Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/04/1980 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN. JR. ~I~'~'v ..... [L-L ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki Southold Town Board of'Appeals MAIN RrlAD- STATE RI-lAD 25 SI'IUTHEILD. L.I.. N.Y. llCJ?l TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 MINUTES REGULAR ~IEETING HELD DECEMBER 4, 1980 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, December 4, 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; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Gerard P. Goehringer; Joseph H, Sawi. ck~. Absent due to illness was: Robert J. Douglass. Also present were: Mrs. Shirley Bachrach, League of Women Voters; Mike Stahl, Suffolk Times; Paul Demo~y, L.I. Traveler-Watchman; George H. Fisher, Senior Building Inspector; Ruth Oliver, North Fork Environ- mental Council. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2762. Application of David and Carmen Olenick, 120 Park Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11217 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-35A for permission to construct fence in the front yard area exceeding height limitations at 185 Pri- vate Road No. 10 (a/k/a 4255 South Harbor Lane), Southotd, NY; bounded north by VanDerheuvel; south by Private Road; west by South Harbor Road; east by Jacobs. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-87-1-1. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 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 sketch showing the proposed fence and pool, which has not been placed yet when we found upon inspection the other day and which they were granted permission in a previous appeal. We have a section of the County Tax Map showing this property , Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- December 4, 1980 and the adjoining properties in the neighborhood. Is there anyone here that would like to speak for this application? Is there anyone here to speak against it? (There was no response.) Hearing nothing else, I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving the decision until a little later. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing be closed and decision reserved in the matter of David and Carmen Olenick in Appeal No. 2762. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Douglass. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, the the annual sign-renewal request of Drossos' Restau- rant, Appeal No. 1785, be approved for a period of one year from the renewal date, SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT and FUNDING LAWS FOR HIGHWAYS, IF APPLICABLE. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Douglass. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2763. Application of Edna R. Tonne- sen, by Sidney Beebe as agent, Main Road, Box 979, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permis- sion to construct garage with an insufficient frontyard setback at 50 Bungalow Lane (a/k/a 1945 Marratooka Road), Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Bungalow Lane; south by Carr; west by Marratooka Road; east by Karsaklis. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-123-2-1. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:45 p.m. by reading the appeal application, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property showing the buildings and the proposed addition. I also have a tax map showing this and surrounding properties in the area. From Bungalow Lane there would be a 41.3 setback, and Sid, what would it be on Marra- tooka Road, about 40 feet? SIDNEY BEEBE: It would remain the same as what the front of the house is now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, it says 40 feet here. It looks like it would be the same. Do you have anything else to add to this? ~ Soutold Town Board of Appeals -3- December 4, 1980 MR. BEEBE: The only thing is what is stated in the application. There is really no place else on the property to put the garage, and there is a concrete driveway leading in there now and they would utilize that. We can't put it in the backyard, there is nothing left. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a little different than most times. You build a garage and then you build a driveway, but this has a driveway already. MR. BEEBE: Right. She just bought the house. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else to speak for this? Anyone to speak against it?. (There was no response.) Do any of you members of the Board have any questions? (Negative) Well, the shape of the lot is a little bit unique, and it comes to quite a long point, and the setback here wouldn't be as important as it would be on a square corner lot. You have a big angle out there and you've got plenty of vision both ways at that corner. MR. BEEBE: The one corner of the garage does meet the requirements. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, the front part of the garage-- or the back part of the garage in this case would meet the sideyard on Marratooka Road. I'll offer a resolution granting this as applied for. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance for permis- sion to construct an attached garage in the frontyard area, leaving a setback from Bungalow Lane of 41.3 feet and from Marratooka Road the same distance as the existing dwelling, approximately 40 feet. Existing on the premises are an one-story frame house with existing concrete driveway off Bungalow Lane, and a small shed at the southeast rear corner. Being a corner lot, this property has minimal rearyard area, which runs along the southerly neighboring property,s sideyard area. The Board agrees with the reasoning of applicant. The Board finds and determines that the relief requested in relation to the Code requirements is not substantial; that if the variance is granted no substantial detriment to adjoining proper- ties will be created; that the interests of justice will be served by the granting of the relief requested; that no adverse effect is produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; and that no substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Edna R. Tonnesen be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance for permission to construct attached garage in the ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- December 4, 1980 frontyard area as applied for. Location of property: 50 Bungalow Lane (a~k/a 1945 Marratooka Road), Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Bungalow Lane; south by Carr; west by Marratooka Road; east by Karsaklis. County Tax Map Item No. 1000,123-2-1. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Absent was: Mr. Douglass. Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. FA-4. Application of Harold and Hattie Stetler, 25 Mindrews Avenue, Brentwood, NY 11717 for a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law, Chapter 46, Sections 46-7, 46-15 and 46-18 for permission to construct lowest floor (basement) below the restricted 8-foot base elevation in a special flood hazard zone at the south side of Wiggins Lane, Greenport, NY; bounded north by Wiggins Lane; south by Fordham Canal; west by Prato; east by Peconic Holding Co. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-35-4-21. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:55 p.m. by reading the appeal application, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property showing the proposed location of the proposed house, and a tax map showing the adjoining properties in the area. Is there anyone here to speak for this? WILLIAM SKOLNIK: Mr. Chairman, I represent Mr. Stetler. The only thing I can add to that is the house just adjacent to Mr. Stetler's property has a basement elevation of two. Mr. Stetler's proposed elevation is elevation four. And Mr. Prato, who is the next door neighbor has had no flood damage at all, no flooding at all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you know when some of these were first built there, how long some of them have been there. They haven't been there that long, have they? MR. SKOLNIK: I believe Mr. Prato's has been there about seven years. MR. CHAIRMAN: Because it's a fairly new development in there. Is there anyone else who wants to speak for this? Anyone against this? (There was no response.) Jerry, did you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Was there any fill brought in on that lot, sir? MR. SKOLNIK: Yes, sir. We brought some in and what that was to , Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- December 4, 1980 was to level out that existing grade, the existing grade was high. All we wanted to do was flatten it out, carry some of the existing grade out to the front part. If we brought more material in, the house would be quite a bit higher than the adjoining houses. MR. CHAIRMAN: George (Fisher), do you know, Larry (Tuthill) has been authorized to go to Washington again? Has he gone yet, or has he been? GEORGE FISHER: I haven't heard of anything further--whether he has gone yet or was authorized yet to go. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think he has been authorized because they talked about it. Not this meeting but the one before this--the Town Board I'm talking about. It's possible that maybe they'll be granting us some relief along these areas and wouldn't have to go through all this floodproofing and stuff in areas of something like this here. MR. FISHER: That's what Larry feels, that there should be some relief to this to permit the basement to be lower than the required elevation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, George. No one else has any questions? (Negative) I'll offer a resolution that we close the hearing and reserve decision for a while. We may get a hold of something in the next few days that would help out a lot in this situation. So thank you all very much for coming in. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis~ seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing be closed and decision reserved in the matter of Harold and Hattie Stetler in Appeal No. FA-4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Douglass. The Chairman called a recess from 8:05 until 8:t0 p.m. meeting reconvened at 8:11 p.m. The RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2736. Application of Fanny Behlen Community Health Center, P.O. Box 659, Greenport, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-30 for permission to erect an ambulatory care clinic on residentially-zoned property located at the south side of North Road (C.R. 28; also C.R. 27), Green- port, NY; bounded north by North Road; west by Fenno; south by Fransis- co; east by Nedoszytko. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-40-3-3.1. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 8:12 p.m. ' Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- December 4, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: One of the reasons a recess was asked for and granted was that we wanted more reports from different agencies that have to report. Looks like a live and life of agencies. And Mrs. Katz has brought in, we have here: N.Y.S. Planning And Devel- opment Clearinghouse report, Suffolk County Commitment to Program Report, New York State Operating License, D.H.H.S. Letter of Credit, H.H.S. Grant Awards, Historic Preservation Clearance, Suffolk County Resolution of Purchase, N-S H.S.A. Verification of Primary Physician Shortage Supporting M.U.A.-, which stands for medically underserved area, designation. And then down below it says, "...if through circumstances over which we have no control (federal cutbacks after a new administration takes over in Washington) we cannot use the proposed land for construction, we have been informed by Gerald F. Hunt, Chief of the Primary Care Division, Region II H.H.S., there remains available $200,000 for renovations. Now, do you have anything else you would like to add, Mrs. Katz. MRS. KATZ: I think perhaps Mrs. Wickham-- MR. CHAIRMAN: ago. I'm sorry, Gail. You weren't there a few minutes ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ.: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: I feel better now-- I thought that you weren't. MRS. WICKHAM: I have a few things I wanted to 9o through to give the Board a little more background, that I'm not sure that it was presented last time, and to address some of the issues that have come up here. And as I said I'd like to start with a little bit of the background to show you that the scope of this project. The center commenced planning for the development of a health center ~n about 1973 to develop an ambulatory or out-patient diag- nostic and treatment center for delivery of primary health care. In back of May in 1977 the Federal application for the funding was submitted to H.E.W. after our area was designated as medically underserved and you have those papers with you. And those were local, state and federal determinations. The Federal application was then followed by an Article 28 application to the N.Y.S. Department of Health to obtain approval of the public health council. Their approval is necessary to establish and operate a diagnostic and treatment center, and it's this public health law that defines and categorizes under New York State law the type of institution that we're contemplating here. Section 2801 of the Public Health Law defines a "hospital" as including a public health center, diag- nostic center and treatment center, and also the not-for-profit corporation law, under we are incorporating, incorporate~ this definition. So the center would be a type of hospital service and fall within the use permitted I think under Special Exception pro- visions of 100-30 of the Town Code. Fortunately the full hospital services in the general colloquial sense are contemplated, so I'll speak more about that later. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- December 4, 1980 (Abigail Wickham, Esq. continued): I have a copy of the Public Health Law that 'has that definition so you can put it in your file. [Mrs. Wickham submitted a photocopy of Page 16 of the Public Health Law, Section 2800, and of Page 133 of Article 28-Hospitals, Section 2801 for the record.] Now in October of 1978 Federal Funding was approved by a grant awards and this was a competition for a lot of-- a lot of competition for limited funds, so it was a big hurdle that was overcome, and in August of 1979 the Public Health Council in New York approved the project subject to obtaining financing for construction. That's the financial background, and I believe it will help explain some of the documentation you have that was submitted by Mrs. Katz. Now, to give you a little bit of idea of the site selection, we first-- Eastern Long Island Hospital initially offered the first floor of a small detached wood-frame building near the hospital; and we did arrange a lease for that space, but due to accelerated expansion of our program, that arrangement was terminated by the hospital and the building was not suitable to the needs of the program in any event. Subsequently, the center arranged for a lease of vacant property near the hospital with a relocatable building, but due to limitations of having a relocatable-type structure and revisions in the program, we decided on construction or renovation of a permanent building. And there was an extensive search made throughout the Village of Greenport to find suitable property, either vacant or something that could be renovated. Conferences with the Planning Board and the Village Board in Greenport were held, but a suitable site was not selected, and a search began for outlying areas and the present parcel being available was acquired. One of the reasons it was acquired was because it was near Greenoort, which contains a large population base which would be serviced by the center. It's on a good road, a major east-west conduit near the nursing home and hospital, has public water and sewer available, and discussions with the Village of Greenport have indicated that those will be available to the center--those facilities. The property is in the midst of multiple-residence and motel, hotel M-1 Zoning; and also near several parcels zoned business. As I indicated before, I think that the center falls within the hospital designation of 100-30 for a Special Exception, but because of some of the objections that have been raised by various people to this project, I want to specifically address the usage of the property. I think that the Special Exception provision that permits this type of facility contemplates and the Town Board intended that it be contemplated to be compatible with a residential, surrounding residential neighborhood. The center is not a full- pledged hospital with your attending 24-hour traffics ambulances, police cars, emergency-room operations and related activities that would impinge on a neighbor's privacy or could conceivably cause a disturbance at all times of the day. Any serious problems such as Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- December 4, 1980 (Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. continued): I referred to would be referred to the hospital as a back-up facility. The center will be staffed only about 40 hours per week after the phased-in operation is implemented. It will start out I believe a little bit less than that. Three days a week it will be opened roughly nine to five; two days a week roughly one to eight p.m.; and Saturdays probably sometime 8:30 or 9:00 till 2:00 p.m. So there will only be two weekly evening time periods, and in fact those are even uncertain at this point. Apparently, interestingly enough, experiences with other health centers of this type have indicated that evening traffic is slow, and those other centers have curtailed the evening hours. So it,s going to be probably primarily a daytime facility, with only limited evening hours as the need indicates. Traffic has been another consideration that's been expressed, and I don't feel that this is a problem. There are not going to be visitor traffic. It's an out-patient facility. You're not going to have people coming in and out. It's going to be -- the traffic will consist of the staff, which is basically going to be in and out once each day except for the out-reach people. And the staff will probably start around 10 to 12 people, and expand gradually to about 15. There will be phased in as the program needs them. Patients will be scheduled on a staggered appointment basis, so that traffic will not be all at once in or out. Or they will come in in small groups in the center!s van to try and coordinate the traffic and not create a lot of individual car traffic. The center is also exploring coordination with the County feeder bus service to help to meet that type of public transportation. Another aspect in terms of compatibility with residential use, the center will be adequately screened and landscaped and any suggestions the Board might have as to that--we're also working with an architect who will have input--and I'm sure the Planning Board also as to appro- priate screening. Now the last item I want to cover has this so-called covenant for one-private dwelling per lot that's been raised. I'd like to explain the history of that issue. Mr. Fransisco, the original owner of this property of approximatelY five acres total developed the property, sub- divided it in 1974. In connection with his application to the Planning Board made a statement in writing that was not requested by the Planning Board. It was submitted by Mr. Fransisco's attorney in which he made several statements, one of which said that "only one private dwelling shall be constructed on each lot." The statement goes on to say, "therefore," and I'm excerpting, "the aforedescribed premises shall be subjected to the following covenant and restriction which shall run with the land. No lot as shown on said map annexed shall be subdivided or sold except as a single unit or parcel, nor shall the owner thereof grant a portion or portions of the premises to boarders or transients." Consequently, the only covenant on this property is this one which is Southold Town Board of Appeals -§- December 4, 1980 (Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. continued): set forth that I just read about further subdivision or renting to boarders or transients. The subdivider, Mr. Fransisco, has signed an affidavit dated June 9, 1980 which confirms this and said that these statements regarding one-private dwelling per lot were not required by the Planning Board, were gratuitously made by him only to indicate that zoning regulations regarding use of the lot in minimum square footage would be complied with. Namely, it was a one-acre zoning area. That he did not intend to limit the use of the property to private one-family dwellings, but only to indicate that if a private one-family dwelling was constructed, it would be the only such dwelling on that lot. He did not intend to preclude the erection of other structures which might be permitted under the zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold. In correspondence with the Planning Board in June and July of 1980, Mr. Raynor for the Planning Board indicated that the Planning Board had no objection to -- was in agreement with the -- I forgot to mention something -- Mr. Fransisco further went on to say in his affidavit that he amended his statement to read that only structures which would be permitted under the zoning laws of the Town of South- old be erected on each lot, and the Planning Board indicated that they had no objection to that change. And I'd like to quote from his letter, '...the Planning Board sees no objection to the intent of the change and would like to see a revised list of the covenants and restrictions to fit the needs of the particular lot intended to be purchased by the Fanny Behlen Community Health Center .... " And I'd also like to point out that in Mr. Nedoszytko's deed the property was conveyed subject to the following covenant and restriction, and it was the one I read before about the subdivision and the boarders and the transients, and that's the only covenant that is on the land. And I have a copy of Mr. Fransisco's affidavit that I would like to submit for you, and a copy of the deed. [Mrs. Wickham submitted both the affidavit notarized on June 9, 1980 and copy of Will~am Nedoszytko's deed dated February 24, 1975 for the record.] I'd like to send you copies of the Planning Board letters. I don't seem to have copies of them. Now, the rest of my information really has to do with the variance aspect of this. I don't know whether you want to get into that now, or in the next hearing. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll do it on the next one I think. MRS. WICKHAM: Ok. Then I don't have anything further right now, but if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Jerry, did you have anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not right at the moment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing right now, Abigail. Anyone else to speak for this application? Anyone to speak against it? Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- December 4, 1980 BENSON S. TELSEY: As far as the restrictions and covenants on the property, they were recorded and once they were recorded and once one piece of property is sold to a purchaser in good faith who is part of the common design, he has a vested property right to see to it that no one builds anything other than a private one-family dwell- ing. Now you can check that with your attorney, Mr. Robert Tasker. Now, we oppose this application of the Fanny Behlen Health Center, an ambulatory care clinic for a Special Use Exception on the following grounds: an ambulatory care clinic does not come under any of the uses set forth in the code. The applicant is trying to have the Board con- sider them a hospital, when in fact the record indicates and they in their own application as to their operation state, and I quote, ~'limited to medical and dental care of ambulatory patients, etc. and to refer patients to hospital when appropriate." They are not a hospital. A hospital encompasses primarily in-patient care together with related medical services of various kinds. No where in the record has the applicant even submitted to the Board its authority to establish and operate a health center or a heal'th facility of any kind. And they didn't do that until today. However, for the record I submit to you a letter dated October the 24th, 1980, from the State of New York Department of Health, Office of Health Systems Management, wherein they advise that the Behlen Health Center was on 6/14/79 approved to establish and operate an independent out-of-hospital diagnostic and treatment center. They are not at present operating and are not at present providing any services. The Behlen Health Center is merely a supermarket-type of operation, dispensing medical and dental services, nothing more than sponsors convening together, a group of doctors, dentists and staff, to dispense such services which I do not disparate especially if there is a need in the community. And this has been questionable, because, gentlemen, I submit to yQU a letter from the Department of Health Services. I think you've got it in your file. SECRETARY: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have it. MR. TELSEY: Ok. In that letter, the Department advises that the ooerational grant was disapproved. Many people are under the impression that a clinic is a community-type of operation, but such is not the case. The directors, the doctors, the dentists and staff are well paid from the income received from medicare, medicaid, blue cross, blue shield, and mary other health-insurance-type contracts. And sliding-scale fees, in addition to securing grants because of determined need in the community, to sweeten-up the operation. The Board has no legislative powers. There is no provision in the Code under Special Exception use for an ambulatory care clinic, and to be more specific and independent, out-of-hospital diagnostic and treatment center. The Board has no other alternative than to deny this application, for that reason alone. In addition to that, we have the environmental assessment, the environmental impact. The applicant seems to indicate there will be no traffic congestion. We feel that there will be traffic congestion on a road that is Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- December 4, 1980 (Benson S. Telsey continued): already overburdened, and being only two lanes leaves no room for error. We are located on a pennisula with only one east-west road to the ferry at Orient Point. We must guard against interferi~ng with the steady flow of traffic on this road, especially in the summertime during tourist season, for our safety and the safety of the traveling public. Facilities of this type, clinics and so forth, that engender excessive traffic to and fro should not be permitted on this road. In addition, the road is likely to be obstructed by labor disputes. Picketing or strikers in front of facilities. We recently had a taste of that when the nursing home workers went on strike, and required the surveillance by the police to keep the road open and unobstructed. These type of facilities shall be kept off the main road and inconvened in accessible places for the safety of the patient~ and the traveling public. Locating a facility of this kind in an A-Zone will have a-major effect on the character of the community, and as far as public controversy is concerned, we have here over 120 people who signed an application objecting to the location of this particular facility. In addition to that, the proposed loca- tion of a clinic is across the way and within 500 feet of County Park property, and will have a major effect on existing and future recreational opportunities. And now Mr. Nedoszytko, would you like to sa~ something about your property? [Petition with 127 signatures opposing this project was submitted by Mr. Telsey for the record.] WILLIAM NEDOSZYTKO: Well, the only thing I would like to add to this is of cobrse the letter that I submitted to the Board previous. [Letter dated November 15, 1980 and submitted to the Board by mail on November 18, 1980.] MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else to speak against this? (There was no response.) Gail, now do you have any rebuttal or anything? MRS. WICKHAM: I would just like to make a couple of brief comments. I don't want to keep you here all night. Mr. Telsey's argument that this center is not within the uses contemplated was supported by a letter from a New York State Department, I'm not exactly sure which one it was -- but it is the New York State Law I gave you, which puts this facility within the definition of a hospital. You can't operate this type of facility and incorporate under the State of New York unless you get the approval of the Public Health Council, and both laws -- the Public Health Law and the Corporation Law include this type of facility within a hospital definition. I'd like to ask Mr. Telsey, he indicated he submitte¢ a letter indicating that the operational grant was disapproved? MR. TELSEY: I'll give you a copy. MR, CHAIRMAN: We have an extra one here. (The Chairman gave Mrs. Wickham a copy of the letter dated October 24, 1980 from the N.Y.S. Office of Health Systems Management.) SHERLEY KATZ: I think there has been some confusion in Mr. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- December 4, 1980 (Sherley Katz continued:) Telsey's mind when he read this letter. The operational grant you will find in the material I submitted. The first grant was October 1978, and that one was on the fiscal year of the Federal Government which is October 1 through September 30. We have asked and were granted the right to have the Federal fiscal year coincide with the County, and as a result we are presently on the interim September through December 31st in order to bring us into the State with January I through December 31 with the County. You will find in the papers I submitted to you the grant of the, the three-month grant which is for $160,000 and we have a note on that which says that it has been extended through June 30, 1981, and the form is coming to us similar to the first two that are there. We are sub- mitting the new budget for the full year of 1981, and -nowhere have we been informed by anyone that the operational grant is not in existence. I'm sorry, Mr. Telsey, I don't see that actually said in th~s letter. MR. TELSEY: It does say it in this letter. I'll tell you why. The New York Office, 26 Federal Plaza, advises: first of all, the Farmers Home Loan application for a mortgage was turned down. The operational grant-- MRS. KATZ: No, sir. MR. TELSEY: It was, that's what Mr. Green told me. And in addition to that the operational grant was so far down on the priority list that it's practically off the stove. Now that's not a question here. The question here is whether or not, whether or not the Code provides for this type of facility on the North Road in an A-Residen- tial area, and whether or not it provides for medical and dental offices and facilities. A clinic is not a community center operation. We have many clinics scattered throughout the Country here. Doctors start clinics; nurses start clinics; and if an area is determined to be unders-erved, then you could apply to the Federal Government for grants. Now you have a grant, but you're not operational. You have not been given any services. You want to get to the ogerational -- the best place for you to get operational is go close to a hospital. That's the proper place instead of disturbing a whole community. The Code does not permit anything other than a hospital, and the Board has no legislative powers to change it and say a clinic or a hospital facility or a blood-testing laboratory is considered a hospital. They're not considered hospital. MRS. KATZ: I would like to respond to some small items that have nothing to do with your decision tonight. We are not a clinic. We are proposin~planning a Center, on which-- from which preventive medicine will be practiced. Number one. Number two, to say we were turned down for the mortgage-- MR. TELSEY: Forget about that. That's not important. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Telsey. Mrs. Katz has the floor. Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- December 4, 1980 MRS. KATZ: You raised a question which must be answered. Now this is a rather complex explanation and I hope you will bear with us. In order to ge~ the designation, there are criteria which must be met, there are factors to be considered. At this point I cannot say and I'll be very truthful about it, that we are turned down for the F.H.A. mortgage. This is the decision which is yet to come as we pursue the underserveddesignation. We are not a clinic; we will be a center; we do not dispense services because we have no medical people on hand, and nobody is going to dispense services until the program is ready to open for the oublic properly staffed. When I first looked at the Code, I believe it says a medical care facility-- it may not be the exact quote but that is what it says in the Code. MR. TELSEY: It says hospital. MRS. KATZ: And I would let it rest on that. MR. TELSEY: Mr. Grigonis? Excuse me. MRS. WICKHAM: This really gouda little out of hand here. Any way, I asked to see the letter about this grant disapproval and I think that the proper status is that the application for the Federal mortgage is still pending. There has been a decision in Washington on a recommendatory basis, but that is not a final decision and it's still being processed. And I believe a re-evaluation is going on. And as Mr. Telsey says, although he's the one who brought it up, it's not really part of your concern. The third item Mr. Telsey mentioned was traffic, and you shouldn't overburden the roads -- well,, then, we shouldn't let any more people in Southotd Town -- that's the logical revolt of that argument. To But t~hese kind of facilities off the major roads, it makes them inaccessible and that doesn't really serve the public. And I do not understand what effect, adverse effect this could have on recreational facilities as far as the County road is concerned. I just want to repeat that I think that this does fall within Special Exception and it would be a real beneficial use of this property and a benefit to the community. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have one question here while you have the floor, Gail. This note at the bottom of the page of contents that Mrs. Katz brought in this evening, '~...if through circumstances over which we have no control (federal cutbacks after a new admin- istration takes over in Washington), we cannot use the proposed land for construction. We have been informed by Gerald F. Hunt, Chief of the Primary Care Division, Region II, H.H.S., there remains available $200,000 for renovation .... " MRS. KATZ: May I respond to that? We had an appointment at 26 Federal Plaza November 7th, and present at that meeting were Jane Hadi, Fred Lightfoot and myself, and Mr. Hunt very thoroughly discussed the tenure, the nature of what the Federal Government may do in cutbacks. They do believe that this is a good program, a needed program. And we were informed that in the event through uncontrollable circumstances we could not construct that they would Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- December 4, 1980 (Sherley Katz continued): make available $200,000 for renovation. I just want you to know that before we run the route of construction, we examined any number of buildings and I ca~ document this, both in Greenport and in Southold, in order to determine whether or not we could go that route initially, and we could not find anything with 5,000 scuare feet which could actually be renovated for $200,000. It was considered the most expedient and cheapest way of doing it would be to construct. MR. CHAIRMAN: That explains the little things I had in the back of my mind. Renovating when you didn't have it in the first place. That explains it to me. Any other questions? (Negative). I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing, and we have an awful lot of stuff to sort out here. We'll probably study this for a week or so, or a couple maybe, or even three. We have to go through every nook and cranny to seek just what can be done and what we can't do, and try to be as fair as we can to everybody. MRS. KATZ: If you need any further information, give us a call. MR. TELSEY: What about the variance? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a separate hearing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing be closed and decision reserved in the matter of the Fanny Behlen Community Health Center, Appeal No. 2736. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. Member Douglass was absent. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2752. Application of Fanny Behlen Community Health Center, P.O. Box 659, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning O~dinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-30 and 100-31 for permis- sion to erect an ambulatory care clinic on property zoned A-Residential and Agricultural and with insufficient distance from street line and insufficient distance from the east side line. Location of property: South side of North Road (C.R. 27), Greenport, NY~ bounded north by North Road; west by Fenno; south by Fransisco; east by Nedoszytko; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-40-3-3.1. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 8:43 p.m. Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- December 4, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: This matter was also recessed, and is on the variance portion of the Fanny Behlen Community Health Center. That's what we're calling it for the time being~anyway, but what it will actually wind up, we don't know. Gail, you have something you want to be said on this matter? ABIGAL WICKHAM, ESO.: Yeah, basically I think I would like to elaborate on things that were said last week, and what I've done I think that the diagram that was presented to you was a little unclear in terms of lot lines. So I've indicated them as clearly as I could on these maps and would like to submit them. It's the same map. MR. CHAIRMAN: Somebody put them in already (setback distances). MRS. WICKHAM: Then I don't know that you'll need these. They're all the same thing. SECRETARY: We may need them to send them to the County Planning. MRS. WICKHAM: How many do you need? SECRETARY: Probably three if you have three. Thank you. (Mrs. Wickham gave the Chairman three additional copies for referral to other agencies if needed.) MRS. WICKHAM: There are a couple of things I want to go over in terms of the layout of this building, and parking on the property. First of all, you notice there is a diagonal orientation and I want to make sure the Board understands why the architect laid out the building in that manner. The primary reason was one of energy ef- ficiency. The layout maximizes your southerly exposure, and minimizes your northerly exposure. Also it takes advantage of the natural contour of the property, which is a little bit higher towards the northeast portion of the property and therefore would shield the building somewhat from the north winds. And one of the primary goals in the construction is to make it--construct an efficient building. Also, the diagonal orientation makes the visual impact from the road considerably less since you would be looking at it on an angle rather than straight on. And I think this also effects the issue of the setback. As far as the parking it's concentrated mainly on the west and to some extent in the rear of this would keep it away from the other residential property on the east, Mr. Nedoszytko's property. The size of the building is approximately 5,100 square feet. It's a one-story building with a low profile. The architect did show a line, or an outline of possible future expansion, although the center advises me that they don't con~em- plate that right now or at any time in the immediate future. I think the architect just put that in there, and in any event the layout of the interior of the building has allowed plenty of excess space in which to expand. It probably wouldn't be pushing out the wall in that area. So that's superfluous I think. As far as the setback goes, the front is about 68 feet at the nearest, 60 feet at the nearest point to the road and the building angles Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- December 4, 1980 (Abigail Wickham, Esq. continued): back to 100 feet or so from the Main Road--from the North Road. The location at that distance from the road was necessary due to the contour of the land. In order to put the-- if the center were lo- cated further back from the road., it would have been necessary to have pumps in order to pump the sewage up to the pipes. And so it was located at this distance for that reason, this location would eliminate the necessity for a pumping of sewage. The building is about 104 feet from the rear property line, which is adequate insulation if you will from the property to the rear as far as the building is concerned. The sideyards on the east, again because of the angling of the building, range from about 29 feet up to 70 feet from the property line. The midpoint is--it's an average of about 50 feet from the property line. But the closest point I believe is 29 feet. Now that shadowy area there is not any indication of the property line. The architect drew that on for a visual effect. I think it's supposed to be a shadow in illustrating the solar aspect of this sun. Now on the east you also, although the 29-foot, the smallest distance of the property line to the building is under the 50-foot required, as I say it does angle back, therefore diminishing the impact of that undersized setback, and also there is another 15 feet which is designated on Mr. Nedoszytko's property for the building of a road so wh~le you can't include that tn your tech- nical setback it will act as a buffer and minimize the impact of the undersized setback. The setback of the building from the westerly property line is 90 feet, so we don't have any problem there. As far as the parking area goes, the nearest space to the North Road is 50 feet from the front, 20 feet from the west line and 55 feet from the rear line. So the rear does not present a problem, except that the turnaround areas, which is just one small area in the back, is about 25 feet away. But that was necessary in order to provide a turnaround. It is not going to be a park- ing area or will there be vehicles stationed. On the east side the parking is some distance from the line except again on the turnarounds where there are about 33, 34 feet from the property line. Now as far as the parking goes, it is closer to the line than the center requires, but the -- it's a practical difficulty here in that you have 50 feet~ you have a huge buffer, and we think that by adequate planting and screening you can accomplish the same effect, and thereby not create any problem for your neighbors in terms of visual impact. You can compensate in that way for the reduced setback. Now if the Board has any other questions, I'd be glad to answer them. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question. On that 29-foot setback on the east side, that's to the overhang of the building, is that correct? Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- December 4, 1980 MRS. WICKHAM: That's to the overhang.~ There!s another, I think, to the building itself, I used the overhang becaUse that's what the Code provides, there's another, it's about at that diagonal a 10-foot overhang, diagonally or straight across.six feet according to my scale. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. Is there any reason why the building couldn't be pushed back any farther? MRS. WICKHAM: Back which way? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Back to the rear of the property so a frontyard variance wasn't required? MRS. WICKHAM: Well that's what I mentioned earlier. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: t know you did, but I was just wondering from the point of view Of the sewerage, I know that that's a prob- lem. MRS. WICKHAM: It's a big problem -- a tremendous expense. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does the County have anything to say about cesspools in lieu~of the Town sewer? MRS. KATZ: Excuse me, we have to follow Federal guidelines. And if there are sewers available, we have to make Use of them. MRS. WICKHAM: I think we would want to do that anyway.~ I think it would be more important to have it a few feet closer to the road than to have cesspools instead of sewers. MEMBER GOEHRIN.GER: Well I was only talking about the future expansion point of view, because then that limits it back down another 10 feet. MRS. WICKHAM: As I indicated, the architect put that future expansion on there, but that's not contemplated. It really should if you want to cross it out, it should be disregarded. It's not part of this application. There seems to be enough room inside of the building to have the present program, and if it had to get bigger it could, but future expansion would not go that way, and it should be taken off the map, really. ~MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is the building going to be built with the idea that it could be capped? A two-story, another section be placed on top of it? MRS. KATZ: No. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It will strictly be built as a one-story building? MRS. KATZ: Definitely. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- December Z~, 1980 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. WICKHAM: And I think with a contour and the one-story aspect of it, it's not going to loam up from the road. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. WICKHAM: No other questions? MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak for it before Mr. Telsey speaks? FREDERICK S. LIGHTFOOT: Building Chairman. When you build something like this from Federal funds, you have to comply with the Federal regulations, which don't always tally exactly with local zoning, as was mentioned, a one-story building for the handicapped and you have to allow for energy.~ and so forth and so on. So there is a ping on the local requirements. MRS. WICKHAM: A little more stringent- MR. LIGHTFOOT: There has to be some sort of compromise. MR. CHAIRMAN: They're pushing solar heat and that sort of stuff quite a bit. MRS. WICKHAM: Or at least structural and orientation type designs that will --if not solar heat at least some light--inset~ation and so on. The other thing I didn't mention which is in the Code is the 20% building density requirement. We're well under that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Telsey? BENSON S. TELSEY: This application is a variance for street and lot lines under a Special Exception for use. There is no pro- vision in the Code for this type of application. The Code specifi- cally provides that if, if, an applicant came under the Special Exception uses they are subject to the following requirements among others: no building or part thereof or any parking or loading area shall be located within 100 feet of any street line or within 50 feet of any lot line. I say again, the Board has no legislative powers. They must follow the letter of the law, and have no power to grant the variance in Special Exception use cases. This appli- cation must also be denied. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else that would like to speak? WILLIAM NEDOSZYTKO: Yes. I have a few questions that I would like to get clarified first. Is that 29 feet from the actual boundary line, or from the right-of-way of the 15 foot of that piece of property? YRS. WICKHAM: The boundary line. , Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- December 4, 1980 MR. NEDOSYTKO: From the actual boundary line. MR. CHAIRMAN: The sketch shows two 15-foot strips. MR. NEDOSYTKO: Fifteen foot, right. And the second thing, would the clinic, would the center honor the 15-foot right-of-way for access to the back lots, the other two lots in the back, because there's also there's another covenant on that property at any time more than one lot was built that a road was supposed to be placed through that and it was supposed to be shared, the maintenance and up-keep was supposed to be shared equally between all four lots, not to exceed $50.00. And I just want to know if they would honor that 15-foot right-of-way on their side? MRS. WICKHAM: Our-- may I answer that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MRS. WICKHAM: Our deed was obtained subject to and together with the right-of-way, so legally we are subject to the right-of-way. Of course we wouldn't have to install the road, but would have to let it stay there. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would think if it were granted, one of the requirements would be that it would be kept as a right-of-way. Anyone else that has anything to say on this? (Negative) If not, we're getting just a little bit late, I'll offer another resolution to close the hearing and reserve decision. Because they are more or less tied together. MEMBER SAWICKI: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing be closed and decision reserved in the matter of the Fanny Behlen Community Health Center, Appeal No. 2752. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Member Douglass. 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: (1) for approval of insuf- ficient area and width of parcels to be established in a proposed subdivision, Art. III, Sec. 100-31, and (2) for permission to reinstate preexisting nonconforming sideyard setback, (3) for approval of access, New York Town Law Section 280-A. Location of property: South side of Route 25, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Route 25; west by Matt Agency, Jarzombeck, Roth; south by Mel- lender; east by Pumillo, Hallock, Steinhart, Jackson, Bilianos. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-143-2-33.2. Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- December 4, 1980 The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 9:05 p.m. and asked whether there was anyone present to speak regarding this applica- tion and there was no response. The Chairman then announced that the attorney for the applicant, Gary Flanner Olsen has requested a recess until the next regular meeting, December 29, 1980 and the following resolution was adopted: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of Roy C. Schoenhaar, Appeal No. 2674 be recessed until the next regular meeting of this Board, to wit, December 29, 1980. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Member Douglass. The Board agreed to get together tentatively on Saturday, December 20, 1980 for inspections on the up-coming matters. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2762. Application of David and Carmen Olenick, 120 Park Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11217 for a V~riance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-35A for permission to construct fence in the front yard area exceeding height limitations at 185 Private Road No. LO (a/k/a 4255 South Harbor Lane), Southold, NY; bounded north by VanDerheuvel; south by Private Road; west by South Harbor Road; east by Jacobs. County Tax Map Item No. 1000- 87-1-1. After investigationaand personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellants have~appealed~to this Board seeking a variance to construct a six-foot high fence for privacy to a proposed swimming- pool in the frontyard area. Existing at the premises are a one- family dwelling and detached garage. Upon inspection, the Board found no swimmingpool Constructed in the frontyard area, for which a variance had been granted on December 6, 1979. It is the feel- ing of the Board that insufficient hardship does not warrant jus- tification for the granting of this variance. The Board finds the circumstances in this case are not unique; that strict application of the ordinance would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; that the granting of this variance will change the character of the neighborhood and would not observe the spirit of the zoning ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that David and Carmen Olenick's application for a variance be denied without prejudice for permission to construct SoUthold Town Board of Appeals ~ ~i -21- December 4, 1980 six-foot high fence in the frontyard area as applied for. Location of property: 185 Private Road (a/k/a 4255 South Harbor Lane), Southold, NY; bounded north by VanDerheuvel; south by Private Road; west by South Harbor Road; east by Jacobs. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-87-1-1. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Member Douglass. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. FA-4. Application of Harold. and Hattie Stetler, 25 Mindrews Avenue, Brentwood, NY 11717 for a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law, Chapter 46, Sections 46-7, 46-15 and 46-18 for permission to construct lowest floor (basement) below the restricted 8-foot base elevation in a special flood hazard zone at the south side of Wiggins Lane, Greenport, NY; bounded north by Wiggins Lane; south by Eordham Canal; west by Prato; east by Peconic Holding Co; County Tax Map Item No. 1000- 35-4-21. Upon reviewing this matter, it was the consensus of the Board members that applicants be cortacted as to whether or not they would prefer to wait out the 45-day period for a decision on this matter pending possible finalization by the Federal Emeregency Management Agency in Washington, D.C. in the elimina- tion of the 8-foot elevation requirements in Southold Town, or would prefer to have an expedit~oes decision. NEW MATTER: Appeal No. 2766. Application of Rose Dansker for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels located at Wells Roads Peconic, NY. It was the consensus of the Board that inasmuch as a sub- stantial part of the subject property appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Con- servation and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, that a notice be forwarded to each of these agencies requesting their comments and recommendations before scheduling this matter for a public meeting. Also, the secretary was asked to refer this matter to the Southold Town Planning Board inasmuch as it is a matter normally reviewed by their Board. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the following appeals be scheduled and adver- tised for public hearings to be held at the next regular meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- December 4, 1980 of this Board, to wit, December 29, 1980: 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 2765 - Application of Peter V. Izzo for approval of insufficient area and width. West side of Pine Tree Road, Cutcho§ue, NY. 7: 50 p..m. Appeal No. 2769 - Application of Nicholas D. Yuelys for permission to construct accessory building in the frontyard area. 56005 C.R. 27, Greenport, NY. 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 2767 Application of Wilbur A. Baldwin for permission to construct attached garage with insufficient sideyard setback. 1725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY. 104-13-2.4 8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 2768 - Application of James P. Latham for permission to construct dwelling with insuffi- cient sideyards. 1490 Village Lane, Orient, NY. 8:30 p.m. Appeal No. 2770 Application of Marianne Weil for permission to establish home occupation in a resi- dential area exceeding 30% of the area of one floor of the main building, and for approval of access. Right-of-way off the west side of Youngs Avenue, Orients NY. 1000-18-1-10. Also previously scheduled for December 29, 1980 are: Appeal No. 2684 - Application of North Fork Motels Inc. Appeal No. 2674 Application of Roy C. Schoenhaar. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Member Douglass. Matter of Peter V. Izzo. Appeal No. 2765. WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an environmental assessment in the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; WHEREAS, the subject property 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 Sections 661.4(b)(1) and 661.7 of Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law; On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- December 4, 1980 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that in Appeal No. 2765, application of Peter V. Izzo dated December 1, 1980 for a variance for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels at the west side of Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue, NY, (1000-104-2-9 & 10), this Board determines that this project if implemented as planned herein is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant 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 pro- cedure 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 be involved or any other project not covered by this application.] Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Member Douglass. Matter of Nicholas D. Yuelys. Appeal No. 2769. WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an environmental assessment in the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; WHEREAS, this Board acknowledges receipt of correspondence from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation indicating that no permit is necessary under the Tidal Wetlands Act for the project proposed herein, N~. 15273-0114; On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that in Apoeal No. 2769, application of Nicholas D. Yuelys dated December 3, 1980 for a Variance for permission to construct accessory building in the frontyard area at 56005 C.R. 27, Greenport, NY (1000-44-1-19), this Board determines that this project if implemented as planned herein is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect uoon 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 pro- cedure 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 be involved or any other project not covered by this application.] Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Member Douglass. Matter of Wilbur A. Baldwin. Appeal No. 2767. WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an environmental assessment in the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- December 4, 1980 WHEREAS, the subject property contains an existing functional brick seawall at least 100 feet in length and therefore would not require permits from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Con- servation pursuant to Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Sections 661.4 and 661.7~ On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that in Appeal No. 2767, application of Wilbur A. Baldwin for a Variance for permission to construct attached garage with an insufficient sideyard setback at 1725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York (1000-104-13-2.4), this Board determines that this project if implemented as planned herein is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant 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 pro- cedure 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 be involved or any other project not covered by this application.] Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Member Douglass. Matter of James P. Latham. Appeal No. 2768. WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an environmental assessment in the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; WHEREAS, the subject property 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 Sections 661.4(b)(1) and 661.7 of Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law; On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that in Appeal No. 2768~ application of James P. Latham for a Variance for permission to construct new dwelling with insufficient sideyards at 1490 Village Lane, Orient, NY, (County Item No. '000-24-2-14), this Board determines that this project if implemented as planned herein is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant 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 pro- cedure 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 be involved or any other project not covered by this application.] Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Member Douglass. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- December 4, 1980 Matter of Marianne Weil. Appeal No. 2770. WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an environmental assessment in the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment; WHEREAS, the subject property 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 Sections 661.4(b)(1) and 661.7 of Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law~ On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that in Appeal No. 2770, application of Marianne Weil for permission to establish home occupation in an A-Residential & Agricut'tural area exceeding 30% of the area of one floor of the main building, and a variance for approval of access, the subject property located on a private right-of-way off the west side of Youngs Avenue, Orient, New York, this Board determines that this project if implemented as planned herein is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant 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 pro- cedure 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 be involved or any other project not covered by this application.] Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Member Douglass. Being there was no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting closed at approximately 10:05 p.m. APPROVED Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals