Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/15/1979Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE 1516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN,JR. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERTJ. DOUGLASS ¢ Aot'~n(~ Chairman MINUTES SOUTHOLD TO$~N BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 15, 1979 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on November 15, 1979 at 7:30 P,M, (E.S.T.) at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Messrs. Robert J. Douglass~ Acting Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Terry R. Tuthill, Jr.; and Serge Doyen Jr. and Robert W, Tasker, Town Attorney. RECE$S~ED HEARING: Appeal No. 2574. Application of Raymond and Anna ~iacia, Hain Road, Gregnport, New York (James Bitses, Esq.) for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Sec- tion i00~80 for permission to divide property with insufficient area and widtk. Location of property: Lots No. 157 - 160, in- clusive, Map of Peconic Bay Estabes, 91124, Greenport, New York. The subject hearing was reconvened at 7:40 P.M. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a request that it be further recessed until December 6, 1979 because of not obtaining all the needed papers for rendering a decision. Qn motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it ~as RESOLVED, that the matter of RAYMOND and ANNA CIACIA, Appeal No. 2574, be RECESSED until December 6, 1979. Vo.te of the Board: Ayes: hiil a~dDo~en, Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tut- RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2587. Application of Stephen ~. Perrzcone and Penelope Kousouros, 7470 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, N~ew York for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -2- November 15, 1979 Section 100-60 for permission to establish a disco bar with dancing. Location of property: Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York; bounded north by Sound Avenue, east by Sepko, south and west by Meglio. MR. DOUGLASS: This was recessed for further information. We have received more papers that wererequested. At this moment, I would Like to say this is a hearing and we want those who desire to be heard, we would like to control the length of time in the beginning to say around three minutes per person, and then after- ~ards if there is anythirgthat he would like to say, we will come back to him. At this time why I will open the hearing to any of those who wish to speak in favor of this and to the applicant, Mr. Perricone. STEVE PERRICONE: First of all, I would like to introduce my partners, Artie Foster and Frederick Axelson. Mr. Chairman, as yourself and the Board already know, our property and building is and has always been zoned for a restaurant and bar. What we are asking for tonight is the use variance for expanded dancing area and the elimination of the restaurant, because we don~t want to get into restaurants or serving food. We also have a petition that you have in your possession now, with approximately 620 signatures of persons who wish to see the opening of a place such as we propose tonight. Just a little on the disco itself, we also want to have a teen disco which is very popular in the Country today, for teenagers in the age from 12 to 17. All alcoholic beverages will be removed from the bar at this time. During the teen disco hours, no alcoholic beverages will be served anywhere on the premises during this time. Soft drinks such soda, fruit drinks, will be available for the young people. As you know all young people need some place to go. We're proposing to start off with two nights a week, on a Wednesday night from 6 to 9 in the winter and on Sunday from 2 to 7 P.M. In the summer we would like to extend it, say Wednesday from 6 to 9 and possibly Friday from 6 to 9 or 6 to 8:30 and Sunday also from 2 to 7 P.M., just to keep the kids off the street and to give them something to do. Disco is very popular with our teenagers today. A lot of them are into rock music, buta lot of them do like disco music. I visited quite a few discos, one which is in Sag Harbor that does have teen disco~ and it's going over very well in that town. Teenagers, they have 300 to 400 teenagers im this place that holds, say 500 people, and it's very popular. The residents of the town like it to keep the kids off the streets, and it gives them something to do. The adult disco is going to be regulated. We're looking for participation of people from 23 years and over, with proper attire. We don't want anybody coming in with dungarees or dirty clothes, what have you. A disco is different from, say a bar, or a bar with rock music. Disco people~dress a little different. They dress like I'm dressed now, or most of the people dressed here. They're not old rag~y clothes. There won't be any teeshirts allowed. It will be a real nice place as far as that goes. Also at the door we are going to ask for proof j~t to keep the younger people 0u~, to keep it to a 23-year and olde~age. This is what we want, this is how we are going to control it with dress code $outhold Town Board of Appeals -3- November 15~ 1979 and proofing at the door. Now, as far as the material used for the ceilings and the walls as you requested, the dance floor area where music will be is concentrated by directional speakers, the west wall will be of hardward 8 inches of blown-in cellulose com- pacted insulation from 3' above dance floor to the ceiling. The ~est of the wall will be 8" cement block. The north wall which is the longer wall will be 3/8" sheetrock from the dance floor to the ceiling covered with a 1/4" plate glass mirror, from the floor to 8' high with 8" of blown in compacted cellulose insulation also, from 3' above the dance floor will be 8" cement block. The east wall will be the same as the west wall and the remainder will be covered with hardwood and cement block. The entire ceiling of the club will be of 3/8" sheetrock and 6" of batting insulation with two roof vents in the center. Both east and west walls will have directional intake vents to circulate air from the cooling system. This system will work extremely efficiently due to the constant cooling temperatures surrounding the building caused by open moist fields and will eliminate any noise escaping. Inside the club, 80% of the club will be covered with carpeting on the floors. All lounge areas would be of wood and elevated with couches and love sea~s, chairs and tables, indirect lighting and what have you as far as lighting goes. The bar will be 10' x 16", four-sided, con- structed of wood with 7' ceiling and balcony ~above the bar area. As you know, carpeting, fabric covered couches and wood are all noise absorbing materials and will deaden the sound considerably. I think Fred has something to talk about, too. FRED AXELSON: In an effort to satisfy some of the Board's questions they may have regarding noise and how much noise will be going to the outside, this seems to be a big question, so we conducted some tests of our own using a DB me~er, which records sound level. What we did to start this test off is we brought in a stereo system and turned it up quite loud just to get a reference level. The level that we recorded at 1' away from the speakers was 115 DB's. We directed this towards the back end of the building, and I would like to make a note that 98 to approxi- mately 110 DB's is generally what a disco puts out about at one foot away from the speaker. So this was a little higher than probably what would be in a normal disco. To give you a little background on the construction of the building at this time as Steve had mentioned, there are 7-1./2' x 8' windows in that front part of the building. We will be insulating that ~dch better which was covered under insulation factors that we mentioned before. So, some of the readings that we recorded at this time in the inside of the building were at 20 feet away from the speaker, 80 DB's, which would be equivalent to a level of a loud orchestra. Forty feet away, 60 DB's, which is equivalent to the level of background music. Then what we did is we went outside the building & took some readings to see how much was going to bleed through the building walls with the type of construction that it has now. So what we recorded with the DB meter on the outside of the windows with the DB meter touching was 74 DB's, and this was with the meter touching the window itself, and we did that around all the sides of the building. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -4- November 15, 1979 And that's equivalent to light factory noise levels. Ten feet away we recorded 62 DB's, which again is equivalent to background music. Twenty feet away we didn't get any reading at all. The reading that we have at that particular scale would be 50 or less and that's equivalent to just wind, wind and trees, and that kind of thing. We also took some readings on the dual highway so that everybody can relate these readings to things that you run into every day. We recorded a trailer truck going by and that measured 98 DB's. A pick-up truck at 84, and a car at 76. Then we backed up 100 yards away and we recorded the traffic at 65 DB. We went to another spot, where there was a cocktail party and a band play- ing, just here again to get some further figures, we recorded a live band playing at 10 feet away at 104 DB, and normal bar con- versa,ion without a band playing at 88 DB. We went outside this establishment and recorded a level of approximately 55 DB; here again normal background noise levels. So what we're going to do inside is we are going to have directional speakers that will beam the sound down towards the dance floor and towards the rear of the building. The sound system is being designed by a disco sound studio. There will be noise escaping from the building due to the proper design of the system, the insulation, and proper venting. The conclusion based on these readings of noise absorbsion, that windows will not be open in this establishment, we will have a double-door entry system, better insulation and construction, and a large distance away from any residence which is approximately a quarter of a mile sway to the nearest house. Nuisance noise will not be a problem. Typical highway traffic produces a higher noise level than what will bleed out of the building. I would just like to touch on in conclusion about littering. No glasses or bottles will be allowed out of the building. There are strict alcoholic beverage commisszon laws regarding this and it will be strictly enforced. I think Mr. Foster would like to brief you on something else. ART FOSTER: I know there were some questions as far as capacity of the building, people. The building is approximately 1,770 square feet of usable space. Now we figured it out on a ratio of 15 square feet per person and it comes out to about 99 people and our parking we figured modestly at 1.5 people per car, and we got 66 spaces, which also comes out to 99, actually the square footage for the people is a little more but we're not looking for more than 100 people anyway. So that's what we figured for that. And on road frontage, I know there was a question about traffic congestion. Now we've got the parking set up so that you can drive all the way around, everybody pulls in, nobody has to back ou~ onto the dual highway, there is egress and ingress all the way around the building and forward directions~ so there's no problem theze. Also, that is a dual highway there, and it's wide enough where if you do pull out there~s plenty of room for another car to pass. Now I go in and out of there constantly with my trucks and trailer and I've never had a problem, and that's talking 45, 50 feet long as opposed to 18 feet, you know, the ncrmal car. And that's about all i've got to say on that. We've got regulations from the ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -5- November 15, 1979 Health Department as far as where the cesspoQls have to be put in, things like that, and we've got approval from them on what we have to do, so we are going to take care of that. And, also, I know you had a question about the fire code. We've got a letter from the Mattituck Fire Department signed by Chief P. Coleman, as far as the fire code, and I will read the letter if you would like, or you can read it amongst yourselves. Do you want me to read it? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, go ahead. MR. FOSTER: It's addressed to Mr. Perricone, it says, "... as of our meeting held at your property on Sound Avenue, Mattituck, on 10/10/79 with Mr. Douglass, Mr. Tuthill, Mr. Foster and Mr. Axelson and yourself, the following advice is offered: To satisfy the requirement necessary to obtain permission from the Town of Southotd concerning Fire Department approval, I recommended that the Southold Town Building Code be used as the guide in this case. The absence of a Town fire code brings the building code into play in my estimation. Please call at any time if we can be of further assistance .... " Of course, we are going to abide by the Town Code, there's no problem there. That's about all I have, just in summing up, I know my partners and myself, as residents and businessmen in Mattituck, would never tolerate any public disturbances such as the ones that were sug- gested at the last meeting. Above all, it's a fact that the Town, State and Alcoholic Beverage Commission Laws are very stringent when it comes to what is considered proper management and customer behavior in an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages. We in no way are going to tolerate any abuse of the law. We're also not going into business investing a lotuof money, time and effort to flirt with the possibility of being put out of business by any authorities. And we're looking for- ward to opening a sophisticated establishment, which people will enjoy and it will be an asset to the community rather than a liability. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: That you for your presentation. Is there anybody in favor of this application who would like to start off? Would you please give your name to the secretary as you get up? MICHELLE BECKER: I've been a business person mn Mattituck for 11 years now. I've also lived in Mattituck for 15 years, therefore, I feel I could speak highly of these three gentlemen. I've know Steve for seven years now through business. He's secretary to the Chamber of Commerce and he has also been on the Board of Directors of the Lions Club. I have known Artie Foster for seven or eight years now through business. Also he is a very active member of the Chamber of Commerce and he ms also in the Lions Club. Fred has been known for his superior reputation living on the North Shore in Mattituck and Jamesport for his entmre life. The integrity of these three gentlemen alone, I knQ~ they would not tolerate any disturbance out of their Disco. There has been lots of controversy that I've heard being in Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- November 15, 1979 business in Mattituck, that this would create a traffic jam. Well, going tO the A & P there,s a traffic jam right on the Main Road and there's:no Disco in front of it. I know the kind of Disco they are planning on putting up because I saw the different plans and everything. It's definitely a high-class place. It's for the'adult-minded person that would like to go out on a Friday or Saturday night and do a little bit of dancing. I feel these three ~e~emen~o~ld ~e praised for the buSiness venture that they are ab6ut to undertake, and not to be critized in the Way that they a~e, becauSe it's definitely going to be a high-class place, and ~ feel it will be an asset to Mattituck. Thank you. MR, DOUGLASS: Thankli!you, ma'am. Yes, ma'am? ~R!E rOHNSON: I wonder if I might ask a few questions for informationinot on one side or the other. Mr. Perricone said that the site had been zoned for restaurant, and I wondered how long it has!been zoned for restauran~ use, and if indeed it ever has been used as a restaurant, and I Wondered if there was some variance involved'in having it zoned for restaurant use and if that variance still applies. And then I would like to ask also how many businesses can go on in one area? I mean, how many businesses ~oes a variance cover at one time? And I wonder if the other b~sinesses now going on in this area will cease to go on if the DSsco is permitted? That's an awful lot I would like ti know. MR. DO~GLASS: Would you give your name please, ma'am? ~S. ~OHNSON: Yes, I'm Marie Johnson from Southold i ' MR, DOUGLASS: Would you care to answer (Mr. Perricone)? MR. PE~RICONE: I could answer the first question, just from talking to the Building Department as far as B-zoning goes, we are allo~ed to have a restaurant bar with limited dancing now. I imagine it's been that way ever since it's been zoned business. Now I don't know how long ago that was, but I imagine it'~ been since the building was built. As far as the second question goes, I can't answer it because I don't know the answer to that. (Question of how many business can ~ used [, MRS. ~OHNSON: Has it ever been used as a restaurant? MR. PERRICONE: Oh, that? No. it hasn't. It was bought for the purpose of using it as a catering hall by Mr. Kousouros at the time, which I imagine was about 15 years ago. It was going to be North Fork Manor at that time, but he never did open it up as a catering hall, and then the other question-- MRS. ~OHNSON: Well, the other one is that if this is allowed, if you are al!owed to open a disco there, will you also continue with the fence business and the waste disposat /%¸ O 0o Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- November 15, 1979 business and all the rest of them on the same site, and is that permitted? Perhaps Mr. Tasker would be the one to answer that. MR. PERRICONE: Yes, the fence business will still be there, and the siding company which is one company in all. We don't have a waste disposal business there. I don't know-- MRS. JOHNSON: Mr. Foster's business, what is that? MR. PERRtCONE: That's a cesspool- MR. POSTER: I just do excavation and new installations and things like that. f don't do any-- MRS. JOHNSON: Are you permitted to have all these businesses on one site under a single variance? MR. ~OSTER: Well, we're not under a variance presently. We don%t need a variance just to continue the businesses that we have. We're just asking for a variance to permit dancing on %he premises. MRS. ~OHNSON: If you did that, will it preclude the others' closing down or can you do all these things on one site? MR. FOSTER: I really don't know. I imagine these gentlemen will have to answer that. I don't have any intentions of closing my other business if that's what you're thinking. MR, DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else-- CLEO TS@UNIS: May I ask a question, my name is Cleo Tsoun±s. The last time Mr. Perricone was here he didn't have these two partners. When did these two men become his partners, that's my first question. MR. DOUGLASS: Wait a minute, ma'am, t asked for people to speak that were for it? MRS. TSOUNIS: I couldn't ask just the questions and then we could go into~- There 'is one more very important, q~es~ion I would like to ask. He mentioned that there was going to be a night for the 12~17 year olds and there was going to be a time for the 23 and over. what happens to our most vulnerable age, 17 to 23? This is the dangerous age. What happens to these kids, they are~not allow~in, or they sneak in, or what happens to those kids? Can I ask that? That's what I wanted to ask. MR. FOSTER: The only reason that we decided to try and hold it for 21 and over for the women and 23 and over for the men was szmply because the 18 to 21 year olds don't seem to be interested mn disco. (Negative szgh from the audience.) ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -8B November 15, 1979 MR. FOSTER: Well, all right, maybe some of them are. I know a lot of them and primarily they don't seem to be. Anybody that comes to the door that is old enough to walk in, being of legal age and is dressed properly is going to be allowed in, providing-- MRS. TSQUNtS: Before you said 23 and over. M~. ~OST~R: This is w~hat we are going to try to do. Legally we can't, but we're going to try. I've been in many places where they say 23 and over; there's a sign right on the door. I've never seen them refuse anybody. It's just to discourage anybody coming in younger. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else that wishes to speak for this application? Sir? DAVID STRONG: I think maybe they ought to say a few plusses on it. Right now all of our young people and my sons would have to go to the southside. We need something like this. I think it's a good area to do it, and I really feel that it should be allowed. We hear a lot of objections, but where are these kids~going now. They're going someplace, and maybe that ought to be taken into consideration also. And I'm in favor of the application. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, ma'am. E~EEYN GORDON: I would like to particularly speak for the young people as well as speaking for anybody who loves to dance. I think if you give young people a pleasant place to be~ they more or less reflect the atmosphere of that place. If they can gather and dance and chat and have a coke, they will be someplace which is friendly, where they are happy, and happy kids do not get into trouble. They're not bored. GEORGE CAPON: I'm from Greenport. I go along with this gentleman that just talked before. I have a daughter that goes dancing, she goes to Drossos and finds that they can't get in there, so they get on the phone and say, "Dad we're going over to south side. We want disco dancing." What can I say? "Take it easy and watch your driving." I'm worried until the time they get back, and hope they get back safely. I think it's a very good thing to have something around this t~n, something like this. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. SUSAN JACOBS: I think having a discotheq~in Mattituck is a d~awing card for our summer residents also. Many of them only come out for a few days because you can gO to the beach just so often and walk around Mattituck for just so long, but if there is something for them to do in the evenings, they'll stay in the area longer and let's face it, spend more money at our restaurants, at a discotheque~ naturally and just bu~!ng the things we have in O Z o Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- November 15, 1979 Town, and the whole economy will benefit by it. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, sir? TOM WILLIAMS: From Mattituck. I'm a businessman from Mat- tituck and also a high school substitute teacher. I teach high school and I'm in contact with kids in Grades 7 through 12 which are the ages of 11 through 17 or 18. At the present there has only been maybe two functions at Mattituck High School for students, these being dances. The students come up to me when I teach class and complain that there aren't much activities for these young people to do, and when students have nothing to do, then can only go look into trouble, so what I am saying is that an establishment like this that would cater to the 12 to 17 year old students would be very beneficial to their moral upu bringing. They will not venture into trouble and stray a~v~y from the Town itself. So I can substantiate the claims that the Town as a whole needs something like this particular disco. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. Yes, ma'am? LEONA WHITE: I think, I just would like to say that I am in favor for the establishment. I feel as though the senior citizens have a new home or a place to go to on Peconic Lane and the Youth Center, and anyone our age, say 25 and over, we lUSt don~t have anywhere to go to dance. We've got bars to go to, but we haven't-got a place to dance and that's what we want and we don't want to go to the southside. We want to be here and do it here in Town. ~. DOUGLASS: Thank you, ma'am. wishing to speak for this application? to speak against the application? Is there anybody else Is there anybody wishing ~iR. PANAGOPOULOS: My name is Ange Panagopoulos and I am a resident of the Town of Southold. Mr. Chairman, I heard one of ~ke~partners say that it's going to be a place of reputation and all that. Bear in mind that one of the two biggest discos in this Country, the 45 Casino, the dirt is coming out now. The Studio 54, you see what happened. The Casino now what is hap- penlng. You have to take that into consideration. I don't say that the boys there are not clean, but who's going to be going there is going to be clean? As far now as the kids that they are going to have no entertainment that they don't have any place to go. Remember also that this Town spent a lot of money for that Youth and Senior Citizen Center in Peconic. Now, if you wanted the Youth Center, have it. There was no reason if the kids are going to have entertainment inside the Disco the Town to go through all the expenses. And I can see the place there that is feasible for traffic. Mro Tasker, he can remem- ber very good when they have opened that the County comes there to put, you know, that railing to stop the place from taking traffic off the Main Road. You remember that, Mr. Tasker? 0 MS. TASKER: NO, I don't. ~Seuthold Town Board of Appeals -10- November 15, 1979 MR. PANAGOPOULOS: With Mr. Kammerer, your past supervisor, it was a big meeting. But the adjoining property of the same owner, it was six years ago. I have nothing else to say. MR.DOUGLASS: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else wishing to speak against this application? FRANK HUSAK: What I would like to know is what benefits is the Town as resident taxpayers going to get from this Disco outside of problems with the kids, drunks,races going all over the place, if they want a place, they got a Senior Center'on Peconic's Lane which we spent thousands of dollars for and which was meant for the youth and the seniors. They want to dance, they can dance. They go down on the beach with their portables, they dance. Why do they need a thing like this? You got a disco on the Main Road in Mattituck, it's nothing but headaches, noise, a bunch of hooligans. They don't even come from Matti- tuck, and we've got to put up with this. I live down near the Mattituck Breakwater, a Town beach. It's worth your life to walk out on the street when these hooligans come down there. These kids that are brought up in the high schools with driver education will improve their behavior and everything else. It's the other way around. They disregard the law and abuse every privilege that's handed to them. Why should we sit back and let this go on? Pay taxes and put up with the nuisance. And the Town, as a rule, what is it going to gain from it, pay higher taxes? Are you going to bring any business into the Town? They wouldn't spend 20¢ and the booze that they bring with them, outside, what control do they have? Who is going to supervise that and make sure these guys behave themselves? Did you ever get in a middle of bunch of 15 and 16 half-charged up kids and try to regulate them? They will knock your brains out. I know, because I was threatened. You can't open your mouth because they have no respect to you, the law or anybody else, unless you got two to one against them. But if they out-number you, forget it. I think the thing should be rejected, we've got one disco, you've got plenty of gin mills in the place, there's other places to go dancing. And you got the Youth Center. This thing should be denied from the word "go." And if anybody approves it, then I hope-- MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else desiring to speak against this? MICHAEL MADAS: What I have to say may take a little bit more than three-minute limit imposed upon me, therefore, I-- MR. DOUGLASS: Your name? MICHAEL MADAS: Michael Madas, I'm from Mattituck. I'd like to reserve the right to speak the three-minute limit. I think we have to ask ourselves why we are hear. MR. DOUGLASS: You can speak again later if your need to (after the three-minute limit). $outhold Town Board of Appeals -11- November 15, 1979 MR. ~ADAS: Ail right. I think we have to ask ourselves why we are here. We're here to ask a zoning appeal. If the peti- tioner were to institute a small shop with articles, a health food store or something like that, there would be no need to be here. Similarly, if a petitioner were to put this disco next to a 24-hour a day rock crushing operation, I think much to the opposition of this proposed disco would also disappear. But we also have to ask ourselves why we moved out here. We moved out here for one thing, we moved out here for a certain amount of tranquility, for a rural lifestyle that we couldn't get further in towards New York City, and I feel that with this proposed disco we would be importing many of the problems from New York City out here. We already have many of the problems out here. I recently had a friend of mine stop over my house asking me how I liked the area, I said I liked it very much, he said he had spent many years on the south shore, in Southampton, East Hampton, visiting discos down there, but now that he's married and has two children his attitude has changed and he has changed his attitudes because he's looking for a family place in which to bring up his children. I too am a high school teacher. I work full time as a high school teacher, and I can tell you that liquor and children are a dangerous combination. We should not try to encourage alcoholic consumption by teenagers or by adults. Alcoholism is a problem in this Country. It is a problem not only with children but with adults. We don't need to encourage it in Southold Town. I also feel that the proposed location along So~nd Avenue is right in the heart of a historic district. Riverhead Town has so declared it, it is so out here in Southold. It is not in keeping with the character of the area. We are concerned with the preservation of our farmlands; we're going to see them further diminished. I heard someone discuss the possibility or the fact that they are located no where near any residential areas, we have Greton-- Estates, an approved sub- division of the Town of Southotd which is expanding~ going into operation, off Cox Neck Lane. Therefore, we are concerned with the preservation of the character of the surrounding community, which is quiet, residential. You're certainly not going to encourage the purchase of homes nearby. What are you going to encourage the purchase of? Another disco next door? Rock- crushing operation, what are we going to have? There are cer- tainly prohibited activities in the Town, and I would remind the Zoning Appeals Board, Mr. Tasker in particular, that Section 100-114 says that certain activities in the Town of Southold will take place only with special permission, and our Town Fathers, that preceded the present Town Board and the present Zoning Appeals Board drew up that stipulation because they saw that there were problems for certain activities. You ~re not allowed to operate a tannery in the Town of Southold without special permission. You are not allowed to operate a rock-crushing operation without special permission. You're not allow, ed to operate a slaugherhouse without special permission. Yom are not allowed to operate a dance hall, or disco, maybe they didn't use the word in 1958 when they drew up the origi- nal zoning rules but that's what we're faced with today. I do Town Board of Appeals -12- November 15, 1979 believe, therefore, it would adversely affect the welfare and order of the entire community, the Town Zoning Appeals Board knows well its PurPose under Section 100-121(C) it says that the safety, health, welfare, comfort, and order of the Town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use. Also the cQnservation and property values being encouraged under the most appropriate uses of land. And the availability of ade- quate and proper public or public water supply is also a ques- tion for concern here. And particularly I b~ing to the Town Zoning Appeal Board's attention, in Section 100-121, Part II, subparagraph f, it says whether.the use will cause disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, dust, light, vibration or noise, petitioner recently said that his disco was tested at 115 DB at one foot from the speaker. I have to believe, I don't know, but I would assume that this was an empty hall, an empty building, if we add to that combination of people talking, etcetera, you should be aware of the fact that sound is an accumulative thing, and that it adds. And that an 10 DB increase is like a doubling of a sound. When you go from 40 to 50 DB, you don't have a 20% increase in sound, you have doubling the sound. It's a logarithmic scale. To go from 100 to ll0 you've again doubled it. The sound level with my voice right now is around 55 decibels, 50 decibels. If I go to 65 decibels, you notice it. You go to 75 decibels, and you're in a factory. It's doubling it, every time you go up 10 DB. I would also ask whether the Town Board has taken a look at the 620 signatures on the petition and checked whether those people are actually residents of the Town of Southold. I believe I've spoken more than the three minutes. I reserve the right to speak later. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. Is anybody else desiring to be heard? STANLEY SEPKO: I've been at the last meeting and I believe I heard one of the partners say there, that the near- est is approximately a mile away-- AUDIENCE: Quarter of a mile. MR. SEPKO: Well I have something to say, that we live right next door to it and Mr. Perricone says he's going to control tAe clientele that's coming to his p~ace. I. wish to point out here before the Board that that man had no control over himself or his corporation, not until last week had he had the bulldozer come down here and clear the lot so you could tell what was on his premises. Now how is he going t~ control people coming in and out and especially where thpy close a place on the south side, they are going to go to his place. And I can say one thing, once he is allowed to open that place up he will have.the same thing they had in New' York~ on the south side and even worse possibly because he's going to have the kids ther~ in the daytime to distribute what the people at night left there. o o Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- November 15, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to speak further against this? MR. GLICKMAN: Mr. Glickman of Corwin and Glickman, Green- port and I represent Mary Pylko, mother of Stanley Sepko. Now, t have never yet to see where a person coming in who is 18 and not 23, 19, 20 is going to be kept back. Everybody's in business for their money and I don~t blame the man, he w~n~.~to make'money just like everybody else, but we have here a problem. A two-fold problem~ I couldn't understand when the man says he is going to have room for 99 people, "x" number of seats for the people. What happens to the people that come in and stand, he could have 50 more coming in, or 60 or 40. Somebody just said 100. Will his parking area take care of that? No, because they don't come one in a car or two in a car. They come 5 and 6, and when they P~le in there you're going to have yourself some trouble. Number two, that is. on;an.ending of a four-lane highway, it's truck traffic through Sound Avenue there. Now, there is a tremendous amount of traffic in the afternoons when children from 12 to 17 go, and there is traffic at night, too. There's no more back road that I took to Riverhead years ago and got there when there was no one in the way. You start out today from Riverhead, you find traffic. You go to Riverhead, you find traffic. And Number two, let no one forget that there is no bartender or no owner who will say,"~ey, cut him off. He's drunk." Let's look in this week's paper and see what happened to a driver, DWI, killed a woman and sent.the'rest to the hospital, three or four people. Now, I could see them opening up a brickyard there. He's got aluminum sidings,, he's got cesspools digging, he's got fences. Yeah a brickyard would be'an excellent thing to no along'with it, but to put. a disco and a bar, no restaurant, in other words you come in on an empty stomach and drink. All you need is two. You leave, you had too much. Car going west or a car going east, whichever way you wanted to turn, you might have'the same thing that happened up Southold~ in Greenport, right outside of Green~ port. Take that into consideration, and how in the'world can we allow an area to have sheds, three businesses and everything else all in one clamoration. It do'esn't make sense. The final step is, Mr. Chairman, that controlling a disco even in the afternoon for 12 to 17's, am I going to allow my 12-year old to go in there? Who is going to c~aperone him? Who's going to watch a 17-year old who's got a bo~tle in his pocket and fills his cup half coca-cola and half something or other~'whiskey, scotch, rye, anything else. There aren't gozng to be any monitors there like you have in school or anywhere else. It's a wonderful thing if you're going to fed them and gzve~them milk chocolate, like somebody said, oh, coca-cola. Give them milk chocolates. I don't think that a disco belongs there. I don't =hink it will add anything to the Town of Southold. I'm not a Mattituck resident, I'm a Greenport resident. I don'~think it'll do anything for Mat- tituck, Greenport or anywhere e~se. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else wishing to speak against this? o L~ 0 $outhold Town Board of Appeals -14- November 15, 1979 MRS. CAFFREY: We live approximately 2500 feet from the pro- posed disco. And I have a few questions to ask and a few com- ments to make. First of all, I haven't had the privilege of knowing who you people are and where you live. MR? DOUGLASS: MRS. CAFFREY: MR. DOUGLASS: MR. TUTHILL: all my life. We're the Board of Appeals. I know that. What's your name? Robert Douglass, Orient. I~m Terry Tuthii1 and I've lived in Mattituck MRS. CAFFREY: I know that. MR, TUTH1LL: And I'm just as concerned about these things as anyone. MR. DOUGLASS: And Serge Doyen, Fishers Island. Charlie Grigonis, Southold. MRS. CAFEREY: Thank you very much. I don't mean to be offen- sive in asking you-it's just that I know to whom I am speaking. I would like to comment on a few statements that were made. First of all, in the beginning there were some statements made relati_ve to the hours of operation, and there were specifics mentioned with reference to the time at which the young people would be allowed to attend. Young people being 12 to-17.year olds. One of the times that was mentioned was Friday evenings. My question is, at that time would this place of operation be closed to adults on a Friday evening for all intents and purposes as far as alcoholic beverages are concerned? MR. PERRICONE: Yes it will be. MRS. CAFFREY: The same applies to Sunday, and to the extended hours during the summertime, that there would be no adults present at the time of 12 to 17 year olds? MR~ PERRICONE: Well, there will be adults outside of three partners and to two people at the door who will be adults I would imagine, they will be in-their 30's. The two people serving soft drinks. ~< MRS. CAFFREY: And at that time there would be no alcoholic beverages available? MR. PERRICONE: MRS. CAFFREY: couldn't get in? Definitely not. They won't even be on the bar. And if I came to your place at that time I MR. PERRICONE: You couldn't get in. It has to be locked up by law. You can'% even have it out where it's in sight. It has to o South~ld Town Board of Appeals be locked in a cabinet. -15- November 15, 1979 MRS. CAFFREY: Another question has to do with, of course, this would affect your income, I'm sure, considerably closing on a Friday evening, which is a busy time. Another question has to do with the fact of a dress code. The last pair of dungarees I bought was Gloria Vanderbilt at a price of 50 some odd dollars. I was wondering if you w ouldturn me out with those very expensive dungarees on? MR. PERRICONE: No. Let me clarify dress code. As far as women go, Gloria Vanderbilt clothes they can wear all they want. MRS. CAFFREY: MR. PERRICONE: MRS. CAFFREY: MR. PERRICONE: only. Are you going to check them? Am I going to check what? That they aren't just wearing Wrangler. Any design of jeans will be allowed on women MRS. CAFFREY: So you will allow dungarees? MR. PERRICONE: On women only, yes. This is a normal disco dress. MRS. CAFFREY: It's ok. I just wanted to clarify the thoughts that were in my mind. Another point that was made and in all due respect to the people that were saying the comments and I have no mat±ce toward any of them. It was quoted as going to be a very high- class establishment. There is nobody that likes to go to a high-class establishment more than I do with my husband. If I were going to go to one, it would not be one that was tied to and a part of a potato house, fence establishment and a waste organization, however you~call it. I would prefer to not call it a high-class establishment, and I think that has something to do with the aesthetic values that we are putt±ng forth in terms of putting this place into existence. And let me say another word about aesthetic values. Our place of resi- dence, as I said, is about 2500 feet from this proposed disco. We happen to be in a very, very old farmhouse which unfortunately when it was built, it was place about four feet from the road. Over a period of time we felt that we were living in a fish bowl and we chose to put up a length of about 50 feet of stockade fencing, sim- ply to protect us from people driving by and looking into our kitchen and telling us what we were eating. And when we proposed to put this piece of fencing up, which was between two C~dar trees we fcund that we couldn't because it was the astute opinion of the Board at the time that this might disturb the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding area. If the Board at the time was quite so stringent with their decisions and their best opinion we had to go through this procedure, I would think that this might be another point of consideration for you to keep in the back of your mind when you make a decision on this one. I think another point that I o o ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -16- November 15, 1979 would like to bring out is the fact that in terms of the only people, many years ago I was associated with the Lutheran Church in Mattituck as a Sunday School teacher and I was also involved in preparing and cooperating with various kinds of activities that would allow them to have someplace to go. This has been an age old problem where the young people go. To the best of my knowledge, there are five or six churches in the area, and while I would certainly not force that concept on anyone, I know that every single one of them has made plans and-would hope that the young people in that congregation will avail themselves of all the activities and should be older young people if they felt so inclined, the churches would welcome them with open arms in terms of a group or committee to cooperate for the purposes of extending the kinds of activities, and if disco essentially is a place to go and a place with a certain kind of music and a certain kind of conviviality, there is no reason why you can't have it since you're not going to have alcoholic beverages in a church building, basement or whatever. I think also I might want to sa~?that most of us who are here probably in my age group and older have a feeling of desperation. In the sense that I have lived in that house for some 27 years. I have gone through a period of time whsn I had a babysitter who was taking care of my children while I was going to school or doing whatever I was doing and at times her father had to come down to my house with a shot- gun accompanied by police cars because people who were coming from the Apple Tree and various other establishments located close enough were banging on the door, they were lost, they wanted to perhaps join whoever was in the house, for whatever reason. Those of us who live near to this proposed establishment a~e very con- cerned. Those of us who live farther away are also concerned for other reasons. I have very strong feelings about this. Many years ago I worked in the Mattituck Schools as a teacher, a full- time teacher, and I was part of a committee that was going to sit in on the discussion as to whether or not we wanted to change the face of our community. And at that time we had a group of people from New'York State who~came down to look at the Town, and they looked at it and they said~This is a very nice colonial-type town. What you should do is, you've just built a 3-1/2 million dollar bank. What you should do is, you should clean up your Town, you should close up the windows in the bottoms o~ the stores on Pike Street. You should paint all the faces of the buildings white and you will attract more people." There must have been 40 of the businessmen of the Town that listened to this, and their answer was, and Mr. DePetris at the time was the spokesman and, Terry, you will remember Nardy. He said"! intended to continue to let the rats crawl through my basement, and I intend to paint my storefront black, because I likethe complexion of our Town as it is. We don't need to have additional trains. We ~n't need to have additional people." We don't want to become a southside, where when the summer residents come and the group has arrived, they drive through the streets and they knock down your mailboxes. They drive in your house. They burn up your furniture for heat and so on. Granted maybe this is a little bit maybe off the topic, but I can foresee that in a period of time it's this kind of a decision that's made Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- November 15, 1979 when it will be most detrimental to our community and it's present, presence, if you will, of tranquility and decency. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, ma'am. Is anybody else wishing to speak against this? You had your turn for this minute, is there anybody else new speaking against? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: If not, I will open it up to the general floor. If there is anybody else who hasn't spoken that would like to at this time, may. (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: Ail right, sir. You may have the floor again. MICHAEL MADAS: We've heard a lot of discretion this evening of proposed hours of operation, and I'd like to ask Mr. Tasker, is there anything in the Town Zoning Ordinance that would permit the Town to regulate hours of operation? MR. TASKER: No. Only except the Board has the authority to impose such reasonable conditions as they deem appropriate. MR. MADAS: If they deemed them appropriate in this case, would they be forced to impose them on similar establishments in the Town? MR. TASKER: Well, that's a question for the Board. It's a hypothetical question. MR. MADAS: It's a legal question, Mr. Tasker. MR. TASKER: No it isn't and I'm. not going to argue with you. MR. MADAS: Well I'm simply asking a question that I thought perhaps-- MR. TASKER: The Board has the authority to impose conditions, and I'll leave ±t at that. MR. MADA$: So it's up to the Town Board to impose hours of operation, and I don't think any such proposal is, and I don't think the Town Board is considering any such proposal. MR. TASKER: It's not the Town Board. It's the Board of Appeals. MR. MADAS: Is the Board of Appeals considering any restricted hours of operation? MR. DOUGLASS: This will all be taken up in our discussion, and in our decision. ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- November 15, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone else wishing to speak? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: If not, I will thank all of you for your testimony. We have to ask Mr. Perricone and his partners to go back before the Planning Board and have the Planning Board either okay the parking that-you suggest, or suggest a parking schedule. We will recess this until we get that notice back from you, at which time we will set a time of decision. We also need in our possession papers showing your legal possession or lease, or whatever involvement with the properties. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of STEPHEN Jo PERRICONE and PENELOPE KOUSOUROS, Appeal No. 2587, be RECESSED until the applicants obtain Planning Board approval of the proposed parking plan, at which time a date will be scheduled to recon- vene this matter. Vote of the Boar~: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Tuthill, Doyen and Grigonis. Contining on the above appeal, several discussions were hadc · 'l~h/tn-z~ 'thanked the audience for their courtesy, good m~nnars¢ attention and seriousness of the remarks. Mr. Tuthill said the behavior of the audience is to be admired and that hearings should be dealt in the same fashion more often. ~r. Perricone asked why the parking plan submitted to the Board of Appeals was not appropriate, and Mr. Tasker and Mr. Doug- lass explained that it was not to scale, and that it would be a good idea for the applicants to clarify which parking spaces were for which businesses on the property and that it should be to scale in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Code when submitting it to the Planning Board for their approval. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2579. Application of EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, 26 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York (Rich- ard F, Lark, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935) for a Special Exception to the ~oning Ordinance, Article V, Section 100-50 for permission to erect a 28-unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and coffee shop. Location of property: Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York; bounded north and west.by. Parkside Heights Co., east by Shipyard Lane, south by Gardiners Bay. The Acting Chairman reconvened the hearing at 8:57 P.M. I-' 0 o o o pJ o Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- November 15, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: t reopen the hearing, by going back to Mr. Kontokosta's attorney, Mr. Lark. RICHARD F. LARK: Mr. Douglass, on August 20th, 1979 Board of Appeals wrote me, and this was after we determined that the Board of Appeals would be the lead agency in this matter and requested the following information: subdivision approval from the Town of Southold Planning Board. The public hearing on the minor subdivision was held last night, and as of this moment to my knowledge the Board has not rendered a decision on it, ok? That was the first one. The Board of Health approval they have seen the preliminary plans and asked for a re-design of the sewage syStem and also they wanted test holes dug, and I under- stood that one was dug but the inspector didn't show up and it's waiting for the inspection out there. And so that's the second item that you requested. The third item was the Department of Environmental Conservation and environmental impact statement. Now as I understand it, the Department of Environmental Conserva- tion has the matter before it, and they have to come up with a determination as to whether or not it's a minor~or a major project under their regulations. Now if they come up with a major project, then a formal environmental impact statement will have to be filed both with them and with you as th~ lead agency in the situation. If they come up with a minor, it's a minor project, then they will give-what recommendations, what input to the Board since you are the lead agency and under the Act as I understand it an environmental impact statement is not required. So they have not made that determination, the Board of Health, the Department of Health hasn't made a final approval which was what you wanted for the Special Exception~ and we haven't received the formal approval from the Planning Board for the subdivision. So these will all take a little bit of time, and so I'm going to respectfully request, depending on your hearing agenda, that, this is the middle of November, that it probably be put off some time toward the middle of January, which would be about 60 days away. I think I can have all of those approvals or determinations from those agencies which you request by that time. MR. DOUGLASS: Ail right, sir. That would be the first meeting in January. MR. LARK.: That would be fine. Whenever that would fall, I think we would have everything by then. MR. DOUGLASS: We've probably some people in the audience here that would maybe like to say a few words on this applica- tion. With them here I would hate to have them go home and not be able to say something, so we will grant anybody that desires to be heard on this application say it now. Is there anybody desiring to make a statement? Yes, sir? ANGE PANAGOPOULOS: Mr. Douglass, the las~ meeting, ~your- self you asked Mr. Kontokosta about the subdivision. Wh~~ n will o o o o Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- November 1~, 1979 he subdivide. And he said, "I don't know." Now we hear from the counsellor that last night the Planning Board was going to subdivide that land. I mean, it doesn't jive. He said that he bought the place and it was subdivided. And the other guy was Parkside Incorporated. And he didn't know even who was Parkside Incorporated. All of a sudden now we hear, you know, that last night he's going for a subdivision. It's a little bit sinister, from the~beginning. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Tha~ you. Is there anybody else wishing to say something? MR. ARMSTRONG: Where can we see, my name is Armstrong, where can we see a copy of the plans and what they intend to do with that? MR. DOUGLASS: In our office~ sir. Any day from 9 to 4, Monday through Friday. Mr. Armstrong, what's,your, full name? MR. A~STRONG: Harry. Could we get a photostat copy there of the plans that they intend to do and the usage of it? MR. DOUGLASS: Yeah. MR. ARMSTRONG: I think it involves two pmeces of our property. MR. DOUGLASS: Yeah, but you will have to pay for the costs. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. MARIE SMITH: I'm Marie Smith from East Marion and I was here last night, and we were very puzzled last night and what we asked was, why does this have to be subdivided if the intent tonight is to build 28 units and 21 units, and who is Parkside Heights, because we saw a very important pmece of property that was part of~the subdivision appeal last night, and it touches on Mr. Kontokosta's property. Is he Parkside Heights, Mr. Lark? MR. LARK: No. MRS. SMITH: Some people say he ms, and some say he isn't. We keep getting different answers.' We!re just curious. MR. LARK: The answer ms no. MARY GREGORY: We were told yesterday or the day before yesterday that- MR. DOUGLASS: Ma'am? Would you please give your name to the steno. Please do not talk across the hall~ MARY GREGORY: Mary Gregory, I'm through. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. O o O 0~ o $outhold Town Board of Appeals -21- November 15, 1979 MRS. SMITH: I think what most of these people want to know is, why if we want to know what's going on do we have.to go to two hearings, the subdivision and the one for building 28 units and 217 . MR. DOUGLASS: Ma'am, you don't have to go to any hearings, but this is the way the law is written up. Certain. parts are taken care of by the Planning Board and certain parts by the Zoning Board. MRS. S~ITH: And as we were told last night, they really have nothing to do.with this, so we just have to show up. and. they didn't have to show up, is that it? MR. DOUGLASS: I don't know what they said, ma'am. MR.. ARMSTRONG: Excuse me, does somebody know what the variance is for? Why do they need a variance? MR. DOUGLASS: It's a Special Exception; it's not a variance. MR. ARMSTRONG: What is the Special Exception? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, it's zoned multiple dwelling right now, but he wants to put in a motel section of it and a small coffee shop. MR. ARMSTRONg: So he wants it commercial? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, a multiple dwelling could be commercial too. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: If not-- Sir? GORDON RACKETT: Gordon Rackett, Shipyard Lane, East Marion. Most-of my'questions, I~think, ~are still unanswered beQausediffer- ent Boards and commissions and so forth haven't rendered a verdict or a decision on what they're doing, but one thing that I hope that you people keep in mind when you make a final decision, is the fact that East Marion is very, very much over-burdened with hotels, motels, taverns and so forth. On a human side of it, we really don't need any more here. MR. DOUGLASS: This is in Greenport territory. MR. RACKETT: No, it's East Marion fire district. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else wishing to speak? If not, I will p~t a motion on the floor to recess this appeal till the first meeting in January. Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- November 15, 1979 On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, Appeal No. 2579, be RECESSED until the first meeting in January of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2598. Application of Philip A. WENZEL, Main Road, Peconic, New York 11958, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permis- sion to subdivide with insufficient area. Location of property: Main Road, Peconic, New York; bounded north by Main Road, east by Koraleski, south by Leslie Road, west by Bujnowski. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 9:05 P.M. MR. DOUGLASS: This is for a division of a farm near Peconic. I believe Mr. Cichanowicz, who is interested in it, is here. This will have to be recessed again until December 6th because it will have to be republ±shed. I~ll again say here if there is anybody hsre wishing to give testimony on it, we will take it now. RUDOLPH BRUER: I would just like to know why. Why does it have to be. re-published. This is an adjourned hearing. MR~ TASKER: The reason for it is that on the first recess they did not set a date to reconvene the hearing so that no one would know when the recessed hearing would convene, so therefore t~ey ~aVe to do that. It's a question of legal notice. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. I'll make a motion that this appeal be recessed until the December 6th meeting after p~oper publication. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of PHILIP A. WENZEL, Appeal No. 2598 be R~CESSED until December 6, 1979 after proper publication. Vote of the Board: Tuthill and Doyen. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2615. Application of MATTITUCK HOLDING CO., Mill Road, Mattituck, New York for a.Special Excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-80B(15) -for permission to construct a boat storage shed. Location of 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- November 15, 1979 property: West Mill Road, Mattituck, New York; bounded north by Holmes & Killian, south by Foudy, Ziegler &~McGunnigle, west by Leo Grande and Inlet Lodge, Inc., east by Mattituck Creek. MR. DOUGLASS: At our last meeting, this was recessed because of an improper publication in one of the papers, therefore, it had to be re-published. We have had testimony on it. If there is any new testimony to come before us tonight, why we will accept it. Is there anybody wishing to testify for it; if not, then against it? The owners has supplied us with all the necessary papers. At this time we will postpone decision until the end of the hearings tonight. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of ~TTITUCK HOLDING CO., Appeal No. 2615, be postponed its decision until the end of hearing the appeals tonight, at which time a decision will be made. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonls, Tuthill and Doyen. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2613. Application of KIWANIS CLUB OF SOUTHOLD, Box 150, Pecon±c, New York for a Special Excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30B(4) for permission to place bu±lding for charity use in a residential district. Location of property: Route 25 and Lower Road, South- old, New York; bounded north by Lower Road, south and west by Route 25, east by Goldsmith. The Acting Chairman reconvened the hearing at approximately 9:14 P.M. MR. DOUGLASS: This was recessed for the same reason that Mattituck Holding Co. had to be, because of improper designation in one of the new~. papers. And all the papers are in on it} and we have testimony on this, and if we have anyone further wishing to g±ve testl~mony, new testimony for this application may; if not, against? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: If not, we will postpone, decision in this one too until after we have cont±nued and finished with the appeals that are scheduled tonight. .... O~ ~otion made by Mr. Douglass, second-ed by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the decision on the matter of KIWANIS CLUB OF SOUTHOLD, Appeal No. 2613, be POSTPONED UNTIL THE END OF CONTINUING THE OTHER APPEALS SCHEDULED, TONIGHT. o o o [--, o .Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- November 15, 1979 Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonls, Tuthill and Doyen. RECESSED~HEARING: Appeal No. 2609. Application of ROBIN A. RAEBURN and MARY ELIZABETH MURPHY, by George C. Stankevich, Esq., Main Road, Southold, New York, for a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law Section 280A. Location of property: Bridge Lan e Extension, Cutchogue, New York; bounded north by Long Island Sound, south by Bok±na, west by Bokina and Baxter Proper- ties, east by Parr. The Acting Chairman reconvened the hearing at approximately 9:18 P.M. MR. DOUGLASS: This was recessed so that the people involved could go back and talk over and see what they could come up with a better situat±on ~n~th~ ~cc~s. At this time I will turn it over to Raeburn and Murphy's representative. GEORGE STANKEVICH: Yes, George Stankevichr and I represent the applicant and we have acceded to your request and discussed it with the attorneys for Baxter, the property owner to the west, and though we feel that'the.application as presented met the letter of the law, we have reached an understanding with Baxter that they would permit the relocation of the right-of-way from Oregon Road to the head of the bluffs onto Baxter's land. We do not have this i~ executed, final form yet; however, we see no problem. Sa if you want grant us approval tonight, we would accede to the condition that: (1) access by a 15-foot right-of-way from Oregon Road should be on lands of Baxter to the west ~f Bokina, and that that right-of-way should be in recordable form acceptable to the Town Attorney; (2) that the entire access to these lots shall be improved to your standards; (3) that we will investigate the complaint of Bokina as to the mis-location of utilities and if they are mis-located we will re-align them, and then (4) if due to some unforeseen circumstance we are unable to comply with these conditions, we would then return to you for further instructions. MR~ DOUGLASS: Is there anybody here representing Baxter? GAIL WICKHAM: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Gail Wickham, and I represent Mr. Baxter. We are in the process of doing some survey work and drawing up an agreement which would permit the roadway on Mro Baxter's 20-foot strip; however, until we complete the survey work, get a signed agreement I also feel I have to approach the Planning Board on a few matters in connection with his property. I can't say that we have anything final but we certainly hope to have an agreement that would come into this roadway. MR. DOUGLASS: At the time of the last meeting, I asked Mr. Bokina to go back and talk things over with his family. Did you .Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- November 15, 1979 come up with anything? MR. BOKINA: I'm not going to move my house and barn. We lived there for 36 years, why should we move it. For 36 years we had no problem~with the right-of-way, now, how come all of a sudden we've got a problem with the right-of-way. What's the problem? There was no problem before. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, sir. MR. BOKINA: They still have no right-of-way up to those properties. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, is there anybody else wishing to testify on this appeal for or against? CTHERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: I, I don't know how the rest of the members feel, but I feel that probably the best thing to do is recess this once again until tho attorney for Raeburn and Murphy and the attorney for Baxter can come back to us with a legal docu- ment that they're trying to draw up. I would therefore make that a motion.-- MR. STANKEVICH: Would there be discussion on the motion? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, you may say-something. MR~ STANKEVICH As attorney for the applicant, I would object to that. You may have the right to do so, but we're really in a chicken and egg situation. Namely, until you decide that this arrangement would be acceptable, we are negotiating with an adjoining land owner in good faith, but he may really not want to go to the effort, and number two, the Planning. Board is waiting to find out whether this access is acceptable so that they could handle their part of it. So we would request that you approve it subject to the conditions and then let us go out and meet those conditions. And your Town Attorney will look at the agreemen~ when it comes in, and of course if it doesn't meet it, we're dead. We have to get it under way. MR. TASKER: It is my understanding that you applied for access over a right-of-way a certain width, and now it turns out that in fact the bed of that right-of-way is blocked by buildings which makes it completely unpassable or at least reduces the width of the right-of-way to make it inadequate in width for the use intended. Now as I also understand, both the attorneys here representing the applicant on one hand and the neighboring prop- erty owner on the other hand are attempting to work out an arrangement to relocate the right-of-way around these buildings. We do not know where. You haven't agreed on where it's going to be, and I think it would be a little premature at this time to approve something that they have not seen, that has never been agrsed.to,°and I believe that it's proper to recess until there ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -26- November 15, 19~9 is a legally passable right-of-way that is presented to the Board. MR. STANKEVICH: My statement though Mr. Tasker was not that it was improper or proper to take the action suggested by Mr. Douglass .... Wha~was su~ge~ed was that the Board conditionally give approval and.as indicated in the prior hearings where you were not present, and since we ca, not hold you accountable for what you didn't hear, Mr. Douglass' suggestion was that the entire right- of-way leading from Oregon be relocated on Mr. Baxter's property until it gets to the head of the property, the subject lots, and that's what's intended with our negotiations. MR. TASKER: That's what you're intending to relocate the whole length of the right-of-way from the street? MRS. WICKHAM: Mr. Baxter owns a 20-foot strip, owns it in fee simple all the way up, and up to the point where his property spreads out, we would be willing to let them have a right-of-way to put the road in on that property. MR. STANKEVICH: It's where it forks at the top. MRS. WICKHAM: But as I say, we're still in the process of it, and nothing has been f~nalized. MR. STANKEVICH: So, it would be helpful really to the parties and the Planning Board to get at least a tentative approval and then we will go forward. We'~ll~bring the documents t o you. If they're unacceptable, fine. MR. TASKEk: Well, how far north is it going? MR. STANKEVICH: Right to the head, where they branch-- MRS. WICKHAYi: Do you have the map with you, I don't have it. MR. STANKEVICH: No, I don't. MR. TASKER: Ail the way up to the lots? ~R. DOUGLASS: Right to there. MR. TASKER: You're just going to move it 20 feet to the west. To the Baxter property. MRS. WICKH~M: Yeah. It would go up along this 20-foot strip and then swing over Bokina's property. He would probably put this road in here. MR. STANKEVICH: The impediment, if any, is right down here. MR. TASKER: You have no objection to a conditional approval?~ MRS. WICKHAM: No, it doesn't bind us. I mean, if weadon't-- ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -27- November 15, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: When they go into the Planning Board, and the Planning Board says that this stuff may develop and this road may not be wide enough, MRS. WICKHAM: My problem is, he wants to put a minor up here, and I just want to go to the Planning Board with a minor subdivision approval which if we do put a 15-foot road up here, or a 20-foot~they might require- MR. TASKER: You might be required more. MRS. WICKHAM: Well, we don't have any more. MR. DOUGLASS: You have some right-of-way here. MR. STANKE~ICH: Fifteen feet. MR. DOUGLASS: That's clear of the buildings, so you can tie them together. MR. STANKEVICH: Except we're only going to pave 15 feet. MR. TASKER: The question is really how many lots can be served with a 20-foot right-of-way. MRS. WICKHAM: That's why I don't want a new road in here-- MR. STANKEVICH: I'm going to sit back because that's our application. MRS. WICKHAM: Until I go to the Planning Board. I don't want to prejudice him. MR. TASKER: Probably the better thing to do would be to recess it. MRS. WICKHAM: I'm not going to take any position on that. If you want?to do it that way, it doesn't matter to me. I just feel~I have'to go to the Planning Board. MR. STANKEVICH: 'The better way is to get a conditional so we have scffaething to go to the Planning Board, and then if we have problems, we'll have to come back. But it's one step for- ward and many to come. MR. BOKINA: My father owned that farm, then I farmed it, we've had it for 36 years. Mr. Baxter never put no chain across that place,~ I think we're entitled to swat his rights against our farm. -;He's got a 20-foot right-of-way. MR. DOUGLASS: Ail right, we've got a motion on the floor to recess it until we get the proper legal papers from the two attorneys. Mr. Stankevich asked that his objection be made part of the records. $outhold ToWn Board of Appeals -28- November 15, 1979 MRS. WICKHAM: I would like to do this as soon as possible. ~CoU!d you put it down for the next hearing? ~R. DOUGLASS: December 6th. was MRS. WtCKHAM: Would that be convenient? Thank you. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it RESOLVED, that the matter of the application of ROBIN A. RAEBURN and NARY ELIZABETH MURPHY be RECESSED until the Decem- ber~i6, 1979 meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass~ Grigonis, Tuthill and DOyen. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2629. Application of RALPH H. DICKINSON, by Abigail A. Wickham, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, New York 11952, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient front and side yard setbacks. Location of property: Off Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, New York; bounded north by~ 'HeckJand Graham, south by Great Peconic Bay, west by McDowell, east by Arthur. The Acting Chairman reconvened the hearing at 9:26 P.M. MRS. WICKHAM: I spoke to Linde this afternoon and asked that you recess that-- MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, well we have to bring it up and you have to request a recess. MRS. WICKHAM: We've revised our plans to move the house back and re-angle it so that perhaps a sideyard variance will not be required. Mr. VanTuyl has-drawn a sketch of a revised right-of-way into the property and we are in contact with Mr. McDowell's attorney to come to an agreement on the right-of-way so that we may or may not have, require Board of Appeals approval but we will notify you as soon as we have reached aR agreement on the right-of-way. MR. DOUGLASS: So you want it recessed rather than withdrawn. MRS. WICKHAM: Yes, at this point I think we should recess it, to, I think December 6th would be a good date. MR. TUTHILL: At that time you might withdraw, is that the point? MRS. WICKHAM: Possibly, although we still would have the O ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- November 15, 1979 right-of-way technically, I think, from the side from the west side, so we may have to request a variance but teChnically that would be the front yard. ~ MR. DOUGLASS: Yeah, but it comes up to the north of the build- ing. MRS. WICKH~: It comes on the north side, yeah. MR, DOUGLASS: So that where it comes down towards the home, it will beton the north side. MRS, WICKHk~: What I plan to do, when we ha~e the agreement, we will submit it to Mr. Fisher and if he can issue a building per- mit, then I will apply to withdraw the application. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, ma~am. I'll make a motion that this be recessed then until our next'meeting on December 6th. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, secohded by Mr. Grigonis, it ~ RESOLVED, that the matter of RALPH H~ DICKINSON, Appeal No. 2629 be RECESSED until the December 6, 1979 meeting~of .this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: and Tuthill. Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2630. Application of EILEEN M. L~4BECK, 447 Greene Avenue, Sayville, New York, for a Variance to tke Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 1O0-31.for permission to construct dwelling with ±nsufflclent rearyard setback. Location of property: Deerfoot Path, Cutchoque, ~New York; bounded north by F~tzpatrick, east by Deerfoot Path, south by Jester, west by Leskody. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 9:30 P.M. by reading the application for a variance~ legal notice of hearing and affi- davits attesting to its publication in the local and official news- papers, Not~ce of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter.from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to: Mr. and Mrs. Burris T. Jester, Mr. and Mrs. Stephen F. Leskody, Mr. and Mrs. James J. Fitzpatrick; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a sketch showing the applicant's proposal and a copy of the County Tax Map showing this and th~ surrounding properties. Is there anybody wishing to speak for this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody wishing to speak against this application? o (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) $outhold Town Board of Appeals -30 November 15, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Being no further testimony, we will close this hearing and I will make a motion to reserve decision on this until all the other appeals tonight have been heard. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of EILEEN M. LEMBECK, 447 Greene Avenue, Sayville, New York, Appeal No. 2630 be RESERVED ITS DECISION until later this evening when the other appeals have been heard. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Tuthill and Doyen. Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2631. Application of JANET HALVERSON, c/o A. Tyrrell, Box 14, Orient, New York 11957, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient sideyards. Location of property: Founders Path, SouthOld, filed Map ~834,. Lot ~67; bounded north by Diana, south by Tempel, east by Shanks, west by Founders Path. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 9:35 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to: Charlotte Shanks, Tempel, and S. Diana; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a copy of the survey showing the applicant's proposal and a copy of the County Tax Map showing the surrounding properties. Is there anyone wishing to speak for this application? ARTHUR TYRRELL: Hardships would be created if this were not granted at this time. It is unusual now for mortgages to be granted because-- MR. DOUGLASS: Excuse me, would you give your name to the steno please? MR. TYRRELL: Sorry. My name is Arthur Tyrrell an~ I'm speaking on behalf of Janet Halverson, and there is one addi- tion I would like make for the hardships stated in the appli- cation. Since that application has been filed, a mortgage has been granted; a mortgage had been applied for before the appli- cation was filed and it has~been granted. I think it is accepted that mortgages are very difficult to obtain at this time of high inerea~ing interest rates. If there is any great change to the plans, then it would have to be resubmitted to the bank who may or may not then give another mortgage, in which case Mrs. Halverson would not be able to build. Even if .Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- November 15, 1979 they did, the builder states that the price quoted for that building would necessarily have to increase because of labor and lumber costs increasing. Therefore, this would again sustain a great financial hardship to Mrs. Halverson if this is not granted at this time. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for this application? Is anybody wishing to speak against this application? ERNEST TEMPLE: My name is Ernest Temple, and my home is right next to this lot. This lot has been sold twice in the last two years, so, therefore, when anybody buys a lot cer- tainly they know what the restrictions are and I don't see why a person wouldn't first look at the lot and then draw the plans. Now I don't know what this variance, how much is it, 10 feet, 2 feet, I know nothing about it because nobody told me. What are the sidelines going to be if it's granted. MR. DOUGLASS: Well what they are asking for seven on your side and 12 on the other side. MR. TEMPLE: That's absolutely ridiculous. When that house was built, I bought the house~I didn't build it, more than 15 years ago this variance for land was 15 and 10, and that was built with 10 and 5. There's more than that for that house now. It's more than 10 and 5. If it's only 7-1/2 feet how do they get a piece of machinery between my property and their house to do any grading, to do any work around it plus the fact that there may be a drainage problem. The front of the lot is four feet higher than the back of the lot. If it's not graded property, the waters are going to run into my property. So, I can't see-- it would set a precedent. There's a lot on the other side with the same width. So they may be asking for the same thing, and the next thing you know we're squashed~in. I can't see why the restrictions should be changed at the present time. They've been there and the people bought the lot with that knowledge. Also the owners knew that. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else? MR. DIANA: I'm Diana to the north of them. I agree with what Mr. Temple said. They knew the size of the lot, why build a house exceeding the size of the lot? I'm gonna benefit by it because they're going to have 12 feet on my side, and I have more ground than Erny has. If there's going to be any difference and you're going to grant them that variance, can't they reverse them and give him 12 and put seven on my side? I wouldn't object to that, if it came to that. But I object to their building beyond the building code. MR. DOUGLASS: Would you rather have it that way (Mr. Tyrrell)? MR. DIANA: I have more ground than he has and more width. .Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- November 15, 1979 I wouldn't like to see him getting closed in. MR. DOUGLASS: You have probably about 20 feet or better, right? MR. DIANA: A little more than 20 feet. I have a 100-footer, and I only built 50 feet on a 100. Now they want to build 56, isn't that right? MR. DOUGLASS: Right. MR. DIANA: Fif~y-six and 75. Now they knew the size of the lot. Why didn't they get drawings to coincide with the size of the lot? Why change the rules. There's no hardship there. There's no hardship that I can see. 50 feetf or 56 feet, there's not much difference. I shrunk my house. MR~ DOUGLASS: I th&nk you. Is there anybody else wishing to testify against this appeal? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: If not, I'll make a motion that this hearing be closed, and to reserve the decision- MR. TYRRELL: May I have the~rebuttal, Mr. Chairman? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, sir. MR. TYRRELL: Mr. Temple's house is in distinct violation of the present day requirements. There's no doubt about this, and the fact that he doesn't know is Mr. Temple's thought. Mr. Diana knows both by certified mail-recipients of the fact that we were mak±ng a motion for this variance. Certainly, we would be very happy to make it 8 feet on Mr. Diana's side and 12 feet on Mr. Temple's side and if that would suit them both. I see they are nodding their heads, Mr. Chairman. Now, if that's fine, it's fine with us, but there is a distinct hardship. I would press this, one that we are not certain of retaining a mortgage on a different plan, and two that even if we did get a mortgage the costs would be considerably increased from the time that we've had it. And thirdly, if I may mention this, this house, I have the plans here, it's a modest ranch house with a garage attached, and if anybody knows that area, everyone including Mr. Temple has a garage attached to it. There are about eight houses in obvious violation on this short little stretch, even if it was made in 1927. Certainly, I suppose if we had been bright enough we would have not contracted with a builder before we have found out that there were requirements that would not permit us to put such a ho~se on this lot, but since it was the same as all the other houses along there, it did not occur to us, but we will agree that we contracted them. But if the reversing of that, that is eight feet to the north and 12 feet to we would be very happy to do that. If we could get a decision tonight if the rest of you would authorize to have that, $outhold Town Board.of Appeals -33- November 15, 1979 the builder, not holding on to his contract i~_~y~pd thi~_Z~ing. MR. DOUGLASS: I thank you. As that~ appears to be the last of the testimony, I will close this hearing and reserve decision on this until after we have finished the other appeals tonight, if someone will second it. MR. TEMPLE: Mr. Douglass, may I say something? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, 'sir. MR. TEMPLE: Would we get a notice of the decision? MR. DOUGLASS: You sure will, sir. Tonight. MR. TEMPLE: Fine. As far as things of violation, when that house was built there was no violation. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of JANET HALVERSON, Appeal No. 2631, be RECESSED ~TS DECISION until later this evening when the other appeals have been heard. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonls, Tuthill and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2633. Application of DELMER NUHFER, 600 Cedar Drive, Southold, New York 11971, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permis- sion to divide property with insufficient area and width. Loca- tion of property: 600 Cedar Drive, Southold; bounded north by Boggiano, south by Bloore and Thilberg, east by Summer Lane, west by Cedar AVenue. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 9:48 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspaper, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to: Boggiano, Thilberg and Bloore; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a copy of the survey showing the proposed division and?a copy of the County Tax Map showing the area. Is there anyone wishing to speak for this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) t~ ,Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- November 15, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone wishing to speak against this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of DELMER NUHFER, Appeal No. 2633 BE RESERVED ITS DECISION until later this evening after the other appeals have been heard. Vote of the Board: Ayes: and Tuthill. Messrs. Douglass, Grigonls, Doyen PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2632. Application of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CO., Fishers Island, New York for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Art±cle III, Section 100~30 for permission to construct multiple dwelling with t~ree units to house personnel. Locat±on of property: Fishers Island, near Fishers Island Country Club, New York; more particularly known as part of Suffolk County Tax Map ~1000-001-01-02 and part of County Tax Map 91000-001-01-3.1. The Acting Chairman opened the hear±n~ at 9:55 P.M. by reading the application for Special Exception, Notice of Hearing and affidavits attesting to its publ±cation ±n the local and official newspaper, Notice of Disapproval from the Bu±lding Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a copy of the a~chitects-Map showing the surrounding lands over the golf course and private dw~lllngs in relation to the proposed spot for the housing unit. I also have a section of the Tax Map showing that area in which it is proposed and the surrounding areas. At this time I'll ask if there is anybody in the audience representing PIDCO and if so, would they please let us hear from you. JANSEN NOISE, JR.: On May 3rd on behalf of FIDCO, oh, Jansen Noise, Jr. and I'm President of Fishers Island Develop- ment Corporation. On May 3rd on behalf FIDCO, I came before th~s committee to g~t approval of three items, one was the tennis court fencing which has unfortunately been built without knowledge that it was too high, but it was an approved item. I obtained approval of construction of housin~ for Country Club house personnel on top of the beach club for 5 persons, 5 bedrooms and so. ~orth, and that building permit was obtained in late Jun~ and the construction was completed in July and it was occupied this summer. We also obtained at that time approval from this Board for the construction of the subject housing on the site that it is now being contested, or spoken about, and the building permit there required sewage approvals © $outhold Town Board of Appeals -35- November 15, 1979 and so forth, and that did not, we did not receive that until August, early August. In late August we started construction, we have completed the foundation and boarded over the main floor when we received word that we should hold off further work on it. We have paid something in excess of $20,000 on that to the con- tractor. It is presently covered with plastics so that it does not deteriorate. The mill work has been returned to the ware- houses on the Island so they won't deteriorate. Also, as a result of having obtained the other approvals, we went ahead and sold the four buildings which have housed personnel for the Country Club and the Yacht Club and those four build- ings were sold for $100,000 to four families. Deposits were accepted in last August, and those have all been surveyed and so forth and are moving towards a closing. So two of those buildings were the buildings in which the personnel had been housed for four or five years, the personnel who had originally been hou~sed-adjacent to the proposed location that has already started in construction, because prior to four or five years ago, five or six perhaps, the red barn which is, the big barn immediately adjacent to these properties, this new building is as close as legally possible, fire laws and so forth, to the other barn. But prior to that this big red barn did house for some 50 years, I guess, since 1926, almost 50 years, the golf course personnel and also the male personnel working in the main clubhouse.At that time the club house was much larger and there were 20 or 30 people, I think, housed in that red barn. At this time the plan~that was approved by this Board was to put in three apartments w±th two bedrooms, each housing six or a maximum of 8 or 9, and other personnal as I mentioned were housed in the beackclub whack is already completed now, so that I have heard of the request for movement, but I have no place I can find to move people. I have construction that has already been started. I have the golf course personnel returning on the first of April. I have to have something completed for them by then, and I would like to go ahead with the approval that was granted by this Board at that time. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else wishing to say anything in favor of this application? RICHARD LARK: Rict%ard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. Mr. Noise stated to you M'r. Douglass, the Board back on May 24th granted approval of this application and made it subject to get- ting the Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board and the Board of Health Approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health. Both of those were done, and construction was commenced as Mr. Noise said. It got up to the first level when, for some reason, a~stop order was issued on the strength of the letter which remains somewhat questionable. But I thought, I don't know if the Board has this map, but attached to this map is an aerial photograph, is a reproduction of an aerial photograph, which I think will be helpful to the Board with the exception of Mr. Doyen who is familiar with the property in answering any questions. It shows on this larger map where the building is presently under construction and where it was o~iginally envi~ sioned and the Board requested it be moved further north. o o .Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- November 15, 1979 Mr. Lark brought the photograph closer for the Board to review. MR. 5UPOW: Excuse me, can I look at this also? MR. LARK: The aerial photograph shows that where the red line is where that is, and the red barn that Mr. Noise refers to which used to house the personnel that's over here, the sort of "L~ shaped" Darn, and you see that barn, the photograph over here, is a white spot, it shows up as a white spot. And I think, I know Mr. Doyen's familiar-- MR. DOYEN: Mr. Douglass has also been over and has examined the property, and took ~me.~photographs of ±t. He is familiar with it. MR. LARK: Ok. But that gives you more or less an aerial photograph of just what is there, where it is presently located, and where the red barn is so you could put things into just a position if anybody has any questions of the Board, and I do want to remind the Board that the applicant, FIDCO, did acquire a certain amount of vested rights in relying on the Board's deter- mination of granting it its approval, and then of course subse- quently taking the Planning Board, and the Planning Board approval by the way, just for that site, which was the same site that the Board had moved it to, and the Department of Health approvals for the construction are also for that site. And I do feel that FIDCO has acquired certain vested rights as a result of the reliance on the Board of Appeals approval, but we're here tonight to answer any questions that the Board might have in connection with this project because I understand under the provisions of the Town Law that the Board does have the right to have a re-hearing, which I assume that's the purpose of what we are here for tonight. So if there are any questions, we would be glad to answer them. MR. DOUGLASS: It's not a re-hearing. It's a new application. MR. LARK: On behalf of the applicant, I'll reserve all rights in respect to that. But anyway, we are here to answer any questions. I think Mr. Noise has explained it, and the Board is familiar with it. I understand from Mr. Doyen you have, some of you have seen the property, so I think you will be able to answer it, but if you have any questions as to the topography or anything like that, Mr. Noise or myself would be glad to answer them for you. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: Being none, is there anyone wishing to speak against this application? S~PHEN LUPQW: Yes, your Honor, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, my Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- November 15, 1979 name is Stephen Lupow. I'm an attorney. I represent Mr. and Mrs. Kelsey, who Mrs. Kelsey's mother, Mrs. Bryce, owns the property just to the north. If I might show you on this aerial photograph, the parcel just, wait a minute- just above where the barn ms and very close to where the new structure is going to be. I'm glad that you pointed out to Mr. Lark that this is a new hearing. I think we all appreciate that the first action was illegal in the sense that the building permit was issued for the wrong property, and there were major changes in the location, and we just didn't know about it. When we found out about it, we came mn just as expeditiously as we could, and came, I spoke to Mr. Fisher and as soon as he saw that the property building permit was mn the wrong location, he issued an imme- diate stop order and stopped everything, held everything in abeyance and FIDCO has now put in a new application. I'd like to point out a few things to you folks so that we understand them. I~m looking over here at your sign and it says that your Town was founded in 1640. Well, Mrs. Bryce, Mrs. Kelsey's mother's house was built approximately 1670, one of the oldest houses in your Town. Many people come out and visit that house. Mr. and Mrs. Ketsey want to retire in that home, and when they found out that a labor camp was going to be put very close to it, trey were very upset and I think you can appreciate that. Goi~ng to affect the property evaluation, it's going to de-evaluate tke p~operty, I think we can all agree to that. And I wanted to sA~ you some pZctures so that you have a full understanding of ~kat We're talking about in terms of distance. This is the rear of the Bryce home; it's also called the Winthrop Home, they were I b-el±eve the original owners. From the point where this step begins to the point where the prDposed site of this labor camp is going to be built, where three families are going to be moving in over there. We understand it's approximately 40 feet. Now to the home it runs approximately 120. From this point where the sidewalk starts, where they could park their car and walk into their house it's only 40 feet away. The -, and you haven't seen it, and we'll pass zt down to you, the house itself, this is a photograph taken from a distance is up on a bluff and looks down to where this labor camp ms supposed to be. I've asked Mr. Kel- sey to point out where it's gozng to be in view on this photograph and he said it's going to extend just a little past this tree so that when they go outside, they're going to have a full view of this~ and if you would want to take a look at it and see if you would want to live next to that kind of a situation, you can see and make a determination on that basis. Gentlemen, I looked at your statute and it talked in the terms of a labor camp farm and non-farm, and I think the statute itself has a general intention and understanding that when a labor camp with migrant workers are placed in a location near private residences, it's going to de-evaluate property. The statute says that if you go to locate a labor camp on farm and non-farm proper~y, to put it next to the owner. Don't put it next to, nearer to any other residence than the residence of the employer. The employer in this case is FIDCO. We're tryzng to ascertain from FIDCO from Mr. Noise where, if he had considered other locations, he could possibly do ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- November 15, 1979 this, and he said, well he went and sold some property where he thought a ~ouple of buildings he could have placed these summer workers, and I don't know whether they are actually in contract, whether a legalrcontract has been signed or not. I don't have a clear answer on that price because Mr. Noise is not an attorney, but that should not change your thinking merely because they may agree to see or possibly be in contract with that. There are other areas on the Island that FIDCO can pu~ a labor camp if they really feel they need a labor camp. I was looking at one of the m~ps they had previously submitted, and there are areas, and I have it here, there are areas where FIDCO itself has sur- rounding properties. Not next to anyone else. Do you have that photo, do you have the map? Maybe you have it in your applica- tion. MR. DOUGLASS: We have the signed one that you have there. MR. LUPOW: Well I have another one here. MR. DOUGLASS: And we've this big one here. MR. LUPOW: Ail right. Could we just take a look at this big one for a second? Ok. All of this property, all this grey area, ok, is owned by FIDCO. They can put a labor camp in over here, they could put it down here, they could put it all over the Island, but why. place it in the far end of the Island where there ks noth/ng in the vicinity for people to do when they get off work except have fun. They're entitled to. They could place ~t by the Town where they could have, where people could have the opportunity to at least have some socializing, but they want to place it next to the Bryce house, and they said they want ±t over there because for whatever reason they want. I am suspicious of it, and I'm suspicious in the following vain. There was some talk that FIDCO was going to move this location, I received a letter from Mr. Bri-, from Mr. Fisher of your office, all right, and you said the new location here that they were cons±dering was recent information of note, is that a new proposed locatisn will be south of Oriental Avenue around to the east end westerly or around the old club house. Ok. This was a letter sent to me dated October 23, and apparently there was some discussion over there. We're now told, at least Mr. K~lsey was. told by, I believe Mr. Noise, that the reason that they couldn't put it there was because they would have problems s~ling their property. Now, ladies and gentlemen, if they wa~t to put a l~bor camp in on their property and de-evaluate it, that's their business. But should they put it next to someone else, a residence in a residential area and de-evaluate other people's properties? Your statute doesn't want you to do that. You have a mandate from the people who wrote this statute. Ok. They just don't want you to do that, and I don't think it would be fair to that, Mr. and Mrs. Kelsey, or anyone else. I believe Seawindeis also going to talk tonight to you about that. I also wanted to point out one or two other things that were quite troublesome. And number one is that if you have three family units, and I don't know how many people are going to be o o o ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -39- November 15, 1979 in there, whether it's going to be three, six adults, and their children, or individuals, or single people or what. But you're going to have three-family units, and I think the average family is four people. You're talking anywhere 10 to 12 people living right over there. You're going to have noise. You're going to have congestion. The barn was used several years ago to house some of the people and the police had to be called. There was a knifing incident on the Island in that location. When the employees got finished from work, they got a little roudy and the police had to be called down and there was trouble over there. And to do this now to place it in the same location in full view; it's not being blocked. The photograph, oh not the photograph, but the map that was submitted for the application shows that there's a red barn, and this is the new proposed golf course, but this is in full view because if you look at the photograph over here where the steps are, rmght over here, that's the exact point where this is over here. The driveway. So you have full view of the new housing, and I don't think that that's wise to be placed in that position. The FIDCO people say that they went out and they spent money. I don't know if they aetually paid their contractors or what. They said they paid $20,000 and they have a vested right. I asked Mr. Ketsey who looked at the prop- erty what could be done with that hole, because it's a hole now. Well, it could be used for other purposes. You might just put a flat roof on it and use it for some storage. They could just use it to prevent erosion, because I understand it's merely a concrete foundation that was put i~. The wood could be used in other areas. I understand there's an area on the Island which is the Tabor Farm, I believe, is that how you pronounce it, Tabor? MRS. KELSEY: Yes, Camp Tabor. MR. LUPOW: Where the Camp Tabor, a period a while ago were using that to house some summer employees. And they say they can't use it now because it has to be re-done, it has to have work done on it. They could use some of this material to re-do it, but apparently they'don't want to. They want to now put it in a new location, and I suspect that the reason for the new location is monetary, and I suspect that because if they put it near any of their own, number one their own club members, but number two, if it were on any of their property, ok, it would de-evaluate their own property. They don't want to do that, they want to keep it out of the way and I think that's being very unfair to my people. The proposed site is 5-1/2 miles out of town. The people are going to have to go into town to do their shopping. They have to go into town if they want to have any recreation to do whatever they want to do. Right now I understand they are living near the town and are going out to take care of the golf course. Well, that's the way it should be. There's no reason to have them way out there when they should be where all the recreation for them is, where all the food supplies are. And I just want to see if I covered all the points. I wanted to also point out that one month a year .Southold Town Board of Appeals -40 November 15, 1979 Mr. and Mrs. Kelsey rent out this home to a man, what was his name? MRS. KELSEY: No, no, we don't. We're speaking of our own house. We rent it more than that. We rent it three months. MR. KELSEY: June 15th to October 15th, four months. MR. LUPOW: Ail right, you rent it out. MRS. KELSEY: Yes, yes. MR. LUPOW: Ail right, and you've already been told by the people who rent this out that this is going to present a problem for them. They are right at the stage of seeking retire- men~, ~hey told me tonight as I met them. They were planning to do that and then go their permanently, and this may very well change all of their- and they don't want to do that, it's been in their family for many, many years. Their children have been brought up over there and they have daughters with grandchildren that want to stay there, and they feel very uncomfortable about having a labor camp only 40 feet from the entrance to their house and I would ask that you do not grant this application, and we would object to it. I'm here to answer any questions also, and Mr. and Mrs. Kelsey if you want them to respond to anything. Thank you. Did you want us to pull out these pictures, or should we-- MR. DOUGLASS: Yes. MR. LUPOW: Ok. I'll give you all of them, this I think is the front of the house. MRS. KELSEY: No, that's the back. MR. LUPOW: That's the back area, ok. This is -- MR. KELSEY: That's the front area. MR. DOUGLASS: That's the driveway entrance. MRS. KELSEY: Yes. MR. DOUGLASS: That's the entrance nearest the prebuilt barn, the old barn. MRS. KELSEY: Yes. You have to pass this new structure to get into the house. It's a dirt road, it's not a fancy driveway. It's a dirt road and it's been there for years. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes. I know it well. MRS. KELSEY: Oh, you do? MR. DOUGLASS: Oh, yes, ma'am. MR. LUPOW: Thank you. Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- November 15, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone else wishing to speak against this application? LEONARD PILSER: Yes. Gentlemen, I would like to say a few words. My name is Pilser, Leonard Pilser. I'm here from the office of Richard Pellicane in Riverhead on behalf of Fishers Island SeawindeIncorpo~ated. As yo~ probably know, Seawinde ownssome property on the eastern end of Fishers Island very close to where this proposed structure would go if per- mission were granted. And for that reason, obviously Seawinde has a very strong interest in this application. In a sense, Seawlnde is appearing here tonight as a"good neighbor,"if you can put that in quotation-marks. In a very small sense, we're appearing here almost on behalf of everybody who owns property on Fishers Island. It seems that for a number of reasons the application pending should in fact be denied for one, and again mos~ of these points have been made by Mr. Lupow. For one, it certainly cannot be denied that the structure is not in character with the neighborhood. It is a residential neighborhood and it simply Would not fit in. Second and very important is the harm to people like the Kelseys who nobody can deny are entirely · nnocent in this entire matter. Third, there not only would be minimal benefit to FIDCO if the application is denied, I'm sorry, minimal benefit if their application is granted, there will be minimal detriment to FIDCO if the application is denied. If the structure is put up, it certainly will affect property values, adversely affect the property values. And another point that I would like to expound upon, is that it seems to me a major reason that FIDC© wants the structure where it is is to save themselves the cos~ of ferrying people, their employees, of course, from the western end of the Island to the eastern end. Well, a ten or fifteen-minute car ride to get these people to work doesn't seem in my mind to be a sufficient hardship to warrant variation of the Zoning Ordinance. And lastly and I think most important is the mere fact that the Zoning Ordinance itself prohibits this kind of structure in this area. Now, obviously that's why an application is pending by FIDCO to get a special exemption. But if the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to protect the neighborhoods and to perhaps elim- inate or to prevent nonconforming uses, then at least to my mind it seems that the application should be denied, and for th~se reasons as well as for the reasons that Mr. Lupow has mentioned, we respectfully request that the applicati©n be in fact denied. Thank you very much. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you for your testimony. Do you have something that you would like to say, Mr. Noise? MR. NOISE: Yes, I have a couple of points, if I may. I have not spoken to the two gentlemen who have been speaking, so perhaps some of the things they have assumed I would like to speak about. First, I think I would like to mention that at the meeting in May 3rd, Seawinde was represented here by the same g~ntleman who spoke in favor of the location which we are now having, have construction~started on, and he was, with .Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- November 15,.1979 him at the time was the owner of that propemty at that hearing. Secondly, from the point of view of valuation, I think that the house had been occupied, I mean the barn had been occupied by employees for the Country Club including the golf course workers or I believe over 20 years when the present owners purchased it. It was every expectation that it would continue to be so occupied, the red barn, which is located half the distance frnm the proposed location to the house, it's closer to the house quite a consider- able degree. There was every expectation that it would be con- tinued to be occupied by 20 or 30 people working on the course and in the Country Club at that time, and in fact for I guess 20 years about, that did happen. They only moved out because of a health problem, which we moved them into temporary quarters. From the point of view of valuation further, when this was going on in actually an effort of fairness, I checked with the real estate~b~okers, and was advised that that's the opinion that it was being rented for about $7,000 a season. I asked, well if this construction was completed and the tenant refused to go ahead with re-renting it, what could you get for it. They told me they could get $9,000 or $10,000 for it. So, I do not feel it was justification on the valuation or the rental to the tenants. From the point of view of utilization of this property verses other property, it wasn't a thing of only light consideration. A labor camp we believe should be located on the property where the laborers are working, and we have put the clubhouse personnel into a labor camp unit over the beach club, the people that work in the club house., and we wanted to have this for the golf course. There are two areas in the golf course; one is this area and one is up by the Country Club itself. We chose this one first; we looked into the other; we found we had too many problems there, and we decided that this was the better one. -Actually, from the point of view for the workers, there's no question at all that this is the better one. Their shops, all their equipment where they work is in the red barn. Their equipment, all the golf course equipment is kept in the repair shop i~ the bottom of the basement of the red barn. These people also have, they come up and they sprinkle the tees and the greens in the morning before the golf course is used. They come up at dawn, they come back after the golf course closes at 6:30 and they sprinkle again until dusk, which varies according to the time of the seas- on. At present they have been coming back and forth three times a day, five miles in order to do their jobs three or four times a day, and fr~ the point of view of natural location for what they are doing, this is really by far the best place; and we came here in good faith on this. At one time we have been talking about re-building the big red barn and putting 14 bedrooms in there instead of %he six, before we decided to put some on top of the beach club. I have talked to Mr. Kelsey about it at the time, and told him what we were doing; this was two years ago, and I was completely surprised when the request came to stop construc- tion, and what we decided is not a slab. I--suppose those of you who have been there have perhaps noticed it's an excavated base- ment with walls and a wood floor~ It is not useful for something else. You couldn't put equipment on it or anything else. It's not built for that type of strength. The only other thing I ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- November 15, 1979 would say is, I asked the architect to come up. He erected a pole tlle height of the top of the roof line onto the first floor that was there and reported to me, and later I went back and looked at it an~ it is our belief that only the top of the roof will be able to be seen from the ground floor of this house. The foundation itself is 20 to 25 feet below the ground level of the house. In fact you will look over the roof of this barn,at another older barn, and you would see the whole of the older barn without even seeing the roof of this house, this building. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else wishing' to give testimony? NANCY KELSEY: I'd like to explain about this. When my parents bought the house, I can't remember that there were actually people in the barn at the time, but very soon after that my father heard that these people were coming and he looked forward to this because he thougkt that they were going to be helpful to him and that they could help with the gardening, that they could help with maybe house work. We didn't object at that point because my father was very interested to other people. And he was, he contributed quite a lot, not financially but being a member of the American Leg±on and of doing a great many, he was on the Civic Association and all of this~ and he as I do very much have very strong feel- ings for these other people. So unfortunately it did not work out ~en tkey did move these people in. They did have this stabbing, thsy did Rave a lot of trouble. I could tell you that the Justice of tbs Peace Perry Edwards had to be called several times, and it was a great disappointment to my family. And so then they removed those people from the barn and they put in people that were working for the club, and it was made into an office, and they did have some people live there for awhile. Even then, when they came to work, there were cars parked right by my parents' entrance because there was no other place to park. This still, the golf course ma~chinery goes up and down the road which we all understand be- cause it has to be used. But on top of that there are people that park their cars to play golf because it's the ninth hole. Some people start there. So in other words, there's quite a lot of congestion on this little dirt road, and they have three families who must have three cars who would expect to move right in there, and my biggest problem would be to having that congestion. And I just feel that I feel very strongly that this is in the front to our family. I have been involved with the Island people for 16 consecutive years, but I was on the Civic Board for two years and then I became the Civic President, and then the following years that I had been the President of the Island People's Project, which runs a recreation program for the Island children and summer children. It gives nature talks, it does all kinds -- it has a craft shop that we have started, and I think it's unfair for my family's house to have its value lowered and all of these things happen to us. I take it unfortunate personally, but I also think that it would make a difference to my children when they inherit the house. And I think the property would be very much less valuable if they build this building. I've seen a picture of it, the drawing of it, and it's attractive, but it looks exactly like ~outhOIJ Town Board of Appeals -44- November 15, 1979 a motel. It has shutters, it has pretty doorways and it still is a long narrow building, to me in the drawing, and it's going to give the effect of a motel. 'And I still feel that these people would be happier near the ferry, near the movies and all of that~ they can go swimming in a beach nearby which involves walking across the golf course which when they used to swim there we didn't object to it, and then they found it very difficult to have people walking across the golf course. So there are quite a few other reasons for our not wanting this structure to be put there. MR. NOISE: Mr. Chairman, may I speak about the parking place which is a subject that has come up, and I would like to speak. The plan is to have, first of all these people bring their cars up at dawn; they are on the golf course all day, and they leave at dusk, at 8 or 9 o'clock according uo the time, so from the point of view of daytime presence they're in that locality anyhow. The only additional people that would be there other than the two workers usually would be two wives. Two of them have wives, so that there would be two extras as a result of their being here during the daytime, but as for parking the plan is, and it is to enlarge the area within this, it's going to be below a bank about 12 feet high I guess; maybe a little more than that, which will be where the cars will be within the court yard here, and I do not think this will be a problem. They will-not be able to be seen from the house, I'm sure. They will be behind the big barn and down much lower behind the excavation area. Thank you. STEPHEN KELSEY: My name is Stephen Kelseyo Mr. Noise said that he didn't think the proposed labor camp could be seen from the first floor of the Bryce house. I would like to point out that the first floor of the Bryce house houses a laundry, a furnace room, a room for wood. The kitchen is on the second floor, and the family lived on the third floor, and it would look right down over the proposed berm, or whatever it is on the house, just as the Andrew family would from Seawinde, which is south. MR. NOISE: I thought I was referring to the second floor as the first floor. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. Is anybody else wishing to give testimony? MR. PILSER: Very briefly I do so almost relunctantly because of the length of this. I think that every reason mentioned has been valid. I'd just like to very briefly mention two particular reasons only because I think they are the ones that the Board should give the most weight to. First, Mr. Noise commented something to the effect that this location would be the best place for his workers. Well that might be so, but I think what the Board musu consider is whether legally under the laws of the Zoning Ordinance 5hat is sufficient to grant the special exemption, and as I said before I don't quite think that that Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- November 15, 1979 qualifi~es as a hardship that the Ordinance speaks of. Second, Mr. Noise mentioned that the red barn was used for housing before. Well, I must confess I'm far more familiar with the Zoning Ordi- nance Laws in Southampton than in Southold, but I must assume there is some similarity, and if · can ana~gyze from the South- ampton Zoning Ordinance, the fact that the structure~had been used for housing before might have been a non-conforming use, but as I'm sure as you all know, a non-conforming use must continue year to year to be maintained, and I know for a fact that this has not been used for housing for at least five, maybe six, seven or eight years. So the fact tha5 it has been used before, if that was special exemption, it was a non-conforming use, or for whatever reason, I don't think again legally under the applicable statute it is sufficient ground 5o say, "Therefore we can use the house now, or the structure now," whatever, the red barn for housing purposes. Thank you. MR. LUPOW: Just one thing. I wanted to thank the Board's indulgence and on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Kelsey and their mother, Mrs. Bryce, who is in the nursing home and couldn't be with us. And we ask you, implore you not to grant this special exception and consider how it's going to affect the value of this property and the family and the tradition that the Kelseys and the Bryce families kave had over the years. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Sir, please wait just a minute. Would you, Mr. Noise come forward a minute and you as a representative on this. I would just like to have you look at these photographs that I have taken and tell me ifthese are the actual things so that we can enter them into our files. MR. NOISE: This is the construction to date. And this is the present red barn. This is where the housing took place before. The basement of this barn and this barn, this whole barn is wkere the shop is. MR. LUPOW: If you would also note that the building in the center, ok, is the Kelsey house. MR. DOUGLASS: That's right, sir. MR~ TASKER: That's the Bryce house in the background. You say that's 40 feet from the new building? MR. NOISE: This is the third floor and roof of the Bryce house. MR. TASKER: And you say that house is 30 feet or 40 feet from that house? MR. LUPOW: From the house itself, the foundation line of the house. The foundation line of the house to the new location is approximately 120 feet. Ok? From the point where the drive- way begins, ok, to the foundation of the proposed location is 40 feet. z o Southold Town Board of Appeals -46- November 15, 1979 MR. TUTHILL: MR. NOISE: MR. LUPOW: MR. NOISE: How close is it to the barn? It's -- Which the house, or-- The house is about 70 or 80, 80 or 90 feet from MR. NOISE: MR. LUPOW: Approximately? MR. NOISE: the barn going away from the Bryce house. MR. TUTHILL: From the driveway you're talking about? MR. NOISE: No. From the barn. MR. DOUGLASS: From the barn itself. MR. NOISE: I think it was a working farm, so the farmer had His cattle as close as possible to the house, the barn is-- MR. DOUGLASS: Well the barn is almost on your line. Yes, that's correct. Yes. And the proposed location to the barn is how much? I would 9uess that was 89 feet the other side of tke barn which itself is 30 or 40 feet wide. MR. DOUGLASS: Right. MR. NOISE: So it's a big barn. MR. TUTHILL: So the barn is closer to these people's home than this? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes. How long is the old red barn? MR. NOISE: I beg your pardon? MR~ DOUGLASS: What is the length of the old red barn, that "L" that sticks down towards the new construction? MR. NOISE: Twenty feet or something. We were going to put seven 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments, two-story, in that one wing. It's a big unit. MR. DOUGLASS: You have about 30 foot of width in the east- west section, and then you have the "L" coming back to the souther- MR. NOISE: The "L" was the cup on itself and that is where it is has the cement block and that is where the equipment usually is. MR. DOUGLASS: That's right. Well the equipment's been there for years. MR. NOISE: The equipment is stored under the main plot also. o ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -47- November 15, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: So actually this new labor camp is down, it goes to 150 feet from that property line. MR. NOISE: If they say 120, I'm sure they're right, The plan on this is to have the exterior match the red. The roof is to be %he same shingle, the barn, as part of the barn cluster was the architect's plan for the specifications for the contract. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, sir. MR. NOISE: Thank you. MR. LUPOW: Thank you. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it wa s RESOLVED, that the matter of Fishers Island Development Co., Appeal No. 2632, BE RESERVED ITS DECISION until the end of hear- ing the balance of tonight's applications. Vote of the Board: Ayes: hill and Doyen. Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tut- PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2634. Application of GWYNNE CONSTRUCTION CORP., 163A Montauk Highway West, Hampton Bays, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70 for permission to change use to include residen- tial use in B-1 Zone. Location of property: 6355 Main Road, Laurell, New York; bounded north by Mattituck Holding Co., south by Maston, east by Main Road, west by Long Island Railroad. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:45 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspaper, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification had been made to adjoining property owners as follow: Long Island Railroad MTA, Mattituck Holding Co, Bertha Maston; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a copy of the survey of the property and a copy of the County Tax map showing this and the surrounding properties. We will now take testimony from anybody wishing to speak for this application. EVERETT FUCHS: I'm Everett Fuchs, Vice President of Gwynne Construction Company. Before I start, was there a question on the Board about how many square feet that we will be using? MR. DOUGLASS: We asked what area of the house were you intending to use for a business. MR. FUCHS: The purchasers will be using the two-car office o o o Soutkold Town Board of Appeals -49- November 15, 1979 there and their course of running a business would be located in the one site. This is the only way I could see how the site could be sold at the present time. This is the only action I'm getting would be from people that would want to use it as a residence and business also. If I cannot obtain this variance, then I have no other choice other than to close the site up which is brought out in the petition, which I do not want to do. I think there is really nothing wrong with having someone use the site as residence and business, in fact, well you could correct me if I'm wrong, I think at one time this zoning allowed that. It was an amendment to the zoning that would change this and knocked the residential use out. I thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to speak in favor of this application? ALBERT ALBERTSON: Albert Albertson. I've lived in this Town for 51 years and previously have been in business for my- self having owned Albertson Marine, Incorporated. Certainly I~-m now a real estate broker and have done a lot of work chang- ing residential properties over to business, and I have a little expert±se ±n what that costs. I have ~nspected the property owned by the petitioner, Gwynne Construction Corporation, Main Road, West Mattituck, New York. I have also reviewed the contents of the petition before the Board of Appeals, and I am familiar with Gwynne Construction Corporation's application. The general development of this area in Mattituck is as recom- mended by the Town Planning Board in 1970, who prepared and published the development plan for the Town of Southold, that is of a mixed commercial and residential suburban-density. Although zoned business, the property to the west of the peti- tioner's land contains a small,residence as well as a trailer which is used as a residence. Directly across the street is the large two-story brick home which is residential. The property immediately to the east is ~a~ant, although further to the east along the northerly side of Main Road there are some businesses which are mixed in with residential uses. The point I wish to make is this neighborhood as it exists is one of a mixed use. To grant the variance of the petitioner will not in any way change the existing use, it will stay just as is. In fact the existing buildings on the property are ideal for what the petitioner proposes. The property contains two buildings, one of 1,713 square feet and the other with 900 square feet, for a total of 2,613 square feet which the peti- tioner proposes to use as follows~ This will answer your question. Four-hundred ~quare foot of the main building is devoted exclusively for business as a sales area. Nine-hundred square feet, which is contained in the one and one-half story framed barn in the rear is to be used for business purposes. Thirteen-hundred square feet would be devoted to business purposes. Thirteen-hundred thirteen square feet would be devoted to a residential, so it's about split in half. Half residence and half living quarters. It is seen that 50% of the building area on the premises will be devoted to business Southold Town Board of Appeals -48- November 15, 1979 that's tkere now. MR, TUTHILL: Just as you have been dOing. MR. FUCHS: That's what we've been doing. MR, TUTHILL: They will not be using part of the house for office space or anything? MR, FUCHS: N©. Thirteen-hundred thirteen square feet is living area; that's where they will be living. MR. TUTHILL: That's what I was getting at. MR. FUCHS: Ail right. In 1976, when we came into the Southold Town area, and we came into this area for one reason and that was to build houses. The way we have always done it in the past is to set up a model site. Now I express a model site for one reason. The only way you can set a model site up the way we have it was in purchasing business property. We could not do that on residential property. Some builders have put signs on houses for sale and sort of used it as a model, Dut we wanted to use it as a model site with the sign in the front, enter, exit and the parking lot. Now to do this, this ~nvolved quite a bit of money, not in just purchasing the business property, which is stated right in the petition itself. This was fine, we started, we opened up business, we have and We employed tw~ salesmen running seven days a week and we s~tarted to sell homes, and everything was fine. We met our overhead, which is also stated in the petition including the sales, which is not shown in the petition as a salesman's salary. Then things sort of decline~, ~nd We weren't selling the houses. We had expected to, have been selling them in the future and near future. So we had to lay~off some of the salesmen, and it got to a point that it was just uneconomically feasible to keep the model open, so I closed the model down. I then in the Spring, this is this early Spring, put the model up for sale, it was sent out to 12 or 14 brokers. I have a listing right now. I got a few responses, basically the people I was talking to were people that came to me. One was a doctor who was a dentist and for what we had invested in the property, which was $86,000, actually it's more than that, and what he wanted to do which was improving the model to house his-- required certain plumbing or whatever, and the expense got to be too high, so he had to back off from the site. I had another man interested who wanted to use it as'~a restaurant. Again a similar situation, he needed more space, he wanted to add on, and he had to rip out walls inside for his kitchen and so on and so forth with what we had there and what we were asking and what he had to do for repairs again wasn't economically feasible for this gentleman. Then, the only way that this could be sold or let's say economically feasible for someone to handle would be, in this instance, Mr. and Mrs. Gadas buying it, using it as a residence and also having their business located there. They could then afford the car~ rying charges on the total site being that they will be living $outhold Town Board of Appeals -50- November 15, .1979 use. Due to the building construction and the cost of the same, there is no current market value for this property as a pure residence. I say this primarily because the petitioner has $86,000 invested in this property. You could build or purchase the same one-story "L-shaped" ranch located in a purely resi- dential area for much less money. There are plenty of these types of homes currently in the Town of Southold. As pure business property, there is no real market for the sale of same because due to the nature of the main building being in the form of a residence, it would cost a lot of money to renovate same to make for pure business uses, which I have been through. When~the applicant informs you that it would ~take between $15,000 and $20,000 to renovate same he is being conservative, very, very conservative. I have just completed some recent renovations from residential to business in Southold, and believe me this estimate is very conservative. The point again is that you could erect a brand new structure for less money than it would to take to purchase and renovate this structure in the petition. As I stated previously, the mixed use of this property is ideal and it would fit into the neigh- borhood and would be an asset, the point being that we, there will be no change and on the other hand,if the appeal is not granted, petitioner will have no choice but to prevent re-occur- ring vandalism by boarding the property up and the structure will turn from an asset to a blight on the community, which Mattituck has plenty of. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to speak for this application? RICHARD LARK: Mr. Chairman, Richard Lark, Main Roadt Cut- chogue, representing the applicant. One correction I want to have made to the petition, is the address listed for the purchaser of Pine Place, Paul's Pine Place on Love Lane relocated to the old Bohack Building. They are no longer there on the corner of Main Road and Love Lane anymore. He still is an active purchaser in this property if the Board grants the application, but his address as listed in the petition before you is Changed since the date of the Petition. si think the primary thing that the Board's has to keep in mind, as you have heard testimony from Mr. Fuchs the property is yielding no return. If there's any question of a fair yield, it's now yielding zero at the present time. And I think they ought to keep in mind also that this is not a self-imposed hardship. When he built the model home, he did not have to seek any variances or anything. He got a regular building permit becauset even though at the time resi- dential use was not allowed in a business thing, he did not build it at that. He built it as he said, a model home, and it is unique, I believe this is the only one in the Town of Southold that's on a business location. And it was the result of market conditions, which I think we're all aware of that happened here in the last year or so, that the building busi- ness did not justify a model home. And, therefore, as he testified he had to seek alternative uses for the property. $outhold Town Board of Appeals -51- November 15, 1979 And he has had the property on the market for a considerable amount of time and he has been unable to sell it as a pure business use, as you heard because it would take a fairly large amount of expense to renovate it to make it anywheres suitable. And I think the other thing to keep in mind is, as I said, the property is not yielding any fair return at all, and it is presently costing him, as said in the applica- tion, $790 a month for mortgage, taxes, maintenance costs and so on and so forth. The imposition of the Zoning Ordi- nance of not allowing a residential use in a business district for which he seeks the variance will put the petitioner in a position of suffering a financial loss. And as stated by Mr. Albertson, if the Board does grant this variance, there will be absolutely no changes as to what's there. The driveways are ~n as you saw it, on one side it's an egress and the other s±de ±s an exit. There's ample, parking in the rear. It's set so that customers to the retail type of business would be per- mitted in this business district can park in the rear, and the customers have direct access to the 400 square-foot area of the residential house, which would be used as a sales area. It's a direct walkway as to those of you who have reviewed the property. So there will be absolutely no change from what is there. The fact that a residence or people who would be living in there, the house is built as a residence and looks as a residence from the road, and there are residences imme- diately next door and across the street. So it will not change the character of that neighborhood, and I do not believe it will have any harmful effect on the surrounding property values. As to the traffic conditions, it's set up as a business use as stated by Mr. Fuchs and wet~ he did have an active staff there and there is ample parking. There are presently no obsolete or dilapidated uses. It's all modern. So within the last, what, 1976 was when he started the construction of the place. And by granting this variance, I don't believe the Board will be set- ting in my opinion any type of a bad precedent because it is already there. The residences are in the neighborhood and as Mr. Albertson said, 50% of the property, structures on the property would be devoted to pure business use and the other 50% would be to residence use, which is probably the only way he is going to be able to sell this property for probably many years to come with the market conditions being the way they are. So I respectfully request that you would grant this applicant the variance for the mixed use which he seeks. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, Mr. Lark. MR. TUTHILL: The only thing they are asking for that's different is that people be allowed to live in this portion of ~t~ MA. LARK: Right. Prior to 1972 this would have been allowed. It is my understanding it was 1972 when they upgraded the zoning Ordinance, that they put an amendment through that excluded the living Qn a business property. That's right. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -52- November 15, 1979 MR. TUTHILL: Aside from that really, the use will be no different now except that people will be living in the living portion of the house instead of it being empty for showing purposes. MR. LARK: That's correct. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody wishing to speak against this application? (There was no response.) Having none, I will make a motion that the decision on this be postponed until after we finish with the balance of the appeals tonight. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonls, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of GWYNNE CONSTRUCTION CORP., Appeal No. 2634, BE RESERVED ITS DECISION until after the other appeals are finished tonight. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Tuthill and Doyen. Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2635. Application of VERNON and SALLY JACOBS, Gillette Drive, East Marion, New York, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition with insufficient sideyard. Location of property: 1165 East Gillette Drive, East Marion; bounded north by Manor Grove Corp., south by Schmidt, east by Cedar Lane, west by East Gillette Drive. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 11:17 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to: Manor Grove Corp. and Helene J. Schmidt; fee paid S15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a copy of the survey showing the proposal and a copy of the County Tax Map showing the surround- ±hg properties. Is there anyone wishing to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JACOBS: My name is Vernon Jacobs and I'm speaking for myself on this application. I have with me a copy of the Marion Manor Code, which was the predecessor to the Southold Town Code, and this request for a variance to the Southold Town Code is well within tke boundaries of the Marion Manor Code, which states the combined distance of 20 feet and 5 feet for any one individual line, and I think that my house, the original house was built under that code and the increase in the bedroom size is necessary as I have stated before. And I thank you for hearing the petition. 0 0 $outhold Town Board of Appeals -53- November 15, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Is there anyone wishing to speak against this application? GERRY GYLIBEY: Gerry Gylibey and I'm here representing Mr. Schmidt, Mrs. Schmidt. They are at this time in Europe. I'd like to oppose this variance because it would depreciate the selling value of the property. MR. DOUGLASS: That's it? You did well. Thank you. Yes, Vern? MR. JACOBS: Just to say one thing in answer to that. I think that putting an addition on my property is going to raise the value of that, and from what real estate people have told me, if adjoining properties become worth more, then that necessarily makes the value of other properties go up. where it's not going to be right up on his property line and with shrubbery in between. And it is vacant property. W~ have vacant property on both sides of my house. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: May I ask you just one question, Vern? Have you added up the area that all your existing structures are now occupying on your land? MR. JACOBS: You mean, total square footage? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, and the percentage of area that you are now covering? MR. JACOBS: Well the original house is 1200 square feet and the poolhouse addition is 100, 10' x 10', so that's 1300. MR. DOUGLASS: And the pool? MRS. JACOBS: That counts as a structure? MR. JACOBS:. The pool is 18' x 36' was par% of the structure. I didn't know that that MR. DOUGLASS: Do you know what percentage that would be of your property. MR. JACOBS: No. MR. DOUGLASS: We'll figure it out then. MR. JACOBS: I hadn't been notified that that was the problem. MR. DOUGLASS: There is a percentage regulation. Ail right, thank you. I will make a motion that we reserve decision on this until after we finish the balance of the appeals tonight. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -54- November 15, 1979 RESOLVED, that the matter of VERNON AND SALLY JACOB~, Appeal No. 2635, BE RESERVED ITS DECISION until later tonight when all the appeals have been finished. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill~ PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2636. Application of LIM CON ENTERPRISES, 1455 Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11787 for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60 for permission to construct sign exceeding height limitations. Location of property: Main Road and Factory Avenue, Mattituck, New York; bounded north and east by Bethany Cemetery Association, south by Main Road, west by Factory Avenue and Ardprop, Inc. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 11:25 P.M. by read±ng the application for special exception, legal notice of kearing and aff±dav±ts attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers~ Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notifi- cation to adjoining property owners was made to: ARO Proper- ties, Inc. and Bethany Cemetery Association; fee paid $15.00. MR, DOUGLASS: Is there anyone wishing to speak for this appl~cat±on? (There was no response.) Is there anyone wish- i~ng to speak against this application? (There was no response.) 0n mQti.on made by Mr, Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, i<t~as RESOLVED~ that the matter of LIM CON ENTERPRISES, Appeal NO. 2636 BE RESERVED ITS DECISION until after the other appeals have been f~n±shed tonight. 'Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuth±ll and Doyen. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED to recess this meeting for ten minutes. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. The meeting was declared reconvened at 11:40 P.M. o Z o ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -55~ November 15~ 1979 ~'-7~ ~'~ii~'~i~i~ APPEAL NO. 2615. Application of MATTITUCK HOLDING CO. After investigation.and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to build a new building for storage of boats. The parcel involved has approximately 15.2 acres an~ is zoned C-Light. According to the Site Plan submitted with the application, there are at least four other buildings on the premises. Applicant has submitted a parking plan for all the buildings on the subject premises which meets with the Board's approval. The Board does agree with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hard- ship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that MATTITUCK HOLDING CO. , Mill Road, Mattituck, New York 11952, BE GRANTED a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article VIII, Section 100-80B(15) for permission .%o con- ~truct a boa% storage shed, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) .That ~o further bulkheading will extend to the south into the natural wetlands past the present constructed bulkhead. (2) That drainage of lands around th~ new south storage building will be done so as not to allow drainage off into the wetlands° (3) That no lighting will be installed that might create a nuisance hardship for the neighbors. (4) Parking will be marked out and designated as per schedule presented by owners. Any overflow parking will be handle~ by use of empty space in storage sheds. (5) That no further structures shall be erected on the sub- ject premises without prior approval of this Board. Location of Property: West Mill Road~ Mattituck, New York; bounded north by Holmes and Killian, south by Foudy, Ziegler & McGunnigle~ west by Leo Grande and Inlet Lodge~ Inc.~ east b~ Mattituck Creek. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tut- hill and Doyen. Southol~ Town Board of Appeals -56~ November 15, 1979 APPEAL NO..2632. Application of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT applicant wishes to construct a bu~l~ing with three units to house golf course personnel during the golf season, for which the Board had previously received a similar application and granted permis- sion fo~.~he construction ~:of same on the parcel as herein applied but different as originally placed in its application of Appeal No. 2544. However, the Board does agree with the reasoning of the applicant, and the reason for this new application is to give ad~ joining property owners an opportunity to be heard on an'application for the parcel upon which it is to be decided upon. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hard- ship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the Special.Exception will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tu%hill, it was RESOLVED, that FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CO., Fishers Island, New York 06390, be GRANTED a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100-30 for permission to construct multiple dwelling with three units to house personnel, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) (2) {3) Site~Plan Approval from the Sout~01d Town Planning Board; Boar'd of Health Approval. The newly constructed building cannot be sold or separated from the 180 acres of the golf course unless at least three acres surrounding the building is preserved. Any change of ownership or use shall be referred to the Board of Appeals for their approval. (4) This camp will be brought up for consideration one year 'from approval date hereof to determine whether it is being prop~ erly controlled and operated. (5) That greens or screening be provided on the north side. (6) That the dwelling shall not be occupied at any time by more than nine persons. Location of property: Fishers Island, New York, near the Fishers Island Country Club, more particularly known as part of County Tax Map No. 1000-001-01-02 and part of 1000-001-01-3.1. vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. Squthold Town Board~'of'Appeais ;-57-' November 15, 1979 · APPEAL N0. 2613. Application of KIWANIS ~LUB 6~ SQUT~L~o After investigation and inspection, the ~oard ~inas ~naE the applicant requests permission to place the Old Schoolhouse Building on this residential premises for charity use. The Board ~grees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all proper- ties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that KIWANIS CLUB OF SOUTHOLD, Box 150, Peconic, New York 11958, be GRANTED a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30B(4) for permission to place building for charity use in a residential district, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW- ING CONDITIONS: (I) That off-street Parking facilities be made available, such as paving, gravel, etc. on the premises. ~) ~pproval of the Suffolk County Planning'Co~mission. Location of property: Lower Road and Route 25, Sou%hold, New York; bounded north by Lower Road, south by Route 25, west by Route 25, east by Goldsmith. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthill. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant wishes to construct a building with an insufficiento rearyard setback of 33-1/2 feet. However; in the sketch sub- mitted with the application, the proposed dwelling shows a insufficient frontyard setback of 49'9"~ for which no applica- tion has b~n made for. Therefore, the Board agrees with the reasoning of a rearyard setback, to be not less than 33 feet (not the 33-1/2 feet as proposed). The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of %he proper~y and in the same use district; and %he variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion made it was RESOLVED, that. EILEEN M. LEMBECK, 447 Greene Avenue, Say- viile, New York 11782, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for p~rmission to con- struct dwelling with insufficient rearyard setback, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: .... -... : . · (1) That the building be s~t back from the rearyard line not less than 33 feet; "~ (2) That all other setbacks conform to the Zoning Code.~ Location of property: Deerfoot Path, Cutchogue, New York; bounded north by Fitzpatrick, east by Deerfoot Path, south by . Jester, west by Leskody. .- ' : - ' ' ' ~' V6te of the Board~ Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting sideyard setbacks from the northerl~ line · 13 feet and from the southerly line 8 feet. The south~riy house has an insufficient sideyard, and it is noted that the - ~stablished frontyard in the immediate area is 35 feet from the front llne,~whlch the applicant also proposes but is not required' to apply for. The Board'will agree with the reasoning of the applicant only if the sideyards as proposed were reversed, the 13 feet from the southerly line, and 8 feet from the northerly line due. to the reason that the southerly house also has an insufficient sideyard, and the northerly parcel has more than the required sideyard.area~ The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all - properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it wa s ~ RESOLVED, that JANET HALVERSON, c/o A. Tyrrell, Box 14, Orient, New York 11957, BE GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to con- struct dwelling with insufficient sideyards, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: So~uthold Town Board Of Appeals -59~ November 15'~ !979 ~ -- ~ · ~ That the dwelling not be constructed closer than 13 feet from the southerly boundary line and not less than 8 feet from the northerly boundary line and be set back to the average es- tablished frontyard setback line. Location of property: Founders Pathv Southold, New York, Filed Map ~834, Lot ~67; bounded north by Diana, south by Tempel, east by Shanks, wes~ by Founders Path. Vote Of the Board: Doyen. Negative Vote: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis and Messr. Tuthill. APPEAL NO. 2633. Application of DELMER F. NUHFER. After investigation 'and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting permission to set off Bayside Terrace Subdivision Lot 915 from. Subdivision Lot ~6 as was originally subdivided before they purchased the properties. Because both parcels have same ownership, they are considered "merged and one lot." The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant° The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance~ On motion made by Mro Douglass~ seconded by Mra Grigonis~ it ~as RESOLVED, that DELMER NUHFER, 600 Cedar Drive, Southold, New York 11971, BE GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to divide property with insufficient area and width. Location of property: 600 Cedar Drive, Southold~ New York; bounded north by Boggiano, south by Bloore & Thilberg, east by Summer Lane~ west by Cedar Avenue. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthitl. S0uthold' Town Board of.Appe~i~S~ After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to use the model home living area for residential use and to utilize the two-car garage as a showroom~ office space, and the garage at the rear of the property for storage of his products. The Board does agree with the reasoning of the applicant. - The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all the properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the applicantr GWYNNE CONSTRUCTION CORP., 163A Montauk Highway West, Hampton Bays, New York, be GRANTED a Variance to %he Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70 for permission to change use to include residential use in B-1 Zone, SUBJECT TO T~E FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That any business conducted on the premises shall be con- ducted by the person(s) residing in the.dwelling on the premises; (2) Approval of'the Suffolk County Planning Commission% .Loc~ion of property: 6355 Main Road, Laurel, New York; bounded north by Mattituck Co!ding Co., south by Maston, east by Main Road, west by Long Island Railroadl Vote of the Board: and Tuthill. ~ Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen APPEAL NO. 2635. Application of VERNON AND SALLY JACOBS. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicants are requesting a sideyard setback of approximately eight feet, total sideyards approximately 21 feet for construc- tion of an addition to be used as an additional bedroom. However, due to the fact that if this addition was constructed, the total lot area occupied would be more than the maximum requirement of twenty percent (20%), the Board does not agree with the reasoning of the applicant. ; ." The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is not unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district; and the variance will change the character of the neighborhood and will not observe %he spirit of the Ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis it was RESOLVED, that VERNON and SALLY JACOBS, 1165 East Gillette Drive, East Marion, New York 11939, BE DENIED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk and Park Schedule, WITHOUT PREJUDICE° Location of property: 1165 East Gillette Drive, East Marion, New York; bounded north by Manor Grove Corp. i south by Schmidt, east by Cedar Lane, west by East Gillette Drive. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis~ ~u%hi!! and Doyen. o Southold Town Board of Appeals -6'2- November 15, 1979 APPEAL NO. 2636. Application of LIM CON ENTERPRISES. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting an on-premises sign in excess of the height limitations of the Southold Town Code, but less than the total sign area limitations, to wit, 9' L x 8' H totaling 72 square feet in area. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; t~e kardsk!p created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the ±n~ediate vicinity of the property and ~n the same use d~strict; and the variance will not change the ckaracter of the ne±ghborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that LIM CON ENTERPRISES, 1455 Veterans Memorial Higkway, Hauppauge, New York, BE GRANTED a Special Exception to t~e Zoning Ordi.nance, Article VI, Section 100-~0C(2) for permis- sion to construct sign exceeding height limitations SUBJECT TO Tm F~LLOW1NG CONDITIONS: (1t That the height shall not exceed 8 feet and the width shall not exceed 9 feet; the total square footage shall not exceed 72 square feet; (2) That the sign shall conform in all other respects with the provisions of the Zoning Code; ~3) That the sign shall at all times remain in good repair; (4~ That in the event any of the conditions imposed herein shall not be complied with or in the event that said sign at any time in the future violates any of the provisions of the Zoning Code, upon ten days' written notice to the owner the Board of Appeals may revoke the approval hereby granted; (5) Approval of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Location of property: Main Road and Factory Avenue, Matti- tuck, New York; bounded north and east by Bethany Cemetery As- sociation~ south by Main Road, west by Factory Avenue and Ard- prop Inc. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-142-01-26. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and T~tki~l. So~uthold Town Board of Appeals -63- November 15, 1979 was On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it RESOLVED, that in the matter of the application of EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, Appeal No. 2579, this Board has under consideration an appeal of EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, represented by his attorney, Richard F. Lark, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, New York 11935, involving property located at Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York, bounded on the north by Parkside Heights Co., east by Shipyard Lane, south by Gardiners Bay, west by Parkside Heights Co., and for which permission is requested to erect a 28-unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and a coffee shop pur- suant to Article V, Section 100-50, and WHEREAS, a large portion of said property is located in a flood plain, and accordingly is a Type I Action and which may have a significant effect upon the environment; NOW THEREFORE be it RESOLVED, that the applicant be required to complete and file with this Board an Environmental Assessment in the Long Form for consideration by this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tuthilt. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the October 11, 1979 meeting be approved and that the Minutes of the September 27, 1979 meeting also be approved. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen and Tutkill. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mro Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals will be held on Thursday, December 6, 1979 at 7:30 o'clock P.M., and that the following times be set as the time of hearing upon the following applications: 7:40 P.M. Recessed hearing. Application of PHILIP A. WENZEL, Appeal No. 2598. 7:50 P.M. Recessed hearing. DICKINSON, Appeal No. 2629. 8:05 P.M. Public Hearing. Appeal No. 2637. Application of RALPH H. Application of Vincent J. Acunto, 0 0 o $o~uthold Town Board of Appeals 8:10 P.M. Public Hearing. Appeal No. 2644. 8:20 P.M. Public Hearing. Appeal No. 2645. -64, November 15, 1979 Application of W. Chet VanDyne, Application of Numzio Reale, Application of William Heins, Application of J.B. Hartsfield, Application of John Louis Mount- Application of Sa!vatore Loria, Application of Herbert and Kath- Application of Ralph Martin, Jr., Application of Grace KeYoung Park, Application of JoAnn and Frank Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Doyen On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that the meeting be declared closed at 1:00 o'clock A.M., November 16, 1979. Respectfully submitted, ARRROVED, iA Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary 8:40 P.M. Public Hearing. Appeal No. 2642. 8:45 P.M. Public Hearing. Appeal No. 2641. 8:55 P.M. Public Hearing. zouros, Appeal No. 2639. 9:05 P.M. Public Hearing. Appeal No. 2646. 9:15 P.M. Public Hearing. leen Muncy, Appeal No. 2638. ~30 P,M. Public Hearing. Appeal No. 2647. 9]:40 P.M. Public Hearing. Appeal No 2640. 9:50 P.M. Public Hearing. Rizzo, Appeal No. 2648. Vote of the Board: Ayes: and Tuthill. 8:30 P.M. Public Hearing. Application of Michelle Becker d/b/a Michetle's Beauty Salon, Appeal No. 2643.