Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/17/1980Southold Town Board of Appeals -~OUTHOLD, L. !,, N, Y. 11~'71 TELEPHONE [516] 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLESGR GONIS. JR., Chairman SERGE DOYEN, JR. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS MINUTES SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 17r 1980 A regular meet±ng of the Southotd Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, January 17, 1980 at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Charles Grlgonis, Jr., Chairman; Terry R. Tuthill, Serge Doyen, Jr. Absent was: Robert J. Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2658. Application of ROBERT F. LARSON, 72A Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York (by John M. Czygier, Jr., Esq.) for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance: (a) Article III, Section 100-30(2) (c) for permission to keep pony and horse for personal use with less than 40,000 square feet devoted to such use on the subject premises, and (b) Article III, Sec- tion 100-32 for permission to construct accessory stable in front- yard area. Location of property: Nass. au Point Road and Bridge Lane, Cutchogue; Nassau Point, Map No. 156A, Lots 130 and 129; bounded north by Hillmer, west by Bridge Lane, south by Nassau Point Road, west by Roche. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:30 P.M. by reading the application for variances, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town.Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was given to: Francis W. Roache, Mr. and Mrna' Carl D. Hillmer; fee paid $15.00. CHAt~ We have a sketch of the property. There's a dwelling and the total acreage of the property is approximately 54,000 square feet. This happens to be a corner lot so that creates extra problems. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in behalf of the applicant? JOHN CZYGIER, JR.: Ii'm the attorney for Mr. Larson. My I lie these here? Gentlemen, madam, ladies and gentlemen in the Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- January 17, 1980 audience. If I might, on behalf of Mr. Larson, just basically give you a little background of the situation here. Mr. Larson purchased the property in 1975. Parenthetically I might add that prior to his- MRS. HILLMER: Excuse me. 1976. We are the Hillmers and we live next to it. He bought it after us. CHAIRMAN: Your name, please, ma'am. MRS. HILLMER: Mrs. Hillmer. MR, CZYGIER: May I be allowed to continue uninterrupted; if I am wrong in the fact and I am to be corrected I am sure that the Board will allow them to have ample time. CHAIRMAN: Yes, if you have questions let them come through here, and we'll get them out of him. MR. CZYGIER: If it is 1976, I'll stand corrected, ok? My information revealed 1975. However, let me just pass these out now before I forget. These are additional maps of the property. If there is anybody else who would like to have a copy in the audience-- (Mr. Czygier distributed the copies he had to the Board and a few persons in the audience.) I think what I was trying to point out, that at the time of the purchase or in contemplation of the purchase, Mr. Larson did inquire before buying the property whether or not he would be able to maintain the horses on the property, because, in moving out to Southold Town one of the pur- poses of the move was to be able to keep horses, again, for his own family personal use. He does not raise horses, he does not maintain the stable of horses. He maintains one horse and a pony. He inquired from local real estate brokers as to the requirement for the keeping of a horse and he was informed, although by a real estate broker, that the statute provided for a 40,000 square feet mlnimum for the keeping of a horse on a parcel. Based on that information, the parcel we're dealing with here tonight owned by Mr. Larson containing 54,000 square feet was sold to him to be ample for the keeping of a horse. I just mentioned that to show you that Mr. Larson is not coming into the Town putting himself in the position in which he knew '%here was going~to~be a problem and then asking for relief from this Board. As I mentioned, the area is approximately 54,000 square feet. There is one dwelling located in the extreme northwest corner of the property, which is, you can see it on the map, is the very little area on the sides if you want to call it the sides, if you want to call it the rear of the building, you may. The parcel is bound~ed oa.actually three sides by roadways. I believe one is Bridge Lane, one is Nassau Point Road, and the other roadway on the map as it appears there, is a roadway on a filed map although it is not a Town~mainta±ned highway, it is legally a roadway on a filed map. Ok? The situation as it stands today is basically as it stood back in 1976, or 1975, when Mr. Larson purchased the property~ He has the herses. In ~ecember of 1979 he applied for a building permit in order to Put up an accessory structure, which basically was a lean tooth~type structure to house the horses. Ok. That as the Board stated was ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -3- January 17, 1980 denied, based on two reasons: (1) the interpretation of the Board, I'm sorry, the interpretation of the Building Department of Section 100-30 of the Code regulations, in which they interpret to say that in order to have a horse you need 40,000 square feet exclusively for the use of that horse. It was also denied on the fact that the structure was to be placed theoretically in Mr. Larson's frontyard because of the fact that the roadway forming almost a point on his property there, the accessory structure was to be located actually in the middle of his yard taken in conjunction with the location of the house was considered to be his frontyard. Now, I'd like to just address a few comments to the interpretation of the statute, Section 100-30(2) (c) . I think the language you are~concerned with is the language which reads, "the land area devoted to such use," that use being keeping one or two horses for personal use, "shall not be less than 40,000 square feet." t think the reliance on that statute as the denial on Mr. Larson's application was misplaced, because what I think the Building Departmsnt is doing, intentionally or unintention- ally, is reading in one more word into that sentence, and that is the word 'exclusively' after the word devoted. And what they are basic- ally saying, that the land area devoted exclusively to such use must be 40,000 square feet. 1 don't think that that is the intent of the statute. If it is the intent of the drafters of the statute, there are remedies ~n which they can change the statute. I don't think that the framers of the legislation intended that a person needs two acres ~n order to own a horse. It does not say that here. There are othsr towns which do have that regulation, and they clearly spell out the fact that in order to own a horse you need two acres, or approxi- matelY 80,000 square feet. I don't think it is the intention of the legislature, excuse me, I don't think it was the intention of the drafters of the legislation to say that if you have two horses you need a 40,000 square-foot corral, ok? Because I think that would cause extreme practical difficulties, because if you had six horses then you would need for every two horses you would need 40,000 feet of square footage, or three acres really, in addition to maybe a 40,000 square-foot area for the house. Basically, I'm asking the Board for a~ interpretation of that statute in accordance with the allowance of Mr. Larson to keep the horse on a 54,000 square-foot parcel. With respect to the rearyard denial of the application, I think a 'literal application of the zoning regulation pertaining to the rearyard would create practical difficulty again, basically, based on what is contained on the map that I passed out, and the location of the house~ the area, I'm not sure exactly when this lot was subdivided or split up, but it left the dwelling what is now the dwelling in a position which would make it almost impossible to use any other part of that parcel except the parcel which is considered his front yard. And to deny him the use of that frontyard area would be basically saying that that yard is useless to him for any purpose. I should mention the fact that the map is, I'm sorry, the lot is heavily wooded and that it will remain so if he is allowed to keep the horses there. It is, as I mentioned earlier, bounded on two sides by a public road and on one side by a roadway on a public, on a filed map which is still in effect. In conclusion all I'm trying to point out tonight is not the fact that Mr. Larson is here to fight and create trouble with his neighbors. I don't Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- January 17, 1980 think that's his intention at all. As I stated, when he moved into the Town he inquired, he wanted to be very careful about the parcel that he bought in order that he could use that parcel for keeping horses. Ok? This is Southo!d Town. It's a rural area, it's not Levittown where we're asking to keep two horses on a auarter of an acre parcel. The man has 54,000 square feet. He's asking to keep one horse and one pony for his personal use. He is not asking to build a stable; he's not asking to maintain six, or seven, or eight horses. Basically we have a problem here that I think was created only because of animosity between certain neighbors against Mr. Larson related to other conflicts that have occurred in recent months. The situation, as I stated earlier, started in 1975 or 1976-- Mr. Larson has had those horses since that time. I don't believe there was ever any complaint as to his keeping those horses or they have created a nuisance in the neighborhood for all that time. Basically the thrust of my argument is that in no way will the keeping of these horses by Mr. Larson detract from the area Or the neighborhood. In fact Mr. Larson has received letters saying that many people consider it to be an attractive addition to the neighborhood because of the fact that it adds to the rural character and quality of the neighborhood. And that is Mr. Larson's request. Are there any questions which to direct to me? CHAIRMAN: Not at this time, but maybe a little later. MR. CZYGIER: If I may, I would just to call one witness, if I may, and %hat is not Mr. Larson, because I feel that we're asking here basically for an interpretation of the statute and I think I've summed up Mr. Larson's position. I hope I have. What I have done I've taken the liberty of asking--I haven't brought down a bus load of people or a carload of people to come down here and argue. That's not our intention. I did ask Mr. Larson to bring someone from his neighborhood whose house is approximately the closest house to his lot. And I would ask Mr. RoChe. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to make a statement, Mr. Roche. MR. CZYGIER: Mr. Ro~he~ I would like you to tell the Board where you live. MR. ROCHEs: I live right next to Mr. Larson, about 40 or 50 feet away. A little less than that. CHAIRMAN: It would be to the east of him, wouldn't it? MR. ROCHE.:North. They've got the directions wrong. MR. CZYGIER: Would you want me to just ask him a few questions that I have? CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR, CZYGIER: Are you familiar with the hOrses on Mr. Larson's property? ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -5- January 17, 1980 MR. ROCHE: ~. ~ Yes. MR. CZYGIER: Approximately how close is your house to Mr. Larson's? MR. ROCHE:~ My house to Mr. Larson's? Thirty or 40 feet. MR. CZYGIER: Would you say you're the closest house to his property? MR. ROCHE: I think so. MR. CZYGIER: Do you have any objection to the keeping of his horses? MR. ROCHE: No objection at all. MR. CZYGIER: Have they ever posed a nuisance to you or bothered you in any way? MR. ROCHE: No. They sit on their own property and he runs them around in his little acre, or acre and a half. And there is no nuisance, or anything. MR. CZYGIER: Thank you, Mr. Roche, for coming down. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. CZYGIER: I am prepared to answer any questions if the Board has any. CHAIRMAN: Ail right, well we'll see what happens. Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak for it? W.S. GARDNER: I'm President of the Nassau Point Property Owners Association. I sent you gentlemen a letter. CHAIRMAN: Would you like me to read it to everyone? MR. GARDNER: No, that would be just for your information. My main point in being here ~as. President of the Association is to know what the Association tries to do in situations like this. We try to get the immediate neighbors aware of the facts and have them come out and express their feelings because I know you're impressed by and understand what the neighbors feel. I sent out, not to the whole membership, but about 30 copies of a fact sheet which I had gotten from the building office to the immediate neighbors. Mr. Roche was one, and the rest of the people you see here received copies. I must say that most of the comments I got on the telephone, and this was a very hot subject, one of the hottest I've had since I've been the President. My phone has been ringing; people have been coming to the house, mostly objecting to this. Ail objecting to it. I'm very pleased to see the number of people that have come out. I don't know whether they're for it or Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- January 17, 1980 against it, but they came out. And that's our purposes. I may say something personally about it later, but I do want to ~y one thing that the attorney I think has a little bit confused. One, this is not a question of interpretation--I'll talk to that later. This is a question of granting a variance. I understand from the build- ing inspector that this interpretation on 40,000 feet needed for a horse exclusively is the interpretation by the Town Attorney, Mr. Tasker. And I think that pretty well solves the question of inter- pretation unless there's a court case on the interpretation, which is not obviously the function this evening. Now, I'd like some of the neighbors to say what they feel, whether they are for it or against it. So I will leave it to them now. SERGE DOYEN: You were asking'for.. MR. CHAIRMAN: Was there anyone here other than the two gentle- men who spoke for it that would like to speak for it? (There was no response.) All those, or anyone here, a~ainst it? I'd like to give you all a chance but we will have to limit you a little bit to your time because it could take a long time. I'll start with this gentleman down here. MR. HILLMER: I'm an immediate neighbor of the Larson property. We are very much affected by the unsanitary condition. I have gathered 26 houses, people of houses in the immediate neighborhood and they all signed this petition here, which are all very much against it and we are affected by the smell of the horses, by the flies which they create, by their horse droppings. They are all over their property which is very unsanitary to us. We have.been against it but we have kept quiet about it, but at this point we feel that these people who signed this petition are all very much against it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you spell your name for the secretary? MR. HILLMER: Hillmer. MRS. HILLMER: I certainly resented the way that lawyer presented the case. He gets Mr. Roach over here. Mr. Roach is on the west side, he doesn't even see the horses. We are mostly affected with our driveway and twice, three times their horses came in front of our property, at the living room once, and at the kitchen~in the back, and never even excused themselves. The horses got loose. If anybody is affected by this, it's us. And for the lawyer to point out that we are the ones are causing that, it's not so. We resent it very, very much. We have a nice home and we keep it nice on our property, and this certainly is no improvement to us. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Who's next in the next row? MRS. FRYE: I would like to say that that property is not heavily wooded. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -7- January 17, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: We were down there. There were other hands up, do you still want something to say? J. BLAKEY: I live right across the street from it, and I do get the odors and the flies all summer long. I'm right across Nassau Point Road from where they keep the horses,~and it has been very unpleasant. MS. BEHLEN: I live a little down from Mrs. Btakey and also in the summertime it's kind of difficult to live with these odors. MR. DEVENDORF: I object to it as well. I like horses but I really think that the Nassau Point and where they are particularly ks not a proper place for the horses. It can have only one effect on surrounding properties and that would be adverse. ELLSWORTH FULLER: I think the situation of'stabling the horses is one thing, but it hadn't been mentioned these horses are ridden all over the community. On the beaches, private proper- ty, and it's hard to keep them off. And there have been times there have been three horses. Not just one horse and a pony. The pony is a pretty good sized pony, and I would say it probably has all of the attributes of a horse. I'm opposed. By the way, we have no bridal paths on Nassau Point, and they are being ridden frequently. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else? Terry, did you have any questions you wanm to ask? MR. TUTHILL: Well, there's a gentleman down there. JOHN ONEILL: My name is John ONeill. I reside at Nassau Point and it's not in the vicinity of Mr. Larson's property. I over- heard the attorney say many letters were sent to Mr. Larson favoring his having the horse and pony. Have those letters been presented to the Board? If not, then I would think they should be. MR. CHAIRMAN: The only thing in the file on it is the letter from Mr. Gardner to the members of the Board of Appeals. Would you like me to read it? MR. O'NEILL: No, I think the attorney should produce these. MR. CZYGIER: If I may respond? I do have a letter, and I do have a petition which I did not want to bring in because, of course, anyone can sign a petition and it's very easy to sign a petition and not really become involved with the situation. A petition has been afforded against the horses. I'll produce a petition in favor of the horses. I have a letter, if the Board wishes to make this part of the Board file, I will offer that. That's the letter. Again the only reason I did not offer these items earlier was because in many ways, maybe I'm thinking back to the rules of evidence and what would be considered hearsay or inadmissible evidence, but if the Board so wishes I will submit them. Just one more point, if I said heavily wooded, I have some photos which may indicate-- if I'm Southold Town Board of Appeals ~8- January 17, 1980 incorrect in "heavily" my characterization of the property as being heavily wooded, I apologize. Suffice it to say, I think the pictures exhibit there~is quite a number of trees on the property which do shield the property. I think that the Board is familiar with the property and; of course, anything t may say they could either discount or take any way they want. MR. GARDNER: May I ask a question? I would just like to see now that we both presented petitions, I'd like to see how many of the people that are here tonight that signed your petition. Would you have them stand? MR. CZYGIER: I didn't say anyone that signed my petition was here. MR. GARDNER: No, but I just want to see how many that signed your petition are here tonight. MR. CZYGIER: If the Board wishes to do that. I don't see the relevancy, but-- MR. GARDNER: I just wanted to show how many are here tha~ ~ signed the other petition. Because you seem to discredit-petitions. And I just wanted to show that our petition, I think has more weight than yours does. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't think it would make that much difference whether they are here or not. If they signed it, they believe in it. MR. GARDNER: Well, all right, all right. That's all right if you believe in it. But he discredited it. MRS. HILLMER: There's an address on every one of the signatures. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else have anything on this? Do you have any questions. TERRY TUTHILL: Charlie, i'd< just like to ask you. As you know I was unable to meet with the Town Attorney. Has he inter- pretated this as being exclusively for the use of horses, 40,000 square feet? MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. His interpretation is that on a property that is going to have a dwelling and horses, the dwelling must have 40,000 square feet. That's the interpretation the attorney gave, the Town Attorney, and if they are going to have horses they are going to have to have another 40~000. PERSON FROM AUDIENCE:You're speaking loosely of horses verses horse. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's horse, the way it reads right here, the keeping of not more than two horses and/or ponies owned and used Soutkold Town Board of Appeals -9- January 17f 1980 by the owner of the premises for his personal use provided that the land area devoted to such use shall not be less than 40,000 square feet. PERSON FROM AUDIENCE: That was this application. But I mean the attorney's- MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the ordinance, the regulation in the ordinance. The requirements. Up to two horses or ponies. MRS. HILLMER: But 40,000 square feet especially only for the horse. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, especially only for the horse. And the attorney say that a dwelling now has to have 40,000 square feet. That's something like in a two-family residence, too. If you get the 80,000 square feet you're all right. Most of the time anyway you're all right. If no one else has anything, I'll close the hearing and we'll make the decision later on this evening if we don't get done too late, or very soon, and you will be notified and you can find out by calling the office. M~. GARDNER: Welt, then there is no point in our waiting? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we're running behind and we've got quite a bit of work to do yet tonight. On motion made by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grig~nis, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of ROBERT F. LARSON, Appeal No. 2658 BE RESERVED ITS DECISION until the proper time. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. Absent: Messr. Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2659. Application of SOL BERG, 3810 Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York (by John Bertani Builder Inc.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory structure in frontyard area. Location of property: 3810 Pine Neck Road, Southold; bounded north by Pollert, Gibbons, Hamilton, Conroy, Pulitzer, and Jockey Creek, west by Marchese, south by Pine Neck Road, east by Jockey Creek. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:03 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification was given to adjoining property owners; fee paid $15.00. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -10- January 17, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: We have copies of the proposed location of the accessory to be placed in the frontyard. Do you know exactly what you're going to wind up with there? JOHN BERTANI: Well, it's ~ar~formal gardens that have al- ready been, most of the work has been completed on the garden and they had in their original plan a garden house or patio so that you could sit out and view, and like I said the house is so situated, and is at least 5-1/2 or 6 acres considered frontyard area, and I think it would kind of ruin the whole garden if this were not permitted to be built there. And it's open on three sides, you know, it has some trellises and things like that. It's nothing where it could be closed in and used as a permanent struc- ture. MR. CHAIrmAN: How far from the street line, John, would it be about? MR. BERTANI: I think it's, I had it on the survey-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Wait a minute. Here it is, 80 feet. Does anyone else have questions or want to speak for it? (There was no response.) Does anyone wish to speak against it? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct a garden structure in the frontyard area approximately 80 feet from the front property line. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the grant of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the zoning ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Sol Berg, 3810 Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York BE GRANTED permission to construct accessory garden structure in the frontyard area as applied for, subject to the approval and/or recommendations of the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Section 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter. Location of property: 3810 Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York; bounded north by Pollert, Gibbons, Hamilton, Conroy, Pulitzer and Jockey Creek, west by Marchese, south by Pine Neck Road, east by Jockey Creek. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-70-006-033. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrso Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. Absent: Messr. Douglass. Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- January 17, 1980 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2655. Application of ROBERT WADDINGTON, JR., Tuthill's Lane, Aquebogue, New York (Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insuffi- cient frontyard setback and for approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law Section 280A. Location of property: Miami Avenue and Soundview Avenue (private street), Peconic; bounded north by Mathat Reatty Corp. Inc., southeast by Miami Avenue, southwest by Soundv±ew Avenue (private street) and northwest by Booth. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-67-006-016. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:12 P.M. by reading the application for variances, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attes%±ng to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of D~sapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have copies of the survey of the property. Dick, do you have something further you would like to add to this? MK. LARK: Yeah, just very briefly to clarify any confusion. The application is two-fold. It appears that Miami Avenue, and y~u~ve all seen the property I. assume. Miami Avenue has never been approved by the Board although there are existing houses on there. In fact 1 think there are two or three that are on there right now. But they were built before the zoning ordinance and nobody bothered with getting approval as we have to do today. The other thing, although Miami Avenue is open it's shown as a 50-foot wide -- 50-foot wide road on all the maps. In reality it's only about 15 or 20 feet, you know, wide to get in and out of. It's dirt surface. The Building Inspector has viewed the lot in ques- tion as a corner lot, even though the other road is nothing more than a paper street on a map, and as a result the zoning ordinance, 100-34 requires that where you have a corner lot to have two front- yards at 50-foot mn width, as you are well aware of, and this is impossible since the lot is only 48 feet wide to begin with. So therefore it was felt that the most reasonable and appropriate use of the land was to make Miami Avenue the street and have the front- yard there and conform to the ordinance of 50-foot setback there, and then make the other street, have a sideyard as is shown on the plan, I believe is 16 feet. That would be the Soundview Avenue which has never been opened, and by the way is only a 40 foot in width on all the previously filed maps, so it couldn't be dedicated or meet any type of Planning Board standards today. So this is the reason for the application. It's for a frontyard variance, if you would on a nonexistent street, and to get approval of 280A to have access of Miami to the nearest public road, which is Mill Road. Do you have any questions? TERRY TUTHILL: What's the size of the house. Dimensions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Twenty by 35. MR. WADDINGTON: Twenty by something. Possibly 35. Southold To~n Board of Appeals -12- January 17, 1980 MR. LARK: I think it was attached to the-- 20 foot wide by 35 foot long. That's what he applied for with the Department of Health and four the Building Permit. By the way, the Department of Health has given approval for the well and the cesspool location on this lot. So if it is sufficient to accommodate that by today's standards, then, as I say again, we're here for the frontyard variance because of the paper street. The Building Inspector for some reason ruled that it's a corner lot and for the access and the 280A, since apparently that's never been done. MRo TUTHILL: ~at did you say about the water and the cesspools? MR. LARK: They've been approved by the Department of Health. Location, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there someone else that has something to add to this? HELEN BOOTH: How wide is the property in the back? MR. LARK: Forty-six point seven according to the surveyor. MRS. BOOTH: Well how can you build if you have, where you have to have 50 foot? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, he can't get it. There's no way of getting it. MR. LARK: The lot's been held as the application indicates as single and separate since 1938. We're not here on an area variance or a use variance. We're here primarily on this frontyard because the zoning ordinance got changed in 1972 where you have a so-called corner lot you have to have two frontyards according to the zoning ordinance. One on each street, and the one street here is a paper street. It's not opened at all, so they deemed it a corner lot. If the Building Inspector had not deemed that a corner lot, we wouldn't have to have a variance request. We'd be here just under 280A, aad as I said to you, the house right across the street and one right up the road towards Mill Road, so, they are already presently using the place, but apparently a formal approval has never been obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's never been here before. Are there any other questions? MR. TUTHILL: The lady had a question, and I think the answer that it's a legal lot that predates the present zoning. MR. CHAIRMAN: And that brings up the question whether you can deny the man the use of his land in there. SERGE DOYEN: As a point of clarity the dimensions of the house are pretty well determined by the variance if it's granted. The house size is determined to you more or less by the variance if it's granted. ~outkold Town Board of Appeals -13- January 17, 1980 MR. LARK: Yeah, due to the size and the shape of the lot. That's correct. And that's why we're asking a 16-foot-- MR. DOYEN: In other words, you can'~ exceed that. MR. LARK: No. MR~ CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dick. Miami Avenue is going to be your right-of-way, I mean your access? MR. LARK: Right. I say Miami Avenue and I put quotations around it because that's where it appears, even on the Town maps, it appears as Miami Avenue. But it's nothing more than a right-of-way, right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea, Dick, whether Soundview is an approved access up till now? SECRETARY: No, it's not. MR. LARK: No, it's just woods. It's never been opened. Th.ere's a lady who lives right here. When I looked at the property, it was nothing more than maybe at one time a Cart path through there. It's never been used as a road, it's never been opened up. In fact there are some fairly substantial trees growing there. On the subdvision that I think was filed in the 1920's, Map of Bailey Park or something like that, isn't that correct. Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: I thought we had a note here from, on improving the right-of-way, there was just a little question about just which one they were talking about. If your frontyard and your access is going to be Miami, that's the only one-- MR. LARK: That's the one we're asking for. That's existing. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the only one you would have to improve. So, if there is nothing to add from anyone else, a resolution is in order to grant this with the 50-foot setback off Miami Avenue. TERRY TUTHILL. I offer a resolution that it be approved subject to the fact that the requirements for the improvement of the access road as set down by the Board of Appeals will be a condition. MR. LARK: We request that be waived because I don't know who owns it. It's been in existence, and as this lady will tel you, maybe 50 or over 100 years, and there are presently two dwellings on the road using it. And I think it would be an unfair burden to this property owner at the end of the road to have to develop it. It's an established right-of-way in and out there and apparently has been adequate for years for vehicular traffic. It's not like he was making it brand new, or he owned the road. He doesn't own the road and I would not want to incur any liability for him on making any type of improvement with the bank run and ~outhcld Town Board of Appeals -14- January 17, 1980 stuff like that. There isn't a drainage problem there today, the people are able to get in and out. And he didn't wan~ to open it up any further because one of the beauties of that area is its seclusion, private back there. And if he owned it, or he was the sole one using it, I would have no objection. But there are presently two other people using it, and I have no idea who owns it. It's not on the tax maps. SECRETARY: And it's part of an old subdivision. MR. LARK: Right. It's part of an old subdivision that never was improved, you know, with any type of standards of paving or anything. So that's the reason I would want to waive it. This is an oddball situation. MR. TUTHILL: By rights, it should be improved by somebody for emergency vehicles if nothing else. MR. LARK: It is sufficiently wide for emergency vehicles today. You have fire vehicles, or an amb~.~lance or something in and out of there. MR. TUTHILL: It's sufficiently paved? MR. LARK: No, it's a dirt road. MR. TUTHILL: How about in the winter time, and the mud puddles. Because that has become something we have to look at very carefully. Fire trucks these days that weigh, I don't know how many ton, I guess 30. MR. C~AIRMAN: I could see his point. There have been other people living there for years already. MR. LARK: Yeah, if he were the first one, I would have no objection; or it was being cut, you know, into the woods, but it is there and I think it would be an unfair burden on him to do anything with it that way. And as I understand it, to his property from Mill Road, about 350 feet. That's according to the tax map. Three -hundred fifty feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: That would have been my guess was up there. when I MR. TUTHILL: This is his access because it's a street, but it's not something that would be given by deed, a right-of-way or a rzght over or anything like that. It just happens to be there. Isn't that correct? I'll withdraw my motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: And we'll reserve decision. We close the hearing. And we'll check this out a little further and let you know in a few days. MR. LARK: Fine. You see, he does! have a right-of-way on the deed because it is over an old filed map, and by virtue ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -15- January 17, 1980 of having that map filed, any lot owners fronting on it do get access up to the nearest publiclhighway, which in this case will be, I guess, which lane it is. MR. DOYEN: That was the question I was about to ask how legally did he gain his right-of'way. His deed does state,~ that? ~. LARK: Right. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of ROBERT WADDINGTON, JR., Appeal No. 2655, BE RESERVED ITS DECISION until the proper time. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. Absent: Messr. Douglass. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2579. Application of EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, 26 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section t00m50B(3),(4) and C(2) for permission to erect 28-unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and coffee shop. Location of property: Shipyard Lane, East Marion; bounded north by Parkside Heights Co., east by Shipyard Lane, south by Gardiners Bay, west by Parkside Heights Co. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 8:35 P.M. RICHARD LARK: This was recessed by the Board of Appeal~ just to reiterate the history, and maybe I can answer some questions some people might have. Pending some clarification. Number one, since this property had been split from other property to the north, the Board wanted to clarify the subdivision status and that was done by the Planning Board, and I believe they've sent you a copy of their resolution which approved the minor subdivi- sion for Mr. Kontokosta for three lots of which this application pertains only to two. Also, you wanted to get, you had lead agency status, and that finally squared away with the Department of Environmental Conservation and it was so deemed that you do have the lead agency status, and the other one was the Department of Health approval since the original submission to you, Mr. Kontokosta had to revise his plans somewhat to conform with the Department of Health, what they wanted regarding the cesspools. The public water is not a, the water is not a problem here because it would be furnished by the Village of Greenport, public water. There's a line right there. Six-inch main right on Shipyard Lane. But the sewage had to be revised to conform with the existing environmental requirements and the Department of Health requirements. That was done, and the revised plan was dated 11/28/79 and was submitted to you. Subsequently, I'm told Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- January 17, 1980 that the Department of Environmental Conservation of New York State has written the Board a letter that the application now is favorable, it's in conformance with all the environmental regulations. They have published it in the environmental, whatever it is, the newspaper where they publish these things, and, "Environmental News," and that publication I'm told is up the early part of February. I think it has to be published for four weeks, something like that. The Department of Health has tentatively approved these plans and is waiting for the formal approval from the Department of Environmental Conservation, and we're here now before the Board at this recessed hearing, which the Board scheduled for tonight, to ask approval of the Special Exception, and as part of that application I'm asking you to make it, of course, subject to receiving the final Department of Health approval once the publications take place, and of course, the final DEC, Department of Environmental Conservation approval. Also, this Board required an environmental assessment form to be filed by the applicant, which was done and subsequent thereto you have issued your Negative Impact Statement regarding same. I believe the application now in all respects conforms to the existing zoning ordinance, and has passed the, both the Department of Health of Suffolk County, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. I'm here to answer any questions that the Board might have. But in your findings I would urge the Board to make appropriate findings to show that the use would not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of the adja- cent properties, k~ the Board is aware of, the property is zoned M-1 Multiple R~sidence District immediately to the east is the Long Island Oyster Farms, which is zoned industrial property, and there is vacant residential property to the immediate north, and further to the north on Shipyard Lane is also zoned residential and does contain some residential homes. I believe that this use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use permitted, legally established us, which is the multiple dwelling, and as provided for on the amended map of 11/28/79 there is a detailed zoning analysis, which I understand has been gone over and approved by the Building Inspector as conforming to the existing standards of the zoning ordinance as far as the density, the setbacks, the number of parking spaces, and so on and so forth. And I submit that this proposed use, since the Master Plan, well not really the Master Plan, the general Development Plan as promulgated by the Planning Board and the later zoning revision that this use does conform to that, and that it would be a property use before the property. As I indicated a few other facts the Board should probably know. The Village of Greenport Board, Mr. James Monsell last May after studying the preliminary plans, because there is a six-inch water main, had determined that there% adequate water supply for the property. I'm told by Mr. Kontokosta, who's also here to answer any questions, that the buildings will be heated by electric by heat pumps, which provides in the summer the air- conditioning, for the winter, the heat. So we won't have any obnoxious odors or anything omitted from the apartment or the motel use. I think under the standards of the zoning ordinance, the applicant has complied and, of course, the other thing which would have to be in any zoning approval, is he also has to obtain Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- January 17, 1980 Site Plan Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board. So we have still the final approvals to obtain and any resolution would have to contain those provisos. But I think from what we've said at the prior hearings and you have, of course, from the corres- pondence and the plan, unless there are any questions again, I submit that it is in conformity with the standards set forth in the zonlng ordinance for a Special Exception, which I think those words have created a lot of confusion with the public as to just what is going Ono And I might just say that a Special Exception · s nothing more than a permit or a conditional permit which is issued by the Board of Appeals when the zoning requirements allow this type of use. The zoning does allow a multiple motel resi- dential, apartment, multi-dwelling use here, but it is subject to receiving a permit, if you would. The word "exception" is poor. It should be "permit," from the Board of Appeals, and that's what we're here for. We're not here for a variance to the zoning ordinance. In fact it meets all the requirements and the standards of our zoning ordinance, the application as it presently constituted. So if there are questions, I would be glad to answer them from anybody, because I know there has been some confusion on it in the past, and I don't think it was adequately explained. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lark. Is there anyone, or do you fellows have any questions? Does anyone here who would like to pursue it a little further while we have the people here? Yes, sir, your name please? GORDON RACKETT: Shipyard Lane, East Marion. That property floods during almost every winter storm time, and I wonder how you could get around that unless you put some ki~of an earth dike down there by the beach? May t speak against the project? Ok. My techinical objection is these people get approval one by one for the different things. But there is one thing I think that we should all consider. When I say "we," I mean the citizens of Southold Town, and that is that it is ~ossible for an area to become saturated with hotels, motels and so forth, or any other kind of industry, and I believe that East Marion has reached that point already. And I would like to have that put in the minutes, and would appreciate it if you people would consider it when you make your decision. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's in the record. Thank you. Is there anyone else? ANGE PANAGOPOULOS: I live in East Marion. On the last plans he s~id for a cafe, or a coffee shop~ whatever you call. You know, did they straighten that out, or what? MR. LARK: No, as an accessory use in the rear of the adminis- tration building is proposed this small coffee shop. And the reason for that is that the, when he had his own engineering firm and some other land planners look at it, they recommended that a small coffee shop, snack shop, to serve only the people in the motels and the apartments be provided because of the distance from ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -18- January 17, 1980 any nearby public facility, restaurant and everything else. And I noted that at one of the, the last objections that people had living on Shipyard Lane because apparently there has been some traffic problems with the Oyster Factory there, they complained that there might possibly be an increase in traffic here. And curiously enough, although we didn't get a chance to develop that at that time, that's what the planners had suggested to put this accessory use down there. It would cut down on people making unnecessary trips up to the village or what not up on the Main Road, for snacks, coffee, things like that. It's not contemplated to be a full-scale restaurant by any means. It's merely to serve the motel trade there and that's the reason that it was proposed as an accessory use only, not as a main use. I'm just trying to answer your question the best I can. MR. PANAGOUPOULOS: Yes, as I understand from the last meet- ings, the whole thing was for to take the exemption for that coffee shop. The whole hallabalu was about a coffee shop. If you want, you know, the variance or the exemption, whatever you call it. MR. LARK: The coffee shop is merely an accessory use to the- MR. PANAGOUPOULOS: Well after you get the variance for ~he variance for the coffee shop you can get whatever you want. Unless this Board has to put stipulations. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well that would be stipulated, you know, for the coffee shop for the people who live there. Not open to the general public. MR. PANAGOUPOULOS: They say their hardship is unique. Don't tell me that the thing is unique. Especially when he's going to be in Canada. MR. LARK: Just to keep the record straight. We're not asking for a variance where one has to show hardShip or practical diffi- culty. MR. PANAGOUPOULOS: That's the way it was presented at the beginning. At the first meeting. MR. LARK: I don't believe so. The record will speak for itself. We're here for a Special Exception or Special Permit, and that's a permitted use under the zoning. We're not here for. any variance request. And if the Board grants the sPecial permit, it's implied that the Board will have to put reasonable conditions on it; ~t~don ~>~nk the~e~waS~much q~estion as far as, because the appliCa~o~as ne~e~i~tended to be as far as this coffee shop is concerned a public restaurant in the sense that we under- stand a full scale restaurant. MR. PANAGOUPOULOS: Has anybody went there to see that property to see that you have spartina alteniftora is on the beach. Because any place that has this spartina is supposed to be considered wetland. Has anybody went thsre to take a look at it? Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- January 17, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been approved by the DEC, or-- MR. PANAGOUPOULOUS: Do they know spartina is growing there? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's something that we don't, ~s long as it's approved by the people responsible for it, we can't do much about it. They're the experts. MR. TUTHILL: We have been there to look at it. MR. CHAIRMAN: We've seen it. I've been there many times. I used to go down there when I was a kid, and it hasn't changed much since then. Instead of an airplane there now they want to put houses up. MARIE SMITH: East Marion. Will they be allowed to use loudspeakers to broadcast their music till you go mad in the summer with the windows open like all boarding houses in East Marion. We can do nothing about it. You have no rules against this? MR. GRIGONIS: That's a little bit out of our jurisdiction, but-- MS SMITH: That's a problem though. It's quite a problem. MRo LARK: If I may address myself. You perfectly can put a restriction in, that we're not allowed to have public loud- speakers. I know what's she referring to, and I have to agree with her. That's not the intent at all, and I think it's ~uite a reasonable restriction that, because toda~,~ight or might not know, we do have~-the State has imposed on us some noise pollution laws. MS. SMITH: Have you ever tried to have it enforced? MR. LARK: But the Board, as the granting of this permit, can impose a condition that things like loudspeakers and things like that not be allowed on there. It's a perfectly reasonable condition to protect the surrounding residential neighborhood, and I certainly would have no objection. MK. CHAIRMAN: Well, that was going to be all the items we could think to protect the neighborhood would be in, you know, would be in the-- MS. SMITH: We were told that there are no noise ordinances, or anti-noise ordinances. And all we need is one more building with that uh-uh beat that just drives you mad. MR. CHAIRMAN: such thing there. it down here. We can put it in that there won't be any Sometime if the wind is right, we might hea~ MS. SMITH: Well, the police department told me that they Southold Town Board of Appeals u20- January 17, 1980 can't do anything about it. MR. CHAIRMAN: i think there will be more thought given to it. MS. SMITH: At one o'cloek in the morning they can't do anything. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know. I see them drive around sometimes and thingsquiet down. We have it up in our neighborhood once in a while. MS. SMITH: I would just like the Board to be aware of it. MRS. N. ~ACKETT: East Marion. I'd like to speak about the coffee shop that they said they would like to have because it's a necessary item or something they figure is. Right down at the end of the land, we have three eating establishments. They have one right at Hellenic Cabins. Right after that they have the Golf Course, which serves food, and they have Skippers right next to that. There's three right in a row. We also have another one at the other end of town. This is a rural community and we would like to keep it that way, and not have your motel, your motels, your condominium. East Marion is a beautiful little place, and if you get more of this added to it, we have a big two-story motel unit right now in the middle of town that was allowed. You have numerous cabins, all kinds of tourist attractions there which we don't need any more of. People have come here to retire and this is the way they would like to keep it, without having these extra units added to it. As far as the road is concerned, I agree with them. I don't think it can stand the traffic. But I don't think their coffee shop is going to eliminate that much. These people are going to be there, they're going to be travel- ing all times of the day, and I would like to speak very much against having this establishment down at the end of the lane. Also, the flooding area. Anyone who has lived there have lived over 25 years. That is flooding down in there. They use it as a skating pond a good many times they have used that down there. And I can't see how you can have parking lots or a permanent establishment down there when that land most of the time is wet and under water. In the winter time, you have that a great deal. We have seen them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the plans they have come up with when they through with the grading area has been approved by engineers, that the County Health, and-- MS. SMITH: Maybe they,re not aware then, unless they expect to put it on stilts or something, because they are going to be in water. MR. CHAIRMAN: According to the engineers it's going to be all right. That's all we can go by. I'm not the expert on it, but we wouldn't grant it if they said there were going to be problems there. They claim now that with the revised plans that Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- January 17, 1980 the cesspools and everything will be perfectly safe. Yes, ma'am? ANITA MacDONALD: As you can tell from the shrunken sides, are numbers who came to other meetings compared to this meeting. The word has passed along Shipyard Lane that ~e cannot win. That we lost before we even try to put up a fight, because it has an adverse affect on the value of our one-family homes along there. East Marion is apparently to bear the whole grunt of expanding tourism industry. This I am giving to you from the people that I spoke to the last few days. It's almost as though, well, the legal end of it and all, we cannot fight. We just don'~ have the money or anything of that kind. It's a horrid feeling. MR. CHAIRMAN: I sort of know what you mean, I think. But-- MRS. MacDONALD: And may I ask one more thing? I understand the environmental, they believe they have approved it and the Health Department is almost approved? Is that what the gentleman was saying-- it had to be published first? MR. CHAIRMAN: There was a letter in here, I just saw it a few moments ago from the Health Department. MR. LARK: The Health Department has approved the plans as presented to them as revised as I indicated. They have not formally stamped the plans because of the legal requirement, they have to wait for the publication to be completed by the Department of Environmental Conservation, which I'm told will be up in early February. They have to publish it, I don't know, four to six weeks. It's been in the process of being published. MRS. MacDONALD: In that case could this Board approve it before the -- MR. LARK: Subject to the final, because we have to-- MRS. MacDONALD: You mean, for another meeting? MR. LARK: Oh sure, because it still has to go before the Planning Board to get site plan approval. You see, before the Building Permit could ever be issued it has to get Site Plan Approval and the Board of Health actually has to stamp the final plans, the actual construction plans. So it's still away from actual work being done. MRS. MacDONALD: But in other words, it could be approved by this Board without any of us knowing about it? ~MR. LARK: Whatever they do is public information. They have to do it at a public meeting now. MR. CHAIRMAN: I could read you what we have from the Health Department. (Mr. Grigonis read the December 3, 1979 letter from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services to the Appeals Board.) Soutkold Town Board of Appeals -22- January 17, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: So, until we get it in writing and stuff, the approval if it so comes, it would be subject to such approvals. Is there anyone else? MR. SMITH: Are these 28 motel units and 28 apartments to be lived in or to be occupied yearround, or just the summer? MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you answer that, Dick? MR. LARK: Yearround as I understand ito MR. SMITH: The motel will be operated yearround~ too? MR. LARK: Yeah, but you know what it's like out here January, February and March. Probably the weekends. As a practical matter. The apartments will be yearround, yes. As I understand it, the proposed plans call for one-bedroom units in the apartments. As I understand it at the present stage, the actual finalized plans for each individual unit has never been finalized yet, but as I understand it that's what the area would warrant as far as the square footage is concerned to meet the building code requirements, you know, for the kitchen, living area, and bedroom, bathroom area. MR. TUTHILL: I would just like to enlighten you a ~i~le bit on what Mr. Lark sought to explain-the Special Exception thing. Actually, in the code it spells out that a Special Exception or a Special Permit, it uses the word interchangeably, what it really does is sets down I think it's 13 or 14 different matters to be considered by the Board. For example, whether it's unreasonably near to a church; there are 13 different items. In other words we have to look at it with more scrutiny than an ordinary permitted use. We have to pay more attention to the loudspeakers, for example. MR. SMITH: Is that why it's taken out of the hands of the Building Inspector and put before your Board? MR~ TUTHILD: That-'s right. Because we have to go into all these conditions and whe.%her it meets them. It has to meet the criteria outlined ih the code. Basically, we can't just deny it because perhaps you feel that East Marion is getting too congested or whatever. We spent a lot of money on that Master Plan and it specifically zoned for this type of thing, and so if they meet all of the conditions, iD~luding some of the ones over which we have no control, like the DEC and the Department of Health, we can't really arbitrarily deny the issuance of a permit. As a matter of fact I think you can very well be in for a law suit. I hope I've been helpful. I just, it's not a thing that you take lightly when you have a Special Exception, you really have to get into f% and see what it involves. And it's pretty well outlined what you have to get into. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to go a little bit further on this, as with what Mr. Smith asked, whoever takes it out of the Building Department takes the CoUnty, and the State gets involved with it, too. It's ~%L-just a jump and go thing. No one has anything else? ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -23- January 17, 1980 TERRY TUTHILL: Nor is it a question of 19 people against it and one's for it. It's the reasoning that goes into it and whether or not they can measure up under the provisions of the Code. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, if I may I'd like to put forward a resolution granting this with the following stipulations: (1) Approval from the Suffolk County Board of Health Services; (2) Approval from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Some of these we may have already, Dick. (3) Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for Site Plan; (4) Approval from the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Section 1331 of the Suffolk County Charter; (5) Approval of the sewage disposal systems from the Suffolk County Department of Health; (6) No further subdivision except by application and approval from the Southold Town Planning Board and Board of Appeals, and appropriate other agencies where required; (7) No residential structure shall be located within 100 feet of the mean highwater line; (8) No sanitary disposal facility shall be constructed or installed within 100 feet of mean high- water line; (9) A conservation buffer or easement having a m~nimum wzdth of 50 feet shall be established along the shore- line. That's what somebody was asking about a little while ago. (10) No stormwater runoff resulting from the development and improvement of the pending subdivision and any of the lots shall be discharged directly into Gardiners Bay; (11) and no loudspeakers or other nozse-making apparatus to disturb the neighborhood, and (12) and the coffee shop shall be for patrons and not the general public. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to erect a 28-unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and an accessory coffee shop at premises located in an "M-1 Multiple Residence District." The present zoning ordinance would allow for boarding or tourist houses, or multiple residences for not more than four families; however, for the use requested herein, a Special Exception is required by this Board. Applicant's Site Development Plan as revised 11/28/79 appears to be in conformance with all the rules and regulations of the zoning ordinance and this Board has been informed that the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation and Suffolk County Department of Health Services permit applica- tions appear to be approvable as revised 11/28/79. This Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the grant of a Special Exception in this case will not change the character of the neighbhorhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that EMANUEL M. KONTOKOSTA, 26 Court Street, Brooklyn Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- January 17, 1980 New York 11201, (Richard F. Lark, Esq.) BE GRANTED a Special Excep- tion to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect a 28-unit apartment complex with 21 motel units and accessory coffee shop as peri.the revised Site Development Plan dated 11/28/79, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 2. Approval from the New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation. 3. Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for Site Plan. 4. Approval from the Suffolk County Planning Commission pur- suant to Section 1331 of the Suffolk County. Charter. 5. Approval from the Suffolk County Health Department for the sewage disposal systems. 6. No further subdivision except by application and approval from the Southold Town Planning Board and Board of Appeals, and appropriate other agencies when required. 7. No residential structure shall be located within 100 feet of the mean highwater line. 8. No sanitary disposal facility shall be constructed or installed within 100 feet of mean highwater line. 9. A conservation buffer or easement having a minimum width of 50 feet shall be established along the shoreline. 10. No storm-water runoff resulting from the development and improvement of the pending subdivision and of any of the lots shall be discharged directly into Gardiners Bay. 11. No loudspeakers or other noise-making devices may be permitted which would disturb the neighborhood. 12. The coffee shop is permitted for use exclusively for the motel-apartment complex occupants and shall not be permitted for use by the general public. Location of property: Westerly side of Shipyard Lane, ~ast Marion; bounded north and west by Parkside Heights Co., east by Shipyard Lane, south by Gardiners Bay. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-38-007-part of Lot 4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Gmigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. Absent: Messr. Douglass. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- January 17, 1980 After the formal hearing was-closed an~ the resolution was duly adopted, Ms. Smith inquired if it wou~d~-~ POssibte to add another condition to the resolution approving Mr. Kontokosta a Special Exception that a liquor license would not be allowed for that coffee shop. The Chairman asked Mr. Lark, applicant's attorney what his feelings or co~ents were. Mr. Lark said that was never even thought of ~iquor license, and that the reason for the accessory coffee shop was for the patrons for their own benefit, those that had checked into the motels or apartments in order to utilize the coffee shop Mr. Lark said there are many types of liquor licenses, and he didn't know what migh~ be anticipated in the future, that they never even considered it. Mr. Lark said that a restriction has been made for the coffee shop to be utilized by patrons only and felt that this would restrict a type of "liquor business" as was thought by Ms. Smith. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2609. Regarding Appeal No. 2609, application of Robin A. Raeburn and Mary Elizabeth Murphy for approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law 280A, the Board asked George C. Stankevich, Esq., attorney for the applicants, whether an agreement had been entered into with Baxter Properties, Inc. as suggested by the Board at its last meeting. Mr. Stankevich said they had written letters to Mr. Baxter and they were left unanswered and may never be answered. Mr. Stankevich suggested that this appeal be approved, and if Baxter would offer the right-of-way they would accept it. But if Baxter would not offer it, then the existing access could be approved with the encroachmen~s~ The Board felt that they needed more~time to consider this appeal, the 45-day time limit would not be up until Sunday, January 20th and would call a Special Meeting if necessary. Richard F. Lark, Esq. on behalf of the Bokina Family asked whether the right-of-way would be improved with stone blend or black top. Mr. Stankevich said they would improve it witk stone. Mr. Bokina asked about the electric wires that were installed under the right-of-way. Mr. Stankevich said they would remedy that and would accept it as a condition if it has to be relocated. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2587. Application of STEPHEN J. PERRICONE and PENELOPE KOUSOUROS for a Variance for permission to establish disco bar with dancing ~n a B-zoned district. The Chairman read the proposed resolution to the applicant witk the 13 conditions. Applicant did not agree with Conditions 4, 6, and 12. The Board said they would further discuss these condi- tions among themselves and possibly make a determination at a Special Meeting before the February Meeting of this Board. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- January 17, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2658. Application of Robert F. Larson, 72A Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York (John M. Czygier, Jr., Esq.) for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance: [al Article III, Section 100-30(2) (c) for permission to keep pony.~& horse for person- al use with less than 40,000 square feet devoted to such use on the subject premises, and [bi Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory stable in frontyard area. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission: (a) to keep a horse & pony for personal use at his residential premises devoting approximately 14,0002 square feet to that use, (b) to construct an accessory structure (to wit, stable) in the fron~yard area, in which to house the pony and horse. The Board finds no hardship present in this case and therefore there appears to be no justification for the granting of this appeal. The Board believes that by the granting of such a variance the character of the neighborhood would change and would not observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that ROBERT F. LARSON, 72A Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York 11935, by John M. Czygier, Jr., Esq. BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE permission to keep horse and pony for personal use with less than 40,000 square feet devoted to that use and BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE permission to construct stable in the frontyard ~ea. Location of property: Nassau Point Road and Bridge Lane, Cut- chogue, Nassau Point Map No. 156A, Lots 130 and 129; bounded north by Hillmer, west by Bridge Lane, south by Nassau Point Road, west by Roche. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-111-15-1.1 and part of 2. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messr. Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion made by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis it was RESOLVED, that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals be set for Thursday, February 7, 1980 at 7:30 o'clock P.M. and that the following applications be advertised for a public hearing at the below specified times for the next meeting: 7:30 P.M. PHILIP LORtA, Appeal No. 2660. 7:35 P.M. CHARLES & ROSE VAN DUZER, Appeal No. 2662. ~°uth°ld Town Board of Appeals -27- January 17, 1980 7:45 P.M. DAWN ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER, Appeal No. 2661. 8:00 P.M. RAYMOND CIACIA, Appeal No. 2574 - Recessed Hearing. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion made by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of Philip Loria in Appeal No. 2660, for permission to erect an off-premises-directional sign, Article VII, Section 100-70, this Board has, after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form and relative documents sub- mitted wit'h this application, determined that this project if imple- men=ed as planned is classified as a Type II Action not having a significant effect on the environment, pursuant to Section 617.13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion made by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of Charles R. and Rose Van Duzer, Appeal No. 2662 for permission to construct accessory structure (tower) exceeding height limitations, Article III, Sec- tion 100-32, this Board has after review of the Environmental As- sessment Short Form and relative documents submitted with this application determined that this pro]ect if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action not having a significant effect on the environment, pursuant to Section 617.13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code, Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion made by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that regarding ths~ application of Dawn Estates Shop- ping Center, 14 Dawn Drive, Centereach, New York, Appeal No. 2661 for aPp~atl ~0f insufficient ar~a and width of parcel to be estab- lished wi~hi~'~ subdivision, Article III, Section 100-31,!~his Board has after review of the Environmental Assessment short F°rm and relative doCuments submitted with this application determined that this project if implemented as planned is claSsified as a Type II '~Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- January 17, 1980 Action not having a significant effect on the environment pursuant to Section 617.13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion made by Mr. Tuthilt, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the December 27, 1979 meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. Absent: Messr. Douglass. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that this meeting be declared closed at 11:10 P.M. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonisf Tuthill and Doyen. Absent: Messr. Douglass. Respectfully submitted, Mrs. L.F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals