The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-10/16/1980 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR. CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEI~. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki Southold Town Board of Appeals HAIN ROAD- -¢:TATE ROAD 25 ¢:OUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 'l'l=J'7'l TELEPHONE (5161 765-1809 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 1980 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, October 16, 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 J. Doyen; Robert J. Douglass; Gerard P. Goehringer; and Joseph H. Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2743. Application of Leon and Pauline Krementz, Schoolhouse Creek, New Suffolk, NY 11956, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-80 fpr permission to construct detached garage in the front and/or sideyard area. Location-of property: 1640 First Street, New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Schoolhouse Creek; west by Tuthill; south by Tuthill; east by Uhl and Cutchogue Harbor; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-5-46.3. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:37 p.m. by reading the appeal application, showing notice of hearing and affidavits 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 property in question and showing the surrounding area, and it s pretty much as described and surrounded by water-- a little pennisula goes in there. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor or would like to add to what's been ~ Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -2- October 16, 1980 said in the application? Mr. and Mrs. Krementz were present. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here to speak against this application? (Negative) Mr. Krementz, that's going to be just a one-story garage? MR. KREMENTZ: One-story garage. The peak will be 13, I believe. It will be strictly storage and a garage for cars. MR, CHAIRMAN: ...Two-car garage, 22 by 32', the doors to face east, the west side of the garage to be 5' from the orooerty line, southwest to be 5' from the property, and the south end to be 8 from property line .... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it will only be a one-story struc- ture -- no purpose of a loft or anything above it, and you wouldn t have any objection to our putting a restriction on it-- MRo KREMENTZ: To the height? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: ~o, not to the height. that it not be used for anything but a garage. To the effect MR. CHAIRMAN: As garages are used. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As garages, well, you would be surprised how garages are used. MR. KREMENTZ: I understand what you mean. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Also a condition that no portion of it can be closer than 10 feet to that bulkhead. MR. CHAIRMAN: How far is that going to wind up from the bulkhead? MR. KREMENTZ: I don't think it even, lO feet is more than adequate. It sits back in the corner as far back as I can go. MR. CHAIRMAN: The stakes we saw, that's Where it s going to be. MR. KREMENTZ: Yes, it's way back. MR. CHAIRMAN: They were a good l0 feet. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes, but it should be in there as a condition, because you have a tie rod situation there, a hold back, that a minimum they are 10' back, and if you ever have ~ Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -3- October 16, 1980 to do any work on them -- MR. KREMENTZ: That's why I located it in that corner because of the bulkheads. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone to speak against this application? Do any of the members on the Board have any further questions? (Negative) MEMBER DOUGLASS: Ill make a motion that it be granted with those conditions. After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellants have appealed to this Board seeking a variance to construct a detached two-car garage in the frontyard area with a frontyard setback of approximately 5' off a private right-of- way at the north side of Orchard Street, New Suffolk, New York. The premises in question is a parcel of land containing approximately 12,000 square feet in area and zoned C-Light Industrial. There ~s p~esently existing on the premises a wooden frame building with porch and attached small shed at the southwest section of the frame building. The Board finds the circumstances present in this case are unique, and strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the zoning ordinance. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that Leon and Pauline Krementz, be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-80 for permission to construct detached garage in the frontyard area as applied for and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That same be used only for storage purposes and be main- tained as an one-story garage; (2) That same be constructed not closer than 10 feet to the bulkhead. Location of property: 1640 First Street, New Suffolk, NY~ bounded north by Schoolhouse Creek; west by Tuthill; south by Tuthill; east by Uhl and Cutchogue Harbor; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-5-46.3. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Goehringer and Sawicki. Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -4- October 16, 1980 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2745. Application of Gus Dourmas, by William H. Price, Jr., Esq., 828 Front Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article~ III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient front and rear yard setbacks. Location of property: Manhanset Avenue and Landing Lane, Greenport, NY; bounded north by Manhanset Ave.; west by Pittas and Grafas; south by Grafas and Mylonas; east by Landing Lane; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-43-4-6. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:49 p.m. by reading the appeal application, showing notice of hearing and affidavits 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 survey of the subject property and a copy of the County Tax Map showing this and the surrounding area. It's an unusually shaped lot. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak for this application, would that be you, Mr. Price? WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR., ESQ.: Yes. For the record I'm William H. Price, Jr., attorney in Greenport, and I represent Mr. Dourmas in this application. This is an application merely to enable Mr. Dourmas to construct a house as shown on this survey. It's a lot on an approved filed map, and as you can see there's only 133 feet along Manhanset Avenue. You could not construct a house there without violating something. We do have 71 feet of setback from Landing (Lane) and 35 from Manhanset (Avenue). We have tried to locate the house in a normal fashion so that the maximum setbacks could be obtained. And as far as I can ascertain'~impossible to locate a dwelling of that size on that lot and still comply with all the setback requirements. And if he builds the house he's going to definitely have to comply with all the other building codes as well. All we're asking for is the setback, nothing else. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Price. Is there anyone else to speak for this? Anyone to speak against it? (Negative) Any of the Board members have any further questions? It's an unusually shaped lot and that's about as good a solution I think you could come up with. I'll offer a resolution grant- ing this as applied for. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Why don't we put a notation on there that it has to comply to the Tidal Waters Elevation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we should have that on most of these, I guess. It will have to anyway. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah, but it should be noted on there Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -5- October 16, 1980 so that they -- MR, CHAIRMAN: Did you hear that, Mr. Price? MR. PRICE: All I'm asking for is the setbacks. MR. CHAIRMAN: We should because it's in the flood plain-- I don't know what the elevation is on here, but it should be at least 8' The Board examined the flood plain maps and found that the premises in question is located in a B-Flood Zone area, not requiring certain restrictions as to the elevation of a new dwelling. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll second the motion. After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance to construct a new single-family dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback off Manhanset Avenue of 35' and insufficient rearyard setback at the west end of 25' The premises in question is a parcel of land containing an area of 11,460 square feet as shown on survey of R. Van Tuyl amended September 4, 1980, and is a corner lot as defined by Article III, Section 100-13 of the Code. Applicant has desig- nated the shortest yard (22') to be his sideyard, and the west yard (25') to be his rearyard. There are no structures existing on the subject premises. The Board finds the circumstances present in this case are unique, and strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the zoning ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Gus Dourmas, by William H. Price, Jr., Esq. be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 (Bulk Schedule) for permission to construct new dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback off Manhanset Avenue of not less than 35' and an insufficient rearyard setback of not less than 25', as applied for. Location of property: Corner of Manhanset Avenue and Land- ing Lane, Greenoort, NY; bounded north by Manhanset Avenue; west ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- October 16, 1980 Pittas and Grafas; south by Grafas and Mylonas; east by Landing Lane; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-43-4-6. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2746. Application of Eccles Pridgen, by Horton Construction Co., Kouros Road, Box 21~New Suffolk, NY 11956, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient width of a parcel to be established in a minor subdivision. Location of property: South side of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; bounded north by Great Peconic Bay Boulevard; east by A. Cardinale Estate and Catalano; south by Peconic Bay; west by Kendel, Smith, Bayuk, Carey and Gannon. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-6-14 and 15. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:00 p.m. by reading the appeal application, showing notice of hearing and affidavits 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 survey and section of the County Tax Map, and the main reason for this being here is the zoning ordinance only permits one dwelling to a lot. It doesn't make any difference in the zoning law whether the lot is half acre or ten acres without a variance. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak for this? Is there anyone here to speak against this? (Negative) I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass~ it WaS RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Eccles Pridgen in Appeal No. 2746. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- October 16, 1980 RECESSED HEARING: Apoeal No. 2684. Application of North Fork Motel, Inc., by Sam Rodland as agent, 55 Pilgrim Path, Hun- tington, 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 cooperative or condominium use) in a B-1 Zone. Location of property: Corner of C.R. 27 and Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; bounded north by Soundview Avenue, east by C.R. 27 and Soundview Avenue; south by C.R. 27; west by Kemper, Main, Zech and Larson; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-135-2-23. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 8:07 p.m. This matter was recessed from the September 25, 1980 meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Price is here, and I wonder whether he will grant permission waiving the reading of the legal documents? MR. PRICE: Yes, I will. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything to add? MR. PRICE: I would like to request another recess. We still have not resolVed the question concerning whether or not this should be a cooperative or a condominium on account of the issue concerning kitchen facilities, the problem that has been a bit compounded in that~ taking a look at the certificate of occupancy issues for the premises is noted as a certificate of occupancy for a multiple residence and then it says in parenthe- ses motel. After I met with this Board the last time I met with the condominium or cooperative counsel in Valley Stream concerning this project, and I received communications from them again today stating that the situation concerning kitchen facilities is still unresolved. So at this time I would like to ask for another recess. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a certain time period you wanted? MR. PRICE: The latter part of November. It would have to be subsequent to November 17th. Are there any questions from the Board at this Time? (Negative) MEMBER DOUGLASS: I'll make a motion that it be granted-- be recessed till the latter part of November. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED~ that the matter of North Fork Motel, Inc., Appeal No. 2684 be recessed till the latter regular meeting in November, 1980. ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- October 16, 1980 Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2747. Application of Yasar Gucer, by Charles S. DeVoe, 3630 Orchard Street, Orient, NY ~57, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient sideyards. Location of property: 45 Osprey Nest Roads Greenport, NY; bounded north by Osprey Nest Road; west by Manners; south by Paulisen; east by Dawn Estates Shopping Center. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-35-6-38. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:13 p.m. by reading the appeal application, showing notice of hearing and affidavits 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 and survey of this property showing the house. He has a 35' setback from the street and has 12.23 sideyard on one side and 12.97 on the other. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak for this? Mr. DeVoe, did you have anything you wanted to add to the application? MR. CHARLES DEVOE: I think everything is there. The young lady was very helpful in this. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you tell me, Mr. DeVoe, how big the house is, square-footage wise? MR. DEVOE: Probably around 2,200 square feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The maximum lot coverage would be 2,250 square feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions from any of you fellows? (Negative) We're checking, you know you're permitted by the ordinance to build up to 20% of the lot coverage. You're allowed 20% of coverage with buildings on a lot. MR. DEVOE: That I didn't know. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The lot is a little bit more than ll,O00 square feet. MR. DEVOE: I was going to say, I think it's the width of the building is out of line-- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. But you have a 20% lot coverage. You can t cover any more than 20% of the lot. ,Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -9- October 16, 1980 MR. DEVOE: Oh, you can't? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Maybe he could get back to us with exactly what the square footage is-- MR. CHAIRMAN: If there are no other questions from anyone, I'll offer a resolution reserving decision on this, closing the hearing, and you could bring in maybe the actual footage of the house. Leave it with Linda. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll second it. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Yasar Gucer in Appeal No. 2747, pending receipt of the actual square footage of the proposed structure. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. ~I~p~ Ap.peal j ~j~ Application of John J. PUBLIC H N,~l ~n Park, NY 11596, for a and Ethel Moon, ' ton Lane, Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art, III, Sec. 100-31 for permis- sion to construct dwelling with insufficient frontyards. Location of property: 6520 Skunk Lane and 80 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Skunk Lane (Bay Avenue); west by Murcheck; south by Smith; east by Haywaters Drive. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-104-5-4. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:29 p.m. by reading the appeal application, showing notice of hearing and affidavits 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 survey and copy of the County Tax Map showing this property and the area surrounding it, and the map-they have a lot that's 150' on Haywaters Drive and 75' on Skunk Lane. They're building the house approximately 28 by 60' And they have a setback of 35.1' on Skunk Lane, 35' on Haywaters Drive. I can't make out this one, it looks like 55' on it, it would be the west side. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak for this application? MR. JOHN MOON: I'm John Moon. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything that you would like to add to the application? ,Sout~old Town Board of Appeals -10- October 16, 1980 MR. MOON: No, sir, just the way it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, thank you. Is there anyone else to speak for it? Anyone to speak against the application.? (Negative) Do any of you members have any questions you would like to ask? (The Board reviewed the survey to determine whether the project would exceed 20% of the lot coverage and found that it does not.) MR. CHAIRMAN: We were just discussing the lot coverage at 20%2 and it seems to be perfectly all right in this case. If there are no other questions from anyone, I'll offer a resolution granting this as applied for, with the following statement that it appears to be in keeping pretty much with the area, and it won't affect the character of the neighborhood or anything. MEMBER SAWICKI: I'll second the motion. After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellants have appealed to this Board seeking a variance to construct a new 28' by 60' dwelling on property located at the intersection of Skunk Lane and Haywaters Drive in Cutchogue. The premises in questions contains an area of 11,250 square feet, with 75' fronting on Skunk Lane and 150' fronting on Hay- waters Drive. Appellants are proposing a 35' setback in each frontyard. 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 properties will be created; that no adverse effect or substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood; that the circumstances herein are unique; and that the spirit of the zoning ordinance will be observed. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that John J. and Ethel Moon be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permis- sion to construct new dwelling with insufficient frontyard set- backs of not less than 35' as applied for in Appeal No. 2748. Location of property: 6520 Skunk Lane and 80 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Skunk Lane (Bay Avenue); west by Murcheck; south by Smith; east by Haywaters Drive. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-104-5-4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. Mr. Goehringer abstained. ~ ~S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -ll- October 16, 1980 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2749. Application of Dwight A. Horne, 750 Village Lane, Orient, NY for a Variance to the Zoning ~ance~ Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels. Location of properties: 750 and 800 Village Lane, Orient, NY; bounded north by DeEastines; west and south.by Norklun; east by Village Lane; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-25-1-14 and 15. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:38 p.m. by reading the appeal application, showing notice of hearing and affidavits 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 show- ing the properties in the adjoining neighborhood, and we have a survey showing the two houses. They propose to set them off, one lot 110.2' on Village Lane and the other lot will have, wait a minute -- excuse me -- 51.7 on Village Lane, and the other lot will have 58.5. And just a whisker narrower, no-- this one goes back in here. And the other lot is 125.56 in length. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak for this application? MR. DWIGHT HORNE: I'm Dwight Horne if anybody nas any questions. I have nothing to add to the application. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question. Mr. Horne, is that where that line was originally? MR. HORNE: Yes, existing properties as they have always been. Two separate properties and they were bought separately. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You didn't move that south line in between the two houses any closer or anything? MR. HORNE: I haven't moved anything. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The shed was always on the line and-- MR. HORNE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? Bob? MEMBER DOUGLASS: The two pieces of properties were bought at different times, too, were they not? MR. HORNE: Yes they were. MEMBER DOUGLASS: And they just ended up, because they were put in the same name they ended up as one parcel. MR. HORNE: That's right. The tax bills have been separate S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -12- October 16, 1980 each time, they were recorded separately in Riverhead. I mean the deeds. Is that what you mean? MEMBER DOUGLASS: That's all right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else to speak for it. Anyone to speak against it? (Negative) MEMBER DOUGLASS: I'll make a motion that it be granted as applied for. MR. CHAIRMAN: The findings of the Board are this is nothing but putting a line back where it was originally. It's not going to change the character or increase the density or anything. It has been there for years and years already. It's been regularly moved. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second the motion. After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to the Board seeking a variance approving the insufficient area and width of two parcels on Village LaMe (Main Street), Orient, of approximately 7,300 square feet in area and 58.50 feet in width, and approximately 6,460 square feet in area and 51,70 feet in width. The premises in question to the south has an existing two-story frame house, barn and small shed; and the premises in question to the north has an existing 1½-story frame house. Both premises have small privies at the rear yard. The lines proposed for each lot are exactly as they existed prior to becoming merged due to same ownership of each lot. 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 detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that no adverse effect or change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood; that the cir- cumstances herein are unique; and that the spirit of the zoning ordinance will be observed. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Dwight A. Horne be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance approving the insufficient area and width as applied for in Appeal No. 2749. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- October 16, 1980 On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to approve the sign-renewal request of Mattituck Lanes to be renewed for a period of one year from the annual expiration noted thereon in Appeal No. 1002, SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT AND FUNDINGS LAWS FOR HIGH- WAYS, IF APPLICABLE. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. On motion by Mr. Gri§onis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the October 3, 1980 Special Meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Gri§onis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the September 25, 1980 Regular Meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2750. Application of Harry J. and Lillian A. Baglivi, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of three proposed parcels. Location of property: Nassau Point Road and Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Alexander and Golden; west by Wunneweta Road; south by Horowitz; east by Nassau Point Road; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-111-4-32. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:52 p.m. by reading the appeal application, showing notice of hearing and affidavits 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 survey and a section of the County S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -14- October 16, 1980 Tax Map showing the property in question and the surrounding lots. The survey shows Lot 1 would have 24,635 square feet. Lot 2 would have 20,630 square feet. Lot 3 would be, well, it's just 10, difference,20,620 square feet. Lot 3 would front on WQnneweta Road, and Lots 1 and 2 on Nassau Point Road. Is there anyone here to speak for this application? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Yes, Abigail Wickham, and I'd like to speak in favor, or on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Baglivi. The variance that was requested was for the Board of Apoeals to approve or condone three undersized lots on this property, undersized in the sense that they're less than the one-acre requirement now in effect. In looking over the background on this property, I feel that we already have three lots which are in fact legal building lots under the Town laws, and therefore it's not really necessary that the variance be granted for approval of lots which are not undersized. I think they already have been. The building inspector issued a disapproval based on the fact that they were undersized and I'm not sure that, I think that disapproval was in error because I'm not sure he had all the facts in front of him at the time. And I'd like to review them with you to explain why we feel these are three legal sized lots right now. As you mentioned or as was mentioned in the application, Mr. Matthews who originally owned this property, obtained a minor subdivision in June of 1969, when the property was divided into four lots, and that was approved by the Planning Board. Mr. and Mrs. Baglivi acquired three of those lots, Lots 1, 2 and 3 which are now under question in October of 1969. Lot 4 was subsequently acquired and sold separately and is not really part of the concern in this matter, so I won't get into that. But the three lots were acquired by them as part of the minor subdivision. Now~ since then of course the zoning ordinance did change and acre lots were required. Now, two aspects here, number one is that Section 100-112 of the Code exempted any lots on the Nassau Point map from this 40-acre (sic) [~ae-acr~] requirement. Now, Lot 1 was part of Lot 169 on Nassau Point, and so by virtue of that fact, that I think remains a separate lot. Lots 2 and 3 were Lot 168 on Nassau Point Map, and therefore those two would be distinct from Lot 1. Ok. So I believe that Lot l, in any event by virtue of that exemption is separate. Now, therefore, there would still be a question at this point as to whether lots two and three were separate. How- ever, in 1975 this property and subdivision was reviewed by the Board of Appeals in connection with a request for permis- sion to change lot lines between Lots 2 and 3. The line was moved to increase the size of Lot No. 2. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, and it also went through a building, I think too. MRS. WICKHAM: Right. There were a number of reasons, but S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -15- October 16, 1980 (Mrs. Wickham continued:) the Board of Appeals did grant that variance subject to Planning Board approval. The Planning Board reviewed it, and also approved the change. Now implicit in the approval of those Boards, I think is the fact that the lots were separate and were not considered merged into one lot; otherwise you would be dealing with the change of an interior lot line and there s no reason for asking for a variance or approval of the Planning Board. Now, one item that has come up is Section 265-A of the Town Law regarding the three-year exemption. Now the purpose of that Law was, if you had a subdivision which was approved and then subsequently a change in the zoning ordinance made those lots in that subdivision undersized be- cause of an increase in the zoning ordinance requirement, 265-A gave you time to avoid creating a merger situation; and 265-A specified that if the Planning Board approved the subdivision subsequent to that time it would be considered single and separate, It would be considered as separate lots again. And I think that's what has happened in 1975 when the Planning Board reviewed it. So I think that you have three separate lots here, without need for your subsequent review to deter- mine whether or not you're going to reinstate three separate undersized lots. I believe they've already been established. The Planning Board in '75 stated that they "resolved to approve the action of the Board of Appealsgranting permission to alter the property line as applied for." And the applica- tion to the Board of Appeals specifically referred to only Lots 2 and 3, therefore they must have considered Lot l separate, and Lots 2 and 3 were considered separate because they were talking about the boundary between them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can't argue that with you. It was approved by the Planning Board at that time, but I was just checking if it was in here. MRS. WICKHAM: I have a copy of the letter if you would like. MR. CHAIRMAN: Linda says there is one in here. MRS. WICKHAM: I thought there was. MR. CHAIRMAN: Was there anything else you wanted to add? MRS. WICKHAM: Well, yeah, I would like to add something. This is my position. Now, if, I don't know if the Board is prepared to make a decision at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Probably not because this, we're waiting to hear from the County. We have an answer from the Health Department. The Planning Board, I mean County Planning hasn't come back yet. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -16- October 16, 1980 MRS. WICKHAM: Right, but it's a question in my mind whether it even has to go. What I am asking the Board to do is say that the determination of the Building Inspector, that they weren't three separate lots is incorrect, and therefore you don't have to act on the variance. Now if you don't come to that decision, then I'd like to address whether it should be considered three lots. Because I haven't gone into those. I'm taking the position first of all that it is three separate lots. And I think that's the way the~h~s~o~y of it stacks up. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll recess this and we'll check this out with-- MRS. WICKHAM: Ok, if you decide that it is in fact not three separate lots, then I would like an opportunity to address it and why it should be considered-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Till the next meeting. MRS,.~WICKHAM: And in the meantime I can put in another variance regarding the accessory use on a vacant lot. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that wants to add anything to this? Is there anyone else who wants to speak in favor of this? (Negative) I have two or three letters in here. The first one is dated October 13, 1980 to the Appeals Board of the Town of Southold: "...My attention has been called to an application pending before you made by the owner of property on Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue which is located near my premises (east side of Nassau Point Road -- about 10 cottages south of the causeway). This application, I am told, seeks a variance of the zoning laws to permit the building of three houses on half acre lots. Since all of the houses in the vicinity are on one or more acres, this in my view would downgrade the area, lessen the value of adjoining homes and detract from the scenic beauty of the area. This letter voices my opposition to the application. Yours truly, /s/ John H. Waters .... The second letter dated October 12, 1980 to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold: ...As you will probably recall, members of our Association have often appeared before your Board in the interest of pre- serving the tenuous water supply on Nassau Point. These appear- ances have been in connection with subdivision of properties ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -17- October 16, 1980 and the installation of swimmingpools. In the past the Associa- tion itself, while encouraging active participation in these hearings by its members, did not take an official stand. Because of our continuing concern about water and the increase in requests to your Board to allow variances which would further reduce our supply, the Board of Directors of our Asso- ciation passed a resolution which provides that our Association will officially object to the granting of any variances that will result in any lot being tess than one acre. For this reason, we wish to express our deep concern over the variance request at the next Thursday's meeting to divide Mr. Baglivi's plot of 1.5 acres into three lots. We strongly support the present zoning regulation of one-acre plots and in speaking to my friends and neighbors, they have all expressed their fear of any such subdi- vision and its effect on our water supply and consequent property values. I believe there is strong precedent for your Board to deny this request. In 1977, an application for a variance was made to your Board to divide a similar lot (Lot 141 on the Nassau Point map and then owned by Mr. Arnold Gardner) into less than one-acre lots and your Board wisely denied the request on the basis of our water supply problems. We earnestly request that you deny the current application. On the matter of the swimmingpool, our Association and a larger majority of our members are opposed to the construction of pools because of their effect on our water supply. With beaches and beautiful Peconic Bay within a short distance of any home on the Point, it is hard to understand anyone wanting to mar the landscape with a pool. We also wish to register our protest on this application and hope that you deny it. We greatly appreciate the work your Board is doing and we wish to support your efforts to enforce the Zoning Code and the beauty and health of this area. Very truly yours, /s/ W.S. Gardner, President Nassau Point Property Owners Assn .... MR. BOEHLE: Two lots have excavation pits. Don't they require permits, does the Town grant permits to have excavations made? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we were surprised when we got down there. Well, one of the excavations is sort of a, what do you call it, compost heap. And the other one is a start of a pool, which surprised Mr. Baglivi according to what he told us when we were down there, that they hadn't gotten the permit and started I guess. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- October t6, 1980 MR. BOEHLE: He got a permit? MR. CHAIRMAN: Not at the time, as far as I could find out. MR. BOEHLE: Ok, then the Town is in a position of locating something that is before fact. MR. CH2IRMAN: Yes, we run into that a lot. We don't always approve it either. MR. BOEHLE: How do you feel about compost heaps, are they legal? DO you just allow people to dig holes and have compost heaps? What about the leeching into the water supply of the compost heap? I've had experience where I lived that they turn into garbage heaps--not compost. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's something we have to check out with the Health Department. They're the experts. MR. BOEHLE: Do you require people to fence in compost heaps so they can't be seen and can't be observed? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think there is anything in the regulations that I can recall on it. MR. BOEHLE: Ok. But I'm in a position where I may some day observe this. I'm next door, I'm on the line. And it's directly in my view and so I'm concerned about what it s going to be or what we can allow it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, what Mr. Baglivi told us when we were there that he was doing this temporarily and probably next year he's going to put topsoil in there and have a garden. MR. BAGLIVI: It'll be all filled by November. MR. BOEHLE: If it doesn't turn out what he says it ~o be, will the Town fight it or do I have to spend money to fight it? MR. CHAIRMAN: If it's going to be something~against the Town ordinances, the Town would fight it. MRS. BAGLIVI: I think you should just look around the property and see what has accomplished around that property, and I don't think you should worry about how--- MR. CHAIRMAN: One at a time because we get all confused. MRS. BAGLIVI: Sorry. SECRETARY: May I have that gentleman's name in the back? S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -19- October 16, 1980 MR. BOEHLE: B-o-e-h-l-e. SECRETARY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else? MR.~ BOLDEN: Mr. Chairman? I'd like to say one thing without being too objective. Professionally I'm a chemist, right now engaged with a great deal of water study on Long Island, accredited by the State of New York. I'm not paranoid, but the density increase that I see potentially here at Nassau Point is going to jeopardize my water supply and the future of Nassau Point. If someone can assure me that they're not going to build three houses I might feel a little differently. But the potential is being established, and I'm diametrically opposed to it. I'm ( ) opposed to it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? W.S. GARDNER: Yes, my name is W.S. Gardner. I wrote you the letter from the Nassau Point Association. I'm the President. I was a little bit upset to hear this discussion tonight about whether we're having a hearing or not having a hearing. Whether this is really a case, because we had a fair turnout tonight. And there would have been a lot more if we knew about this sooner. We only had one week to get the people here. And also a little surprised that the applica- tion went in on September 23rd and received an answer from the Building Inspector on September 24th, and that's a little fast tn my experience. That's just a question. I wish we had more time to get people here and get them out. We at Nassau Point feel very, very strongly about this water supply situation. It's life and death to our property values and to our health. And we're going to be here fighting, and kicking, and screaming on every change that's made that allows anything to be built on less than one-acre piece of property that hasn't already been set on the map. 'Now these things haven't been set on the map. You're talking about what happe'ned in the past. We're talking about the future. If you were going to talk about the past I wouldn't be here tonight. I'm talking about what the case is tonight -- one and one-half acres into three property lots. And we are going to fight this as far as we have to go. And we'll continue to do it on every one of them that comes up--feel very strongly about this. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Did you want to rebut something there, Harry? MR. BAGLIVI: Did you want me to say something? MRS. BAGLIVI: Do you want to say something? S~Uthold Town Board of Appeals -20- October 16, 1980 MR, BAGLIVI: Yes t want to say something. First of all the three houses are not going to be built on the property, as everyone thinks. MR. GARDNER: How do we know that? How do we know that you're not going to turn around and sell the lot tomorrow? MR. BAGLIVI: There isn't room for three houses. There are only two lots in question, not three lots. So first get your facts straight. There's only two. MR. GARDNER: MR. BAGLIVI: MR. GARDNER: MR. BAGLIVI: MR. GARDNER: MR. BAGLIVI: lot and you were going to be house #351, would you give up your lot? MR, GARDNER: I don't know what you mean by 351-- MR. BAGLIVI: If you owned an undersized lot, correct, I'm asking you, if you personally owned an undersized lot, and you were going to be the 351st man to build a house on Nassau Point, would you or would you not build it? MR. GARDNER: I don't understand your question. MR. BAGLIVI: Well then let's forget it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Jerry, did you have a question? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Gail, could you give us at some time the approximately square footage of Mr. Baglivi's house? MRS. WICKHAM: Of the house? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, the present house that is on, Lot #2 is that~ MR. BAGLIVI: It's on the map. MRS. WICKHAM: No, he wants it of the house not the lot. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Some time, you know. MRS. WICKHAM: I'll furnish it. Three lots. Where's three lots? You're making them three lots. Well there's a house on the one lot now. Right, then Sou put a~house on the other ones. Can I ask you a question? If you owned a S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -21- October 16, 1980 MEMBER DOUGLASS: Mr. Gardner? I would like to ask you a question. At the present time with the situation that we've had this summer, have you any salt water intrusion developed on Nassau Point? MR. GARDNER: We've had salt water intrusion. I don't know whether it was yesterday or todays but we've had salt water intrusion. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Where is it, down along those inlets like Wunneweta Pond and stuff? MR. GARDNER: That's near Wunneweta, yeah. We have had problems. People have had to move their wells away, and while we have a very dry year this year, I understand it takes three or four dry years before you feel the effect. It can happen any time, but I can't say it is this year necessarily causing it because it is dry. But if we had two more, we'd be in trouble. That's what I'm told. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: There's a letter in here from the Depart- ment of Health Services dated March 2, 19772 and says to the Southold Town Board of Appeals: ...Your letter of 2/28/77 To Mr. Robert Villa of this office has been referred to me. The Department of Health Services has conducted several surveys of the Nassau Point area, the most detailed of which resulted in the 1971 report which we have enclosed for your reference. I have also enclosed a copy of the most recent samplings performed in 1975. While no statistical comparison can be drawn between those samples and those summarized in the survey report, the results do demonstrate that the same basic~quality problems still persist. The conclusions drawn in the 1971 report therefore are still pertinent. One point of clarification should be made with respect to the most recent samples. The analysis for these samples was expanded to include copper and zinc. The presence of copper and zinc indicates the occurrence of corrosion of copper and galvanized piping, respectively. Such corrosion is, tn turn, due to the natural acidity of Long Island ground water. The presence of these corrosion products are not thought to represent a health hazard, although aesthetic effects may occur. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -22- October 16, 1980 Should you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, feel free to contact this office .... Very truly yours, /s/ Paul J. Ponturo Ass't Public Health Engineer. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, if there are no further questions -- MR. BOLDEN: When was that recorded, '717 MR. CHAIRMAN: '77. I'll offer a resolution recessing this till the next regular meeting. We'll close the hearing and reserve decision. MRS. WICKHAM: No, I-- The Chairman withdrew his motion to close the hearing and moved to make the following resolution: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr, Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to recess the matter of Harry J. and Lillian Baglivi, Appeal No. 2750 till the next regular meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2751. Application of Harry Baglivi, by Skinny Dip Pools, Inc., P.O. Box 108, Mattituck, NY 11952, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-32 for permission to construct swimmingpool in the frontyard area. Location of property: 3440 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Alexander and Golden; west by Wunneweta Road; south by Horowitz; east by Nassau Point Road; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-111-4-32. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:26 p.m. by reading the appeal application, showing notice of hearing and affi- davits 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: Again, we have a section of the County Tax Map and survey showing where the proposed pool is to go. It is set on what is known as Lot 3. It doesn't give the distance. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -23- October 16, 1980 MR. BOEHLE: Can you give the boundaries of Lot 3? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, Lot 3 is bounded on the south by What would be Lot 2, and all it says on here. Did you want the dis- tances? MR. BOEHLE: Ownerships. I don't have a map in front of me. I'm confused about Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. MRS. BAGLIVI: Alexander and Horowitz. MR. BOEHLE: And then Wunneweta Road? MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. It doesn't have it on that map. Gail, do you have anything more you want to add to this? ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ.: Yes, because of the nature of this variance it's really only necessary in the event that you deny the previous variance. But I would like to~address the issues just based on the assumption that you have denied the first variance application. The consequence of that would be that this would all be one lot and therefore we're asking for permission to put a pool in what is considered the frontyard area because that is the area which is on a line parallel to Wunneweta Road. Now, if it is all considered one lo~, it mean.s that this property has no rear yard. So what we re asking~to put the pool in one of the yards, one of the frontyards. It happens to be the yard that is further from the road in a location that's a fair distance from the roadway. And is well suited on the lot itself. There are other accessory uses in the neighborhood, and in the actual frontyards of these lots, and I believe the Board is familiar with them. MRS. BAGLIVI: Tennis court- MRS. WICKHAM: Tennis court nearby, etc. MR. BAGLIVI: And pool. MRS. WICKHAM: And pool. But if it were to be considered one lot, there being no rearyard you just, under the ~echnical definition of the zoning ordinance, this is the only place you could put an accessory structure. MR. BOEHLE: You're referring to a frontyard, and it isn't called a frontyard because it isn't a separate lot yet. Is that right? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Wickham has the floor at the moment, so when she's through then you can ask your questions. MRS. WICKHAM: I'm through. I'll be glad to answer any questions. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -24- October 16, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, what was your question again? MR. BOEHLE: The frontyard she refers to is the lot we're trying to ask permission to create. We don't have it as a lot yet. MRS. WICKHAM: Um, if I may answer that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MRS. WICKHAM; The position on the previous hearing was that it already is a separate lot, and the Board is not being asked to create three lots but to recognize the fact that they already exist. If however they should decide for some reason that they don't exist, then we're considering one lot, so this application is really being requested only in the event that the previous one is denied. MR. BOEHLE: Can t ask the Board. What does it take to own a separate lot? A separate deed with separate ownership? MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BOEHLE: Do they have that provision right now, four separate deeds to these lots? MRS. BAGLIVI: In separate name~s, is that what he is saying? MRS. WICKHAM: May I answer that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MRS. WICKHAM: It's our position that either you have single or separate ownership or you have an approved subdivision, and that's what we feel we have here -- is an approved subdivision. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that answer the question? MR. BOEHLE: Not really but it's something to go on. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else to speak for this first? No one else for it? Those opposed? W.S. GARDNER: Our association, a large majority, is opposed to swimmingpools, one for the use of water and two, for aesthetic reasons. Two statements were made before which I don't quite understand, and I'd like to ask some questions. Driving around this property there are two excavations. One or Nassau Point Road and one on Wunneweta Road. And I'd like to know is the one on Nassau Point Road the one we're talkirg about for the swimmingpool? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. That's for weeding the garden. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- October 16, 1980 MR. GARDNER: That's going to be a subterranean garden. could go in that hole and you wouldn't even be ablelto see the top of my head. MR. CHAIRMAN: He says it will be filled by November. MR. GARDNER: Why dig it out and fill it up though. very, very peculiar. It's MR. CHAIRMAN: There's nothing but sand]in there, and he wants to put something in there that will make stuff grow. MR. GARDNER: What is he going to grow, trees with roots down eight feet? I mean this is not the question before you gentlemen. It's a little, say, "questionable.!' So it's nOt the one on Nassau Point Road that they're talking about, that's not the excavation-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Not for the pools, no. The pool is on WUnneweta. MR. GARDNER: That's the big excavation in the back, the very wide one. The back on Wunneweta? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. GARDNER: Now, it seems to me considering there is no backyard, I think if the subdivision is not allowed, and we stick to the zoning code, one-acre lots, .there is a backyard. On either Lot number 1 or 2, I don't know which one it is. One or two backs up to on somebody else's lot. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, 2 and 3. MR. GARDNER: Three is on Wunneweta, right? MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. And 2 is-- MR. GARDNER: And 1 and 2 are on Nassau Point Road. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. GARDNER: So 1 or 2 back up to somebody else's property that's next to 3 on Wunneweta. MR. CHAIRMAN: Two backs up to 3, and if it's left as one lot there is no backyard. MR. GARDNER: All right, but it's left all as one lot, l, 2, and 3. And 1 has a backyard. MR. CHAIRMAN: That already has a garage and another build- ing in it. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -26- October 16, 1980 MR. GARDNER: MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. GARDNER: is not true. MR. CHAIRMAN: But it has a backyard. That does. So the claim that it wouldn't be a backyard You're leaving the three lots in, and we're leaving the, the dwelling is on Lot 2, and what remains of that lot fronts on Wunneweta, is that what you're-- MR. GARDNER: Nos but 1, 2 and 3, assuming that it's one lot, so a portion of that l, 2 and 3-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, one little section, 99 feet. MR. GARDNER: Right, and it has a backyard. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. GARDNER: So that's what I'm saying, that is a backyard there. And of course as you know, we went through a great battle on pools with Mr. Eggers and Mr. Brac. We took a very active interest on backyard verses frontyard. MR. CHAIRMAN: But the zoning law though, the backyard is behind the dwelling. MR. GARDNER: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well it wouldn't be. The dwelling is on Lot 2. And the lot line runs 100 feet from there out to Wunneweta that can't be backyard. MR. GARDNER: You mean the house on Lot 2-- MR. CHAIRMAN: It's only a partial backyard in that lot. When you combine the three lots. MR. GARDNER: Yeah, I'm saying, on this supposed Lot 1 is a backyard. So I'm saying there is a backyard if these three lots are kept together. MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. GARDNER: MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. GARDNER: MR. CHAIRMAN: looking for. Yeah, but just on part of it. All right, there is a backyard. Yeah, but that's no use to us. It's what? It's no good for what purposes they're ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -27- October 16, 1980 MR. GARDNER: I'm not worried about their purposes; I'm worried about the zoning code. MR. CHAIRMAN~ Well, that's what we're a little concerned with too. MR. GARDNER: I don't think it's a clean-cut thing if they say they have no front, no backyard. I think this should be taken under advice too so we can get more facts and argue our point. MR GARRIGAN: Do I understand that the Building Inspector turned down the pool? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. GARRIGAN: Then why doesn't the town do something about a man that starts an excavation to build a pool? You know, if he doesn't have a permit why do you permit him to do this? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Building Department can go ahead and penalize them and fine them up to $250 a day. MR. GARRIGAN: Don't you people do anything about it? MR. CHAIRMAN: We're not the enforcing agency. We can't do anything about it. The Building Department is the enforcement agency. MR. GARRIGAN: So we should go to the Building Department. MR. CHAIRMAN: That s right. What was your name, sir? MR. GARRtGAN: Garrigan. MRS. WICKHAM: In this hearing also the question of water came up and I would just like to inform the Board that the pool will not be one that will be re-filled every year. It will be filled initially, water will have to be put in to keep the level up, but it will be closed in the winter with the water in it. I would think that people watering their lawns, taking long baths and showers probably use .... waste water as much as anything else. And I don't think that's the point here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well this will be recessed along with the other one, because the both of them are tied together. MR. BOEHLE: Do I understand correctly we cannot decide the question of the pool until we ascertain the question of the four separate lots? Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- October 16, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Three separate lots. MR. BOEHLE: Three separate lots. Then we can talk pools, houses or whatever. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BOEHLE: If they put a pool in they could always put a house behind it, still got room for that. MRS. WICKHAM: Front of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Front of it. Put the house in front of the pool ,. MR. BOEHLE: Ok. The first thing to be decided from here on in is the question of the lot. MR. CHAIRM~N: Right. MR. BOEHLE: And that'll be determined by next week, next meeting? MR. CHAIRMAN: No-- MEMBER DOUGLASS: It will come up on November -- MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a little problem getting the dates set up for the next meeting. I will be out of town from the 4th till the 15th. Normally the meeting would have been the 6th. So we either have to meet on the 20th of this month-- SECRETARY: You mean the 30th. MR. CHAIRMAN: 30th of this month, or November 13th. Or the 20th. MRS. WICKHAM: Excuse me, is the hearing finished? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. We're just trying to get a date set for the next hearing. I'll offer a resolution recessing this one to go with the first (Baglivi) hearing. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of Harry J. Baglivi, Appeal ~o. 2751 be recessed till the next regular meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, )oyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -29- October 16, 1980 The Chairman announced that the next regular meeting of this Board will be November 20, 1980 prior to the unanimous vote to recess on Appeal No. 2751 Harry J. Baglivi. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2753. Application of Charles Sidorowicz, 125A Cox Neck Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct garage in sideyard area. Location of property: 125A Cox Neck Road, Mattituck, NY; bounded northeast by Mattituck Creek; northwest by Mrowicki; southwest by Cox Neck Road; south- east by Sievernich. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-113-8-4. The~,Chairman opened the hearing at 9:49 p.m. by reading the appeal application, showing notice of hearing and affi- davits 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 survey and a county tax map showing the area of this property and all the adjoining properties. This is a tremendously long lot, off Cox Neck Road and goes all the way down Mattituck Creek a distance of 471 feet on one side and 520 feet on the other. Is there anyone here to speak for this application? CHARLES SIDOROWICZ: I have nothing to add to the application. I will answer any questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Do any of you fellows have any questions? Bob? MEMBER DOUGLASS: I would say he should stay the three feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sidoriwcz, would there be any reason why you couldn't make that three feet instead of 2-1/2 feet, move it six inches towards the house? MR. SIDOROWICZ: Inside? Possibly. Yes. I don't see why not, I think that can be arranged. Right now there is an exist- ing foundation as you know. And it drops off to like a walkway. Possibly I could have that filled in and move it over si~ inches. If that's what you'd like. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's narrow, and it would be pretty close, if somebody should come up with the same thing on the other lot then you would have, you know, there wouldn't be too much room for you there. It would be better if you'd have at least three feet. MR. SIDOROWICZ: I think that can be arranged. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone to speak for this? Against? Then I'll make a motion this be approved with a three foot sideyard. Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- October 16, 1980 After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed seeking a vaniance to re-construct detached garage at the southeast corner of the existing dwelling 2.5 feet from the side yard line at Cox's Neck Road, Mattituck. The premises in question contains an area of approxi- mately 41,500 square feet, fronting 80.0 feet on Cox's Neck Road, and existing are a split-level frame house with patio areas and detached floor slab. The rearyard area is'_minimal due to the bluff. The Board finds and determines that the relief requested in relation to the Code requirements is not substantial; that if the variance is aranted no detriment to adjoining proper- ties will be created; that no adverse effect or change will be produced in the character of the neiahborhood; that the circumstances herein are unique; and that the spirit of the zoning ordinance will be observed. On motion by Mr. Gri§onis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED. that Charles Sidorowicz, 125A Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. NY be gr~ a varlance to the zoning ordina'nce, Article III, Section--~--T-~o-32 permitting the construction of a detached garage as applied for, provided that: (1) The existing floor slab be the area at which the detached garage is to be constructed; (2) The detached garage be constructed not closer than three feet to the east sideyard line. Location of property: 125A Cox Neck Road, Mattituck, NY; bounded northeast by Mattituck Creek; northwest by Mrowicki; southwest by Cox Neck Road; southeast by Sievernich; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-113-8-4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douq- lass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2754. Application of Thomas Yasso, 1055 Soundview Ave., Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct addi- tion with an insufficient sideyard setback at 1055 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck; bounded north by L.I. Sound; west by Stritzler; south by Soundview Ave.; east by Mattituck Shores Associates; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-94-1-9. $outhold Town Board of Appeals -31- October 16, 1980 ~' MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the County TaX Map and survey showing the proposal of the house. Is there anyone here to speak for this application? Against? Discussion? (Negative) After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance to construct a deck addition at 1055 Soundview Avenue, Matt. ituck, with an insufficient sideyard setback at the east side. The premises in question contains an area of approximately 35,000 square feet and existing on same is a one-family dwelling with deck at the rear of the dwelling, and approximately 261.2' deep into the lot is a bluff. 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 detriment to adjoining proper- ties will be created; that no adverse effect or change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood; that the circumstances herein are unique; and that the spirit of the zoning ordinance will be observed. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Thomas Yasso, 1055 Soundview Avenue, Mat- tituck, New York be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 permitting the construction of the deck addition at the northeast side of existing dwelling, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That the deck be constructed not closer than nine feet to the easterly sideyard line rather than as applied for; (2) That this matter be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for their review. Location of property: 1055 Sound¥iew Avenue, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by L.I. Sound; west by Stritzler; south by Soundview Avenue; east by Mattituck Shores Associates; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-94-1-9. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Goehringer and Sawicki. Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2736. Application of Fanny Behlen Community Health Center, P.O. Box 659, Greenport, NY 11944 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), Greenport, NY; bounded north by North Road; west Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- October 16, 1980 by Fenno; south by Fransisco; east by Nedoszytko; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-40-3-3.1. ~' The Chairman~opened the hearing at 10:05 p,m. by reading the appeal application, showing notice of hearing and affi- davits 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 section of the County Tax Map show- ing this parcel and the adjoining properties. We have maps here, surveys rather. Does someone wish to speak for it? ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ.: Yes, I would like to address the Board to say that we support the application for reasons stated in it. We think that it's a reasonable use of the property and the location being on one of the two east-west roads near the Village of Greenport in that area of Town where you have quite a bit of activity already in terms of not only residential but multiple-residential and business. It is a good location for the center. The design of the building as you can see from the site plan has been developed with every effort to make it com- patible with the surrounding properties. We believe that the parking is going to be adequate and screening of adjoining prop- erties will be adequate, and that it will not create any sort of either nuisance or excessive traffic problem for the area. The operation of the clinic will be on an out-patient basis, of course there will be no people staying there, other than just in and out during the day. And we will be servicing patients mainly by appointment and therefore staggering the flow of traffic in and out of the site. I really think that's all I have to say right now, but I will be glad to answer any ques- tions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Wickham. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in behalf of this? SHERLEY KATZ: I would like to reserve the right to speak later. I think you have two applications before you. One is for a variance on the boundary, and the other is for the use of the land. One is on the setback, and the other one is on the use of the land itself. MR. CHAIRMAN: This one is for the Special Exception, for the use of the land. MRS. KATZ: No, I filed one with you myself, if you will recall. The one I filed was on the boundaries. Miss Wickham filed this one on the Special Exception. The one for the boundaries I filed myself in September. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -33- October 16, 1980 SECRETARY: Mr. Fisher (Building Inspector) only turned it down for the use of the land, not for the setbacks. That's all that is on his disapproval. MRS. WICKHAM: Ok. I think that perhaps the problem is that the line of future expansion is shown 50 feet from the road, and that the line of the building is within 100 feet of the street line. Is that the problem? I think that what we should do is to give you maps which show the line of the building. Oh, you have them here. Well then what we're really asking for is a reduction in the required setback, and a reduction in the side- yard setback. Mrs. Katz came up to the dais to review the applications. The disapproval Of the building inspector was pointed out show- ing that nothing was mentioned as to a reduction in setbacks. MRS. KATZ: What is the second (application) for? SECRETARY: For the use if the Special Exception does not cover it. MR. CHAIRMAN: This one is the Special Exception for the use. MRS. WICKHAM: Excuse me, I didn't know that until this afternoon. I thought the reduction in the setback was going to be covered under one. MRS. KATZ: So then all you would be considering tonight is the use of the land? SECRETARY: The Buildin~ Inspector didn't give a disapproval concerning the insufficient setbacks, and a variance isn't filed until a disapproval is~made on that basis. MRS. WICKHAM: I thought you were going to consider it in connection with the Special Exception, the setbacks. SECRETARY: It should be a separate application. MRS. WICKHAM: It's part of our request for a Special Excep- tion. MRS. KATZ: Well this was filed; and we weren't notified that it wasn't going to be included. MRS. WICKHAM: I know, that's on the use. Yeah. MRS. KATZ: This is on the boundaries. MRS. WICKHAM: For a differentr- Not for a Special Exception. But I don't understand how we can ask for a variance and a ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- October 16, 1980 Special Exception at the same time. Is that what we're doing? SECRETARY: In here (Code) it says that it's permitted under a Special Exception, if-- MRS. WICKHAM: Provided it's a 100 feet. SECRETARY: If the Special Exception were approved, it would probably be subject to your returning for a setbacks variance. MRS. WICKHAM: Oh, ok. I see. I thought that was all going to be under the Special Exception. MEMBER DOUGLASS: You have to determine what they are first. They have not determined what they are yet. SECRETARY: Yes, that's correct. MEMBER DOUGLASS: you come under. saying a clinic. You have got to tell us which one of these You're not classifying yourself, you're just MRS. WICKHAM: Right. For ambulatory care. MEMBER DOUGLASS: allowed. It has to be one of these things to be MRS. WICKHAM: Yes, I understand that. But this is one of those. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Which one is it? That's what we want to know. It doesn't tell us. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hospital, nursing, rest home, sanitaria for general medical care~ MRS. WICKHAM: It's not a full hospital, but it's an ambulatory hospital, as a clinic, which is-- MEMBER DOUGLASS: Sanitaria for general medicare care? MRS. WICKHAM: No. That's, what we're asking for is some- thing less than a full hospital, but a clinic which is a hospital type facility, but not, we're certainly not asking for the full scope of hospital services. So I think it would be within. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you then say it's a transient hospital? MRS. WICKHAM: It's an ambulatory clinic, which is a subsec- tion of what you could consider a hospital, but it's not a ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -35- October 16, 1980 hospital in the full sense of the term. But I think it falls within that category. MEMBER DOUGLASS: That's what we needed. Because if it doesn't fall in any of these categories, it doesn't come in to-- MRS. WICKHAM: Right, but it does fall within that type of use as a hospital, but certainly not for the full range of services because there isn't going to be any in-patient care. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just ambulatory, and that's all. MRS. WICKHAM: Ambulatory, strictly. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to ask Gail, you know, Mrs. Katz or anybody else. Were there any specific reasonsfor this particular site as opposed to any other site? Did you suggest this site because it was close to Greenport, and is there any reason why you wouldn't select a site that was more equally dis- tant between the two hospitals -- between Riverhead and, you know, still in Southold Town? MRS. KATZ: I'd like to address myself to that. Greenport some time ago was judged a pocket of poverty by the Federal Government, and that's why they have cast the economic Oppor- tunity Council Program there. We had originally selected a site in Greenport, but it was not for sale. Now, under the Greenport Zoning we would have to have at least an acre because you have to have off-street parking. The property was not for sale, and there was no other parcel within the Village that could be used. Our thought in placing it where we did was for two reasons. Number one, it did go closer to the area ~f growth in the township. It was still accessible from Greenport. It is close to KOA, it is also close to the Nursing Home, and it is also close to a migrant camp, all of whom would obviously need services of some time or another, particularly the migrant camp, which is something the Federal Government looks on with favor. We are not suggesting that there's going to be a great deal of traffic because we are using an adult bus, and as has been mentioned, the appointments will be scheduled and if you figure roughly 6,000 patients and 40 hours a week, you can pretty well tell it might be a patient every 20 minutes. It certainly is not going to include any tremendous amount of traffic. We also have asked the County to research and make a recommendation to us in the event they think that the kind of traffic generated will be some kind of a light, sign or something of the sort. The property selected was done partially because the Federal Government demands we own the property that this particular building is going to be placed on. The kind of mortgaging that we will be §etting demands that the property be owned by the facility. Buying commercially zoned property is so absorbent that we couldn't touch. Now, that the area has been declared medically undeserved, and the fact has been S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -36- October 16, 1980 (Mrs. Katz continued:) brought out by a survey which shows we are 3.9 primary-care physicians short. It seemed a good site. It did not seem as though it would be compatible with the area. I know there are businesses in the area. I know Mr. Telsey, who wrote a letter stating he would prefer not to have it there, I believe conducts a real estate-- MR. TELSEY: We live there. MRS. KATZ: The fact still remains it's a business. MR. TELSEY: It's not a business. MRS. KATZ: But I don't think it will be a burden'of any kind on the area. The building will be compatible. It will be screened adequately from the road. There is a right-of-way of 15 feet on one side between this property and Mr. Nedoszytko's property. And there's a 15 foot right-of-way that he will have to put in, too, because the road has to go to the back of the property for whenever it is developed, whatever, and this is one of the covenants of the deed. The County bought the land; they did this, this agreement came about last December. It was finalized this summer. And the understanding is it will be deeded back to us upon completion of our facility, at which time the purchase price will be picked up in the F.H.A. mortgage. MR. TELSEY: Mrs. Katz, may I ask you a question? MRS. KATZ: I would rather you direct it to him, and then him direct it to me. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it has to go this way (through the chair) because we'll all get confused. MR. TELSEY: Ok. Did you ask for opposition? MR. CHAIRMAN: Not yet. MR. TELSEY: I wanted to ask her, who sold them the land, that's the question. In a residential area? MR. CHAIRMAN: Who sold whom the land to-- MR. TELSEY: To, to Mrs. Katz or the purchaser for Mrs. Katz. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well who owned the land previously? Who sold it? MRS. ~ICKHAM: A gentleman by the name of Mr. Fransisco. Who subdivided Armory Acres into a minor subdivision, and then he sold to the County. Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- October 16, 1980 MR. TELSEY: Now who sold her the land, I would like to have that question answered. I think it's necessary. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fransisco. MR. TELSEY: She owned the land. Who was the agent involved? MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I don't know. MR. TELSEY: I'd like to have that answered. It's pertinent. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't think that falls into our cate- gory. MR. TELSEY: No. But it's important to know. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, you're talkingaabout who the real estate people are. MR. TELSEY: Who sold her residential land to be used for a clinic purpose. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that comes under our jurisdiction. MR. TELSEY: No, it doesn't. Really doesn't. But it's per- tinent because you'll find out later, as this case comes along you'll find out it is important. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say something? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Telsey, there i~s a corporation, I believe it's in Riverhead, called Suffolk County Public Records, and they publish all the-- MR. TELSEY: But that won't show the realtor who sold the land. That would show the grantor-- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That would show the attorneys that were involved. MR. TELSEY: That's right. Yes. But I'll find that out later. If I don't get an answer from her, I'll find it out from yourself. In the meantime let's continue. Is there anyone else to speak for this? Anyone here to speak against this? MR. WILLIAM NEDOSZYTKO: My name is William Nedosztko, and I own Lot 2 in Armory Acres. And I bought the property in 1974 with the specific reason of eventually building a home on it. And I feel that if this health care center should be placed on the lot next to me not only wodens the value of my property but also the two lots that are directly behind it will lose their Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- October 16, 1980 property value also. I have with me a covenant and restriction applying to that property, and number two, states that onlya one private dwelling shall be constructed on each lot; and that no lot or portion thereof will be further subdivided or otherwise split, and I think this is sufficient reason not to allow that health care center because it will not keep with the character of what the property was intended for. Also, any type of property that's run by any type of government will probably be taken off the tax rolls and although the point that Mrs. Katz brought out that Greenport is a poverty area, taking that piece of property and the beautiful piece of property that it is off the tax rolls will further drive the tax rates up and there will be more poverty level involved by the people that will be staying behind to pay their taxes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (Mr. Nedoszytko handed the Chairman a copy of unsigned covenants and restrictions that he read earlier into the record.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else? MR. TELSEY: My name is Mr. Telsey; t live on the North Road east of the KOA on the north side of the North ~oad. I and my neighbors strenuously object to the locating of this clinic on the North Road. One because it's zoned residential; and if we permit a clinic on that road it'll change the character of the community. Secondly, it's a two-lane road and it is a two-lane road; and it is already overburdened by traffic. I have here a letter from the Department of Public Works; and I think there is a letter in your file, evidencing the fact that this is an out-moded road and that it would eventually be widened because of the fact that it's unsafe at the present time. Thirdly, I object strenuously to the information given to you by Mrs. Katz. She says to you that this will be used for about 6,500 patients, would be staggered and come at all hours of the day and night and on Saturdays. In a letter or a statement she gave to the Suffolk Life on September 15th, and I quote, ...She estimated a total of 8,500 patients in the center within the first year of which 2,500 will be dental. Katz said scheduling staggered hours for evenings and Saturday office time for working people, a play area to keep children occupied if their parents are busy with this center's dentist, and a referral system for specialists will be part of the program .... " Then there is another reason I object to it. This being a community health center, we are all going to pay for this thing. There is no free lunch. This is going to runinto a million or maybe two million dollars. And it's necessary that we have broad public participation in this matter, just to listen to it and have a few people come here. That is not the way to run, to have a center established. We must have broad public participation because it's our money that's going to be spent on that facility. And another thing, I refer you to Mrs. Katz' impact Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- October 16, 1980 (Mr. Telsey continued:) environmental statement. She says it won't have an impact on the traffic. She says it won't qave any major effect on the character community. Character community is residential. It's evident that it's going to have an effect. She says there won't be any public controversy. She never came to me. She never spoke to my neighbors. And this covers an area of Southold and Shelter Island. So it's important for us to make sure that it's properly located. We feel that it should be located to near the center of things w~ere there will be no duplication of facilities. We feel it should be closer to the hospital. MRS. KATZ: We do too, but the hospital doesn't want it. MR. TELSEY: In cases of this kind, if this is for public use, we people of the Town and the County can condemn land if we feel it's necessary for the public welfare. So there's no excuse for going into a residential area. And trying to kill this man's-property so be can't build a residence any more. It wont'~be worthwhile to reside in a place like that. ~ow she then goes on and states as you'll see in the record there, it says, "only one of the many examined that could be purchased in A-Residential area. Why did she go to an A-qesidential area. Doesn't the Master Plan provide for an area where a medical center or a clinic can be established? So that's why we're strenuously opposed to this. We ask you that this matter be recessed for more public, broad public participation. Let's get the community in here. Southold and Shelter Island. People that come from Shelter Island they have to get off the ferry, jump, get on some transporta- tion up to the North Road. The facility is out of the loca- tion. It should be in the center of things. Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Telsey, I don't want you to think that this is a derogatory statement; but you keep on referring to the word "we. How many people are you repre- senting? MR. TELSEY: Wait a minute. I spoke to all, most of my neighbors, and we haven't too many neighbors in the direct area. There are many neighbors up on the hill. Most of them are not there at the present time. Some of them, of course, I didn't have a chance to go all the way up the road, and our road from the North Fork Motel to Porky's Restaurant, that is a well-traveled road. The traffic there has become terrific. And if you'll see by the letter by the Public Works, having a K.O.A., three motels, two condominium facilities, and a nursing home which has a permit to build condominiums-sticking a medical center in between would cause a terrific hazard on this particular road. Not only to the users of the clinic but to the traveling public. It's unbelievable that this location ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -40- October 16, 1980 should be picked. That's why I asked, who sold her this property? I know. I'm pretty sure I know. But I wanted to find out if that is the real person. Now, are there any other questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well you didn't answer my question. many people do you represent. How MR. TELSEY: Oh. I have here, I have just gone to my neigh- bors here; I have a petition here. In fact that's why I asked for a recess. I will get you maybe 500 names on that thing as to the location of the clinic. These are all the people on the North Road, my neighbors, next door, Queen Street, Thugesen who's down the road, and of course I own a piece of property across the way from there. There's a piece of property that's occupied by a tenant of mine who objects. I own two pieces of ~roperty--the County Park is in between. If you look at the map. I'm on each side. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May we keep this for-- MR. TELSEY: Oh yes. Take the top off, because I'll get you more. That's why I wanted-- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you want this back (pad). MR. TELSEY: No, no. Take this. I can get others. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I mean, I knew you were an attorney, that's the reason why I asked -- MR. TELSEY: That's ok. No, no. I don't want you to feel that I'm just misrepresenting you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, no. I didn't say that. MR. TELSEY: No, no. It's all right. I spoke~to not only my neighbors but I spoke to plenty of people in the Senior Citizens. Most of them object to the location, they say, "Why should we travel up on the North Road on a two-lane road, when we can go into Greenport and near a hospital and all the facilities will be centered there." It's our town; and it's our money; your money; we're paying for it. As I say again, there's no free beer or no free lunches. It's going to run into the millions. And if we're going to locate a thing that's going to cost millions of dollars, let's do it right. Mr. Telsey presented the Board with a petition signed by 10 individuals, including himself, objecting to the locating of the proposed Fanny Behlen Community Health Center on the North Road as setforth in the Notice of Hearing on October 16, 1980. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that wanted to speak? ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -~l- October 16, 1980 MRS. KATZ: Mr. Grigonis, I would just like to say one thing. The only thing that I really feel rather strongly about is to use the word "millions." Believe me~ it's a .very modest undertaking of 5,000 square feet. The top figure is well under a half a million dollars. Plus the fact that we agree with Mr. Telsey that we should have been located in the hospital. No one questions this. There's no argument. It was their decision that we could not be. This was investigated/explored first of all. So we took the next best move we could. MR. TELSEY: In a residential area. May I say something else? MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. TELSEY: We have a Master Plan with this Town. Doesn't the Master Plan make provisions for cases of this kind? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think there is anything in there that covers this, because we had gone through the grdinance trying to find out what could be done-- MR. TELSEY: Wait a minute. As far as your ordinance is concerned, thanks for reminding me, the law doesn't accept this type of facility. This statute should be strictly construed. It's either in there or not in there. It just can't be in between. So when counsel says that it's not exactly a hospital, it's a sort of in between. Well a medical center doesn't fit in that, in your section four, a clinic. She says it's not a hosital. It's a clinic. It's an ambulatory clinic, where people come back and forth. They'll come from Greenport to Shelter Island from the Town of Southold, and they have to go up on the North Road, a two-lane road, you have a letter in the record there from the Public Works, telling you how safe this particular road is. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is one of our problems trying to-- MR. TELSEY: Well either-Tasker will tell you, Tasker should construe this, this law should be strictly construed and in my opinion it doesn't fit into this section. This is a downzoning. Not a special exception. This is what this is. And it's, if they're going to have dental offices there, belong in a B-Zone. They have to go along to the Master Plan and get a location within the bounds that they are committed. And that should be done. And I think Mrs. Katz should be helped to find a location. We should help her find a location--the Town and the County should help her find a location, because-- MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no question that something like that is needed. MR. TELSEY: That's right. There's no question of the need. We don't object to the ambulatory clinic. We just object to a Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- October 16, 1980 (Mr. Telsey continued:) location. We should help her. She did a wonderful job up until now. Let's give her credit where credit is due. But on the last thing she fouled up. And let me tell you a little story. There was a, an old country story, where a father had an apprentice son, he was teaching him the glass business. How to make a glass, how to mix the ingredients, how to mix the sand. And then it came time when the son was going to do it himself. So he mixed everything-he did everything perfect. Beautiful. And he put the paint up to dry. And when it dried, it was cloudy. So he asked his father, why is this cloudy? He says, "Son~ he says, "You know what hap- pened?'' He said, "You forgot to blow on it like this, and it would have been clear." This is the example. Mrs. Kat~ was beautiful in everything she had done, exce~the last step. Mr. Wilton, of the K.O.A., I understand was supposed to be here. He also objects to it. I don't know why he isn't here today. But that's why I asked for a recess. I think his mother is sick. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have to get some reports in from the County Planning Board and all that, so we'll have to recess this till about December 4, 1980. MRS. WICKHAM: If there are no other comments, I'd like to speak on this. But I don't know if anybody has anything else to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Someone else, back there? FREDERICK S. LIGHTFOOT: I'm Frederick S. Lightfoot and I live at Fourth Avenue, Greenport, and I'm on the Building Committee of the Fanny Behlen Health Center. I think we have in our town what happens in every town that develops as the populati, on increases, there have to be more facilities. And inevitably, some main highways become the locations for them. And so we have the condominiums on our North Road, we have the K.O.A. on the North Road, we have a nursing home on the North Road, and this is inevitable. This is the sort of thing that happens. We have candy stores. MR. TELSEY: Candy? MR. LIGHTFOOT: That's right. Candy store on the North Road; we've got VanDuzer Gas Supply, so they're trucks on the North Road. These are things that you'll have to expect as the Town develops. The only way you can stop it is by having zerOJpopulation growth. And while I must admit that in our argument, that the people who have residential properties along a road like that, it is distressing to see a change come before progress. To them it's a change. They came there for quiet when they first went to the North Road. It had only a few cars a day. Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- October 16, 1980 (Mr. Lightfoot continued:) Now there's a steady stream ~rom the Orient Ferry. It's all over the same road. We just have to accept this right to progress. I think there's one benefit for these people in the long run. Even- tually many of these residential properties will probably have to become commercial. And then it's to their benefit to sell their properties at higher profits. I've been connected with housing and other projects and I've seen the same thing happen in Huntington, which today is practically a city. I hope we never reach that stage here, but we certainly-have to have clinics, or at least one clinic in this area. We've got more senior citizens here every year. We have more tourists every year. We still have a very large migrant population. I'd like to point out to you that Mr. Cohalan has stricken $160,000 out of the County budget for the care of migrants in the medical part in the next budget. So it's vital for us to have this clinic. MR. NEDOSZYTKO: I would just like to get from Mr. Lightfoot's comments. He says that it's unfortunate that property will even- tually be zoned for business. My intention was to buy business property and hold it until I could sell it to make a profit. I certainly would have done that in the first place. My intention is to have property residential and keep the make-up the community the way it is up there. Also, in Huntington, Mr. Lightfoot says it's unfortunate that Huntington has become what it is today, but by the same token he wants the same type of progress out here to turn this Southold Town area into the same type of progress to make it into Huntington. And I disagree with that. MR. LIGHTFOOT: As I said, I hope we never become like Hunting- ton, but I don't see that we have a zero population growth policy in Southold. MR. NEDOSZYTKO: But by making orogress, you could help it quite a bit. MRS. WICKHAM: I'll be brief. I just wanted to address a couple of points that were brought up by the two gentlemen here. First of all there was a reference to taxes and the property being off the tax rolls. I'd like to point out that the three lots in the subdivision, exclusive of Mr. Nedoszytko's are now taxed under $400. All three lots. Now if they were taken off the tax rolls, that may be a detriment; but on the otherhand how many people will the center employ? MRS. KATZ: About 16. MRS. WICKHAM: About 16. Now, that as an economic benefit to the Town I think can't be argued. The other thing I want to men- tion is that the gentleman who sold the County for the benefit of the health center, this lot, still owns the two lots behind here. Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- October 16, 1980 (Mrs. Wickham continued:) So I don't think he was concerned about a depreciation in his property value. He was aware of the use to which this property would be requested to be put. Moreover, no proof has been shown here about depreciating property values. I think it's mere speculation. There are special exception provisions in the code and contemplate that these types of uses would be compatible in a residential neighborhood, that's why they're provided for. The reference to the types of uses include a hospital, and this is a hospital type facility. It's a health center with the out-patient aspects of a hospital. We're not asking for the full complimentable types of facilities. I think that would certainly be a lot more to ask for in this type of neighborhood. As far as the neighbors go, most of the surrounding area is undeveloped multi-residence property, and if those properties were developed in multiple, this would certainly be very compatible with that. ~ot only that, the old idea that they like the idea, but they don't want it in their backyard seems to be prevalent here; but I think Mr. Lightfoot adjusted the problem. It does have to be some use somewhere for this type of property, and on a major highway that that's the best place to be. The only other thing I want to say is regarding this so-called covenant regarding one-family dwelling. That was a mere statement by Mr. Fransisco when he subdivided that there wouldn't be more than one house on any one lot; and that the lots wouldn't be further subdivided. This is some- thing Planning Board often wants to make sure you won't come back again and want to put two or three houses on it. The covenant in the declaration was only that the lots would not be further subdivided, not that there would only be one house. So there is no restriction here on whether it be residential. MR. NEDOSZYTKO: If those restrictions were just for that thing, to make the Planning Board or the Zoning Board go along with the subdivision, what stops me from violating any other of those restrictions that are on that sheet of paper. What stops me from building, or putting some type of barrier across my 15-foot right-of-way that goes to the back two lots. MRS. WICKHAM: That's entirely different, it has nothing to do with it. MR. NEDOSZYTKO: No, I mean, I could violate those laws too and it has nothing to do with it. MRS. WICKHAM: It s not a covenant. It was merely a state- ment which Mr. Fransisco in fact put in an affidavit to us indicating that he did not intend to limit it to residential. It was merely a statement to the Planning Board that not more than one dwelling would be put on, or any other type of building. Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- October 16, 1980 MR. NEDOSZYTKO: And also I would like to state that I have been in quite frequent contact with Mr. Fransisco in regards to the make-up of the two back lots; and the story that he told me, and of course I don't expect you to take this--I mean if you really want to get it from the horse's mouth I would suggest that you contact him directly. But he told me that when he had that provision made up, he had hopes of just four houses on that area. And that after I bought my property and then the K.O.A. went him, qe was disenfranchised with the way the property was running in that area, so he was going to sell that lot for whatever reason he could find. He is presently doing quite a big of real estate work in Colorado, and he really has no thoughts or any cares about what happens to the other two lots in Southold Town. You can check with him yourself per- sonally if you'd like to. MRS, WICKHAM: That's all I have thank you. MEMBER DOUGLASS: May I have the floor, Charlie. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Abigail? I'd like to ask you a question before you leave. On that drawing in there in reference to this right-of-way of 15' and 15'. Has not the architect assumed that that is part of the width of the lot? MRS. WICKHAM: I can't tell from this drawing how he has located it. I see what your question-- MEMBER DOUGLASS: He has measured from the center of the thing. MRS. WICKHAM: Actually, I think that what he did -- I see your question. The map is misleading in that, where is it, it says 30 foot right-of-way. This is the 30 foot right-of-way. We own this portion. We have a right-of-way over this portion. These people over the back have a right- of-way over this portion. So it is part of our ownership. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah, but it cannot be construed in side lines. Side lines start from the right-of-way. Not from here. MRS. WICKHAM: I thought the side line started from the boundary lines. MEMBER DOUGLASS: S~awts from where that right-of-way is. MRS. WICKHAM: I want to check that out first. verify that after I speak with Mr. Fisher. I'll MR. TELSEY: Mr. Grigonis, I'd like to state one more fact. Southold Town Board of Appeals -46- October 16~ 1980 (Mr. Telsey continued:) I was to submit to you a letter from the County of Suffolk Depart- ment of Health Services, from Dr. David Harris. And he says to me: Dated: October 8, 1980: "...Thank you for bringing to my attention the question of the zoning of the site proposed for the locati~on of the Fanny Behlen Health Center. I have not previously been informed about any potential zoning problem .... And of course I am going to leave this. And then he says: "...I agree that health facilities should be subject to local zoning as set out' by the local zoning board .... " And I'd like you to put this in your file. I think you've got one maybe. SECRETARY: No. A carbon copy is noted to Henry Raynor of the Planning Board. MR. TELSEY: Oh, then put that in your file. And of course, did I give you one of these from the Planning Department about the intrusion of business on the road? SECRETARY: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes. MR. TELSEY. You got that. MRS. KATZ: May I make one more observation? Taking into a local board for the zoning is precisely what we're doing. There was no reason for the County to be involved in any portion of this at all. This is not a County health center, It is funded by the Federal Government-- MR. TELSEY: And the County. MRS. KATZ: No, Mr. Telsey. Mr. Telsey, let me explain something. Just one minute please I have the floor. MR. TELSEY: Go ahead. MRS. KATZ: In order for us to get the Federal funding, the County had to give what we call a local percentage. And it was much less expensive to contribute the $40,000 a year towards our operating exoense then it would be, sir, to spend your tax dollars on another County health center altogether. It would cost you a great deal more. The fact is the County has nothing to do with the running of the center, where it is located, and so forth. We asked the County Legislatureto handle it when Denis Hurley was still our Legislator. They agreed to do St Southold Town Board of Appeals -47- Octob r 16, 1980 (Mrs. Katz continued:) because of the necessity of this particular medical c6re, which they are lacking in this community. MR. TELSEY: In the statement to the Suffolk Life newspaper on September 10, 1980, "...a total of $40,000 yearly for operating costs will come from the County, along with an initial grant totalling of $30,000 for equipment .... " And she says the County has nothing to do with. it. (Mr. Telsey submitted the documents for the record~ Letter from Dr. David Harris, Commissioner, Suffolk CountY Department of Health services dated October 8, 1980 addressed to Mr. Benson S. TelseY and the contents of which is shown on the next page of these minutes; also photocopy of a newspaper article with the notation "Suffolk Life Newspaper 9/10/80" and entitled, "Sept. 15 Date Hearing on Dental Unit", the contents of which is also shown on a subsequent page of these minutes.) MR. TELSEY: And that's for your file. DOROTHY FAULKON: I just wanted to add that the purpose of the County adding the $40,000 annual operating funds is because not only does the Federal funding grant require what they call a 20% local funding effort, that would mean that under normal conditions we would be expected to go out into the community with a fund-raising drive. We have, because we have no inten- tion of doing this, because for us to do this we felt would be a competition with Eastern Long Island Hospital's annual fund- raising drive, which is very important to the community to begin With, therefore, the County Legislature determined that by their adding the $40,000 annual fund to the operating expenses there would be no necessity for that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. And your name, please? MRS. FAULKON: Excuse me. Dorothy Faulkon, Chairman of the Governing Board. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think at this point we'll recess this until December 4th, 1980. MR. TELSEY: I won't be able to be here. But let me bring another thing to your attention. I expect some letters from the public health service in Washington regarding the relocation of this particular center. Evidently there is no Master-Plan Site Selection Study in this matter, and being-understanding how the government works in these things, they just throw money at you and say, "Go, do it, it's a good thing." But as far as we're concerned, we must watch that it's located properly because it's our money, it's not the~i~rs. It's easy to throw money that doesnt belong to them. So I expect some letters. In fact, I Southold Town B0ard~of Appeals -48- October 16, 1980 Will submit them for your file as soon as I get them from-the public health service, dep~rtment of health and human services. I should get that very shortly. Letter dated October 8/~1980 submitted by Mr. Tel~y and entered into the record:, k~OUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAV~,D HA.~!S, M.D., M.P.H. October 8, 1980 Mr. Benson S. Telsey North Road Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Mr. Telsey: Thank you for b'ringing to my attention the question of the zoning of the site proposed for the location of the Fanny Behlen Health Center. ! have not rpreviously been informed about any potential zonin~ problem. This health cen- ter is not to be operated by the county, although the co,unity group proposing to operate the facility would receive some county assistance, including an ar- rangement by which the county would purchase the site proposed by the Fanny Behten Health Center Board. This land would be transferred to the community group for the purpose of operating a health center. I am bringing your concerns to the attention of the County's Department of Real Estate, as that department is involved with the purchase of the proposed health center site. ! agree that health facilities should be subject to local zoning as see out by the local planning board. I do not know what impact a ~hange in location would have on the plans of 'the Fanny Behlen Health Center Board. I am sure that this will be discussed at the public hearing which you mentioned. I do hope that this matter can be resolved so that efforts can proceed to bring additional health services to the area. ~ Sincerely, David ~arris, M.D., M.P.H. Co~ssioner DH:bk CC: Sidney Mitchell, Commissioner Suffolk County Dept. of Real Estate Anton Borovina, Assistant County Attorney Shirley Katz, Acting Director Fanny Behlen Health Center Henry E. Raynor, Jr., Chair-man Southold Town Planning Board Southbld Town Board of Appeals -49- October 16, 1980 ~ewspaper article gubmitted by Mr. By CHARLO'r r.~ JOHNSON GREEN'PORT - Because the federal government has deemed the Son.old-Shelter Lsland area "medically un- ders~-ved" and "medically manpower short," the Nassau- Suffolk .Health Systems' Agency, a federal program, will hold a public hearing on the feasibility o~ a medicai-dnn~l addition to an approved health center. The pub]lc hearing is set for Sept. 15 at 7:30 p.m.. in the Leg~alative Meeting Pmom of the Riverhesd County Center. To be named the Fanny Behlen CommunL,7 Health Center, after a Southotd public nurse who was known for trying to promote inexpensive yet quality health care, the center k~ slated to open this fall. According to Shirley Katz. a spokespe~son at the center. the publ/c heartng Will "justify the need fer a dental unit." to be included in the cemer..approval for the medical part of the health center already has been granted. 'IRe Beh!en Center will be a voluntary, non-profit diagnostic and treaLment center servSng children up to semor citizens. Katz added that a full-time dentist, a dental hygienist, and other personnel will be staffed full time....The _c_e-,3~eL~.?w under eoustruct~on, allows for three dental Katz said the reason for this unit wasn't because there aren't enough dentists in Suffolk County, but because of an ~economic barrier. "Many people cannot afford dental care," she said. Financial arrangements for the center incinde-a 3~ear .100 percent mortgage at~ ~an in~z_tao~fLv:~e_pL The ~ Human Services Agency, formerly the Health, EducaHnn and Welfare Depar~aent, has given apvrovM f'ca:2~cal center, Ka~ said, which will be · located 1,003 feet so~-of~-~,~ Nor~ Road. Specs for the dental portion of the building Lnclude~ a room for fairing X-rays, darkroom for developing, and a lab. "It's easier to build now ti'mn to add on later," said. ~:~ ~i. WbZle Katz could ~t g~ve an estimated cmt of the project. .--':--. she sa~,d the cost was reaso~a-b'l~and wqt.h/n the concept, ,jzecause the application has not been ,turned down." ~ Although it is a federal program, some county monle~ will ~ be involved. A total of.~,0,(~)o yearly for operating costs will - I come from the county, along with an initial equipment k~nnt totalling I~0.000. · Basically, Kat2 said, the program is designed 'for preventive medicine, good care regularly, not when it's aa Telsey~and entered into the record: eve~ and ~y ~fice t~e for wo~-g ~q~le. a play ~ea ~ k~p ~n ~pl~e~ ~-en~ are ousy ~5~ ~e center's d~n~s~ and a mf~1 ~smm for medical assistant, r~eptionist, nurses, several away from ~ea ~nt~ or ph~i~am ~ ~ le ]~.~~e ~on t nomagy go ~ a den~ihe ~ou~ ~e e~ter ~o~ ~ee e~ S~o~ Co~ty ~n~ .~on, but pro~n~ ~d ~e center have some s~ong Southold Town Board of Appeals -50- October 16, 1980 On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringe~, it was RESOLVED, to recess the matter of Fanny Behlen CommunitY Health Center, Appeal No. 2736 until the December 4, 1980 regular meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2752. Application of Fanny Behlen Community Health Center, P.O. Box 659, Greenport, NY for a Variance 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), 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 opened the hearing at ll:02 p.m. by reading the appeal application, showing proof of notice of hearing and affi- davits attesting to its publication in the local and official nespapers; Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector; and letter frDm the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. Abigail A. Wickham, Esq., representing the Fanny Behlen Community Health Center consented to the waiver of reading the notice as published in the newspapers. MR. CHAIRMAN: This matter will be recessed with the previous application until December 4, 1980. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to recess the matter of .Fanny Behlen Community Health Center, Appeal No. 2752, until the December 4, 198~0 regular meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. The Chairman called a recess between ll:03 and ll:lO p.m. The meeting reconvened at ll:lO p.m. Southold Town Board of Appeals -51- October 16, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2726. Application of Curtis and Nancy Norklun, 700 King Street, Orient, NY 11957, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30 and 100-32 for permission to convert part of existing barn for guest house/residential use. Location of property: 700 King Street, Orient, NY; bounded north by King Street, west by Bogden, south by Willow Terrace Farms, Inc. and Brenner, east by Brenner; County Tax Map Item No. 1000- 26-2-37. After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellants have appealed to this Board seeking a variance for permission to convert part of an existing barn (two-story section) into sleeping quarters for their parents because their parents are forced to sell their own properties. The premises in question is a parcel of land containing approximately 16,600 square feet in area, and existing on the premises are a two-story frame house, two small sheds at the southwest corner, shed at the rear of the premises, and garage/barn at the center of the premises. The Board finds that the buildings existing on the premises appear to have been constructed prior to zoning and cover very near to ~:he ma×imum permitted 20% lot coverage. 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 properties will be created; that the interests of justice will be served by the granting of the relief rgquested; 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. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that Curtis and Nancy Norklun, 700 King Street, Orients NY be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30 and 100-32 permitting applicants to convert the easterly two-story section of the subject barn for sleeping quarters as applied for, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That the use of the area to be converted herein shall be only for their parents; and in the event same is no longer used by their parents that the barn will revert back to its present use as an accessory storage building. However, if ap- plicant wishes to continue using part the barn for sleeping quarters for persons other than their parents, applicants must re-apply to this Board by formal application for recon- sideration. (2) That not more than one bathroom is permitted to be installed in the subject barn. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -52- October 16, 1980 (3) That no kitchen facilities (including temporary and permanent cooking and plumbing) will be permitted. (4) That the proposed converted barn may never be rented or leased. (5) That the Building Inspector make annual inspections each year without prior notice. (6) That applicants must apply each year for annual renewal of the permission granted herein, not later than September 15th of each year. Location of property: 700 King Street, Orient, NY; bounded north by King Street; west by Bogden; south by Willow Terrace Farms, Inc. and Brenner.; east by Brenner. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-26-2-37. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Goehringer and Sawicki. Abstained were: Messrs. Grigonis and Douglass. NEW MATTER: Appeal No. 2742. Application of William A. Hatfield for approval of insufficient area, insufficient width, insufficient sideyards for the proposed setting off of a parcel of land located at 6725 and 6775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY of which exists thereon a one-family dwelling in a C-Zone. It was the consensus of the Board that this matter be referred to the Southold Town Planning Board for their deter- mination as to whether or not this project will be considered a subdivision and requesting their input concerning same. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the following matters be scheduled for public hearings at the next regular meeting of this Board, to wit, November 20, 1980: Appeal No. 2741 Application of Joseph and Amelia Smul- cheski for permission to construct attached garage in the front and/or sideyard area. 140 Ca~ole~Rd., Southold. Appeal No. 2757 Application of Charles and Margaret Mebus for permission to construct detached garage in front and/or sideyard area at 2145 Wells Avenue, Southold. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Southold Town Board of Appeals -53- October 16, ]980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2726. Aoplication of Harry O. Hurlburt, Jr., 7014 Sheaff Lane, Ft. Washington, PA 19034, for a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Sections: (a) 100-30 for permission to establish accessory building for guest use and play area use, and (b) 100-32 for permission to con- struct accessory building in the frontyard area. Location of property: Private Road, Fishers Island, NY; bounded north by Walker, west by Spofford, south by Private Road, east by Private Road and Sorenson. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-3-2-10. After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance for permission to construct an accessory building in the frontyard area and to utilize said accessory building as additional sleeping quarters/guest house/play house. The premises in question is a parcel of land containing approxi- mately 1.808 acres with a one-family dwelling. Appellant proposes to construct the accessory building 226' south of the existing dwelling and 75' north of the 40' paved private road at Fishers Island. 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 detriment to adjoining proper- ties will be created; that no adverse effect or change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood; that the circumstances herein are unique; and that the spirit of the zoning ordinance will be observed. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Harry O. Hurlburt, Jr., 7014 Sheaff Lane, Ft. Washington, PA 19034 be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30 and 100-32 permitting the construction and utilization of an accessory buil. ding in the frontyard area for additional sleeping quarters/guest house/play area, as applied for and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That not more than one bathroom is permitted to be installed in the subject barn; (2) That no kitchen facilities (including temporary and permanent cooking and plumbing) will be permitted; (3) That the proposed building may never be rented or leased; (4) That the Building Inspector make annual inspections each year without prior notice; Southold Town Board of Appeals -54- October 16, 1980 (5) That applicant must apply each year for annual renewal of the permission granted herein, not later than September 15th of each year. Location of property: Private Road, Fishers Island, NY~ bounded north by Walker, west by Spofford, south by Private Road, east by Private Road and Sorenson; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-3-2-10. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. MATTER OF HERBERT W. WELLS, JR., APPEAL NO. 2709. Concerning the recent request of Mr. Herbert W. Wells, Jr., it is the decision of a majority of the members present not to re-consider the decision of this Board made August 14, 1980, and the Chairman was instructed to forward a letter to Mr. Wells advising him of same. MATTER OF DOLORES STRONG, APPEAL NO. 2710. Upon reviewing the conditions of the subject appeal, it has been noted that the mathematics in Condition No. 2 do not coincide with Condition No. 7, and the following resolution was adopted to correct same: On motion by Mr. Gri§onis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, in the matter of Dolores Strong, Appeal No. 2710, and Decision of this Board made September 25, 1980 and filed October 9, 1980, that Condition No. 2 be revised as follows to reflect the correct mathematics and coincide with Condition No. 7: (2) That display of boats and related marine items be permitted only within five feet from the southerly property line for a length not exceeding the length of the stucco building plus eight feet at the east side, for a total of approximately 58 feet long. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Gri§onis, Doyen, Douglass, and Sawicki. Abstained was: Mr. Goehringer. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -55- October 16, 1980 The Chairman stated that the deadline for hearing applica- tions at the next regular meeting of this Board will be extended an additional two weeks, to wit, October 30th, and that a Special Meeting setting any new matters for public hearings will be held around the 31st of October. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, 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 does not appear to be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands, and therefore would not appear to require permits from the ~.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation; IT IS RESOLVED, that in Appeal No. 2741, application of Joseph and Amelia Smulcheski dated the 28th day of August, 1980, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to con- struct attached garage in the front and/or side yard area at 140 Carole Road, Southold, New York (County ID #1000-52-2-5), 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 New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a) [SEQRA], and the Southold Town Code, Sec- tion 44-4, no further determination or procedure is required in the SEQRA standards of process by this department. (This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may be involved.) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, 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 does not appear to be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands, and therefore would not appear to require permits from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation; IT IS RESOLVED, that in Appeal No. 2757, application of Charles and Margaret Mebus dated the 16th day of October, 1980, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to con- struct detached garage in the front and/or side yard area at ~ ~ .... Southold Town Board of Appeals -56- October 16, 1980 2145 Wells Avenue, Southold, New York (County ID #1000-70-4-21), 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 New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a) [SEQRA], and the Southold Town Code, Sec- tion 44-4, no further determination or procedure is required in the SEQRA standards of process by this department. (This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may be involved.) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Being there was no further business to come before the Board this evening, the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals