Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
17508-z
FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD $UILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No Z-22000 Date DECEMBER 4, 1992 THIS CERTIFIES that the building ACCESSORY STRUCTURE Location of Property 2255 WICKHAM AVENUE MATTITUCK N. Y. House No. Street Hamlet County 'Pax Mag No. 1000 Section 114 Block 3 Lot 1 Subdivision Filed Map- No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated JULY 21, 1988 pursuant to which Building Permit No. 17508-Z dated OCTOBER 6, 1988 was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is ACCESSORY STORAGE STRUCTURE & STOCKADE FENCING AS APPLIED FOR The certificate is issued to MATT-A-MAR, INC. (owner) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. N/A PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED N/A oth uilding Inspector Rev. 1/81 a~osas xo. a TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N. Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MU5T BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF TtiE WORK AUTHORIZED) 0 ~l 7 5 0 $ Z Dote 19.. Lt Permission is hereby granted to: ` _ to cA?`~r.4/~4:,r4R..~.-....Ar.Y,.....l.A.f~ : .r.~r~..•...... .,!'~:4,~!:-:...,t:........... ~............~.....~~'v-~~- .nr ct premises located at . ~:~~~......4~.F~'~.a:'.'!? .........<.......•••r•?~ •J.. G............ County Tax Map No. 1000 Section .......,i!. Block .......Q..~,..... Lot No....4...! pursuant to application dated ..~.......a.,~ 19.~~.., and approved by the Building Inspector. Fee $...~~R.l.~.l...... r Building Inspector Rev. b/30/$0 f Form No. 6 'a -~"~a;-~~;'r ;~i ~a. ~ - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~.'~~r~,~,~, L'. t' BUILDING DEPARTMENT ~~v ~ fa0~2 765N1 021 ~ ~ APPLICATION FOR. CERTIPICATl: OF OCCUPANCY t ~3`~•.:r:.;: ~;~1zi fF~lt7l G~S F~,Ua. This application musC be filled in by typewriter OR ink and submitted to the building inspector with the following: for new building or new use: 1. Final survey of property with accurate location of all buildings, property lines, streets, and unusual natural or topographic features. 2. Final Approval from Health Dept. of water supply and sewerage-disposal(5-9 form), 3. Approval of electrical installation from Board of Fire Underwriters. 4. Sworn statement from plumber certifying that the solder y:sed in system contains less than 2/10 of 19 lead. 5. Commercial building, industrial building, multiple residences and similar buildings and installations, a certificate of Code Compliance from architect or engineer , responsible for the building. 6. Submit Planning Board Approval of completed site plan requirements.. 3.~ For existing buildings (prior to April 9, 1957) non-conforming uses, or buildings and "pre-existing" land uses: 1. .Accurate survey o£ property showing all property lines, streets, building and unusual natural or topographic features. 2. A properly completed application and~a consent to inspect signed by the applicant. If a Certificate of Occupancy is denied, the Building Inspector shall state the reasons Cherefor in writing to the applicant. Fees 1. Certificate of Occupancy - New dwelling $25.00, Additions to dwelling $25.00, Alterations to dwelling $25.00, Swimming pool $25.00, Accessory building $25.00, Additions to accessory building $25.00. Businesses $50.00. 2. Certificate of Occupancy on Pre-existing Building - $100.00 • 3. Copy of Certificate.of Occupancy - $5.00 over 5 years - $10.00 " 4. Updated Certificate of Occupancy - $50.00 5. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy - Residential $15.00, Commercial $1'5.00 Date ~ l ;~.fl~.`..... ~w Construction....+<...... Old Or Pre-existing Building xation of Property:...........~•~a~. K`?!~.KF{~Am,.w~:........r?"~R~~,+1:V~,.~~ House No. nn Street .Hamlet iwcr or Owners of Property.N.~A~;~`.i::.~~R .it;~~,f,,, ~,,l.i , AC~;ARq;BI,. ~~~~p/~~,c~~~.~i- unty Tax Map No 1000, Section...~l+.~........B1ock.....~........,Lot....~... `T bdivision ....................................Filed Map............Lot...................... rmit No,~~~~$Z`.....Date Of Permit.,j!0.:~':.~~...Applicant.~?t?IJ,Cs,UC.~S,FC(Z I~daY4f1_K1i~i12 +lth Dept. Approval ..........................Underwriters Approval..~~`e'„G~RT+F!~;f~. F}tY!iC'}!E,fj inning Board Approval..Y4'.`~ ucst for: Temporary CertiFicate........... Final Certicate. ' Submitted: . Q.kG~~saJ9 ~ APPLICANT ' nn7 '1?n0(7 TEL. 7G5-180? 05~~ F/°1`XC~G~' TO~/N OI' SOUTIIOLD :a 41:~~~" =c Up[~ICL' OC• BUILDING INSPECTOR ~n; ;Irk x P.O. BO\ 1179 yO. ~ j,, ~r TO~VNfiALL yf/Ol ~,~~t" SOUTIIOLD, N.Y. 1 1971 November 23, 1992 Matt A Mar Marina 2255 Wickham Avenue Mattituck, N. Y/ 11952 To 41hom This May Concern, We arc unable to complete your Certificate of Occupancy because of the 1:ollotaing reasons. An application for Certificate of Occupancy is not on Lilc. / / No Undcr~ariters Certificate on file. /~}{g The check is ~gg!¢~~~~/not on file. ) $50.00 Ido Ifcall-h Dept. Approval on file. No final inspection has been made. 1'lcasc contact our office on this matter. 1'hanY_ you for your cooperation. Buildi.mi Ycrmit II 1 7 5 0 8 Z Z [3u.ilding Dcpt. No t~lumber Sulder Certificate on file. ( all permit, involving plumbing being issued after April 1,19BA ) r1::LD it:S"ECT,IGN fIDniG ( COMMENT° -9 .r f ~ m y 1 . - - - y tY FOUtlDATION (1st) ~ ti FOUNDATIOtS (2nd) ' - - t ~ 2. z o M d ROUGH FRAME & PLUMBING r P y 3. ~ rn y TIJSULATIOP! PER N, Y. STATE ENERGY .{i'~ CODE _ x a FIiJAL o Sot ,O. ~ Xs ADDZTIOAIAL COMMENTS: x 3, d ? 4 u/8~4/ o.Q~-wLwy~sQ. ~~.t,a~,.,. u-zta~'y"~ "R.o V~ l~~o~)t' w..~~Q °Ca~„ ~:~a.~.~_ ' D ~ x q,, N.I~ ,..Dl µ ' ~ h1 1'O n ~ ~ ~ r L Q~AA . ~ ! DYt S F.a Xt H w0 J~ A~Tiunx .~vLC~e '~..u Cuvh.t.o~.IR. ~CAd~~~`Qi. ~ m A r ~ .O. x ~ r~ a m ~a 6' S S_ 6' Z~ s lv • ~ ~ .btu w s_ v ~ . 5 ~ a~~~ Qda. ~ A i ~ _ ~ 0 - ~ ~ ~ ~ V'~ NV ~ I ~ • L ,v ~ :3 Y p _ ~ s 1 - i < ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J Td`e:J Cp. p ~ ~ t t O~ j b{.q _ q 3 b ~r~. $ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ o N i ~ r fi. a Q t ~ ~ ~ `'J ~ c,~^.• 2~. ZC ~ m A ~ a ~ ~ w -0 (p ~ ~ O L1 ~1 P JJJ ~ I y ~ - ~ ~ A ~ ~ I C ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ 4 „1~~.1 CAI ® ~C', i ~ I l J l Q ~ m w ~ ~ ~ e o ~ t:~ Z~ ~ ~ o. ~o ~ H T a ~ A ~I~~ ~ ~y LP • ~ e fir' ~ a~ 1 b i~ ~ n ~_____m ~ ~ is A ~~~o U ~ aI ip ~;3^ o ,i ~I ~ y 3 m o G $ I J a ~ o y ` I ~ h ~ ~ ~ f. Q ~ ~ ~ . rn 3 ~ I ,i Q ~ ~ ~ i • ~ ~ a~ u~ ~ ~ ~ R1 o c o~ r'( Q r~a7m~ / i g o m ~ \ l,~` . r~ a£ A° ~ Y~'~. , ~ ~ mx ory r m z, G - - ~ _ _ . _ ,v 1n'o ~ ~ rrnr .oc6~t..n.r n.v.+'~r nnr ~DA/(! G4AS~' W/GKHH~» AvE TOWN Of; SOUTIIOLD _ BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, NEtiV YORK STOP WORK O R D E R TO: WICKHAM ROAD MARINA, INC. Owner Owner's A ent or Person Pertorming Work) C/0 h~ATT-A-MAR M~RINA i P.o. Box 1235, Mattituck, New York 11952 ' Address of above-named person) YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO SUSPEND ALL WORK AT: 2255 WICRBAM AVENUE, MATTITUCR, NEW YORK 1 Address where work is to be stopped , TAX ~UtAP NUMBER 1000- 1 14-03-01 Pursuant to section 100-271A of the Code of the Town of Southold, New York you are notified to immediately suspend all work and bui]ding activities until this order has been rescinded. . BASIS OF STOP WORK ORDER: The Southold Town Board of Appeals has granted the request under Appl. No. 3829 for the reversal of determination by the Building Inspector to grant Building Permit Oi017508Z thereby determining the permit to be an invalid permit thereby nullifying and voiding the effects of said permit. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WORK MAY BE RESUfv1ED: Prior to issuance or re issuance of a Building Permit for this building, further interpretations be formally requested of the Board of Appeals for clarification as to whether all of the activities in this proposed building is a permitted principal use or a permitted accessory use in this zoning district, including but not limited to the applicable requirements in determining height limitations and yard locations under the Zoning Code and be remanded for further hearing s on t e above noted elements, if necessary. Failure to remedy the ctinditions aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. DATED: May 9, 1989 BUILDING INSPECTOR /CODE NFORCEIIENT OFFICER Vincent R. Wieczorek TOWN OP SOUTIIOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTI-TOLD, NEW YORK STOP WORK O R D E R TO: I.1.1 l C (C t t ~ o t4 W1 to ~ ~ ~ ~ "t C ,,9caner, Owner's A nt or Pelson Pecrorming Work ' ~/U VJI~q`Lf'° ~A - Y`~t W IM ~I V£_~ ~-P cA ~ P~D t2, `~,I (A~l~-f(^I~UL(C~U.~ 1(ci`J'e2. - Address of above-named person YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO SUSPEND ALL WORK AT: i ~a~5~ t>,) L C K V~ wt U l~ ~ a- iT tT v c- ti ~l, Y~ Address where work is to be stopped TAX MAP NUMBER ~?JC}D ' I l Y "D D 1 Pursuant to section ~Q(? - a 7/ f} of the Code of the Town of Southold, New York you are notified to immediately suspend all work and building activities until this order has been rescinded. QQ /JJ ~ p n~ BASIS OF STOP WORK ORDER: `~'RQ. ~~A.f-+r~A-~Y ~~t}r.~+~~t~ uJ rte!' . -tl~e. ~ . dle- ~ ~ /fig ~ ~j/' /'~~.(~/,,r?w~~~"t .6r V . COND[ ONS ~NDER WHICH WOR~ MA~Y~j B, RESU4SED: ~ ~r-L. `(.p-- (Q,Q.t,Ck~e~~. U-z ,t~ltc2.de~, k,,.JZn~ r e.%r ft~L~' l.~ A U`L-. Gt.. L of .s~rr~~) f ~ s Cite,. zf ~,4 ,.a~s,,,~., y,,~D ~ Fai u1 re to remedy the c6nditions a oresaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law may constitute an offe puni ~ able by fine or imp~ryiysonm nt or both. N~ , DATED: BUILDING INSPECTOR /CODE ENFORCE\tENT OFFICER ~ S~FFOtk~~~ t~~ ~ ~ Southold Towri Board of A eals o~ ° ` PP '~.y~ol ~°b~~ MAIN ROAD -STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (616) 766.1809 FAX No. (516) 765-1623 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS JAMES DINIZIO, JR. Appl. No. 3829: Matter of the Application of BROWERS WOODS ASSOCIATION, INC. and BARBARA REITER for a Reversal of a Determination by Building Inspector to Grant Building Permit No. 0175082 dated October 6, 1988 concerning a proposed "steel building for indoor storage of boats" to be located at premises referred to as "MATT-A-MAR," now or formerly owned by Wickham Road Marina, Inc. Zone District: Marine-II (M-IIj. {Previous Zoning District: B-Light Business}. Application was filed citing the prior Zoning Code, Article VI, Sections 100-60 and 100-61, and Article XIV. New Zoning Code citations refer to Sections 100-121 and 100-122 and Article XXVII for the same or similar provisions for this M-II Zone District. Location of Property: West Side of Wi.ekham Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 114, Block 3, Lot 1. At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on April 27, 1989, the following action was taken: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 9, 1989 in the Matter of Application No. 3829; WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the hearing was officially extended until April 16, 1989, to allow written submissions and certified maps to be submitted for the record as requested by the Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present and previous zoning classifications, and the surrounding areas; and Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- April 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3829 - BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-MAR Decision, Continued:) WHEREAS, the Board made the following Findings of Fact: APPLICANTS AS AGGRIEVED PARTIES 1. One of the first issues at hand is whether or not the applicant, BROWERS WOODS ASSOCIATION, is an "aggrieved party" in this application as of its substitution March 3, 1989. It is the position of this Board that the applicants satisfy the criteria for standing based upon the size of the Membership in the Association as owners and residents of real property in the immediate vicinity of the subject premises, majority 75~ vote of its members to join in this application, proof of incorporation, etc. In considering the criteria set down by the Court of Appeals in the Matter of Douglaston Civic Association, Inc. v. Galvin, 36 N.Y. 2d ~_the Browers Woods Association is, in the Board's opinion, a bona fide representative of those members as residents and property owners being affected by the construction of the subject bui:ding (see affidavits and supporting documents in the record). 2. It is also through individual knowledge by Board Members that the property owners in the Browers Woods Association, and that Mr. Fred Renq<inesci and Mrs. Barbara Reiter were and still are property owners, all within the immediate vicinity and thereby affected by the subject building. RFsQUESTS UNDER Z.B.A. APPLICATION 3. By application made under File No. 3829, the following requests are under consideration: (a) Reversal of determination of Building Inspector to grant Building Permit No. 0175082 for the reason that the subject building i:; subject to approval by the Planning Board under the zoning code regulations; (b) Reversal of determination of Building Inspector to grant Building Permit No. 0175082 for the reason that the subject building does not conform to the height requirements of the zoning code; (c) Reversal of determination of Building Inspector to grant Building Permit No. 0175082 for the reason that the building permit application should have been denied on the basis Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- April 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3829 - BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-MAR Decision, Continued:) that the proposed structure is within 75 feet of the bulkheaded wetland area. GENERAL HISTORY PRIOR TO 1977 4. From prior to April 23, 1957 and up until the late 1960's, the subject premises was located in the "A" Residential- Agricultural Zoning District and was used as a restaurant with residential/cottage use, without marina or boat-storage use. 5. A change of zone application was filed and later granted on on June 11, 1965 by the Southold Town Board for a change in zone from "A" to "B-2." Under Article IVB, Section 440E1), marinas for the docking, mooring and accommodation of non-commercial boats were a listed permitted (principal} use. No provision was made for upland storage of boats or boat servicing in this B-2 Zone District. 6. On August 13, 1965, Matt-A-Mar, Inc. acquired title to the subject premises. 7. The principal use as a marina was established some time afer August 13, 1965, subsequent to the bulkhead construction along the waterfront areas. No upland storage or boat servicing existed. 8. On November 23, 1971, the zoning designations for this property was changed from "B-2" to "B-Light Business." The zoning regulations in effect at this time also required Site-Plan Approval and Special Exception approval under Article VI, Section 600B(1), and Section 500B(2), worded as follows: ..B. Uses Permitted by special Exception by the Board of Appeals as hereinafter provided...2. Marinas for the docking, mooring or accommodation of non-commercial boats...." 9. No record of a site-plan application or special exception approval concerning an expansion of the marina or construction of a new building for marina use or otherwise has been found of record prior to 1986. PRIOR ZONING APPEALS RECORD 10. On January 11, 1977, the Town Building Department disapproved an application to store boats for this property under Article VI, Section 100-60A (Permitted Principal Uses) on the following grounds: ...Present zoning does not permit storage and repair of boats... . Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- April 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3829 - BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-MAR Decision, Continued:) 11. On January 27, 1977, Use Variance No. 2242, granted under the provisions of Article VI, Section 100-60A as to a Permitted Principal Use, was conditioned and limited by the Board of Appeals for outside storage of boats (which use was added as a ruse in addition to the marina use of the boats moored and docked at the marina). 12. On April 28, 1978, the Board of Appeals received a letter from the attorney representing Matt-A-Mar Marina, requesting clarification as to whether it is necessary to obtain a further variance. 13. On May 5, 1978, the Board of Appeals confirmed that a variance is required because the use of the premises for retail sales of boats is a permitted use in the C-Light Zone District, not in the B-Light Business Zone District. 14. On May 8, 1978, an application was made to the Southold Town Building Department for retail sales of boats; and on May 12, 1978, the Building Inspector disapproved the application on the following grounds: " ....Retail Sales of Boats are a non-permitted use in this zone... 15. Also, on May 8, 1978, an application for a use variance under Article VII, Section 100-70 of the Code was applied for concerning the proposed retail sale of boats in conjunction with the applicant`s present marina business. 16. On June 1, 1978: (a) Use Variance No. 2419 was granted with limitations for the retail sale of not more than 15 new boats under Art. VII, Section 100-71"; (The sale of used boats or. other watercraft or marine items was not specifically authorized in the Board's decision); (b) A request was filed under Appeal No. 2420 for the construction of a substantial boat-storage building in the front yard area, and a public hearing was held by the Board of Appeals on June 1, 1978. The record at that time was clear that such use was permitted in the "...C-Light Industrial, Item 16 (Art. VIII, Sect. 100-80) for boat buildings, boat servicing, boat storage facilities...." (See Pages 28 and 29, Transcript of Hearing of June 1, 1978 under Appl. No. 2420). The application appeared to have been filed with the impression that such use was allowed in this zone by Board of Appeals action and the application was then withdrawn when this issue was clarified at the hearing. 17. The primary use was as a marina which was not upland and did not necessitate occupancy for this use upland (as are usually common with many other types of uses) or within an 3 Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- April 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3829 - BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-MAR Decision, Continued:) enclosed building since the boats were docked in the water. CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP 18. On June 1, 1979 the subject premises was conveyed to F. Nowak; and on June 2, 1979, conveyed to Mr. Agarabi. RECENT SITE-PLAN APPLICATION 19. On December 11, 1986, Site Plan Maps were filed by representatives} o£ Matt-A-Mar, and it is known that on several occasions, the Manager of Matt-A-Mar met with Planning Board Office personnel concerning a proposed boat-storage building concerning the general site-glan elements. On January 13, 1987, site-plan maps were referred by the Southold Town Planning Board to the Building Department for certification (see Planning Board resolution adopted January 12, 1987). ' 20. On October 13, 1987, alternative maps with different building locations were furnished to~the Planning Board. " 21. On October 15, 1987, a letter was sent from the Building Department to the Planning Board Office indicating that the "proposed building would indicate a change of use from (B) Light Business to a commercial use, depending on building use. During 1987, the provisions of the "B-Light Business" Zone District for this property did not include boat storage as a permitted use, and boat storage was a used permitted in the "C-Light Industrial" Zone District. 22. Several appropriate steps were taken concerning site-plan jurisdiction, including presubmission conference(s), and referral to the Building Inspector for certification in accordance with Article XIII, Section 100-133,-subsection B of the Zoning Code concerning the "Site Plan Procedures. In reviewing the record, no record of certification was found. However, on October 15, 1987, a letter was sent by the Building Inspector to the Planner in the Planning Board Office indicating the "commercial" nature of the use of the property and the type or nature of boats to b~ stored. 23. No other action was taken at a meeting of the Planning Board which might have authorized changes, a withdrawal, a waiver, or any other modification to the site-plan record. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- April 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3829 - BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-MAR Decision, Continued:) 24. At the time of the issuance of the subject Building Permit on October 6, 1988, an application for Site Plan approval was officially on file and pending with the Southold Town Planning Board for a (boat) storage building of a similar nature and size. The applicant did file a letter received by the Office of the Planning Board on July 6, 1988 indicating his request to withdraw the application since they were studying other options. Upon information and belief, this request was never presented to the Planning Board for a formal vote to accept and or to declare the application withdrawn, with or without prejudice. It is apparent that the proper jurisdiction for a withdrawal, waiver, or other action under the site-plan process, and general regulations for the site-plan elements under Article XIII of the Zoning Code, has been and is the Members of the Town Planning Board (rather than the Building Department). It is the determination of this Board that the building-permit was not properly issued, and accordingly action is required by the Southold Town Planning Board under its site-plan regulations. 25. On February 17, 2989, written confirmation was sent to the Board of Appeals received from the Southold Town Planning Board confirming that a determination is required by the Planning Board concerning the proposed new building. ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ON PERMIT APPLICATION 26. The (1988) application for the building permit was erroneous with regard to the Zone District. B-1 was stated instead of B-Light Business. The maximum height requirement for a principal building in a B-1 Zone was 35 feet. The maximum height requirement for a principal building in the B-Light Zone was 30 feet. Boat storage was a use permitted in the C-Light Industrial Zone District and was not provided for in the B-Light Zone District. The height limitation for accessory buil3ings occupied by an accessory use is 18 feet. BUILDING PERMIT/INSPECTIONS 27. On July 21, 1988, an application was filed with the Building Department fora new "steel storage building for indoor storage of boats...at the southwest section of 9-acre parcel." 28. On October 6, 1988, Building Permit No. 175082 was issued for the construction of " ..accessory storage structure and 8' stockade fencing as applied for... Fee $3675.00...." A foundation plan was submitted 12/88 prepared by Thomas D. Reilly, P.E. First and Second Foundation Inspections were done on January 12, 1989 and February 2, 1989, respectively, and an updated "as-built" foundation survey prior to these inspections was not a past of the building-permit file as required by Section 100-1'41(I) of the Zoning Code "...signed by the person responsible for said survey, showing the exact location of such foundation with respect to the street and property lines of the a Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- April 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3829 - GROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-MAR decision, Continued:) lot," and which continues to provide that "...no further construction shall be performed until such survey is approved by the Building Inspector...." 29. The sketched plan submitted under the building permit application depicted a proposed storage building 36' from ground to peak, 100 feet from the west side of sidewalk area along Wickham Avenue, 75 feet from mean high water mark. The existing - bulkhead was shown, but a setback distance to the same was not depicted. BULKHEAD SETBACK/SECTION 100-119.2B 30. At the time of issuance of this building permit,.Article XI, Section 100-119.2 (renumbered by Local Law #3-1989 to Article XXIII, Section 100-239d) of the Zoning Code was in full force and effect and reads as follows: • " ..B. All buildings located on lots upon which a bulkhead concrete wall, riprap or similar structure exists and which is adjacent to tidal water bodies other than sounds shall be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the bulkhead. The following exceptions will apply: 1. Buildings which are proposed landward of existing buildings. 2. Lands which are not bulkheaded and are subject to a determination by the Board of Town Trustees under Chapter 97 of the Code of the Town of Southold. 3. Docks, wharves, pilings, boardwalks, stairs promenades, walkways, piers, which are accessory and separate from existing buildings or accessory structures...." It is noted that the property is bulkheaded, the proposed building is not landward of existing buildings from the subject bulkhead (to the south} and is not a structure listed in Item #3 (such as a dock, wharf, piling, boardwalk, stairs, promenade, etc.}. This Board is familiar with the intent of this Section B since this Department drafted the proposed Local Law at the time of enactment for legislative consideration. 31. Evidence by way of a certified survey prepared by a licensed surveyor has been submitted for the appeal record confirming that the building is set back 65 feet from the existing bulkhead (rather than the required 75 feet). Precedents concerning permit applications in the Building Department and zoning variances before the Board of Appeals show that the minimum setback under the ruling has always been 75 feet from the bulkhead, regardless of the distancerto the Southold Town Board of Appeals-8 April 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3829 - BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-MAR Decision, Continued:) highwater mark below the bulkhead. To date, there has been no change in this interpretation or change in the wording of the law. WETLANDS CODE CH. 97 32. This Board does not believe that it has proper jurisdiction under Chapter 97 of the Wetlands Ordinance. It is not unusual, however, for the Town Trustees to either require a wetland permit or to waive their jurisdiction under the Wetlands ordinance (Ch. 97) based on the location of the highwater or wetland areas and the condition of the bulkhead or similar barriers, even when jurisdiction is appropriate with the Board of Appeals. The Trustees jurisdiction or possible waiver of jurisdiction is not a matter properly to be determined by this Board under the Zoning Code; however, it is urged that the practice of requiring applications to the Trustees for their appropriate action under the Wetlands Code (Ch. 97) should be continued prior to the issuance of Building Permits. VALIDITY OF BUILDING PERMIT 33. Article XIV, Section 100-141, now renumbered Article XXVITI, Section 100-281, provides that no building permit shall be issued unless the proposed construction is in full conformity with all the provisions of the zoning codes and all other applicable laws, ordinances and regulations; and that any building permit issued in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be null and void and of no effect without the necessity for any proceedings, revocations or nullifications thereof; and any work undertaken or use established pursuant to the issuance of a permit in violation of the provisions of the zoning code shall be invalid (emphasis added). DETERMINATION 34. It is the position of this Board that the building permit is hereby determined to be an invalid permit since the permit was not issued in conformity with certain provisions of the Zoning Code, including but not limited to the following areas (as more particularly described in the above findings): A. Nonconformance concerning the minimum required setback of buildings at not less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. B. Nonconformance as final action under Site-Plan review regulations, parking regulations, and/or other action by the Southold Town Planning Board. 35. By this determination, the effect of the subject building permit is null and void, without the necessity for any proceedings, revocations or nullification thereof {Section 100-281 (100-141)}. Southold Town Board of Appeals-'9- April 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3829 - BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-MAR Decision, Continued:) OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 36. Prior to re-issuance or reinstatement of any Building Permit for this building, further interpretations must be formally requested and considered by this Board, for further clarification as to whether all of the activities in this proposed building is a permitted principal use or a permitted accessory use in this zoning district, including but not limited to the applicable requirements in determining height limitations and yard locations under the Zoning Code, and shall BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER HEARING(S) on the above-noted elements, if necessary, for the following reasons.: (a) It is the opinion of the attorney representing the property owner, Wickham Road Marina, Inc., and/or Matt-A-Mar Marina, Inc., that the subject building is an "accessory building with an accessory use." Past zoning actions have provided that an accessory use or accessory building is permitted only in the required rear yard and at a height not to exceed 18 feet, except when the criteria for an area variance is appropriately issued by the Board of Appeals. The subject building is located in the front yard and is understood to be at a height greatly in excess of 18 feet. The definition of height under Section 100-13 is as follows: "...The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the finished grade of the land immediately adjacent to the building to the highest point of the roof for flat and mansard roofs and to the mean height between eave and ridge for other types of roofs...." The height distance provided during the hearing is the footage "from the floor of the building to the top, or to the ridge line to get 35 feet...." (Reference: Page ZO of 3/9/89 Z.B.A. verbatim hearing transcript}. Sufficient evidence has not been submitted in the record as to the finished grade elevations existing before the start of construction and the proposed final grade. Without a clear understanding and sufficient information as to the intended use of the proposed building, either under the definition of a "principal use" or an "accessory use, a determination as to the permitted height is premature. Prior to the enactment of the zoning code amendments on January 10, 1989, the maximum height requirement for a principal or primary building was 30 feet. The new zoning code permits a maximum height at 35 feet for a principal or primary building, and a maximum height at 18 feet for an accessory building, using the same height definition. (b) Additional evidence concerning the activities within the subject building to be used for boat storage is imperative, particularly with regard to the basis of the property owner`s position that the building is an accessory building. One of the Southold Town Board of Appeals-10- April 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3829 - BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-MAR Decision, Continued:) two primary uses of the land included limited outside boat storage. This Board believes and the record confirms that certain repairs and maintenance services on the boats will be undertaken within the building. Activities of this nature do not fall under the definition of an accessory use. An accessory use is "...a use customarily incidental and subordinate to the main use on a lot, whether such "accessory use° is conducted in a principal or accessory building. The storage of boats in the proposed building is: (a} income-producing; (b) not incidental and is not necessary or dependent upon the existing established uses, either as a marina or outside boat storage use, and therefore is not ancillary, subordinate or an acoessory use as interpreted under the past or present zoning codes. (c) Additional information concerning the manner of storage (such as elevated storage racks} and the number of boats to be stored within the building have not been made a part of the record. The number of boats to be stored will be necessary to determine not only the parking requirements but also whether the same is an expansion of the existing outside boat storage use or whether the same is a reduction of the existing outside boat storage use. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the Building Permit in question referred to as No. 0175082 is HEREBY DETERMINED TO BE AN INVALID PERMIT as described in paragraph #34, supra, thereby nullifying and voiding the effects of said permit; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to GRANT the request under Appl. No. 3829 for the REVERSAL OF DETERMINATION by the Building Inspector to grant BUILDING PERMIT NO. 0175082; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that prior to issuance or reissuance of a Building Permit for this building, further interpretations be formally requested of this Board, for clarification as to whether all of the activities in this proposed building is a permitted principal use or a permitted accessory use in this Southold Town Board of Appeals-ll- April 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3829 - BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-MAR Decision, Continued:) zoning district, including but not limited to the applicable requirements in determining height limitations and yard locations under the Zoning Code; and be REMANDED FOR FURTHER HEARING(S) on the above-noted elements, if necessary. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Dinizio and Sawicki. (Absent were: Member Grigonis and Member Doyen.) This resolution was duly adopted. lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, IRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS I:~CEIVED F~i~'D ~I~~D BY Tf-:E SOli'iiiCLD iC;iy CL~:f'tK DAT1; v~/9~ I3CUH ~ (.:~'SR. M Town Clerk, Town of Southold i 53 pp V b ry y mhoab O'J H "y o ~ ~ P n ~ y 1 W O m v¦ ~ 1 fl' O I c." ~ ~ rn O+ 111777 n ~ G1 0, tt C N y o w 7.. ~ m 'L5 . C+) . . 9oq ~ tD V) ~ N ti ~ a a~~ v ki a ti - y y . ~~~y y O „(~,+7 N [ cr 7: b~~w tnO ~ ~ . ~ ~ rb ?d • 1~D iD i q n w n~ W o k QI W 0 W i+~ c~oi .a^--. m p H d F3. • ~ ~j rt ~ tD R ~ k r• ""'ON 3SN3011 ~ - aanluue!s yleauaq aweu luwd - IIO aUl ax0;aq Ol UlOMS 1~ as+nlea; Su?.i}?lssap? xag30 'sq'I OOZ +anp ? ,q aan0 G •sax S9 zan0 G neH P°$ ? u!KS P°$ ? 'sq'I OOZ-I9I ? „0,9'„6,S ? 's+,i S9-TS ? x?eg .caxa p umoxg p 'sqZ 09i-IST ? „8,S'„fi,S ? 's+d. OS'98 ? a"u!Pls$ ? +LeH PuOI$ ? u?KS A1Oi[aI ? 'sq'I O8I'OOI G ,.£.S'„O,S ? 'SZA S£-IZ ? +!sH °3?qA>_ ? x?eg umoxg ? u?z(S Kas!g ? ajawa3 l] reS0 T 'sq'I OOI +aPuR ? ,S xapun G •szA OZ-'LI ? +?eH $°8t$ ? u?ajS al!gtll ? alsW ? H1IM 3S0 amo}}o; sa panxas Isnp?n?pm aql saq?xasap 7uauodaQ NO11dIHDS30 •alalg xxot MaN u?ql?m aalnxaS [etsod salel$ pal!ufT aqI }0 6polsna pus area an?sniaxa aq3 xapun .Szol?sodap ;e?oy?o-aay;o lsod s-m xaddaxM p?as paI?sodap pore .°N `aauap?sax ssmoulj lse[ ssaul?M le ssaul?m p?es of passaxppe ,ipadoxd xaddeaM pa}eas p?sdlsod a u? awes ;o .idoa a pasojaua os[e luauodap 'yy'd----------'Ire -...--'6L.----------.__.. U° .~.d....---"--le -----6i--'------'----------...----...--sso ,~,d ,ytl.d--------------°Ie -.......61_-........--.-...........-_....---.......UO 'LII'd-_--_-._....la ...-.-__6T"---------.-.......-_.---------....._-_-sso axayl pa}[ao 2uuaq 'isaxagl uoryaaas?p pure aJe ~ a}gel!ns }o ssosxad s xo ssaul!m puy o'3 aaua8q!p anp ql!M 'a(geun seM luauodap '}oaaagl xoop aql of }oaxayl .idoa anal a .8u?xg/a 6q (q) m ' sso?3Bxas?p psse aJe a?qel?ns ;o ssosxad e x _ _ _ , pl 3oaxayl Sdoa anal a `isaxagl 8upan!IaP ~4 (e) ? £ n~ (q) (ao (e) aa~H!x loo ay!aIs OOH13W ssaul!M ayl uodn euaodgns u?g1tM aq1 panaas ]uass°dap 'apoge ;o aae!d }snsn-aaa}d Su? ffaMp-ssau~snq }o aae[d tanlaa ssav{?M 3Al1tlNN31'Itl y m r ssaulu+ alexodma p?es aq o1 paexas os uopeaodxoo aq3 Maul] luauodap : aa} ssassl?m s,.fep auo pus sasuadza a tlu?jlanaxl paz?xoglne aq3 ' ~ aouaepe u? (tlu!xapual so) 8u?.Sed aura auaes aql le pus 'IIO?3saodaoo p?ss ;o °x aql aq o3 Maul] iuassodap mogM '.(}[euosaad i of ;oaaagi 6doa anal a Jssuan??ap .(q 'paweu ss?axagl ssaui?M aql `uo?lexodzoa e ? 'Z ~ uo euaodgns ss?gl?M aq3 panxas luauodap NOI1tlNOdN00 ~assaodgns p?es m pagpasap ssau;?M - a 3 a °7 anaas os uosxad a~ Mau ~ 4 q P 17 V luauodap :aa; ssaul?m s~.(ap auo pus sasuadza ;Iu?I!anexl paz?xoylne aq3 ~ aouanpe u? (Ju?xapual so) Su?6ed aw?7 awes aq3 le pare ,(I!euosxad ssaul!M of ;oazagl ,(doa anal a Ru?xan}[ap .iq +paweu u?asagl ssaul?M aql ? ' 3 a uo suaodgns u~gllM ayl panxas luauodap 'itl001AION1 '0DI la 6I uo legs is sap?saa pure ale;o saea.( g; xano s! •uo?las s?yI of ,flared a iou s? luawdap Irgl : sRss pure sasodap 'uaoms ,(Inp 9u~aq •ss ao xiNno~ `xao~ ma(~ 30 31V1s B 89~Subpaena Ducey Tecum, Blank Caurt, with Witness' Stioulatian _ _ _ to remai. sudicel eo Ancrner'x car. it n-zs _ SUPREME, COURT' COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATIS OF NEW YORK Index No. 89^11002 In the Matter of t e,Appl~.aation of . MA7~T-A-MIkR, INC., ~ Petitioner, , For a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 af' the CPLR Calendar No. a~gainat ~ ~ERARD P. GOE$RIN(3gC~ CHARLES GRIGONIS 'JR•,r JUDICIAL SUBPOENA SI~RG1,~ .DOYT28, JR. , J PTi't'I. SAWICRI and JAMS DINIZIO, JR. , CONS~I UTTNQ THE ZONINC< BOARD OF DUCES TECUM APPEALS "OF TH8 TOW~i pF SC1UTTi0LD, Res ~l~e ~cn~pl,e of il~r ~tttte of ~Trut ~nr& TO' VICTOR~G. LES$A~2D,.Principal Building Inspector Southold Town Banding Department Town Hall, 53095 Ma;rin Road, Southold, .New York GREETING: WE COMMAND YOU That aJl bysiness and.excuses 'being laid aside; you and each of you appear . and attend,before HON. +~+{~~~~`ITL F. LUCIANO at LA.Part 10, Courkroom 4, Old Criminal Cts. Bidg.,Center Dr.So.,Riverhea~¢ on the "17th day of September, . 1990 at 9 s 0 o'clock, in the fore noon, and at any recessed or adjourned date tti.give testimony 'n this action,on the part of the Petitioner, and t11,,at u bring with tiu, 8nd produce at fhe ti ce aforesaid, 7C certain reCOrds of the , ' Southo~d Town Buiyldi$~g Department r i ing to the issuance and all inspeotions conducted thereunder, ~ lding Permit No. 017508;;2 issued to Matt-A-Mar, Inc. pn October 6, ~ , , now in your custody, and all other deeds, evidences and writings, which you have in your custody or power, concern#ng the prem~ses. Failure to comply with, this subpoena is punishable as a contempt of Court and shall make you liable to the person on whose behal€ this subpoena was issued for a penaky not to exceed fifty dollars and all dam- - ages sustained by reason oflyour failure to comply. 'WITNESS, Honorable Daniel F. Luciano one of the JastiCea o ear ourt, at ad, New York the lOG~f Se to Riverhe! .....Y.....~p 19 90 RICHARD F. LARK, ESR. ' Attoraey(~(lfor Petitioner ~ OSice aad Post OEce Address Main Roafl, P.O. Box 973 Cutchogue, NX 11935 (516) 734-6807 ~I , 1 t C~ M f~ ti ~y P~ Bo~:~235 M~ttituck,NY 11`~~~' w,~ 516 298U~4739 ~ x a ,e<a~`, F~.~~. ~ ;'fr~r ~ IN x January 13, 1989 Town of Southold Building Department Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Inspector Horton Dear Mr. Horton: Enclosed please find a copy from the Department of Environ- mental Conservation "Letter of No Jurisdiction" dated January 9th 1989, file #10-88-2237, SCTM# 1000-114-03-01. Thank you for your inspection on January 12th of our new building con- struction, and if you don't mind I will call you from time to time to make additional inspections to make sure the building is going up properly. Sincerely, Donald P. Cocks, manager New York State Depariment of. Environmental (:onservation Building 40-SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794 / C~ ~~~7~i~' \rVt~~7 DATE: / 9~~/ J ~ a-~-3 Thomas C. Jorling ~~1~ i t _ r/ , j I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Commissioner t~ r y I~ t Jam- c~--114-03-01 Dear '~1\Y ~ <,OCK~. A review has been made of. your proposal to: C~Y'~~~.~~~,~ ~ S~,i b~ ~ r~ c~~ P~..~ ~L~~he~4 p~~-v~ ~ ac~~~Q i a~ l t~ l 1oc~~~Q~ o~ ~~ck1~~~ ~{~E~~~`~?, ~nu~~~~~~ca~ Sou '1-~o I~! Based on the information you have submitted, the New York State Department of ,Environmental Conservation has determined that the parcel project is: Greater than 300' from .inventoried tidal wetlands. Landward of a substantial man-made structure greater than 100' in length which was constructed prior to 9 20 77. Landward of the 10' above mean sea level elevation contour on a 7"~'~ gradual, natural slope. Landward of the topographic crest of a bluff, cliff or dune which is greater than 10' in elevation above mean sea level. Therefore, no permit is required under the Tidal Wetlands Act (Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law). Please be advised ever, that no construction sedimentation or_ disturbance of a yak nd may t~ll~-dace seawa-~ r~ of the 10' y~ ~~F" ~u~~ cS2nto~r or_topographic_crest,.withouE~_gei;mit. It is your responsibility to ensure that all necessary precautions are taken to prevent any sedimentation or other alteration or disturbance to the ground surface or vegetation in this area as a result of your project. Such precautions may include~roviding adequate _wor~.~tea_hekta~@1L_t<,k~e 10' co 0 or tODO ra hi~~P4 encLtjl~pro_yegt_(i.e. a 15' to 20'.wide construction area) or erection of a temporary fence, barrier, or hay bale berm. Please note that any additional work, or modification to the project as described, may require authorization by this Department. Please contact this office if such are contemplated. Please be further advised that this letter does not relieve you of the responsibility of obtaining any necessary permits or approvals from other agencies. Very truly yours, l~.F~...-> I~vr~.L Lam/) ~~I Deputy Regional(\permit AdJ"ministrator ~~./L_ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ . ~~I" SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Gcehringer, Chairman 'I ~ Supervisor Charles Grigonis, Jr. f'' • ~~''~'J,( ;1~t Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. BOARD OF APPEALS Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3770. Matter of the Application of the PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XII, Section 100-1210- 122, Article XXII (Section 100-239D as disapproved by the Building Inspector) for permission to construct boat storage building with insufficient setbacks and excessive lot coverage in this Marine II (M-II) Zoning District. Property location: Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 056, Block 04, 06, Lot 10.1,' 11, 12.2, 3.2, 3.3, 4, 6.1. 5 WHEREAS, public hearings were held on Septembe~,21, 1989, December 19, 1989, February 1, 1990, and March 29, 1990; and 'WHEREAS, at said hearings all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present and previous zoning classifications, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following Findings of Fact: Page 2 - Appeal No. 3770 Matter of PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC. Decision Rendered May 1, 1990 1. By this application, applicant is requesting variances to the zoning code as to area setbacks for the construction of a boat-storage building for the inside storage of boats, of varieUs Sii:F+s.~., .many ( resently) stored at the premises out-of-doors and (presently) wile or'setbacks due to the existing nature Of th@ bUi3dings & uses of the premises under consideration. 2. The premises in question is located on the south side of the Main Road (State Route 25) in the Hamlet and Town of Southold, contains a total site area of 216,058 sq. ft.), and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 056 ock 4, Lots 10.1, 11, 13.2, and Section OSb, Block 6, Lot 3.2, .3, 4, 6.1. 3. The subject premises is located in the M-II Marine Zone Aistrict and is and has since prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance in 1957 been used for ~ a; boat storaae, as well as marinas uses, retail and wholesale uses, en_a~ne and boa.. repairs, servicing, maintenance, sales to the general public, office use, restaurant use, fishing, and other marina and fishing station-type uses, and many accessory uses relative thereto. 4. The variances necessary in this project and requested by the applicant are as follows: ~ (a) insufficient sideyard setback for the proposed building at the easterly yard area at a minimum of, 15 feet, and (b) insufficient southerly setback from the proposed building to the inside of the bulkhead along the watersedge at a minimum of 38 feet (40 feet, more or less, to the outer edge of the existing bulkhead). 5. The sections of the zoning code applicable are as fo11o*es under the current zoning code and master plan amendments-as adopted: ~ (a) sideyard variance - Article XIS, Section 100-122 and Bulk Schedule; °C (b) setback from bulkhead - Article XXI2, Section Page 3 - Appeal No. 3770 Matter of PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC. becision tendered May 1 ~ 1990 6. The building as proposed herein is shown on the property and building plan lastly dated April 11, 1990, and shows: (a) the building to be of a size 203 feet by 125 feet; (b) the setbacks of the proposed building to be 15 feet from the easterly property line at its closest point; 38 feet (to the bulkhead existing to the south (along the waters edge); minimum of ~ fpP+ trn +h front prooerty line at its closest point in accord- ance with the required setback of the code; and approximately 59 feet to the westerly line along the basin (c) the existing metal building, sheds, restaurant building, docks, bulkheads, concrete slabs, ramps, office and shop structure, and four existing buildings which are to be removed, as well as the proposed par ing p r all uses at a si 7. For the record it is noted that: (a) the subject premises has been the subject of prior determinations by the Board of Appeals under: (1) Appl. No. 3086 rendered May 19, 1983 - Denial to construct addition with an insufficient frontyard and for retail sales; (2) Appl. No. 3481-SE and 3494 rendered May 28, 1986 conditionally approving replacement of fuel storage tanks with insufficient setbacks; k (3) Appl. No. 3525 rendered July 31, 1986 for Special Exception approval concerning location of fuel tanks. (b) this project is also under consideration by the Southold Town PLanning Board for site plan approval under Article XXV of the Zoning Code, and as of this date, is still pending. (c) under the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), this action for area setbacks has been deemed to be exempt as a Type II Action for coordination; however, such exemption does not prohibit or restrict any other department or agency to further evaluate or declare any other status under SEQRA. j Page 4 - Appeal No. 3770 Matter of PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC. Decision Rendered May 1 1990 7. (d) subsequent to the filing of this application, applicant has amended the application to eliminate thA n- cc;+., fnr a variance ash excessive lot coverage and as to reduced font yard setba~ck.~l~ The percentage of lot coverage for all buildings, existing and proposed, is shown to be 29.91% (64,615 sq. ft.), and the maximum permitted under the zoning code in this zone district is 30%. v~..~r. (e) all other areas of the bulk schedule will be, upon informa- tion and belief, in compliance with the zoning code, including the height of the proposed building, that being the vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the existing grade adjacent i to the building (before any alteration or fill) to the mean height between eave(s) and ridge for roof types other than flat or mansard (or to the highest point of the roof for a flat or mansard roof). (See HEIGHT in Section 100-13 Definitions, and bulk schedule height limitation at 35 feet in this M-II zone district). 8. In considering the variances requested, the Board finds: ~ (a) the amount of relief requested at to the side yard is substantial at 10 feet; however the buildings now existing along ~ the easterly yard area substantially nonconforming as to setbacks will be removed, and the placement of the subject building will be at a greater setback than as exists; (b) the unique characteristics of the land and its present conforming uses (such as outside boat storage and related outside activities) lend to the hinderance of better maneuverability of boats, better accessibility, minimizing overall congestion, better interior circulation, better parking and traffic accessways, and general good order and safety; (c) there is no alternative available for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (d) the practical difficlties are uniquely related to the I Page 5 - Appeal No. 3770 - Matter of PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC. Decision Rendered day 1 1990 land and are not personal to the applicant; (e) the relief, as granted ai~d further noted below, will not in turn be adverse to the safdltky, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town; ~~JJ (f) the relief, as granted and further noted below, will aid in minimizing overall congestion, help to improve interior circulation and aid to its general good order and safety of the public; (g) there will be no substantial adverse change in the character of this marine district; (h) strict application of the ordinance will, if the variance is denied, cause continued congestion and poor on-site circulation, and will hinder improvement to accessways for vehicles and pedestrians (without proper zoning restrictions and controls); (h) the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect of i~ reased density or be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (i) the existing nonconformities of the existing buildings within the easterly yard areas will be eliminated; (j) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in considering all of the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variances, as further noted below. = NOW, therefore, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was / I i i y 1 Page 6 - Appeal No. 3770 Matter o£ PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC. Decision Rendered May 1: 1990 RESOLVED, to GRANT relief requested for a setback from the easterly sideyard at 5 feet and for a etback from the existing bulkhead at its c osest point at 8 eet, as applied under Appeal No. 3770 in the Matter of the plication of PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC., SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: ' 1. That the building be used as applied for boat storage only; _ 2. That the size of the proposed building be not larger than as applied (203' by 125'); 3. That the lot coverage not exceed thirty 30/) percent, for all buildings for the entire marina-restaurant site, excl~,uding concrete slabs at 6" or less from around level; 4. That the parking plan included all properties owned jointly and/or separately to provide for additional parking (specifically the parcel located along the north side of the ' Main Road in which the applicant has an interest as well as those parcels described, supra). ' 5. That it is recommended that the building be of a color neutral to the aquatic surroundings so as to blend in(with the natural surroundings.) 6. That the setbacks not be reduced to less than 15 feet at the easterly side property line and not less than 38 feet to the bulkhead (to the south) at its closest points at any time. 7. A11 roof runoff be retained in leaching basins. - Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Dinizio, Grigonis ~ and Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island. This resolution was duly adopted by unanimous vote of all members present. C..-.~~i ~ „~GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIR SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEA - R O'~ y~ TRUSTEES ®G SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, III, President o ~i:" ~ SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. h+rupski, Jr, Vice President ti ~ Henry P. Smith u- ~'n 'Ibwn Hall John B. Tuthill O~`~~ ~ ~ ®R~ 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson dad `R~ P.O. Box 1179 'I~tephone (516) 765-1892 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD _ C~C~C~~~U`(`rY~~`4' April 23, 1992 ~ : APR 2 41992 ~ t p ~~f f tt: Don Cocks I' ' r Matt-A-Mar Marina r~ r ~ - ~,f . „ P.O. Box 1235 Wickham Ave. Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Matt-A-Mar Marina SCTM #1000-114-3-1 Dear Mr. Cocks: The Southold Town Trustees inspected the site of your proposed wetland permit for your storage building today and request the following information to make your application complete: 1. Please depict a swale and berm feature on your plans shown in cross section such that surface runoff will not be able to flow over the retaining wall and in all areas of which we spoke on field inspection this date. 2. Please show in detail your proposed screening planting south of the building with the exact species you plan to use that is acceptable to the Planning Board and in relation to number one above. 3. Please indicate in detail your plans for the floor inside the structure, such that we are certain there will be no floor drains or points of entry for toxics. Upon submission of this information the Trustees will be able to coordinate your application with other town departments. As discussed in the field, under current usage and for the purposes of this Board, the structure south of the storage building is presently, functionally, a retaining wall in that it is above the ordinary high water mark and is primarily soil retentive. This is not to say that it was not a bulkhead at the time it was originally constructed. This definition is ours alone and may not reflect the interpretation of other boards in Southold Town. K If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, .,r. TTj` John M. Bredemey~~~ President, Board of Trustees JMB:jmt cc: Planning Board Building Dept ? Zoning Board Town Attorney Town Board a E, z „ 3~' ,^a'~ mml ; ,r ~t'~,.~11Za~~.. MAY f oY~ ~`h~35 M~ttit~ck, N.Y 11, i,' 616 29$~~~39 ~ i'` r»~"~~! a~`" `'"~~x~ r~ ~ ~.x~~~ TOWN OF§OU~1H~OLD ~ ~ kt s.'a~~, ~ n..>~ ~ . ~ 4~ May 18, 1989 >7 e Mr. Vincent R. Wieczorek Mr. Victor Lessard Southold Town Building Department Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Messers. Wieczorek & Lessard: I was somewhat shocked to receive your Stop Work Order concerning our boat storage building. The reason being is we have complied with all directives issued by your department as to the location and the construction procedures for this building. The Board of Appeals decision is under study by our attorney. However, while this matter with the Board of Appeals is being straightened out I have an emergency request for the Building Department to allow us to complete the construction of the builidng for safety reasons. We have complied with the Stop Work Order and ceased all construction. However, the steel contractor and the professional engineer have informed me the building is now in an unsafe condition. The westerly wall has not been completed and many of the panels are not permanently attached. The overhead doors which have been delivered to the site have to be installed. By not having these doors installed it allows wind to enter the building which can cause the side panels as well as the roof panels to be blown off creating a hazardous condition. The roof panels on one half of the roof are not permanently secured creating the necessary seal. From what I understand after the roof panels are set in place they have to be mechanically seamed with a motorized seamer to assure structural integrity of the roof panels. If they are not mechanically seamed they are subject to being blown off by winds thus creating a hazardous condition. Further, the cross steel reinforcing rods have not been installed to the concrete footing piers. When these are installed then the floor slab is placed over them to give structural stability to the building. The leaders which direct the roof water into dry wells are only half completed and with the heavy rains we have been experiencing lately it has caused erosion around J ~ w -2- the foundation piers and can cause undermining. In addition because the building has not been fully enclosed with the doors, trespassers are free to come into the building. We had vandalism to the building last Saturday by unauthorized intruders which required us calling the police. it is almost impossible to keep out people without these doors being installed and locked. This letter is a notification to you that the Stop Work Order places the building in an unsafe and hazardous condition. If a wind rips off any of the panels it could cause personal and property damage not only on our property but off premises. In addition we have been advised by the contractor and the insurance agent that the building will no longer be covered by casualty and liability insurance due to its unsafe condition unless we are allowed to eliminate these safety hazards. We propose that you allow us to eliminate the safety hazards by completing the building at which time we will not use it, but rather lock it up giving your department the key to make sure it remains vacant until the matter with the Board of Appeals matter is settled. We have always complied with the Town directives and ordinance and will continue to do so. As a show of good faith we are willing to post a bond or other financial security to insure you we will not use the building as all we want to do is make it safe at the present time. We have been informed it will take approximately two weeks to complete this emergency work at which time you can perform a safety inspection and then lock the building until the matter before the Board of Appeals is resolved. I would appreciate it if you would perform an inspection to verify all of the above so you can see for yourself that the building is in a very dangerous condition at the present time. If we are not allowed to make this storage building structurally safe and it collapses or damage is caused to persons and their property this will incur severe liability problems for which both ourselves and the Town of Southold, due to the Stop Work Order, would be liable. To prevent this we respectfully request you allow us to complete the necessary construction work to make this building safe and secure. I am enclosing for your review the following: 1. Zetter dated May 10, 1989 from Rich Nowak Construction Co. Inc. to Matt-A-Mar Marina, Inc. A -3- 2. Letter dated May 10, 1989 from Charles Kapp of C K Steel to Matt-A-Mar Marina. 3. Letter dated May 15, 1989 from Rich Nowak Construction Co. Inc. to Matt-A-Mar Marina, Inc. 4. Letter dated May 17, 1989 from Thomas D. Reilly, P.E. 5. The Starshield Standing Seam Roof System Technical Data Specifications. 6. Letter dated May 18, 1989 from the Roy H. Reeve Agency, Inc. 7. Letter dated May 15, 1989 from Donald Cocks to Dr. Ali Agarbi. Your prompt attention to this matter will be sincerely appreciated. Kindly inform us in writing as to the conditions you will require so we can eliminate these emergency and hazardous conditions. Very truly yours, Donald Cocks, General Manager Enclosures Matt-A-Mar Marina l • ~C.rc.~i ~~o tv a.~ CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. May 10, 1989 Qommercial .rResidenlia/ .r/ao~ut/vial `?~elep/ione S/6-744-J39/ Matt-A-Mar Marina, Inc. Wickham Avenue Mattituck, N. Y. Att: Dr. Agarabi Dear Dr. Agarabi: We foresee several problems due to the stop work order by the Town of Southold: 1. Major storms may cause reof panels to fly off and hit personnel or cars by the road. 2. Cross steel reinforcing rods, not installed soon, could cause major stress on concrete footing piers which are holding major steel column supports For the entire build- ing. 3. Due to leaders not connected at this time errosion may occur enough to damage structural support of building and errosion will be flowinc into the harbor waters. 4. Rich Nowak Cahstr. Co., Inc. will ihcur financial diffi- culties due to jab cost increases. These extra costs will be charge to Matt-A-Mar Marina, Inc. Sihcerely, ~~rn~~~ P~.a Q Richard J. Nowak, President RN/bn cc 281 TYLER AVENUE MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11'7Fi4 I a pig-En~inegrgd Constr'ucti0r1 16 Jackson Avenug ' Sound Ese~ch, New Yorl< 11789 (516) 821-9613 P1AY 10, 1989 9'c Diattamar Marina, As owner operator of, C.1C.Stee1, 2 a!n very concerned with the situation are have now. Stopping construction at this time gpens up to a potentially dangerous , situation with r.•caards T.o t:lae. roof, ' The roof has not bEen mechanicalky seamed. x'his being t}~a final st:eP 9.n securing thn roaE panels. Secondly, without the instal.l.ation of ovc~zhead doors, a prevailing wznd could causes a iailur.e and pull the sheets off th@ building. 1'o my knowledge this }ras happans~d on two buildings on Long Island. T}re first, tha dept. of transportation in Iluntingtrvn and the Hudson General }ranger in:' P".aCArthur airpozt.Aoth due to high tainds not ltuxrlcanes, Also the buildings location as we all know is in a "high wznd" area. I would hope that t1•re towrt could see the potential Problem and allow us to secure the building for everyones saf~t?y. Sincerely, Charles Kapp CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. May 15, 1989 ~iommercia/ .rRe.ridenlial .~/ndurlt~ia/ `?~e/ep/ione 3/6-744-339! Matt-A-Mar Marina, Inc. Wickham Avenue Mattituck, N. Y. ' Att: Dr. Agarabi Dear Dr. Agarabi: As of this date Rich Nowak Constr. Cc,, Inc. will be stopping all liability insurance at the above location due to the stop work order by the Town of Southold. Wa are no longer held responsible for any liability or damages that may occur as a result of this stoppage. All liability will be the rasponsibility of Matt-A-Mar Marina or the Town ?f Scuthold. An immediate reply would be appreciated. Sincerely, Richard J. Nowak, President RN/bn cc 281 TYLER AVENIIE MILLER PLACE, NF.W YORK 11764 THQMAS D. REILLY, P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEER 4 BEZEL LANE S MITHTOWN, NY 11787 PHONE 724-7888 May 17, 1989 Matt-a-Mar Marina P.O. Sox 1235 ~ Mattituck, N.Y., 11952 Attn: Donald Cocks RE: 200' x 125' Building for Matt-a-Mar Marina Wickham Ave. Mattituck, N.Y. Dear Mr. Cocks, ~ I a~n writing to you to express my concern that construction has been stopped on the above partially-completed project. It is mY understanding that the floor slab and connecting tie rods between exterior piers have not been installed yet. These items are essential to the structural stability and integrity of the building. It is imperative that con- struction proceed itranediately in order that the building not be left in this danger- ous condition. Without the tie rods and floor slab, it is very likely that the building would collapse in case of hurricane-strength winds and/or significant snow-fall. PEE pF NEW Y 5~ p8 A. * ti~o~ . ~ ~ ~ Very truly yours, i~ ~O 0435`~~ A~ A~~FESSIONP~' Thomas D. Reilly, P.E. TDR:mr A© BUILDINGS D Technical Data e 9y t A - Y «x i 'M1t4~ 9 ~'-EJ f h ~,x t . yy .p Y. ~ i Y ~ 2S q ~ ~SJrYF qdt ti's~y~p }i ~ ..elf ti4~ k~ 4 t ~ v~`~:... 5 S ~}phi 1,~`L ~ t`f ~~~~yi~~tvy,'~ ' o 1}~°us`,R~uib~~ ~r'°"" A~~'x i Y1 { 9c ~,~'A~f~'7~ G, i u ~ t 3x„i,a e~i +f}t e~~~ 1 of ~ te~~k~°+4~5 t~, k6 ~5 ~y ~ + .._..~y} U. 1,~~~.;.(G ~~~.Is~t J 1 ~ E~~kep3~ ~ e~Yf'z+~iffl~ a b ' Kq 6 C 1 ~.S t~ytir~4`1;~ ~ i ~ ~ ry}~j, ~ ~r~4 1. 4 l F f~{1' n' 'AJ~ ~ a 0. k *n i, .~....k. fux' 3`t~ ~ ~~~x ' ~ j ~ i hC' 2 7 n ''~'c v. \ ~ ~ 4 t,~ StaBhield ROOF PANEL\ 1 BUTYL TAPE SEALANT GUTTER HANGER ~ m 'a 4'-0 O.C. LINE SIDE VEL CLOSURE EAVE STRUT ADAPTER BY STAR) STRUT EAVE TRIM-/ I 1 °f WALL PANEL (DURA-RIB SHON I ~`~ yi ~'''~ INSULATION OUTSIDE CLOSURE ~ ~,/ (NOT BV STAR) STRIP SECTION THRU EAVE (SHOWN WITH GUTTER) Z4•~ STEEL LINE StefShleld PANEL ROOF PANEL-y Cll 1/S" SLOPE J ~ - - AR) - -FILLER ANGLE ? INSULATION i ~ (NOT BY STAR) 4. ( _. ~--GABLE TRIM INSULATION l (NOT BV STAR)-~ I OUTSIDE .LL PANEL I CLOSURE STRIP JRA-RIe SHOWN) SECTION THRU GABLE r N PANEL CROSS SECTION SEAM DETAILS FACTORY-APPLIED SEALANT BEFORE SEAMING . 4pe"y ' N~ ~S1Q~~P ~ j ~ ~ 61 to ~ ` 5 bCFr' e P~ H~a~~ ~ ~R. r~ see , , ~ M n ~~~i d ~~p1e w~a<r~N p oNr o sQ,,• Cy ~ 91~ 0 ~~~J~ / ~~~,~CP PO 4 PE J PQP ag~ 4p4M1 y0 P ~ ~ } Pp`~ +15 PJ P 6~J ~ Y~ SP Poo J4 NERAI V1E opho~~E J,, ~ ~E p T ~pp6; qw ~o~.~ Rap S e <¢Q poF to t >t- t 'Ac' Y Y~ w~ x ~x ~1' ~ "L o- c~rP aE-rarr. ' Designed for superior watertightness, for energy roof system goes on so quickly and simply, you'll efficiency, and to save you money. These are just realize immediate savings on labor costs. For three features that make the StarShfeld'" standing example, the seaming operation can wait until all seam roof SyStP,rrl one of the most outstanding the easy-to-handle 24" wide panels are laid, choices in a roof system you can make. because an unseamed StarShfeld roof is designed to support normal erection live loads. This is a step That's because aproperly-erected StarShfeld roof up from some other standfng seam roof systems, is a watertight system - one that virtually which require that you seam each panel eliminates roof leakage. Designed along the immediately after laying it. When the StarShfeld concept of a "floating" roof, StarShfeld panels are panels are all laid, aneasy-to-operate, high-speed connected directly to the building structurai only seaming machine will finish uptheseaming opera- at the eave strut. No other panel-to-structural lion. The seamer itself is also a step up - it needs fasteners are employed. Instead, the panels are no clumsy start and finish platforms, such as those connected to sliding clips which, in turn, are required by some other systems. attached to the purlins. The section of the sliding clip attached to the panel is an innovative device There are also other StarShfeld system features that slides along with nature's expansion and that reduce on-the-job labor requirements, there- contraction forces, whereas the numerous panel- by increasing construction savings for you. For to-purlin fasteners used in some other standing example, sealant is extruded directly into the fe- seam root systems, in effect, resist these forces. male edge of the seam at the factory, assuring Thus, the slotting around the fastener and the that it is there and in its proper location. Aiso, the sealant deterioration that plague some other panel ends are factory-notched within the seam standing seam roof systems are virtually elimi- area to assure self-alignment of the panel end Hated on aproperly-erected StarShfeld roof. splices and to eliminate the needforadoubleseam at the panel end splices. And, during the seaming The StarShfeld roof system also protects against operation, the interlock design of the seam holds roof leakage with a watertight standing seam that the mate and female edges fn positive alignment, stands approximately 3" above the nominal roof assuring a true seam. (Some other systems allow surface -ideal for buildings exposed to heavy for vertical or horizontal movement during seam- rain, snow, or ice damming conditions that subject ing, which results in unseamed sections or false roofs to standing water. This high-standing seam seaming.) also makes the StarShfeld roof an unbeatable roof for wide, low-pitched buildings where the runoff is Easy-to-install StarShfeld panels can save you so slow that even moderate rainfall can accumu- money from the start of construction. But years late depth before running off the roof. All of this afterward, you'll still be realizing big savings. The means a StarShfeld system could be perfect for fact that the StarShfeld system is designed to your building needs. shield against roof leakage means your roof will be practically maintenance-free. In fact, Star offers a Energy efficiency is another reason the StarShfeld limited perforation guarantee of upto20 years with system is ideal for your building. The sliding clip the StarShfeld system in addition to its standard provides 1" of standoff between the panel and pur- one-year workmanship and materials guarantee. lin to allow for insulation, thereby minimizing the So, unlike some other roof systems, theStarShield heat loss caused by fully-compressed insulation system helps do away wilh your maintenance that is typical of some other roof systems. And, the problems, instead of putting them overyour head. sliding panel clip allows through-metal heat trans- fer only one-sixth as often as the panel-to-struc- So if you could use a watertight, energy-efficient I tural screws of a typical corrugated roof. roof system -one that offers pre-engineered quality, Tast erection requiring a minimum of labor Moreover, theStarShieldroofsystemwiflsaveyou time (and, therefore, money), and minimal main- money at the very start of constructfon, as well as tenance -let your Star builder give you "Star- years on down the road. Because the StarShfeld Shield"protection. i ~tarShield~"' Roof System FINISH ~p~cifiC~ti©ns 'SLOPE A. GENERAL aTION The roof system will consist of metal panels joined to- fasteners will be used in conjunction with clamping ~~V STAR) gather by an interlocking seam and secured to the plates and butyl sealant to assureapositiva seal The structure with an interlocking clip. Integral tom- clamping plates will have factory-punched holes to :TRIM ponents such as Start & Finish Panels, Ridge Cover, assure correct fastener placement. Gutter, and Eave & Gable Trim and Fleshings will be 2. Fasteners will be provided for securing the panel furnished as required. clips to the structure. B. PANEL 3. Fasteners, closures and sealant wdi be provided for 1. Tha penal will be a precision roll-formed, 24" wide trim and gutter. pan section with the edges formed into a2"high box 4. Ail fasteners will be self-drilling. P rib plus a 'Yd' high seam. The panel flat will be em- bossed with cross ribs @ 6" O.C. A. Design shall be in accordance with AISI "specification 2. The panol ends will be factory-notched for panel end }or the design o3 light-gage, cold-formed steel stru~- splices (when required). tural members," and in accordance with sound engi- 3. Panels of maximum possible length (up to 40'-0") nearing methods and practices. will be provided to minimize end splices. B. The roof system shelf be designed to resist live loads. 4. Panel weight (for 24-gaga panel) will be 1.4 lbs./sq. ft. roof coverage. C. SEAM A. PANEL MATERIAL 1. The seam will contain factory-applied sealant 1. The foot panels and start/finsh panels will be of 24 2. The seam will be of a design that will positively inter- gaga steel, 50,000 PSI minimum yield strength, lock the panels and clips as tfiey are installed and coated with 0.5 oz./sq. tt. GALVALUNE' that will allow the panels to support erection loads B. SEALANTS prior to closing the seam with the seamer. 1. The seam sealant will be a nonshrinking, nondrying 3. After the panels are installed, the seam will beclosed butyl-based sealant,specificallyformulatedforfac- with amotorized seamer to assure complete sealant tory application to the seam and to allow panel as- engagementand toassure structural integrity of the sembly at temperatures of -10° F. to 140° F. panel-to-panel and panel-to-clip connections. 2. The sealant forihe eave, end splice, ridge cover and D. PANEL CLIP fleshings will be a nonshrinking, nondrying butyl- 1. Tha clip will be ofasliding design toallow for expan- based tape sealant specrfically compounded for lion/contraction movement of the root panel (the field application at temperatures of -10° F. to 140° F. panels wtll be secured rigidly [o the structure only at C. FASTENERS the eave strut thusallowing the unrestrained expan- 7, The exposed fasteners for eave, end splice, ridge sion/contraction movement to accumulate at the cover and fleshings will be a kt2 x 1'/." sect-drilling ridge). 2. The clip will support the panel flat 1" above the screw with 5/16" hex head and neoprene sealing structure to provide for insulation between the roof washer. The head and washer backer will be capped panel and structurals. with .008" thick, 302 stainless steel. 2. The panel clip fastener will be a %.-14 x 7'h" self- E. PANEL END SPLICE drilling screw with 34" hex head with .0005" 7. Panel end splices (when required) will consist of 3" cadmium plating. lap with Interlocking clamping plates and sealant. 3. The trim fastener will be a N8 x s/a" self-drilling 2. The splice will be independent of the structure to al- screw with Y." head. The screw will be plated and low free expansion/contraction movement of the have a painted finish. panel without stress on the splice. D. TRIM AND GUTTER F. RIDGE COVER Trim and gutter will be of 26-gage, galvanized steel, fac- The ridge cover will be of an expansion joint design to tory finished with STARCOTE® paint system. accommodate the expansion/contraction movement of E. MISCELLANEOUS the roof panel. Alf other exposed metal parts wilt be tasted with G-90 G. START & FINISH PANELS galvanizing or 0.5 oz./sq. ft. GALVALUME. Start and finish panels will be provided to terminate the roof paneling at tfie gables and to compensate for structure length and panel coverage oar'rations. A. The roof system will be furnished withaone-yearwork- H. FASTENERS manship and materials guarantee, 1. Fasteners will penetrate the panel only of the eave, B. The roof panels will be furnished with a limitetlperfora- end splice (when required), ridge cover and flash- tion guarantee of up to 20 years. Ings (when required}. At these conditions, the 'GALVALUME is a trademark of Bethlehem Steel Descriptions end specifications contained herein were In effect et the time this publication was approved for printing. STAR reserves the right to discontinue cu protlucts et any time or change specifications and/or r` designs without notice end without Incurring obligation. S ~ .......................~,~~~„e. STAR BUILDING SYSTEMS* BUILDINGS STAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY as°"`~~^, 8600 S. Interstate 35 Box 94910 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73143 °~<~°°'e,~' mSTAR Manufacturing Company, 7830 *TRADEMARK OF STAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 7834-9434-30-2 380 7,6M C:'t' r" F { F::: h . i:-'i,.' :a k'T F=i Lci E`r:i. i'"I t: ~ ...i, [ i...,a r-: . I„I rlllj+; jei~ P`1f7I(-'! ~'I ,IfilJ, hill f I 1 (LJr;lt f h•l, "r'. 9.9'd`~~2-~'a~i':Cr ,.>I J, ta--L. ~~ri-~'7pCJ Plea; 1~;, 7.`)I:a`:1 hLs+'t'1 i t u~ c k, f d''r' 1 :1 `:x`52 I~:e: 1lr,'~,r, Hnnt `:3to re.;~e Ilu. i t d i ny qs ;•nu.r Inscrr.:~.rn~e e~r'rtt, it hr,s corne to my ~.ttentio'n that t;l-,e , n,~=~.,+ laaF,'t Y:tn'r.f9~e tuilrli'ny ~.,rc. ,r~.'re K'~resently irlsu.'rin~ h~~ rtiot teen torn F~l er l: e~-1, n.itd r~rut s'truc.tirin hl,~.s ter~rt stoppad by tyre Town- q'~-. ~~uttthold. Fis ttidr-. fire t~.lso preserrtly irrsurinc~ tf'le prernises fnr 11.c~,t,I1Vty i'4: is most inlport~nt th~.t the L,uildin~ be cotnplet,kd t+n ~a sia r,;urrrl to Fir e~e'rrt irlju.ry due to u.'rlsectar ed pr,nels'becornir'I cI~;P;:~clr~-d ciu.,.a to +.dit-Id =~.nd a passible tlaildin~ collei.pse., The c; 1'Irulr; r,s i~i,,P In jt1'Py 't t-, persons is rjr eet.tly irl r,.r e~?.s ed ~d i-Ille the tuildir~j l u~~Pn r.7,ri,:1 ~c:r.r.-,v:,iL,le tr Lrnini~ited per's on s. (r: Ire Ilir~ f~lualyd insu're+rrr:e c:over•irl~t thte s~tr>_tctu're finr dc,ra9.~e, f {n:~ l~,u, i 1 ~'I i rl~i I n'IU.,aPr rn~J rcr ~.~u.l ile'r~xtr'1 tq do,rn~,y~, ty v.ancl,~.l p:inrme: r.~tr. irr it:~= (,i,reserlt stn~tF tl'rrin if anns'tr4.ti;tion werrr~ nm~~l,;>t~.~,l. It I'. 'tlI=~rrvfri'ie in 'tf'IC> best intereas't 1ofr,urltinued inst.tranae -;u~~(-;,y-~F59'%'t isf~l`,t i;lre tlJildin;.;) tie GOI1lF'ile6e,J ~arld Sa..i:U'i'i?d FS SG~~rt .J:=: All,r,n Dir-.firer=,:nn r.q i Matt ~S-ir MI.I~Marina FO. Box 1235 - Mattituck, N.Y. 11,95 516 298-4739 i ~ t~`'' ~ ; ~ ' i ; r a le t~ V~'~ May 15> 1989 Ali Agarabi, M.D. 306 Prospect Avenue Sea Cliff, New York 11579 Dear Dr. Agarabi: On the morning of May 1l~th, while driving onto our property, I noticed the northeast corner of the storage building had some graffito spray painted on the wall panel. Upon inspection of the interior of the building, I found the empty spray paint can, along with a few empty beer cans. I can only surmise that the same people responsible for the graffito were also drinking, and apparently hanging around inside the building. I contacted the Southold Police Department and had an officer inspect and record the vandalism. I asked for extra patrols to check the in- terior and perimeter of the storage building at night. S feel we must approach Southold Town Building Department and ZBA as soon as possible and request a temporary lifting of the atop work order, so we can finish securing the building with the doors. At the same time, we should inform them about the dangers of the unsecured roof panels and wall panels on the west end wall. Both Rich Nowak and Charlie Kapp have relayed their concerns of not being allowed to finish securing the building. We must move on this now, before anyone gets hurt in the building or any other vandalism occurs! Sincerely, Donald P. Cocks, manager f IE LD REPORT - POLICE DEPT., ?OWN OF SOUTHOLD, N Y, Central COmpla~nt No. Hamlet of,pcc, Sector x$41=8~1 "1'ha~-~I,.rack FSo ~ Incitlent Or Cnme ~ Gnd No. ICv,.~.•.nt~.1'S~a 14S.e~ 1~L, S~zc3 , Day o1 Occurrence Date of Occ. `Time o/ Occ. Date of Report ~i-sw•, s-13~1~1_" ~koo Spa 5_~4-gq `Name\Complainant Victim D.O.B. M L4r,b\G1 ~0.1~5~ O F Address Phone Place of Occurrence ~YS~ \4 6~ 1„C\Y, ~ 11c+ ~Y) ' Time Out Time In Founded Tour O Cleared 9y Arrest 1 L\ 11iZ(P 0.Ves ? N`o- pj- `?Exceptionally Cleared ~oY+nQ/ ~OfrQ,`('.l QW G s1 J. 121GC0.. r'Q.`6'(_j~~ ~l°iC `jea ~S~ UtY FYYOwY\ Gt~ 5erc.~ ~~r~ 5 t d..L o-E- T\ ~~vJ S,t e Q.` ~P.r. Y~C~ . t~j u t~. p n djv+ho.~~.. c~.urr.~,S~-er C~Y~'~avu. ~Y.....~, SPY oy ~a..,~ C,ar\ Se V.'( ~GY~.`Yq ~a'Yro~ YtG~YJ.v,s'S. CSC! ~ VC nr~\.. ~YV PDTS Z -Continuation Report Attached? O Ves i}~aQ~o'jrt i~n }liter Shield No. Sup i Form PDTS 1 ~f B 399-a.auhua.l.mrt.na....aim..==nv •ozs, 686. ~ ~R~ s~'ew ususesa ocs-ego ~ wcsrascr. ~ as R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Fo erk Onfy 0 q T °y SUPREME Court, SUFFOLK County Index No. ~'1 - _ g t71~,j g9~ D e Purchased / ~ Full tine of action ~,J ~E~ PAI'~D ~`°`~F f,~ In the Matter of the Application of " 4°*y~•s~"° MATT-A-MAR, INC. , tAS entr~zY~lg Petitioner, JUN 7 ~ °`~f For a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR Name of assigned judge REQUEST FOR };}~~a~x JUDICIAL ,}Ic~iYeY~X~ _ aga(nsr INTERVENTION Date of assignment GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., SERGE DOYEN, JR,r JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, and JAMES DINIZIO, JR. , CONSTITUTING THE ? Issue joined (date (check ifappl(cable) "ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE ? gill of particulars served (check ifapplicabte) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, In the City of New York only: , ? The City of New York is a party to this action. • A}~trXii$iHt~dX ? The Transit Authority (or MABSTOA) is a party to this action. Respondent(s) NATURE OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION (check) ? Request for preliminary conference ? Other ex pparte ap (lication Jul 3 , 1989 ) ? Note of issue and/or certificate of readiness ~ No[ice of etition return date.__...._. _Y........... _ ? Notice of motion (return date _ J Relief sought Judgment. anrtulling_ detexmination.._._ Relief sought _ of Res~rxtdents) and costs of this proceeding. _ ? Notice of medical malpractice action ? Order to show cause ? Notice of dental malpractice action (Clerk will enter return date ? Statement of net worth Relief sottght ? Writ of habeas corpus ? Other (specify) NATURE OF ACTION OA PROCEEDING (check) Tort Special Proceedings ? Motor vehicle ? Tax certiorari ? Medical malpractice ? Condemnation ? Dental malpractice ? Foreclosure ? Seaman ? Incompetency or conservatorship ? Airline Other special proceeding, including but not limited to: ? Other tort, including but not limited to personal injury, ? Article 75 (arbitration) property damage, slander or libel (specify) ? Article 77 (express trusts) ~ ~fl~/p _ ? Other (specify):.......................................... `.t V.1~._... ~...'g . OTHER ACTION G%~~~~~ ? Matrimonial (contested) ? Contract ~~old T""'" rr...t, ? Matrimonial (uncontested) ? Other (specify) fn$tTUCtIOn$: Attach rider sheets if necessary to provide reyuired information. I( any party is appearing pro se (without mt attorney), the required information concerning such party is to he entered in the space psoeided Cos attorneys. Attorney(s) for plaintiff(s)/petitioner(s) Name Address Phone RIQ-TARO F, LARK, ESQ, N1aif1 Rgc~d( j?, Q, Hit 973 (516)_ 734680.7 Cutchogue, NY 11935 ~ - Attorney(s)for defendant(s)/respondent(s) Name Address Phone ' FAMES A. SCHOtQ~13ARE, ESQ, `itinan FIal1, 531)95 Main Road (516) 765-1939 7bwn Attorney Southold, NY 11971 Name of insurance carriers (if applicable and available) N/A RELATED CASES (if none, write "NONE" below) Title Index r? Court Nature of relationshia NONE I affirm under penalty of perjury That, to my knowledge, other than as noted above, there are and have been no related actions or proceedings, nor has a request for judical intervention previously been filed in this action or proceeding. i~ Jtme 6, 1989 ~ _ O Dated Signa re-~-type name beSow.~ RICHARD F, IARR( ESQ, Richard k', Lark ~ Anorney(s) (or Petitioner y Office & P.O. Address Main Road, P, O, Hoc 973 • Cutchogue, NY 11935 (516) 734-6807 SUPREME COURT 3TATF, OF NFW YORR 2EC~iy~l`' COI7NTX OF SUFFOLK ~,'~SO~i~C . j~af?~~~ In the isatter of the Application of : ~ MATT-A-MAR, INC., Petitioner, s NOTICE OF PETITION Far a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the CFLR against INDEX NO. 89-11002 GERARD P. GOEARINGER, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., SERGE DOXEN, JR., JOSEPH A. $AWTCRI and s JAPtE5 DINIZ2O, JR., CONSTITUTING TAE ZONING BOARD OF ~'1PPEALS OF THE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, Respondents. _~___,..______-..__X Upon the annexed Petition of MATT-A-PEAR, INC., verified on Ithe £th day of June, 1989, and exhibits annexed thereto, the undersigned, pursuant to CPLR Article 78, will move this Court at an I.A.S. Texm to be held in and for the County of Suffolk at the Courthouse, Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New %ork, on July 3, 1989, at 9x30 o'clock A.M „ or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for a judgment annulling and vacating the determination of ~ the Respondents which invalidated Petitioner's Building Permit, together with the costs of this proceeding, and far such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and pxoper. A verified answer, and supporting affidavits, if any, must be sexved ae leas L• five (5) days before the return date of this application. Pursuant to CPLR 7804, you are directed to file with the Clerk of the Court your Answer and answering affidavits, cc: Town Board ~ Appeals Board together with a certified transcript of the record of the pro- ceedings to be considered herein, Suffolk County is designated as the venue of this proceeding on the basis of: the principal office of the Respondent is located at Town Hallr 53095 Main Road, Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and is where the Respondent made its determination complained of by the Petitioner. Dated: June 6, 1989 Cutchogue, New York RICHARD F. LARK, ESC. Attorney for Petitioner Main Roac1, P. O. Box 973 Cutchogue, NY 11935 . {516) 734-6807 'POs GERARD P. G08HRINGER CiiA~2LE3 GkIUflNis, JR. SERGE DpYEN, JR. JOSEPH H, SAWICKI JAMES DINIZTO, JR., CONSTITUTING THE ZONItdG $QARtJ JF APPEALS OF THE TOWN QF SUUTHOLD Town Hall - 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 I ~y i 1 { SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of the Application of : MATT-A-MAR, INC., z petitioner, PETITION For a Judgment pursuant 'to Article 78 of the CPLR against ~ INDEX Np. 89-11002 s ..,a~ GERARD P. GOEHRZNGER, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., SERGE AOYEN, JR., JOSEPH H. SAWICKT and JAMES DINTZIO, JR., CONSTITUTING THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE `DOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondents. ---------------------------------------------X TO THE SUPREME COURT OF fiHE STATE OF D1EW YORKs Petitioner, MATT-A-MAR, INC., respectfully alleges: 1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Petitioner was and i is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the I State of New Yark. i 2. Respondents, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JId., ~ i SERGE DOYEN, JR., JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, and J~AME5 DINIZSO, JR., at 1 all times hereinafter mentioned, constituted and still cc;,~titu4€~ the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. 3. Petitioner is the owner of premises on the westerly side of Wickham•AVenue and the easterly side of Mattituck Creek, at Mattituck, Town ofaouthold, Suffolk County, New York, known and designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 114.00, Block 03.00, Lot 001.000. 4. The premises described in paragraph 3 have a total area -1- t of nine (9) acres, and for many years in the past, as well as at the present time, have been improved and utilized as a marina. 5. On October 6, 1988, your Petitioner obtained a building permit from the Building Department of the Tocvn of Southold for the construction of an accessory storage structure (125 feet by 200 feet in size) to be utilized for indoor storage of boats at the marina, A copy of Building Permit No. 017508 Z is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 1. 6. The premises described in paragraph 3 were rezoned on 3 January 10, 1989 by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as "Marine II (MII) District" and for many years prior thereto were zoned "B Light Business District"; both of which zoning classifi- ~ cations allow the premises to be utilized for the purposes of a marina. 7. Shortly after the issuance of the Building Permit, ~ construction began on the boat storage building. Petitioner received a letter from the New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation that a permit for construction from them was ~ not required. A copy of the letter from New York State - ~ Department of Environmental Conservation dated January 9, 1989, is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 2. SubsequentSy, there appeared in a loyal newspaper on February 23, 1989, a notice calling for a public hearing to be held before the Respondent, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, on March 9, 1989 at 8:30 i P.M. for a "Reversal of a Determination by Building Inspector to ,Grant Building Permit No, 17508-Z dated October 6, 1988 con- -2- ~ ~ ~ ~ I cerning a proposed 'steel building for indoor storage of boats'." j By letter dated February 17, 1989, your Petitioner received a ~ copy of the legal notice from the Chairman of the Respondent, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. A copy of this letter and notice is 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 3. 4i 8. Prior to the hearing date, your Petitioner received a ~ letter from the Chairman of the Respondent, ZONING BOARD OF j APPEALS, dated February 27, 2989, enclosing correspondence con- ~ cerninq the boat storage building. Copies of this letter and attachments are attached hereto and made a part hereof as the i following Exhibit s i Exhibit ~ - Copy of letter dated February 27, 1989 from the Chairman of the Southold Town Board of Appeals. Exhibit A(a) - Copy of Appeal from Building Inspector dated 1isuj89 executed by rrred RenWanesci. ~ Exhibit 4(b) - Copy of letter from Southold Tawn Attorney) to Board of Appeals dated July 15, 1988 concerning site plan approval for accessory buildings. _ _ Exhibit 4(c) - Copy of Zoning Board of Appeals interpre- tation dated August 18, 1988, of Town Attorney's request concerning site plan approval for accessory buildings. 1 Exhibit 9(d) - Copy of letter from Chairman of Board of , Appeal:3 to Daniel. C. Ross, Esc), dated February 14, 1989, concerning Petitioner's property. ~ Exhibit 4(e) - Copy of letter from Daniel C. Ross to Southold Town Planning Board dated February 8, 1989, concerning site plan approval for Petitioner's property. Exhibit 4(f) - Copy of letter from Daniel C. Ross to ~ Mr. Victor Lessard dated February 8, 1989, concerning Petitioner's Building Permit. -3- ~ ~ Erhi~sit fi(g) - Cary of itemnrandum frara Zoning 9aard of ' Appeals to the 'Town Attorney dated February 1, 1989, requesting an opinion as to haw to complete Eoard of Appeals record and ' ~rhether a~ stay of construction is in order an Petitianer'~ property. exhibit 4th) - Copy of latter from Assistant Town Attorney tcs Zoning Board of Appeals dated ~'~sbruaary 3, 1989. concerning February 2, 19II9 rsr~uest of Zoning Saard at Appea~la. ~':chibit 4(i> - Capy of letter from Bonthold Town Planning Board to Southold Town Board of Appeals dated l~ehru~sry l7, 1969. concerning site plain of Petitioner's propszty. 9. n additian, your Petitionmr received the fnllawing correg(aandenes which is attached hereto and made a part hereof aa9 t}.is i'allav~ing Rxhibitsa u.ahibita(a1 - Copy of Letter Pram Pr~sd Renganesai ' to Southold Town 2onin$ Board of Ap(reals i dated tdarch 1, 1989, coxacerninq Brawmr's li tdoods r~eaacistioc~ 4~~xinq addocl as a pa~xty to pracaedinge. ~`xhibit 5(b? - Cagy of l~ttc?r from ~'rc~d Ranganesai to Sautha2d aawn Zoning k~aard of Agpeala. ciatwd March 1, 1J99, rPauesting that he be drogx~a3 as an applicant to pcaceedings. 20. Your L~etitionar was represented at ths~ public hearing before the Reupondent, 24F~SST4 Ac~ARD Cff ApPEAI,S, on N;arch 9. 2$89, by Donald Cool>s, mmna,r~er. a your Petitioner's busineea, Ali Agarabi, P.resiriant of your Pc~titianer, and Richard E°. lark, attorney tc7r 3aetitioner. 1l. Pdr. Taaniel C. Ro:~s, an attarnwy who: repreaentaci Mr. It~nganesci, N!rs. 33arbara Tteiter and Brewer's bvaoda Asscaciation, at the hearing outlined three reasons crhy Re~apond®nt should revoire the Eiuilding Permit previously is~u~xd by the Southold Tawn I Building Department to Petitioner for construction of a boat storage building; those reasons beings ' 1. The Building Permit was issued without a site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board. 2. The boat storage building exceeded 30 feet in height in violation of the Town Zoning Code. 3. The boat storage building was within 75 feet of wetlands and required approval from the Southold Town Trustees. 12. At the hearing, Donald Cocks pointed out to Respondent, ZUNZNG BOARD OF APPEALS, the need for indoor storage as an accessory use to Petitioner's marina. Mr. Cocks testified he had spent considerable time in planning and locating the storage building by consulting with the Southold Town Planner, Southold Town Planning Board, Chairman of the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, Victor Lessard, Southold Town Building Inspector, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Southold Town Trustees, many of whom visited the Petitioner's property. Mr. Cocks testified in the final analysis the Building Inspector had told him how to position and where to locate the building. Mr. Cocks further testified that $30,000.00 had been spent for building fees and expenses, and at the time of the hearing $24'4,000.00 had been spent on the actual construction of the building. 13. Petitioner's attorney, Richard F. Larlc, pointed out at the hearing to the Respondent, ZONIPdG BOARD OE APPEALS, that at the time of the granting of the Building Permit, the premises f -5- vrEY.e zoned as Light 5usinesa lliatriot" and indoor boat :storage was a valid aecesaory uaa to a .marina: and as a matter of law, formal ~°ite plan appro~aal under thu Southold flown Zoning Code waa not raquisaa from the Southold Town Planning Board £ar an accessory struotur~z in thin ~zartiaular ua+a district. As to the height of the building, t~ir. Lard pointed out that the Roard should taave the Building Inspector det®rmine the actual height of the building when the final grade is astabliahed. It waa also demonsstraterl to the Respondent, ZCNI~G 8~3ARD tSi~ APPEALS, that the Building Insp~eator located the building 7S fit Prow the mean jj high water marl: and there was a retaining wall between the I building and rise grater, whioh lsac2 an elevation o~» ten tlfl) feet ailpYH. mrsan ae,a lev~cl. Finally, twtr. Larl4. painted out that the F3x'aw,nr':s Wood .~atsociation, Mr. R~anganeaci and l`Sra. Reiter did net have proper standing an they xrere not aggrieved vartic~s to the ia~uance ©f tht3 iuilding tserr~it. At the close oP th4 hearing on ~tareh 9, 19r~9, the Respondent, ZUJ3It~~ PJt3ARt1 GF i'~PPiaALS, reclueeted an u;~dated map oi' your t~etitioner'a property showing all the struoturr~aa nn the ,prop~arty. 14. F'~Eter the kseasing, your Petitioner waa made aware the Fteapondent, Z()tJING r~tSARD t9~' Fi1i'PE.~Ld, especially its Chairman, (Gerard P. Goa~hringer, was. in an ongoing diag~ute with the 9authold i'owrr wilding xnapector, victor L€;rs::rard, anci the ~teapondent waa going to use this ap~alication to atL•rxck the Building Inspector 3nc~ building department b~~ c3eclar.ing tfse 1?etitionr~r's building ~ Parcuit void. i I~ I f 15. Thereafter, on April 4, 1989, your Petitioner's attorney submitted a copy of the requested updated map of the property along with a Memorandum concerning accessory uses and standing, a copy of which Memorandum is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 6(a), and a copy of which map is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 6(bl. 16. On April 14, 1989, .Respondent, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, wrote a letter to the Building Inspector declaring the retaining wall on Petitioner°s property to be a bulkhead. A copy of this letter dated April 14, 1989, is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 7. On April 19, 1989, Victor Lessard. the Principal Building Inspector, wrote a letter to the Respondent, ZONING, BOARD OF APPEALS, requesT.ing further clarification as to the interpretation of the retaining wall an Petitioner°s.proper- ty, as the Respondent, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS' interpretation was contrary to past practices in the Town of Southold. A copy of which letter is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 8. 17. On May 2, 1989, Respondent, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, wrote Mr. Victor Lessard a memorandum informing him that on April 27, 1989, the Respondent had decided to reverse the Building Department's granting of Building Permit Na. 017508 Z, a copy of which memorandum is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 9. On May 5, 1989, Victor G. Lessard wrote a letter to the Respondent, 7oNSiVG BOARD OF APPEALS, questioning the validity of the Respondent's determination. A copy of which letter is -7- I attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit IQ. Also attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 11 is a copy of the Building Inspector's measuzements of the Petftioner'a boat storage building accomplished nn March 22, 1989 and mentioned fn Mr. Lessard's letter of May 5, 1999. 18. On May 9, 1989, the Respondent filed the "Action of the Board of Appeals" with the Southold Town Cierk which in effect invalidated Petitioner's Building Permit, a copy of which Action is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit I2. 19. Thereafter, on May 9, I989, your Petitioner was issued a Stop Worlc Order by Vincent R. ~ieczorek, Building Inspector, a copy of which atop Work Order is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 13. 2Q. On May 18, 1989, Donald P. Cocks, Manager. of your i Petitioner's business, sent a letter to Messrs. Wieczorek and essard requesting permission to complete the building in order to make it safe. A copy of this letter and attachments are ttached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 14. On May 24, 989, Victor Lessard, Pzincipal Building Inspector, wrote a attar to Mr. Cocks authorizing com,pleticn of the building with 'nspeotions from the building Department, a copy of cahich letter 's attache~l•.hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit,l5. 21. Your Petitioner has instituted these proceedings to .eview the determination of the Respondent and for a judgment nnulling such action and reinstating the Petitioner's Building ezmit No. Q17506 Z. As of May I1, I989, your Petitioner, in -a- gaoci faith rei~ring on the aiaree:si3 E~uilding Permit r has axtPended 531~,II91.II9 in that eon»txuctian of this boat stoxage buildinr~. Tha detail of these ~..~pen:eea~ z~s sutrapaltgted from Petitioner's ' ahsekbooic tare attached hereto and ;~+ade a g~art hereof as }C~hibit 1fi. 'Phm checkbook assd axiginr~l recorda a£ tha Petitioner wili be aevailr~blti~ to the Court .esaon xe~quest. 22. "the E~etion of tize .Rcspond~snt i°iled in the Southold Town C1r~xk's 4ff`ice on ~1aq 9, 19N9, invalidmtinq Fetitianex's Hnflding P~:renit for its boat storaesc 'tauildfnc~ is a~xbitxary, aapriaious, unreasonable, and the ResPanda~nt, ~ONxA7G BflAAD QF APPUALS, mated i~Pre~pexly such tht?t its conduct exceedar itcs authoxitg, vansti- tutinq an abuc~:~ of itza ~?omc~.r, ratsulting in the violation of. ' Petitfon~tr':~ rights ~ur:auant to th~x Cotastitution3 of th$ United ,fates 4E .hmarica and the ~tat.~s of ~te~t York. 23. .da ~reviour~ ~sp~lic~tian has been nrzede .6or the relief rogeee€ated nexein. Widk;~'~~F,'~f2F„ Pr~titi,~nex respectfully rsquest~a 3udgra€ent annul- ling and v~cutinq this detexminatian of the ttes~~ondent ~rhfch inva- 1i~3atctd Petitianer'~s ~uil3ing P*~rmft, tagethmr with the costs o£ this pxoceadins~, and for ouch other and further.' relief tee to the Court Busy sar~sn .g~a~at anei f~a'aF?ar. i Dsttedt ,7uae ta, 198$ MATT-A»MAlia ZNC. Cutchoquet, New Yank ~ Aid Agarabi, Pre~3.8ent (I -9- a y . N • ~ e , o.. . ~ A, __~8TA7L'OP Nom' Y~BK. r;Ut"rCY rat' ~ aa; tbdtutdcrtlancd, an alhrrnry' nrbmttrd d. pracnrr, in drr c,nuta ..f A,„ ~ ate' ~ b Wit" cettily that 1hc~srilhiny i 't' . t --t-rt,~: has been cam t«i b nu raith Ihr ,~ncmal and /aund to O .Mterser'e Nato that 1 am AiNItM X. e - fiw e ~ sus > true to my' own knowlalge, except as to the mattrn t?xtetp tits~,y , , 3 r a .f.. to those matters 1 believe it to lk true. 'Ihe reason this rerifarato AA ~ . ~"fautiR'=~ a' ' The grounds of my belief as to all mattero not stated upon mY aMa i:a..°rn,;,.,,: I affirm that the foregoing statements nre true, under the penalhes of per)ury , 9. , iY ~ r Dated • ~ ~H p .a..•.'~. ~'[M, •<d'•w Sir. yes .~aa'a4? ~fi f~~ ' .-.~vs • IxS .kea~ ,.e 4 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ~j( w.. ~ ~y~+~F I, ALT AG~F?ItAJiiI being aworn, say: [ am tt matvlauat in the within action; I have read the foregoing rye, m ? verifleatmn and know the contents thereof, tM awanrw ~ ~a the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and 6elial: awi w r,. ~ Corporate the ~I't3$~,t'}.©A~ of ~r~'~'"a~"1~1~~ v~~ Veriflcalian a a N6Ti YUTk corporation and a patty Ia.rir%aaaaato-~ - ~ ceti~ion and know the contents tharvdr.aarr,aa,r,., t ' except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon informatioa +aa aera~x;, it to be true. This verification is made by me because the above party-ia A Tie grounds of my 6glief as to all matters t stated u on my ow wle o era ts~ cor~osatxnn. rrtnc~ pub~~.a resc~rrda.A~ ~+e TOtae ~ tom.+~ ;~~~3 ~ ~ . Sworn to before me on Jt7ikE3 19a~ ,„,y~~ ~ t~ NO~ary PU~tL~C AW1YlOtIQOROSKI x Notety Pubro, State d New Yatk ~ STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ND. 1000858 • Suffolk CglfAy ss.: tt1 ~a? wo ~ xGarnd- ur..w ~ - ` x r ' ~I ,CammkaioitErpiesA6'r.301,~G6n sworn, sa I am~not a ~ ° `~~r"x'~' > g Y; path ~ t ' of age and reside at „v',- < w r ' On ~ 19 I served the within ~ 3<~~, °.T~' m ? eY Mao by depositing a true copy thereof enclosed in a postpaid wrappeq in an oQicitl ~ and custody of the U.S. Postal Service within New York State, addressed to each a known address set forth after each name: ~ ? Personal by delivering a true copy thereof personally to each person named below at ilia nddrr++- ' °s ` serrme ou served to be the erson mentioned and described in said papers as a party 1Geraia: Individual P v Sworn to before me on 19 ...The ure rltse/ qA M NAnN Mw1A ^ o ~ w r. O ~ , r S ~ o ~ ~ n p ° io O io ~ b ~ ~ a O, ~ p b v ~ 3~ ~ 3 ~ ~ c o m 0 3 r° ~ n w m ~i nti .11 c E n ~ fl 25 p ~ rn n~„ ~ ~ W ~ P ~ n n m n I m y O 2 ~ ~ j 2 t ~ O a ~ D ° D a y x y' ~ n m p y A o = R m ~ D y ~ E p o ~ ° a. f V ti E, ~ p~ ~ p~ ~ ~ A p O n n S; O ~ 3 9 W n r" ~ F X W "y bV ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ O a. D m S ~ X a ~ k a :U w m ,y y ~ ~ ' o ~h x 9 m v5 c y. ui V ~ ~ N W ^ m a w W (7 b rv ro ~ ~`o f ~O C ~ a m a ° ~ > o a d ~~Q.W ~ ~D "y P c ~ ~ H C 6 t'n R m '.+i' fl o H o H ti ~ ~ ~ pW 4 O m o n 3~ ~ ~ ra.~~W i M m v° n zap A ~ ~d rbi8 ro c~c~ m o o o r hi ~ Fyrn'?n z F F' ~ Z °~a ~ N ' o" ( W~ r rr ~9 n (31~ c. Ff~~ pp~~ 5 ~ m K p a~ O ~ W ~ w Y 4 ~ x O D ~ a ' c, ~ ~n w ~ ~ m x = x y ~ p p t9o n~ r x ~ m ; T ryary omr~r ° m a c N W a' tl ~ ~ tet H fi m s ~ ~ y ~ mi r ~ ~ p '~S t1B rv ~ ~ ~ ~ M a „ 1~ h V} M r t..;;.. ,.1rR ~ ri ~ - b- 6 b 4 `-.S SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK _ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ,s ~ ~•zA: -x >~s ' In the Matter of the Application of MATT-A-MAR, INC., , { . ~ _ g r ~ •'Petitioner, - .<< Assigned to Justice ~ ~ a Daniel F. Luciano For a Judgment pursuant to Article , , ~ 78 of the CPLR -against- Index No 89 11002 S~ti~ GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHARLES ~ e GRIGONIS, JR., SERGE DOYEN, JR., JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, AND JAMES DINIZIO, y . JR., CONSTITUTING THE ZONING BOARD - OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, ' Respondents. „fit,'.;. ' --------------------------------------x a , i i RESPONDENTS' REPLY.-MEMORANDUM s ;'.r - .y ~F.'. Y. ' Y. ~.T Ib yy'' `•titi . ' . i -i ~ ~ SMITH, FINKELS7EIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER and YAKABOSKI I k> ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 456 GRIPPING AVENUE - - - ~ - P.O. BOX 389 RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 - (516) 727-4100 SUPREME. COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK i -----------x In the Matter of the Application of MATT-A-MAR, INC., Petitioner, Assigned to Justice: For a Judgment pursuant to Article Daniel F. Luciano 78 of the CPLR Index No. 89-11002 -against- GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., SERGE DOYEN, JR., JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, and JAMES DINIZIO, JR., CONSTITUTING THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondents. --------------------------------------x RESPONDENTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM STATEMENT This memorandum is submitted on behalf of the Southold Board of Appeals in reply to the memoranda of law submitted by the petitioner in support of its petition and in support of its motion to strike parts of the Return. The Court is respectfully referred to the respondents' memoran- dum dated July 28, 1989, its answer to the amended petition and its affirmation in opposition, dated August 17, 1989 for a full discussion of the history and merits of this matter. A In the interest of brevity, this memorandum will be limited ' to addressing the claims made in petitioner's latest papers. POINT I MISSTATEMENTS OF FACT 1. The record amply demonstrates that the owner of this property was consistently advised, from as far back as 1978, that a building for storage of boats was not a permitted use in the Business Zone but a principal use only allowed in the industrial zone. Nevertheless, petitioner attempts to rewrite history by asserting that these prior rulings were based on a proposed "mixed" use of property, including repair as well as storage. This claim is belied by the record. The proposed use was always for storage. For example no mention of repairs is made in the minutes of the 1978 application to the Board of Appeals and indeed, the application was expressly for "permission to construct a boat storage building" (474). Petitioner also asserts that in 1987, the present manager began to explore the possibility of a building for "storage, boats repairs and boat building" with various agencies, including the Planning Board and building department, (see page 3 of petitioner's memorandum). Neither the cite to Mr. Cocks' testimony (which should be page 86 of the Return) nor to Mr. Lessard's affidavit (which is beyond the r ~ ^22 r . record, see Point VI below) provide testimonial support for this claim. In fact, the record shows that petitioner was discussing a building for storage. The minutes of petitioner's presentation to the Planning Board in January 1987 speak for themselves (R-42, 234). Indeed, when asked by a Planning Board member whether a special exception would be needed for the building, petitioner's consultant stated: "I would question that with Mr. Lessard because it is only used for a storage building" (Return p. 234, emphasis added). Mr. Lessard responded that he did not know and would have to check the zoning (Return, 234). Mr. Lessard did just that and discovered that a building for storage would be prohibited: "Reviewing the property, I find that at the time the question of constructing a storage building was discussed, Appeal 82419-6/1/78, the chairman ruled then and correctly so, that a storage building for storage is an industrial use and the property is zoned business" (R-41, p. 233). Significantly, no other use is mentioned at all. Thus, petitioner's statement that after getting nowhere with the boards, it decided to abandon its "plan" for a mixed use (p. 3 of memorandum), is pure ficti,Qn. ' 2. As an alternative position, petitioner now tries to apply a 1977 variance granted its predecessor for boat storage permit the building it has constructed. As -3- . even petitioner is forced to concede, the 1977 variance permitted outdoor storage. This is obvious since one year later, the same applicant was told by the same board that a building for indoor storage would not be permitted. Not only did Mr. Lessard agree with the Board's position, (see quote from his 1987 letter above), he stressed in the very same letter that the 1977 earlier variance was outdoor storage: " I would also point out that Appeal #2242- 1/17/77 dealt with open storage of boats" (emphasis added, 12-41, p. 233). Likewise petitioner's present claim that in granting the building permit, Mr. Lessard was merely applying a code provision requiring indoor storage generally, does not ring true. The 1977 variance was expressly regarded as permitting outdoor storage. POINT II THE BUILDING PERMIT IS NOT VALID Petitioner claims that the permit must be judged not under the law at the time it issued, but under the law in effect at the time of Board of Appeals review. Even if be invalid ~2' ti-ti.~ ~z~~ ~ .~~j pProval . The rf'~ S~,e ~-~~_z-~-~-,J~ .2u~~ G.~~ ,.s..~ yw.~r from issuing _ uires G approval of site development plans by the Planning Board, no building permit shall be issued by the Building Inspector except upon authorization of and in conformity with the site plan approval by the Planning Board and all other public agencies involved." (§100-250) 0-udgy} Ced_. Since petitioner concedes that the building would require site plan approval under the present law, it reverses its position and asserts that as to the requirement for site plan approval, the law in effect at the time the building permit issued should apply. Petitioner then claims that the old law would not have required site plan review for this 25,000 square foot "accessory use". While site plan review would have been required under the prior law (see Point II of respondent's brief),1 petitioner cannot have it both ways. The present law cannot be applied when it suits petitioner's purposes and disregarded when it does not. Furthermore, the building violates the setback requirements from bulkheads under both the old and new law. Although petitioner's own survey denominates the bulkhead as a "bulkhead" (p. 27 of Return), it now claims the building inspector's determination that it is not a bulkhead but a "retaining wall" should take precedence over the Board of Appeals' contrary determination. Petitioner asserts that 1 As noted in respondents prior submissions, petitioner knew site plan review was needed and indeed applied for it. . -5- the building inspector and not the Board of Appeals is the final interpreter of the zoning code. This is not the law (see Point IV below). The permit when issued was contrary to zoning. It violated the use and setback provisions and did not have requisite site plan approval. As such it was null and void "without the necessity for any proceedings, revocations or nullification thereof" (§100-281, formerly §100-141). Whether measured under the new or old code provisions, the permit is invalid. POINT III PETITIONER OBTAINS NO VESTED RIGHTS UNDER 'PHE ILLEGAL PERMIT NOR 1S TI3ERE ESTOPPEL Petitioner would have this Court rewrite the law pertaining to vested rights and municipal estoppel. It is well established that no vested rights can be acquired from an illegal permit, even if there is good faith reliance on the permit2 (see e.g. Perrotta v. New York, 107 AD2d 320, aff'd 66 NY2d 859). "If a use is proscribed by the zoning 2 As set forth in the papers previously submitted, respondents question petitioner's "good faith" in light of its actual prior knowledge that the storage building was not permitted in the zone. -6- ordinance, the user cannot establish a vested right to continue it simply by obtaining a permit which the issuing officer was without authority to give" (1 Anderson, New York Law of Zonin , § 6.11, 216). It is equally well established that a municipality "is not estopped from enforcing its zoning laws either by the issuance of a building permit or by laches (cites omitted) and the prior issuance to the petitioner of a building permit could not confer rights in contravention of zoning laws" (Parkview Assocs. v. Cites of New York, 71 NY2d 274, 2II2, citing City of Yonkers v. Rentways, Inc, 304 NY 499; Matter of B & G Constr. Corp. v. Board of Appeals, 309 NY 730; City of Buffalo v. Roadway Tr. Co., 303 NY 453). Petitioner's claims of vested rights and estoppel cannot be maintained, (Points III and IV respectively in its memorandum). POINT IV THE BOARD OF APPEALS, NOT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IS THE FINAL INTERPRETER OF TIIE 'CONING CODE Petitioner insists that the building inspector's construction of the zoning code takes precedence over that _ of the Board of Appeals. This too is not the law. The Board of Appeals is charged with the duty to interpret the code and is specifically authorized by Section 267(2) of the Town Law to review, as an appellate body, determinations made by the administrative official charged . _7_ ' n~ 9 ' h enforcement. The zoning board "has jurisdiction to interpret the zoning regulations upon an appeal from a construction of such regulations by an enforcement official" (1 Anderson, supra, §22.37, p. 147). As Anderson notes, the jurisdiction of the board to construe the ordinance "includes the power to determine the application of the ordinance to specific property" (§22.37, p. 147). This is specifically provided for in the Southold zoning code: "In addition to such powers as may be conferred upon it by laws, the Board of Appeals shall have the following powers: D. rn Proretations: on appeal from an order, decision or determination o£ an administrative officer...to decide any of the following: (1) Determine the meaning of any provision in this chapter or of any condition or requirement specified or made under the provisions of this chapter." (§100-271) haw Given this appellate jurisdiction to review building department construction of the code, the Board's interpretation governs. ~~T Thus it is the zoning board's decision, as the administrative agency charged with interpretation of the code, that is to be deferred to by the Courts. POINT IV THE NEIGHBOR'S APPEAL TO THF. BOARD OL' APPEALS WAS TIMELY While never raising this claim before the Board of Appeals, petitioner now claims the neighbors' appeal was _g_ untimely. The time for the neighbors to appeal the issuance of the building permit does not begin to run from the date the permit issued (here October 6, 1988), but from the time they became reasonably chargeable with notice of its issuance (Matter of Levien v Board of Zoning, 64 M2d 40). Once they are on notice, they have a reasonable time to bring the appeal. While no record was made before the Board, petitioner's own account establishes that the neighbors acted promptly (see p. 28 of petitioner's brief). The mere clearing of debris would not put anyone on notice that a building permit had issued. Thus, at best to petitioner, the "excavation" creating mounds of bluestone and dirt, beginning in the middle of December, might be the first possible indication that something was going on. Footings however were not poured according to petitioner under late December, presumably during the holidays. Significantly, the foundation was not completed until Iebruary 2, 1989, after the neighbors filed their application to the Board of Appeals on February 1, 1989. The erection of the building obviously could only have occurred thereafter. Thus, based on petitioner's own facts, the application was brought approximately 45 days . _g_ after the commencement of some type of excavation, 30 days from the pouring of the footings, prior to completion of the foundation, and before erection of walls. The appeal was therefore brought in a timely fashion. It certainly was brought within the four month time period cited by petitioner in paragraph 23 of its amended petition. Furthermore, the zoning code provides that invalid permits are automatically null and void without the need for formal proceedings to invalidate, (§100-281, formerly §100-141). POINT VI THE AFFIDAVITS OF LESSARD AND COCKS, AS WELL AS PARAGRAPHS 19 AND 20 OI' ' THE AMENllEll PETIi'ION, SIIOULD BE DISREGARDED Petitioner submits with the amended petition the affidavit of building inspector Lessard, who had issued the permit. This "testimony" was not presented to the Board although Mr. Lessard was at the hearing and opted not to testify. The affidavit is not part of the record before the Board of Appeals being reviewed herein and thus not properly before this Court. It should be disregarded. "Judicial review of administrative action is limited to the facts and record adduced before the agency when the determination was made" (Celestrial Food Corp v. New York State Liquor Authority, 99 AD2d 25, 2G-27; see also Jennings v. Coughlin, 99 AD2d 635, 63G) ` ~ -10- ' This rule was recently applied by the Second Department: "Since our function here is to review the discretion of the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the evidence before it, we have not considered subsequently proffered material which is dehors t:he record" (Barretto v. 7.oninq Board of'_ Appeals, 123 AD2d 692, 693) . The Court should likewise strike paragraphs 19 and 20 of the amended petition and those parts of Mr. Cocks' affidavit accompanying the amended petition which deal either with events occurring after the closing of the administrative record or matters not presented to the Board. POINT VII THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS HAD STANDING The Board found that the individual appellants, as well as the members of the Browers Woods Association, are property owners within the immediate vicinity and thereby affected by the 25,000 square foot building (Return, p. 3). As such, they have sufficient status (see 2 Anderson, New York 7,oning Law and Practice, §26.07, p. 373). "A property holder in nearby proximity to premises that are the subject of a zoning determination may have standing to seek judicial review without pleading and proving special damage, because ~xdverse effect or aggrievement can be inferred from the proximity" (Sun-Brite Car Wash, Inc., v. Board of 7.oninc3, 69 NY2d '}OEi, A09-10). (See also affidavits of Fred Renganeschi and Ruth Engel, . - -11- Return pages 53-75). r. CONCLUSION The Board of Appeals determination of April 27, 1987 should be sustained and the petition dismissed. Dated: Riverhead, New York September 8, 1989 Respectfully submitted, SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER and YAKABOSKI, Attorneys for Respondents Office & P.O. Address 456 Griffing Avenue P.O. Box 389 Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 727-4100 ° OF COUNSEL: Frank A. Isler, Esq. ` -12- ~ ~''1~-~ ~r•l c:c ~ ~ ...w_ ~ _ ~ ,~,rP .:~n,^,3 "B Ligtit suainP;s:~ lli:~rrict" and indoor boat storage •,r<~a a valid aeee:~aory use to a ,~aarina; and as a matter of law, i ~ iar~aal site plan appxoval under th~+ Southold Ta;vn Zaninq Code was , not zequirsd @rotn the 3authald Tcwn 2lanning Board £or an accessory Structure in this particular nos district. As to the height a£ the building, .~Sr. Lark ztointsd out that the Hoard t should have the }building Inspector detarraina the actual hsiyht of the building ~zhett the final grade is asts8liahed. It was also d4monstratsrl to the Respon34nr_, Z'JNI~tG 30ARD OP APPEALS, that the Huilding Inspector located the hailding 75 feet £rotn the mean high caAtex mark etnd there eras a retaining arall between the i building and the ~ratez, which had an elevation of ten (ZO) £eet ~ a'aove .assn Sea level. F°innlly, Eir. Lark pointed out that the ~ ~ ~ I f3rawsr':, S+Ioad :lssaciaticn, N1r. Rengane5ei and Istr:t. t~eitor did not ~ I hav~+ proper :tending as they wPxe not aggrieved parties to the issuance of •*.ha 3uilc:iag F>er,:iit. ~yt the closEt of thca hearing on v IP•iarcYi 3, 19c~9, t:te i'ta:apanR3w>nt, ZthYISJG HQARD ©F ~aPPEALS, rsqussted an undated male of your 1'etitianer's property showing all the 5tructurea an the prapsrty, `I 14. ~ ;,t,<_x rite hearing, your Pe±itianar was made aware the Respondent, ZONITdG Ht}ARt) ~F AFP~:AI,B, eso*ycially its Chairman, Gerard P, ioa*_hringer, wait iu r1n ongoing disauta with tl:e Southold ~'S'a~.rn BuililinG Inspector, iTictor I,ea~•ard, anti the Respondent ~~*as yoinq co use chi:, ~ipolication to atL•ack t!t€t 3uildinq Inspector I~ and P.uilding Department b5, declaring ;.he ;?etitianHr's Huildin3 i 'I Permit void. I~ I' i ~I i ~ MATTITUCK CaIAMRER OF COMMERCE P.Oa BOX 1056 MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND, N.Y. 11952 I, I I, c j y~~ ~ITM \,'l ~ r 5 ~ S E ~1 AUG 3 11989 RE~EIV~D ~ULs,.m..., d__.~~..._ _ BLCG crr r. August z4, 1989 ~,UG 30 1989 TowNaFSOUrrao~u .ei0yfh01~1 7....._ i^I,.w4 Southold Town Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Gentlemen: It has come to our attention that the Town Board has issued a stop-work order to the Matt-A-Mar Marina concerning the construction of the steel building.' Mattituck Chamber of Commerce feels that the support of our marine business is important. We feel that this or any other business should not have become the result of the inability of the regulations of the different town offices to coincide with one another. We would encourage the Board to expedite the removal of the stop-work order so that Matt-A-Mar Marina can continue to be a contributing factor to the economy of our town. Perhaps it can be suggested that additional trees be planted to seclude the building from the street so that an equitable solution can be reached for everyone. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Mattituck Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors Robert Koch, President 1 w O J ` 1 ~ ~ F/ ~ ~ V ~lj1 ~ ~ ~ ~ .~w V • Uh a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~1 Q~.,,.~ N ' , ' ~ ~ I ~ 9t v ~ w~ ~ l ~ C ~ ~ ~ ,.~9 St„, y Q ~ ~ 9 d t, ~ C~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ z r~ y ~ _ - ~ V . ~ ~ -n hey x E~ ~ j N w t ~ - _ ~ x t q~A y~ e a ro~~~ r~~~ ,d ~ x A ~ c~ c ~ tys P ~ Ki ~ In ~ . G _ ~ ~ 4R°~t~.n "j qx a ~ ~ N k1 R - r,. ~J ~1-,, ~ . ~ ~ ~P S, i, , ~ ~ ~ w', w y~ Q w ~ /..~...i ~ ~ ~FI~jCH~,'~,,,..1d-„ars~~~ . w~Qe M ~ ~ 9 ~ c nQ' PnAQ' 5..,. o ~ 3. e .9 ~ ~ ~+F, ~ ~ \w .9 S 3 ~ 3~....... ~ ~ y' 3~, 4, y y •d" iy7 ~I,/`b~ _ _...--._.__.v sS'!~~ ~.7 NCJ l _ ,____.~~,fy'~r~.~,~-^"`"_a..~= '^"'r'...._.i-._~. N h7~fr°O~s J.,ItJ ..y... ~ ~J ~ ~p'~~- ~ <a ~ i~~ 1; ~ ~ r' r n ~ L n ' ~ n Y ~Y...,/ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s ~ ' ~ l ' _ o~ ~ ~ 4a' Q 1 ~ V ~ y ~ nj I G --rv -•,.ia..:_~ .q, x. ~ ~ 4 7 ~,S""~ ::asx.~"At-a' i suq. ~ r~ ~a,~.. ~ ~ w.~ F O ~ 1 4• N ~ ~ ~ , c r s ~ -J ~ ~ . ` bl' , Q N ~ ~I~ t~l d ~ Z ~ f ~ ~ y of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J~ ~ O ~ -~I~ ~'i i ~ V ~ k a~ ~ ~ %t ~ ~I ' ~o f qq . ~ ~ n ,JQ ...f i~ m "v F 7 r ~ h ~ , ~ i c, ~ , ~ S` GC K- ~ q t~'i ~ ~ I"i 1' 2 ~ (V11 1LS ..t, M O L A~ ~j _ i F_,~~ M N ~ ~ ~ . U~ ~ W Qti V yr 1., v ~ J I e ~ a3a s ~ ~ C,~) kq~ K ~ ~:1~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v: s ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ .._m.. .a^H t.Ur+ll_N~~M ~Sh'~' ~NaJ .nb 1,i+t/d 17NNO'Sd~ 'Id iM~iZ °..~.'"`"w.`"~'y"9..,~.....,...~._...~,,._..,_, ~ w. _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ . I ~ U ti _ ~ "~~./~I (I O ~ O 3 `z ~ a ti ~ t j \ ~at~o~~ r ~ 3 93 ~ l p>~C~4ia~ o d ~ I~1 ~ ~ ~ f ~ i i ~ ~ . - ~ ~ f ; ; r W I V ~ ~ I ~ 41 ~ ~ I~ • J .t c! ~ Q `Y y ~ ~ u ~ ~ I 4 ~o ~ I ~ o~Q~ _4 w e~ ~ ~ .*r ; LiJ ~ 6 ! Q rv~~ ~i ~f s 2c I o o v u~' a `i ~ u I Fu o ~ ) y~ ~ C1 ii Q ~J (lam ~ ~aQ~ ~ ~ i ~ tie ;r ~ , y .a i Q I I ~E f Y \ o ~ ~ \ e - I ~ ~ ~ aC 1 ~ 'S~ (~T ~ ~ ~ ~:1 i:~, any ~ ~ h i ( i / q ~ a, ~ , QI ~ 3 M~ I M v i~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ `Y i i ~ 4 ~ ~B I r % ~ I ~ k J N ~~FFarx~o Southold Tawn Board of Appeals ~y~o! ~ ~~Q~ MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 50UTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 17971 TELEPHONE 1516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD D MEMBERS ~ GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. ~ ~ SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DlNlZ10, JR. BLDG. DEPT. TO: Southold Town Building Department TOwNOFSOUTHOLD~,,,~ Attention: Mr. Victor Lessard, Prin. Building Insp. FROM: Southold Town Board of Appeals DATE: April 14, 1989 SUBJECT: Building Permit No. 175082 As you are aware, this Board, upon receipt of an updated, "as built" survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, last Friday urged the Town Attorney's Office to commence action through your office to immediately take steps to Stop Work under the above-reference building permit concerning the Matt-A-Mar Marina in Mattituck. In the interim, a question arose either by you or the attorney for the property owner as to whether or not the Z.B.A. has jurisdiction within 75 feet of the bulkhead, since the structure was considered at one time by the Town Trustees as a retaining wall. By unanimous vote of the Board of Appeals held last evening, it was RESOLVED, that the retaining structure near the southerly property line in the vicinity of the subject building known and referred to as a "wood bulkhead" and "wood bulkhead retaining wall" as shown on the March 21, 1989 survey prepared by Peeonic Surveyors, is hereby confirmed to meet the definition under the zoning code of a bulkhead .for the purposes of interpretating article XXIII, Section 100-239d, and BE IT FURTHER l~ay?,y' RESOLVED, to immediately urge your Department to commence action to Stop Work under the above permit, based upon the information received in the survey for the insufficient distance from the bulkhead under Article IX, Section 100-119.2 of the old zoning code (in effect at the time this building permit was issued), and under Article XXIII, Section 100-239d. Copies of this letter are being furnished to the Town Attorney and Members of the Southold Town Board since this is an enforcement matter. Q~~S~ffD(dr~D~ _ Southold Town Bo hh~ ~V als ~~.1 11971 ~''~Ol ~ MAIN ROAD -STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX ~l~+F~lO ' BLDG. D 17s5-isos TOWN OF $0 ~QD (51 ) 765-1823 APPEA LS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. TO: Mr. Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Southold Town Building Department FROM: Board of Appeals DATE: May 2, 1989 SUBJECT: Building Permit No. 175082 Property Location: W/s Wickham Road, Mattituck County Tax Map No. 1000-114-3-1 This letter is a follow-up to our Secretary's notification to you on Friday, April 28, 1989, that the following action was taken by this Board on Thursday evening, April 27, 1989 concerning the above premises: RESOLVED, to GRANT the request under Appl. No. 3829 for the REVERSAL OF DETERMINATION by the Building Department to grant BUILDING PERMIT No. 0175082; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that prior to issuance or reissuance of a Building Permit for this building, further Interpretations•be formally requested of this Board, for clarification as to whether all of the activities in this proposed building is a permitted principal use or a permitted accessory use in this zoning district, including but not limited to the applicable requirements in determining height limitations and yard locations under the Zoning Code, and be RE1$ANDED FOR FURTHER HEARING(S) on the above-noted elements, if necessary. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Sawicki and Dinizio. (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent.) This resolution was unanimously adopted. Copies of this letter are simultaneously being furnished to the Town Attorney's Office, Supervisor, and Town Clerk`s Office for distribution to the Town Board Members since this is an enforcement matter. J~,y SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OFfA~PEALS BY GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN . . oc~~fFOUf~O VICTOR LESSARD ~ ~ Town Hall, 5309$ Main Road PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR ~ ~ P.O. Box 1179 (516) 765-1802 y • ~ Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 ®~~l ~ ~a~~ OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 18, 1989 Mr. Donald P. Cocks Matt-A-Mar Marina Box 125 Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 Dear Mr. Cocks: In response to your latest letter, with reference to the storage building, the building department secured the services of an engineering firm. Enclosed is a copy of their report. After conferring with members of the Town Board, and Town Attorney, it is the position of the building department that the concrete floor or use of this structure cannot be until this situation is resolved by you and the Town Government. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Very truly yours, SOUTAOLD TOWN BUILDING DEPT. Victor G. Lessard, Principal Building Inspector VGL:gar encl. F~ ~ ~ oc~~FfUL/t'~o ~ ~ VICTOR LESSARD ~ ~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR ~ ~ P.O. Box 1179 (516) 765-1802 ~ Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765.1823 y~ifbOl ~~0~ ''77 OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AUGUST 17, 1989 MATT-A-MAR Marina Box 1235 Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 Dear Donald P. Cocks: In response to your latest letter, with reference to the storage building, the building department secured the services of an engineering firm. Enclosed is a copy of their report, which is self ex- planatory. Should you have any further questions, please do nat hesitate to contact my office. Very truly yours, Y .c c~~4 t7 . ~ ¢d.~ Victor G. Lessard VGL:hkd Principal Inspector SIDNEY B. BOWNE ~ SON Sidney D. Bowne, P.E., L.S. ~°i7~uteP/d Roland Anders (1922-195g) Francis J. Lynch Chester C. Kelsey, P.E., L.S. 4~J ManOr RO8C1 Phillip Schlotzhauer Robert A. Stanton, P.E. ~ Joseph F. Stegman Robert W. Brown, L.S. $ITI IthtOWnr N.Y. 11787 William T Styne Zabdiel A. Blackman, P.E., L.S. (51 6~ 724'611 Richard B. Weber Frank J. Antetomaso, P.E. , George A Style, P.E. .,....i.._,,... ~l Jerry D. Almont, P.E. ~ ~ ,j i George L. Fagan, Jc, Ph. D., P E. t Frank Capobianco, C.E. • ' Paul F. Stevens. P.E. AUG ' 6 ~ Roger L Cocohl, P.E. r~ ? ~ y Sf ~ ~ ~ W..._....„.>..m.....,..._,,.,,,~ //1 August 14, 1989 Thomas R Pynchon, L.S. NLIiG. GEPT. TOVUN OF SOUTHOLO Victor Lessard, Building Inspector Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Matt-A-Mar Marina Building - Mattituck Town of Southold, New York (SBB No. 87503) Dear Pir. Lessard: We have reviewed the structural plan for the partially completed Matt-A-Mar Marina building and offer the following advice: It appears from what is indicated on the plans that the designer was relying on the slab to resist some of the outward thrust at the base of the steel frame. This was the purpose of the number 7 rein- forcing steel shown extending from the piers into the concrete slab. For this reason we feel that the owner should be ordered to secure the building temporarily until the pending situation is adjudicated. This could be accomplished by installing steel cable connecting opposite steel frames to temporarily substitute for the missing slab connection. A minimal expense would be involved and the building would not be permanently altered. The owner's engineer can provide the information pertaining to the proper size and method of attachment of the cables. If we can be of further assistance in this matter please let us know. Very truly yours, SIDNEY B. BOVdNE & SON CONS/~ULTING .EN~GINEE/R~S Gf n~~ ( n~ A. BARYON CASS, P.E. ABC:cIg Encl. cc: Ray Dean (SBB) MINEOLA • SMITHTOWN • NEW YORK CITY • CLEARWATER An Equal Opportunity Employer M/f/M o~~FFOIkcG VICTOR LESSARD ~ 0~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. Box 1 179 (s 16) 7es-IaOZ ~ ~ Southold, New York ] 1971 FAX (516) 765-1823 Q ~,yol ~ yao OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 5, 1990 TO: Chairman, Z.B.A. FROM: BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OFFICE SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION The Building Degartment has applications for Building Permits and requests for certifications of site plans all the time. Reading the Z.B.A. decision of Port of Egypt Enterprises Inc. #3770, we are now interpreting the following. As refer- enced, in the decision, under 7(E) the Zoning Board is saying that storage buildings, in the Marine II Districts will be con- sidered part of the principal use of that district, because of the allowable heights of 35'-0. This certainly will aid toward certifications as to front yard, backyard setbacks of site plans and building permits. Now that the precedent is set, it would be to everyones benefit to put such a definition into the code and also consider the same status for Marine I Zone. cc. Planning Board Town Board J ( ~B-lQ-!LG / ~ 1 ~ p ~o~~~Fp~COG Q ,,,R ~~'41 u .<,1: n ew,..~'. P 201.,., ~-A ~,.?3.~4 . 3) 31,b 1 o y 1r`~e Y~ y ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals • t' MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 Oy~ol ~ ~vO ~ ~ TELEPHONE (576) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MAR 2 91989 MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEH RINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. BLDG. DEP7. SERGE DOYEN, JR. TOWN! ()F SCJUTN~L_D JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES Dmlzlo, JR. INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Southold Town Building Department FROM: Board of Appeal DATE: March 29, 1989 SUBJECT: Matt-A-Mar Building Permit #175082 (or Other) Mr. Don Cocks has advised our office today that he has amended the above Building Permit Application (as of about 3-4 weeks ago). Please provide us with a description of the amendment authorized {if any) by your office since the filing of the original building permit, together with copies in order to complete our file in this review. It is requested that this information be furnished on or before Friday, March 31, 1989. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this matter. S~FFat.~c o Op ~ Southold Town Board of appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 Q! ~ TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOAflD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ~-JOSEPH H. SAWICKI March 6, 1989 JAMES DINIZI O, JR. Southold Town Building Department Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appl. No. 3829 - Request for Reversal of Building Permit Property ID: Matt-A-Mar 1000-114-3-1 Attention: Mr. Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Gentlemen: As you may know, questions will be raised at our public hearing of Thursday, March 9, 1989 concerning the issuance of Building Permit No. 175082 by the Building Department and the above premises. May we ask you to provide at least one representative from your Department who is familiar with this project at our March 9, 1989 hearing commencing at 8:30 p.m? Please confirm whether or not you will be able to have someone present. In any event, we will need to request your files for viewing of the original maps during this hearing. Thank you. Yours very truly, BO OE APP A y Gera J del ~~onger Chairman lk cc: Town Attorney's Office Town Planning Board oS~FFUIKCo VICTOR LESSARD ~ ~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR ~ ~ P.O. Box 1179 (516) 765-1802 ~ Southold, New York 1 ] 971 FAX (516) 765-1823 yOij'Ljo~ ~ OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: GERARD GOEHRING, CHAIRMAN BOARD OF APPEALS ' FROM: VICTOR LESSARD, PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR SUBJECT: BUILDING PERMIT #17508-Z DATE: MAY 5, 1989 I received your memo of May 2, 1989 (with rubber stamped signature) concerning the referenced Wickham Road property. After reading the memorandum, I was a bit unclear as to its meaning, so I consulted with the Town Attorney. After talking to him, it appears that it is necessary to get a clarification from the Board of Appeals, the reason being, I do not believe their is sufficient justification to either revoke the outstanding building permit or issue a Stop Order because the owner has done nothing improper. T issued the building permit after careful consideration of the applicable construction and Zoning Codes as well as prier Zoning Bcard decisions. Both the Town Attorney and myself are unclear as tc what determination you are reversing. Apparently your decision, whatever it may be, is not a final one. It appears for your own political reasons, you are harrassing both myself and the Building Department. In an unusual memo, dated March 6, 1989, you requested that I or a member of the Building Department be present at the public hearing on March 9, 1989. Both myself and Senior Inspector Curtis Horton attended that meeting until 11:30 P.M. because we felt it was important to assist you on what was appeared to be a politically charged issue. Neither you or any member of the board had the courtesy to acknowledge our presence or ask us, any questions that night. From the way you conducted the hearings, it was obvious you were looking for any reason to embarrass the Building Department at the expense of the property owner. As I read the Zoning Code, that is not your purpose or function as chairman of the Board of Appeals. Again, I will reiterate what seems to have your board confused. This permit was issued under existing law prior to the adoption of the present Master Plan Code. You request clarification of certain matters. However, you already have that information, but I will refer to it again. 1. Property was Zoned B-Light Business with 35' required front yard. Because of previous ZBA decision 1977, a 100` set-back (Buffer Zone) was called for and I made the applicant adhere to it. By agreement of both the Zoning Board and the Planner, "All Structures must meet the set-back of a principal building in all zones but residential". This was also done. The code is silent where an accessory building can be placed in all but Residential Zones. I adhered to both boards wishes. The side yard issue as I explained in a previous memo, met the requirements of the code. I determined where that structure was to be placed before issuing the permit, also befare doing so, I researched Town Board codes; Trustees Determination; and D.E.C. rulings. As to the height of this structure, by the previous codes, B-Light structures in the bulk and Barking, are allowed up to a 30' high limit. Inspector Horton and myself went out and measured the applied for structure, and got a height of 26'7" to the highest point. A copy of the building plan and a copy of how to determine building heights, out of the State Safety and Construction Code, was also given your office for your file. The Permit in question, was issued after carefully going over all requirements of the code and certainly would not have been written if there were anything applied fox that was nat permitted. Unfortunately my office does not have the luxury of reacting to popular sentiment. We have to go by the dictate of the Codes. This requirement often leads to out and out harrassment. To either revoke the permit or issue a stop order, I want specific reasons or what applicable codes were violated. Your memorandum of May 2, 1959 does not accomplish this. Neither you nor the Town Attorney can state with clarity as to why the building permit is not valid. VL:gar cc to: Supervisor Murphy Town Attorney's Office Town Clerk's Office u~ A ~ r. 1 6^~-`"a'r r i s 5~~,~ E.~,~' ~ ~ s ..C VICTOR LESSARD ~ ~ ~ . EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR s~ ~ TOWri Ilall, $309$ IYlalri ROad "r P.O. BOX 1179 (516) 765-1802 ".,t_'~~~I~ ~,y Southold, New York 11971 . ;,1 t OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD T0: VALARIE SCOPAZ, TOWN PLANNER FROM: VICTOR LESSARD, EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: MATT-A-MAR MARINA DATE: OCTOBER ]5, 1987 Proposed building would indicate that property use would be considered changing from Light Business (B) to Commercial use, 'depending on building use. This property has various decisions by the Zoning Board of 'Appeals. On January 11, 1977 permission was granted to store boats but establishing a buffer zone of 100 feet on west side of Wicham Avenue. At present, this restriction has not been adhered to. The Marina aspect of the property is strictly for non-commercial boat storage. Provided all necessary requirements were obtained by Z.B.A., I would comment on the following. PLAN A - Probably the best use as outlined provided the big doors faced south only. PLAN B - Too close to road (Wickham) and activity would conjest and interfere with driveway access. Doors, as is, rendered useless by screen area and snackbar. PLAN C - Too close to Wickham and too close to south property line to operate. PLAN D - Too close to road (Wickham). Okay if south and southwest doors only. w' ek ~ ``I; r>r r?,3. s~ 9 °-wit lb e 'f - . VICTOR LESSARD ~ ~ ~ 7 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR , ? ~ >a~ P.O. Box 1179 ' ~ Southold, New York 1 1971 (51~ 763-1802 ,cam, x'~:; :y' ~.,~~/y FAX (516) 765-1823 - ~ :~_~y'~~,A3 OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 19, 1989 T0: Southold Town Z.B.A. Attn: Gerald Geohringer, Chairman FROM: Building Inspectors Office Victor G. Lessard, Principal Insp. SUBJECT: Permit II17508Z-Section 119.2 (old-section) 100-239D Present Your unanimous vote, that a retaining structure is a bulkhead and falls under set-back requirements of 119.2 & 239D requires further clarification. This is a radical change of past practice and procedure. There are many cases along Nassau Points east side; Fishers Island; Mat- tituck Creek etc. that have retaining structures, way above the average high water mark and or edge of wetland. By your memo of April 14, 1989, this now means any bulkhead; concrete wall, riprap or similar structure is now the 75'-0 set-back factor, regardless of ,position, as long as it is between proposed structure and water. This office strongly suggests that your office consult the Town Board as to the intent of the law and re-determine your position on this Zoning matter. To further clear up any confusion as to who triggered an answer from your board please refer to your memo in ]984, that states "This board will issue no interpretations to the Building Department unless it is in writing", we have strictly adhered to that policy and intend to. In facC, we have not to date, received an interpretation requested of your board in writing from last October. I trust it will be coming shortly. cc. Town Board Town Attorney ~ :.C ~J' i P ~ A, ~ , ~4c~ t~" ~ 'U~t U~~atR- ~ ~ p~ CMG ~I,` ` < ,rows ~'s°ouTMO~o JAMES A. SCHONDEBARE u'' l~. ~i own Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWNgTTORNRY ~ ~ ~ P,O. BOX 1179 ROBERT H. BERNTSSON ~~~0.( 'J~~®~ Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE ASSISTA NT TOWN ATTORNGY ($16) 76$-1939 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Board of Appeals ~'7 FROM: James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney DATE: July 15, 1988 REF: Zoning Code and Accessory Buildings Pursuant to Article XII, X100-121.D(1), an interpretation is requested on the need for site plan approval for accessory buildings in all zoning districts except A, Residential or Agricultural Districts. It is the position of this office that any building to be constructed, in all districts except A-R, require site plan approval regardless if the proposed building is called principal or accessory and regardless of the use for the proposed building . The Building Department has taken the position, I believe, that an accessory building needs site plan approval if the use of the proposed building is the same as contained in the principal building; however, if the use of the proposed building is to be accessory 'to primary use, then a site plan is not required. A copy of this memo is being provided to the Building Department in the event that I may have misstated their position. May we please have a final determination of this issue. Southold Town Board of Appeals -p3- August 18, 1988 Regular Meeting INTERPRETATION REQUEST: The Board reviewed and discussed the recent request of Town Attorney James A. Schondebare concerning the need for site lan approval for accessory buildingsin zoning districts except A. It is the position of the Town Attorney's Office that any building to be constructed, in all districts except A-R require site plan approval regardless if the proposed building is called principal or accessory and regardless of the use for the proposed building. The Building Department has taken the position, he believes, that an accessory building needs site plan approval if the use of the proposed building is the same as contained in the principal building; however, if the use of the proposed building is to be accessory to primary use, then a site plan is not required. A final determination from the ZBA is requested at this time. This Board's position is that accessory uses (either in a principal building or in an accessory building) do not permit any t "service" or "sales" activities, even though the establishment which exists may require such similar activities. Such "active" uses must be considered as part of a principal use (i.e. expansion, secondary use, etc.), regardless of whether they are an addition to the principal building or a separate, unattached accessory building. It is obvious that a circumvention of the zoning regulations could easily take place if one were permitted to construct accessory buildings,in lieu of an addition to the main building. It is imperative to request the type of activities or storage to take place within the proposed construction. A tool shed for dead storage or a fence are types of accessory structures. A building in which minor tire repairs or other services will be conducted is not an accessory use (but rather one of the activities conducted under a principal useJ. mhe Zoning Code relating_to Accessory Uses in these several Zone Districts o not have provisions for the locationyof~sua~f`i AGC sor uses, exc p et un - ice=" ~;cPC :n the B Distri t,~ must, a in enc ,w„ a buildings (no outside storage Section 100-63 coui~"`cgorize more than one~~principal~~ bu li d ni g with either a principal, or principal and accessory uses, with site-plan approval from the Planning Board. (There is presently no provision permitted an accessory building to be occupied by a principal use.) With reference to the requirement of site-plan review by the Planning Board, it is our position that site-plan approval must be required for all Zone Districts, with the exception of the "A" Zone, particularly for the following reasons: Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- August 18, 1988 Regular r Meeting (Interpretation, continued:) 1. The construction of additional separate buildings may eliminate the presently used parking or screening areas; 2. The use of the buildings must be furnished and listed on the site-plan maps, and a determination as to the need to create improved off-street parking spaces, on-site loading areas, add drainage facilities, imgrove access and maneuverability, pursuant to the requirements of Article XI, General Regulations, of the Zoning Code (which is distinctive and separate from Article XIII of the Zoning Code). It does appear that as an alternative to a full site-plan process, a waiver could be applied for and granted by the Town Planning Board if it finds that the project proposed will not adversely affect the site, surrounding neighborhood, general aesthetics, traffic patterns, and accordingly prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards. Furthermore, it is the o~inion..4£ t}~is..~q,~~d,that in light of the fact that yar se acks have nata,l~.een_stigulate~ di~~erently tTl~i'f` --~--t-~~_ ~~~ks=-`p~il~.cab._,;CO...v,Prncipal bu.ls~,.I1~g~,_~..azid__.`~ri~n~ipal uses, the same setbacks sh ul~d_ap`pT~ to ancillary buildings"`as to front, side and rear yard setbacks. 2~•~skaauld„be `no~eil~uthat"an '~.tT,c=r -'S~il3'iri for dead "storage would ~~be " T'~~~ g perm~,t~ec~`"~q~,°~,5e ,2 _ _s,,.._<. located Sri the rea~y~zc~_`~tndef;,fhzs,~SYbvSb. Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Grigonis, to sen the above response in writing to the Town Attorney's Office. This resolution was unanimously adopted. * ~ T ~ `~P 4 a ~ t . o~ ? ~ t~~.~~ ~ ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals ~;'e a~°t" MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.L, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEH RING ER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, 1R. Februdr 27 1989 JOSEPH H. SAWICKI y ~ JAMES DINIZIO, JR. D ~ ~ Matt-A-Mar Marina FEB 2 8Ig89 P.O. Box 1235 Wickham Avenue sLDG. oppT, Mattituck, NY 11952 TOWN UFSpuTHOLD Re: Application for Reversal of Building Permit Applicants: Fred Renganesci and Barbara Reiter Subject Property: Matt-A-Mar 1000-114-1.3-1 Dear Sirs: Transmitted recently to you for your update and information was a Dopy of the February 17, 1989 letter from the Planning Office as to its position under the site-plan regulations, together with copies of the application and related correspondence concerning your premises at Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. As confirmed recently, the question as to the requirement for site-plan review and approval is one of the issues to be considered at the public hearing on Thursday, March 9, 1989. It is our understanding that at the time of receiving the Building Permit, no site-plan approval was applied for or obtained from the Planning Board. In the event you decide to start the site-plan review process with the Planning Board, please let us know. Y~very any GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN lk Enclosures Cc: Town Attorney's Office Southold Town Planning Board ? Mr. Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Daniel C. Ross, Esq. ;cz:,:r~,~„ ~ Mgr. ~,~,~~5 f 4 A ~t;• a z yY~ ~3t1 a~ ~7 Town Hall. 53095 Main Road ~ "~yy~'~R~~; P.O. Box 1179 ~''~~d :'-fit "~x"~ /~~ec~~~.f/?/~~` Southold. New York 1 1971 - ~ Y TELEPHONE (516) 765 1938 ~~`=F ~~~~1+~„try D PLANNING BOARD OFFICE T~' . m y TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~~t'j~1 ~+,i c'~_~t:r,.;..:. TO: Southold Town Board of Appeals FROM: Southold Town Planning Board ~~il~ pp__ DATE: February 17, 1989 t='u~''i` RE: Matt-A-Mar Marina ~ Nv `^^^___=-=--y~ It is the ~lannina Board's dPtprm;nation that a site plan is needed fo'r the 200 by 125 £oot struoture at Matt-A-Mar Marina. The site plan on Pile does nat show this proposed structure. ~/j ~a,~ 9i(e~G~a~-a. L~-t.Zl Glc~~~-~ ~i r u,~ea.J~ ~ r1~.a v ~`~L, ~ , C EGG' SIDNEY B. BOWNE S SON Sitlney B. Bowne, P.E., L.S. ~jp~ Rolantl Antlers (1922-1959) 4 ~'v~'e~ Francis J. Lynch Chester C. Kelsey, P.E., L.S. 45 MenOY R09d Phillip Schlotzhauer Robert A. Stanton, P E. Joseph F. Stegman Robert W Brown, L.S. Sfl'l lthtOWflr N.Y. 11787 William T. Siyne Zabtliel A. Blackman, P.E., L.S. (51 6~ 724.0(711 Richartl e. Weber Frank J Antetomaso, P.E. , ...,.,...,w. v,i George A. Style, P.E. ~ Jerry D Almont P E. ~ ~ ' ~ I George L. Fagan, Jr., Ph. D., P.E. Frank Capobianco. C.E. AUG I 6~ ~ ~ ~ Paul F. Stevens, P.E. - ~ , Roger L. Cocchi, P.E. .~S i t ~ d ~R.I l~;,~„„_„_•_„•,a_ „~I August 14, 1989 Thomas R Pynchon, LS ~A.IJS. i>F'.F'T. 'I'f3VU[i OF SOUTfOLO ~,.~.~...,.._....,.,,a-,.., Victor Lessard, Building Inspector Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Matt-A-Mar Marina Building - Matt ituck Town of Southold, New York (SBB No. 87503) Dear Mr. Lessard: We have reviewed the structural plan for the partially completed Matt-A-Mar Marina building and offer the following advice: It appears from what is indicated on the plans that the designer was relying on the slab to resist some of the outward thrust at the base of the steel frame. This was the purpose of the number 7 rein- forcing steel shown extending from the piers into the concrete slab. for this reason we feel that the owner should be ordered to secure the building temporarily until the pending situation is adjudicated. This could be accomplished by installing steel cable connecting opposite steel frames to temporarily substitute for the missing slab connection. A minimal expense would be involved and the building would not be permanently altered. The owner's engineer can provide the information pertaining to the proper size and method of attachment of the cables. If we can be of further assistance in this matter please let us know. Very truly yours, SIDNEY 6. BOWNE & SON CONSULTING ENGINEERS A. BA_____R4-N CASS, P.E. ABC:cIg Encl. cc: Ray Dean (SBB) MINEOLA • SMITHTOWN • NEW YORK CITY • CLEARWATER An Equal Opportunely Employer M/F/H ~ S~FFOG~~~~ JAMES A. SCHONDEBARE ~ ~n Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOk'N ATTORNGY ~ ® P.O. Box 1179 o~ Southold, New York l 1971 ROBERT H. BERNTSSON ~ TELEPHONE ASSISTANT ` (516) 765-1939 G9 ~ ~~~~~a~1'Y~~OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY ~j TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I 121998 ;i i i~ „ ..7QWw i14-,-Sa'SLtt;t+6LC5 TO: Victor Lessard, Building Department FROM: James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney DATE: December 11, 1988 REF: Site plan approval; ZBA interpretation I enclose a copy of the ZBA decision which you indicated was never received by the Building Department. JAS: rbw Enc. v ~ ~ . b . ~ 0.0. )~~~a~ ~t~ ~ .AN..a~~~ . / R ci ~~,{t e _ w,.~ i F~ s~~1 y K4 ! G 1'IW Southold Town Board of Appeals -p3- August 18, 1988 ~~~~3:a~~-~.._.....,~..~~~ 6taDr U~P'T. ee'lTA-S~gU~ S~3UTH(JLI7 * x INTERPRETATION REQUEST: The Board reviewed and discussed the recent request of Town Attorney James A. 'SChondebare concerning the need for site plan approval for accessory buildingsin zoning districts except A. It is the position of the Town Attorney's Office that any building to be constructed, in all districts except A-R require site plan approval regardless if the proposed building is called principal or accessory and regardless of the use for the proposed building. The Building Department has taken the position, he believes, that an accessory building needs site plan approval if the use of the proposed building is the same as contained in the principal building; however, if the use of the proposed building is to be accessory to primary use, then a site plan is not required. A final determination from the ZBA is requested at this time. This Board's position is that accessory uses (either in a principal building or in an accessory building) do not permit any "service" or "sales" activities, even though the establishment which exists may require such similar activities. Such "active" uses must be considered as part of a principal use (i.e. expansion, secondary use, etc.), regardless of whether they are an addition to the principal building or a separate, unattached accessory building. It is obvious that a circumvention of the zoning regulations could easily take place if one were permitted to construct accessory buildings in lieu of an addition to the main building. It is imperative to request the type of activities or storage to take place within the proposed construction. A tool shed for dead storage or a fence are types of accessory structures. A building in which minor tire repairs or other services will be conducted is not an accessory use (but rather one of the activities conducted under a principal use). The Zoning Code relating to Accessory Uses in these several Zone Districts do not have provisions for the location of such Accessory uses, except that under 100-63, all uses in the B Districts must be in enclosed buildings (no outside storage). Section 100-63 could categorize more than one principal building with either a principal, or principal and accessory uses, with site-plan approval from the Planning Board. (There is presently no provision permitted an accessory building to be occupied by a principal use.) With reference to the requirement of site-plan review by the Planning Board, it is our position that site-plan approval must be required for all Zone Districts, with the exception of the "A" Zone, particularly for the following reasons: i Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- August 18, 1988 Regular Meeting (Interpretation, continued:) 1. The construction of additional separate buildings may eliminate the presently used parking or screening areas; 2. The use of ';the buildings must be furnished and listed on the site-plan maps, a,nd a determination as to the need to create improved off-street parking spaces, on-site loading areas, add drainage facilities, improve access and maneuverability, pursuant to the requirements of Article XT, General Regulations, of the Zoning Code (which is distinctive and separate from Article XIII of the Zoning Cod'e). It does appear,i that as an alternative to a full site-plan process, a waiver, could be applied for and granted by the Town Planning Board if it finds that the project proposed will not adversely affect the site, surrounding neighborhood, general aesthetics, traffic patterns, and accordingly prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards. Furthermore, it is the opinion of this Board that in light of the fact that yard setbacks have not been stipulated differently than those setbacks applicable to principal buildings and principal uses, the same setbacks should applyto ancillary buildings as to front, side and rear yard setbacks. It should be noted that an ancillary building for dead storage would be permitted to be located in the re,aryard under this proviso. Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Grigonis, to send the above response in writing to the Town Attorney's Office. This resolution was unanimously adopted. * * ~ ~ 3 ~~r ,~~},01 3 t~~«-~ti 1V.Ia ~%Itt -A= } FC3 Box~;~235~M~ttituck,N.Y 19~` 516 298'-4'739 ~ 5 ~ { k+~# r ,~m~~;1 , F ~ ^ .x~ a, 3 July 20, 1988 Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attn: V. Lessard, Building Department Dear Mr. Lessard: I would like to thank you for taking the time to come down to inspect the marina for our proposed storage building. As per your suggestions in our discussion, the new location should work well for all parties involved. The most important thing for us is to try to have this build- ing up by hauling season, so any additional information you need, please donut hesitate to call us. This building is indeed necessary to the sur- vival of this business. 1 am including an application for the fence we installed to prevent vandalism with our vending machines. In our conversations you noted pp.ssible problems with permits for our pool, at the moment, we are gathering information from the previous owner on what permits were issued (electrical underwriters certificate C.O. etc.) and are waiting for a review from the Suffolk County Health Department on changes that we may have to do to the pool due to new New York State regu- lations. I should have this information within a few weeks and will con- tact the Building Department at that time. My aim is to clean up the bad reputation that the marina had due to the previous owners(justified or unjustified) problems with the town and to conform with any laws or regulations from local or state governments. My second concern is to keep this established business out of the hands of speculators and developers; to have a business that will continue to employ local people and help the community prosper. Thank you, Donald P. Cocks, manager r~ ~ / G~.RY PLANNER OLSEN COUNSELLOR AT LAW „P. O. BOX 38 MAIN ROAD MATTITU CK, LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK 11952 PHONE 516 298-4844 Apri128, 1978 Re: Matt-A-Mar Variance Application File # 2331 Dear Mr. Gillespie: Please let this confirm our recent conversation in re the above captioned matter. As I indicated to you, Matt-A-Mar Marina would like to engage in the retail sale of boats as an accessory use to its present operations as a marina in Mattituck. The re- tail sale of boats would not be a separate business, but it would be done in conjunction with its present ~o provide full marina facilities. The property is zon B1, nd I would like an opinion from the Zoning Board of Appeals whether or not it will be necessary to obtain a Variance or whether said activity is permitted as an accessory use under Article VII. I have had R.od Van Tuyl check other marinas within t e wnship, which are also engaged in the retail sale of boats in a Bl area, and hQ•h~s indica- ted that the Village Marina in Mattituck ould be in laid c~.tagory, ,F Please advise, Very truy,~ y~rs,.~~ - t r ! i t y-G R N£~tER OLSE GFO/clr Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, 1Vew York 11971 Attention: Robert Gillespie ' 1..~ ~ ~I-ti .1.I C=. c~..,..-~.e..e-'L~~~r-'~+-~+n-~-~ C9` ''~^...-c~.~.--•-.-e. ~a J~~ eC_i4X,~,-e3Y (W "`^-G .~L._~C e~ ./~c../~ L'~ -•lv--w.i~C_n c;~ l~-q~l~a-.~. r ~ f// L~`r'-Cl~ b`~.ifr_-t.- ~Ltv.-C!.eKC rX / V .-+Z4/~~~--ti- C.+ ~ ~1~..-~~ax.~~ f.~--t~~.-F_.(.r 4 . ~ v J _ xxxx • ~ ~ . 1802 , c. , - _ • , ~ ,.;ld ~ ~ ~ , - May 5x-1978` ~ ~ .,<<~-~.~;r,c,n , ~ ~ . tt.,... 7.!'.'. .i~ , ~xxxxxxxx James Maimone Gary F. O1sen,.Esq. Main Road Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Matt-A-Mar . ~ . Dear Mr. Olsen: Xj In response to your letter a£ April 23, 1978, concernigg, Matt-A-Mar Marina, please be advised that the sale o£ boats is a speciality permitted now in a "C" Light Industrial. District. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " This has been discussed with the Town Attorney and he advises that you cannot constue a variance use in the "n-1" District. Consequently, a variance is rewired to sell boats. Yours truly, ~ r s,„, ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, JR.~ - 1 CHAIRMAN RWG:bcc i, ,t,.ad ~ , ~~,i~zrc: f I ` , TEL. 765-1802 ~OS~E~O(kCpG TOWN OF SOUTHOi~D OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR ~ P.O. BOX 728 s~i'~ ~ TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 o~ol ~ ~~p~ January 23, 1987 T0: Gerard Geohringer Z.B.Z Chairman FROM: Victor Lessard V~ Exec. Admin. SUBJECT: Matt-A-Mar Marina, Inc. Matt-A-Mar Marina desires to con- struct a large boat storage fac- ility on their property. Matt-A- Mar Inc. is presently situated in a B-Light Business Zone while what they propose is listed in Zone C- Light Industrial District. I am aware of multiple decisions being made on this property, by the Zon- ing Board, over the years, and would ask if any decisions address- ed this aspect of the business. I would appreciate a quick response. VGL:hdv TEL. 765-1802 ~c~vFEO(Jf`D TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 u~ ~ TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 O,~,Ol ~ ~~p~- January 28,1987 Henry Raynor Love Lane Mattituck, N.Y. 1!952 Re: Matt-A-Mar Inc. Reviewing the property, I find thaC at the time the question of constructing a storage building was discussed, Appeal 112419-6/1/78, the chairman ruled then, and correctly so, that a storage building for storage is an industrial use and the property is zoned business. I would also point out that Appeal 112242-((17/77 dealt with open storage of boats, at that hear- ing, the decision for outside storage was ap- proved with the condition that "no storage or marina uses within 100 feet of Wickham Ave. to the East." Screening that area was promised but never materialized. Before I can certify the latest proposal, these conditions will have to be addressed. Very truly yours, Victor G. Lessard VGL:hdv Exec. Admin. p.s. Part of hearing 6/1/78 enclosed. LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER. P.c MAIN ROAD, P O BOX 1424 WILLIAM WICKHAM MATTITUC K, LONG ISLAND ERIC) BRESSLER NEW YORK 11952 //{~~~eess~~O~nyR~T EOFgICE ABIGAIL A. WIG KHAM V~'~VV16.5_I6~2r9r8 ~5 AI00 516-298-8353 .u DANIELC RO55 KARENJ HAGEN RUBE RT F SULLIVAN February 8, 1989 Mr. Victor Lessard Southold To.: Building Department Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Building Permit No. 017508 Z Dear Mr. Lessard: Enclosed herewith please find our appeal to the ZBA with respect to the granting of Building Permit 017508 Z. We request you confirm to the Southold Town Board of Appeals the Zoning District in which the subject premises were located at the time the Permit was granted. The Application for Building Permit indicates the premises were located in a B1 zone. The Application indicates the owner is Ali Agarabi of Sea Cliff, Long Island. The tax records at our office indicate the subject real property is owned by a corporation. ~ trul s, el o s DCR:vm i Encl. cc: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals i ~.~_i ylss l~! C ~5 l ~ ~~~~y, MEMORANDUM f' ; Q~~ ~ z I99i TRIAL TERM ri<i[;~,c~u%aryr: SUPREhSE COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY s ~ ~t~~,v;a ~ssui~rtt~~, PART 16 In the Matter of tha Application of, MATT-A-MAR, INC., BY; GEILER, J.S.C. Petitioner, );or a Iudgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the CFLR, DATrD: ~ l/ 1991 -against- GERARL~ P. GOEHRINGER, CHARLES INDEX NO.: $9-11002 GRIGO'~1IS, JR., SERGE DOXEN, JR., JOSEPH H. SA`MCKI and JAMES DINIZIO, JR., Constituting the 7_ONING BOARD OF APPBAL,S OF THE CDI5PSUBJ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondents. RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ. SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, Attorney for Petitioner ISL13R & YAKABOSKI, ESQS. Main Road Attorneys for Respondents P.Q. Box 973 456 Griffing Avenue Cutchogue, NY 11935 RivOerhead~NY 11901' Petitioner requests judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78, annulling and vacating a determination of respondent which invahdatcd petitioner's building permit. Petitioner has also moved for an order striking out certain portions of the return on the gmunds that they are prejudicial br unnecessarily inserted in the return. It is considered that the applicants before the, Board successfully established their , standing by virtue of proximity to the subject property; and that the bringing of the proceeding before the. Board of Appeals was timely. The motion by petitioner to strike certain portions of the return is denied as mooted by the decision of this Courl, now rendered. Petitioner is the owner of a nine (9) acre parcel on ttte westerly side of Wickham Avenue and the easterly side of Mattituck Creek, at A-fattituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New ` York, The property has been, for many years, and is now, utilized as a marina. e PAGE 2 MATT-A-MAR Y. SOUTHOLD ZBA INDEX NO. 89-11002 A building permit was issued to petitioner on October 6, 19$8 for the constntction of a structure (12S feet by 200 feet) for the indoor storage of goats at the marina. Shortly after the permit issuance, cahstruction of the storage building was commenced. A hearing, instigated by Brawcr Woods Association and Barbara Reiter, for a reversal of the permit, was conducted by respondent Zoning Board of Appet~is of the Town of Southold on March 9, 198'$. The Board, by determination rendered May 9, 19$9, held that the permit had been invalidly issued, not having been in conformity with ccrt.'tin provisions of the Town Zoning Code, specifying non-conformance concerning the ntirtimum requited setback of buildings at not less t}tan 75 feet from tltc bttlk}tcad, and non-conformance with site plan review of the Town Planning Board. Under a heading "Other Considerations", the Board's decision held that prior to re-issuance or reinstatement of a Building Pcrrnit, "further interpretatipns must be formally requested for further clarification as to whether all aF the activities in this proposed building is a (termitted principal use or a perritted accessory use including applicable requirements m determining height limitations and yard locations under the Zoning Code, and shall be remanded for further hearings, if necessary...". At the time of the permit issuance, the property was zoned "B Light Business District." Sectian 1Q0-60 of Article VI of the Town Code specihcall"y permitted use within that none of "A(9) Marinas for the docking, mooring and accommodation of non-commercial beats, including the sale of fuel and ail primarily for the use of boats accommodated in such marina." Subsection C defining "Accessory Uses", states: "Accessory Uses on the same tot with and customarily incidental to any permitted use avid not involving a separate business." A new Town Zoning Ordinance went into effect on January 10, 1989, prior to the time of the Board decision, under review herein. The area occupied by petitioner was rc-designated "Marine II (MII) District." = §100-12I. Use regulations. , 1n the MII District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is . arranged, intended or designed to he used, in whole or in part, far any uses except the ' fallowing [one (l) use per eighty thousand (80,000) squaze feet of land above mean high water, unless otherwise specified: A. Permitted Uses, .~Gir 3 MATT-A-MAR V. SOUTHOI.D Z13A INDEX NO. 89-11442 (2) Marinas for the clacking, mooring and accommodation of recreational or commercial boats, including the sale of fuel and oil primazily for the use of boats aecommodate~rin such marina. The respective positions of the parties herein may be summarized as follows. Petitioner asserts that the building permit was validly issued, sincz the retaining wall was not a bulkhead, and placing the building 75' from the high water mark, was sufficient under the :.'ode; moreover, when the permit was issued, the Code did not require site plan approval for accessory structures, nor limitation on size or location of such structures, that where there is Doubt or ambiguity in construction of a Code provision, the practical construction of it by those :barged with the dutyy of enforcement almost takes on the force of judicial interpretation, citing 'teictienbaek v iY~ndward, 84 tbiise2d 103, aff'd A8 AD2d 909, 1(}43; further, petitioner acquired ~ested rights to complete construction, and, by virtue of the permit issuance, the height of the auilding is within legal limits, as reflected in the record herein. PetiCioner also questions the ~~rnclincss of the application before the Board, and as to standing of those who made the application, and finally, petitioner declares that respondent is equitably estoppel from revoking :he permit in light of the incurrence of such substantial expenses, over $400„ in reliance on it. Respondent's position is that the annulling of the permit was proper since the indoor storage of boats was not permitted in the B Light Business 17istrict, only in "C Industrial" and :hat site plan approval was a requisite, even i£ the indoor storage of boats was a permitted rise, citing Sec, IOU-6U(A) of the Code, that all permitted uses in the B Light Zone are "subject to site plan approval"; that petitioner's argument that accessory uses were exempt from the site plan requirement is m error stnce the Cade expressly differentiated between marinas and boat storage, treating ahem as distinct and separate rises, one business, Otte industrial. Thus, the:storage of boats cannot fall within the accessory use provisions. "Petitioner's c~~illing the 25,004 square feet industrial building an 'accessory use' does not make it one". Putthermore, the Planning Board . and Board of Appeals construed the Code as requiring site plan approval far the entire B Light Business ~pareel, including any accessary structures; site plan approval would not have been ' fotthcomsng since the building would have contravened zaning under Code Sec. I4U-114.2 which recites iliac all buildings on lots on which a bulkhead, concrete wall ar similar structures exist, and which is adjacent to tidal water btxiies shall be set back not less than 75' from the bulkhead; that petitioner"s own survey shows the building to be 65' from the bulkhead, thtts the setback violated the Code and the permit was invalid. Continuing, the I3oard cites a 1971 bolding by it on this same property, that indoor storage of boats would not be )icrmitted. As to petitioner's argument that t e permit must be judged not under the law existing when issued, but under that in existence upon the Board review, even if this were the case, the permit would still be invalid since it would have issued without site plan approval, since the new code requires approval of site development plans as a precondition for any building permit; respondent cites Perbtta v New York, 147 AD2d 324, PAGL s htATT-A-irL~R V. SOUTl10L17 ZI3A INDEX NO. 89-11002 affd 66 NY2d 859, that no vested rights can be acquired from an illegal permit, even if there is good faith reliance thereon; the Board of Appeals, not the Building Inspector, is the final interpreter of the Zoning Code. Fina{ly, respondent defends the standing and timeliness of those who petitioned the Board, noting that thhe time far neighbors to appeal the issuance of a building permit does not begin to run until they become ,reasonably chargeable with notice, and thereafter have a reasonable time to bring the appeal, and cite 2 Anderson nn New York Zoning Law and Pzacdce, Sec. 26.07, p. 373, to the effect that a properly holder in near proximity to the subject premises has Standing to seek }udicial review without pleading or pmving special damage; the adverse effect being inferred from the proximity. • pECISION It is made apparent in respondents' submitted papers that its primary rationale in annulling tha permitts that an industrial use was considered to be illegally trttruding into a business zona, and that a site plan was required in any event. $SnCe the Codc was changed before the Board's decision, clearly enabling the erection of a , boat storage building in the newly designated Marine IT (Mll) District, the first oasts for the decision must fall (r7oardtvaik ~ Seashore Curp. v rl4urdock, 286 NY 494, 29 NYS2d (not paged), thus: It is in general true that the province of an appellate coon is only to inquire whether a ~ judgment when rendered was erroneous ar not. But if subsequent to the judgment and before decision of the appellate court, a law intervenes and positively changes the rule which governs, the law must be obeyed, or its obligatian denied.... In such a case the court must decide according to existing laws, and if it be necessary to set astde a judgment, rightful when rendered, but which cannot be affirmed but in violation of the ]aw, the judgment must be set aside. The Interpretations by the Building Inspector that the retaining wal] was not a bulkhead, thereby, in effect, legalizing the building's distance from the water, and that the building was an accessory use not requiring a site plan under the Code (former) would appear to came within Iudge La7.er's opinion in f2efcheaback Windwarrl, 80 Misc2d 1031, aff'd A8 AD2d 909, which, at pg. 1033 states: ' The building inspector's interpretation of Land's plans (as well as those of two ocher projects) as . ~ v I ~ ~ constituting motel and no[ apartment units is neither irrational nor unreasonalrie, although its correctness is not free from doubt, It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that In case of dciubl ar ambiguity m the meaning of a law, the practical constntctron that has been given to it by those charged with the duty of its enforcement takes on' almost the force of judicial interpretation (Mattcrof l:,ezette v Board of ){]L'C„ 35 NY2d 272; see, also, Matter of West iron equoit Teachers-.Assn v. HcJsbv, 35 NY2d 46; vtattcr of Howard v. Wyman, 28 NX2d 434), t s 13y virtue of the foregoing considerations, it follows that the subject permit herein was not void, and that petitioner's procedure in relying on it, involving the substantial completion of the edifice and the incurrence of great expenditures, gave rise to a vested right for the continuance of the project. 'Titus, Clenel Realty Corp. v lt'ortkingtan, 4 AD2d 702, 164 NYS2d 635, 638: It is wel! settled that one who, in reliance upon a permit val'sdly issued by a municipality, in " good faith makes substantial intprovcmcnts and incurs substantial expense in order to make his land suitable for a specific purpose or use, acquires a vested right to Bach use, even though, by reason of subsequent changes in the zoning ordmancc such use has become a prohibited or nonconforming use (Riverdale Community Planning Assn v. Crinnion, Sup., 133 N.Y,S.2d 706, r affirmed 285 App. Div. 1047, 141 N.Y.S.2d 510, appeal dismissed 1 N.Y.2d 689, I50 N.Y.S.2d 616. (citing further authorities). Although the present Code requires a site plan, the issuance of one, at this late data, could substantially affect the building now erected. Since the holding here is that a vested right to its mainicnanee has bcon established, the site plan requirement is deemed obviated. The subject building shall continue as now canstractcd, and in its present lacatian, under the initial permit. The dctcrmination of respondent Board is reversed and sec aside, zttd the permit issued by the Building Inspector reinstated and confirmed. Settle judgment. 1 r.s.c. i „n^TZ1 VGK ~ i ,..-.m~ ~ l.`/ ~ J ~5'l t q ,rig rVo " ~ ~ - ~ s s"'. E~'~"^' } $akcr .,,.,c~~ ~i "1 ATTITUCk Cl? ~ j y-- 'I E66 ~ 1:~,, ~`j ~ ~ Sri FFOC-C OS MAP .J3 .ScgtE 3000• Flo ~ ~ ~v~K~ Y ~ ' RASP PROP. . ` S ~(Np L)c PRo l~ _.---a/ FLO A"r r- a ? P~ 3S -.'-y' r i$ --a. r ~ 4U Y y J Y h 0 o w ~ ° e a x nav ~ G -o„ E y ~ u g"Drq ~ r ~xrsrw ° pr„~ s YB ~.c 1' Z ~ GFR DE p, c. ~ 3 e DrR.x VR R . k'x r 5 n.vb --Y pr~B5 (bo rTOn y o.c. _ x_SE ~T•, TH Ru PR!>p iSOGIC (6 pQ po14 ~ r~SrWA4K f~-i .ZQ~ ~ I Y3a FLOFlTS ~ df r3°~ pRo Po1E0 ` ~ A Oa` 9R}Y ~ ~ ip h ~r~pi~' ARn D>• ~yATT/"fYIGG CRcE.K O. / ~ bd ,~~4 _ _ _ i.~~.~ / J Iii .r.,i inNV 5. ~ J _ ~o~eS ~b~4oop DATVn:fit-w PRoPosaD F~OA~r'~NG O~tKS QURPOS6:COnMFaeiA~~ ~'l ~ ~or MA'rT'Fl_ MAR-I-~RC GaEEK ~ ~ T {30/1T HOCK ~ ~ oh A RM e4 MA FotK Go. N. F' N OSACS NT byNERS: ~ r 4t fr(q ,.rTj-rV CR'~ SV F A.Wn. WA~TeRS ~ . _ 6, y,ARo4D R,R22VE r $HE6T /eFl ~ so~f, /,vc D C. R. Poq SrG LroXE / p, t-l, REC-V6 }l rr ~ r , 486 feet of floating dock space, together with a 4 by 35 foot walkway, and a 3 by t5 ramp, which would run from existing retaining wall to the floating dock area. This matter, of course, is one which deals principally, as far as this Board is concerned, with whatever affect this application would have under the wetlands as they are defined in the Wetlands Ordinance of the Town of Southold. In pursuit of the application, as the Board has heretofore requested, a draft environmental impact statement was prepared by Enconsultants, which address the various environ- mental issues that would have play in this particular application. I'm sure the Board is aware where this property is. It's situated off Wickham Avenue in Mattituck and consists of approximately nine and a half acres and the area in which the floating dock space would be installed would be along the northerly shore of Peter's Creek, which is a tributary of the Mattituck Creek. I think you will see from the environ- mental impact statement that has been submitted that it would have little effect on existing wetlands, principally because the dockage itself will be floating and will be installed in an area that will be removed from existing wetlands. If I understand the application myself, it would be probably five to eight feet away from the existing wetlands. I think not only does the Board have to obviously consider the wetlands aspect of the application, but perhaps we should also give consideration, maybe not as much as what you would do with respect to the wetlands, but to the fact that the existing zoning of the Town of Southold under which this property is zoned, and that is a "B" Light Business Zone, fosters and promotes the type of facility that exists here and the mooring of docking of boats. This particular facility not only is necessary for an orderly operation of the marina itself, but it adds to the operation of the marina a very important safety factor. The principal users of the floating dock areas for which dinghies would be accomodated, and probably not more than 30 to 40 in number, would be the larger boats that moor in Mattituck Creek. They would be the principal users of the floating dock space. I would further point out to the Board that this particular area under the proposed master plan, is proposed to be a resort recreational area. Again an area which would be in complete conform- ity with this particular application. So I would submit to the Board that the applica- tion that they have before it is in full conformity with what the existing ordinance is for the use of the property, as well as in complete conformity with that which is proposed under the master plan. t don't think there is a great deaf more that 1 can say on the subject. I think the draft environmental impact statement would address all of the issues from an environmental point of view. 1 do, however, have present this evening, Mr. Roy Haje who is President of Enconsultants and if the Board wishes to address any questions to Mr. Haje regarding the environmental factors on the application I'm sure he would be pleased to answer such questions. In addition, I have present Mr. Kogelschatz who is the manager and principal operator now of the Matt-A-Mar Marina and I'm sure he would be able to answer any questions that you may have that would be pertinent to the operation of the marina with respect to this particular application. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Does any Board member want to address either of those two gentlemen? Any questions? COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURCH: Yes, I would. One of my problems with this is that I've been with this Matt-A-Mar Marina for many, many years, and as you know the people in the area are quite concerned that it never stops expanding, and every time that an application has~F, ~ forth this was going to be the last expansion of the marina, and whert~°t'- ~p, u~t in along Peter's Creek, that was the very last bites ~!'4vant to be doing in there and they were not interested in Peter's Creek at all. Dick, when you say it's zoned Marine Business--Light Recreation, you're referring to Matt-A-Mar itself, not across the way? °__-~-+s § 100.13 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-13 ALTERATION - As applied to a building or structure, a change or rearrangement in the structural parts or in the exit facilities, or an enlargement, whether extending on a ~ side or by increasing in height, or the moving from one _ location or position to another. [Added 2.1.83 by L.L. No. 2-I983] BASEMENT - A story of a building, partly below the - finiehed grade level, which has more than one-half (`/z) of its height, measured from floor to ceiling, above the average established curb level or finished grade of the land immediately adjacent to the building. [Amended 2.1.83 by L.L. No. 2-1983] BILLBOARD - A sign, including the type commonly known as a "billboard," which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, entertainment or attraction which is sold, offered or existing elsewhere than upon the same lot where such sign is displayed or'only incidentally upon such lot. BOARDING- AND TOURIST ROUSES - A building, other than a hotel, where lodging, with or without meals, for five (b) or more persons is furnished for compensation. BUILDING -Any combination of materials forming any construction, except where entirely underground so as to permit the use of the ground above same as if no "building" was present. The term "building" shall include the term "structure," as well as the Following: (1) Signs. (2j (Reserved)' (3) Walls, other than retaining walls projecting above the ground not more than three (3) feet at the higher ground level and not more than six and one-half (6~) feet at the lower ground ievel. (4) Radio and television receiving and transmitting ~ towers and antennas, except for such antennas in" stalled on the roof of a building and extending not ~ Edibr's Note: Subsection (2), listing Ponces as "buildings," was repealed 8-23-88 by LL No. 261988. See definition o[ "fence" 10008 f i - 2s - ss r` ~ ~ ~~~UFFi?(,~r~~G ,s:, ~ TELEPHONE (516) 765-1692 RK$NED BOARD OF TOWN TRLSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD D~C 2 a y~ , Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 iow~ C}erlc Southold Southold, New York 11971 December 26, 1985 Mrs. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Judy: Transmitted herewith is the action taken by the Board of Trustees at their regular meeting held on December 26, 1985 regarding the wetland application of Matt-A-Mar Marina: RESOLVED to recommend to the Town Board Disapproval on the application of Matt-A-Mar Marina because of the agreement that was made several years ago not to expand. There was an illegal retaining wall put in,_in an intertidal area where the `wetlands were damaged an ad to be restored. Rather than issue a violation, the Trustees accepted the contractors interpretation that no application was necessary. An agreement was then signed that no dredging would be done on the South side. There is no need for a dinghy dock. At low tide there is no water there. The lighting and safety requirements will effectively remove the whole cove to wildlife feeding at night. The measures for mitigation did not include to bring the people to dnd from the boats, by launch. Trustee Smith will give a presentation to the Town Board at 11:00 A.M.. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board clf Town Trust~ees~ Ilene Pfifferling Secretary to Board HPS:ip w ~ytrzrcz ~~o~,UFFOCkC 4 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ~ M l SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. nK ~ Town Hall. 53095 Main Road Richard G. Ward ~ ~ Mark S. McDonald Zt¢rcxr~~ P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM ,r,.n; F`. TO: Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ~{/~I~ oG~ RE: Proposed Site Plan for Matt-A-Mar Marina Wickham Avenue, Mattituck, N.Y. ~ SCTM # 1000-114-3-1 '~`,Qx~'~.~ d DATE: November 1, 1991 t~ As a result of the October 28th meeting that.you called, it was agreed that the Planning Board would submit a detailed list of the site plan elements that Matt-A-Mar should include in its application for site plan approval. The following information shall be shown on a revision of their original site plan application of 1987: - New (1989) zoning designation; - Location of all buildings and structures (including bulkheads and retaining walls, boat storage areas, parking and travel paths (pedestrian and vehicular); - Location of flagged wetland line; - Square footage of building floor area, and identification of use(s); - Landscaping plan, with particular emphasis on screening of building from neighboring residences; - Parking calculations for employees and customers to marina, pool, snack bar and restaurant uses; _ Drainage calculations and proposed locations of dry wells to retain stormwater for new building and parking areas; - Location of the pump-out facility required by the Trustees` permit (dated July 21, 1988); - Location of existing well and septic systems; (Health Department approval must be obtained before site plan can be approved.) One final note: for traffic safety reasons, the driveway's intersection with Wickham Avenue should be moved to the M northern part of the property, north of Freeman Avenue, to where Wickham Avenue crests. The existing driveway lies below the crest. As a result, sight distance north of the driveway is limited. If the applicant wishes to complete the improvements in stages, the site plan should show the order and timing in which the improvements will be undertaken. The designation of a three to five year time period for the completion of all phased development would be reasonable. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. cc: John Bredemeyer, III, President, Trustees Board Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board I r ~ tic -a HARVEY A. ARNOFF ~ ~ ' ~,`'~4 t~ SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Attorney ~~1- - r,y Supervisor ~9 t~ ~ ~ i , MATTHEW G. KIERNAN r7 ~ ~ ~~'~,h`_~~~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Assistant Town Attorney ~ ' '',,i'~'""~: ~ ~ P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ~~_~~'~~1>_>> Fax (516) 765-]823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 12, 1991 Mr. Richard Lark, Esq. Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Matt-A-Mar Marina Wickham Avenue, Mattituck, NY SCTM # 1000-114-3-1 Dear Mr. Lark: Pursuant to our meeting on October 28, 1991, I have obtained from the various offices in the Town, proposals reference your clients project and how it might best be handled from this point on. In an effort to deal with those issues, as presented, I will attempt to discuss each one of the enclosures separately. 1. Planning Board request. Kindly review same with the view towards obtaining site plan approval and also specify the time designations if, in fact, it is your clients intent to complete the improvements instate. 2. The memo from the Board of Trustees as submitted, is quite clear and will require your client's compliance with their requirements as well. I think Mr. Bredemeyer's correspondence is clear and should provide a handy reference guide for you for purposes of furthering your client's application. 3. Although succinct, the memo from Mr. Goehringer outlines the position that the ZBA will require a variance application, notwithstanding anything else contained in that document. (incidentally, as I advised you, we are filing a notice of appeal so as to protect the Town's rights should our discussion prove fruitless). v u Richard Lark, Esq. November 12, 1991 Page 2 Finally, the memo from the Building Department is such that I have advised them that the contents of the letter to them of November 1, 1991, are in contravention to the meeting which took place a few days earlier and that at the present time the Building Department will not respond to that letter. Very trul rs, i i /s Harvey off Town orney HAA:mIs cc: Planning Board Zoning Board of Appeals Board of Trustees Building Department Z B July 1990 -Page 3 trial, the court ruled in favor of the village. An appeals court reversed, and the city appealed. DECISION: Affirmed in part and reversed in part. The front setback line was intended to create a buffer wne between buildings and the street. The city's interpretation of this term is not reasonable, since it seeks to create a line that is not set back from anything as the front setback Line. Thus, the front setback line is the line where the building begins. Paye v. Grosse Pointe, 271 N.W. 825 (1937). Street Realignment -Dedication Improper -City Must Pay for Taking CA Rohn v. City of Visalia, 263 Ca1.Rptr. 319 (1989) Rohn owned a tract of land containing a single family home on the corner of Court Street and Tulare Avenue in Visalia, Calif. Court Street continued just to the north of the intersection, but was not perfectly aligned with the south- ern end of Court Street. In 1987, the city amended its general plan to correct the intersection alignment. In 1985, Rohn applied to the city foe an amendment to the general plan to • allow his home to be used for professional administrative offices. The city plan- ning department issued a report on the conversion, finding that it would generate less Traffic than continuing the property as a residential use. The city planning commission held several hearings and approved the plan. Meanwhile, the city historic preservation board placed the Rohn home on the historic register, thereby requiring board approval for renovations. The city council then considered whether to grant Rohn's rezoning request. An environmental impact report concluded that offices in the location would ' be consistent with the general plan and would not generate excess traffic, At ' a hearing, the parties discussed in a general way the realignment of Court Street. The city then approved the change. Several weeks after approving the rezoning, the city demanded that Rohn give or "dedicate" to the city a 3,402 square foot triangular area to allow far the Court Street realignment. Rahn refused. The council then conditioned its approval of a site plan for the lot on Rohn's agreement to give up the triangular plot. Rohn sued the city. At trial, the court found in favor of Rohn, ruling that the city never legally tied the rezoning and site plan to dedication of the triangular plot. The city appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. When a municipality dedicates a tract of land far public use, the landowner must be compensated for the taking. Only where it is shown that the municipality acted to aid traffic flow is a dedication not deemed a taking. Here, the evidence shows that the city meant to use the triangular plot for open space, not to Page 6 -July 1990 Z g applied to the county board of commissigners for a zoning change. The board approved the change, The Dunwoody Homeowners Association (DHA), a group of Paragon's j neighbors, sued the county under Section 1983 of the federal civil rights law, seeking to overturn the board's approval of the zoning change. DHA alleged that [he board failed to follow proper procedures when it approved the zoning ' change. DHA originally did not sue Paragon. When it later discovered that Paragon would be required under court rules to be part of the case since it would be substantially affected by the result, DHA added Paragon to the suit. ' Paragon then filed a counterclaim against DHA, alleging that the group was maliciously using the legal process to harass or delay Paragon. DHA, con- ~ cerned about its own liability, then dropped the claim against Paragon. As soon as DHA dropped Paragon, the county asked the court to dismiss the claim against it since an essential party -Paragon -was no longer part of the case. When the court told DHA it would dismiss its claim, DHA again sued Paragon, but did not ask for any damages. Paragon, however, again filed its I counterclaim. DHA then asked the court to dismiss Paragon's counterclaim, alleging that the counterclaim violated DHAs First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. . The court denied both the county's and DHA's motion Co dismiss. DHA then filed a federal lawsuit against the county, Paragon, Paragon's attorney, and the trial judge. The trial court dismissed DHA's federal suit. DHA appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Only governmental agencies or their agents can be sued for violating con- stitutional rights by "state action." DHA, therefore, cannot sue Paragon for violating its Pirst and Fourteenth Amendment rights, since Paragon is not a governmental agency or a governmental agent. There also was no enforceable state policy judgment made at any point in the case which would be subject to constitutional challenge. Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Company, Inc., 457 U.S. 922 (1982). Church Extension -Variance not Expansion of Nonconforming Use MN Rowell v. Board of Adjustment, 446 N.W.2d 917 (1989) The Trinity Lutheran Church owned several buildings in the city of Moore- head, Minn. In June 1988, the church sought a variance from the city allowing it to build an addition to an existing building three feet from its front property line. The city zoning ordinance required a 25 foot setback from the front yard. The city board of adjustment held several hearings on the request. At each hearing, a group of citizens, including Rowell, spoke against the plan. Rowell claimed the variance would lessen greep space in the city and violate the zon- ing ordinance's prohibition against expanding nonconforming uses. THE NEW YORK BOARD OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS ~ ~Oe~QQ BUREAU OF ELECTRICITY 85 JOHN STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 Date P70Vf; 4%~&~~ 9.3t2992 Application No. on file 6Rra65790J(1® ~ )~7QUfi THIS CERTIFIES THAT only [he electrical equipment as described 6ebw and introduced 6y the applicant named on the above application number in the premises of PdAT-A-MAii MAHTid~r k~ICiiRM RI/I~f-~POC,~i~p1i~t-~ NA~`~'ITUC~L 47.Y. in thefolloaoing location: ? Basement ~ 1st Fl. l._I 2nd Fl. .Section Block Lot uns exmnined on Nlf~fi HI11; (Z ~~Lf. !1N;? and found to be in cuntpliance uith the requirements q(thia Board. ~ FI%TURE ECEPTACLES SWITCHES FIXTURES RANGES COOKING DECKS OVENS DISH WASHERS EXHAUST FANS OUTLETS INCANDESCENT FLUORESCENT OTHEfl AMT K.W. AMi K. W AMT KW AMT. K.W AMT. H P DRYERS FURNACE MOTORS FUTURE APPLIANCE FEEDERS SPECIAL REC'PT i1ME CLOCKS ggLL UNIT HEATERS MULTI-OUTLET DIMMERS PMi. K. W. Oll H. P. GA$ H. P. AMi N0. A. W. G. AMT AMP. AMi. AMPS TRANS. pMT. H P SYSTEMS AMT. WAliS NO.OF FEET SERVICE DISCONNECT NO.OF $ E R V 1 C E AMi AMP. pypE METER ~ A, ]W ~ ~ 3W 3.e 3W 3,e' 4W NO OF CC COND. A. W G NO Of HI-LEG A W' G NO OF NEUTRALS A' W' O' EQUIP. PER % OF CC COND OF HI-LEG OF NEULRAL 3 - - ~ 1 310 1 3I0 OTHER APPARATUS: PHL~RHASt1-3 ~ 2 t7A3CsPiFNT i0 0Px$0F{E'~1T t"LtiRLT1;ftStl-3 # 6 NAfi;;ifEIHT TO BA°;1!,C~HH2' }?t~FIHIJ30ttRDS:2 ~2 C):R. 1.00 ® B.J:CHARp G. }~ktLS'i'tis LT.C.#2I48 H F.O. ftOX 37'L LflUR6IL t N~ 1 1 ~ 9Q~ GENERAL MANAGER a. ~ fit` Per This certificate must not be altered in any manner; return to the office of the Board if incorrect. Inspectors may be identified by their credentials. COPY FOR BUILDING DEPARTMENT. THIS COPY OF CERTIFICATE MUST NDT BE ALTERED IN ANY MANNER. ~ r-~ TOWN OF SOUTNOLD, NEW YORK in r APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPcCTC)R APPEAL NO. DATE ..1/30/89 p TO THE ZOe It~eng~n2sD pF APPEALS, TOWN OF 5~~(iHOStVIewYDr, (V,,e) Barbara.,Reiter of4lestview Dr. P.O. Box 1154 Name of Appellant Street and Number ..Mai<t..tuck .....P1..Y..................HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON BUILDING Xif~kR>~Ct)P)GX DATED: 10/6/88 FOR: BUILDING PERMIT N0, 017508 Z WHEP.EBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO MAT.T.-A-MAR..I N C... Name of Applicant for permit of Q....13nx..1.2~5 «.kli ckham.Ave...,..MattiSuck«.N...Y......1.1652 Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ( > PERMIT TO BUILD Re: Building Permit 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY Wi.Gkhdm.A.Y.2:.,.Mattitl{ck Street and Han].et Zone Dis: 1000,Sec. 114, 81.3 Lot 1 OwNER(S): Wickham.Road.Marina,,Inc; . . /vlep No Lot No. DATE PURCHASED : 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicote the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinonce by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) _ArticleVI Section 100-60, 100-61, XIII 100-141 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for ( ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chop. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 (X) Reversal of determination to~grant Building Permit No. 0175082 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) (hos not) been made with respect to this decision of the building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such cppeal was ( )request for a special permit ( )request for o variance and was made in Appeal No . Dated REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( X)(See Schedule A) .s requexed fur rile rGa50"1 that we would like to Form Zs1 (Continue on other side) i , t t REASON OR APPEAL Continued i 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because N/A 7.. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because NJA 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE Cf1ARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because PJ/A STATE OF NEW YORK ) ~ ss f~' .~~~.~c_,~ COUNTY OF ~LP(rfJc ) agnahare 7, Sworntis,fh~3i day of.......J c?-.....T^-`fwy_.......................... 195 ~ ~ ' by d.,J~uLf. ~ ~ . C y r r ~u~ili4_ WICKHAM,RWICKHAM & BRESSLERnePsC NofrYP ~ ~1~N~wYbAc as Barbara Reiter i s not i n GwRftrdinSulfo~cCa~ Suffolk at the time this anolication ~~At+Y•'t• was executed. BOARD OF HEALTH 3 SETS OF PL,\NS FORM NO.1 SURVEY TOWN OFSOUTHOLD CHECK BUILDING DEPARTMENT SEPTIC FOR:I TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11~J71 NOTIFY TEL.: 705.1302 CALL E:camineS .e~~:'~~:~•..~..., 19Bg. MAIL TO: \pProved 19~~. Pennit No..l.•7.J~~2:~. D Q ~ Disapproved a/c • U.Ar?./.!~.....x-z,.c~...~... OWN OF SOU7FIOL0 gyp.. BLDG. DEPT. (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date 15 . INSTRUCTIONS a. Tlus application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli• cation. c. The work covered by [his application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the'Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Re_ulations, for the construction of bui]dings, additions or alterations. or for removal or demolition, as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. _ , r11a{T , 41, . fY1aa mAQiUA {Signature of applicant, or name, if a corporation) P•o..Ciox,1235,. WicKHam. AvE,.fYlrxftifucK.. (Mailing address of applicant) ~ 1952 , State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. f3.1aN~6t4,.gc..mAa~tiq..Acr~nsc,• r~s..F~raEN?......T~..N(~~q... C=x!<s Name of owner of premises (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a c ation, signature of duly authorized officer. ~~i ~ct~2g3i PRES, (Name'and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No . . Plumber's License No . . Electrician's License No . . Other Trade's License No . . Location of land on which proposed work will be done. SourW 1~56ST ' SEcTiOrS..oF q AC2E RCEI. 1• . a a.~~s . House Number Streets ~ Hamlet County Tax B1aP No. 1000 Section ~ I .`i Block Lot ~ . Subdivision F.ilcd Atap Na. Lot . (TJnmc) T State existing use and occupancy ofpremises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy . Q~!~~TE• . fj'IARlwsf?F, ,given , Btu'.. REPAI RS S9 Oise . . b, Intended use and occupancy ,ST+rEL. ,STQ~iAC1E...~ivl~DtnSC-i ptS. ...,,;p ~.>gtR7~`w~i~ 't`o'R' ors Ooo R... , . STORAGE CF So~TS ~~,~'l~t.~i,;sNet?.f~r~•~..... ~`F ~~t1t~A98rnrv~~tYt,r...; ~ , 3. Nature of work (check which'~,applicable): New [ludding ,Y, , . , , , Addition .Utera[ion . Repair R~Fnoval . . Demolition Other Nark . j ~ (Description) 4. EstimatcdCost,~.SoO~oo',O...t(-1~'P,ROX Fee.r~(P.~.S':.':~................,........ I, (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwcllitlg units . , , , , , , (lumber of dwelling units on each floor !~?9. Ft;gQR.S, , , If garacc, number of cars ?.°.°.~?`.l~$~. , , ,~roaac,E„oc r3oos5 . 6. If business, commercial or miffed occupancy, specify nature and extent o(each type of use , B~ 5i^?E9S, Cbmm~aAt, 7. Dimensions pf.existing structtares, if any: Front Rear , Depth . Hei~ltt 't , . Nt~mlici• bf Stories . . . Dimensiotls';of same structure 'suit( ~Fterations or additions: Front Rear . Depth . s.. , . , , I(c(ght , . Number of Stories , . ' 8. Dimensio'n¢ o ~ cn~e~cntctign: Front , , 1 2`-?.`........ Rear . , l'Z.~.... , Depth ..2QP.~....... . Height . ~4? . Numbcr`of Stories . . 9. Size of lot: Front , Rcar . , . , Depth . . . l0. Date of Purchase , . , , i98o ~ .I ~ : . , ,Name of Former Owner ,F,?Nn!K, d4!~tAl'K . 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated .....41 . I2. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: , . 1J ~ • . 13. Will lot be regraded . .........Will excess GIl be removed from premises: Yes No 14, Name of Owner of premises tart, ,A6!=!?A4~ , , , , , , ,Address ...~EFt .~Pf.. 5.:=, ,Phone No, t??t° 3?~ . Name of Architect ~gN4....i . . . . . .............Address ...................Phone No............... . Name of Contractor e~ola4, ' ,Address . ..Phone No, . 15.IS this property Looted with in~00 feet of a tidal wetland? *YES.?..NO.... *If yes, Southold Town Trustees Permit may be required. ~ PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly al( buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicate all set-back dimensions from property lines. Give street and blociS number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether interior or corner lat. i p~EF1aE S6G qT-rACNEI~ SF?EET-F Wt'(rF 'DtACyRAt~'t I i i , STATL• OF NEW , /qp~~p S'S f , n ~p contract) (Ram_ o~o~f ind~~a~~nin~C~s ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' • being duly sworn, deposes and says that ha is the applicant :bovc named. lc is the ..........~t~N.J ~I (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etcJ f said owner or owners, and is duly }lmthorizcd to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this aplication; that all statements conmin',ed in this application arc true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the ork will be performed in the manner spa forth in the application filed therewith. .vorn to before me this ~ !.TLY ~y . , ........day of . ]94.~ I Mary Public, ~ 1.. County NOTAPY PUBUG,ST~TE i11t NBMt YONK (Signature of applicant) QuailfisdinSuVplkRo.,Np 111158 Cammission fxpltea~~99,19.~ ~'.t L' !YQ ~•1y1 4 ~ , ~ FORM NO. 1 ~ ~ r TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~ BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. $ Examined 19~~' Application No. ~?.?:.F.3 r~ Approved 19. ~ Z Pemit No.. Z-:......... Disapproved a/c (Building Inspecto APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT u C Date Dee. 1"i 'J G 19.... z..... S INSTRUCTIONS ~ a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted in triplicate to the Building Inspector, witPp 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on diagram which is part of this application. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit shall be kept orb the premises available for inspection throughout the work. ~ ~ C e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have be~ granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building pepartment for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in buildings for%ne~cessary inspections. (Signat of applicant, or name, if a corporation) tzthold (Address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. ~wner.................................................................................................................................. Name of owner of premises .......r1RS.Rpkt..Tl].T~.Gh If applicant is a corporate, signature of duly authorized officer. u p (Name and title of car orate officer) n 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. Map No.:... Lot No......~7G Street and Number ....E/S Main..Ra...Q°.. $~,Y..Y.~.BSs*...~RZ3l~.........,SRi7~'khA.7.d ~ ' p O c> c~ Municipality 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy ....~Q~.'~..5.~~~S...x>r~1a1S.s..&..sbA:C3ge b. Intended use and occupancy ....same„SS~:~h..Xls]v..S.toT.agn..bull.ding F ~V ~ ~6 AA ~ ~ ~ ~ \v, ~ ~ - , ~.i ~ , f - N ~ \ _ ~ 41 i r ~ , " y ..~+.~..ar.w.ti.~.....:. ~ r _ a'. ".w giWZi~~ -7 pyy "v 3€F ?fi ?Tf4~., xp 1 xt' ti4~ . ~d• Q ~""7/';~k ~ 'av c~.'r "~~YPtPt t 7R6R~?^ 'D dR~~~%~'~w. ~ k t4 s#* ,,,~i ~ i!`~~ J } . , w, S . M z ] _ n ~ ~ r ~ V ~ atlon ion .Alter , . x ~ ~ r ~ I . . Remd . val molition . .Other Work . ~ (Description) z ~ Re alr 40 OOI `f ......5 4.] Estimated Cost t..........~ Fee 0.00 ' (to be paid on filing this application) 5.1~ If dwelling, number of dwelling units ~ Number of dwelling units on each floor ' If garage, number of cars 6: If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use .,.Lt,,,~,nc~g~~,,,,,,,,,,,, 7;' Dimensions of existing structulres, if any: Front Rear Depth ...1 ' Height ' Number of Stories................................................................. Dimensions of same structure vvith alterations or additions: Front Rear ' Depth Height Number of Stories 8; " Dimensions of entire new construction: Front .......~Q.,Y Rear ......9A...#,.......,,... Depth ......1.2Q. ± Height .........:..........4Q.,,+.....J Number of Stories .....one...........................................,......................:.........:'=_ r, 9. ' Size of lot: Front .a~res...~....... Rear Depth Height .:..................................L............... Number of Stories 10. Date of Purchase ...................J Name of Former Owner ..........Q......:~..I ...s. n n ~ 11. Zone or use district m which premises are situated ~ ....................................................................1,-.' 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation 13. Will lot be regraded _...yes..i Will excess fill be removed from premises: [x] Yes [ ] No , ' 14. Name of Owner of premises Joseph„U1Tigh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Southold (Address) (Phone No.) Name of Architect A.,, Janes, DeBTUin Jeruslarem. Rd N. Bellmore,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,;;,;;, ~ (Address (Phone No.) ....:.~~;1 s, Name of Contractor I ~ ~ ` ~-un . (Address (Phone No.l ~ ,rs ,.~~2,~€ I ~ •,~~~~f~'`~- PLOT DIAGRAM , ;`-yr`tr°,'d, Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and indicate all set-back dimensions frorq' property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whethky r er interior or corner lot. I ~k r i ~ Y k~T ~ r,,",R4 f . 4d~~,~"3 ~ ' - ~ ~ ~ ryi '+rR~~~• Be~,e filed plan ~ ~ i ~ ~~'y , , a ~ ~ 'fit M Y ~ i Mkt`';.: ' r' ~ ;'r.,~i,. ,~~~i r - <1I i~y~t A i ' • ~ `A _ P:` ~ 1 'r ~ , . STATE OF NEW YORK i ) COUNTY OF ..............SllffOl$.........;..........) ~ ~ he is the applicant above named. - (Name o ~ndiveidual su~r'~r~contract being duI sworn, de oses and says that 8 J y p He is the Owner - I buildQT ` ` (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc. J of said owner or owners, and is duly aJthorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed In the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. TERRI New ............................J.~Ro?Pe~yP'~quc, scale m ......D~cember,~, is ..7.2..... l' o. 5Z 6T6E295' apI Qualified m olk Cou ~~~v\~~ Notary Public,,~~~~4!!. County (Signature of applicant) Q „;,^r-~ ,i~a ~ I , ~ ~ - u s, ~ ~ ~ I „ I ~s ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ a' ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~,i ~ i0 ~ A,~~ ~A;\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ls11t`~~1~~ ~ _ ~ ~ i s ~~~IjI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' \ 1~\ - ~ ~ ~ I { ` x m ~ r ~~I ~i f _m rv~ ~ 1 yi Z ~I~~• \ ~ 1(j ~ t~ 1 ~ a _ w 111 f ~ + ~p 4 ~ 4 i~ ~~r ~ o-a t ~ ,~1 l J ~ ll ~I 1 I I W~ b ~ 'i~{ ~ ' ~~-_~_.-~I ~ ~ 1 ~--...e f~ _ ~ "~l1 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;~y ~ ~ ' ~ ~ , r ,i ,,1~-f ~ zz - - - - ~ I L ( i l t~l ,r z ~~a ~ _ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ° a LL ~ i 1 j ~ ~ 1 ei~_"'_ t j ~ r it ( ~ i~ ~ 'f~ ~ a~ m. ~ ~ ~ \ I~-" <I~ ~ \ L ti ~ - i 9 ~ ~ ~ a ~ f Q ~ 'ti.. I UJ ~ \ _ ~ cY 9\\ - ~ J ~ (ry ~ ~ ply m Y % ~ ,f ~ ~ Q 4 _ - ( ~ 4. ,'c q ~ y~, t _ r" , .p u m >o ~ n~ = x ~ y , ucEN o x a dy 'o sFo s ,y N ~ ~ L°~ ~ m „g ro o MArrITUCk ~-=~-".-,e_ y ~ H z oRK y 803 ` Y / _ < i . 9 N s "e < n r ~ _ ' ~ < .v i ~ 1~ ' Aw 'Y'.Iit y, 1-.1~ '~1 e 3 ~ v Sv. ~ ? { 1 , 4 ,.51. '~a.., 'x ~ a `\t 111`, v 11 'rf '`t _ s\ O~ 3 ' +-9n' % ll 11 \ )ii1 J ~e~ ~ X cJ(.- : ~.7 f. ~~,4,1 w~ . r' r ~~4 ~y14 }~"op~ fJ / ~ :j gl 4 1 .i 1 J f~ N 3 f O ` 1 } ~ n m CE i 1 J, c~~ j 1' - 1 A AM e , ~ ~ 1 ~ WICKS ~ ~eq ~ ~ ="a~ sc o - m g r ~ n v ~ ,.m~~H~ NO • A i J ~8 ~~,}}mi'l' ~ ~ ham(` s o V _ } s 1' ~ 9 _ QN a E"~ r` H " ° i ~ o P'$ v S ~s% n a e - ;n . 3 -ri a' S ( V e•. ':x 4-~ • , 7 ~ i h' I? ( t ~ y ~ !lam-..,. 1 a. ~ m y .D cN1 ~ v r fit... , ~ ~ eyo ~1~c -cxc: D ,=ax ~ . r ~ ;C ~ 9