HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/15/1990 HEARING 1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~ ! 14
15
16
17
18
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING
:
Main Road,
Southold,
March 15,
7:30 P.M.
Route 25
New York 11971
1990
BEFORE :
GERARD P.
GOEHRINGER,
Chairman.
BOARD MEMBERS:
CHARLES GRIGONIS,
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI (Absent)
19
20
21
22
23
~ ,] 24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
THE CHAIRMAN: This is the regular
public hearing of the Southold Board of
Appeals.
The first appeal is on behalf of
Umbrella Home Care, Appeal Nurmber 3917. The
legal notice reads as follows:
Upon Applicant Number 3917, Umbrella
Home Care. Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71C, as
disapproved, for permission to construct a
sign, proposed sign is not permitted in this
Residential/Office space (RO) District.
Property Location: 28455 Main Road,
Cutchogue, County Tax Map Number 1000,
Section 102, Block 02, Lot 12.1.
I have a copy of a sketch of this
proposed sign. We did ask because there is
a marquis in the center approximately five
feet in length and it is elevated above the
ground. I have a copy of the Tax Map in-
dicating this and surrounding properties in
the area.
Would anybody like to be heard on
behalf of this?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COSTANZO: Could I ask you a
couple of questions about the sign?
THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. For the record,
state your name for the stenographer please.
MR. COSTANZO: Robert Costanzo.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have,three inches
and three inches, and one foot three and a
half inches. What is the approximate size
of this sign?
MR. COSTANZO: I didn't look at the
number today, but it matches. It is within
the conformance, the lineal footage.
THE CHAIRMAN: Could you give us a
call tomorrow and give the total size,
including the borders on the sign?
MR. COSTANZO: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: And the elevation
above the ground is how much? It doesn't
show it here.
MR. COSTANZO: I will give that also.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, where approxi-
mately on the premises are you placing it?
MR. COSTANZO: It is going on ...
there is an extension ... the porch
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
extension ... between the columns.
be within the columns itself.
THE CHAIRMAN:
less? On one side or
MR. COSTANZO:
4
It will
In the center, more or
It is going in between
each column. It will be one long sign
placed so it centers in between each column.
The only area that there is some confusion,
I noticed on the drawing today the architect
shows the handle of the umbrella coming
down. That would be an objection of the one
way, and it would be omitted.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are having Umbrel-
la Home Care Service ... or each one is
going to say Umbrella Home Care Service?
MR. COSTANZO: The center will say
Umbrella Home Care Service and each plaque
coming down will have a description of each
individual service it is providing.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. You gave us the
other information.
Do you have any questions on this?
MR. DINIZIO: No, none at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think that's all we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
12
t3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
really have.
strange reason
the signs.
put
them.
heard
5
My problem is that for some
I just couldn't identify with
I apologize.
MR. COSTANZO: The architect didn't
the dimensions in, but it does meet with
I've got the dimensions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
Anybody else that would like to be
on behalf of this application?
Anybody that would like to speak
against the application?
Seeing no hands, I make a motion
closing the hearing, reserving decision
until later. All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: Second, anyone?
MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: We are closing the
hearing subject to receiving additional
information which is his response to the
actual lineal footage of the sign. Thank
yOU.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
The next appeal is Appeal Number 3909
on behalf of Joseph Cornacchia. The legal
notice reads as follows:
Upon application, the applicant,
Number 3909, Joseph Cornacchia. Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section
100-33, as disapproved, for permission to
construct an accessory shed in front yard
area.
Lane,
Section 070,
Property Location: 835 Kimberly
Southold, County Tax Map Number 1000,
Block 13, Lot 20.5.
We have a
penned in area.
approximately 24
approximately
property line.
by 20, and 20
copy of the survey for the
The shed is to be placed
feet from Kimberly Lane,
24 feet from the northern
The shed is approximately 10
feet is the most recent
change, I assume, running along the distance
of Kimberly Lane. ! have a copy of the
Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area.
Is there somebody that would like to
be heard?
How do you do, sir? Your name, for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the record, please.
MR. WADE: Mike Wade.
caretaker for the property.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is
the shed?
MR. WADE:
ment.
THE CHAIRMAN:
utilities in there?
MR. WADE: No.
THE CHAIRMAN:
plumbing?
MR, WADE: Nothing.
I am the
7
the purpose of
It is for garden equip-
Will there be any
No electricity or
landscaping, mountain laurel, things like
that.
THE CHAIRMAN: So will it be visible
from the read?
MR. WADE: By the time the pine trees
go in, not at all.
have there?
MR. WADE: Well,
more pine trees put in.
there is going to be
He also has
THE CHAIRMAN: It will be hidden
amongst the ... what kind of foliage do you
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
THE CHAIRMAN:
the location in the
than placing it
MR. WADE:
8
What is the reason for
front yard area rather
in the side yard?
It is on the waterfront.
You would not want to obstruct any view from
the other side of the house. Plus, that
spot is the most secluded spot on the
property.
THE CHAIRMAN: The only thing I want
to mention is that the granting of this
particular shed really sets a precedent for
the neighborhood since actually the mansion,
so-to-speak, on the north side of this
particular house has no other accessory
structures except, I assume, the cabana on
the other side of the swimming pool.
MR. WADE: Right. That is on a
separate property.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is about the only
precedent sitting there, is that cabana,
which is not as far forward ... for the
record.
MR. WADE: Right. That shed will be
40 feet from the road. It is 24 feet from
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
'~4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the property line.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are going to put
it ... did you say 60?
MR. WADE: Forty feet from the
property line.
THE CHAIRMAN:
to 40, I see, because
MR. WADE: No,
16 feet from the road.
You changed it
turning around ....
the property line is
from 24
MR. WADE: Right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Ail right. I under-
stand. We will see what we can do. We did
grant one down in the corner of Kimberly
Lane, but that gentleman had two front
yards. That is all the way down in the end
there ... at the last meeting.
MR. WADE: Also, Roxanne Road comes
in directly behind this, where the shed is
going.
THE CHAIRMAN:
for coming in.
We thank you very much
9
THE CHAIRMAN: oh, right. So it is
24 feet from the property line and it goes
actually 40 feet from the road.
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WADE:
THE CHAIRMAN:
would like to speak
plication?
Anybody that would
against the application?
Board members?
Thank you.
Anybody else that
in favor of this ap-
like to speak
Hearing no further questions, I make
a motion closing the hearing to reserve
decision until later. Thank you. We hope
to have a decision later.
MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is
Number 3916, in behalf of George Reinhardt.
The legal notice reads as follows:
Upon Application Number 3916, George
Reinhardt. variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article III, Section 100-31, as
disapproved, for permission to construct
deck addition, proposed construction exceeds
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
~8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
permitted lot coverage and has insufficient
setbacks from property line. Property
Location: 1380 Private Road, #3 Truman$
Path, East Marion, County Tax Map Number
1000, Section 31, Block 12, 5ot 10.
I have a sketch here, and significant
pictures indicating the deck in question. I
have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating~ this and surrounding properties,
and I was just wondering if we have a per-
centage of your lot coverage? We do here.
Is there somebody here who would like
to be heard on this?
Right here. How do you do, sir?
MR. REINHARDT: Thomas Reinhardt.
THE CHAIRMAN: These decks are exist-
ing at this particular time; are they not?
MR, REINHARDT: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: When were they built,
Mr. Reinhardt?
MR. REINHARDT: Originally built in
the spring of '89, and the addition in
question was built in late summer ... fall
of '89.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
'~0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
THE CHAIRMAN: Tell us what the
reason is, or the need for this particular
deck.
MR. REINHARDT: Well, there is a
patch of land between the end of the deck
and the outdoor shower. It was built bet-
ween the deck and the shower.
THE CHAIRMAN:
ground would you say
MR. REINHARDT:
How high above the
these were?
The original deck is
about, I would say, no more than eight
inches and the addition is maybe two inches.
THE CHAIRMAN: You do not have a
percentage of the lot coverage of how much
you a,re over.
MR. REINHARDT: No, I don't.
THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe you could do
some calculations, and we'll do some also,
and see if we can arrive at a figure. Only
because we would like to
the decision. You have
mean, you can multiply
yourself.
I would
incorporate that in
the figures here. I
and divide them
just like to confer with you,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
13
that we are arriving at the same figures.
Give us a call next week with yours,
as well. Whenever you can, within the next
couple of weeks.
MR. REINHARDT: If I could just say
that my father wanted me to state that he
had spoken to Victor Lessard, who approved
the original permit, and he told him that as
long as the deck blended in with the grounds
or remade the grounds the blend in with the
edge of the deck there would be no need for
another permit for that addition.
He wanted me to state that.
THE CHAIRMAN:
very much.
MR. REINHARDT:
THE CHAIRMAN:
would like to speak in
plication?
Okay. We thank you
Thank you.
Anybody else that
favor of this ap-
Anybody that would like to speak
against the application?
Any question from any Board members?
MR. DINIZIO: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
questions, I make a motion closing the
hearing and reserving decision until later.
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
you.
appeal is on behalf of
Number 3906. The legal
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank
The next
Charles Colombo,
notice reads as follows:
Upon Application Number 3906,
Colombo. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, as disap-
proved, for permission to construct a deck
addition to existing dwelling, proposed
construction will have insufficient side
yard setbacks. Property Location: 350 Oak
Street, Cutchogue, County Tax Map Number
1000, Section 136, Block 1, Lot 48.
I have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map indicating this and surrounding
properties in the area. This applicant
wishes to construct a deck in the side yard
Charles
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1;2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which we will discuss with him in a
second.
Is there anyone here representing
How do you do, sir? Kindly state
your name for the record, please.
MR. COCH: George coch.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are the contrac-
COCH: Yes. We did work for Mr.
Is there anything you
reference to this
tor?
MR.
colombo.
THE CHAIRMAN:
would like to say in
project?
MR.
is on that
15
COCH: This is pretty much what
application for the variances.
The deck on the side street is at ground
level, and on the creek side it is maybe
feet from ground level
deck is not visible.
entryway to the house.
THE CHAIRMAN:
and from the road
It also serves as an
Our only problem is
that we request usually, from an applicant,
that they not close up one side of their
side yard
two
the
on the waterfront property, there-
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
by gaining egress to the rear of the proper-
ty which is at the waterside in this par-
ticular case. We are looking usually for
eight feet.
I do not have a measuring utensil
with me at the time, but could you tell me
how close this deck is?
MR. COCH: I believe there is ap-
proximately five to six feet between the
property line to the south and the edge of
the deck.
THE CHAIRMAN:
and remeasure this.
I am going to go out
We may request the deck
be shortened, for that particular reason.
So I am just really putting you on notice,
that you can mention it to Mr. and Mrs.
Colombo.
All right. We thank you very much
for coming.
MR. COCH: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else
that would like to speak in favor of this
application?
What is the approximate size of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'~3
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
deck, Mr. Coch?
MR. COCH: The deck is approximately
12 by 15, or 12 by 16.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Hearing no further questions, I make
a motion closing the hearing reserving
decision until later.
MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye,
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in
behalf of Linda Dambassi$, Appeal Number
3903. The legal notice reads as follows:
Upon Application Number 3903, Linda Dambas-
sis. Variance to Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Section 100-33, (Article XXIII, Section
100-239.4 (A), as disapproved for permission
to construct accessories: garage, pool and
additions to dwelling in front yard area.
Property Location: 2430 Dignan'$ Road,
Cutchogue, County Tax Map Number 1000,
Section 83, Block 2, Lot 7.2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
1"~
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
I have a copy of the site plan
prepared by Samuels and Steelman indicating
the approximate additions to this particular
existing premises, and a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and surround-
ing properties in the area. For the record,
the site plan is dated 12/7/89.
Who is here, representing?
MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman. I am
from Samuels and Steelman, Architects, in
Cutchogue, New York.
We are basically trying to seek a
variance for two aspects of this project.
One is that the proposed addition is within
100 feet of the bluff line ... the existing
residence ... is approximately 55 feet from
the bluff. We are going for the pre-exist-
ing condition. We are going to be adding to
the west of the existing house, primarily
along the foundation line of the existing
house.
The other aspect of this is we are
seeking a variance to cohstruct a pool and
garage in the front yard. This is a
I
6
7
10
1'~
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
situation where the house is located
rently on the sands. The bluff is
approximately a 70-~oot drop down to
19
cur -
the
beach and to locate a pool and garage within
that rear yard would be definitely a hard-
ship in this case. We are seeking relief on
that, to locate the pool and garage in the
front yard.
Probably, the additions that are
being added to the house are mainly to
upgrade the existing residence which is
approximately 1400 square feet. It is a one
bedroom house, which we are looking to
upgrade to a three or four bedroom house
with potential to full-time residence some-
time in the future.
The house was built many years ago.
It is about 50 years old. It was originally
built as a small shed. It was renovated in
1970 for the house. They feel their proper-
ty has much value to warrant some additional
changes. I think one of the things we are
trying to do here, and you can probably see
on the site plan, is that we added one
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
;'4
25
2O
bedroom just to the west of the existing
house, and have drawn back another bedroom
because of a situation where the existing
topography becomes a little steep. We are
trying to mitigate that by jogging a back
portion of
additional
the building to prevent any
erosion in the area.
Are there any questions I can answer?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. The building at
this particular time is how far from the
bluff, including the deck? Is it 55 feet at
this particular time?
MS. STEELMAN: To the deck there is
approximately ... as you can see on the site
plan, there is one deck that is a little
larger than the other. I think that deck is
approximately six feet out from facing the
house. That would bring it down to 49 feet
to the face of the deck.
THE CHAIRMAN: Off an existing 49
feet, at this time?
MS. STEELMAN: To the deck.
THE CHAIRMAN: So the house is still
planning with an addition to be no closer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
than 55 feet.
MS.
site plan,
-
21
STEELMAN: As you can see on that
I believe we are 49 feet also to
where the next deck is being extended.
THE CHAIRMAN:
about the house.
MS. STEELMAN:
from the bluff line.
THE CHAIRMAN:
question, when we get
just want to talk
The house is 55 feet
The reason I ask that
into a situation of
this nature, we request that the construc-
tion of the deck not be in accord to the
house.
MS. STEELMAN:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
So that we are able to
delineate the two in the case of any
problems. As you know, there are multiple
changes in that deck right now. Of course,
the deck doesn't look like it was the most
well constructed in the world. Anyway,
did not even attempt to walk on it.
$o I just want you to be aware of the
fact we are requesting, if we so grant this,
that the deck not be in accord to the house.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
much.
MS. STEELMAN:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
We thank you very
Edward
MS. STEELMAN: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else that
would like to speak in favor of this ap-
plication?
Anybody that would like to speak
against the application?
Any question from the Board members?
Hearing no further questions, I make
a motion closing the hearing, reserving
decision until later.
MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in
behalf of Edward and Corrine Birdie. The
legal notice reads as follows:
Upon Application Number 3912,
and Corrine Birdie. Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
for permission to construct additions to one
family dwelling, proposed construction will
have insufficient side yard setbacks.
Property Location: 380 Parsons Boulevard,
East Marion, County Tax Map Number 1000,
Section 037, Block 01, Lot 17.1.
We have a copy of a site plan and a
set of the overall construction plans. I
don't have a date on it. It does show from
Warren Sambach, Consulting Engineers, and we
are requesting ...
enhance an existing
additions and a garage
premises.
or he is requesting to
residence by placing two
on this particular
Would you like to be heard, sir?
MR. SAMBACH: Yes, sir. Thank you.
Warren Sambach.
Once again I come before you
representing the owner and Garden Bays
Estates, with an irregular piece of property
that was developed many years ago with a
small summer home. As you know from
previous applications, the various lots of
Garden Estates are less than one acre and
1
2
3
4
5
.6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cannot conform to
zoning.
the new Master Plan
24
The unique situation of the proposed
expansion and alteration to the existing
dwelling is that it would conform to the old
zoning, A, which the existing side yards
setback shown on the survey of the old
zoning, A, was a 25-foot ... a total of 25-
foot side yard. The site plan shows the 12-
foot plus and 13 foot plus side yards.
I respectfully request consideration
be given with reference to these side yard
setbacks.
THE CHAIRMAN:
front yard problem.
MR. SAMBACH:
No rear yard problem.
THE CHAIRMAN:
the record, that
well-placed. We
Mr. Sambach.
MR. SAMBACH:
THE CHAIRMAN:
would like
There appears to be no
No front yard problem.
I would say that, for
the additions appear to be
thank you very much again,
Thank you.
Anybody else that
to speak in favor of this
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
application?
Anybody that would like to speak
against the application?
Seeing no hands, I make a motion
closing the hearing,
until later.
MR. GRIGONIS:
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. GRIGONIS:
reserving decision
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in
behalf of Walter Rafferty, Appeal Number
3911. The legal notice reads as follows:
Upon Application Number 3911, Walter
Rafferty. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article XXIV, Section 241A, (Article XXVIII,
Section 100-281 [3]), as disapproved, for
permission to construct additions and al-
terations to garage with apartment. Proper-
ty Location: East End Road, Fishers Island,
County Tax Map Number 1000, Section 3, Block
7, Lot 5.
I have a copy of the site plan, which
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~3~ -
26
I will not refer to in the record at this
time, and I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating the surrounding
properties in the area.
MS. TRIVAS: Brooke Trivas.
THE CHAIRMAN: 'Brooke, this is a
letter from Fishers Island Nature Conservan-
cy. I notice you have not had a chance to
review it. We just received it today. It
was faxed to us.
Is there anything else you want to
put on the record later? We will hold off
concerning it.
MS. TRIVAS:
would want to add for
that we would take all
in building a
the wetlands.
I guess the only thing I
the record would be
necessary precautions
project, since it is close to
There is, as noted in the
plan, an existing one-foot concrete wall
which we think would help to create a bar-
rier during construction. We would also use
two rows of hay bales during construction.
The project was originally con-
structed in the Twenties. The house and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
35
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
caretaker's
plan and we
intended original use.
THE CHAIRMAN:
asking you to come all
house was part of the original
just wanted to revise that
I feel kind of bad
the way down here
27
close this hearing. If you want
over for a little while, we can
the hearing.
before we
to look it
reconvene
from Boston to represent Mr. Rafferty in the
respect that it appears on this particular
application the cart was placed before the
horse, in respect that it appears that this
building structure has lost its conformity
as a building to be used or to house per-
sons, habitable dwelling-wise, and I think
possibly what should be dealt with in this
particular case is an application to
reinstate that nonconformity rather than to
deal with the setback first. And that is
where the problem is at this particular
point.
But if you would like, you are very
welcome to reflect anything in that letter
that you just received into the record
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. TRIVAS: Are
a setback problem issue?
THE CHAIRMAN:
not a nonconforming.
you
28 ~
suggesting it is
No. I am saying it is
It has lost its non-
conforming at this point. It has not been
denied, but I discussed that with the prin-
cipal Building Inspector yesterday and !
told him it should have been denied for the
lack of nonconformity at this particular
point, and then we would go into the other
aspects of the case.
In climbing up there last Saturday
morning, it appears it has not been used for
about thirty years ... I mean, just as a
guesstimate, and you will see in that letter
that it probably ... I think it reflects
thirty years in there, but it's probably as
much as fifty years it has not been used.
MS. TRIVAS: What are you suggesting,
at this point, in terms of ...
THE CHAIRMAN: I am suggesting that
we deny this case without prejudice and if
you would like to come back and deal with
any aspects of the fact that the building
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
doesn't conform presently, we will deal
that first and then we will
setback situation.
Okay.
and you want
go back
But do you want me to
to reflect upon that?
29
with
to the
recess
MR. DINIZIO:
help matters.
THE CHAIRMAN:
No. It certainly would
No. Probably that
not been occupied for thirty years.
Is there proof that it has been
occupied within that time period? I mean,
can you show us that it has not lost its
nonconformity due to nonuse?
MS. TRIVAS: At what point is that?
THE CHAIRMAN: Two years.
MS. TRIVA$: I would have to check on
that. I couldn't, at this point, tell you
if it has been occupied within the last two.
So if the only way this can go through is if
it has been occupied within the last ...
MS. TRIVAS: Yes. I would like to
read the record.
MR. DINIZIO: The letter that he just
handed you indicates that the building has
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
'~0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
really
mention
house.
3O
is the case, but there has been some
that it has been used as a bunk
The question is to what extent and
for what period of time?
Remember, this application came
before us as Notice of Denial from the
Building Inspector, denying this particular
addition. So we are not denying for any
particular conformity or nonconformity.
What we are reflecting here, really what we
should do is, it should be redenied for that
particular nonconforming issue. That would
be added to this application. It does not
mean we would readvertise it.
We really have two options. We can
close the hearing after you speak and
reflect upon the. letter from Mr. Thatcher
(phonetic spelling), or we can recess the
hearing without a date and then add to the
file and readvertise
and nonconforming.
MS. TRIVAS:
THE CHAIRMAN:
MS. TRIVAS: I
for both the setback
Okay.
It is up to you.
would like to review
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this and see.
THE CHAIRMAN:
minutes.
Anybody
31
Take about twenty
else from Fishers Island or
the mainland here that would like to reflect
upon this case of Walter Rafferty?
Seeing no hands, I make a motion
recessing this hearing ... and until after
... I guess we go after the John and
Catherine Simicich hearing, which is Appeal
Number 3918, somewhere around 8:30 ... a
quarter to nine.
I make a motion.
MR. GRIGONIS:
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. GRIGONIS:
MR. DOYEN:
MR. DINIZIO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
The next appeal is
on
behalf of Michael Herbert, Appeal Number
3924. For the record, before I read the
legal notice, I have five letters in the
file, in particular, continuous or adjacent
property.
6
7
8
9
~0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Special
Article
The legal notice reads as follows:
Appeal Number 3924, Michael Herbert.
Exception to the Zoning Ordinance,
IX, Section 100-91 (B), for change
of use from Bed and Breakfast to a three
family dwelling in this Hamlet Business (HB)
District. Property Location: 795 Pike
Street, Mattituck, County Tax Map Number
1000, Section 140, Block 2, Lot 23.
I have a copy of a sketch of the
plans made by the applicant concerning this
particular property and the individual
location of the proposed apartment. I have
copies of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties
in the area ... properties, for the record,
on Pike Street in Mattituck, and I do not
frontage figure, but it is
87.5 by 225.22.
that would like to
have the road
approximately
Is there anybody
be heard?
Mr. Herbert.
MR. HERBERT:
at this
Michael Herbert. I am,
time, seeking to convert my bed and
"1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
breakfast into a three family home status.
I propose to reside in one of the apart-
ments, and also propose to maintain it in
the extent of the quality I have maintained
my bed and breakfast facility.
One thing I do ask of the Board in
consideration, if my appeal is granted,
least of all, permit me to operate my bed
and breakfast facility throughout this
season, and after the end of this season to
convert the house into a three family.
THE CHAIRMAN: When you refer to
"this season," you are talking about the end
the summer?
MR. HERBERT:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Until Labor day.
I will be honest with
you, Michael. We have not had an appli-
cation such as this, which you are aware of,
under the new Master Plan, and we have not
had an application really divesting you as
the person, most importantly, the property
- of the special exception of the bed and
breakfast use. It is something that is
somewhat new to us.
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
'~9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Is there anything you would
state for the record in
apartments; their size,
parking?
MR. HERBERT: The parking is
certainly ample, as it is proposed on the
site plan. The apartments, there would be
two one-bedroom apartments which would be
more than adequate in size. The apartments
that I would contain would have two bed-
rooms, but all the apartments would be
comfortable in size and nature. I think it
be a very positive thing for the
would just
area.
THE CHAIRMAN:
wanted to state for the
the section of the code,
apartments, as a matter
34
like to
reference to the
their location, the
special exception or a special permit is to
be placed over retail stores, which I think
you are aware of and we had discussed when
you originally filed the application. You
are in a business zone and we are perfectly
aware of that.
The only thing I
record is that under
it only reflects
of right, which is a
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
'~5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
The area of the code that we are
dealing with in this particular application,
an area that concerns the multiple dwelling,
is not necessarily the area that concerns
the nature of the apartments or the retail
stores because considerably we do not have a
retail store here. We have a nonconforming
dwelling, meaning retail dwelling in the
business zone, as well as all of these
dwellings on that one side of the street are
all actually nonconforming. They are retail
only because the uses that are around in
that particular area district, but they are
all basically one family dwellings, are they
not, to my knowledge?
MR. HERBERT: Yes, they are from Ed
home down to Barbara and
David Tuthill's (phonetic spelling) home.
that
THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to state
for the record, because we do not have
a clear picture at this particular point of
what is permitted and what is not permitted
in that particular zone. We must be
respective of the retail store apartment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
36
situation, which we refer to as "the old
taxpayer." In other words, we are not
specifically clear in the code and we don't
clearly state that as being the case.
MR. HERBERT: Because the way I am
trying to interpret it with the apartments
that would be considered in conjunction with
the retail stores ... I mean 450 square feet
and parking spaces and the apartments ...
which with regards to the section where it
deals with retail stores and it describes
the layout of the apartments and parking
spaces, I would assume that that would ...
and it also states that there will be no
more than three apartments or three apart-
ments to any single family dwelling. It is
not clear to me really where the problem is,
if that is what it reads.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well,
of the problem that we have,
it is the point
that if you had
a retail store you would be allowed this as
a matter of right, based upon the divided
footage and we refer to those as standards
in the codes, multiple dwelling is not an
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
apartment ... more, a townhouse, not
necessarily construed to be an apartment.
MR. HERBERT: What would a multiple
dwelling be considered?
THE CHAIRMAN: Well,
with the Planning Board.
to multiple dwellings as
I discussed this
They are referring
condominiums or co-
ops, and referring to townhouses as the
same, except the difference between the
townhouse is that we have a two story
structure and that is where basically the
definition comes from.
What I am trying to tell you here is
that it is very difficult for us to deal
with this on this basis, as I mentioned to
you when you originally filed this
application.
okay?
Thank
So let's see what develops,
you very much.
Anybody else that would like to speak
favor of this application?
Anybody that would like to speak
against the application?
MR. KEOGH: John Keogh.
Our fears
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
38
are not with Mr. Herbert. He is an
excellent neighbor since he has lived next
to us, and his bed and breakfast facility we
have had no problem at all. Our fears are
with the fact of more tenants moving in on a
permanent basis. Plus' the fact that in the
event that the apartments are allowed, I am
sure that they would all be there.
We bought our property not on
speculation. We bought it as a home, and
we intend to stay there. We are just
protecting what we think may happen in the
future if Michael decides to move elsewhere
or sell the house. Whoever buys it again
would not convert it back to a single family
dwelling. That is our fear, mostly. Plus
the fact on whatever environmental impact it
would have on having three apartments in-
stead of the one single family house.
Once again I repeat that we have had
no problem at all with the bed and break-
fast. It has been a seasonal thing and
Michael has always kept his property up well
and we have had no problem at all with that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Those are our fears. That
only reason we even question it.
THE CHAIRMAN: I just want
39
is the
to mention
to you, and I reiterate or reinforce the
fact that if there was a retail store in-
volved here, as a matter of right under the
special permit, a person is allowed to have
this. They still have to come to this Board
to get the special permit, but because of
the way the code is written and it clearly
states the minimum and maximum footage
requirement for the apartment,
permitted to have that.
In this particular case,
he would be
it doesn't
clearly state that apartments can be granted
in an area where you have a nonconformity,
and we refer to the nonconformity as a house
that is being Used for a residence purpose.
It is a primary purpose of that particular
piece of property right now.
store,
store.
ments,
Where in the case of the retail
the primary factor is the retail
The secondary factor are the apart-
and this is a situation ... and it is
1
5
6
7 '
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
2.5
40
definitely going to exist for a very long
period of time in those Hamlet Business
Districts under the new Master Plan. Not
your district, but other districts that have
been placed in this particular area.
MR. HERBERT: Fine. I understand all
that. I just wanted to explain to you what
our fears were.
THE CHAIRMAN: Wonderful. Thank you
very much.
Anybody else that would like %o speak
concerning this application?
Hearing no further commentz, I make a
motion closing the hearing, reserving
decision until later.
MR. GRICONIS: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much
for coming in.
Appeal Number 3918, in behalf of John
and Catherine Simicich. The legal notice
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reads as follows:
Upon Application Number 3918, John
and Catherine Simicich. Special Exception
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec-
41
tion 100-31, for permission to have a winery
for production and winery sales. Property
Location: 4250 Bergen Avenue, Mattituck,
County Tax Map Number 1000, Section 121,
Bock 1, Lots Part of 001.
I have a copy of three penned-in site
plans of which I am sure will be referred to
by noted counsel, and I have a copy of a
Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area.
Mr. cuddy,
heard?
MR. CUDDY:
would you like to be
Charles Cuddy, for the
applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Simicich, who are
both here with me.
This is a piece of land that is about
acres located north of Sound Avenue,
5.6
just
east of
as you turn
right now are vineyards.
Bergen. That is the corner
into Bergen Avenue. On the
There is also an
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
~6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
old barn.
Mr. and Mrs.
Simicich's proposal to
take that barn, enlarge the barn, and use it
for a winery. The plan is presently before
the Planning Board. This Board will note
that the Planning Board sent a letter to us
and had some concern about
the application.
One aspect is where
the entrance way will be.
have agreed to effectively
two aspects of
the ingress or
The Simiciches
remove the
entrance way from Sound Avenue and place it
approximately 150 north of South Avenue, on
the east side of Bergen Avenue. They have
presented several plans to the Board to do
this. I think there are four plans that
have been submitted to you; A, B, C and D.
They also, they being the Planning
Board, had some concern about what they call
the buffer area between the parking area and
the neighboring property. The Planning
Board, for some reason, seemed to think that
the Zoning Board has set up the rules that
require 50 feet as a buffer between the
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
parking area and the neighboring property.
I am not sure there is any rule to
that effect, although they alluded to the
fact you had a prior application. I am not
sure that application is actually the same
as this one, but I would point out
that what is proposed by the various
proposals before you, A, B, C and D,
to you
effectively to have a 10-foot buffer between
the parking area and the property line of
the neighboring property and then there is
some 80 feet or more between the line and
the house.
If there is a residence instead of a
winery at this location, he can put in the
swimming pool within three or four feet of
the property line and we have it here, night
and day. This will be used only during
daylight hours. It is a winery, a seasonal
type of use. It could be used all year
round.
I would propose to the Board that it
is an appropriate place for the winery to
be. There is another winery, not on Sound
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
'25
44
Avenue, in Southold, but on Sound Avenue in
Riverhead, two miles from the west of this.
I would think that it meets the criteria.
This is a special exception, not a variance.
It meets the criteria proposed by the code.
I know of no offensive odor it is going to
emit, and I believe it is not contrary to
the public's health, safety and welfare.
We have, if the public would like to
see it, a copy of the designs for the build-
ing. I will just hand it up to you. I have
two copies.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is utilizing the
existing barn.
MR. CUDDY: It is utilizing the
existing barn, and the existing barn will be
a total of 7,000 plus square feet when they
get all through with that shown on the
plans.
I would ask the Board if they would
entertain perhaps Plan A or Plan B. The
reason for that is I think the parking in
these plans are more appropriate. Plan C
has a parking diagram that shows parking
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~4
15
16
17
18
'19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
really ail over the place. So you have to
put it around the back and on the side.
I think it would be appropriate to
keep the parking close to the building so
people can get into the winery, but this is
going to be utilizing an existing structure
which is about 3,000 square feet and it will
extend that structure and that is shown on
the plan, the site plan. Also the plan that
is in exhibit to you.
THE CHAIRMAN: I see the depth of the
parking is about the same of
building. The parking here is 72
the A Plan, and that doesn't show
that to the
feet on
the actual
depth. When I say "depth", I am referring
to the width of the parking in Plan B.
MR. CUDDY: Plan B is the same as the
site plan that was submitted, except that
the entrance way is on Bergen Avenue.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, right.
MR. CUDDY: That
33 spaces in one location,
broken it into two units,
22.
includes all of the
Plan A has
so it is 11 and
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
'~5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
THE CHAIRMAN: When you were alluding
to the 50 feet, that is what is mentioned in
the letter. That was a figure that was
basically dealt with on the Gritano
(phonetic spelling) winery in Cutchogue, and
there was some concer~ because several
houses had backed up to that particular
parking lot, as in the case of this one
house that backed up to this parking lot,
and I don't know. I will have to take a
look at it.
MR. CUDDY: I would propose we ~ut in
two screening areas. We can put in maybe
something epiphytic screen, perhaps five or
six feet high, which grows fast and we could
put along the edge different types of other
plantings in front of it. This is only
going to be open essentially during the
daylight hours.
THE CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to ask
you for the record. I realize that the
winery is only a portion of this application
that is before us. However, the special
exception really covers the entire lease on
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
the
property.
How many acres are we talking about
on this particular site?
MR. CUDDY: The site itself is a
single piece Of property, 5.6 acres. It
originally was more. There was a piece
divided off it, which is a two acre piece.
It was 7.6, and now it is 5.6.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
Mr. Cuddy.
Anybody else that would like to be
heard concerning this application?
Any questions from Board members?
Is there anybody that would like to
speak against the application?
Seeing no hands, I make a motion
closing the hearing and reserving decision
until later.
Thank you very much for coming in.
MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR.. DINIZIO: Aye.
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2~
22
23
24
25
48
THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to recon-
vene the Rafferty hearing for approximately
five minutes.
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: Brooke, you're on.
MS. TRIVAS: I guess this is in
regards to the setback issue from the wet-
lands, and I just want to raise one issue.
I did speak with John Thatcher (phonetic
spelling) several days ago and he was look-
ing at the wrong site plan. I don't know
if the Board members know about that. He
was looking at the site plan for a different
project and he was concerned we were build-
ing towards the wetlands. As you know, we
are building away from the wetlands.
It seems he outlined three issues in
here; that it is close to the reservoir and
he makes recommendations no pesticides or
herbicides be used and that's in the
1
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building. When I spoke with him several
days ago, he indicated he did not have a
problem with this as long as we were not
using pesticides or herbicides on the
property, and which we are not.
It is a cottage in the woods and we
are keeping it as it is. He did not have a
problem with it. So, I am not sure. I
don't understand what this setback issues
are involving. The septic is a minimum of
110 feet from the wetlands and the new
addition is ... we are building away from
the existing house.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am just saying we
can't address those issues until we address
the use. If you were to come to us and say,
"We just want a storage building," all
right, we could grant it tonight or deny it
tonight. But you want a specific use. You
want to use it for a habitable dwelling.
Regardless of its use, summer,
seasonable, or whatever, it is used whenever
the people are there or whenever they want
to use it. In propping myself up in that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building, as best as I possibly could,
avoiding the nails and so on and so forth,
can tell you the building was not used for
thirty years. If it has, you are going to
have to tell me. I don't know.
MS. TRIVAS: I 'heard rumors it had
been used. I am just saying in general I
couldn't ... you know ...
THE CHAIRMAN: It is a situation that
we cannot deal with in reference to the
setback now. So we deal with ... until we
deal with the use of it. What you are
going to do is come back, if you want to
address it in this form. We can recess this
hearing without a decision.
You can ask the Building Inspector
for another notice of disapproval for the
conformity in this particular case. It has
lost its conformity, whatever section of the
code that has to be dealt with, and we can
reschedule it for sometime in April, or we
can deny this particular application without
prejudice and you can come back with a new
application addressing those particular
and
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
issues. It is entirely up to you, at this
point, whatever you would like to do and
we'll kick it around up here and see what
you want to do.
MS. TRIVAS: Do I have
to answer the
question right now?
THE CHAIRMAN:
answer the question right now.
the hearing now, we will make
call and the judgment call will
it without prejudice.
MS. TRIVAS: Okay.
what ...
THE CHAIRMAN:
No. You don't have to
If we close
it a judgment
be to deny
I am not sure
Which means you would
have to come back anyway.
only difference
MS. TRIVAS:
So it is ... the
is you have to pay another
We would rather not pay
another fee. I was not quite clear on what
the differences were.
THE CHAIRMAN: Right. That is the
basic difference.
So would you like us to recess
give you enough time to research
it and
remaining
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
parts of what we are requesting?
MS. TRIVAS: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
I make a motion recessing the hearing
without a date.
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will
take an ap-
proximately three minute break and get set
for this particular hearing. I make a
motion.
MR. DOYEN:
THE CHAIRMAN:
at
p.m.)
appeal
MR. GRIGONIS:
MR. DOYEN:
MR. DINIZIO:
(Whereupon,
8:40 p.m. and
THE CHAIRMAN:
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
a brief recess was taken
the hearing resumed at 8:50
The second to last
is Nicholas Aliano.
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
53
I make a motion to reconvene.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: So moved.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is Appeal Number
3907, in behalf of Nicholas Aliano. The
legal notice reads as follows:
Application Number 3907, Nicholas
Aliano, Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.2 (Article
XXV, Section 100-253A), as disapproved, for
permission to construct a retail office
complex, proposed construction is not per-
mitted in this R-40 Zone District. Property
Location: 29950 Main Road, 30 Pequash
Avenue, Cutchogue, Suffolk County Tax Map
Number 1000, Section 102, Block 03, Lot 01.
I have a copy of the site plan dated
June, 1989, indicating the nature of the
project and I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and surround-
ing properties in the area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
Would somebody like to be heard?
MR. RAYNOR: Henry Raynor, represent-
ing Mr. Nicholas Aliano on this property
entitled Pequash Commons.
As the Board is well aware, this
parcel pre-existed the. Zoning Board
ordinance of the Town of Southold and has
only the business use. We begin the site
plan before you, a processing of which
commenced in August of 1987. Prior to that
1987, 1986 Mr. Aliano removed the gas tanks
from the existing gas station in contempla-
tion of building the new structure you see
before you on the site plan.
Our first meeting with the Planning
Board was October of 1987, and subsequent to
that, in December, we revised the site plan
before you pursuant to requests by the Town
Planner. Again, revisions were ~orthcoming
in January o~ 1988 by the Planning Board.
Mr. Aliano revised this plan with the
Fleet's Neck Civic Association, and in our
possession is a letter o~ endorsement dated
in January of 1988, also a subsequent
,iI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
endorsement dated as of
In April of 1988,
55
two days ago.
we submitted a
revised site plan and we made further
revisions. On January 10, 1989, the change
of zone ... a new zoning ordinance ... we
rezoned the property to R-40. We received
no notification whatsoever to stop process-
ing from the Planning Board at that time.
In April of 1989, we finished plans
pertinent to septic and water with the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
and in June we submitted our final site
plan. We paid our fees to the Town of
Southold.
Then on August 12th, I again
requested this for the second time, the
final approval for the site plan from the
Planning Board. Subsequent to that, on the
20th of September, I received a notification
from the Planning Board, all of a sudden, to
stop processing because of the changes of
the zone that was instituted back in
January.
At this point, I would like to note
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
'/2
13
14
~5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
56
that the fees and engineering charges of the
applicant is over $25,000 on a very, very
small project.
We had a meeting with the Town Attor-
ney on the 13th of October, the Assistant
Town Attorney, and the outcome of that
meeting was to instruct us to come over
before this Board for the variance hearing.
So that, hopefully, will continue the site
plan processing which is now stopped at the
Planning Board level. We firmly believe
that this project is a type and character
improving the property as the existing ...
pre-existing business and also it is going
to be an asset to the neighborhood.
I think this is reasonably endorsed
by the Fleet's Neck Property Owners Associa-
tion. After two and half years of process-
ing, we respectfully request support of this
Board with this determination. I will be
happy to answer any questions from the
Board.
THE CHAIRMAN: The size of the struc-
that is on the property now is, I
ture
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
believe, a
MR.
separate
estate.
office.
three bay garage?
RAYNOR: That is correct.
57
Plus a
office is being used for real
That is going to stay a separate
MR. ALIANO: That is correct. The
small building.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is the approxi-
mate size of the three bay garage? Do you
have any idea? You don't have to tell me.
MR. ALIANO: I would say approximate-
ly in the neighborhood of 2,500 square feet.
THE CHAIRMAN: And the approximate
of the seven unit structure is how
size
large?
MR. ALIANO: It is about 5,900 square
feet. Also, I should conform with all the
site plan elements involving landscaping.
We have gone through the permit. Everything
is in place up to notification in September.
THE CHAIRMAN:
office complex?
MR. ALIANO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
This is a retail
That is correct.
Strictly for office
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
purposes, not for retail business?
MR. RAYNOR: It is a mixed use.
THE CHAIRMAN: At any one time, how
many uses existed on this particular piece
o~ property?
MR. RAYNOR: I can think of at least
four.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are talking about
when they had the car sale there and so on?
MR. RAYNOR: Car sales. There was a
landscaping operation. There was a fuel oil
delivery.
... auto body, at one time.
least five uses and some of
uses. They were not
we are proposing.
THE CHAIRMAN:
There was a gas station garage
There were at
those were mixed
like business or retail
More recently we had
one single person renting a three bay garage
and the real estate office.
MR. RAYNOR: No. They are two
separate and distinct rentals presently.
Yes, that is the case.
THE CHAIRMAN: How long has the
gentleman been in the three bay garage?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
'~0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that
MR. ALIANO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
is Mr. Aliano.
MR. ALIANO:
59
About a year and a half.
Let the record note
The man there now does
some auto body work and sheet metal
fabricating.
THE CHAIRMAN:
him?
MR. ALIANO:
gas station prior
had a garage there I
THE CHAIRMAN:
Who was there before
An auto body shop and a
to that in 1986. I still
used.
Is there anything else
you would like
MR. ALIANO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
the
to state for the record?
I don't believe so.
I received a call from
Planning Board tonight. They asked me
to leave the hearing open for the purpose of
dealing with parking plans and I, in some
hesitation, do not like to leave hearings
open, but in this particular case I will
grant them the request and I assume that
means they are going to ask you to go back
and address the parking plans.
MR. RAYNOR: The entire site plan is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in conformity with the zoning
THE CHAIRMAN:
October meeting for
60
that time with the Assistance Town Attorney
that you had requested the completion of
this particular project? Is that correct,
and it was at that time that they told you
that you would have to come in here for the
various variances?
MR. RAYNOR: That is correct. It was
subsequent to the notice that the Planning
Board gave us on the 20th of September. It
is very unfair to the applicant that from
the 10th of January all the way through to
the 20th of September, in dealing in good
faith throughout processing and going for-
ward with this in the very straightforward
fashion, that there were no responses from
the Board.
THE CHAIRMAN: Based upon your ex-
perience and wisdom in cases of this nature,
is there a special time limit that an ap-
plication would be permitted to plead any
particular problem before another Board,
ordinance.
Let's go back to that
the moment, and was it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
other than this Board, concerning this
change of zoning, by which I believe was
Business in the old Master Plan?
MR. RAYNOR: Yes, it was Business.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would be one at that
time?
MR. RAYNOR: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is no?~
MR. RAYNOR: That is correct.
(Discussion held off the record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you feel there
would have been a time or do you ...
MR. RAYNOR: I am not sure. I don't
understand your question. If you are talk-
ing about the time generally extended by the
Planning Board, usually around 180 days.
That's a rule of thumb, however, that is the
discretion on their part.
THE CHAIRMAN: What was the first
contact you had with them? Again, you must
excuse me not thinking about it after the
inception of the new zoning ordinance, after
January 10, 1989.
MR. RAYNOR: We had served them
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
notification in April of '89 that we were
processing or were about to finish the
processing with the Department of Health
62
Services and would be, at the time of agree-
ment with that agency, returning to their
Board with a final site plan.
THE CHAIRMAN: I guess that will do.
At this particular point, I am taking ques-
tions from the audience. We thank you, Mr.
Raynor and Mr. Aliano. At the completion of
this hearing we will recess it until a later
date and come back.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in favor of this project?
like to speak
Bruce Isaacs. I am
of the North Fork Eh-
and we are opposed to
Anybody that would
against this project?
MR. ISAACS:
speaking in behalf
vironmental Council,
The area is basically a
area and this would be a spot
We think it encourages other
you
along
this appeal.
residential
zone change.
zone changes and before you know it,
could have another commercial strip
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
'~3
14
15
16
17
'~8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this area.
As I say, it is basically a residen-
tial area and we hope that the Board will
disapprove of this appeal.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Isaacs.
Hearing nothing further ..o yes?
MS. SANACTYNOWICZ: Nancy
Sanactynowicz. I would like to say that
that area is horrendous with the traffic,
with the Christmas tree farm across the
street, trying to get out of Pequash Avenue,
your life is in jeopardy every time you come
out of there. I would like the Board to go
there and try pulling out of that road and
see what they think. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Any other comments?
Hearing no other comments, I make a
motion to recess the hearing until the 19th
assuming that is the night of the
of April,
meeting.
Mr.
We Will readvertise in this case.
Raynor, would you give us a call
around the 15th and we will, at that par-
ticular time, tell you if it is on for the
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
· 15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
19th.
Thank you all for
comments.
I
favor?
~70 -
64
MR. GRIGONIS:
MR. DOYEN:
MR. DINIZIO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
offer that as a resolution. All in
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Thank you again.
coming in and your
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
2
3
4
5
6
7
$OUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING, In the Matter of
JORDAN'S PARTNERS,
Applicant.
8
9
10
Main Road, Route 25
Southold, New York
March 15, 1990
8:20 P.M.
11971
11
BEFORE :
19
13
14
~5 BOARD MEMBERS:
15
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
Chairman.
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is the
last appeal, Number 3915. We have Jordan's
Partners. The Legal Notice reads as
follows:
Applicant Number 3915 Jordan's
Partners. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article VII, Section 100-71, as disapproved
for permission to construct office and
retail stores, proposed construction is not
a permitted use in this district. Property
Location: 1000 Main Street and 160 Main
Road, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000,
Section 34, Block 2, Lot 1.
I have a copy of the site plan that
was submitted with the appeal. It is JAL
Land Surveying, and I see it is undated, and
indicates the concrete footing and the
proposed foundation on the east side, and
their approximate location to the property
copy of the County Tax Map
and surrounding properties
line. I have a
indicating this
in the area.
MR. TSUNIS: Mr. Chairman, Members of
the Board, my name is John C. Tsunis, and I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
am a principal and an attorney concerning
this application, in connection with the'
application for a Use Variance.
The subject parcel is located at the
southeast corner of Main Road and Main
Street, in the Hamlet of Greenport. The
applicant is seeking a Use Variance to
permit the construction and operation of
retail shops and offices at this site. The
project received site plan approval, Health
Department approval, and a building permit.
And relying on these items, the owners
poured a foundation.
This application has become necessary
due to the fact that in January of 1989 the
parcel was rezoned by the Town pursuant to a
New Master Plan which changed the zone of
the subject premises from Business to
Residential/office.
For the record, the owners purchased
this property in February of 1988 for
$590,000. Obviously, the purchase price for
the parcel reflected the fact that an ap-
proved shopping center site plan was in
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
place.
that time,
$440,000,
4
Suffolk County National Bank, at
granted an acquisition loan of
which would have been recast in a
construction loan at a later date.
years of delays
the land cannot
Two
later, the loan is due and
be developed under the
current zone without losses in the hundreds
of thousands of dollars.
Although zoning and the Health
Department and site plan approvals were in
place in 1986, the owners were advised that
a building permit could not be issued until
arrangements were made for water service
through the Village of Greenport. As you
may know, the water mains are right in front
of the property. I would like to reiterate
that although a site plan was approved in
'86, and water was requested from '86, no
water was permitted to be connected. Al-
though the connection was promised to be
forthcoming, it was never received, and at
that time, up until 1989, the Building
Department rejected the idea of the water
well, although we had water tests and we
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
found the water was clean.
Since municipal water was not avail-
able, a permit could not be issued. Time
and substantial sums of money had been
expended until finally, in May of 1989, a
permit was issued when the Suffolk County
Board of Health advised the Town Building
Department that a well could be drilled if
municipal water was not available upon
completion of the project. Construction
commenced approximately two months after the
building permit' was issued.
Prior to this time, serious negotia-
tion for leases proceeded in 1988 and two
leases were in fact executed, you have
copies of the leases in your package, and a
letter of intent for McCrory, which is the
largest retail store in the State, having
1,600 stores, was signed for the total
commitment of approximately 1,300 square
feet for the site.
peaked because the
struction was commenced.
However, on May 30,
Interest, at this time,
land was clear and con-
1989, a Stop Work
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
6
Order was issued advising us the zoning was
now improper and we halted construction
after pouring the foundation. The founda-
tion, I believe, was completed in early
September.
To date, Mr. Chairman, the applicant
has expended nearly $75,000 toward construc-
tion, and $115,000 for architectural, en-
gineering, legal and other soft costs, in
addition to monies expended for the acquisi-
tion of the land. At present, there is a
foundation in Place for the proposed center.
The applicant is seeking this
variance because a little application of the
zoning ordinance will re. sult in an unneces-
sary hardship.
Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 NY 71,
(1939), established that the Zoning Board
may exercise its discretion and grant a
variance upon the ground of unnecessary
hardship when it is shown three
1. The land
a reasonable return
purpose permitted
things:
in question cannot yield
if used only for the
in that zone.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2. That the plight
due to the unique circumstances and not the
general conditions in the neighborhood.
3. That the use to be authorized
will not alter the essential character of
the locality.
I would like to ask that the Board
keep in mind that when determining whether
or not the applicant may realize a
reasonable return through developing in
accordance with the permitted uses, you
consider the following factors, which ac-
cording to the Court of Appeals, must be
weighed:
1. Amount paid, in this case
$590,000;
7
of the owner is
2. Present value of the parcel as
zoned, you will hear testimony tonight,
approximately $150,000;
3. Amount of mortgages, in this
case, $440,000;
4. Income of the parcel, when
developed;
And other relevant factors, in this
2
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
instance,
curred by
parcel, and
situation.
this includes the
the applicant in developing the
the particular leasing market
8
expenses in-
These factors compromise what has
been termed the "Dollars and Cents" rule as
set forth by the Appellate Division in
Blumberg v. Siegel, 87 AD 2d 650, 448 NYS 2d
522, (1982).
That the plight of the owner is due
to the unique circumstances and not the
general conditions in the neighborhood. In
Ellentuck v. Klein, 51 AD 2d 964, 380 NYS 2d
327, (1976), indicates that expenditures
made in good faith reliance upon subsequent-
ly invalidated building permit may properly
be considered in the variance proceeding.
Additionally, the granting of a use variance
is proper where the applicant has spent
large sums of money in reliance upon the
building permit and denial of the variance
would be financially devastating.
Similarly, you may also consider the
possibility of the applicant to cover debt
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
services with the permitted purposes.
this case, residential plots of about
or four units. Debt service, in this
could only be paid by the sale of
or the houses upon them. You will hear
9
In
three
case,
these lots
parcel of land,
other land in a
show that in the
and that it is not shared by
larger area. Testimony will
immediate area it was only
rezoned from
and that no
its building
the applicant's land which was
Business to Residential/office,
other nearby landowner has had
permit revoked after construction had com-
menced.
The use variance to be authorized
will not alter the essential character of
the locality in this instance. The
testimony this evening that it would be
economically disastrous in that the value of
these lots would be approximately $150,000
and the owners have already invested ap-
proximately $800,000.
There can be no question that the
plight of this 'applicant is due to unique
circumstances relating specifically to this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
testimony you will
that the granting
10
hear tonight will show
of the requested variance
and the subsequent development of the
proposed center will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood.
The Appellate Division in Hanna v.
Crossley, has held that the existence of
similar or identical uses in the vicinity of
the proposed site reduces the likelihood
that the essential character of the neigh-
borhood will be altered. Directly across
the street is Porky's Restaurant and the
parcel is located on a major intersection in
Greenport. The development of the shopping
center at this business intersection is
compatible with the immediate area.
I am sure you will agree that upon
hearing the testimony offered tonight, the
applicant has indeed met the burden that
there is unnecessary hardship for which the
Board may grant the requested Use Variance.
On a personal note, I would like to
say that my family and I have made every
effort to build aesthetically beautiful
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
buildings throughout
finished products meet
is represented in our renderings.
particular rendering before you is
11
Suffolk County. Our
or exceed that which
This
a build-
ing which was completed
District in Mt. Sinai, in
haven. I have pictures.
showing the completed project.
in the Historic
the Town of Brook-
I have pictures
We build our buildings. We operate
our own buildings. We don't sell them to
others. We live and work and are sensitive
and respectful to the needs and wishes of
our neighbors. I hope you will agree that
the present circumstances are due %o a
series of events that are out of our control
and the relief requested tonight is jus-
tified.
cio .
I will introduce now Mr. Edwin Tuc-
MR. TUCCIO: I am a real es%ate
broker and appraiser representing the Town
of Riverhead and Southold, and in the County
of Suffolk. The purpose of my testimony is
to establish to the Zoning Board that if a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
12
Use Variance
petitioner, it will create
economic hardship.
There are different
scenarios that
property. For
upzoned to RO
is not granted to the
a tremendous
types of
affect the value of this
example, before the Town
(Residential/Office), the
property was purchased with the intentions
for a retail shopping center (29,000 square
feet). With this type of approval, the
value of vacant land with an approved site
plan could be worth up to $850,000 to
$950,0O0.
Under the type zoning (now RO) only
three or four lots would be allowed on this
property. Even if this were allowed by the
Town, what average person would want to
purchase a vacant lot and build a home that
close to the Main Road?
It is in my opinion that each lot
would only sell for $25,000 to $30,000 each.
If this were the case, the petitioner would
only realize, at the most, $120,000. You
must remember, they paid $590,000 for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
this parcel.
Another scenario
Office. Currently,
office space in the
is Residential/
there is no demand for
Town of Southold. I
that is
needed.
doubt very much that the Town wants to make
the same mistake as Riverhead has done, and
approving more office space than
Currently in Riverhead, we have
around 250,000 square feet of vacant office
space. That is
estate industry. If this
approve the Use Variance,
ing more office space.
One thing that I
aware
unheard of in the real
Board does not
it may be promot-
think you should be
of is when such a high vacancy exists
in a town such as Riverhead, most landlords
are able to have thei~ assessments reduced
because of a vacancy factor. When real
estate investors grieve their taxes and are
reduced by the Town, they lose a large chunk
of our tax base when overbuilt. That could
happen here.
The bottom line is that the only way
a reasonable return can be realized for this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
property is to develop it as what it was
zoned, for business use. The tax benefits
are far greater to the Town if it is built
as a retail shopping
rial/Office.
On a final
best interest of
client, to grant
this project
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. CORRIGAN:
is Robert Corrigan.
Mr. Tsunis as to
the project as a
center versus Residen-
note, I think it is in the
the Town as well as our
the Use Variance and allow
to realize its full potential.
Thank you, Mr. Tuccio.
Mr. Chairman, my name
I have been asked by
the financial ability of
retail center.
1973.
Bank and the East River Savings Bank
mortgage lender. I rose to the rank
president. Today'I
mortgage banking.
Johns University
I am a member of various real estate
organizations and various real estate groups
I have been in real estate since
I have worked at the Dime Savings
as a
of vice
am actively engaged in
I hold an MBA from St.
in finance and banking.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
in the City of New York and Long Island.
Since 1985, I have been underwriting
mortgage loans exceeding one billion dollars
for both construction and permanent
financing.
During my career I have provided
permanent financing for Mr. Tsunis and have
worked on construction financing for his
projects, and always found him to be fair
and reasonable in his approach and has
always acted according to everything he ever
said he would do.
At Mr. Tsunis' request I analyzed a
proposed shopping center to determine what
would be available under the present market
conditions in the way of financing for both
the construction and permanent loan. I
determined that a construction loan of 1.9
million dollars is reasonable. This loan
would be inclusive of the existing financing
of $440,000 of already existing land.
Financing could be arranged and that would
be fair and reasonable, and that is based on
a proposed construction budget of $2,475,000
1
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
~4
25
and the existing preleasing that is in
place.
In regards to permanent financing, we
believe that we could arrange $2,475,000
based on typical underwriting procedures. I
do have that methodology.
Based on the previous testimony, if
the project was to only have the residential
use and the estimated market value on the
land of $150,000, we feel that the best
financing that would be available would be
$75,000, which is 50 percent of the value of
the property, which is typical of this type
of project, residential project.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
MR. KRAMER: Stuart Kramer, Director
of Leasing for Tsunis Associates.
Tsunis Associates is the broker
responsible for the marketing and leasing of
the "Greenport Commons".
With Tsunis Associates, I have sue-
cessfully leased 200,000 square feet of
retail space at the Sunshine Mall in Med-
ford, Long Island, and I have been involved
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2~
22
23
24
25
17
I
Chinese
takeout restaurants. Since the signing of
the lease, the tenant has expressed interest
in doubling its square footage.
The letter of intent received is from
McCrory Stores for 8,000 square feet.
McCrory's is a national variety chain store
with 1,600 stores nationwide.
in many other projects in Suffolk County.
believe my specialty is leasing shopping
centers.
I have been involved in the leasing
of Greenport Coramons since June, 1988. From
June 16th until the present time, advertise-
ments were placed in the appropriate
newspapers seeking both national and local
tenants.
As a result of these efforts, I have
secured two signed leases and one letter of
intent. The first lease is with Shop With
Us for 3,300 square feet. Shop With Us is a
five store chain of superettes,
The second lease is with Poon's
Chinese Takeout for 1,000 square feet.
Poon's is a four store chain of
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
These three agreements alone
sent more than 13,000 square feet,
42 percent of the total center.
I believe that these tenants
18
repre-
or over
were
attracted to our center because of our
unique abundant parking, our location being
at a major intersection and because of our
New England Architecture that will blend
with the town.
After these commitments were received
and construction commenced, we received a
tremendous amount of serious inquiries,
including the following categories: phar-
macy, dress shop, florist, haircutter, dry
cleaner, print shop, card shop, Greek res-
taurant, pancake house, pizza takeout,
doughnut shop, and two banks. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
MR. GREBER: My name is Norman
Greber. I am a consultant in an independent
firm. My offices are in Amityville, 7 Green
Avenue. I hand up my credentials, but very
briefly, I have a Masters degree in planning
from Cornell University. I work for public
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
had
which has
It
section where many streets
professional offices in it.
is also at a very important inter-
and many roads
and private firms, and since 1971 I have
my own firm, Norman Greber Associates.
I have been retained by the appli-
cants to look at this particular situation
with respect to the overall planning charac-
ter of the area, traffic and related mat-
ters. Very interestingly, actually what is
being asked for is nothing more than what
was already proposed by the Town of Southold
with respect to the site plan. What is
being asked for is just a renewal of that
site plan that was deemed to be quite suffi-
cient by everybody concerned a couple of
years ago.
This is an area that cannot be con-
sidered a residential area. Not only is
there Porky's across the street, which is an
LB Zone, but a short distance to the east of
the north side of Truck 25, just to the east
of Manhasset Avenue, there is a large, very
large RO Zone where an old mansion was built
i!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 ~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
come together, where there is a blinking
light. The homes that are in the surround-
ing areas are in basically good shape, but
they are on fairly small lots with respect
to the subject property.
The subject property if developed,
the single family residences would require
40,000 square feet each. Basically, that
would lay out four rectangular lots facing
Main Road, facing Porky's and Porky's park-
ing field. That is essentially the way this
property would have to lay out four deep
lots that way. These lots would be between
three and five times the size of the lots in
the surrounding areas.
So in my opinion, it is out of
character with the surrounding area, not-
withstanding the fact that it was rezoned
and the Master Plan saw fit to recommend
such a change. The fact that it is unique
is the result of the fact that this is the
only zone that, at least in my studies,
indicates this was the only one that was
changed in the immediate area.
L
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A professional
earlier, but that is not really
use in RO Zone. The RO permits,
21
office was discussed
permitted
as a matter
of right, only single family homes on 40,000
square foot lots, for ail practical pur-
poses. Special exceptions asked for and if
granted by this Board could produce ...
professional offices could produce a funeral
home, could produce other things if asked
for. As a matter of rights, only single
family detached homes on 40,000 square foot
lots could be allowed.
Greenport ..o downtown Greenport is a
busy, active, often congested area with
respect to the street system, parking
facilities and particularly in the summer
time, of course, sometimes spaces are hard
to come by. Oftentimes you must park and
pay money in the meter in order to park.
There is no question that the proposed
shopping center, where a merged facility,
retail and office together totalling 29,000
square feet, would relieve the pressures on
Greenport Village downtown and, I might add,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
22
at a very convenient location.
It is precisely what the Town of
Southold has done with the Hamlet of
Southold, in the five miles where we are
today, about five miles to the west of the
subject property. On-County Route 48 there
are two shopping centers, seven-tenths of a
mile away from the downtown area. The same
as the subject property ... is eight-tenths
of a mile from the intersection of Front and
Main in downtown Greenport. There are two
shopping centers there, totalling 24,000
square feet. They are not all rented but
there is 24,000 square feet, plus or minus,
of retail. This proposal is 29,000 square
feet of merged retail and office.
It is my opinion it is very similar
to what has happened here if, in fact, it is
approved further to the east. There is no
shopping at all on CR 48 or Truck 25, from
essentially Youngs Avenue and CR 48, all the
way out to Orient, 12 miles ... nothing ...
zero.
In the thinking of the Town putting
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
20
22
23
24
25
23
shopping just north of downtown Southold,
which relieves the pressure or whatever the
reasons were, it would be exactly the same
as relieving the pressure in Greenport ...
almost virtually the same distance due north
of where the business district is.
There is no question also, based upon
my studies, that a substantial amount of the
traffic is in fact already on the road,
particularly east of the subject property,
because once you go east you have no choice.
You have to go to East Marion or Orient.
All of that traffic will necessarily pass
the subject property. Whether they want to
stop there or not is not the point. They
are already on the road.
Traffic studies that were done in the
Master Plan indicated there were no traffic
problems in that area. Current traffic
counts that I have obtained from the New
York State DOT indicate a very similar
situation to what was in fact the traffic
situation back in the early '80s, where peak
hours in that area generated approximately
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
300 to 350 cars in the main direction during
peak hours. The same situation today as it
was in those days.
My observations of traffic
the blinking light indicates that
flow at
there are
no problems. Yes, you must wait for cars if
you are going north and you want to make a
left-hand turn, but those are normal delays.
They are shorter than they would be if, in
fact, there was a regular red light situa-
tion as opposed to the blinking red light
situation.
I also feel that this facility, as
proposed, in terms of aesthetics will look
very much like a professional office build-
ing. If, in fact, a professional office
building was being sought, that rendering
you have before you could very well be a
professional office as opposed to retail.
Remember, this is retail and office.
So that amount of traffic that would be
generated is softened by that merged use.
In conclusion, unless you have ques-
tions, I believe that the character of the
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
area is such that
would not detract
also like to add,
25
this facility as presented
from the area. I would
with respect to this
facility, that this facility is producing
rear buffers. The shopping centers near
here do not have rear buffers. The parking
that is behind the store and the office that
is proposed in the site plan you have before
you, I submit there are 50 spaces in the
area. It is my opinion, and I suggested
this to the applicants, that John, if he
wanted to, could land bank those spaces. I
don't know if they will be needed.
There are 203 spaces on the site
plan. I don't think you need more than 150.
Those 50 spaces, while they are necessary to
satisfy the code, may not be necessary to
satisfy reality and if you land bank them,
the homes, there are eight homes that back
up to the subject property ... this is on
Knapps Place. Those homes would have addi-
tional buffering ... if in fact the parking
was not provided. If it were provided,
there still would be the buffering. I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
suggest there could be greater buffers
without any lots of utilities to the shopp-
ing center.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
MR. TSUNIS: Mr. Chairman, that
concludes our presentation. Again, if I may
reiterate in the final remarks, if the Town
of Southold Building Department would have
permitted me to construct this parcel pur-
suant to drilling a well, as they were
subsequently advised by the County Board of
Board
expended
what I was told is a $150,000
Health,
today.
SS00,000
piece of property.
Honestly, we
told. We relied on
relied on the Board
would not be before this
certainly would not have
for
relied on what we were
the site plan. We
of Health's approval.
We listened to people telling us that we are
getting municipal water soon and the time
slipped by. We never were aware that this
parcel was being changed in January of '89.
Obviously, the Building Inspector did not
either, otherwise he certainly would not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
have issued the building permit.
However, substantial funds were in
good faith expended. We submitted these
plans to the Building Department. We
received your approvals. I would be happy
%o work with anybody in the Town, to
eliminate any problems that may be suggested
and we hope that the Board will look
favorably upon this application.
THE CHAIRMAN: The only question I
have is did you think about asking the Town
Board for another rezoning?
MR. TSUNIS: Again, Mr. Chairman, as
the other gentleman indicated, I received a
telephone call to stop work out here, not
knowing what in the world was going on. We
poured twenty-something thousand feet of
concrete to build storage. I ran out here.
I met with the Town Board. I met
with the Town Attorney. The Town Board said
they sympathize with me. They felt very bad
about it. They would like to rectify it,
but they indicated the direction should be
made at the Zoning Board of Appeals and in
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that it was a unique situation in and of
itself, it was not a broad rush and that
there was a case to be handled on an in-
dividual basis due to the uniqueness of the
situation.
This is where they directed me to
come, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. TSUNIS: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: If there are any
spokepersons in the audience that would like
to speak, after we ask if there is anybody
else that would like to speak in favor of
this application ... I would refer to the
spokesperson, I refer to them as possibly
leading a group first and individual persons
in the community.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in favor of this application?
MS. GOHOREL: My name is Jane
Gohorel, and I have written out what I have
to say. I must say I am amazed at what I
just heard about the plan for Greenport and
the amount of trouble these gentlemen have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
29
gone to to get all the wrong answers.
This is to the Southold Town Board of
Appeals:
The proposed Greenport Commons
com-
plex is
the open spaces
Master Plan was
construction at
an example of the kind of misuse of
which.the long-awaited
designed to prevent. The
this important intersection
of yet another row of stores and offices,
offering goods and services of the type
already abundantly available within the
Village itself and elsewhere, nearby, would
not only adversely effect Greenport's com-
mercial center, but would needlessly and
unalterably damage the rural character of
the whole area.
There are at present numerous stores
and offices in Greenport and throughout
Southold Town, including space in the newer
malls, that remain empty after more than a
year, some much longer. This proposed
development has been extremely unpopular in
the community at large, has been criticized
in the press and Chambers of Commerce. It
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has nothing new or attractive to offer,
except to the developers who will take
3O
their
profits and move
mess.
well
the historic and
Fork. And it is
Plan which went into
1989.
on, leaving us with the
It is opposed by environmentalists as
as those who care about preservation of
rustic charm of the North
in conflict with the Master
effect in January,
Yet,
last spring. Inexplicably,
apparently undetected until
a building permit was issued
this error went
after the foun-
totally unaware all along of the
of the situation and even harder
stand why the Town waited so long to
this
dations had begun. It is difficult to
believe that Jordan's Partners remained
illegality
to under-
take
proper action.
Granting the requested variance on
the grounds of financial hardship suffered
by Mr. Tsunis will only compound the error
and set a very sorry precedent. It will
very likely open the way for further excep-
tions to the rule and future random
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
31
commercial invasion to the west and east
along a stretch of highway that has so far
managed to escape the blight of suburban
sprawl.
We urge that the requested variance
be denied.
Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else
that would like to oppose this particular
project?
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. WATSON: I am not as eloquent as
this lady. I am Mae Watson. I own Sterling
Square, downtown Greenport. It was
established in 1973, and we took preexisting
buildings and
now. If
like, you know they are
the community.
restored them to what they are
anybody here knows what they look
in character with
I want to say that up until last year
I have never had full occupancy and my
square footage costs my tenants under $10 a
square foot. We have three shopping centers
in the Village of Greenport and without
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
counting them I would say there are ap-
proximately 17 to 20 more shops that are
empty. One has been completely empty for
quite a while.
and
Our businesses are basically seasonal
based on tourist trade. We have already
five Chinese takeouts
plus one regular restaurant. We have
drug stores on the North Fork, in
Southold/Greenport area. We have
store. I don't think we need any more of
these.
The North Road at that intersection
to Orient Point, there are four restaurants
which people traveling from New London and
New England can go well serviced. As well,
in the Village of Greenport, there are four
more ... or more ... I can't even count.
on the North Fork,
three
the
a variety
I am totally a~ainzt it. I want it
on the record this would be an incredible
hardship on the Village of Greenport.
If you look at the village of River-
head, you see what the strip of shopping
centers has done to that community.
32
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It is totally out
without colonial community.
we are more of a resort and
33
of character
The North Pork,
retirement area
and I don't see the population going. I
think the economics in real estate do not
warrant this kind of expenditure, and I am
really sorry these people went to that kind
investment without
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. TOWNSEND:
looking into that.
Thank you.
Joseph Townsend,
former Mayor of the village of Greenport and
former Town Councilman. I am prepared to
speak,
so I will be
I would like
have sat in on it
Plan as it exists today
beginning. There was a
brief.
to say, as Councilman I
and worked on the Master
from almost the
decision made to
change the zoning at that location, because
of what you heard tonight, the impossible
impact on the Village, the nature of traf-
fic, the general improbableness of that site
for this kind of development. This was made
known in all the Town meetings, the meetings
going on from '85 to the final adoption of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I am not familiar with exactly what
happened with the existing site plan and the
building permits. All I know is that the
zoning was ... we had hoped the zoning would
be changed from the very outset of the
process.
The new zone is inconsistent with the
overall goals of the Master Plan and if a
hardship has been created, it seems to me it
should be corrected, not by any group but by
Article 78 for some sort of procedural
basis. Because, as far as I know,
Master Plan was passed properly.
These people had notice of
the
that, as a
property owner, and I feel that this is not
the proper area for their redress.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Coun-
cilman. Anybody else who would like to
speak?
MR. ISAACS: Bruce Isaacs, President
of the North Fork Environmental Council.
We are opposed to this project for
all the reasons expressed by the speakers in
5
6
7
9
~0
~2
~4
~5
~7
~8
~9
2O
2~
22
2~
24
25
opposition.
them again.
have a
There is no sense repeating
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MS. WIESEHAHN: Ruth Wiesehahn.
short letter from the Greenport
35
Greenport Historic
Thank you.
MS. WADE:
to make a point,
Preservation Commission.
Randy Wade. I just want
that the one commercial
Historic Preservation Commission.
"Dear Members:
As members of the Greenport Historic
Preservation Commission, we are deeply
concerned about your decision regarding
'Greenport Commons'
If Greenport Commons is commercially
developed, we feel that Greenport's commer-
cial district will be adversely affected.
Much of that commercial district is
officially designated a historic district.
Therefore, we urge this Board to hold
firmly to the zoning spelled out in the
approved Master Plan."
This is signed by the Members of the
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
district is the only one downtown that is
directly on the waterfront being economical-
ly strong and vital. The Master Plan recog-
nized a retail shopping center on the out-
skirts of the Village would stop the
vitality of Greenport and zoned this proper-
ty up towards residential.
Since the village has a huge retail
vacancy rate right now, it seems in the best
interest of the applicants to appropriate
the Master Plan and seek the proper varian-
ces to get four houses, the four that they
stated they were going to be able to build
there. As especially there, if they were
landscaped properly and compatible with the
character of Greenport, and new houses are
in great demand. Retail rentals are not.
This intersection is our gateway. It
signifies a transition between the main
thoroughfare of the North Road and the
residentials running around the commercial
town. It should not be
landscaped by a parking
MS. FLY~N:
like a strip mall
lot.
My name is Ingeborg
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 '
24
25
Flynn. I am a resident of the Town of
Southold. I would like to express my
opinions critical of this application.
Before doing so, I would like to cite.
briefly, some of my background and
37
experience which, as in a legal proceeding,
serves to qualify my opinions.
I have been a licensed real estate
broker for over 20 years and am a graduate
of the Real Estate Institute.
I conduct my business from an office
in the Village of Greenport.
I have been active in the sale,
leasing and financing of commercial, in-
dustrial and income properties, as well as
vacant land in various zoning districts, as
well as residential property.
Over a
progressively:
Vice-President for Suffolk County
period of seven years I was
Secretary, Treasurer and
of the
Long Island Board of Realtors. I served in
this latter capacity for three years.
In addition, I was a director of the
New York State Association of Realtors and
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
the chairperson of several committees.
To address the subject application,
in my opinion it represents yet another
attempt to circumvent, or try and end run
around the Southold Zoning Code by seeking a
rezoning disguised as'a variance. It is my
understanding that rezoning requires legis-
lative enactment and is a function reserved
to the Town Board.
It is also my understanding that the
basis for this application lies in the
erroneous issuance of the building permit,
subsequent to the adoption of the Master
Plan, and a later Stop Work Order. I fail
to see where an error on the part of the
Building Department overrides an existing
zoning ordinance.
I believe you will agree with me that
the preparation of a comprehensive, or
Master Plan starts, or should start with a
blank piece of paper. The overall planning
of the Town is to be considered in terms of
needs and effects, now and in the future.
Not of least importance is the long-term
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
effect on the character and viability
established communities.
A review of the situation reveals
that the Town had long since made its inten-
tions clear. Preliminary Land Use Plans for
39
of
Southold Town were released to the public in
January of 1984. These plans were prepared
by the Town's consultants, Raymond, Par-
fish, Pine and Weiner, who placed the
property in a Hamlet Density Residential
District. This was approximately five years
before the adop'tion of the Master Plan.
By January of 1987, RPPW's plan had been
revised to Residential/O~fice use.
I rarely find myself in agreement
with the actions of the $outhold Town Board
with respect to zoning. Their overall
actions with respect to the Village of
Greenport have been particularly harmful.
They have demonstrated a predisposi'tion to
locate all of the intensive, undesirable
uses unwanted elsewhere on %he perimeters of
the Village on the false premise of adequate
and safe water supply. Contrary to its
116 ~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stated policy, the Board has strip zoned
Route 25, the major access road to the
Village.
Having said this, I
agreement with the zoning
find myself in
of the subject
property. Any observer of the real estate
scene has observed the adverse effects of
the development of highway business when on
established downtown business areas. I need
only cite Babylon, Bay Shore and Patchogue
as examples.
The downtown business district of
Greenport is suffering. Stores are vacant.
And newly erected shopping centers are doing
badly. Many tenants are of marginal
quality. A shopping center to the west on
the North Road has been foreclosed recently.
The Village of Greenport is making valiant
efforts to restore its image as a tourist
attraction and commercial center.
To establish, contrary to the zoning
ordinance, a shopping center on a traffic
artery not in the Village would repeat the
mistakes of the past and serve to undue the
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
efforts of the Villaqe.
The subject Appeal Number 3915 is
classified as an Appeal from decision of
Building Inspector. I am sure there has
been enough legal precedence set in this
area to require no comment from me.
However, the application appears to
be in the nature of a dual attack. It also
seeks a variance from the zoning ordinance.
The Board of Appeals is empowered to
alter the strict letter of the law or to
alter the application of zoning regulations
so that their spirit is observed. The
zoning change which would be required is
hardly altering the letter of the law. As
for the spirit of the law, this is a
nebulous concept. The zoning ordinance is
the actual law, clearly defined.
Hardship and practical difficulties
as the grounds for a variance must be in-
herent in the property: not its ownership.
Hardship is measured
cial terms, by proof
regulated is valueless.
is measured in finan-
that the property as
A frequently cited
41
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
test is that the property has only
residue of value".
42
bare
As far as practical difficulties are
concerned, they too must be inherent in the
land and not the owner's intentions or
operations. With respect to the owner's
submission of a Short Environmental Form, I
would like to make some short comments:
Question Number 12 apparently dis-
regards traffic problems at a major inter-
section.
I did not prepare for that, but I
would like to add to that that the planner
estimates that the traffic was about the
same as 1980. We know that even now in the
summertime, the ferries run around every
hour. In 1980, we had about four ferries
running a day, and the traffic must have
certainly doubled or even more than that.
Don't tell me there are no major problems.
Question Number 14 states that the
project will
character of
Question Number 15
have no major effect on the
the neighborhood.
answers the
43
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question of public controversy with a
no ... and I don't
that tonight.
In summation, what is
think we can even say
sought here is
a zoning change, not a variance. This is
a matter for legislative enactment. Granting
the variance to accommodate the owner's
objectives would go far beyond both the
letter and the spirit of the regulations.
Errors on the part of the BuildinR Depart-
ment cannot void zoning regulations nor can
they serve as the basis for granting a
variance.
Thank you.
MS. CROSSER: Diane Crosser, resident
of the Town of Southold.
The first question I would like to
address to Mr. Tsunis would be you stated
that ....
THE CHAIRMAN: You have to address it
to the Board. You cannot cross-examine an
applicant, first of all. He is not bound to
answer the question, also, unless he wants
to.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
MS. CROSSER: What I would like to
know is Mr. Tsunis states the project would
not change the essential character of the
neighborhood, yet Mr. Greber stated the
center would look like a professional office
building. I would like to know what the
definition of the essential character of the
neighborhood is.
My second question, this would be
asked of the Board, would be that when
excavation beqan we were told that five
leases had been secured. Tonight we are
told only two leases have been secured and
this one letter of intent. I am just
curious to find out what happened to the
other leases.
My third question would be ...
THE CHAIRMAN: Before you go to the
third, that question was addressed not to
us. That was addressed also to these
gentlemen.
MS. CROSSER: Okay. What I would
like to know, as a resident of Southold,
would be what will happen if the rest of
the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
~2
17
20
2~
22
23
24
25
leases are not secured as we
told they had been?
THE CHAIRMAN:
question, but go ahead.
this
45
initially were
I can't answer that
MS. CROSSER: My last one, I guess
will be an open ended question as well,
is that Mr. Tuccio, Mr. Kramer, and Mr.
Greber all stated their credentials and
testified at this meeting
their field.
My question would be,
won't get an answer on this,
no% they received any financial
as experts in
apparently I
is whether or
compensation
or if they stand to gain financially from
seeing Greenport Commons come to fruition.
Those are my questions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Would you like to answer that?
MR.
one first.
are getting paid whether it is approved or
TSUNIS: I will answer the last
They are getting paid, but they
not. These people are experts in their
field, and took monies to speak. They
certainly, I don't believe as professionals,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
'17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
46
would come out and not qet paid for their
time. I paid them. I paid for the time
they spent out here, expended out here.
THE CHAIRMAN: You only have one
question here. That's the part of the firm
that spoke, is that correct, that's the
gentleman on the end here?
MR. TSUNIS: Yes, and he gets paid on
a commission basis.
THE CHAIRMAN: The other question was
about the leases, I assume, and that was
what would happen if I guess you had several
more leases prior to ...
MR. TSUNIS: I only had two leases
secured and one letter of intent.
THE CHAIRMAN: What happens to the
project if you don't rent it? I assume that
is the question.
MR. TSUNIS:
Well, I suppose there is
a question over there, if the entire project
won't be built in one stage, either build in
one stage or if the Town would be giving a
permit we could build it in two or three
stages. But there is 13,000 committed, also
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
road, which is over 40 percent of the
project.
I also would like to suqgest
apparently some retailers are seeking per-
mits to the location and to the fact there
is a large parking lot. The traffic that
we are talking about there, before, is not
going to result or increase due to the
shopping center.
I would like to point out that the
traffic that was discussed coming off the
ferries, I believe, that is not going to
increase traffic because they may stop at
the intersection.
So, was there
THE CHAIRMAN:
the neighborhood.
MR. TSUNIS: Well, the character of
the neighborhood, I believe, would not be
altered due to the fact that the shopping
center, with the Planning Board acting
consistently with their input of the store
towards the intersection. There is a 63
foot buffer from the property line to the
another question?
About the character of
2
3
4
5
7
10
~2
~4
2O
2~
22
24
25
48
building line. It is far enough away, I
believe, for it to be properly screened by
fences and/or shrubs.
The alternative would be lots of rows
facing that very heavily traveled road.
That certainly would be out of character.
I would just like to reiterate one
more time, if I may, I am sensitive. I
by the
the residents
of view, as
appreciate what was said tonight
residents. I just hope that
are appreciative of my point
well.
I have been literally held hostage
since 1988, and having my approval in hand
and not being able to get a building permit
due to the fact that municipal water was not
available. I was constantly told the well
could not be obtained. Subsequently, all of
a sudden, I could go ahead with the well.
If this well was permitted by the Town
Building Department two or three years ago,
I would not be here. I could have built in
accord with the existing zoning.
I am concerned that ... I am
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
49
appreciative, again, what we are talking
about with retail uses downtown. I think a
relationship could develop with this one
location, with the store downtown. I cer-
tainly am not going to seek out uncomplimen-
tary uses, but complimentary uses to what is
in existence. But again I feel a little bit
grieved in this particular situation.
I can honestly tell you I
notified that there was a change
in January, otherwise certainly
been out there. The fact of the matter is
the Building Department issued me ... did
realize that the zone was changed in this
parcel, and if the Building Department is
within a municipal buildinc that these
changes of zones are authorized, my office,
being in Hauppauge, I would hope that people
could understand that I would not know.
I am an attorney. I would not build
without a permit and/or disregard the or-
dinances.
I think our case was stated. I would
hope that the Board would review the package
was never
of zoning
I would have
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we submitted, and we would like to incor-
porate our records for your review to
analyze our case. I believe we have sus-
rained a burden necessary
Variance.
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. HOLLAND:
a resident of Greenport. I
ment as well as a question.
to obtain a Use
50
correctly, the Master
January of 1989.
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. HOLLAND:
Thank you.
Everett Holland. I am
have a state-
If I understand
Plan was chanaed in
January 10, 1989.
The land in question
was bulldozed sometime at the end of the
summer, I believe, and then it was in Sep-
tember ... October the foundation was start-
ing to be poured. I don't understand why he
was not informed in January that this was
changed.
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't ][now. I can't
answer that question.
MR. HOLLAND: I don't
I don't have an MBA
have a degree
or anything like
in it.
that.
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I do no% understand why it is so
to have a shopping mall here, which is
predominantly empty and have no shopping
mall on that North Road, all the way out to
Orient. I see nothing wron~ with having
trees, grass ... I do feel that it is very
unfortunate that this has ~ot%en this far
51
bad
totally empty, another one maybe
empty, another one equally empty.
there are quite a few stores there, out in
other buildings, that are also empty. The
Village of Greenport
problem in business,
trict. The last
is having a tremendous
in the business dis-
thing we need is another
the VillaGe.
is a problem.
strip mall
The
Parking is
fashioned village.
on the outskirts of
traffic in downtown
a problem. It is a small, old-
You do have to put a
95 percent
Plus also
out of hand. I don't know what can be done
to rectify this or how it happened, but I do
feel that there is an extreme amount of
traffic throughout that intersection.
The major part of the Village of
Greenport has three shopping centers; one
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
nickel in the meter.
in that. It is not
you fork over,
property.
That
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
MS. SCHEER:
52
I don't see any harm
a huge amount of money
~or the upkee~ of that
is basically all I have to say.
thinking back to the statements Mr.
Thank you, sir.
Linda Scheer. I am
Tsunis
made at the beginning. The petitioners have
come to determine economic hardship, and
determined that the proposed development
does not alter the character of the area.
The Master Plan was in process for many
years. I find it hard to believe that a
professional developer would not know that
property was going to be rezoned.
Secondly, I believe their planner
made the point that there is no shopping on
Trunk [sic] 48 from Southold to East Marion,
Building, no matter how aesthetically pleas-
ing, will definitely alter the character.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS.
tynowicz.
center. I
SA~ACTYNOWICZ: Nancy Sanac-
I am opposed to the shopping
think it is really not needed.
53
The Master Plan was put
protect the character
hope we can follow it
a terrible precedent for shopping
sprinq up all over.
I have one more ouestion.
into effect to
of our town, and I
otherwise'it will set
centers to
Where is
this qoinq to be? It is not ~oing to have
an Environmental Impact Statement done,
see.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have not determined
it yet.
MS. SANACTYNOWICZ: I would like you
to determine. It needs an Environmental
Impact Statement, though. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Sir?
MR. ROWSON: Michael Rowson. I am
from Preston's, down in Greenport.
It is a pretty drawing. I can see a
lot of people come out here
support our Town of Greenport.
come out here to see shopping
as tourists and
They don't
centers. I
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think a lot of them come out to see the
parks out in Orient, enjoy the waterfront,
and enjoy the open spaces.
I think it is up to the Zoning Board
to oppose this. Based on the facts that
many of the taxpayers here who have busi-
nesses, and live here on a year-round basis,
enjoy the open spaces and being that the
Town Board represents the taxpayers, it is
in their best interest to do what is going
to keep the taxpayers happy.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
I just want to address one issue, so
that the applicants and the residents of the
Town are aware, we ... and Mrs. Flynn will
attest to this because she sat in on several
hearings with her husband on it ... that we
are not closed on the Port of Egypt. We did
not have a Town Attorney until February 22,
1990. So what we are going to be doinq
tonight, again, asking this very nice lady
here who is takinq this
this record out tonight
this record with the Town
record down, to pull
and we will discuss
Attorney and we
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
will recess this hearing until sometime in
April, and we will let you know. We believe
the next hearing is going to be April 19th,
and we will convene at that time.
My question basically is is there
anybody that might not be here on or about
approximately ... that is, that date is
subject to change based upon when we get the
hearing record and when we get the chance to
discuss it with the Town Attorney, who is
Harvey Arnoff. We will recess until that
date or approximately that date, and then
conclude the hearing, hopefully in about 45
minutes. We would not want to shove anybody
out who might not be available at that
particular time.
If there is anybody here tonight that
has not spoken that may be away ... we
realize that is during the Easter holidays
... you know, give a week before or a week
after ... so will you please speak? I know
I have to read that letter.
Ma'am, you have a question?
MS. OSTROSKI: I own a luncheonette
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in Greenport.
from
want
merit,
interest of the community.
56
One of the representatives
this group came and suggested we might
to move our business to their develop-
and I don't think that is in the best
ing).
Mariella Ostroski (phonetic spell-
gentleman in the rear of
Green.
THE CHAIRMAN: The request from the
the room for Alice
"Dear Members of the Board:
This letter is being written with
mixed feelings in r~gards to the proposed
construction project. While it is under-
standable that a business expects a return
on investment, it is difficult to comprehend
why a businessperson would expend a large
amount of capital at a time of weak economy
in an area where there are many business
storefronts vacant (ie. Sterlington Com-
mons, Victorian Village, Kontakosta's
storefront).
Perhaps there are other reasons which
the general public is unaware of, but in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
57
minds of many local people this project
appears to be five or ten years premature.
Another area of unkept vacant stores with
broken or boarded up windows and trash
blowing in the breeze is not desireable.
The traffic
diminished and the
the intersection
worse than ever.
problems have not
new traffic pattern at
of Routes 48 and 25 is
Add to this a traffic flow
due to retail shops in operation and there
may be a hazardous situation to the general
public. It is hoped that this has been
thoroughly researched and considered.
This is no question that the thoughts
of noise pollution become apparent. A
retail shop operation requires truck
deliveries at all hours of the day and
night. Depending on the type of retail
shop, it is possible to have store hours
around the clock and perhaps not
desireable clientele inhabiting an
adjacent
uncommon
who are not
the most
area
to residential homes. It is not
for business people and investors
residents to do whatever it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
takes
accomplish a
done without
to proceed with their project to
bottom line. Sometimes it !s
regard to how it effects the
local inhabitants who will live with the
situation for many years.
Please consider these concerns before
approving a project which can have so much
influence on us.
Sincerely,
Alice Green"
I should say we received another
there is another letter in the
letter, or
file.
Yes, ma'am?
MS. McDONALD: Marion McDonald.
I ask a question? What are you basing
Board's approval of this variance on?
don't understand.
THE CHAIRMAN: There are three traf-
fic areas. The most important one is the
one that was clearly defined by Mr. Tsunis
in the beginning. That is dollar and cents
proof.
MS. McDONALD: This Board would rule
May
this
I
58
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
~6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on something like that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Dollar and cents
proof. It cannot be used in its present
situation. That is the most important.
Okay. At this particular time,
going to offer a resolution to recess
hearing. I am sorry.
MR. DINIZIO:
Suffolk Times today,
letter
I am
this
After reading the
that reminded me of a
that my wife had written, too. I
area behind Porky's
letter to Joe Sawicki,
and he had the State
live in the general
Restaurant.
She wrote a
State Assemblyman,
59
Department
a study on
that
1987,
of Transportation ccme out and do
that corner. The study indicated
at that time, which was AuGust 26,
there was no problem as far as traffic
on that corner which I use daily and my wife
uses daily and plenty of people in this
audience use.
I just wanted to offer that into the
record, so you can read it. It may help, it
m~qht not help, or I don't know what. But
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
my personal intention is to ask the Planning
Board if this particular project was taken
into account when
just what type of
entail.
the study was taken and
traffic your project will
I understand your hardship, and it
certainly is very clear tonight. But I just
did not want anybody to think that this was
going to be something ... I want to keep it
out in the open. We did receive this letter
and it will be part of the record. It does
exist and it has an on-going thing, at that
particular point.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Jim.
MS. FLYNN: I would like to remind
you, mapping on the traffic counts are
available from the Department
tion in
like to
Transporta-
Suffolk County, but I also would
ask you to check the date when these
maps have been updated, very carefully,
because I do know from experience they have
not been updated sometimes for six or seven
years in certain areas.
So if the traffic counts are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-t
63.
submitted,
accounts that are quite old.
I also received maps
sometimes these are taken from
from Suffolk
County Planning and you can get the maps
there, but in certain areas you have to
really watch the dates of when they are
being updated, and sometimes it is six or
seven years they have not been updated.
I have been working as a broker with these
quite frequently.
If I may address the comments.
think you are alluding to the development
east of this parcel.
MR. DINIZIO: Yes. This letter
states that when that parcel opens, a three
light traffic signal
that intersection.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Manhasset Avenue.
MR. DINIZIO: No.
section of Route 48 and
will be required at
You are talking about
The other inter-
State Road 25.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is what this
letter states ... in this letter ... was
back in '88 approximately, it was, when we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
received it, and
quired to put that
MR. TSUNIS:
62
they are going to be re-
light in.
I think that could only
enhance this particular project.
MR. DINIZIO: I don't want to enhance
or do anything to your project. All I am
stating is that this letter exists, and I
Gully intend to see that the traffic study
in your site plan, the site plan that was
approved, i~ that was taken into account.
MR. TSUNIS: I honestly don't know if
was or wasn't.
MR. DINIZIO: I intend to ask that
it
question. I just wanted you to know that
question is going to be asked.
MR. TSUNIS: I would suggest to the
Board, it can only enhance this project
because of that installation of that light.
But I would also like to add that any traf-
~ic [rom that parcel
one time or another,
project exists.
So whether they stop at Greenport
Commons or downtown Greenport, or Southold,
would have to go west
whether or not my
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
63
I don't think would matter to this
particular project. They would have to pass
by this pro~ect no matter what, if they are
living east of this project.
MR. DINIZIO: That was not my con-
cern. I just wanted to enter this letter.
MR. TSUNIS: I would like to get a
copy.
MR. DINIZIO:
record.
MS. HAMILTON:
regard to Mr.
what he does
he chooses
~roperty.
I
It will be part of the
Joan Hamilton, in
Tsunis' dollars and sense and
if this doesn't go through and
to split up these pieces of
am a licensed broker, My office
was approached bv Mr. Tsunis' office to come
down here and speak on his behalf. No one
in Greenport would do it. They had to 9o as
far as Riverhead to speak on his behalf.
I also think, dollars and cents, that
lot was sold for $35,000 ... he better qo
back to the group Board and come up with
better number~ because better numbers do
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
exist
THE CHAIRMAN:
I have to ask Nancy a
It has been my
64
than the numbers he gave tonight.
Before we close this,
question.
interpretation, Nancy,
in dealing with the SEQRA process, SEQRA
usually runs laterally with a project. In
other words, they run parallel.
It is really a two part question.
1. The statement. I have a problem
in dealing with the SEQRA process on this
until we actually make a decision on the
rezoning action, unless you can clearly
define for me, at this particular time, what
developing areas except for traffic, you
feel the project should have an effect upon.
You refer to the character of the
neighborhood. Are you referring to other
specific areas?
MS. SANACTYNOWICZ: All the impact on
downtown Greenport.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any point in question?
Is this a learning experience, because we
have never requested DEC in a Use Variance
hearing to my knowledge.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
I stand before you, ten years on this
Board. I can tell you we have had between
six and seven Use Variance hearings, one of
which, to my knowledge, this Board has
granted and that was over on Young Avenue
and County Road 48. That is, to my
knowledge.
So, at this particular time, you are
requesting this Board to go back and review
the SEQRA process and establish the pos-
sibility of running laterally with this
hearing a DEC statement?
MS. SANACTYNOWICZ:
you,
It wouldn't hurt.
THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to ask
is that what you are suqgesting?
MS. SANACTYNO~ICZ:
THE CHAIRMAN: All
would have to review this
Yes.
right. Because I
with the Town
Attorney at the
Iy where we are
to sidestep any
time,
First of
what these gentlemen intend
same time. That is basical-
at this point. I don't want
particular issues, at this
all, we have no knowledge of
to present to us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
prior to
what was going
ly the issue.
There was
the back.
MS. WADE:
66
this hearinG. So I had no idea
to occur, and that's basical-
a question from the lady in
A friend of yours called
me at the real estate office I work for a
couple of years ago, after you bought the
property, and said, "I am going to buy
commercial property on the North Fork,
because a friend of mine got this property
really cheap. So I want to put in a strip
mall." It was just a little ...
THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further
comments, we will recess the hearing and
resume at the April 19th hearing. We would
appreciate it, as I mentioned, if you would
give us a call around the 15th to make sure
we are on. We will readvertise, even though
we are not required to. If we recess to
that particular day, we definitely will do
that. We have all the input.
We will discuss the SEQRA issue with
the Town Attorney. Around the 5th of April
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
or so we should have the transcript.
you want copies of the transcript,
have copies to furnish to you.
~/~7-
67
So if
we will
MS. SANACTYNOWICZ: One more ques-
tion. Why wasn't the environmental assess-
ment ever done anyway?
THE CHAIRMAN: I believe there
have been a short form done. We have
here. The date on it is 1/30/90.
MS. SANACTYNOWICZ: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Again, making the
motion to recess the hearing to the next
regularly scheduled hearing which is, we
should
one in
assume to be, April 19th. As I said, nlcase
bear with us. It will be based upon when I
receive the transcript, when we review this
with the Town Attorney, and when we can
reschedule it. It may be one week later.
Thank you all for the courtesy.
(Time noted: 10:40 pom.)
22
23
24
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATION
I, GAIL ROSCHEN, do hereby certify that
I am an Official Court Reporter and that the foregoing
constitutes a true and correct transcript according to
my official stenographic notes.
GAIL ROSCHEN
Official Court Reporter