Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/28/1983APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUG LASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE RnAD 25 SEIUTHrlLD. L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516' 765.1809 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1983 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, .July 28, 1983 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the ~$,outhold 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: Mr. Victor Lessard, Administrator (Building Department); Mrs. Ruth Oliva, North Fork Environmental Council; Mrs. Shirley Bachrach, League of Women Voters and a large audience. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock p.m. and proceeded with the first public hearing. RECESSED PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3138. Application of ALFRED J. TERP, 1435 Hobart Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-31, 100-34, for permission to construct bathroom addition to dwelling leaving an insufficient sideyard setback, at 1435 Hobart Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-064-002-012. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 7:30 p.m. MR. C~RMAN: This application was recessed from the June 23, 1983, and we'll ask Mr. Terp if he has anything that he wishes to add to his application. ALFRED J. TERP: The only thing I would like to add is the application, and I don't know if it was put in the last time, was the fact that the foundation that was placed there was built in 1967 and I do believe that was a few years prior.to the law that was passed as to the limited sideyard, which I think was passed in 1971--so what I'm trying to point out is that there was a structure that was actually prior to this law. I'm not asking J'Southold Town Board o{JAppeals -2- July 28, 1983~Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3138 - ALFRED J. TERP'continued:) MR. TERP continued: to use all of the structure. I'm asking to use part of it to put the small addition on. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Against the application, Mrs. Stelzer? MRS. EMMY STELZER: I would like to submit this to you--they are objections, thank you. They are all stated here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your attorney is not here tonight? MRS. STELZER: Yes, he is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, he's here. Ok. Is he prepared to say any- thing to the board? PAUL CAMINITI, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman, I have an application pending before the board. I prepared the objections for Mrs. Stelzer with the intention of not formally appearing for her tonight. I prepared that for her, but I have an application pending before the board at 7:50. So at this point I would rather just let the objections speak for themselves~ MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. CAMINITI: MR. CHAIRMAN: What is your name, sir? My name is Caminiti. Thank you. Ail right, is there anything else you wanted to add, Mrs. Stelzer, other than what you have given us? MRS. STELZER nodded no. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Terp? (No further comments.) I doubt seriously because of the length of the meeting tonight that there will be any decision on this application, so you're welcome to inspect the file, tomorrow, Mr. Terp. Oh, do you have another copy? MR. CAMINITI handed Mr. Terp a copy of the written objections prepared by him for Mrs. Stelzer. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Hearing no further comments on either part, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mro Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the .hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. 3138, for ALFRED J. TERP. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. 'Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -3- July 28, 1983~Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3133. Application for THOMAS KENNEDY, 120 Log Road, Patchogue, NY 11772 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(A) for permission to use property for business purposes, to wit: Video Tape Rental and Equipment Sales, at premises located at 33260 S.R. 25, and 225 Eugene's Road, Cutchogue; Filla Minor Subdivision Map 72, Lot 1; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-097~02-016.5. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 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 prepared on 713t/74 indicating the nature of this particular parcel and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and other properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Sir? THOMAS KENNEDY: I am Thomas Kennedy. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there something you would like to say? MR. KENNEDY: No, not that I can think of, other than what you already read. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kennedy, can I ask you a few questions? Con- cerning the size of the store, I don't know if the penned-in area is to scale. Can you give me the approximate square footage of the store? MR. KENNEDY: storage. I think it was 1600 square feet. That's including MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't show the nature of the surroundings around the building and what would be done with reference to a park- ing lot. What would you do in reference to the parking lot? Would there be stone blend, macadam? MR. KENNEDY: Oh, yes, it would be macadam. MR. CHAIRMAN: The entire piece of property would be macadamized? MR. KENNEDY: Except for what would be landscaped. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're talking about the grass areas that you're referring to in the screening plan. I have no further questions, thank you. Would anybody like to be heard against this application? (No response) Would anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from any board members? Yes, Ruth. MRS. RUTH OLIVA (NFEC): Is this in the same spot as the gas station on Eugene's Road? MR. CHAIRSLAN: No, it actually wraps around the real estate ,Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- July 28, 1963 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3133 - THOMAS KENNEDY, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: agency and the gas station. MRS. OLIVA: It encompasses both of them? parcel? Is it a separate MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it's a separate parcel. Would you like to look at it? (Mrs. Oliva came up to review the plan.) Mr. Kennedy, we assume this is going to be a one-story building? MR. KENNEDY: Yes. MRS. OLIVA: What type of a business is it going to be? MR. KENNEDY: Video rental store. Video tapes. MRS. OLIVA: In that case, if it's a separate parcel, it's the North Fork Environmental Council's policy that there should be no changes of zone until the Master Plan is updated till we see lust where we want to put our business areas in the hamlets, because this would be an extension of already existing business area, and we're not too sure that it's not strip-zoning. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Oliva. Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? (No reponse.) Was there anything you wanted to say in rebuttal, Mr. Kennedy? MR. KENNEDY: I didn't understand what was said--what did you say? MRS. OLIVA: It has been our policy for the past--over the year now, since the Master Plan is in the process of being updated-- not to approve any changes of zone until our Master Plan is updated and presented to the board, so, where the Master Plan wants to put any new business area and to whether it should be located in the hamlets basically which we figure basically it should be, otherwise we start this strip zoning along our Main Roads and it starts look- ing like Jericho Turnpike and what have you. So we are basic&lly objecting to any Changes of zone until the Master Plan is updated. MR. KENNEDY: It's just that there are two businesses right along side of it. MRS. OLIVA: I understand that. They've been there for a good many years and whether we would like to see more of that is very questionable. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other comments from anyone concerning this application? Questions from board members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. ~'Southold Town Board o~Appeals -5- July 28, 15~3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3133 - THOMAS KENNEDY, continued:) Oh~mo~i6~3~y Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hea.r.i.n.g and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. 3133, for~ THOMAS KENNEDY. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki.. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: File No. FL-14. Application for ORIENT-EAST MARION PARK DISTRICT, by Garrett A. Strangf 54655 Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Floodplain Management Law, Chapter 46, Sections 46-7 and 46-18B for permission to construct sanitary facilities with first floor below minimum required flood elevation level. Location of Property: North Side of Main Road, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-017-05-006 and part of 007; 1000-023-2-part'of 001 and 003. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:43 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 produced by Garrett A. Straing, Architect, dated May 12, 1983 and June 6, 1983 indicating the placement of the comfort station and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Strang, would you like to be hea~d~in behalf of this application? GARRETT A. STRANG: Yes. Well basically the application is se~fqexplanatory. The Suffolk County Health Department has man- dated that beach provide the sanitary facilities for bathers. In past years they have been using temporary portable toilets, which are not acceptable to the town. They want a permanent structure. We do have a unique condition there, and due to the fact that it is a beach structure built on the bsach, we do have the f~oodplain requirements to deal with. The recent updating of the floodplain mandated as it says in the application an elevation of 12 for the finished floor. The idea behind the floodplain requirements is to protect--it's geared primarily to residential structures, I think, of a structure of a larger nature than this, something that could have su~stan~iat~dam~ge in the event Of a flood. It's nothing more than a restroom facility but it falls within that category. Secondly, there is a hardship if we were to elevate the building to the required elevation, we would make it inaccessible to the handicapped which all buildings have to be by the State Code now. Fur further information, the building location has been approved by the D.E.C. from the Sound. We are anticipating any day a letter to that effect. I have been given verbal approval. ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- July 28, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. FL-14 - ORIENT-EAST MARION PARK DISTRICT, continued:) MR. STRANG continued: Also the sanitary disposa~ system has been approved by the Suffolk County Health Department with respect to the building. I have also been apprised by the Attorney for the Park District, Mr. Bob Tasker, that he contacted a Paul Weiburg of FEMA, which is the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and he reviewed the situation and he had no objection based on the use of the building. So with all those items in mind, we make the application for the variance in the hopes that it would be passed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you leave, can I assume that the pump for the water will be housed within the utility room--the tank and so on. MR. STRANG: The pump itself is in--I thought I had given a set of construction drawings. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you did. I am looking at them now. MR. STRANG: There is a utility room in the center between the two toilet facilities which will have the pump. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is primarily a slab structure, is that correct? MR. STRANG: That's correct. There is no basement or crawl space. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Strang. Would anybody else like to be heard in behalf of this application? BILL TERRY: I just wanted to say I am in favor of it. For 12 years we wanted it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thnk you. Would 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 until later. 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. FL-14, for ORIENT-EAST MARION PARK DISTRICT. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. '$outhold Town Board of~ppeals -7- July 28, 1~=~ Regular Meeting PENDING APPEAL NO. 3125. JACK LEVIN (Special Exception). Upon application of JACK LENIN, North Road, Greenport, New York, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100- 30(B) [1] for permission to convert existing dwelling into two-family dwelling use on a minimum two-acre parcel located at the sough side of C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; more particularly identified as County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-44-4-5. The public hearing on this matter was held on May 27, 1983 and June 23, 1983, at which time the hearing was declared closed. WHEREAS, on April 20, 1983, this application was filed with the office of the Town Clerk Under Appeal No. 3125 for permission to convert existing dwelling into two-family dwelling use on two acres; WHEREAS, on April 27, 1983, this board scheduled tne subject application for public hearing to be held at the next Regular Meeting, to wit, May 27, 1983; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 1983, the Amended Bulk Area and Parking Requirements of the Zoning Code was filed with the N.Y.S. Department of State; and WHEREAS, the Amended Bulk Area and Parking Requirements of the Zoning Code was amended to require a minimum lot area of four acres (rather than two acres) for a two-family dwelling, and 275 feet of road frontage; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 1983, the applicant herein requested that the subject application be withdrawn and that ne will restore the subject dwelling to one-family use; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, BE IT RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3125, application of JACK LEVIN be and hereby is WITHDRAWN AS REQUESTED. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ~outhold Town Board off,peals -8- July 28, ~J~83 Regular Meeting PENDING APPEAL NO. 3126. JACK LEVIN (Variance). Upon application of JACK LEVIN, 59670 C.R. 48, Greenport, NY, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30(B) [11 and 100-31 for permission to use existing dwelling for two-family use, second-dwelling unit having less than the required 850 square feet of living area, Mt 59670 C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; more particularly identified as County Tax Map No. 1000-44-4-5. The public hearing on this matter was held on May 27, 1983 and June 23, 1983, at which time the hearing was declared closed. WHEREAS, on April 20, 1983, this application was filed with the office of the Town Clerk under Appeal No. 3126 for permission to use existing dwelling for two-family use, second-dwelling unit having less than the required 850 square feet of living area; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 1983, this board scheduled the subject application for public hearing to be held at the next. Regular Meeting, to wit, May 27, 1983; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 1983, the Amended Bulk Area and Parking Requirements of the Zoning Code was filed with the N.Y.S. Department of State; and WHEREAS, the Amended Bulk Area and Parking Requirements of the Zoning Code was amended to require a minimum lot area of four acres (rather than two acres) for a two-family dwelling, and 275 feet of road frontage; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 1983, the applicant herein requested that the subject application be withdrawn and that ne will restore the subject dwelling to one-family use; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, BE IT RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3126, application of JACK LEVIN be and hereby is WITHDRAWN AS REQUESTED. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- July 28, 1983 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3151. Application for RVSS, Inc. (Razmataz), by Garrett A. Strang, Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-112(H) for permission to develop and use parking on adjacent [leased] property identified as County Tax Map Parcel. No. 1000-125-01-019.1; 1000-122-6-36. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:49 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy a sketch dated June 20, 1983 indicating the nature of the Razmatax property and the next-door neighbor to the west, which is the nature of this application of the parking plan, and indicating the parking spaces. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Strang, would you like to be heard in behalf of this application? GARRETT A. STRANG: Yes, thank you. Essentially what is being requested here is unique in that the owner of the place of business needed additional parking and his neighbor agreed to enter into a lease arrangement to provide parking for his use during his off-business hours. His business hours are an 8-4 situation, or 7-4 situation, and my client's business hours are evening hours from ~9 on. The reason for the added parking was the desire to have a--the building itself with the additions as a restricted occupancy, and the owner desired to have a patio in the rear of the building for some added occupancy use, having increased his occupancy use he needed additional parking. He entered into a lease agreement with his neighbor to lease the property, and we prepared the site plan accordingly and we sub~ mitted it to the Planning Board. Subsequently., the Planning Board advised us that this type of a situation, since the property is not ink,the same ownership, would necessitate a variance. Conse- quently, we filed for the variance. I did receive a letter this week, a copy of ~hich I went to the board indicating that the town Planning Board approved the site plan as submitted with certain restrictions. One exception to that is Number 2, where it indicates that the existing sign is to be removed. In a conversation with Mr. Raynor, or with Susan Long, indirsctly through Susan Long, it was. indicated that they wanted, they desired the sign be relocated since ~hey felt it posed a problem as far as traffic circulation goes. The sign has in fact been relocated. As of this date it is in a location where it doesn't obstruct any traffic flow. Another item which they made reference to was they wanted to be certain that there would be no ingress and egress at the westerly end of the neighbor's property. As of an inspection I made today of~.th~.~property, there has been a gate put up at that end of the property, which is closed in the evenings to prevent Southold Town Board o~ppeals -10- July 28, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3151 - RVSS, Inc./Razmataz, continued:) MR. STRANG continued: egress and ingress through that particular access point. Other than that unless there are questions from the board, I don't think I have anything else to add. MR. CHAIRMAN: I had a. question concerning the site plan as to parking. Do these parking spaces meet the code requirement of 350 square feet? MR. STRANG: They exceed that, as a matter of fact. They are 10' by 20' which is 200 square feet for the car, and 350 square feet takes into consideration backing space. Behind each stall there is an addition 10' by 25' space, if you will, so each stall in essence has allocated to it a 10' wide by 45', or 450 square feet of space. MR. CHAIRMAN: And.the parking lot as we see it now is the finished grade, is that what- MR. STRANG: The parking lot as it now is the gravel which was the original intention. It's a stone blend~ MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any occupancy level on what this outside entertaining area is going to involve? MR. STRANG: Yes. The occupancy level for the patio, if you will, is restricted by the Building Department for one person for each 15 square feet, I believe. So that will limit the number. As a matter of fact, I think I've indicated the occupancy of the patio at 70 people, based on the size of the patio. MR. CHAIRMAN: Although this is probably not the nature of this application, I'll ask the question any way. Do they intend to open this building to this patio and thereby disturb the neighbors with loud noise, and so on? How is this supposed to be used? MR. STRANG: The only exit to the patio ~s through one door, which is an exit at the back of the building, which is pretty well baffled, if someone were to see the building ~ I~_don't think I had submitted a plan, unfortunately. But there is a baffle between the exit, the rear exit door which would be the one that services the patio, and the substantially noisy, if you will, area of the building. So it is not their intention to put, if you will, a big opening or whatever to let people be able to see into the building because they wouldn't be able to anyhow. Essentially, an overflow area for people who may want to leave the noisy space, "go outside" for a quiet conversation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore there wouldn't be any speakers placed outside? ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -11- July 28, lgS~3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3151 - RVSS, Inc./Razmataz, continued:) MR. STRANG: To the best of my knowledge, no. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Strang. The only other thing we don't have, Mr. Strang, is a copy of the lease agreement. Could you furnish us with that some time in the near future? MR. STRANG: Yes, I can. There is a copy on file with the Planning Board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like 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 until later. On mo~ion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Messrs. Sawicki and Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. 3151, for RVSS, Inc./RAZMATAZ. Vote of the Board.: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3139. Application of ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, III (and others), Main Road, East Marion, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, and 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 Beckwith Avenue and Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No.. 1000-061-02- 005, 006 and 007. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:58 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 sketch prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. March 7., 1983 indicating the parcel on the corner of Beckwith Avenue and the Main Road of 10,954 sq.. ft. proposed, and the inside parcel, referred to as Parcel 92 of 8,500 sq. ft. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Gillispie, would you like to be heard in behalf of this application? ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, III: Gentlemen, my .two partners and I propose basically a change of what has historically been three lots into two lots. There are numerous lots in the area which are smaller in width, depth or area than the ones that are proposed. And we would also like to point out that the dissimilar uses of the two buildings has gone on for around 100 years. And we feel 'Southold Town Board o~Appeals -12- July 28, 19-83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3139 - R.W. GILLtSPIE, III and others, continued:) MR. GILLISPIE.~continued: that it would create a real hardship if these two buildings are forced to remain in single and separate ownership at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the proposed use of parcel ~17 MR. GILLISPIE: That will be a professional building. I believe they--Mr. Caminiti is one of-- PAUL CAMINITI, ESQ.: Gentlemen, I'm Paul Caminiti. One of the other partners, Mr. Kaplan and I had the intention of purchasing Parcel 1 and Mr. Gillispie was to maintain Parcel 2 as a real estate office. Pa~el 1 is going to be strictly a professional building, hopefully a law office. We're actively soliciting for tenants, and for upstalrsl Thews will-'be a total ~f four. MR. CHAIRMAN: Parking of which would have to be approved in the site plan. MR. CAMINITI: We submitted a site plan to the Planning Board. It's considered by the Planning Board, and I believe it's covered by their letter of June 24th in which they indicate that they have no objection to the site plan as far as parking. The parking along Beckwith -- is lined with trees facing Beckwith--and we propose to put in a drive at the very north part of the property, and I think we could very safely without destroying any of the landscape put in ten cars directly behind the building. They would exit either on to the Main Road or on Beckwith. I think the room would be suffi- cient, that there be no extra traffic or congestion on the Main Road. That basically would be the maximum amount of cars we wou~d allow without destroying the shrubbery existing on the landscape. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we get a copy of that site plan? MR. CAMINITI gave the chairman a copy of the site plan for parcel ~1 (June 1, 1983). MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you also supply to us, Mr. Caminiti, possibly some sort of proposed floor plan of what it would look like in this building if it is split up for professional offices? Have you done anything with that? MR. CAMINITI: Well, originally we'r~ just siding the outside of the building without any real major structural changes. We received a notice from the Building Department to file for a building permit. So we filed detailed plans with the Building Department. One copy is due back. It's the only copy I have left. MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe you could photocopy it and just give it for us. We're primarily interested in the square footage of each of the professional offices. 'Southold Town Board o~ppeals -13- July 28, ~-983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3139 - R.W. GILLISPIE, III and others, continued:) MR. CAMINITI: Square footage, left ground office will be approximately 750 sq. ft. Right ground office will be approxi- mately 600 sq. ft. Upper left, I believe is 400 sq. ft. The one office on the right upper side, approximately 200 sq. ft. MR. CHAIRMAN: Will there be a rear entrance from the building? MR. CAMINITI: There's a rear entrance. There are two front entrances. There is one side entrance. There is also an interior staircase as a secondary means of egress. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Gillispie, while you're standing, do you have any plans in reference to parking on your parcel? MR. GILLISPIE: Not at this time, Mr. Chairman. I have access to town parking which is right next to that parcel. The nature of my business wouldn't require a great deal of cars at any one time. MR. CHAIRMAN: But the 15' right-of-way to the rear of Parcel No. 1 would definitely indicate that you would probably consider putting parking back there? MR. GILLISPIE: Well, I~reserved that--I thought it was a wise thing to do for future access. There's also a barn on the property, Parcel 2; and if the town would allow, if I ever developed the barn into any business use, I would use this access off Beck- with Avenue. MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much. Would anybody else like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Comments from board members, or questions? (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. 3139, for ROBERT W. GILLISPIE III and others. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Town Board o~Appeals -14- July 28, 1~3-~3 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3146. Application for RICHARD DeMARIA, by Garrett A. Strang, Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-31 and 100-34 for permission to construct addition with reduction in rearyard setback at 900 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, near Laugh- ing Waters; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-087-02-006. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:10 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 June 13, 1983 indicating the new addition approximately 384 feet, reducing the rearyard existing setback from 50' to 34.1', and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surround- ing properties in the area. Mr. Strang, would you again like to be heard, in behalf of this application? GARRETT A. STRANG: Yes, As can be seen from the site plan that has been presented, the existing residence is relatively small in size. It's only 960 square feet. It's a two-bedroom house as it exists. The owner, Mr. DeMaria, is presently going to move into his residence on a fulltime basis. It was a summer home for a while, but he has in fact sold his full-time residence and is moving out here on a permanent basis. Consequently, he has a need for a third bed- room, which will be a master bedroom and bath, actually, which is what constitutes the addition. As also can be seen from the site plan, the lot in a substandard lot and by'the zoning code, a sub- standard lot requires a 37½' rearyard. What we propose, the addition encroaches on'that somewhat, and that we only have a 34.1' rearyard. The reason we had filed for the variance, if one were to look at the partial floor plan that was developed, the bedroom that is proposed is 13' by 14', which is not all that large, and if we were to have to shave 3½' off that, it would bring it down to less than 10' --one dimension that certainly would not be adequate for a master bedroom. So, consequently, we have filed for the variance with the rearyard being minimal--keeping the addition as small as possible, so that the needed variance would be minimal. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you tell me, Mr. Strang, the nature of the existing garage which appears to be a cottage at this time? Are there any permits that were granted on that at all? MR. STRANG: The existing garage as I understand it goes back many years, and at one point in time I believe there--I'm not exactly certain on this--but I believe there was a permit issued to construct that. I'm not certain if there's a Certificate of Occupancy that exists on it. As far as the use of it goes, I think for, I believe that the property of the garage and the house has been in existence for 25+ years, or something like that, and I think many years ago the garage had been used as an overflow guest facility at one point. I understand that this is not in fact~the case presently, and it will not be the case. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -15- July 28, 19~3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3146 - RICHARD DeMARIA, continued:) MR..CHAIRMAN: It will not be the case? MR. STRANG: As I have been given to understand, it's not going to be the case, no. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor 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. 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. 3146, for RICHARD DeMARIA. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3145. Application of SOUTHOLD EQUITIES, INC., 195 Youngs Avenue, Southold,. NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70, for permission to establish residential and studio use of an existing building in this "B-1 General Business" District, located along the south side of Traveler Street, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 61-01-015. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:15 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 July 18, 1978 (amended August 17, 1978) indicating the placement of this struc- ture on Traveler Street of approximately 41' from Traveler Street and approximately 28' from the easterly property line. And I have 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? LORETTA DeMAGGIO: I'm Loretta DeMaggio, the President of Southold Equities, Inc. And I think it's explanatory, and if you have any questions, please feel free. The gentleman (tenant) could not be present tonight, and we have some square footage you may be interested in. The area tobe used as a residence is approximately 1,800 sq. ft. The balance would be used for a studio--the art would~be sculpture. Andyne had some questions which I raised as to whether there would be customers--yes, there will, of course, it is commercial property. That's not the question. It's the residency that we're concerned with. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. DeMaggio. Is there anybody else Southold Town Board o~Appeals -16- July 28, I983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3145 - SOUTHOLD EQUITIES, INC., continued:) like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from board members? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. DeMaggio, would there be any parking placed in the frontyard area of this structure? Surfaced? MRS. DeMAGGIO: Yes, I think we would reserve the right to park if it would be allowed-since the property is approximately -- that portion of the property is believe 117' on Traveler Street and a depth of 211.14', we would like to have parking in front of the building; I think it is a permitted use; I'm not sure. My attorney couldn't participate in this. I would assume that parking would be permitted. It's not--we certainly have a great deal of land which cannot be seen now because it's not graded, which would lend itself to parking. I think the last estimate was approximately 50 cars. I don't think that would be a problem unless if you do, we'd be happy to present further information. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I don't. Thank you very much. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserv- ing decision until later. MEMBER SAWICKI: Second. 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. 3145 - SOUTHOLD EQUITIES, INC.. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3147. Application of DAVID AND BONNIE PASCOE, 900 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Uariance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-119B for permission to erect 6' fence which woutd exceed the maximum-height require- ment along the front yard, at premises known as 900 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue, NY; Nassau Point Properties Map 763, Lot 11; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-03-06. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:20 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 produced on 7J6/81 by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. indicating the house with an expansive frontyard area, and rearyard of 50~ and running thence approximately 100' intoi~the frontyard area. I have 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? ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- July 28, I9~83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3147 - DAVID AND BONNIE PASCOE, continued:) DAVID PASCOE: Yes, sir. The only point I'd like to make is if any of the board members are interested, I have some photographs which might illustrate why we're considering doing this. MR. CHAIRMAN: We were up there and did look at it. No one was home at the time we were there. Can we have these for the record, Mr. Pascoe? MR. PASCOE: Sure. (Mr. Pascoe gave three photographs for the record.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pascoe, is there any reason why you selected to go 100' into your frontyard? MR. PASCOE: Yes, I think it will effectively, from the living quarters of the house, screen effectively the two houses from each other. I think an extension beyond that would be a pointless exercise. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody wishing to speak against the application? Questions from board.members? (None) Gentlemen, a motion is in order on this one. Would anyone like to make a motion on this? MEMBER SAWICKI: So moved, to approve as applied for. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll second it. Granted as applied for. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellants seek permission to erect a 6' high fence from a point, along the southeasterly side property line from the front of the existing dwelling structure and extending 100' into the yard area in front of the house. Technically, the yard area in front of the house is deemed by the zoning code to be "frontyard" and Article III, Section 100-119B restricts'the height of the fence to be~_.no higher than four feet. The dwelling structure is set back from Haywaters Road approximately 238 feet. If the structure were located approximately 75' from the street/property line, the area along where the proposed 6' high fence is would be considered rear yard area, and where a 6' high fence woul~be per- mitted without a variance. It is also noted for the record that the neighboring residence along the southeasterly side is situated approximately 95' forward of the subject residence, and this similar area would be considered rearyard if they applied for tk~!Same project. It is the opinion of the board that applicants have demonstrated practical difficulties in the development oft his property necessitating the grant of the relief requested. 'Southold Town Board o~ppeals -18- July 28, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3147 - DAVID AND BONNIE PASCOE, continued:) In considering this appeal, the board determines: (1) that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the require- ments of the zoning code; (2) that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellants other than a variance; (3) that the circumstances are unique; (4) that by allowing the variance, no detriment to adjoining properties would be created; (5) that no adverse effects would be produced on available govern- mental facilities of any increased population; (6) that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and (7) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance a.s ~equested. On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3147, application of DAVID AND BONNIE PASCOE for permission to erect a six-foot high fence be and hereby IS APPROVED AS APPLIED IN THE SUBJECT APPLICATION filed June 14, 1983. Location of Property: Nassau Point Properties Lot 11, Map 763; 900 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax.Map Parcel No. 1000- 111-03-06. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3148. Application for ROKE'S MARINA, INC.d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, by A. A. Wickham, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, NY, appealing a decision of the building inspector to vacate Order to Remedy Violation, pursuant to Article XII, Section 100-12tA. Provisions of the Zoning Ordi- nance Appealed: Articles I, 100-13; II, 100-23A; VIII, 100-80(B)- [14][15]; XIV, 100-144(A) [2] (B); XI, 100,118. Location of Property: East Side of New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-117-5-28 and 29. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:28 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and application. MR. CHAIP~N: Miss Wickham. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: You might be tired of hearing variances, so this will give you something else.to think about. It's actually unfortunate I think that.we have to be hear to argue and discuss this case tonight because really I think what happened was, this Spring a dispute arose betweenthe Rokes and their neighbor as to parking of cars along this area on the northwest corner, which resulted in a complaint to the Building Department, and dragged the Building Depart- ment into trying to'settle the dispute. However, I think there are factual legal issues here, ~r issues here that would resolve this case clearly. The Shipyard that we're looking at is without question Southold Town Board o~Appeals -19- July 28, 1~3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:) MISS WICKHAM continued: a nonconforming use to the full extent of the premises. Although they were not able to attend tonight, I have affidavits from Alvin Smith and Michael Wieczorek, who are two prior owners of the shipyard=-if the board would accept them in their action. They merely state that the shipyard was in operation on this entire premises from the period from 1964 to 1972 under their respective ownership. (Miss ~ickham submitted the two affidavits with a copy of a survey.) I can also state of my own personal knowledge that since 1972 when Mr. Wieczorek sold it, the shipyard was used in its entirety as a shipyard, and that encompassed sales and storage with care and maintenance of boats and motors, related, et cetera. This use is continuing without change, and therefore it would not be necessary to implement any site plan or other provisions of the zoning ordinance as required by the order of the building inspector. Section 100-144(A) [3] states that a C/O and ther~efore the other requirements of the code are not necessary Unless there is a change in the use of a nonconforming use. We don't have that here. We have merely a continuation of that use. Section 100-13 defines a noncon- forming use as the use of a building or, and I quote, "a tract of land" or both. So the use would extend to the property, not to any particular portion of it. And 100-118 indicates that a lawful use of the building on the premises may be continued. There is also quite a bit of case law in New York State, which supports this argument. The building inspector did state an expansion.of use. I don't know any facts that could support that--but even if t~ere were an expansion of the use, the Court of Appeals of New York, and more recently, the Appellate Division, which is the second highest court in New York, have stated that even though there has been an increase of volume of use, it does not mean that the nonconforming use has exceeded its boundaries, and I'd just like to mention those cases. The Court of Appeals' cases, People v. Perkins, 292 N.Y. 329 and the 2d Dept. of the Appellate Divi- sion, which is within our jurisdiction, this portion of New York State, is People v. Bonnerwith, 79 Misc. Reports 2d 242. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. MISS WICKHAM: In summary then since the entire property has been used for these purposes, I don't believe that because a boat is stored on one particular portion or anothe~ it can be said to be a violation. And since the property is a nonconforming use, I believe that it does not fall within the guideline of the code in terms of when a Special Exception, et cetera is needed, unless what's happened takes it out of that section by changing the use or doing something that would terminate in some way the nonconforming use. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there~anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Mr. Miller. ~Southold Town Board of JAppeals -20- July 28, ~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:) JEFF MILLER: Jeff Miller, New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. There can be no doubt that the parking of boats and related equipment on the north side of the driveway of the New Suffolk Shipyard constitutes a new and expanded use of the shipyard property. Affidavits submitted to the Building Department by the vice presi- dent of the New Suffolk Civic Association -- a lifelong resident of the area, as well as a former owner of the shipyard, for more than a decade prior to Mr. Roke's purchase, make this fact perfectly clear. In addition, many other long-term New Suffolk residents have attested to this fact; this is an expanded use of the shipyard. In further agreement is the Southold Town Building Department, which iSsued the applicant an Order to Remedy, which directed him to move the boats and equipment by May 6, 1983. That Order was ignored. The applicant applied for relief from the Order of the Building Inspector well after that date on June 15th. In his application, he contends that the premises have been used in their entirety for boat storage and sales since before the enactment of the zoning ordinance. This is untruee. Furthermore, he states that it was.during recent renovations of the house on the property that the boats and equipment were moved to the northern boundary line. This, too, is untrue. They actually were moved well prior to the renovation immediately following our refusal to sell the Rokes our house. After several offers to pur- chase our residence, which we were unable to accept because of the unavailability of real estate within our price range and the impend- ing birth of our daughter, Mr. Roke stated, and I quote, "If you don't sell me your house, I'm going to have to start parking boats on your property line." Shortly thereafter, between Christmas and New Year's~ he acted on his threat and parked first, one large cabin cruiser, then a sm~aller boat, a trailer and a saw horse sign in a line along our southern boundary. Construction on his house didn't begin until several months later. Regarding the contention of his appeal that the applicant would incur a financial hardship if he were required to comply with the order, we respectfully submit that moving the boats and equipment now in violation of the zoning ordinance to an accepted site on the premises would involve no expense whatsoever. Moving the boats is not even mentioned in his appeal. Instead, he refers to the high cost of obtaining a survey and site plan. Although we realize that it is up to ~his board to determine whether or not this is a valid argument, we feel that the cost of such items should not even enter into the question of hardship; especially since it would be an expense he chose to bear over the simplier and cost-free task of immediate compliance. As former shipyard owners have verified, there ~s absolutely no need to utilize the small northwest section of the shipyard property for storage or sales. There is a great deal of available 'Southold Town Board of~ Appeals -21- July 28, ~83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:) MR. MILLER continued: space now vacant in areas where boats have traditionally been stored. Therefore, we believe that the new practice of parking boats and equipment along our lot line can be attributed to pressure tactics and spite, not hardship or established usage. Furthermore, we also object to the dslaying tactics used by the applicant in avoiding compliance. The boats and equipment, as well as the illegal sign as per Section 100-110A of the Town Code, have been stored in violation since before January 1, 1983. We have had to endure this unsightly and dangerous situation for some 8 months, yet still the applicant has made an effort only to gst the Order to Remedy vacated, not to apply for the necessary variance for continued usage of the area in question. Anyone familiar with baots including former shipyard owners have agrees that this is a hazardous condition. Boats with gas tanks are parked no more than 12 feet from our house and three feet from our property line, in violation of Section 100-114 of the Town Code, which prohibits in all districts any fire hazard or anything which might cause injury, annoyance or disturbance to surrounding properties and their occupants. For the past eight months, when looking out of our living room windows, we have been unable to see anything but a cabin cruiser which rises nearly to the height of our second-story windows. This is an annoyance and a disturbance inasmuch as this particular boat obstructs our view. Also, it is not impossible that a boat could catch fire or topple over onto our property, damaging our house and anyone in its path. We submit that a neighboring property owner should not have to endure these hazards and that the town is obligated to protect the health, welfare and safety of its residents by prohibiting this new use. Also, there can be no doubt that the new storage area will have a negative effect on our property value. A legal precedent was set by this board under Appeal 9825, Strong's Marina, Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. In 1971, the ZBA approved outdoor storage of boats at the marina with the conditions that they not be stored closer than 25 feet to any property line. To disregard our plea that the same conditions be imposed at the New Suffolk Shipyard, we feel would be inconsistent on the part of this board. We ask for the same protection granted the neighbors of Strong's Marina. At the time of the board's decision, Strong's Marina was an existing shipyard and boat storage facility. Additional boat storage was considered an expansion of use by this board. As an analogy, we point to the case of a restaurant that suddenly decides to set up tables and begin serving in an area of its lot not previously used for food service. The fact that the entire parcel may be zoned business does not give its owners the inherent right to expand their seating capacity -- say along a neighboring lot line, at their own discretion. Such a move would Southold Town Board of~'~ppeals -22- July 28, 1~83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:) MR. MILLER continued: require site plan approval by the Planning Board at the very least. In closing, we respectfully urge this board to verify that the recent storage and sale of boats and equipment in said location does in fact constitute a new use, and to enforce the Order to Remedy with all possible haste. Furthermore, we strenuously object to the issuance of any variance or approval that would circumvent this order to comply. I'd like to submit the transcript of this as well as photographs of the situation. (Mr. Miller submitted a three-page transcript and nine photographs of the subject premises and storage area for the record.) Also, a 26-name petition signed by area residents protest- ing the extension of the shipyard. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Miller. MISS WICKHAM: May I ask Mr. Miller a question about them? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller, would you stand at the mike please. MISS WICKHAM: I see a picture of a brown car here nex~ to the fence on the shipyard property. Is that your car? MR. MILLER: Yes, it is. MISS WICKHAM: Thank you. I see a blue car on the shipyard property next to the fence in the area in dispute. Is that your car? MR. MILLER: Yes, partially on their property. MISS WICKHAM: Partially on who else~s property? MR. MILLER: Mine. MISS WICKHAM: Your property extends southward of the fence? MR. MILLER: Yes, it does. MISS WICKHAM: There's another photograph here with two cars-- a brown ca~ and a blue car on the shipyard line there. Are those your cars? MR. MILLER: Yes they are. MISS WICKHAM: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Regarding them, if I may speak aqain. MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly. MR. MILLER: Cars of the owners of my house have been parked ~Southold Town Board o~Appeals -23- July 28, i~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:) MR. MILLER continued: there since the house was built in 1940. This has been attested to by forme~ owners and area residents and former shipyard owners. We are currently researching a move to establish a restrictive easement on that narrow strip that has caused all this hullabaloo. MR. CHAIRMAN: How much of an area would you say that would be, Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER: Fifty square feet at the mos~, which we offered to purchase but were turned down~ They said"if you want that, sell me your house." MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller, there's one picture here that reflects debris. Could you tell me where on the southeast property line? MR. MILLER: That's right on the property line behind my house and right on the line between the two houses. That was the condition I would say for, up until very recently there is still open storage-- open garbage cans have been on the lot line--things have not improved on that location since they moved in. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak against this application? Please state your name, Ma'am. MARY FERGUSON: I'm Mary Ferguson and I live on the north side of the Miller property between Withers, Millers and the boatyard. I've been a resident here at that property for 29 years, and for the 29 years that I have been there, most boat owners, whom I have seen come and go, have kept that property in an Orderly manner. Now since the new owners took the property, they ha~e parked boats right along the side of Miller's property. They have put trailers along side of Miller's property which never has been done in all the 29 years I have lived there. And to me I think that is a terrible hazard, and the debris that's piled in the back which stayed clean that they have not enough available space while they're renovating-- if they would remove the debris or use the open stalls, they would have had no problem to store boats next to the Millers~ property. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, ma'am. Would anybody else like to speak against the application? Miss Wickham, do you have anything in rebuttal? MISS WICKHAM: I think Mr. Miller's comments and his pictures illustrate that this is in fact a neighborly dispute that should be settled as he admitted in the Courts in terms of who has the right to use that property and not drag it into the building department and the ZBA. The law is very clear, and in fact the case I gave you, people v. Perkins directly addresses the issue of expansion, whether boats were ever stored ~here befare or not is not the issue. The issue is that the entire property was used as the shipyard and they were stored at various places throughout the shipyard during that period. ~Southold Town Board o~'~Appeals -24- July 28, I9~8~3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:) MS. WICKHAM continued: When Mr. Miller bought the property, he new there was a shipyard there, and I can't see that he is getting into anything that he didn't know as there ahead of time. Section 100-114 on the other items he mentioned regarding safety and fire hazard were not cited by the building inspector as a violation. I would think that if they were, he would have certainly mentioned it. As to Strong's Marina, he did not show that they were the same circumstances that it was a nonconforming use and that the storage issue was in any way related. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MRS. FERGUSON: May I say something. Again I say, at no time in all the 29 years that I have lived there, I have ever seen a boat next to the property that Miller lives in now. When Miller bought the property, there were other owners in that boatyard. The people that haven't were not there. And had he seen the condition that he sees now, I'm sure that he would not have bought that property. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller. MR. MILLER: I underscore that heartily, plus the issue of cars never came up until well after this whole situation happened when Mr. Roke bought the shipyard. Even before he was in I was made an offer on the house which I could not accept not being able to find one. It was that that lead to this dispute and nothing else. The parking of boats is nothing but an irritant I feel. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to say anything concerning this application? Mrs. DeMaggio. MRS. DeMAGGIO: I am not an interested party at all. I just have a question and it just comes to mind as a preexisting business use. And I don't know if it's proper to ask it of this board. Since we have a similar situation not in this area--if it's a preexisting use and the property owners come in and this use has existed I understand even before 1954, even though the property owner that comes in changes the position of various vehicles if it were vehicles or boats as it applies and this has not been traditional, why would the board have to rule on it. I don't understand what's happening here. Mr. Lessard, coUld you tell me? Other than a personal dispute- I can see that. But I'm concerned with the nonconforming use because we have been interested in purchasing property with a nonconforming use. We would be new owners in a similar position. MR. LESSARD: What are you asking? MRS. DeMAGGIO: What I am asking you is, why does the Zoning Appeals Board have the right to tell the new owners that they must 'Southold Town Board o~Appeals -25- July 28, ~-~83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:) MRS. DeMAGGIO continued: change the way they want to operate in a nonconforming preexisting use? Would you have that right? I don't know if I'm making that clear. I'll try and say it again. If I were to own this boatyard, assuming I intended to buy it, and I wanted to change the geography but within my lines, I just wanted to change it around, ok? Moving things that normally can be moved, for instance, cars, boats, trailers, or areas related to whatever the preexisting nonconforming use would be. Why would I need to have a ruling by this board before I am allowed to do that? It's very pertinent to a purchase that I intend to make. MS. WICKHAM: I think I can answer that. MR. LESSARD: The law is very specific. It says that a noncon- forming use, if it exists, cannot be expanded. And the question before this board from where I'm sitting is, was it or wasn't it expanded? I'm not about to elaborate one way or the other on that. MRS. DeMAGGIO: That's exactly my question. How are we to find it expanded? Are they going out of their boundary? And that's why I'm asking. I formerly owned a house almost adjacent to this boatyard, so it's a concern to me but not now. I no longer own it. But I'm concerned as to the ruling by this board on expansion. Has there been an expansion is my question. I don't know the situation. So that is what I would like to know. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. DeMagglo, I think you have to bear in mind and some people lose sight of this, and you haven't I don't think, but most people don't realize that we only act upon a disapproval of the building inspector. So in this particular case, we weren't the ones making the determination of what was supposedly violated, or whatever way you would like to state it. So to answer your question, it's really a legal question that I think the Town Attorney should answer. Ok? However, I just want you to be aware that we do some times ask the Town Attorney these questions, and-- MRS. DeMAGGIO: I thought it might be. I was just concerned with another property which we intend to purchase, and I know that there's always some sort of a residual when a new owner comes in and asks for the preexisting nonconforming use, and that's what I wanted a~ ruling on, whether you have the right to rule on whether in fact it was an expansion. And .that would be a legal question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MRS. DeMAGGIO: Ok. I'm sorry I've taken your time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other statements from either side concerning this application? Ok, hearing no further questions, I'll ask the board members if they have any questions? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. ~Southold Town Board o~ppeals -26- July 28, 19~3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:) On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the h~aring and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal' No. 3148, for ROKE'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. TEMPORARY RECESS: On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to*recess temporarily for approximately five minutes, at which time the Regular Meeting would be reconvened. *8:54 9:05 p.m.) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING: At 9:05 p.m., the meeting was reconvened, after motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Doyen, to RECONVENE THE REGULAR MEETING. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3149. Application of PHILIP FRUMENTI, 3825 Stars Road, East Marion, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct carport in the frontyard area, at 3825 Stars Road, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Not 1000-022-06-026. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:05 o'clock p.m, and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone wishing to speak in behalf of this application? PHILIP FRUMENTI: It's what you have said there. I have no other place where I can put the carport except where it is now in that driveway. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Frumenti, is there any reason why you can't push the carport back a little bit farther? MR. FRUMENTI: A few reasons. One of the reasons is that I have some huge white pines right behind there. I also store some of my work-.equipment in that general area. If I moved that, I'm stuck. That's about the only place I have. ~Southold Town Board of~ppeals -27- July 28, I9~3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3149 - PHILIP FRUMENTI, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: You couldn't go back any farther than eight feet? You couldn't push it back a little bit father than that? MR. FRUMENTI: I mean, the carport itself from the existing road would be set back to the front of the carport, it's 20 feet. So really it isn't all that close to the road. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is an open carport, is that correct? MR. FRUMENTI: Yes. MR. FRUMENTI: It's just going to be posts and a roof, just to keep a car under it. Because even when I brought her home, my first car, and already some things fell on it and they stained the hood and I can't get it off. That's what made me want to build the carport. MR.CHAIRMAN: Ail right. I thank you. Would anybody else like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? (None) Questions from board mem- bers? (None) The carport has to be built lengthwise, it couldn't be built across the lot in any way? Like adjacent or parallel to the walk? So as to enter it in the same driveway that you would be entering it from, but more in the area of the middle of the property? MR. FRUMENTI: Everything is getting a little tight in there nOW. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. FRUMENTI: Really it's not in the way of anything, along side of'me there are trees and everything, so it ain't going to be ~ MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hearing no further questions, 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. 3149, for PHILIP FRUMENTI. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board ~ Appeals -28- July 28,-~1983 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3150. Application of JACK AND LEE LEFKOWITZ, (F.J. Christie, and wife, owners), 25 Downing Avenue, Sea Cliff, NY 11579 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct one-family dw, elling with an insufficient frontyard setback, at premises located on a private right-of-way off the north side of Summit Drive, which premises also fronts along ~the south side of Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck, Cpt. Kidd's Estates, Part of Lot 11; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-106-01-042.1. Ths Chairman opened the hearing at 9:10 o'clock p.m. and r~ad the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli- cation. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey produced on April 6, 1983 indicating part of Lot #11, or Lot #11 as it stands at 25,620 square feet. The house in question is to lie approximately 20 feet from the west property line, 29 feet from the east property line and 35 feet from the right-of-way. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Would someone like to be heard in behalf of this application? JACK LEFKOWITZ: As I stated in my application, it's a unique piece of property. It's an interior piece of property that has three frontyards, if it weren't for the right-of-way at west- erly boundary line,at{ would not be in violation of any of the requirements of setbacks. Insomuch as I do touch Sound Beach Drive, it is the actual frontyard although I can't have access through there because of the topography. The right-of-way off of Summit creates two additional frontyards. I'm asking to lean on the westerly boundary so that I can set the house in the proximity as shown on the site plan. I_must say, according to the site plan it shows the sanitary system in one location, but on the approved Health Department survey~ the sanitation is on the westerly-- I mean on the easterly side. MR. CHAIRMAN: You said we had a copy of that--do we have a copy of that? SECRETARY: Not the Health Department location. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mine still shows the west. MR. LEFKOWITZ: No, that's not the approved location. I thought they were attached. (Mr. Lefkowitz submitted a copy of survey indicating the located of the well and septic system as approved by' the ~ealth Department 5-12-83, ~13-SO-60.) There actually is a well from the adjacent rear southerly property in the southwest corner which necessitates moving the sanitary ~or this particular house further to the east. MR. CHAIRMAN: The setbacks aren't the same on this one, Mr. Lefkowitz, as they are on this. MR. LEFKOWITZ: This is the sketch, an~ this was the site Southold Town Board ~ Appeals -29- July 28,~ ~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3150 - JACK AND LEE LEFKOWITZ, continued:) MR. LEFKOWITZ continued: pl'an actually submitted, and the only difference would be that it shows a 35' minimum and the actual would be about 40' from the~ what would be my rear line, but also the-- from the right-of-way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this traditionally a one or two story house, Sir? MR. LEFKOWITZ: It's two-story in part and one-story house in part. It will definitely be a two-story house. The southerly portion of the house will be two stories. The portion facing north will be one. MR. CHAIRMAN: So it's built into the land. MR. LEFKOWITZ: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, I may have more questions in a few minutes. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Kindly state your name, Sir. W. KARTSONIS. W. Kartsonis, I'm the owner of the adjacent lot, Number 10, or number 48 on the new development--I can't describe it exactly. Number 10 or number 48. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have it on the Suffc!k County Tax Map as #48. MR. KARTSONIS: I do object to Mr. Lefkowitz because the law should be a law. It's written in the books and we should be restricted if there is a law to build at 35 feet from the easement; we should be very strict and we bought the lots. I have the lot in the area which I would like to use and the way he is.trying to build, he is going to destroy my view there and he would create problems with the neighbors also. Also with the Lot Numbered 10 which is I think 42--if Mr. Lefkowitz, you grant the variance, I would have another problem with Lot I think it's forty-- would it be easier-- with Lot 41. He would also ask for a variance and then I would not have any view at all. I bought the lot in order to have a view. Let him build on his lot all the way down to the beach. They have plenty of room to go all the way down to the beach. Why do they want to build it back 20 feet--still 35 from the easement. I do protest and it's up to you to decide. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you sit down, Mr. Kartsonis, this is highly irregular but I'll ask Mr. Lessard. What is the restriction from the actual bluff line an individual would have to be away from--minimum? MR. LESSARD: We have no set ruling on that, but we go along with the D.E.C. and ask them for at least 75' if it's possible. If it's possible. Southold Town Board ~ Appeals -30- July 28~ 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3150 - JACK AND LEE LEFKOWITZ, continued:) MR. LEFKOWITZ: I think there may be a misunderstanding here; I'm not sure that you understand what I am. asking for (to Mr. Kartsonis) . I'm not putting the house bac~. MR. KARTSONIS: I have the survey. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we do this? Maybe I could keep this hearing going and you two gentlemen could go outside and discuss that and then you could come back and we'll reconvene this hearing approximately ten minutes later. I think that would help. MR. LEFKOWITZ: Yes, I think there is a misunderstanding. MR. KARTSONIS: You will let us say another objection -- or somebody else? MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, definitely. No question about it. I'll take everybody in a first round now and then I'll recess the hearing and we'll come back. How's that? MR. KARTSONIS: Ok. MR. LEFKOWITZ: Fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, would you kindly step us to the mike if you wouldn't mind and state your name? MR. GEORGE DEI.MATROULES: Yes, my name is George Delmatroules. I'm the owner of the lot exactly south of Mr. Lefkowitz. I'm building a home'there. I would say I'm about 90% finished with this home. I'm building a home exactly the way I was told by law, by code, by everything, and now this house Mr. Lefkowitz wants to build, Mr. Lefkowitz.wants to build it closer towards me to ruin that view that I so much admire and that's the reason why I'm building in Mattituck? I don't think it's fair. I went by law. I should everybody should go by the same law since it'~s the same area, same country, same town, same everything. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, I thank you for your comments, Sir. Maybe you could meet with Mr. Lefkowitz and see if there is anyway we could resolve this issue. MR. LESSARD: There seems to be confusion between the south line and the west lines. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. Would you like to -- MR. LESSARD: If you will put into your mind in looking straight north is the water. Then from that point figure your south line, his south line is on the right-of-way. Your north line is on the right-of-way. Do you understand that? MR. DELMATROULES: Right, Sir. Southold Town Board ~ Appeals (Appeal No. 3150 - JACK AND LEE LEFKOWITZ, continued:) MR. LESSARD: He's not asking for back and forth that way. asking for an easement from the west side. MR. LEFKOWITZ: I'll take him outside and show him. -31- July 28/~i983 Regular Meeting He's MR. LESSARD: With that in mind, please go outside and have a ball. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you go, I'll have to make a motion. I make a motion to recess this hearing for approximately ten minutes for the purpose of reviewing. ~EMBER DOUGLASS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3150, application of JACK AND LEE LEFKOWITZ, be recessed for approximately ten minutes. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. The Chairman proceeded with the next public hearing as follows: PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3152. Application of JOHN ANTONIOU, 155 East Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-34 for permission to_construct deck addition with an insufficient frontyard setback, at 155 East Road, Mattituck, NY; Cpt. Kidd's Estates Map 1672, Lot 111; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-106-03-009. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:26 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli- cation. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a letter from William J. Athos, M.D. submitted in the record recommending limited activities. I have a copy of a sketch indicating a proposed reduction in the frontyard to 22.9 feet leaving--having a deck in front of the dwelling of approximately 12' in width, 9' on the west side and four feet on the east side. Is there somebody that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Would you state your name, please? JOE ANTONIOU: My name is Joe Antoniou and I'm the son. I would like to say that I want to build a deck because my father is not all that well and is not supposed to be straining himself and having a deck on the east and the west side seems to have no problem with the zoning. But having the deck in the front has to be 35' from the road. The way the house is, like 34'10" from the road, so there, and we can't build a porch or patio, deck according to the zoning laws. I was hoping you could allow us to build ~he deck. Southold Town Board~6~ Appeals -32- July 28,~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3152 - JOHN ANTONIOU, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you a question? Will the deck always remain as an open deck and never be enclosed or covered with a roof? MR. ANTONIOU: No, it will be a deck. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. 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. 3152, for JOHN ANTONIOU. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3154. Application of HENRY AND VIRGINIA STEINBRECHER, 1525 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition with an insufficient frontyard setback, at 1525 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue, NY; Nassau Point Subdivision, Section D, Map 806, Lot 333; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-4-12. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:28 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli- cation. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey indicating this property and the proposed addition, and I also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties. BRUCE HERBERT: I'm Bruce Herbert with Beachwood Contractors for Mr. and Mrs. Steinbrecher. As you can see on the map, it will give us an insufficient setback of 35' in the front. I have the plans to the house which I could show you, which would be inaccessible to any other area of the house, without unreasonably cutting down the size of the existing bedrooms that are already there. They have an existing hallway.~in use now. MR. CHAIRMAN: What are you doing, are you elongating this bedroom or making another bedroom? MR. HERBERT: No, it's a separate bedroom. It's going 16' and the 21' length, to stay in conformity with the house. MR. CHAIRMAN: The addition is 16' by 21' Southold Town Board ~'~ Appeals -33- July 28,~1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3154 - HENRY AND VIRGINIA STEINBRECHER, continued:) MR. HERBERT: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you leave this with us for two minutes, and at the end of the hearing we'll run out and make a copy and give it to you before you leave. Ok? MR. HERBERT: Fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Herbert, what is the purpose of the third bedroom? MR. HERBERT: His sister is going to come live with them. There's no other place. She is going to come and live with them and they need the extra'bedroom. They have a son living with them now~and so they have the Master Bedroom and the other bedroom. MR. CHAIRMAN: And you find ~here is no other possible loca- tion for this? MR. HERBERT: Not really. Not without going through one of the existing bedrooms which would, really diminish the size, and then the Master Bedroom-it cuts off the access to the Master Bedroom. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you very much. ls there anybody] else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? WILLIAM JACOBS: My name is William Jacobs and I have the property adjacent to Mrs. Steinbrecher. Of course when you say insufficient frontage on it--he has a corner property, hasn't he? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. MR. JACOBS: Which way is it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to look at the plan, Mr. Jacobs? (Mr. Jacobs came up to review the plan.) MR. CHAIRMAN: The part that is inked in, going towards Haywaters. MR. JACOBS: We intend to build our own house next door with a 50' setback and a circular driveway. I think it would be better if he can find some other way to put the third bedroom, because in Nassau Point I can't see coming out 19' from'~he road. I imagine there must be another way to do it. I'm totally against it. Being next door I think it will take away from property, block my view on a circular driveway and make it dangerous for us to pull out. It's a dangerous road as it is. Southold Town Board 6~ Appeals -34- July 28, '1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3154-HENRY AND VIRGINIA STEINBRECHER, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: When you say next door, you're referring to Lot 334? MR. JACOBS: Right next door. MR. CHAIRMAN: 334. This'lot here. MR. JACOBS: In back, this lot here. MR. CHAIRMAN: 350. Thank you very much. Do you have anything to say in rebuttal, Mr. Herbert? MR. HERBERT: Yes, I do. Mr. Jacobs' lot is located--this house on Haywaters is located on a hill. He has the adjoining lot, I would say to the south, which is higher elevation--whereas if he built a house, She's going~to.~be looking aut over the top of the roof of this house anyway. The road is a normally dangerous road anyway, and if you know that, and if~2you're going to put a circular driveway in~'you'll have access either way. In and out of the driveway, either at the top of the hill or the side. Now this house is a preexisting house. It's not a new house. If it was a new house, we'd have the setback to 35' with no problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Jacobs. MR. JACOBS: My lot, I know, is 342' long, three-quarters of an acre in Nassau Point, and I feel anything at 19' from the road is nowhere-I shouldn't say no where in Nassau Point, but it shouldn't be allowed 19' from'the road, because it surely won't make my property worth anything. You definitely couldn't sell a house or anything like that with somebody next door to you out at 19 feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Herbert? MR. HERBERT: Mr Jacobs has inquired that there should be no other setbacks on Nassau Point beyond the 35' limit. If you'd look around, you'd find a lot of them. MR. JACOBS: Agreed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, gentlemen° Any~'further comments from anyone? Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision. 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. 3154, for HENRY AND V. STEINBRECHER. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Gri~onis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was.unanimously adopted. Southold Town 'Board of Appeals -35- July 28, 1~983 Regular Meeting RECONVENED PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3150. Application of JACK AND LEE'LEFKOWITZ, (F.J. ChriStie and wife, owners). Recessed from Page. 31, supra. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Le~kowitz, did you wish to add concerning your meeting outside? MR. LEFKOWITZ: I think I clarified the actual variance that I am seeking with the adjacent property owners. I think if they, and they have to of course speak for themselves, because they are sufficiently understanding that I am~not bringing the house back, that the variance was a side variance that I was requesting, and that I am not infringing on either of their properties. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. While you are up there, before you leave now, we're talking about a minimum 35' from the right-of-way. Is that correct? MR. LEFKOWITZ: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Twenty feet from the west side. Twenty-nine feet from the east side. The only deviation with have here is the sketch plan, which shows the sanitary system now on the east side rather than the west side. MR. LEFKOWITZ: Correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. But this is the correct position of the sanitary system--55 feet. MR. LEFKOWITZ: Yes, that's the approved position bythe Health Department. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you very much. Mr. Kartsonis, is there something you would like to say, Sir? MR. KARTSONIS: Excuse us, but we were misinformed. That's 10' you're going west? MR. LEFKOI~ITZ~ -We're .not moving the house. The house is just standing at exactly the position--it will have a 20' side- yard, which is more than the requirement but less than a fron~yard requirement, so 'I'm not actually moving the house. Twenty feet from the sideyard, a minimum of 35' from the rearyard. MR. KARTSONIS: The gentleman, inspector, he also mentioned something that he would make some part of the easement off, order to make there like a corner lot, and this being irregular houses-- MR. LESSARD: That's the law. MR. KARTSONIS: That's the law? Southold Town Board o~t Appeals -36- July 28, -i983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3150 JACK AND LEE LEFKOWITZ, continued:) MR. LESSARD: That's the law, period. MR. KARTSONIS: You will definitely take this piece out--the easement, from Mr. Lefkowitz. MR. LESSARD: The law s~ys the right-of-way goes only to the property. That's it. MR. KARTSONIS: And this is really not in_existence? MR. LESSARD: Once you get to your property, what you do after that, as long as you stay on your own property, I don't want to know about it. MR. KARTSONIS: Ok. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments? 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. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. 3150, for JACK AND LEE LEFKOWITZ. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This re'solution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3137. Upon application for DAYSMAN MORRIS, by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Main Road, Southold, NY.for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60(A) & (B) to store materials in the open area upon this parcel, zoned "B-Light Business." Location of Property: 405 Kirwin Boulevard, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-53-02-006. The public hearing on this matter was held on June 23, 1983, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board finds and determines as follows: By this appeal, appellant seeks a variance to the provisions of Section 100-60 (A) & (B) of the Zoning Code to permit the use of property located in the "B-Light Business" District for the purpose of outside storage of cesspool rings, covers, cone tops, and related material and equipment. Ail of the members of this board have personally visited the site and are familiar with the property as well as the surrounding neighbor- hood. The property in question is shown on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 53, Block 02, Lot 006. It comprises .802 of southold Town Board c~-~Appeals -37- July 28, 19~ J Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3137 - DAYSMAN MORRIS, continued:) an acre and is bounded on the north by parcels most of which are improved with residences, on the west by Kirwin Boulevard and west of Kirwin Boulevard by parcels zoned "C-Light Industrial"; on the south by the L.I.R.R. and south of the L.I.R.R. by "A-Residential and Agricultural" Districts; and on the east by "A-Residential and Agri- cultural'' Districts. The subject parcel and parcels in the immediate area north of the L.I.R.R. are lots which have been created by the May 19, 1933 Subdivision of "Peconic Bay Estates." For the record~ it is noted that the site in question is not improved. It is also noted that the parcel identified as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 53, Block 02, Lot 023 located across the boulevard and catty-cornered from the subject site, was improved with a one-family dwelling pursuant to Appeal No. 2679, variance for Raymond and Anna Ciacia, dated April 10, 1980. Town records show that the premises was purchased on 12/3/80 in the amount of $5,000. Dollars and cents proof is. necessary to show that the property in question can't yield a reasonable return and which has not. been presented. Since this is a use variance, before this board may grant the same, it must be demonstrated that (1) the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for the purpose of the zone in which it is located; (2) that the plight of the owner is due to uniaue circumstances and not to the general conditions of the neighborhood which may reflect the unreason- ableness of the zoning ordinance itself; and (3) that the use to be authorized to be used for the variance will not alter the essential~character of the neighborhood. In order for the Appellant to sustain his burden to prove the lack of reasonable return, he. must demonstrate this lack of reasonable return by dollars and cents proof. No such proof has been presented in this case and, accordingly, the board must deny the variance applied for. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3137, application for DAYSMAN MORRIS, be and hereby is DENIED. Location of Property: 405 Kirwin Boulevard, Greenport, NY; Lots 165-167, inclusive, of Subdivision of Peconic Bay Estates; County Tax Map. Parcel No. 1000-53-02'006. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ~outhold Town Board of ~peals -38- July 28, 19~_jRegular Meeting CORRESPONDENCE: Appeal No. 3134 - HANS H. RIEGER. The board is in receipt of correspondence dated July 18, 1983 from Mr. Rieger for reconsideration of his proposed accessory build- lng in the frontyard, 13 feet from Harbor Road. The board discussed Mr. Rieger's letter and the board's decision rendered July 8, 1983, which restricted the accessory building to be no closer than 33 feet from the front property line along Harbor Road. It was the consensus of the board members not to rehear, reconsider, modify, change or amend the July 8, 1983 decision, and the secretary was instructed to send a letter to Mr. Rieger informing him of the above. CORRESPONDENCE: Appeal No. 3142 - GRACE E. KENNEY. Mr. and Mrs. Kenney submitted an amendment to the proposal and variance granted by this board on June 23, 1983 in Appeal No. 3142, which placed the garage structure accessory to the main dwelling in the frontyard area in a similar location however 6' from the side property line. The board noted the figures did not add up properly when scaling the setback from the front property line and comparing same with the originat plan (of 6/23/83). The board authorized the secretary to call.the Kenney's and advise them of the above and that since the garage was now an accessory structure, different sections of the code would apply and therefore would have to be resubmitted through the building department for new consideration. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Douglass~ seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the minutes of the following meetings be and hereby are approved: June 14, 1983 Special Meeting May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting July 8, 1983 Special Meeting June 23~. 1983 Regular Meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to.declare the following Negat~ ~Dvironmental Declara- tions pursuant to Ch. 44 of the. Town Code and Par~ 61'7 pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environ- mental Conservation Law, on each of the following matters, for the reasons stated therefor: Southold Town Board o~.Appeals -39- July 28, ]~3 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) APPEAL NO.: ~109 PROJECT NAME: ~utchogue Free Library 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, pleas~ 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: Special Exception "Use" of Addition for Library. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: North Side of Main Road, Cutchogue, 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 project be implemented as planned. (2) Project is not located within 300 feet of critical environmental area. APPEAL NO.: 3110 PROJECT NAME: Cutchogue Free Library 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: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance - setbacks of proposed addition. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: North Side of Route 25, Cutchogue, NY; REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETER~INATION: (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 imp!~mented as planne&.) Project is not located within 300 feet of critical environmental area; ~Southold Town Board of'~ppeals -40- July 28, 1987 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) APPEAL NO.: 3160 PROJECT NAME: A. DELANEY 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: Garage in frontyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: particularly known as: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY. R~ASON[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 environmen~ are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. APPEAL NO.: 3157 PROJECT NAME: DIMITRIOS PANGIANNAKIS 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: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Re-separate parcels. [ ] LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particu~larly known as: Stars Road, East Marion, 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 project be imp!~mented as planned. (2) Project is not located within 300' of critical environmental area; Southold Town Board ¢' ~Appeals -41 July 28, 1~3 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued: ) APPEAL NO.: 3153 PROJECT N~4E: ~.lizabet~. Schwieger and. Margaret Murray This no~ice 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 tha~ this declaration should not be consider.ed 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: Divide 4.7 acres into three parcels with existing dwellings/buildings. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: East side of Light House Road, Southold. 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 ptann~. Project is not within 300' of critical environmental area. APPEAL NO.: 3155 PROJECT NAME: RICHARD REUNIS This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law 944-4) 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 no~ be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project~ use · TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Tennis Cour~ and Fencing as an accessory LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southotd, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Beebe Drive, Cutchogue; 1000-103-3-4. 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) D.E.C. Permit Letter dated June 27, 1983 has been submitted. Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -42- July 28, I~3 Regular Meeting '(Environmental Declarations, continued:) APPEAL NO.: 3156 PROJECT NAME: WILLIAM AND LINDA ZINGARO 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: Hedge over 4' along frontyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: particularly known as: Town of Southotd, County of Suffolk, more Peauash Avenue and Main Road, Cutchogue. 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) Project is not within 300' of critical environmental area. APPEAL NO.: 3158 PROJECT NAME: CHARLES AND CLAIRE WOOLLEY 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: Garage in frontyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Private Road ~12 at Bayvlew, Southold. 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 imp!~mented as plann~ Project is not seaward of existing buildings. ~Southold Town Board of'~ppeals -43- July 28, 10Q3 Regular Meeting '(Environmental Declarations, continued:) APPEAL NO.: 3161 PROJECT NAME: PETER LUHRS 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: Special Exception - public garage use. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: C.R. 48, Southold. REASON(.S) .SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates tha~ no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) Project is not located within 300' of critical environmental area. APPEAL NO.: 3162 PROJECT NAM_E: T.J. LUKAS 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: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for off-premises-advertising. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Seuthold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 69700 Main Street, Greenport, 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 project be implemented as plann~) Project is not located within 300' of critical environmental area. ~Southold Town Board o.~ppeals -44- July 28, 1~, Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. NEW HEARINGS FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Doug- lass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the following applications be and hereby ARE SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS to be held at the next Regular Meet- lng of this board, to wit, August 31, 1983, commencing at 7:30 o'clock p.m. to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary is hereby directed to advertise the notices of each application for public hearing in both the local and official newspapers, pursuant to law: 7:30 p.m. 7:35 p.m. 7:40 p.m. 7:45 p,.m. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3164 - John & M. Clavin. Accessory Building, frontyard/sideyard. Fishers Island. (filed this evening) Appeal No. 3153 - Schwieger and Murray. Three-lot proposal. 4.754 acres. Lighthouse Road, Southold. Appeal No. 3155 - Richard Reunis. Tennis Court and fencing as an accessory use. 1500 Beebe Dr, Cutch. Appeal No. 3156 - William and Linda Zingaro. Hedge over 4' in frontyard along Pequash Ave, Cutchogue. Appeal No. 3157 - Dimitrios Papgiannakis (by D. Kapell) Two lot merger-reseparation. Stars Road, East Marion. 7:55p.m. Appeal No. 3158 - Charles and Claire Woolley. Acces- sory garage in frontyard. Private Road ~12 at Bayvlew, Southold. 8:00 p.m. 8:05 p.m. 8:10 p.m. 8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3160 A. Delaney. Accessory garage frontyard. Pecontc Bay Blvd, Laurel. Appeal No. 3161 - Peter Luhrs. Repair/Public Garage in B-1 Zone by Special Exception. C.R. 48, Southold (west of VanDuzer's). Appeal No. 3162 - T.J. Lukas. Ground sign advertising off-premises-business. Main Rd, Greenport (opposite LILCO property on S/s Main Road) Appeal No. 3110 - CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY - Variance as to setbacks for proposed addition. Main Rd, Cutch. 8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3109 - CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY - Special Exception for use of addition as library. ,Southold Town Board of~ppeals (New Hearings, continued:) -45- July 28, 15~ Regular Meeting Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonls, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. TENTATIVE DATE FOR NEXT SPECIAL MEETING: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to schedule Wednesday, August 17, 1983 tentatively at 1:30 p.m. as the date and time of a Special M~eting of the board to be held at Fishers Island, at the Fishers Island School, for the purpose of transacting business matters properly coming before the board at that time. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution~was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: . Flood-Law Appeal No. 14. Upon application for ORIENT-EAST MARION PARK DISTRICT, by Garrett A. Strang, 54655 Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Floodplain Management Law, Chapter 46, Sections 46-7 and 46-18B for permission to construct sanitary facilities with first floor below the minimum required flood elevation level. Location of Property: North Side of Main Road, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-017-05-006 and part of 007; 1000-023-02- part of 001 and 003. The public hearing on this application was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The boardmade the following findings and ~determination: By this application, applicant seeks permission to construct the first floor of the proposed sanitary building at an elevation of 6'-7" above mean sea level, at variation from the required 12 feet above mean sea level in this A-10 Flood Zone. The premises in question is located~t the northerly side of Main Road, Orient. The ground elevation in the area of the proposed construction at approximately 6.5 feet as shown on survey prepared June .6, 1983 by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. The building is to be located at the southwest corner of the premises, approximately 20' from the westerly side line and 40' from the front property line at its nearest point. The only improvements existing on the premises in question is a small "ticket booth." For the record, it is noted that applicant has received approvals from: (1) the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation on July 8, 1983, under Permit ~10-83-0681, and (2) the County Department of Health Services May 26, 1983 under Permit Ref. No. EM-9. In passing upon this application, the board has considered Southold Town Board o~j~ppeals -46- July 28, 1< ~3 Regular Meeting (FL-14, ORIENT-EAST MARION PARK DISTRICT, continued:) all technical evaluations; all relevant factors; all standards speci- fied in the Code; and all of the applicable factors contained in Section 46-15B, subdivisions (1) through (11), inclusive, of the Code. The board further finds and determines that: (1) there is a good and sufficient cause for the grant of this variance; (2) a failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; (3) the grant of a variance will not result ~n increased flood heights, or additional threats to public safety, or extraordinary public expense, or conflict with existing local laws or rules or regulations. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the ORIENT-EAST MARION PARK DISTRICT, applicant herein, be and hereby is GRANTED a Variance from the Provisions of the Flood. Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southold to construct the lowest (first) floor at 6'-7" above mean sea level at premises identified as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 017, Block 05, Lots 001 and 002 (combined); and located at. the'north side of Main Road, Orient, NY; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions of Section 46-16F of the Code, the applicant is hereby given notice that the structure for which this variance is granted will be permitted to be built with the lowest floor elevation below the base flood elevation as requested and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor elevation; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary to this Board transmit copies of this determination to the applicant and to the Town Building Inspector. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Being there was no further business properly coming before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, .... -~ .... L~da F. Kowalski, Secretary ~/APPROVED - ~ ~~/. ~ Southold Town Board of ApP~e~'l~ Gerard P. Goehringe~'. Chairman