Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/29/1983Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD ~-5 GOIJTHOLD, L,I., N.Y. 11cj71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUG LASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 29, 1983 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, September 29, 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: Victor Lessard, Executive Administrator and Eileen Carey, Secretary, both from the Building Department, and approximately 25 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. 3166. Upon application of HIRAM F. MOODY, JR., Oceanic Avenue, Fishers Island, NY 06390, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, for an interpretation of Article III, Section 100-30(A)[2] (b)~& (c) to allow the con- struction of a horse barn on vacant land containing less than 10 acres. Location of Property: Private Road, East End of Fishers Island; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-10-6-1.7. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:30 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 Suffolk County Tax Map and I have a copy of a sketch indicating a 6.2-acre parcel, Lot 9, and Block 41, Lot 12 of 1.04 acres, Lot 11 of 1.57 acres and Lot 10 of 1.05 acres. Is there anyone that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? (No one). Mr. Doyen, since you're probably the closest to the Moodies living on Fishers Island, maybe you could ask them to furnish us with a copy of what the actual dimensions of the horse barn are. We do have a copy of Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- September 29, (Appea~ No. 3166 - HIRAM F. MOODY, JR., continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: ........... 1983 Regular Meeting what the barn will look like, but it's withOut dimensions. Thank you. Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. RESOLVED, to ClOSe the hearing and reserve deciSion until in the matter of Appeal No. . .... later Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimouSly adoR~ed. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3144. Application for KATHERINE HEINS, by Frederick J. Tedeschi, Esq., Front Street, GreenP0rt, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinancen Article III, Sections 100-30 and 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to_re-separate two par- cels having insufficient area and/or width, located at the north side of Main Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Nos. 1000~19- 2-5&6. 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 a survey from Otto W. VanTuY1 and Son, dated October 24, 1961 indicating the nature of this particular property which does not show square footage; however, has frontage on Main Road of .084 feet and a distance on the east side of 264.16 feet. Would somebody like to be heard? Would you state your name, please Sir? WILLIAM HEINS: I'm William Heins, Katherine Heins' husband. We would like very much to build on property because we bought it for that purpose some years back, that we could eventually build a little house there.~ We don't want anything big therez just small, and we would keep it very.much in line with out other house. No doubt you know where I live and I try to keep up my property exactly the way it's been going now, but it is too much for us. I can't do all the work and to get somebody to do the work--that's another question. But I would not put any fence between us--nothing--it would be one great big lot as it is today, and as far as water goes-- since they started sprinkling the fields with water, we have water sometimes half of our cellars full. We have more than enough water, and many times that happens. We have to pump continuously and that has never happened before. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Heins. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- September'~29, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3144 - KATHERINE HEINS~ continued:) MR. HEINS: If you can't get it, then we just have to live the best we can and just mow around the house and let the rest go wild. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the board will take that into considera- tion. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from board members? (None) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. 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. 3144, application of KATHERINE HEINS. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3144. Application for EDWIN W. STEWART, 8403 Parish Lane, Indianapolis, Indiana, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-31 and 100-34 for permission to construct addition to dwelling reducing the rearyard setback, at 20 Carole Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-52-2-2. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:46 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 from Otto W. Van- Tuyl and Son amended February 3, 1983 showing a 14' by 22' addition toward the water (east) side and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Would somebody like to be heard in behalf of this application? Are Mr. and Mrs. Stewart here? (No) I'll make a motion closing the hearing pending of a receipt of a letter from the Stewarts asking them for the square footage of the lot, square footage of the present dwelling and total square footage of the proposed addition. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal No. 3144, application for EDWIN W. STEWART, and to request from the applicants the square footage of the lot, square footage of the present dwelling and total square footage of the proposed addition. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- September 29, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3144 - EDWIN W. STEWART, continued:) Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3168. Application for JACQUELINE PENNEY, by Garrett A. Strang, Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 for permission to construct addition with reduction in sideyard setback, at premises zoned "B-1 General Business" and identified as 270 North Street, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102-5-18. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 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 plan produced by Mr. Strang dated August 24, 1983 indicating the proposed addition, which will be 24' by 27'. I also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties. GARRETT A. STRANG: I w~uld like to verify just a couple of quick items on it, misleading for what it's worth. The title block indicates that the proposed addition is to the Penney Residence when in fact it's an addition to the Art Gallery and Studio, the residence part of it takes up a small portion of the second floor. The major use is the studio and gallery. Secondly, there is a need-- desparate need for storage. Can't be found in the building, and also they need to be able to bring a car in. Consequently, the request is to build a garage making it a two-car garage, one part being used for the vehicular storage. The other part for storage of lawn mowers, tools, things of that nature. The reason we're looking also for a story and a half, is that the second level of the garage would be used for a storage of artist-related materials, canvasses. The location of the garage as it's shown we felt would be least detrimental to the area in that the frontyard setback is the same as the existing residence--the rearyard setback is less than that of the existing--not residence, but building. The side on which it is placed abuts the school district which has no build- ings on it and is used primarily as a playground. Whereas on the other side it would be abutting the neighboring property which is used for residential purposes. I also believe that the garage on that property is very close to the lot line and they would be built very close together which they would rather not have. MR. CHAIRMAN: While you're up there, Garrett, the present residence and deck as shown on the rendering you have here, the total is 1,750 square feet, so at present without the addition the lot coverage is 20.85%. Is that correct? MR. STRANG: That's correct. The deck, however, is not so much of a deck as you would think of a conventional deck but it's a basic walkway at the grade level for means to get around the build- ing without having to walk on the lawn or whatever. MR. CHAIRMAN: And with the addition, 640 sq. ft., on the main story, or first story--you're talking about lot coverage of 28.47%. Is that correct? Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- September 29, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3168 - JACQUELINE PENNEY, continued:) MR. STRANG: That's correct. It is my understanding in fact that it's a General Business Zone, that there is no requirement for lot coverage. The Planning Board had no input on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: We did, I believe, put it in the new zoning. I believe it's 25%. MR. STRANG: We did go before the Planning Board and they made no commen~ on it at all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you very much. It will only be used for storage purposes--is that correct? Is won't be adding the studio-- MR. STRANG: For garden utensils and whatever. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anyone wishing 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 until later. MEMBER SAWICKI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We hope to have a decision for you in the very near future. 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. 3168, for JACQUELINE PENNEY. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3171. Application of EWALD M. KARBINER, 39 Edgewood Drive, New Hyde Park, NY 11040 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition to dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback, at 155 Sunset Path, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No'. 1000-54-4-33. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:54 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 dated September 24, 1981 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. indicating the placement of this particular dwelling and pencilled-in garage to be attached, which is 20' by 30'. I also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties. Is Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- September 29, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3171 - EWALD M. KARBINER, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: there anyone wishing to speak in behalf of this application? Is there anyone wishing to speak against the application? Mr. Hall. MICHAEL J. HALL, ESQ.: My name is Michael Hall. I was retained by a Mr. Richard Manfreddi, who in addition to owning a parcel of land and a home in line of sight from the water from the proposed garage, is also one of six owners of the adjacent parcel which is beachfront, used as beach. That's the handful of families I believe the applicant is referring to. And I represent one of that handful--one finger, if you would. There are two issues here that are pretty important. The applicant is here for a setback--insufficient frontyard setback variance. The garage that wOuld be added would put in a third bay, not a second, which is going a little bit beyond a usual situation on a house of that size in that neighborhood. EspHcially since the applicant is so-called "shared" by two families. It's my impression not only my client but from people in the immediate vicinity, that the house is being used as a two-family dwelling. And I would like someone on the board make note of that, or have a building inspector check that out to see whether or not there are indeed two kitchens in the house. My client is specifically concerned because if the garage is built as proposed, what remaining waterview my client has would be completely--or almost completely obliterated. Under normal circum- stances, that's too bad. In this situation the applicant is going for a variance, and one of the things of course the board has to consider in granting or denying a variance is the convenience and safety and comfort and well being of not only the town but also the immediate property owners. Here's a particular instance where the granting of the variance would cause unnecessary hardship perhaps to adjoining property owners--immediate adjoining property owners. In addition to that, I've been informed that the present use of the house--one fo the reasons I assume they're asking for more space-- is large. There are on weekends large numbers of cars there. Perhaps because it's being used as a two-family, and we have two families bringing out guests instead of one. The proposed third-car garage, second and third car garage as it appears on the renderings would seemingly just give more credence to the fact that we have here a house and a resort beachfront little area being used excessively and to the detriment of not only my client but the other immediate areas. That's all I would like to say at this time, except that I would like to ask what the present square footage is on the property and what the proposed would be, if it's on the record~ If it's on the application. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not on it. While you're there, you referred to bay--when you referred to the first, second or third sentence of your discussion, you're referring to bay as garage? MR. HALL: Yes, I am. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- September 29, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3171 - EWALD M. KARBINER, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. And when you refer to two families using this premises, you're referring to two families at the same time? MR. HALL: This is of course not firsthand information--it's not sworn information, but I have been informed by numerous neighbors, that, yes, that is the case. It's apparent, especially on weekends that yes, there is more than one family living at a time in the house. And then the only impression of course that itself is a violation, and to increase the size of the house to make it more convenient for that would do a detriment to the town itself. That's all I have to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else to speak against the application? Sir? EWALD KARBINER: Do you mind if I speak for the application? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, not at all. Could I have your name, Sir? MR. KARBINER: My name is Ewald Karbiner. I'm the present half-owner of the house. The way the original house was placed was not sideways to block. Part of it was intentially not to block the view in the back. I believe Mr. Manfreddi. So we put it lengthwise. Now the garage addition that we're contemplating putting on is, I doubt will block his view at all because it is directly behind the house and it is lower. To put the garage on another piece on the parcel it would have to be set over and then it would block the view a little more. So I think as far as blocking the view goes, I really don't think it will block it per say as is suggested. MR. CHAIRMAN: While you're up there, Mr. Karbiner, what is the nature of the cabana at this particular time on the property? MR. KARBINER: The cabana we tore down because that was an eye sore, so my neighbors told me and they had wanted that down in the first place. MR. CHAIRMAN: Then the only dwelling that's existing right now is the dwelling in question. MR. KARBINER: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you. Is there anybody else to speak either in favor of or against the application? MRS. SALTUPS: My name is Mrs. Saltups. I am one of the six owners that owns the beach adjacent to Mr. Karbiner and we are all summer dwellers. We have one-family houses. None of us have garages except Mr. Manfreddi's yearround house has a garage. And if that man has already one garage, I think that's enough. And the overcrowding the building during the weekend in the summertime really disturbs all the other families who are really one-family Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- September 29, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3171 - EWALD M. KARBINER, continued:) MRS. SALTUPS continued: houses and are quiet, and it kind of really upsets us because so many cars to begin with and then two garages. It's a little bit too much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Karbiner, that leaves me to the last question. Is the house used as a two-family house? MR. KARBINER: The house is owned now presently by myself and my brother-in-law and it's basically used by my family. My brother-in-law is not married at the present time, so, yes, he does come and use it over the weekend now, but primarily it's used by my family. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further comments from anybody in the audience? Questions from board members? (None) Mr. Karbiner, are there one or two kitchens in the dwelling? MR. KARBINER: There is only one kitchen. There are not two kitchens, and I wanted to mention that before. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right. Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER DOUGLASS: ~Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearinq and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. 3171, application of EWALD M. KARBINER. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. At this point in time, Member Douglass left the dais and abstained for the remainder of the public hearing, more particu- larly Appeal No. 3167. TEMPORARY RECESS: On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to temporarily recess for approximately three minutes, at which time the Regular Meeting would be reconvened. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. (Member Douglass abstained.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- September 29, 1983 Regular Meeting RECONVENED REGULAR MEETING: The meeting was reconvened at 8:17 o'clock p.m., after motion was made by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Gr~gonis, and duly carried to reconvene. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3167. Application of ROBERT J. DOUGLASS, Willow Terrace, Orient, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-115 for screening around the periphery of the existing junkyard, at premises located at Willow Terrace Farms, containing approximately nine acres and more parti- cularly identified as County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-26-2-39.9, 39.6, 39.5, at Orient, NY. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:17 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. Member Douglass abstained and did not sit among the board members at the dais° MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey from Young and Young dated August 3, 1983~ indicating the junkyard area and pencilled-in in yellow and read are the areas of the proposed screening, except for 150' by approximately 100+- foot area in back of the barn. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding p~operties in the area. Would somebody like to be heard in behalf of this application? JOHN MUNZEL: Good evening. John Munzel, representing the Douglasses. I believe the application this evening is simply for the privet hedging and not necessarily for the nonconforming use which we're prepared to address both. The property has been used as a boat-storage facility and as a storage facility rather than a junkyard. To me a junkyard, and I think it's defined as such is generally where you sell goods back and forth from chemicalizing things that have been destroyed. That is not the operation here. The operation here has always been a storage yard and it has been used internally as the trucking and marine businesses operated by the Douglasses. Nonetheless, the property is presently substantially surrounded by screening, fencing or privet hedges, and the applica- tion is primarily for a privet heding along the easterly portion of the property, thereby screening the operation from anybody who could see it--although the distances to the nearest houses are quite sub- stantial. When I'm saying distances to nearest houses, I'm talking about those houses that might face the unscreened portion of the premises. The privet hedging, I think, would be in conformity with what already exists on the northerly portion of the property in particular where that is pretty much the case, and it has also the further advantage that screening of fencing material that becomes broken, which it usually does for some means after six months, looks terrible. At least privet hedging gives you some natural background and also Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- September 29, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3167 - ROBERT J. DOUGLASS, continued:) MR. MUNZEL continued: gives the desired screening required or, desired screening, period. I have some photographs that indicate some of the areas in ques- tion that would be protected by the screening and showing houses, or at least one house off in the distance, probably a distance of about 200 or 300 feet to the nearest house. And then I don't believe there are any other houses that can see the property at the present time, other than those houses that have been existing right on the north for a considerable period of time. In addition, the property has been subdivided as you're well aware, and the lots which required the screening have--are in different ownerships, although as a practical matter it's all in control of the Douglass Family. We have executed a lease from all property owners to Robert J. Douglass for the operation of the storage facility and the boatyard facility so that it is not in a unity of ownership. I believe the board also has a number of letters, am I correct, on that? MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe so. MR. MUNZEL: Ok. The board also has a number of letters also from the Douglasses explaining their position from A. Ross Norklun, Mr. Gerrity, Pat Perkins, Mr. Bogden, Carl King, Mr. Hands, Dave Perkins, and I believe that completes it. There are a number of persons here who are familiar with the premises and who have lived there for many, many years, and can testify if you so desire. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Munzel. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Kindly state your name, Sir? JOHN KENNEDY: My. name'is John Kennedy, and I live on Willow Terrace Road, and I have no objection whatsoever to the planting of any kind of privet barrier or hedge on that property. I live on the southwest bordering hedge. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else like to be heard in behalf of this application? Sir? DAVE PERKINS: My name is Dave Perkins and we have been friends and neighbors of the Douglasses for at least 23 years, and my property has adjoined his for the last 23, and I see no reason not to grant the privet hedge. I think it would be very nice and it would look very nice. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else in behalf of the application? CARL KING: I am Carl King of Orient. I'm a neighbor of the Douglasses and my property is away from them but we're very Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- September 29, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3167 ROBERT J. DOUGLASS, continued:) MR. KING continued: close neighbors. I have lived there on King Street for the last 69 years and I had worked with Bob's father years back on the farm, and to me, I think it's a great idea to screen it. But I'll say one thing about the junkyard-- so~calted "junkyard." It doesn't make any noise, but we have plenty of other noises in the immediate area which we would like to see done away with. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. King. Would anybody like to speak against the application? Sir? BURKE LIBURT: My name is Burke Liburt and I'm a neighbor. I would like to speak in opposition to this application. I have three Exhibits which I would like to show the board. Can I approach the board? MR. CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. LIBURT: Thank you. I'm not sure what the best way of showing these is. I'll give these to you one at a time. The purpose of these exhibits-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to address that exhibit? Would you turn that around. MR. LIBURT: Thank you. First, the purpose of these exhibits is simply to point to the effect of a fence, privet, wood or otherwise. I take it the purpose of the fence is to cover the present usage, which is as a boatyard, most recently, and an accummulation of various materials which we call junk. This simply shows what a boat in storage looks like. This is a schematic. It's not to scale. A 30,plus sailboat, and I assure you that there are a number of those which are easily visible. It is elevated over a 6-foot fence, at least five to six feet. Common sense can tell you how that happens from the depth fo the boat to the distance from the cradle--deck to the water line and cabin. I think we're all familiar with that. If it's a cabin cruiser, the same equation applies. What we have on the east elevation, the one which we certainly see from our house, we may be 200 feet or 300 feet or 400 feet from the house, and I assure you that we see everything. So the dis- tance, it's across a flat field. We can make out with the naked eye virtually every piece of significant junk. This was done by my ad agency. This shows one boat--if you will it's a cartoon. Obviously there are a number of boats which are visible from the east elevation, all elevated to a h~igth 6f 15 feet, 18 feet, the Lord knows how much higher. The point here is that the fence, the erection of a fence, while seemingly Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- September 29, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3167 - ROBERT J. DOUGLASS, continued:) FiR. LIBURT continued: allowable will not do anything to cover this major boatyard and maintenance facility, which is smack in the middle of a residen- tial area. So I'll give these charts to you by the way as part of the record. (Three exhibits were submitted for the record as follows: (1) large diagram of the back of a sailboat with supports raised above the ground; (2) large boat with cabin and raised crane along side stockade fencing; (3) list of "conclusions".) MR. LIBURT: These are simply conclusions. You probably can't read them from here. The point is, one, a six-foot fence won't cover the present illegal boatyard on the property. I will address that. The six-foot fence will only partially cover the accummula- tion of junk which is presently on the property. And I think the important thing here and the core of this whole business is that a granting of a permit to erect a six-foot fence--I was under the impression it was a wooden fence. Apparently it's a privet fence, which grows very slowly I might add, will give legitimacy to activity which the town has already designated as illegal and improper use of this property. The town as you know has appointed a special prosecutor, or rather the district attorney has appointed-- they have designated--and their intent is to prosecute Mr. Douglass on these grounds. It is a moot point at best that the boatyard is nonconforming use. It is certainly a moot point that it is nonconforming use for a junkyard. And I think that is really the core issue. Certainly, a privet hedge 8 to 10 feet high--we have a house which is 250 years old and we have a privet hedqe at some point which is 12 feet high, is certainly attractive, b~t that is not the issue. If the permit is granted, it seems to me and I believe to other people who are in the area--that the boat will be taking attack in total contradiction to that which the town is now pursuing by allowing maybe possible that this is noncon- forming use, but the statement that it's nonconforming use thus far has been unsubstantiated by any facts to my knowledge. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Liburt. Let me see if there is anybody else, Mr. Munzel. Is there anybody else that would like to object to this particular application? (No one). Mr. Munzel? MR. MUNZEL: It is my understanding that the application is for the "junkyard" presently pending and no decision is going to be made until this board makes a determination apparently in regard to fencing. S~condly, it's a-- I think that the documents this board--being the letters that have been submitted; some affidavits--clearly indicate that this operation has been going on for years and years and years, long prior to zoning. In addition thereto, Mr. Liburt's sketches are predicated primarily on a 6-foot fence, and basically we really have no great argument with Liburt in terms of the liabilities of the 6-foot fence in Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- September 29, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3167 - ROBERT J. DOUGLASS, continued:) MR. MUNZEL continued: terms of screening. That was precisely why we are seeking a Privet hedge. We seek to effectively screen the entire parcel. I will take exception to the slow-growing privet hedging. I think they grow pretty quickly. They don't grow as quickly as a six-foot fence grows, but nonetheless, they grow and they are far more effective in screening the boats and the other material that may be on the site. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Liburt. MR. LIBURT: May I respond to that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. LIBURT: It is my understanding after discussion with the Supervisor's Office this morning, and my own counsel who I have retained, (names unclear - Ocean, Packerman and Black [?]), I believe, that the pursuit or the special prosecutor's prosecution, if you will, or following Mr. Douglass has absolutely nothing to do with any decision on a privet hedge or a fence of any sort. I'm not an attorney, but one of us is mistaken--the Lord knows which one. I don't think either of us can give expert opinion on a privet hedge, but a privet hedge certainly does not come 6' high--so let me just talk to you on a basic thing. I live across from the Douglass property, and I will tell you under the strongest possible terms that the dump in Southold is nirvana compared to this property and I would like to you to come to my house from any angle and you can see it. I mean no indictment to Mr. Douglass and his family and they're fine people without question, but I think that we have to face facts as they are visible. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Liburt. Did you have anything to say in response to that, Mr. Munzel? (No response.) c MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any comment from anyone in the audience either pro or con? (None) Is everyone familiar where this privet hedge is supposed to be planted? Is everybody familiar with that? (no reply.) Any questions from any board members concerning this hearing? (None). Is there anything you would like to say, Mr. Lessard, in reference to what Mr. Liburt had to say? MR. LESSARD (BUILDING DEPT.): Only that the application is for a junkyard per se. It has nothing to do with the boat area. He has applied for a fence of some type around the junkyard accord- ingly to the law. We're discussing again, "junkyard"; and the law says that a junkyard requires a fence or screening of some type-- and I believe that is what Mr. Douglass has applied for. That doesn't necessarily mean that this area encompasses that area that has the boat in it. The area that the board wishes to designate as that area to be screened is your jurisdiction. I can't tell Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- September 29, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3167 - ROBERT J. DOUGLASS, continued:) MR. LESSARD, BUILDING DEPT., continued: you how big or small to make it, if you so desire, but so we don't get too far afield, Mr. Douglass is applying accordingly to the law. The law says that the Board of Appeals must designate that type of screening to encompass what he has applied for, so that we don't get out of proportion on this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Munzel? Thank you, Mr. Lessard. MR. MUNZEL: Mr. Douglass just reminded me that he already has I think well over 200' of privet hedging that is fairly full- grown and ready to plant, so as we have the approval of the board. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further comments from anyone in the audience concerning this application? (None) Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later, on the condition, Mr. Liburt, that the next time we are out on inspections we will stop by your property and view the Douglass site from your property which we could just as well done, but we did ride by your house but didn't stop. And before this board renders a decision, we will stop by. MR. LIBURT: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're very welcome. MEMBER SAWICKI: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal No. 3167, application of ROBERT J. DOUGLASS, pending reinspection fo the areas in question and surrounding parcel in the immediate area. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. (Member Douglass abstained.) This resolution was duly adopted. S0uthold Town Board o~Appeals -15- September 2~, 1983 Regular Meeting NEW APPLICATION/REHEARING REQUEST: Appeals No. 3173 and 2991. MIRIAM BATSON by David Kapell. The board reviewed a recently filed application, Appeal No. 3173, M. BATSON, filed today with the Town Clerk as requesting "...to amend the approval granted for this deck addition 8.5.82 due to the fact that the building plan filed with the original application 5/19/82 contained an error which renders the project unbuildable .... " It was the consensus of the board members to request the following prior to considering this application for rehearing: (1) An updated survey showing the proposed new construction with dimensions and setbacks (of existing and new construction) [not necessarily re-surveyed if existing survey shows all struc- tures]; (2) one copy of the building plans drawn to scale and certified. The Secretary was instructed to send a letter to Mr. Kapell advising him of the above. NEW APPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS: The board members reviewed the recently filed applications, and the following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to schedule the following applications for public hearings to be held at the next Regular Meeting of this board, to wit: Thursday, October 27, 1983 commencing at 7:30 o'clock p.m., and that notice of same shall be advertised in the local and official newspapers of the town, pursuant to law: Appeal No. 3119 - WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE. Appeal No. 3120 - WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE. Appeal No. 3175 - WILLIAM L. MUSSER. Appeal No. 3139~- GILLISPIE AND OTHERS (Rehearing)-. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. (Member Douglass abstained.) This resolution was duly adopted. At this time, Member Douglass resumed sitting at the dais with the board. Southold Town Board of<~ppeals -16- September 25_~J1983 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3168. Upon application for JACQUELINE PENNEY, By Garrett A. Strang, Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, for permission to construct addition with reduction in sideyard setback, at premises zoned "B-1 General Business" and identified as 270 North Street, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Ne. 1000-102-5-18. The public hearing on this application was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicant seeks to construct a 24' by 27' addition at the rear of the existing one-story and one-and-one-half story framed residence with art studio, leaving an insufficient sideyard setback from the northerly side property line at 6.5 feet at its nearest point and approximately 12 feet at its farther point. The addition is proposed for garage and storage use only and will be a framed, two-story structure. The premises in question is located in the "B-1 General Business" District and contains an area of approximately 8,394 square feet with 100' frontage along the east side of North Street. Although the premises is zoned "B-1 General Business," it is noted for the record that the total lot coverage with the new addition will be 2,390 square feet, or 28.47% and the present use of the premises is as a residence with an art studio and gallery. It is also noted for the record that conditional approval has been given by the Southold Town Planning Board concerning the site plan at a meeting held September 12, 1983. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (1) that the variance request is not substantial; (2) that no detrimental effect to adjoining properties will be created; (3) that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (4) that the circumstances are unique; (5) that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning, and (6) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3168, application for JACQUELINE PENNEY for permission to construct 24' by 27' addition for garage and storage use, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That the addition be used only for storage and garage purposes as requested (not for living quarters). Location of Property: 270 North Street, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No.. 1000-102-05-018. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonls, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. S6uthold Town Board o~ppeals -17- september 2'>~/ 1983 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3166. Upon application of HIRAM F. MOODY, JR., Oceanic Avenue, Fishers Island, NY 06390 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, for an inter- pretation of Article III, Section 100-30(A)[2] (b) & (c) to allow the construction of a horse barn on vacant land containing less than 10 acres. Location of Property: Private Road, East End of Fishers Island; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-10-6-1.7. The public hearing on this application was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliber- ations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicant seeks an interpretation of Article III, Section 100-30(A) [2] (b) & (c) to allow the construction of a horse barn to house three horses for use by famiIy members upon premises owned by the apPlicant containing 6.2 acres and together with abutting proper- ties owned by other family members, containing a total of 10 acres. Article III, Section 100-30(A) [2] (b), as amended February 1, 1983, clearly states, "...The keeping, breeding, raising and training of horses, domestic animals and fowl (except ducks) on lots of ten (10) acres or more" is a permitted agricultural operation. It is and has been the practice of the town to permit agricultural buildings on vacant land for an agricultural operation, such as farming, Without a restriction as to acreage. Thus, Subsection (A)[2] (b) of Section 100-30 'specifically states that the keeping of horses is a permitted "agricultural operation." It is the opinion of this board that in the instant case, where 10 acres of land are available for the keeping of horses, as required by the zoning ordinance, and that such use will not be for gain, that the relief requested be permitted. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (1) that the variance request is not substantial; (2) that no detrimental effect to adjoining properties'will be created; (3) that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (4) that the plight of the owner is due to unique circum- stances; (5) that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; (6) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below; (7) that the use will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; (8) that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent- use districts; (9) that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the dis- trict wherein the proposed use is to be located, or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent-use districts; (10) that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellant other than a variance; and (11) that the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the town will not be adversely So~thold Town Board of~Appeals -18- September 29-,- 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3166 - HIRAM F. MOODY, SR.., continued:) affected by the granting of the relief requested. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3166, application for HIRAM F. MOODY, JR., for permission to construct horse barn as applied, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. If the subject building is to be used at any time for a dwelling (principal building), it shall conform with all zoning, building, setback requirements for such a principal, dwelling on a two-acre lot. Location of Property: Private Road, East End of Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-10-06-01.7. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. AMEND'DATE ~OF~ NEXT REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Goeh- r~nger~_se~onde~ by~M~.~.~ig~0n~s, it_~as RESOLVED, to-cha~ge the da~e of the next Regular Meeting and public hearings of this board from October 20, 1983 to Thursday, October 27, 1983~ same date and place. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted~ ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: Pursuant to Part 617 of Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental QualitY Review Act (SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation ~aw, t~.e following-act~o~ Wa~ taken- ' On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative EnvirOm~ental Declarations on each of the pending appliqatig~~ as ~ipulat~d. below: So~thold Town Board c ~ppeals -19- September (Environmental Declarations, continued:) APPEAL NO.: 3119 PROJECT N~E: WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE , 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, plea~ 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: Special Exception/Change of Use of property. B-Light Zone. C-Light Industrial Use requested for machine shop. ~- ~ .. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: South Side of C.R. 48, Southold, NY; 1000-59-10-5. REASON(~)_~SU~PORTING 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) Project in question is not located in a critical-environmental area. APPEAL NO.: 3120 PROJECT NAME: WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE 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: [XI Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for C-Use in a B-Light Zone (machine shop) LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particu~ar!y known ~s: South Side of C.R. 48, Southold, NY; 1000-59-10-5. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (t) 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 lmpi~ented as planned. (2) Subject premises is not in a critical environmental area. Southold Town Board ¢~ ~Appeals -29- September ~_~3, 1983 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) APPEAL NO.: PROJECT NAME: 3175 WILLIAM L. MUSSER 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: Detached accessory garage in frontyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southo!d, County of Suffolk, more particu!~rly known as: Private Road, Chocomount, Lots 1 and 2, Fisher~'~st-and~.NY. 1000-4-5-5~4. REASON(S) sUPPORTING THiS DETERMINATION: (!) 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) Project is landward of existing buildings and not located in a critica%-environmental area. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. NEW APPLICATION'PENDING OTHER APPROVAL: Appeal No. 3174 PATRICIA STEGNER. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was 1 RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3174, application for PATRICIA STEG- NER, by Rudolph H. Bruer Esq,, be held temporarily in abeyance pending: (a) three copies of a map depicting the entire area involved in this subdivision of property and now or formerly of T.F. Rolleston and wife; and (b) review' and receipt of comments by the Southold Town Planning Board concerning this subdivision. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. outhold Town Board 0f~Appeals -21- September'S9, 1983 Regular Meeting NEW APPLICATION PENDING OTHER APPROVALS: Appeal No. 3172 - ESTELLE WYDUR/GEORGE BAKER. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3172, application for ESTELLE WYDUR FOR A PROPOSED DIVISION OF PROPERTY FOR SALE TO AN ADJOINING property owner, be held temporarily in abeyance pending review and receipt of comments from the Southold Town Planning Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonls, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. EXECUTIVE "CLOSED" SESSION: At this point in time, it was agreed to enter into "closed" executive session, pursuant to Section 100(d) of the Public Officers Law, Article 7. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to meet in executive session for the purpose of discussing proposed, pending and current litigation of pending applications. 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 9:15 p.m. October , 1983 RECEIVED AND FILED BY Respectfully submitted, Southold Town Board of Appeals