sq. ft. in area, in lieu of the accessory shed, and that by this request a withdrawal of Appeal No. 2912 be permitted in order to mainta±n the maximum-permitted 20% lot coverage requirement of the zoning code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, to withdraw as requested Appeal No. 291.2, for an accessory shed, in the application for FRANK CURRAN, and it is further RESOLVED, that the enlarged porch for a total area of approxi- mately 146 square feet, be and hereby is permitted, as shown on the 7/14/83 sketch plan, provided that such porch addition is in compliance with all other zoning provisions, lot coverage require- ments, setbacks, et cetera; and provided further that noncompliance will require an application for a variance for consideration therefor. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ~ Southold Town Board o~Appeals -27- October 27'~ 1983 Regular Meeting NEW APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3178. BERTHA OKULAo Two substand- ard parcels proposed. N/s Main Road, Orient. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3178, application of BERTHA OKULA for a proposed division re-separating two substandard parcels, be held TEMPORARILY IN ABEYANCE PENDING REVIEW AND COMMENTS from the Southold Town Planning Board concerning the layout of this division. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. NEW APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3183 - MARY N. CODE. Redivi§ion of property into two substandard parcels. Goose Neck Estates Lots 28, 29, 30, 31 and part of 32, at Southold. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3183, application of MARY N. CODE, be held TEMPORARILY IN ABEYANCE PENDING RECEIPT OF the following: (1) Review and comments or approval from the Southold Town Planning Board concerning this proposed division and its layout, and (2) Review and action by the N.Y¥S. Department of Environmental Conservation concerning this proposed division and construction of new residence, pursuant to Section 661.5(b)]57] of the Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. NEW APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3184 - PETER AND PATRICIA LENZ (Owners: Rothmayer). Two proposed parcels containing a minimum of two acres each, with insufficient lot width. R-O-W off N/s Sound Avenue, (Private Road #11, Mattituck. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3184, application for PETER AND PATRICIA LENZ (Rothmayer), be TEMPORARILY HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING receipt of the following: (1) clearance from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to Section 661.5(b)]57] of the Tidal Wet- lands Land Use Regulations, 6 NYCRR; Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- October 2~ 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3184- LENZ (Rothmayer) continued:) (2) review and written comments or approval from the Southold Town Planning Board concerning the layout of this proposed subdi- vision and approval of access. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. RECEIPT OF COUNTY PLANNING REPLIES: The board members acknow- ledged receipt of recommendations from the Suffolk County Department of Planning pertaining to this board's recent referrals on the following: Appeal No. 3109 - Cutchogue Free Library. Appeal No. 3110 - Cutchogue Free Library. Appeal No. 3167 - Robert J. Douglass. Copies of these replies have been forwarded to the applicants in these matters. INTERPRETATION REQUEST FROM BUILDING INSPECTOR: Birms. The board members discussed the request from Mr. Lessard concern- ing an interpretation of "birms" or piling of dirt at heights of above four feet. The board members asked that a legal opinion from the Town Attorney be requested in order to determine whether there are court decisions giving precedent over this board's determination. The secretary was instructed to request such an opinion from the Town Attorney. RECEIPT OF OPINION: The board members acknowledged receipt of a written opinion from the Town Attorney dated October 19, 1983 indicating that the Board of Appeals has jurisdiction under the Public Assembly Law for' reviews, and that reviews under the N.Y.S. Construction Code must be t~ken to the State Review Board at least until January 1, 1984. The secretary was asked to provide copies of same for the Town Clerk for her re~ords and perusal. PENDING NEW APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3172 George Baker. ESTELLE WYDUR by WHEREAS, on September 26, 1983, George Baker filed a variance with the Office of the Town Clerk for permission to divide premises of Estelle Wydur to be merged with his parcel; and Southold Town Board or-Appeals -29- October 27, 1983 Regular Meeting (New Application Appeal No. 3172-ESTELLE WYDUR, continued:) WHEREAS, on September 29, 1983, this board reviewed this file and temporarily held this application in abeyance pending review and receipt of comments from the Southold Town Planning Board as to the proposed layout of this division of property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the October 24, 1983 request of George Baker, agent for Mrs. Wydur, Appeal No. 3172 be ahd hereby is WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Mr. Baker's request for & refund of the $25.00 filing fee is not within the jurisdiction of this board and therefore should be brought to the attention of the Town Clerk. SIGN RENEWALS: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to approve the following Sign-Renewal Requests for a period of one year from the date hereof, SUBJECT, HOWEVER, to the Federal Highway Beautification Act and Funding Laws for highways: Appeal No. 2384 - Nicholas Aliano Appeal No. 1060 - Cherry's Service Station Appeal No. 1039 - Getty Oil Co. Appeal No. 1166 Goldsmith's Boat Shop, Inc. Appeal No. 1072 Jurzenia (Silver Sands) Appeal No. 1073 J6~zenia (Silver Sands) Appeal No. 1025 Theodore Klos Appeal No. 1037 - Jack Levin Appeal No. 1024 - Marian Council Knights of Columbus Appeal No. 1027 - Mattituck Merchants Association Appeal No. 279 - Mattituck Merchants Association Appeal No. 1042 - Porky's Restaurant Appeal No. 1020 - Reeve Lumber and Woodworking Co., Inc. Appeals No. 2744, 2875, 2877 through 2880, 2599 through 2608 - Southold Town Republican Committee Appeal No. 1009 - John Wickham ( Wickham FrUit Farm) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- October'-27, 1983 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3175. Upon application for WILLIAM L. MUSSER, by Michael F. Doyle, A.I.A., as agent, 506 East 84th Street, New York, NY 10028, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to con- struct detached accessory garage in the frontyard area at premises known as Lots 1 and 2 at Chocomount, located on a Private Road, at Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-004-05-5.4. The public hearing on this application was held earlier this evening, at which tme the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicant is seeking permission to construct a 24' by 24' one-story accessory garage/storage building to be located approximately 40 feet southeasterly of the existing one-family resi- dence (near a large boulder). The premises in question contains an area of approximately 2.2 acres and is more particularly identified as a portion of Lots 1 and 2 at Chocomount, and Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel District 1000, Section 004, Block 05, Lot 5.4. The access to this parcel is along the cul-de-sac of the subject private road, and due to the location of the existing residence the parcel is substantially "frontyard area" as defined by Section 100-13 of the Zoning Code. The board agrees that the area chosen for the location of this accessory building is the most practical under the circum- stances and particularly due to the topography of this land. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (1) that the practical difficulties shown are sufficient to warrant the granting of this application; (2) that the variance request is not substan- tial in relation to the requirements of the zoning code; (3) that the circumstances are unique; (4) that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and (5) that the interests of justice would best be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3175, application for WILLIAM L. MUSSER for permission to construct accessory garage/storage build- ing in an area other than the required rearyard, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That the subject building not be used for habitable/living quarters (only for storage or garage purposes). Location of Property: Private Road, Fishers Island, NY; Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-004-05-5.4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. S~uthold Town Board o~Appeals -31- October~27, 1983 Regular Meeting EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pending Litigation. On motion by Mr. ~$awicR±,"seccnded'~b~ Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to recess for approximately 10 minutes for the purpose of "Executive Session" to discuss pending litigation matters. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. The recess commenced at approximately 9:18 p.m. RECONVENE - On motion by Mr. Sawidki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to reconvene the Regular Meeting of this board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. The meeting reconvened at approximately 9:34 p.m. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3159 - EDWIN W. STEWART. Mr. Smulcheski appeared in behalf of the Stewarts. It was the consensus of the board to reinspect the premises. 20 Carole Road, Southold. This matter will be placed on our next meeting agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to schedule the following applications for public hearings to be held at the next Regular Meeting of this board, to wit: Wednesday, November 30, 1983 commencing at 7:30 o'clock p.m., and that the same be advertised pursuant to law in both the official and local newspapers of the town: Appeal No. 3180 - Nick and Anna Andriotis. Appeal No. 3181 - Celic Realtors. Appeal No. 2182 - Saul and Susan Rosenstreich. Appeal No. 3185 - Suffolk County National Bank. Appeal No. 3179 - Michael and Frances Satriano. Appeal No. 3186 - John C. Diller. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ~uthold Town Board of-Appeals -32- October 27, 1983 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3110. Upon application of CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY, Box 935, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct addition with insufficient rear and sideyard setbacks, and small addition reducing the frontyard setback, at premises known as 28735 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102-05-22 and part of 23. The public hearing concerning this application was held on August 31, 1983, at which time the hearing was declared closed pend- ing deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an application for a variance to Article VII, Section 100-71 and Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold for permission to construct proposed additions at the rear, front and easterly side of the existing brick, one-story structure for library use. The parcel in question is located in the "B-1 General Business" District and contains an area as exists of approximately 5,000 square feet, with 50' frontage along the north side of the Main Road (S.R. 25) and has an existing open sideyard area on the east of approximately 7.8 feet and on the west 4.7 feet, along a concrete sidewalk. The easterly side of the subject premises is used for access to the rear blacktop parking area for both the subject parcel and the parcel adjoining same on the east, which is improved with a one-story frame building, set back approximately 19 feet from the present westerly side line, inclusive of the ll-foot wide blacktop driveway area and eight-foot sideyard area open between the driveway and the "Lark" ~building (on the east). Applicant has simultaneously with this application filed an application for a Special EicePtion for permission to use the subject additions for library use, as conditionally permitted ~ur- suant to the requirements of Article VII, Section 100-70(B) [t] (a) of the Zoning Code. The reductions proposed by this application are as follows: (a) 1.8' along the east side; (b) 15.3' from the front property line at its nearest point; (c) the addition at the rear of the p~emises'a~s exists encroaches onto premises of Richard F. Lark, Esq. r[the pending subdivision application has not been finalized]. The reduction along the east side would be for the purpose of a Main Side Entrance with a concrete walk and vestibule, with guardrail, fencing or other physical barrier separating the pedestrian area from the vehicles passing through the adjoining driveway. At the rear of the building is proposed a 47' by 42.5' wide addition (see Site Plan of June 8, 1983). On September 16, 1983 applicant filed an application to the Southold Town Planning Board for consideration of a two-lot division, which would increase the size of the library parcel Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- October 27~ 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3110 - CUTCHOGUE FREE*LIBi~RY, continued:) from 5,000 to approximately 15,117 square feet, and decrease the size of the adjoining parcel on the east, presently owned by Richard F. Lark, Esq., from approximately 36,430 to 26,309 square feet. The subdivision as proposed would deepen the library parcel from 100 to 300.37 feet; however, the width would be unchanged except for the triangular-driveway easement of 345 sq. ft. at the southeasterly side. To date, an area variance pertaining to the lot area in this proposed division has not been filed. The status of the subdivision application of the library and Mr. Lark before the Planning Board as of this date, to the best of our understand- ing, is that same is being held in abeyance pending Zoning Board of Appeals' decisions on the within Special Exception and variance for the proposed additions. Pursuant to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter, this matter was referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission, which recommended that "the west side of the build- lng should be considered for library access with an unimpeded two (2)-lane driveway to the rearyard parking area .... " It is the opinion of this board that the relief requested be denied without prejudice for several reasons. The proposed Main "easterly" Side Entrance along the one-lane driveway utilized by the two abutting businesses in this commercial district may endanger public safety; that is, individuals in passing from the parking area to the front areas of any of the businesses in this district, whether it be the library, or the abutting businesses, or the Fruit Farm across the highway, may perhaps decide not to go through the covered entrance of the library, thereby using the one-lane driveway area most easily accessible. The board upon personally visiting the site did find upon entering the driveway a "blind spot" in the driveway area when proceeding to the rear of the building. Also, for the record it is noted that these premises are located within 500 feet of a public school, playground, and busy commercial district. Also, in considering this appeal, the board determines: (1) that the practical difficulties or hardship are not sufficient to warrant the granting of this application "as applied"; (21 that the variance request is substantial in relation to the require- ments of the zoning code [which requires 100' setback for build- ings used as a library]; (3) that the circumstances are not unique; (4) that the relief requested will not be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning of the protection and promotion of the public health, safety and welfare; (5) that the interests of justice would be served by denying the application "as applied", with the recommendation that the library consider an alternative Main Entrance, perhaps at the westerly side. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3110, the application of the Southold Town Board o~ffAppeals -34- October 27,~ 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3110 - CUTCi-IOGUE FREE' 'LIBI~RY, continued:) CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBR~R~ 'for a' 'V~ia~c~,~ be and hereby IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Vote of the Board: Douglass and Sawicki. Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3109.- Upon application of CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY, Box 935, Cutchogue, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Sec- tion 100-70(B) [1] (a) for permission to use proposed addition for library use at premises known as 28735 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102-05-22 and part of 23. The public hearing on this application was held on August 31, 1983, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending delibera- tions. .... The b~a~d~.mad~- th~ following findings and determination: This is an application for a Special Exception pursuant to Article VII, Section 100-70(B) [1] (a) of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold to establish library use of proposed additions at the rear and easterly side of the existing brick, one-story structure. Libraries are conditionally permitted by Special Exception approval in the following zoning districts: "A-Residential and Agricultural," "M-Light Multiple-Residence," "M-1 General Multiple-Residence," "B-Light Business," "B-1 General Business," "C-Light Industrial" and C-1 General Industrial." The parcels in question are located in the "B-1 General Business" District. The premises as exists contains an area of approximately 5,000 square feet, 50' frontage along the North Side of Main (S.R. 25) Road and has an existing open sideyard area on the east of approximately 7.8 feet and on the west 4.7 feet, along a concrete sidewalk. The easterly side of the subject premises is used for access to the rear blacktop parking area for both the subject parcel and the parcel adjoining same on the east (now of R. Lark), which is improved with a one-story frame building which is set back approximately 19' from the present westerly side line, inclusive of the ll-foot wide black- top driveway area and eight-foot sideyard area open between the driveway and the "Lark" building. Applicant has simultaneously with this application filed an application for a variance for permission to construct the above-noted additions with reductions in side and front yard setbacks, respectively 1.8' and 15.3' The reduction along the east side would be for the purpose of a Main Side Entrance with a covered walk and vestibule, with guardrail, fencing or other physical barrier separating the pedestrian area from the vehicles S~uthold Town Board on ~ppeals -35- October ~._ 1983 Regular Meeting (App~a~ No. 3109 - CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY, continued:) passing through the adjoining driveway. At the rear of the existing library building is proposed a 47' by 42.5' wide addi- tion, which encroaches over the rear property line of this par- cel as exists at the present time, (see Site Plan of June 8, 1983). On September 16, 1983 applicant filed an application to the Southold Town Planning Board for consideration of a two-lot division, which would increase the size of the library parcel from 5,000 to approximately 15,117 square feet, and decrease the size of the adjoining parcel on the east, presently owned by Richard F. Lark, Esq., from approximately 36,430 to 26,309 square feet. The subdivision as proposed would deepen the library parcel ~rom 100 to 300.37 feet; however, the width would be unchanged except for the triangular-driveway easement of 345 sq. ft. at the southeasterly side. To date, an area variance pertaining to the lot area in this proposed division has not been filed. The status of the subdivision application of the library and Mr. Lark before the Planning Board as of this date, to the best of our understand- ing, is that same is being held in abeyance pending Zoning Board of Appeals' decisions on the within Special Exception and variance for the proposed additions. Pursuant to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter, this matter was referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission, which recommended that "the west side of the build- ing should be considered for library access with an unimpeded two (2)-lane driveway to the rearyard parking area .... It is the opinion of this board that the use as may be conditionally permitted by Special Exception pursuant to the zoning code should be denied without prejudice pending a deter- mination on any and all pending or proposed variance applications directly related to this application, since allowing this Special Exception as applied would not be in compliance with the standards provided in the zoning ordinance, which is necessary ~n view of this application. It is also the opinion of this board that the special exception permit be denied without prejudice since the proposed Main Side Entrance along the one-lane driveway (for two established businesses) in this commercial district may endanger public safety; that ~s, individuals in passing from the parking area to the front areas of any of the businesses in this district, whether it be the library, or the adjoining premises, or the Fruit Farm across the highway, may perhaps decide not to go through the covered entrance of the library, thereby using the one-lane driveway area. The board upon personally visiting the site did find upon entering the driveway a "blind spot" in the driveway area when proceeding to the rear of the building. Also, for the record it is noted that these premises are located within 500 feet of a public school, playground, and busy commercial district. In passing on this application, the board has considered items (a) through (1) of Article XII, Section 100-121(C) [2] of S~.uthold Town Board c~jAppeals -36- October 27, )83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3109 - CUTCHOGUE FI~E LIBRARY, continued:) the Zoning Code. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3~09, the application of the CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY for a Special Exception, be and hereby IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO PRIOR DECISION: Appeal No. 3173. MIRAM BATSON. (Re: Appeal No. 2991). WHEREAS, on July 8, 1982, this board rendered a conditional approval for a 7' by 42' deck extension in Appeal No. 2991 for MIRIAM BATSON; and WHEREAS, on September 29, 1983, the applicant filed a request for a rehearing in order to amend this board's approval as granted for the reasons as noted in the subject application for a rehearing; and WHEREAS, the board members are familiar with the site in question and the cizcumstances of this board's July 8, 1982 decision and the reasons for the rehearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this~board's decision as rendered July 8, 1982 in the matter for Miriam Batson, Appeal No. 2991, not be changed, amended, modified, altered, or reheard, and accordingly, it is further RESOLVED, that the request in the matter for Miriam Batson in Appeal No. 3173 to amend the board's July 8, 1982 decision rendered in Appeal No. 2991, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. TERMINATE SIGN PERMITS: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to terminate the following signs for the reasons as noted: Appeal No. 1188 - H. Houlis for Pawling Views, Inc. (sign is within the Village of Greenport limits), and ~outhold Town Board ~ .... Appeals Terminations, continued:) -37- October 2/-' 1983 Regular Meeting Appeal No. 17~5 - Archaelogical Association (Sign no longer needed and has been removed from this location.) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonls, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehr-inger, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Declarations pursuant to Local Law ~44-~ and Part 617 of the implementing regulations per- taining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law: APPEAL NO.: 3180 PROJECT NAME: NICK'AND ANNA ANDRIOTIS This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take 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: Fence over four-feet high along front- yard area. _ LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Clark Road and Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this pro]ect be implemented as planned. (2) Premises is not located in a critic&l environmental area. ~Southold Town Board Appeals -38- October ~VI~ONMENTAL DECLARATIONS, continued:) APPEAL NO.: 3181 PROJECT NAME: CELIC REALTORS 1983 Regular Meeting This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law $44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take 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: Off-premises-directional sign. C-Light Industrial District. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Penny Lumber, S/s Main Road, Greenport, NY. REASON(.S)~,SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has be~n sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Premise~ is not located i~a crit~ical~en~iEgn~ental area. APPEAL NO.: 3182 PROJECT NAME: SAUL AND SUSAN ROSENSTREICH This notice is~issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant- adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take 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 project2 TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Accessory swimmingpool with deck and fencing in frontyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: particularly known as: Cutchogue, NY. Town of Southo!d, County of Suffolk, more Peconic Bay Boulevard and Haywaters Road, REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Premises is not located in a critical environmental area. ~outhold Town Board '-~ Appeals -39- October ~VI~ONMENTAL DECLARATIONS, continued: ) APPEAL NO.: 3185 PROJECT NAME: SUFFOLK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK 1983 Regular Meeting This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project no~ to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take 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: Second roof sign facing shopping center parking lot advertising ID. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Keyfood Shopping Center, N/s Route 25, Cutchogue. REASON~) _.SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Premises in question and project proposed is not located in a critical environmental area. --' ~ ..... ~ APPEAL NO.: 3179 PROJECT NAME: FRANCES AND ESTATE OF MICHAEL SATRIANO This notice is~issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant- adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take 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: Reseparation of two merged substandard parcels. . __~. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: N/S Fiddler Lane, Greenport. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as plann~%~ Project is not directly related to new construction. (3) Premises is not located in a critical environmental area. .Southold Town Board. ~ Appeals -40- Octobe 27., 1983 Regular Meeting ~E~V~RONMENTAL DECLARATIONS, continued:) APPEAL NO.: 3186 PROJECT NAME: JOHN C. DILLER This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determmnation 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: Accessory shed in frontyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly_. _ known as: S/s Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Proposed shed is landward of existing dwelling structure and ground is a minimum of 10' above mean sea level and not in a critical environmental area. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Being there was no other business properly coming before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lihda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals ApproveS/- Gerard P/Goeh~nger, Chairman ~~ '~ ~ Novemb~ 30, 1983