Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/29/1980Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN Rr'IAD-STATE: RDAD ~..5 .qr'IUTHI3LD. L.I., N,Y, TI:: LEPHONE 1516) 76B-'1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS..IR.. CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki MINUTES REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 29, 1980 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Monday, December 29, 1980 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Charles Grigonis, Jr., Chairman; Robert J. Douglass; Gerard P. Goehringer; Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent due to illness was: Serge J. Doyen, Jr. Also present were: Mrs. Shirley Bachrach, League of Women Voters representative; Mrs. Ruth Oliver, North Fork Environmental Council representative; Mike StAhl, Suffolk Times reporter; Paul Demery, L.I. Traveler-Watchman reporter; George H. Fisher, Senior Building Inspector. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2765. Application of Peter V. Izzo, 919 Harlane Circle, North Bellmore, NY 11710 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. iii, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels located at the west side of Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue, NY; more oarticularly known as Lots 34 and 35A, Map of Nassau Farms, Map No. 1179; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-104-2-9 and 10. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:36 p.m. by reading the appeal application, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attest- ing to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey and copy of the County Tax Map showing this and the surrounding properties in the area. They ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- December 29, 1980 propose to build a house on roughly 50' by 40 on a lot that is 60' across on one end, roughly 70' on Pine Tree Road, 303' on the longest side, and then 295.55' on the other side. Is there any- thing that you would like to add to anything that you have stated so far? MR. IZZO: No, I don t think so. I tried to explain the reasoning in the appeal. The diagram on the map that I drew is not anything, you said 40' by 50 , that's not a confirmed size, that was just something that I had planned on. MR. CHAIRMAN: This was referred to the Planning Board, and as of this date we haven t received an official answer from them. I had a copy of their minutes, and they weren't happy with sub- dividing it at this time this way. So, I thought that would bring this uo-to-date. This is the letter we sent over to theme-for all subdivisions, no matter if it's taking out one lot from a par- cel, three, four, five lots, everything has to go there. MR. IZZO: Am I right in my understanding that it was the way we purchased it that created the problem, the fact that it was put in the same name, that it automatically was merged? MR. CHAIRMAN: It was merged as one parcel. Do any of you gentlemen have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not right ye~. Not right at the moment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bob? MEMBER DOUGLASS: No. MR. IZZO: I have one other question, if I could ask it? Over the years as I paid taxes on the property, there was no indication in my mind that they were merged since it was separate tax bills for Lot 34 verses 35A. So that's unique to the situation. There was no indication that it was one piece of property. To this day I received separate tax bills for both of our lots. way. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That doesn't make any difference. MR. IZZO: I didn't know, but I say I have received bills that MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know why, but sometimes it's done that way and sometimes they separate them. He bought the first one in 1965 and the next one about five years later. MR. IZZO: Lot 34. In 1970 I purchased the other piece, that would be MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, if there are no further questions, III __ Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- December 29~ !980 offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving the decision. MR, CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, is there anyone else to speak in favor of this? Anyone to speak against this application? (There was no response.) You may have to excuse us a little bit tonight, we're all a little bit groggy, with a little bit of flu, and something. I'll offer the resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision, and referring it to the Planning Board. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the decision on the matter of Peter V. Izzo, Appeal No. 2765, be reserved and the hearing be declared closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2769. Application of Nicholas D. Yuelys, 6159 Broadway, Bronx, NY 10471 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-32 for permission to construct acces- sory building in the frontyard area at 56005 C.R. 28, Greenport, NY; bounded north by L.I. Sound; west by Candan; south by C.R. 27 (North Road)~ east by Atwan; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-44-1-19. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 p.m. by reading the appeal application, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR, CHAIRMAN: We have a County Tax Map showing the adjoining areas and a sketch showing the present and proposed buildings, and as Mr. Yuelys states there is 50' on the North Road and probably the same on the Soundfront. The lot is approximately 130' deep on the shorter side and 143' on the longer side. Is there anything that you would like to add to what you have stated Mr. Yuelys? MR. YUELYS: I will say the hardship is unique. There are three pieces of property on the North Shore on the beach side which have 50 feet frontage. My house is the only one that's built on stilts. The other two homes are built strictly on the sand with the bulkhead, and they have a basement and they have a built-in garage underneath. I don't have that. I can t possibly go underneath because there are water lines at front and I'm too close to the water. In fact I was ll' from the water on one stage. The water has risen up and has risen up even now, if you go up there, the water has risen up above the level of the house. So there is no way that I could use the underside Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- December 29, 1980 (Mr. Yuelys continued:) of the house. The sides of the house are too small to build an accessory building. It's impossible because the house is 30 feet and it only has enough room between the two sides to pass back and forth, so we can't build on the sides. The only place I could possibly build this would be in the front. The character of the district would not change. My next door neighbor has a garage in the front; he has a bathroom; he has a side-accessory building in the back. He has another bathhouse in the back. All right down the lane. It doesn't hurt anybody; it doesn't detract from anybody. My situation is such a hardship that as soon as the weather becomes bad, I must close the house entirely. There is no way I could put it in the side and maybe come out in the Fall, in the Wintertime if I want to come out. Right now my electricity is on. My porch is all blocked up. All my bedrooms are all blocked up. I have a wooden table. I have lawn chairs, as you all kno'w in a beach house, we have 15 or 20 beach chairs that are all in the house. There's no way in the world I could possibly build this accessory building anyplace but there. And there's no reason that I could, there's no way I could possibly build it in any other place except there; and it would still render the character of the neighborhood the same. In fact, by building this house it would even make it appropriate with my neighbor's house, who was the only one that could possibly object -- is the one that would be adjacent to his. But he built his house right along the side line there. He has his. In fact he's got four of them down the line. So-- I'm only going to use this for storage. I don't want windows; I don't want anything--I!ll be needing it just to put in my equipment and everything else during the summertime and during the wintertime. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, thank you. We have on file here a letter to the Board of Appeals dated October 3rd, to the Chairman, Town of Southold: "...Gentlemen: Several days ago our next door neighbor, Mr. Nicholas Yuelys, was thoughtful enough to seek our reaction to his place to build a storage shed in his frontyard and directly adjacent to a legal building on our property. In that connection we have this date written to Mr. Yuelys stating our ob- jections to the location of his proposed building. We also told him that because of our travel plans we could not be sure of receiv- ing his mailed notice to us or reading the published legal notice should he seek a variance. The location of the building he described to us would block the windows and, therefore, effectively cut out light and the prevailing flow of air in a building we have for years used for resting and sleeping both night and day. We wish it to be a matter of record, transmitted to you in advance and for the reasons stated above~ that we object and request that no variance be granted for a building on that location should such a variance be sought. Respectfully yours, signed, A.M. Atwan, Box 61~ North Road, Southold .... " MR. YUELYS: May I reply to that? This particular house that he is referring to was built in 1973 with a Certificate of Occupancy issued. At that t4me that house was not built the way it's built now. Those windows were put-in three years later with a bathroom Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- December 29, 1980 (Mr. Yuelys continued:) because a C/O states specifically that the Suffolk County Health Department approval not required. He didn't have the bathroom. He put this in three years after he got the C/O. I wasn't making-- I don't object to it. He put this right on the line. So he's got an illegal building, uses a bathroom and a house. These particular windows he is talking about, I spoke to him, I told him "Move them up higher and it's ok." He didn t want to move them up because the paneling inside he can t get. It s discontinued paneling. My building is only 6'6" high on that side. I told him I will not block his--I will only go up to the limit which I could build a fence on. I could go on the line, I explained to him, I could go right on the line, the Code says I could go right on the line and build a 6'6" fence which would block your windows--the height of the top of the windows is 6'6" So I'm not doing anything, that, I'm asking for anything I can't do without asking you~ Now second of all, three houses to the east a party has property of over 100' frontage--he wanted to build a guesthouse. He wash t within 100' feet of the nearest house where he wanted to build a guesthouse, he couldn't put windows into that particular place, and wanted to use as an accessory building. And he's using it as a storage house, yet Atwan, in violation of the ordinance, went and go ahead and put the windows in, and he went and put in this bathroom. Furthermore I have pictures to show that this particular side that he is coming about~ the windows, he's got the whole side of the house comoletely open. There's a window facing frontwards. On the other side of the house, which I have other pictures, he shows he's got another window which he has completely open. So he has one window, another window, and he's got these two windows, which if you've seen them, they're very smalls tiny windows, they re not even worth talking about. MR. CHAIRMAN: We went up there. MR. YUELYS: And these are the two windows that he is complaining about I might be blocking. Which I could block anyway if I wanted to block it. So I don't see why he's complaining. Meanwhile he's got his accessory buildings and it's ok. "Now I've got mine, you can't have yours." He's got 75' frontage; he's got a main house; he can build in the front and the side if he wanted to build~ Yet he built them right on my line. Now he says, that I have no room for anything, he says I shouldn't build now because I might block his two windows. I don't think that it's fair what he's doing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that wants to speak for or against this? STANLEY CORWIN, ESQ.: My name is Stanley Corwin; and I am here representing Mr. Atwan. You may recall in his letter he indicated that ne might not be getting a notice of the meeting. He finally did, but he was spending the holidays with his family in Ohio, and he was trying hard to get out of there today; he may still walk in here, But .. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- December 29, 1980 (Mr. Corwin continued:) he asked me in a telephone call this afternoon to come by and take a look at the file and to speak in his behalf at the meeting tonight. Unfortunately the sketch that accompanies Mr. Yuelys' application does not show the buildings on the adjacent property. A site plan related to the dwellings on the east and the west would show that the location selected by the applicant is the worst possible one. On the southwesterly corner of the Atwan property there is a building, the southerly end of which is a framed storage garage, and the north- erly end of which is a bed, living room. That's the one that Mr. Yuelys refers to as being there to some respect illegally. It is not, and the records of this Town will show that everything that he did there that required a permit was done with one. And I take exception to Mr. Yuelys' remarks that the building there is improper. Incidentally the garage was there before zoning. Now there are two windows on the westerly side of the northerly end of that building supplying both light and air, as the Board is aware, that the pre- vailing winds in the summertime when these houses are occupied is from the soNthwest. If the Yuelys' application were to be granted and the building shown on his papers on file were to be constructed, it would effectively cut off an essential supply of light and air to the Atwan accommodations, which Mr. Atwan in communications to the Board referred to as a resting and sleeping area day and night. In behalf of the Atwans, then I do vigorously oppose the granting of the application in the form in which it is made. However, my clients recognize that their friend Nicholas stated a legitimate case for a real need of storage space. They realize too that it can be only placed in his frontyard. Moreover, they realize that if their property were presently vacant, they wish to construct the buildings as they presently are, they could do so only if a variance were granted for that. And therefore their objections are limited, believing that the southwesterly corner of the Yuelys' property would be an accessible location for a storage building. They go on record as saying that they would have no objection to the application being granted, on the condition that the building be placed on the southwest corner. Now the Candan property adja- cent on the west in that area is a dug out entrance to a garage under the dwelling. The dwelling itself would not at all be inter- ferred with in any significant way. The acts of government are necessarily often arrived at in the spirit of compromise, and I believe that neighbors dealing with government regulations in the zoning variance should also approach a solution in the spirit of compromise. We think Yuelys should be given some relief in the form of the strict application of the law to a small lot, but we believe that it's between the applicant and both of his neighbors the place should be selected for the granting of that relief which would least infringe on the existing building. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Corwin. MR. YUELYS: I'm not here about where my lot should be built, but if I build where they want to build on the other side, I might .. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- December 29, 1980 (Mr. Yuelys continued:) as well destroy my whole front yard, because there is no more lawn. I got 50'. I'm the only one there with 50' in the front that has a lawn, and I did that by getting bulldozers to come in and to dig it up and put topsoil down to make that lawn. A specific purpose so that I could have my picnic, my tables, my chairs there. MRS. YUELYS: It would also block the house. MR. YUELYS: It blocks my house too on my side, too, I have windows also on that place there. We could also put on that point. Whereas those windows that he has there are totally unnecessary, and they weren't put in there until after the C/O was granted. And in this I could swear, as the lawyer mentioned there, I have the records, I have the C/O right here. I'm not coming in here and saying some- thing not knowing what it is. I checked the whole record. This bath- room was put in and I even asked Atwan personally, and he told me, "I do not require a permit, nor do I require aporoval because ! had it in the 1973." So that is because the whole thing was put in illegally and he shouldn't have put it in in the first place because if I had known about it, I would have objected to the windows. Those windows actually caused me trouble. .In the sense that he comes up and he tells me that I'm doing something in the frontyard-- I'm making noise. I'm not doing it to be vindictive, I'm doing it because I have a unique and a hard problem. I just have no place to put anything. And I don't want to destroy my lawn. If I put it there, it matches it. I got pictures, I'll show it. And it matches it perfectly--I'll put it in the same way so it'll look good on both sides. I put it on the other sides it'll look like a monstrosity--changing the whole character of the neighborhood. There's only one place where I could really put it, that's where I've elected to put it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we were down, and we looked the property over. We're fully aware Of the what the situation is, as far as property wise goes down there. Is there anyone one else who would like to speak in either way on this? Do any of you gentlemen have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My questions have been answered. MR. CHAIRMAN: I~ll offer a resolution, we're running a little behind, to close the hearing and reserve decision, MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Nicholas D. Yuelys in Appeal No. 2769. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- December 29, 1980 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2767. Application of Wilbur A. Baldwin, 1725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III~ Sec. lO0-31 for permission to con- struct attached garage with an insufficient sideyard setback at 1725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY; more particularly known as Nassau Point Club Properties Lot No. 1; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-104-13-2.4. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:11 p.m., and read the appeal application in its entirety, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a map of the property showing the construc- tion proposed, and a County Tax Map of the area showing this property and the surrounding lots. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Yes, sir? WILBUR A. BALDWIN: My name is Wilbur A. Baldwin. My reason is~ I think, very basic for requesting the variance. My existing home is 1169 square feet, is a very small home and habited by four people, and we have two automobiles as I have stated. I am desperate for storage space. The property layout and location of the home is uni~que in the sense that all of my property is considered frontyard by the Town rules. Any place that I chose to ask for permission to erect a garage would still require a variance, no matter where i~ is located because it's all frontyardo The reason for selecting this area is the proximity to the entrance to my house; it would do the least amount of damage to tearing up my property, which I have sprinkler systems and underground wiring. I have a leeching system that comes out to the whole back end of the house, comolete with a septic holding tank and the five rings. It would enhance the appearance of my home and also serve the function of driving up and then leaving the garage and then going immediately into my home. The south side of my home is going to be the future home of a solar unit, which I intend to solarize the whole house. The purpose of the garage being on the northwest side is so I can kill the wind which kills me there because I'm right on the water, and I have total phobia. If I eliminated that and also provide the solar activity, I should be in very decent shape. My property line, excuse me, on the lefthand side, the proximity of where I'm requesting to put the garage will be one corner of the garage, would be 20" from my fence. My fence is ap- proximately a foot to 1-½ feet inside the property line, and the other side of the property is the Old Nassau Point Road, () beach owned by Nassau Point Property Owners Association. The location of my garage would not in any way be obtrusive or of inconvenience to anybody. It will not have any running water in it; it will not have any heat; and it will be used for nothing but storage and garage purposes. That's the reason I feel that this request should be granted. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. How big would that solar addition at the other end of the house be~ roughly? ~. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9' December 29, 1980 MR. BALDWIN: We're planning on a 25' by 20' MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak for this? W.S. GARDNER: Yes. I'm W.S. Gardner. I'm President of the Nassau Point Association. Usually the Association itself doesn't appear in matters of this kind. We're more concerned with the use of water and double occupancy on a lot. In this case, we have, I had to decide how to approach this. We're a next door neighbor in this case; not very often we are as a next door neighbor. We are. As President I had to make a decision of how to find out how our Association felt about it. We have 24 directors on our Board of Directors, and I circularized them--their opinions on it, and sent them a sketch of the application. I'm just ~nterested, have you received any letters from anyone on it from Nassau Point? SECRETARY: No, there are none. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't see any. MR. GARDNER: I received a few comments. The comments I received; of course, we don't like to see the zoning rules broken in any way, but the comments I received I could not take a firm position for the Association against this granting of this variance. I couldn't take that position. One of the things I did get comments on was the fence, there was mentioned in the application, and the proposed garage, because the fence faces what~I call the wrong way-- usually the good side of the fence faces outside and this good side faces inside, the bad side is towards our groperty--the garage is going to be I think 15, 16' high. We will, and I don't imagine that you have any jurisdiction over this, but I wo~ld like to make a plea and go on record that I would like to see some sort of plant- ing along that fence that would hide it, and also as much planting you can do to hide the garage from our beach. That's the only thing that I would like to go on record. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Baldwin? MR. BALDWIN: If the association will give me permission to plant on the other side, which is association property, it would be my pleasure to do that because I was going to ask for that anyway. MR. GARDNER: Ok. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak for this or against this? Any questions f~om the Board? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The second-story of the building, Mr. Baldwin, will be used only for storage? MR. BALDWIN: Absolutely. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- December 29, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Bob, do you have any questions? Do you have anything on that garage at all? ~EMBER DOUGLASS: No. He ~old us everything when we were out there. MR. CHAIRMAN: He told us the same thing again tonight, so. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a little warmer in here though. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. It s a little better talking in here than it was out there that morning. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I'll make a motion that you close the case and reserve decision till later. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll second that. closed. And I'll declare the hearing On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Wilbur A. Baldwin, Appeal No. 2767. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2768. Application of James P. Latham, 580 Plum Island Lane, Orient, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance. Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct new dwell- ing with insufficient sideyards at 1490 Village Lane, Orient, NY; bounded north and west by G. Latham; south by McNeill; east by Village Lane. County Tax Map I~em No. 1000-24-2-14. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:25 p.m. by reading the appeal application in its entirety, legal notice of hearing and affi- davits attesting to its publication in the local and official news- papers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building In.s,~]ector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoinin~i~roperty owners was made; fee paid $15.00. '~ MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property and a section of the County Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding proper- ties. And it shows here that we have a dwelling, a new house built on a parcel that's 70 feet in width, 144.9 on one side, and 141.40 on the other. One side of the house, 7 feet on one side and the other side is 17 feet, 17 plus a little bit. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Not if you count the chimney and stuff. MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess not. There are two little structures on the side there, but it doesn't state any sideyard to them. Is there ._ Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- December 292 1980 anyone here to speak for this? JAMES LATHAM: My name is James Latham; I'm the applicant. I would just like to add a little of the background information. Origi- nally when I put in the foundation, I was sick when the contractor came and poured it and I wasn't there, and because it's such a small lots it's a pretty small area to try and fit that house in exactly right. And he evidently poured it a little too close to the north side, which I wasn't aware of. And when I went ahead and tarred the foundation and called the Building Department, and the Inspector came down and approved it to go ahead and build the house on it. I didn't become aware to exactly how close it was until we got the final sur- vey from Mr. Van Tuyl, which is just recently. Had I khown that it was insufficient at the time just with the foundation in, then I would have come before the Board at that time before I invested all that extra money in building the whole house on it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, this showsTthe survey made October 17, 1980 by Van Tuyl. MR. LATHAM: Yeah. Well at that time I didn't realize that I was going to have to, whether it was too close or exactly what it was. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak for this? Anyone wishing to speak against it? Do you gentlemen have any questions, Bob, you're familiar with the area. Do you have anything to say about it? (There was no response from the audience.) MEMBER DOUGLASS: No I don't have any questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll make the motion closing the hearing and reserving decision. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of James P. Latham in Appeal No 2768. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and SaWicki. Absent was: Mr, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2770. Application of Marianne Weil, Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III~ Sec. 100-30(C)(1)(c) and Art. XIV, Sec. lO0-141(B) for permission to establish home occupation in a resi- dential area exceeding 30% of the area of one floor of the main building, and a Variance for Approval of Access, N.Y. Town Law, Sec. 280-A. Location of property: Right-of-way off the west side of Youngs Avenues Orient, NY; bounded north by private right-of-way; west by Kroepel; south .. Southold Town Board of Appeals 12- December 29, 1980 by Reybine; east by High. County Tax MaD Item No. lO00-18-1-10. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:35 p.m. by reading the appeal application in its entirety, legal notice of hearing and affi- davits attesting to its publication in the local and official news- papers, Notice of Disapproval 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 a section of the County Tax Map showing the area and surrounding property, and a sketch of the property show- ing what exists there now. Mr. Bruer, do you have something to add to what you have so far? RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: First of all, since then I've gotten a survey of the premises. (Mr. Bruer handed the Chairman one copy of survey of property dated December 15, 1980.) It shows it's welt within the lot. And basically what we d like to do is to break this structure into a combination residence and art studio. The appeal of course is fo~ the purposes that the greater part of the area will be used for the art studio as compared to the residence. Now, what we propose would be that the residence itself would be approximately 1,000 square feet which is well greater than the minimum requirements of the ordinance. And we have a sketch here of what we propose to have as the living area--which is over here, the art, and a storage room and garage. And the appeal again is basically because this area exceeds this area under the ordinance, and yet it's not going to hurt anything in that this, what we have here exceeds the minimum require- ments of the ordinance and would be appropriate. And it is the type of function, profession, that wouldn't hur~, would really lend itself to an occupancy. In the future if anybody ever wanted to change the use, it would be very simple to actually comply with the ordinance by increasing this area into this--very possibly taking over the whole thing, and there wouldn't be a problem or a need for a variance other than the access. So I think it s a reasonable request. And we ask that the Board approve the application. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Weil would be living in the residence? MR. BRUER: Yes. Herself, right. MR. CHAIRMAN: This would be considered part of the same set up? MR. BRUER: This is storage. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Work area, it says. MR. BRUER: Work area. Correct. But not-- MEMBER DOUGLASS: So it would be part of the -- MR. BRUER: Not of the studio area. Not that type of-- It's like a cellar where you do your work area, which generally speaking Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- December 29, 1980 (Mr. Bruer continued): is considered part of your residence of your house. This is, the appeal, is from this area here, which will be used ~n a sense of business I think, this is not being used as a business-type thing (work area). This is the area that we're appealing from. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you say, you're talking this is going to be display area. MR. BRUER: It's not going to be display. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It wouldn't be display-type, retail? MR. BRUER: No. No retail. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No retail. MR. BRUER: No. It's not going to be a retail establishment. Her works are exhibited in New York. Just to do it. This will not become a retail establishment. MEMBER DOUGLASS: May I ask a question. What is the necessity of going that little amount over the allowable 30%? MR. BRUER: Well, I would say-- MARIANNE WEIL: Excuse me. MR. BRUER: Would you like to answer that question? MISS WEIL: The work area that I'd like to use is about 68% of the total space, and I think that the allowable area is 30%. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Um. MR. BRUER: It's area room creates the light I would assume. MISS WEIL: Yeah. Oh yeah. I do large paintings. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just wondering. This 68% must include the garage area. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, it doesn't. It doesn't include the garage area. MISS WEIL: The 68 doesn't include the garage-storage area. That's an open area. MEMBER DOUGLASS: That's right. It's just doors. MISS WEIL: Yeah. MR. BRUER: This is open. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- December 29, 1980 MEMBER DOUGLASS: I was there when it was moved there. That!s part of the old Mt. Pleasant House Hotel. Dining room from the old Mt. Pleasant House Hotel. MR. CHAIRMAN: He's much older than he appears to be. MEMBER DOUGLASS: That used to be all wainscote-in-laid wainscote ceiling. MISS WEIL:~ That explains'why it looks like a living area. MEMBER DOUGLASS: No. It was a dining room. MR. CHAIRMAN: That was kind of a show place years ago. MISS WEIL: Really. MR. CHAIRMAN: Orient had some high-class potatoes down there. MEMBER DOUGLASS: You better believe it. Beans, too. MR, CHAIRMAN: Any other questions any of you fellows have? (Negative). I guess that's all. W.So ]GARDNER: May I ask a question on that? The reason why I'm asking you. I'm from Nassau Point. We have a, could be tenta- tively a similar situation on Nassau Point. And I don't think it is-- I hope it's not, where somebody wants to give art lessons in their home. We've been having complaints about it, we've checked on it. I understand it's all right to give the lessons in your home if you don't have more than five people in a lesson. Now, the only reason- I don't live in Orient, but I don't like to see any precedent set to hurt us on Nassau Point. And I was just wondering whether this is a similar situation. MISS WEIL: I'm not a teacher~, MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. GARDNER: MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. GARDNER: She's not teaching. She's just retaining her own-- That was my question, And her stuff is exhibited and sold in New York. Ok. That's the answer. MEMBER DOUGLASS: In her home she is allowed to do what she wants to do, and she can even have one hired employee. But that's-- MR. GARDNER: I understand. I just wanted to understand that there wasn't anything that would affect us on Nassau Point. · MEMBER DOUGLASS: It's called a home business - home occupation or whatever you want to call it. Where she's supposed to stay within 30%. .. Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- December 29, t980 MR. GARDNER:~ Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone that has anything they want to say for this? Anyone to speak against it? (There was ho response.) MEMBER DOUGLASS: I'll make a motion that you close the case and reserve decision. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been regularly moved and seconded to close the hearing and reserve decision until a little later. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Marianne Weil in Appeal No. 2770. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2674. Application of Roy..C. Schoenhaar, by Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, NY for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance: (a) for approval of insuffi- cient area and width of parcels to be established in a proposed subdivision, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 and (b) for permission to reinstate preexisting nonconforming sideyard setback, (c) for approval of access, New York Town Law Section 280-A. Location of property: South side of Route 25, Mattituck; bounded north by Route 25; west by Matt Agency, J~arzombeck, Roth; south by Mellender; east by Pumillo, Hallock, Steinhart, Jackson, Bilianos; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-143-2-33.2. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 8:50 p.m. Mr. Olsen agreed to dispense with the reading of the legal notice, and relevant documents. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a~recessed hearing on an application down in Mattituck. Mr. Olsen, do you have something you want to add to what we already have on it? GARY FLANNER OLSEN, ESQ.: Gary Olsen, attorney for the appli- cant, Roy Schoenhaar. This is a continuation of a hearing which we had some time ago, and I believe there are at least one new Board member. So maybe I'll repeat myself a little bit; but I think perhaps it might be important. This application may appear to be complicated and perhaps a little difficult on its face, but actually I don't think it really is. There are basically three or four things that we're looking for. This is a two-stage applica- ti/on. One we have to go before the Zoning Board for our variances, and then we would also go before the Southold Town Planning Board. .. Southold Town Board of Appeals ~16- December 29, 1980 (Mr. Olsen continued): And I have an application pending before that Board, in the event that we're successful here. The first thing that we're looking for-- first of all, it's a four-lot minor subdivision. The property in question contains 2.587 acres, half approximately of which is zoned B-1 and the other half which would be the southerly half, which is zoned residential-agricultural use. We're seeking to get two parcels in the B-1 zoned area. Parcel No. 1 would have 26,500 square feet, which is only 3,500 square feet less than what the zoning ordinance requires in the first place. So as far as the area variance for Parcel No. I is concerned, it's a minor change from the required area. We're only 3,500 square feet short. Parcel No.2is also in the B-t zoned area, and that would have 27,000, which is only 3,000 square feet less than the required square footage. Parcels 3 and 4 are located in the residentially zoned area. They are both interior parcels. There is no access to those two pieces except through a proposed right-of-way off of the State Road to these two pieces. So we're not only looking for area variances, but also for an access variance. Parcel No. 3 would have the square footage of 23,500 square feet; and Parcel No. 4 would qave 352500 square feet, which almost complies with the 402000 square feet of the ordinance. Now~ to get the access to the two residentially zoned parcels, we need an access variance under Section 280-A of the Town Law and you will see that the survey of Van Tuyl, which is submitted with the application, shows an access of a 20-foot strip of right-of-way to get from the Main State Road to the interior parcels. I don't know of any occa- sion that the Zoning Board has denied the access variance. It's not only a practical difficulty but it's also obviously a real hard- ship if that application would not be granted, because otherwise there would be no way that anybody could get to the interior parcels. Quite frankly it's intended to use the two business-zoned pieces for what would be permitted under the B-Zone, which is the light business, basically retail. Mr. Schoenhaar does have a purchaser for one of the two business parcels; and the whole process of that sale is contingent upon your approval. If you did not approve this division and this variance, there would certainly not only be a practical difficulty but also a real financial hardship ~o Mr. Schoenhaar. I might point out that under the B-Light Business use, only 20,000 square feet per parcel is required; and both Parcels 1 and 2 way exceed that. The other thing that we're looking for due to the shape of the business-zoned property is a width variance. Parcel No. 1 would have 88,000 square feet and -- I'm sorry, 88 feet frontage on the Main State Road, and Parcel No. 2 would have frontage of 109 feet. I have taken ~the time to make a photocopy of the zoning map and .~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- December 29, 1980 (Mr. Olsen continued): also the tax map, to show that all of the other B-1 zoned parcels on the Main Road in the vicinity of this piece basically are smaller and the frontage on the ~ain State Road is a lot less than would be created on these two parcels. I think the average frontage on the B-1 parcel on the Main State Road is approximately 70 feet; and I'll submit this to you for your perusal. (Mr. Olsen submitted a photo- copy of a small section of the Zoning Map showing the area from Factory Avenue to Village Lane along the Main State Road.) I respectfully submit that the granting of not only the area but the width variances for the two business B-1 zoned parcels would be in keeping with the general size and shape of the other parcels within the community; and would not have any adverse effect-- I can't see any purpose in posing and not granting the variance-in posing the present zoning regulations doesn't serve any purpose and as a matter of fact if it wasn't posed it would require Mr. Schoenhaar to have a business zoned piece which would be way in excess of the requirements of the Town, and way in excess of the size and shape and the width of other parcels on the Main State Road in the Matti- tuck area. There is presently on Parcel 1 a house, and we would like to keep the house in its present location, and the proposed easterly sideyard would be five feet, so we're also asking for a sideyard variance for the house--the required sideyard under the zoning ordi- nance is 25, and then again I don't see any reason why the sideyard variance should not be granted since the house is there presently, and it doesn't serve any purpose to require the house to be moved in my opinion. I'd also like to bring to your attention that the Zoning Board on July 24, 1980 received a letter from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services indicating that the water, the underground water supply appears to be good and of good quality, and also the sewage disposal conditions appear to be very satisfactory in that area. You also received a letter from the Suffolk County Department of Planning dated July 25, 1980, and the comment is that the two lots in the B-1 District should be developed with common parking and vehicular access as set forth by the N.Y.S. Department of Trans- portation's letter, so there does not appear to be any dissatisfaction on the part of the Suffolk County Department of Planning to this application. The Department of Transportation letter of May 13, 1980 also indicated that the vision in that area is very satisfactory. As a matter of fact, in the second paragraph, the last sentence it states that "...at this point the sight distance is excellent in both direc- tions and vehicle conflicts would be minimal .... " .~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- December 29, 1980 (Mr. Olsen continued): I'd also like to point out that this is just Step 1. I know that the Town Board is presently in the process of re-zoning the small strip in front of this property on the Main State Road to the widening of the road, and any decision you make will have to be contingent on that being completed--that the proformer thing should not be an obstacle to this proceeding; and also we are before the Planning Board once this Board makes a determinations and of course before any structure in parking and so on is completed, particularly in the B-1 area, we would need site plan approval by the Planning Board. I respectfully submit that there will be no offense to the zoning regulations which will occur ~by the granting of our variances. We cannot provide any additional space on this, particularly in the B-1 area due to its shape and topography. And I'd also like to point out that the variances would not alter the use of the property. That the use would remain the same. I'd be willing to answer any questions that you might have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that wants to speak for this? (There was no response.) MR. OLSEN: Also, obviously before any structure is built on any of the parcels we would have to comply with the Health Department requirements as far as sewage disposal and water supply. Because I know at the last hearing there was some concern by the residents of the community as to water supply and quality in the water. The Suffolk County Health letter seems to indicate that's not a problem, but I don't think that's a concern~of this Board. That's a Health Department problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of it in the file. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any parking schedule or anything that you came up with- MR. CHAIRMAN: There's this one here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, that's for the Coach Stoppe. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the proposed two lots, or the size of- MR~ OLSEN: That's why I mentioned, before any structure is put on the business zone~parcels, we would have to get site plan approval by the Planning Board. I think that's a Planning Board consideration rather than a Zoning Board matter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Gary. Is there anyone to speak against this? Your name please? Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- December 29, 1980 PAUL ROTH: My name is Path Roth, and I represent the Marlene Lane Civic Association plus some of the affected taxpayers that live on Bay Avenue. I think most of the points we had against the grant- ing of a variance was said at a meeting we had back in March, I think it was. Maybe I'll just reiterate a few of the more important ones. As far as the variance that Mr. Schoenhaar is seeking for the business lots that front Route 25, I think the parking and traf- fic situation there is already very serious due to the restaurant being on the south side of Route 25 and the shopping center on the north side. And even though Mr. Olsen mentioned the line of sight and the D.O.T. thinks it's adequate, I think these other factors certainly are very important and they should be considered because I think they would significantly adversely impact on the general traffic situation down there now. Also again, as far as the development to that area, apparently Mr. Schoenhaar if I understand it right plans on b~inging in one, and possibly two businesses in-there. I think that again two shop- ping centers in Mattituck, one being entirely vacant and one being partially occupied, I think those buildings should be more fully utilized before new structures are erected on vacant land now. And as far as the two lots in the ba~k go, the ones that are currently zoned residential and agricultural use, I'm afraid that the right-of-way there, one, might pose somewhat of a hazard fire- wise--it is kind of narrow. I wonder whether fire vehicles would have trouble entering and leaving the rear lots. They would be set back quite far from the road and may pose somewhat of a problem. In addition, a lot of the taxpayers in the area that abut that property are worried that any children that might live there someday-- instead of taking a long walk down the right-of-way to the Main Road might just cross through their property and trespass, which is too strong a word, but may become an annoyance. I know only a few people tonight could make it--the hour was late and the time of the year wasn't exactly right for the meeting tonight. I'd just like to remind you, last time was quite a turnout from the people in the area who opposed this, and a petition was submitted to the zoning committee and the feeling is quite strong against the granting of these variances. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: I might just say a few things-- MR.CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. OLSEN: In answer to what he said. As far as the access is concerned to the interior parcels, I'd like to point out that we obviously recognize that the Zoning Board has certain minimum standards on improvement of the right-of-way, and under your granting the Section 280-A access variance, we would have to meet those improvement requirements--as far as the scraping off of the topsoil, bank run, and ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- December 29, 1980 (Mr. Olsen continued: so on. As far as the trespassers concerned, well, that's, I think, really an irre-evant ssue. That s like saying, "You shouldn't let the person build on h s lot next door because their children may come over into my yard." That's really not a pertinent material issue in my opinion. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think somewhere on this sketch it shows a 20-foot right-of-way. MR. OLSEN: There is a 20-foot right-of-way to the interior parcels. And also, by the way, Parcels 3 and 4 would be larger residential parcels than the other parcels in that area. And the only way they can get access is by the granting of the Section 280-A access variance. It's a strange piece of property in that half of it's business, or B-l, and the other half is residential; that's why we need the access variance. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Charlie, I'd like to ask a question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Go right ahead. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Didn't you when you were quoting the frontages make a mis-quote before? MR. OLSEN: I don't know. MEMBER DOUGLASS: You said 80 feet on one and 100 feet on the other, that's taking in that 20-foot right-of-way, isn't it? MR, OLSEN: Well, we own the right-of-way. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes, but the right-Of-way doesnt go into the business property. It has to be open to the people. The Parcel No. 1 would have, if you look at MR. OLSEN: No. the Van Tuyl survey-- MEMBER DOUGLASS: I just looked at it. MR. OLSEN: Parcel No. l, which is one of the business pieces would have a frontage of 88 feet, which is in excess of most of the B-1 parcels on the Main Road in MattitJck. Parcel No. 2 would have frontage of 109 feet-- MEMBER DOUGLASS: Counting the 20-foot right-of-way. MR. OLSEN: Counting the 20-feet. But the fee title to that Parcel No. 2 would include the 20-foot right-of-way, but would be subject to rights of others to get to Parcels 3 and 4. But as far as frontage is concerned, it can be used because whoever owns Parcel 2 would own the fee title to the 20-foot right-of-way. Do you know Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- December 29, 1980 (Mr. Olsen continued): what I'm saying? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes. Is there any time recently that you have seen cars from the Coach Stoppe parked on that? MR. OLSEN: No. It's not used for parking. It's overgrown, and by the way there was some confusion at the first hearing on the parking issue with the Coach Stoppe. And I have submitted at your request a parking plan for the Coach Stoppe~ which quite frankly I didn't feel I should provide because the Coach Stoppe and the property in question are not contiguous. They are separated by approximately 25 feet, owned by somebody else. It's an unrelated issue, and shouldn't be tangled over, mixed up with this application. In any event I did provide it. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah, but what you provided wasn't legitimate parking area. MR. OLSEN: Well, I provided what we had. MEMBER DOUGLASS: But not in area per parking place, right? MR. OLSEN: But the Coach Stoppe piece has nothing to do with this piece. This piece was purchased au a separate time; it's not contiguous to the Coach Stoppe property; there is an intervening landowner. And in my opinion for the Board to get involved with the requirements for the Coach Stoppe, which is a preexisting situation with this application is really unfair and ~rrelevant and immaterial. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: If no one has anything else to add, or any questions~ I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision. MEMBER SAWICKI: I'll second it. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the'matter of Roy C. Schoenhaar, Appeal No. 2674. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. The Chairman called a recess for five minutes at 9:10 p.m. The Meeting was reconvened at 9:16 p.m. Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- December 29, 1980 RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2684. Application of North~ork Motel, Inc., by Sam Rodland as agent, 55 Pilgrim Path, Huntington, NY 11743, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70 for permission to change existing motel use to privately-owned units (or condominium) use in a B Zone. Location of property: Corner of County Road 27 and Sobndview Avenue, Southold, NY; bounded north by Soundview Avenue, east by C.R. 27 and Soundview Avenue, south by C.R. 27, west by Main, Kemper, Zech, and Larson. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-135-2-23. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 9:16 p.m. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Price? WILLIAM PRICE, JR., ESQ.: £ would like to present to the Board an Amended Appeal with the original Notice given to the adjoining property owners. Thank you very much. SECRETARY: Did you check at all with the Town Attorney to see whetNer or not this had to be filed through the Town Clerk's Office? MR. PRICE: I did not find out. SECRETARY: I believe amended applications are usually filed through her office--and whether you want to withdraw the original-- MR. PRICE: I don't want to withdraw the other one. happy to pay any additional filing fees that are required. all I want to do tonight. I would be That's MR. CHAIRMAN: For the time being we just set the original one in abeyance? MR. PRICE: That s right, until you decide, I believe you have to re-notice this whole matter because of the additional grounds set forth in that petition. SECRETARY: This appeal is only for part of the property and not for the whole-- MR. PRICE: The both decisions. (Audience asked those speaking to speak so they could hear in the back.) MR. PRICE: I have just stated that I have submitted an Amended Petition on behalf of my clients. We are now discussing whether or not I have to pay an additional filing fee, which I have agreed to do if the event is required, Secondly, I am just explaining to the Secretary of the Board that I am by this Petition appealing the origi- nal decision of the Building Inspector, which stated a condominium use was prohibited, and secondly the subsequent decision of the Building Inspector, whereby the applicant had applied for a Certificate of Southold Town Board of Appeals :23- December 29, 1980 (Mr, Price continued): Occupancy for a motel room as a motel room,'and that was denied. MR. CHAIRMAN: I imagine most of you people in here are here on the North Fork Motel situation, Can I read this to them, Bill, if you don't mind? MR. PRICE: I don't mind. You can do whatever you want with it. MR, CHAIRMAN: This is the appeal that he was just talking about right now. I'll read the thing in its entirety. (The Chairman read the four-page "Amended Appeal from Decision of Building Inspector dated December 29, 1980" in its entirety.) LADY FROM AUDIENCE: What are they actually asking for. When will this be held again? MR. SCHONDEBARE: They have just learned about what's in here for the first time and I think they will have to publish it and give notice. SAME LADY: What are they actually saying? MR. SCHONDEBARE: I think you people will have to read it in the newspaper to figure it out. LADY: This hasn't been published? MR. CHAIRMAN: This right now is not a legal application, today, in that it hasn't been filed with the Town Clerk and-- MRS. ALICE LARSON: They are asking to have them sold individually? The same as they were before, a room rather than a condominium? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I don't know whether we can talk about that right now. MR. KEM~NER: Can we talk about the initial application? MRS, HENRY KELLY: If it makes any difference, we are residents of Golden Lane, which is the street behind the motel, and we have kind of a vested interest in what happens to the area, 'cause we re there 13 years as residents. And we don't want to see it go to single units and having 40 families in one little hotel unit. We want it to go on record, I'm sure all of us are in agreement here, as opposing whatever the former application was. I'm not even going to discuss even tonight, I realize that it has to be discussed later, we want it to go on record as opposing the units being sold one room per buyer. SECRETARY: Your name please, ma'am? Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- December 29, 1980 MRS. KELLY: Mrs. Henry Kelly, 3 Golden Lane. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that many of you~ probably all of you were here at one time or another before on this thing, so-- MRS. KELLY: It's our first time here tonight. MR. CHAIRMAN: The only thing I could say now is you'll have to watch the paper and see when this is going to be set UP for a hearing. UNKNOWN LADY: Well, can't we be notified as long as we're here now, as long as we can't discuss the presentation tonight. Can't you take down our names and addresses? SECRETARY: It will be advertised in the newspapers and you could always call the office Monday through Friday. MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually the only thing that we could take testimony on tonight would be on the original application. UNKNOWN LADY: We're addressing ourselves to'that. SECRETARY: the date. You could always call the office and we'll give you LADY: Fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we can take their testimony on the old one if they have something they want to add to what they said before on the original application. We'll make it a part on the original application. MR. K.EMPNER: Are the adjacent property owners supposed to be notified. So we have not been notified on this latest- MR. PRICE: The notice was sent to you today. I'm not going to talk about the new application, But if you were one of the ad- joining property owners, a certified letter went out to you this afternoon. SECRETARY: May I have your name, please, sir? MR. KEMPNER: Kempner. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone want to add anything to what they said on the original one. It has nothing to do with the one that will be coming up. MRS. KELLY: I'd like to add a little bit more. ~Mrs. Kelly again. We are adjacent to the North Fork Motel, and since we lived on Golden Lane we also own a few feet of the property on Long Island Sound. And it has been very difficult'with the traffic that arrives every Summer Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- December 29, 1980 (Mrs. Kelly continued): witq the business, I~mean, with the people that arrive at the Motel. And I'm wondering what it's going to be like if we have one family per room, not only buying into the motel but also using the 50 or whatever feet they have of beach now. We've had to on occasion call the police, to kindly have people not camp upon our beach. We feel if we're taxpayers of Southold, and we own the property on the beach, we feel we have a right not to have people encroach upon our private property which is the beachfront, too. Now we're very concerned about if they're going to sell these areas as one room for a buyer, what are we letting into the area? We're very concerned. We have a big investment in this area--we're there 13 years. And it has grown, it has gotten to look very prosperous, very nice-looking. We re just wondering what's going to happen to our investment. That's my concern. JULIA FULY: It's going to be a common beach? MR. CHAIRMAN: The beach and whatever rights they have now probably. It would be the same. MRS. KELLY: The same problem, only multiplied by 40, times how many in a room. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Price, will there be beach rights on the original application? MS. FULY: How many feet of beach? MR. PRICE: I don't know. About 50. MRS. KEMPNEt: Can I ask you something? Now who controls--now you have a corporation or whatever it is, a partnership, owning that motel controlling what happens in that area. Who is going to be the controlling factor once you sell each one of the those, if you do. Each one of those.rooms to individuals--who controls 'them? Who con- trols the whole area? Who controls the beach area? Who patrols it; who cleans up? Everybody just goes and does their own thing, throws garbage over in my backyard? You know? And also, I also think that any kind of a business property should be separated from private property, with some kind of fence or barrier. Isn't that true? If there's parking right there--there's usually some kind in the ordi- nance. I don't know. I think there ~s, that there should be a separation between private property and business property. Shouldn't they? There isn't. My yard backs right up into the motel's parking lot. I'm Mrs. Kempner; I'm right by the-- MR. CHAIRMAN: I've got an idea just where you are. MRS. KEMPNER: So, you know, I want to know who is going to control all this, this mass amount of people, each one having their own private little thing. Who controls ~t? Southold Town B~ard of Appeals ~26- December 29, 1980 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Kempner, to answer your question, at this particular time t don't think we've gotten any testimony on these gentlemen on exactly what will happen. I would assume, and I'm not here to make any determination on this, you have a gentleman here from the Nassau Point Associations I would assume an association would be set up. We have no knowledge of that at_this particular time. MRS. KEMPNER: And Is also as an environmentalist, would like to know exactly how many people will be in each one of these unitss and how much water will be drawns and how much sewage will be put into the cesspool, and what that cesspool could hold. I want to know all of the facts for something like this. An adjoining piece of property is just loaded with someone's investment to get whatever they can get out of it ( ) with the resident. That I would like to know. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's something the Health Department will have to settle. MRS. KEMPNER: it, too. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Definitely. I want the Health Department in on They'll be in on it, no matter what happens. MR. FRANCIS RIZZO: Is all this going to be spelled out somewhere on what they propose, whether these are going to be summer residences or whether they're going to be yearround residences, whether, if it is a permanent residence will they have kitchen facilities? In other words-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Price. MR. PRICE: I can talk about that. And I've gone'over it once before. These are not to be dwelling units. These are not to be units for people who live in the units as residents, a living unit, a dwelling unit, whatever you want to call it. They are to be motel rooms, to be used as a motel room would be used and that's all. We are not planning on putting cooking facilities in, nor would the individuals be permitted to put kitchen facilities in. I don't, you know, I get the feeling that everyone is assuming that the people that would be coming in are going to be lawbreakers. That's the wrong-- AUDIENCE: No. (Out of order and could not pick up statements.) MRS. LARSEN: The people that live there now never go out to eat, in the last many summers. They keep their coffee pots; they keep their sandwiches. They have a hibachi where they cook there, and that's the way they live. And you can't tell me they're going to change any of this. They do their cooking there. MRS. FRANCES RIZZO: I live right in back of the motel and I have them all summer on my beach, and they do anything they want to Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- December 29, 1980 (Mrs. Rizzo continued): do and we can't do anything about it. MS. ANN AMIAGA: I have a piece of property adjacent to the motel beach-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Your name please, ma'am? MS. AMIAGA: Ann Amiaga. A small strip of 40' between my property and the motel beach~ and there is no way-- we don't even go there during the summer. Never on the weekends, occasionally during the week. They just are uncontrollable, and if you ask them to leave. I mean, I pay the taxes~ they don't. If we ask them to leave, or move themselves down to the motel beach, they become ar- rogant, they curse. I mean, I don't want my children growing up and listening. I bought this for the enjoyment of my family, and we can't enjoy it. And if these people are going to be owners; they are going to take over more than they take over as a motel tenant. MRS. KELLY: I would like to add to that, because this has been our problem for 13 years being on the beach. A family will rent one of the mo.tel units, and they have about 20 people using the motel room. They bring the boats, they rent the boats from the Southold Fishing Station for whatever they do. The boats are on our beach~ they are casting the lines over our heads, and we have children. We're very much concerned. Why should we give up our private property for a business venture next door? We moved to Southold for the peace and tranquility of this areas and if we have to put up with 40 families with 10 people per unit, and the friends and relatives, what are we opening ourselves up to? That's what I wanted to ask. I think it's tremendous if the Town is considering granting them this permission to do it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? I'll decare this-- MR. HENRY KELLY: Could we have the group go on record represent- ing what they have just said--we all agree with them. I didn't say it for myself specifically. We want it saying, including these ladies in. the back, I want my name added to the list. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your name, sir? MR. KELLY: Henry Kelly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else want their name going down? JAMES FOLLY: James Folly. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll declare the hearing closed -- no, just recessed. Thank you for coming in. I don't know if we can set a date for this. We'll have to check out whether it's going to be continuing the application, and it will be published in the papers, and that s the only way. Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- December 29, 1980 LADY: In the Mattituck paper? SECRETARY: Long Island Traveler-Watchman-- MR. CHAIRMAN' And the Suffolk Times, GENTLEMAN: Is this usually an evening meeting or what, because we travel a great distance to get here. I wouldn't want it to be 11:00 on a Tuesday morning or something. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no. SECRETARY: Night meeting. MEMBER DOUGLASS: We're night owls. MR. CHAIRMAN: Most of us have to struggle and work, too-- LADY: Work, too. MR, CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming in, but that's very much what the situation is right now. It's recessed indefinitely until we find out when this one goes on, and then we'll take it up from there again. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. MR. KELLY: Will the objections that we had made and the statements we had made be put into that statement? MR. CHAIRMAN: It's all part of the record. MR, KELLY: In the event we can't reappear. MR~ CHAIRMAN: Everything you said tonight, even i'f you said something not nice maybe. MR. SCHONDEBARE: T~e objections that they raised tonight are with regards to the previous application. You got a new application. Are you going to carry over their objections to the new application? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. They jus~ pertain to the original application, MR. SCHONDEBARE: So you realize your objections only pertain to the old application, and not the new application. LADY: We have to come in again. MR. SCHONDEBARE: They have to come in and register again. MR. : May I ask a stupid question? What's the differ- ence in the two applications? Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- December 29, 1980 MR. SCHONDEBARE: That's what he just read. The long thing he just read. Three pages. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Mr. Price? MRS. to a private-- It was terminology of a motel room as opposed MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. Excuse me. MR. PRICE: Mr. Douglass has a question for me. MEMBER DOUGLASS: My question is to you to answer what he just said, in stopping the carryover of their testimony. Are you asking for a new application or just an amendment to this one? MR. PRICE: It's an amendment to this one, which couples in a new item. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah, so it's the same application? MRo PRICE: Partly. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Still the same application with'an amendment? MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. The amendment is new. MEMBER DOUGLASS: So if that's the way you would put it, I would say their testimony would carry over. If you are putting in a new application, which may well be the case that you have to, we'll have to find out-- then it wouldn't carry over. MR. SCHOENDEBARE: Well I would like to agree with you and have their testimony carry over onto the applications as against it. Are you telling me that you're all going to vote and say yes it is, or no it's not, so these people will know one way or the other. I mean tonight, otherwise we're not going to know at all. MEMBER DOUGLASS: You can't. MR. CHAIRMAN: No. MRS. : Are our objections going to be carried over because this is not a new application, but only the application with an amend- ment, like this gentleman says, the lawyer? MR. CHAIRMAN: Whatever has been said today is.in the record, and that'll stay there. MRS. : No, but I mean, when this application, when we get, we'll get it when we go home--he said it was sent out today--we'll get it this week. Now, do we have to come back again to restate these objections as this, assuming this is a new application. This isn't though. It's the same application. Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- December 29, 1980 MEMBER DOUGLASS: We don't know whether that can be or not though yet. MR. SCHONDEBARE: It wou]_.d ~e_v.e~.y nice if you all did come back again. You can write letters. Being here orally, expressing here is much better. MR. J. FOLLY: The notice that we get in the mail, does that describe the whole thing? MEMBER DOUGLASS: It will tell you if it's a new application, the paper will, because if it s a new application it will have a new number. That if it has the old number, it s just part of the old application. MEMBER SAWICKI: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MR. CHAIRMAN: Aye. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Aye. The hearing was declared closed. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing be recessed, and the ~egal advertise- ment for a new date be advertised in both the Suffolk Times and Long Island Traveler-Watchman when appropriate. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2765. Application of Peter V. Izzo, 919 Harlane Circle, North Bellmore, NY 11710, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III~ Sec. 100-31 for approval of insuffi- cient area and width of two proposed parcels located at the west side of Pine Tree qoad, Cutchogue, ~Y; more particularly known as Lots 34 and 35A, Map of Nassau Farms, Map No. 1179; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-104-2-9 and 10. The findings and determination of the Board are as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance for per- mission to divide a flag-shaped parcel, containing approximately 30,200 square feet in area, into two parcels, 10,015 approximately and 20,200 square feet approximately, with insufficient road frontages of 70 feet along Pine Tree Road. Existing on proposed Parcel 35A is a one-family dwelling, and immediately west of same is a neighboring one-family dwelling. Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- December 29, 1980 Article III, Section lO0-31 and Bulk Schedule of the Code requires a minimum area of 40,000 square feet and a minimum width (road frontage) of 150 feet. The Board finds that the relief requested is substantial in relation to the Code requirements~ that if the variance is granted substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created inasmuch as the area is very congested; that a substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood; and that the interests of justice will not be served by the granting of the relief requested herein. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Peter V. Izzo s application for a variance dated December 1, 1980 be denied without prejudice. Location of Property: West side o~ Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue, New York; more particularly known as Lots 34 and 35A, Map of Nassau Farms No. 1179; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-104-2-9 and 10. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen'. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2769. Application of Nicholas D. Yuelys, 6159 Broadway, Bronx, NY 10471 for a Variance to the Zoning ~nce' Art. III, Sec. 100-32 for permission to construct accessory building in the frontyard area at 56005 C.R. 27 (28), Greenport, NY; bounded north by L.I, Sound; west by Candan; south by C.R. 27 (North Road); east by Atwan; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-44-1-19. The findings and determination of the Board are as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance to con- struct accessory storage building in the frontyard area approximately 13 north of the North Road and two feet from the easterly property line. The premises in question is approximately 6,500 sq. ft. in are~ and existing on same is a one-story frame house with porch. Upon inspection the Board found the easterly neighboring property to have a structure(s) built right up to this side line. The Board recognizes appellant's need for a storage area, however are not in agreement with the sole location requested in the within application. The Board finds that a detriment to adjoining properties will be created if the variance is granted as applied for; that a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood will be produced; and that the interests of justice will not be served by the granting of the relief requested herein. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Nicholas D. Yuelys' application for a variance dated December 3, 1980 be denied without prejudice, as applied for. Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- December 29, 1980 Location of Property: 56005 C.R. 27, Greenport, NY; bounded north by L.I. Sound; west by Candan; south by C.R. 27 (North Road); east by Atwan; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-44-1-19. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2767. Application of Wilbur A. Baldwin, 1725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct attached garage with an insufficient sideyard setback at 1725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY; more particularly known as Nassau Point Club Properties Lot No. 1; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-104-13-2~4. The findings and determination of the Board are as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance for per- mission to construct an attoched garage in the front-side yard area with a setback of two feet from the northerly sideyard line. Exist- ing on the subject premises is a one-story one,family frame dwelling. The premises in question has an area of 29~150' square feet, approxi- mately 340 feet deep and an average width Of 120 feet. The Board recognizes appellant's need for storage area; however it is the feel- ing of the Board that the project proposed herein is not the most feasible location, thereby not warranting justification for the granting of the within variance. The Board finds that the relief requested in relation to the Code requirements is substantial; that if the variance is granted as applied for a substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created and that a substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood; and that the interests of justice will not be served by the granting of the relief requested herein. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the application of Wilbur A. Baldwin in Appeal No. 2767 be denied without prejudice as applied for. Location of Property: 1725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue~ NY; more particularly known as Nassau Point Club Properties Lot No. 1; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-104-13-2.4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- December 29, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2768. Application of James ?. Latham, 580 Plum Island Lane, Orient, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. t00-31 for permission to construct new dwelling with insufficient sideyards at 1490 Village Lane, Orient, NY; bounded north and west by G. Latham; south by McNeill; east by Village Lane; County Tax MaD Item No. 1000-24-2-14. The findings and determination of the Board are as follows: On December 3, 1980 appellant appealed to this Board seeking a variance for approval of the construction of a one-story, one-family dwelling with insufficient sideyards, 7', more or less from the northeasterly property line and 17', more or less from the south- westerly property line. Due to an oversight, misunderstanding or error, the subject dwelling has ~een fully constructed and appellant was unable to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for same until an application had been made for a variance as applied for herein. Upon inspection the Board found that the subject dwelling does conform with those in the surrounding neighborhood; that the relief requested in relation to the Code requirements is not substantial; that if the variance is granted no substantial detriment to adjoin- ing properties will be created; that no adverse effect is produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that no substantial change is produced in the character of the neighborhood; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by some method feasible for the appellant to pursue, other than a variance; and that the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance conditionally and as applied~for as specified below. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that James P. Latham be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 approving the construction of a new dwelling with insufficient sideyards as applied for and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That no further protrusion in either of the sideyards be permitted. Location of Property: 1490 Village Lane, Orient, ~Y; bounded north and west by G. Latham; south by McNeill; east by Village Lane; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-24-2-14. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- December 29, 1980 On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the minutes of the November 20, 1980 Regular Meeting of this Board be approved and filed with the Town Clerk. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. On motion by Mro Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the minutes of the December 4, 1980 Regular Meeting of this Board be approved and filed with the Town Clerk. Vote oS the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. Mr. Douglass abstained. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the minutes of the December 12, 1980 Special Meeting of this Board be approved and filed with the Town Clerk. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. NEW APPEAL: Appeal No. 2772. Application of Emanuel M. Kontokosta, 43 West 54th Street, New York, NY 10019 (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for a Special ExcePtion to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. V, Sections 100-50- B(2) and (3) and C(2) for approval of a 58-boat marina approximately 420 feet long, 120 feet wide and 9 feet deep, with a 50-foot wide access into the bay; deletion of all the 21 motel units in lieu of 20 resi- dential units for a total of 48 units; the addition of a swimmingpool; new locations for the westerly residential units and accessory building to be located at the head of the marina so it can be effectively utilized as a coffee shop, maintenance shop and offices for the complex. Location of property: West side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York; County Tax Map ID. No. lO00-38-7-part of Lot 4. Upon reviewing the new appeal application, the Board finds that the premises in question is located in a V-5 Coastal High Hazard Flood Zone, and therefore request the following additional information: (1) Six additional copies of the survey/site plan showing the contour elevation of the property; (2) Three surveys showing the proposed lowest floor ]cellar, basement slab, crawl space, etc.] elevation from mean sea level~ In addition to the above, the Board requests the following documentation Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- December 29, 1980 in order to determine the file complete and prior to scheduling this matter for a public hearing: (1) Copies of all permits and approvals from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation and County Health Department; (2) Letter from the Southold Town Planning Board in effect stating that they do or do not concur with the Amended Site Plan proposed; (3) Long Environmental Assessment Form. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the Chairman be authorized and directed to forward a letter to the applicant's attorney requesting the above information. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. Appeal No. 2729. Application of William C. Mercurio, et al. Location of Property: East side of Bay Avenue, Mattituck, NY. NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT: WHEREAS, applicants qave submitted an environmental assessment in the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; and WHEREAS, this Board acknowledges receipt of a Tidal Wetlands Permi~ No. TW 15275-0150 from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation concerning the within project dated December 8, 1980; WHEREAS, this Board acknowledges receipt of correspondence from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services indicating that conditions are suitable for an individual sewage disposal system, that the water quality in the area is questionable; On Motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in Appeal No. 2729, appli- cation of William C. Mercurio and others for a Variance for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels located at the East side of Bay Avenue, Mattituck, NY (1000-144-4-4), this Board determines that this project, if implemented as planned herein is classified as a Type II Action, no~ having a significant adverse effect upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality leview Act (SEQRA), Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, no further determination or procedure is required in the SEQRA standards of process by this depart- ment. [This declaration should not be considered a determination made Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- December 29, 1980 for any other department or agency which may also be involved or any other project not covered by this application.] Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. Appeal No. 2771. Application of Florence A. Evans. Location of Property: 2355 Anchor Lane (a/k/a 650 Brigantine Drive), Southold, NY. NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT: WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an environmental assessment in the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment for the project proposed herein; and WHEREAS, the premises in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands, and therefore would not require permits from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to Sec- tions 661.4(b)(1) and 661.7 of Article 25 of the Environmental Conser- vation Law; On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Goehringer, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that in Appeal No. 2771, appli- cation of Florence A. Evans for a Variance for permission to construct new dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback of 35 , property known as 2355 Anchor Lane (a/k/a Brigantine Drive), Southold, New York, this Board determines that this project, if implemented as planned herein is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment; and pursuant to the NoY.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, no further determination or procedure is required in the SEQRA standards of process by this depart- ment. [This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved or any other project not covered by this application.] Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. Appeal No. 2774. Application of Bernice Lettieri. Location of Property: 1430 Arrowhead Lane, Peconic, New York. NEGATIVE DECLARATION - NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT: WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an environmental assessment in Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- December 29, 1980 the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment for the project proposed herein; and WHEREAS, the premises in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands, and therefore would not require permits from the q.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to Sec- tions 661.4(b)(1) and 661.7 of Article 25 of the Environmental Conser- vation Law; On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Goehringer, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that in Appeal No, 2774, appli- cation of Bernice Lettieri for a Variance for permission to construct tennis court with an insufficient setback, occupying more than 40% of rearyard area, and to construct same within sideyard area of property known as 1430 Arrowhead Lane, Peconic, NY, County ID. #1000-98-2-10, this Board determines that this project, if implemented as olanned herein is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, no further determination or procedure is required in the SEQRA standards of process by this depart- ment. ]This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved or any other project not covered by this application.] Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. Appeal No. 2775. Application of Charles A. Brautigam. Location of Property: West Road, Cutchogue, New York. NEGATIVE DECLARATION - NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT: WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an environmental assessment in the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment for the project proposed herein; and WHEREAS, applicant represents there is a substantial, functional bulkhead constructed along the water-lying edge of this property at least 100 feet in length; On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that in Appeal No. 2775, appli- cation of Charles A. Brautigam for an amendment to a previous decision of this Board made on 9/28/78 in Appeal No. 2471 to permit the con- struction of an accessory building (garage) with rooms, and (b) to review determinations made by the Building Inspector concerning this accessory building which includes a garage with rooms in the frontyard ? Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- December 29, 1980 area of property located at West Road, Cutchogue, New York, this Board determines that this project, if implemented as planned herein is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, no further determination or procedure is required in the SEQRA standards of process by this depart- ment. [This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other deoartment or agency which may also be involved or any other project not covered by this application.] Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the following appeals be scheduled and advertised for public hearings to be held at the next regular meeting of this Board, to wit, January 22, 1981: 7:35 p.m. 7:50 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 8:15 p.m. Application of William C. Mercurio and others for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed oarcels at the east side of Bay Ave, Matt. Application of Florence A. Evans for permission to construct new dwelling with an insufficient front- yard setback at 2355 Anchor Lane (a/k/a 650 Brigan- tine Drive), Southold, NY. Application of Bernice Lettieri for permission to construct tennis court with insufficient yard setback, occupying more than 40% of rearyard area, and to construct tennis court in sideyard area at 1430 Arrowhead Lane, Peconic, NY. Application of Charles A. Brautigam to amend previous decision of this Board for accessory building with rooms in frontyard area at West Road, Cutchogue, NY. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Gri§onis, it was RESOLVED, to schedule and re-advertise the matter of North Fork Motel, Inc., Appeal No. 2684 for the February 12, 1981 Regular Meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen. ,~,, Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- December 29, 1980 The Board tentatively agreed to follow-up on inspections on the new matters forthcoming for Saturday, January 17, 1981, and at which time they agreed to make their deliberations and findings in the matter of the Fanny Behlen ,Community Health Center, Appeals No. 2736 and 2752. Upon reviewing the new appeal application of Joseph D. Pisciolla, Sr. (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.), the Board decided not to schedule same for a public hearing until such time as they have had an oppor- tunity to inspect the property and make an Environmental Declaration pursuant to the Environmental Quality Review Act. The Chairman declared the meeting closed at approximately ll:O0 'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted~ Linda F. Kowalski Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals