Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5317 Frohn., F * 1. P! i-l700 Farad use P ted > S 35317 O9( 1010 . Pte/ et tAP.p�. / APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ../C0Fae/(`er +��i %. Southold Town Hall ta Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman R o -14 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer y x P.O. Box 1179 George Horning I. . �` Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ',�?j� ZBA Fax(631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando � s' Telephone(fi31)765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS RECEIVED•/LL4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD a: 4 , FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION SEP 19 2003 MEETING OF AUGUST 21, 2003 A await"Appl. No. 5317 - FREDERICK and JOAN FROHNE Suuthotd Town t erk Property Location: 4700 Paradise Point Road, Southold; CTM #1000-81-3-4. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property, under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II 5 category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 29,422 sq. ft parcel has 125 ft. frontage along the south side of Robinson Road in Southold. The property is improved with the one-story frame house as shown on the July 2, 2002 survey prepared by John C. Ehlers, L.S. The existing dwelling is shown with setbacks at 15+- feet from the east side line, 70 feet from the north front line, 63+- feet to the wood bulkhead, and 17+-feet T from the west side line. BASIS ;OF APPLICATION: Building Department's February 3, 2003, Notice of Disapproval„ citing Section 100-239.48, in its denial of a building permit application to construct addition's and alterations to the dwelling with setbacks at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on June 19, 2003 and August 7, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREAJVARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants wish to add a roof supported by a proposed colonnade over the existing open patio/terrace. The original request was for a size 28' wide by 16' deep, with the roof at one-story height, as shown on the 1-06-03 site plan prepared by Garrett A. Strang, R.A. The setback of the patio as exists is 48 feet from the bulkhead and 70 feet from the high water mark at the seaward side of the bulkhead. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:AMENDED RELIEF: At the Board's request, on July 30, 2003,the architect for the applicants submitted a site plan (SP-1) to show a scaled back Il version of the open porch with supporting colonnade at a 10 ft. depth instead of 16 ft., leaving a 54 feet setback from the bulkhead instead of the original request for a 48 ft. setback. T Page 2-August 21,2003 Appl. Na 5317-F.and J. Frohn 81-3-4 at Southold it REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: The Board did ask the applicant to explain why the patio could not be incorporated into the L-shaped nitch of the northeast side of the dwelling, which would lessen the variance. The applicant replied that it was a consideration, and although it would be in front of the bedrooms, it was not the best location because adults will be,congregating and having conversations in front of the grandchildren's bedroom. 1. Grant of the alternative relief will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. There is an established buffer of natural screening along the northeast side of the property which will be maintained in good condition to screen the proposed 28' x 10' colonnade at one-story height. A portion of the existing 28'wide will remain open to the sky(unroofed and unenclosed). 2. The benefitsought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The masonry patio is existing (28' x 25'} oh the waterfront side of the property, and there is no other area to build a colonnade and roof over the existing patio without a variance. 3. The alternative relief granted herein is not substantial because the request is for a 10 ft reduction from the code requirement,for a roof extending 10 ft over the existing open, unroofed patio area. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the property was acquired with knowledge that the planned design will not conform to the current Town Code requirements. 5. Evidence has not bee submitted to show that the grant of the relief requested will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, The applicants have obtained permission dated March 13, 2003 from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation under the State Tidal Wetlands Act, Article 25, and from the Town Board of Trustees dated February 26, 2003 under the Town Wetlands Ordinance Ch. 97. 6. Grant of the alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant,to enjoy the benefit of an addition with alterations, while preserving and protectingthe character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.' ,. C 0 1 1' .Page 3-August 21,2003 Appl. No.5317-F.and J. Frohn. 81-3-4 at Southold RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Orlando, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to DENY the variance as requested for a 48 ft setback to the bulkhead, and to GRANT,Alternative Relief as shown on the site plan prepared by Garrett Strang, Architect, date-stamped by the Board of Appeals on July 30, 2003, for a 28' x 10' open porch over a portion of the existing patio, at grade, subject to the following conditions: 544 1. That the setback not be less than 54tfeet to the bulkhead. 2. That the open porch not be enclosed with windows or screens. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Horning, Orlando, and Oliva. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0). �it...4 Lydia A ortora, Chairwoman Approved for Filing 9//7 03 fr FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: February 3, 2003 TO: Garrett Strang A/C Frohne PO Box 1412 Southold,NY 11971 Please take notice that your application dated January 31, 2003 FEB:- For permit to make additions and alterations to a single family dwelling at ? ' Location of property: 4700 Paradise Point Road, Southold, NY i County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 81 Block 3 Lot 4 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following rounds: The proposed additions and alterations to a conforming single family dwelling, on a non-conforming 29,422 square foot parcel in the R-80 District,is,not permitted pursuant to Article XXIII Section 100- 239.4B which states; "All buildings located on lots upon which a bulkhead, concrete wall, riprap or similar structure exists and which are adjacent to tidal water bodies other than sounds shall be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the bulkhead." { Following the proposed additions/alterations the dwelling will have a setback of+/- 48 feet from the existing wood bulkhead. Total lot coverage, following the proposed addition, will be+/- 15.10 percent. air 4 Autho • -d ignature CC: file, Z.B.A. Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application,may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. ° APPLICATIOTO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS J0eii• For Office Use Only Fee: $ 7Filed By: did"' ' - Date Assigned/Assignment No. 5. 3i 7e V d Office Notes: Parcel Location: House No 4700 Street Paradise Point Road Hamlet Southold SCTM 1000 Section 81 Block 03 Lot(s) 04 Lot Size .68a Zone District R-80 I(WE) APPEArL IRE niziEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED: Applicant Owner(s): Frederick J.and Joan V. Frohn Mailing 14 East High Road, Port Washington, NY 11050 Address: 516 365 7527 Telephone: III. NOTE: If applicant is not the owner,state if applicant is owner's attorney,agent,architect,builder,contract vendee,etc. Authorized Representative: Garrett 4. Strang,Architect Address: 1230 Traveler Street, Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: 631 765 5455 Please specify who you wish correspondence to be mailed to, from the above listed names: 0 Applicant/Owner(s) ff Authorized Representative 0 Other: WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED January31,2003 FOR: 5 Building Permit 0 Certificate of Occupancy 0 Pre-Certificate of Occupancy Change of Use 0 Permit for As-Built Construction 0 Other: Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and paragraph of ZoningJOC/li nance by numbers. Do not quote2te �de. Article Section 100- Subsection Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: IA Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. 0 A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A. 0 Interpretation of the Town Code,Article Section 0 Reversal or Other A prior appeal 0 has Chas not been made with respect to this property UNDER Appeal No. Year . Page 2 of 3 - Appeal Application Part A: AREA VARIANCE REASONS (attach extra sheet as needed): (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearbx properties, if granted, because:the majorityof the surrounding residences have bee improved in a similar fashion;lheimmediateadjacent neighbors will not be visually impacted by the proposed work due to existing landscaping. The proposedstructure although roofed over,is not enclosed. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, otherfhml, an area variance, because: the intended use is for a roofed over,outdoor sun shelter accessory to the;existing.w,aterside living space,Which precludes any other location as being a practical alternative. (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because:the proposed structure is unimposing as an open collanade,with a roof for-sun shelter,extending only one-third the all of the house and although 48'from the bulkhead,is in excess of 80'from the meanbrghwater mark (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the .physicalor environmental conditions in the"neighborhood or district because:the majority of the surrounding residences have been improvedin a spiitarfashion:' (5) Has the variance been self-created? ( ) Yes, or ( x ) No. If not, is the construction existing,as built? ( ) Yes,or ( x) No. (6) Additional information about the surrounding topography and building areas that relate to the difficulty In Meeting tile code requirements: (attach extra sheet as needed) The existing dwelling,dictates the placement of the proposed sun shelter. This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ( ) Check this box and complete PART B, Questions on next page to apply USE VARIANCE STANDARDS. (Please consult your attorney.) Otherwise, please proceed to the signature and notary area below. Signature f Appellant or Authorized Agent Sworn to before me this (Agent must submit Authorization from Owner) l day of_February; 2003. AhC y > ry (NotaPublic) Barbara.A, Strang ZBA App 9/30/02 NOTARY PUBLIC, New®fork' No. 4730095 Qua Vfi&- Suffolk Count Comm. Expires ,July 31, la to ` PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Please include with Z.B.A. Application) Applicant(s):Frederick J. and Joan V. Frohne I. Ifbuildin. is existin• and alterations/additions/renovations are aroaosed: A. Please give the dimensions and overall square footage of extensions beyond existing building: Dimensions/size: x281 Square footage: 118 B. Please give,the dimensions and square footage of new proposed foundation areas which do not extend beyond the existingbuilding:None Dimensions/size: Square footage; II. If land is vacant: _ Please give dimensions and overall square footage of new construction: Dimension/size: Square footage: Height: III. Purpose and use of new construction requested in this application: Proposed open, roofed over sun shelter,accessory to living space IV. Additional tinformatioen aboutthecontours or nearby buildings that relate to the difficulty the meetinglatdweluing dde ictates the onl� g practical location for the sun shelter V. Please submit seven (7) photos/sets after staking corners of the proposed new construction. 7/02 Please note: Further changes, after submitting the above information, must be placed in writing and may require a new Notice of Disapproval to show changes to the initial plans. If additional time is needed, please contact our office, or please check with Building Department (765-1802) or Appeals Department (765-1809) if you are not sure. Thank you. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A.APPLICATION A Is the subject listed on the real estate market for sale? Ll Yes (o i )3_ Are there any proposalsto change or alter land contours? 11 Yes No C. 1)Are there any areas that contain wetland grasses? N O 1' 2)Are the wetland areas-shown on the map submitted with this application? ys5 3)Ts theproperty bulkheaded between the wetlands area and the upland building area? ICS 4)If your property contains wetlands or pond areas,have you contacted the office of the Ttiwn Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? D. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five 1 feet above mean sea level: kJ (If slope is over 3' el.,state"nla"-) E. Are there any patios,concrete barr!ers,bulkheads or fences that,exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? too t (If none exist,please state"none".) F. Do you have any construction taking place at this tine concerning your premises? N 0 If yes;please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department. (If construction is"as built'without a permit,please state when construction was built,andrelevantpnfor5nation: G. Do You or any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? r4 o If yes,please explain where or submit copies of deeds. H. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel S fNGG.e Pan:Ly ,s S(06"IC c and proposed use S A ft e. (please indicate if the same,or how it is proposed if different). a. r_ o thorized Signature and Date ZBAForms_QUESTTONNAIREdoc 1002 f I f b wo k 14161(20371-Text 12 PROJECT LO.NUMBER 617.21 SEAR •Appendix C a State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only - PART I—PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR PROJ N • GarrettA. Strang,Architect j frohne esince a. PROJECT LOCATION:. Suffolk Municipality Southold County ]j 4PRECISE LOCATION(Street address and road mtersectlons,prominent landmarks,etc.,or provide maul t 4700 Paradise Point Road,Southold, NY I SCTM#1000-81-03-04 S. IS PROPOSED ACTiI--OxN__:. I i - ❑New DtEadansion 0 MOOR lcation/alteration i E. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: - i Proposed construction of 16 x 28 open,roofed over sun shelter area 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: - 68 Initially 68 acres Ultimately ,. acres it. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ❑Yes Quo If No,describe briefly Proposed work is 48'from existing bulkhead in lieu of required 75 A. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? - ❑'B residential 0 Industrial ❑Commercial ❑Agriculture ❑Park/Forest/Open space 0 Other Describe: 100% 10, DOES ACTION.INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL OR FUNDING.NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY(FEDERAL STATE OR LOCAU? 01)6 0 No It yes,fist agency(s1 and OarmivaoOrovals • Southold Town Trustees, Building Departments • 11. COES ANY ASPECT OF THE AC.W V HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? 0 Yes_ 1146 II ye:,list agency name and permit/approval 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? 0Yes 0No na ` I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE CirrettA. Strang,Architect/Agent 2113(03 Applicant/sponsor name: Dale: SignalerG eV If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete Inc Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment • OVER i i 1 0 APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of Town officers and employees, The purpose of this form is to provide information, which can alert the Town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. I Frederick J.and Joan V. Frohne YOUR NAME: (Last name, first name, middle initial,unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person or company name.) it NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Checkall that apply.) Tax Grievance { - Variance. X Change of Zone Approval of plat Exemption from Plat or Official'Map Other If"Other" name the activity: Do you personally, (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship' includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest' means a business, including a partnership, in which the Town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the Town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES NO X Ifyou answered"YES", complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold: No One Title or position of that person: Describe that relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the Town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A through D (below) and/or describe the relationship in the space provided. The Town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A)the owner of greater than 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(when the applicant is a corporation); B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director, partner, or employee of the applicant; or D)the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP N/A Submitted thiss y of February 1o03 Signature: Print Name: redenck J. Fronne ugust 6, 2003 Lydia Tortora,Chairwoman Zoning Board of Appeals Town.of Southold 53095 Main Street PO.Box 1179 Southold,N. Y. 11971 Re: Frohn Variance 4700 Paradise Point Road Dear Ms. Torto :. I apologize for the late,submission of the attached but it was only prepared by the Paradise Point Association today. The letter represents the Association's approval of our plans subject to the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Y. . ;truly, F,- TO. e f AUG 7 2003 ai P radiise Point Associaton, Inc. August S;2003 1 Mr. Fred Frohne 14 East High Road Port Washington, NY 11050 Re: 4700 Paradise Pont Road Residence Dear Fred; This wit confirm receipt of your proposed building plans for your home in Paradise Point After the Building,Committee's review, it appears that your plans do not violate any specifically itemized covenants and restrictions. We understand that your building plans will require a variance from the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, andas such your approval is subject to you obtaining this variance. Feel free to call me if you have any questions. • Kevin Barr Building Committee cc: John Keitt—Building Committee Marc Klein—Building Committee Andrea Kolyer—President 1 AUG 7 Garrett Strang-Architect / 2003y eo `SSaCs3v,},� , it r G9i6712603 6E.58 EE21-755-5498 G A.STRAN ,AP']HITECT _ PAGE 91 ILU 4t—,!tllli WJzbki '14) r.u,:',F!� Paradise Point Associiition, Inc. i RtCEIVED1 August 5,2702 AUG 7 2003 Mr.Fred Frahm ZON;PC SQA`U OF APPEALS S !d Bast High(toad PortWashargtdl,NY•11050 RC; MOO Psradisl ri ntg gaistarroo ScT"H*'lo00-51-3 AV0/.4aW-65,7 Dear Prod, This will confirm receipt of your proposed building plans for your horns in Paradise Point.After did Building Committee's ranee,It appears that your plans do net vielata any eperficatly itemised covenants and restrictions. We understand that your building plans will require avariance from the Southold Town Zoning Boers of Appetit,and as such your approval it gulled to you obtaining ibis variance. Fedi f to aWl ms If Ku have any question. T Fedi Barr, Building Committee cc John Kolb-Buiding Committee Mara Klein-Building Committee Andras Kolyer-President Garrett Strang-Architect TOTAL P.02 tl 0 ' , - 21Q \t PATRICIA C. MOORE L\ Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tek (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski. Secretary July 31, 2003 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Lydia Tortora, Chairwoman Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Frohne Variance Dear Chairwoman and Board members: Thank you for a copy of the letter from theapplicants dated July 23, 2003 which the Board received on July 28, 2003. and which I received on July 29, 2003 . It appears from the letter that Mr. and Mrs. Frohne do not intend to submit a revised drawing for the proposed porch, they wish to push a plan which encroaches towards the bulkhead: The proposed variance adversely affects my client, and we have opposed this application. At the last hearing the Board strongly recommended that the applicant consider an amended 'plan. We have been awaiting receipt of the amended plan prior to the next scheduled hearing which we hoped would address my client's objections and the matter could be resolved and my appearance would not be necessary. Unfortunately, the, applicant wishes to proceed with his variance application for thewaterfront porch and this matter will not be resolved before your next hearing. I must therefore ask for an adjournment, as I amout of State, on vacation from 8/6 through 8/9, and can not appear at your next hearing. Thank you for your courtesies, y tr.ly ours, •atr'cia C. Moore cc: Mr. Peter A. Cooper Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. }\ Garret Strang, Architect l G . Strang Architect 1230 Traveler St., Box 1412 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (631) 765-5455 Fax(631) 765-5490 July 31, 2003 Ms: Lydia Tortora, Chairperson n I x Sbulhold Town Zoning Board of Appeals t Main Road JUS a i 2003 Southold,NY 11971 ?pit- Re: Appeal#5317,Frohne souk n Dear Ms. Tortora and Members of the Board: I am in receipt of a copy of a fax letter sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals(ZBA)this date by Ms. Moore as attorney for the Mr. Cooper in the above referenced matter. On behalf of my client,the applicant, I respectfully object to Ms. Moore's request for an adjournment at this late date for several reasons. An adjournment would present an unnecessary and unreasonable delay in due process for my clients application. The amended plan referred to has been submitted to the ZBA within the timeframe given by the ZBA and a copy forwarded to Ms.Moore's office for her reference. In addition, at the conclusion of the public hearing of June 19th,the adjournment date of August 7th was mutually agreed to. Certainly if Ms. Moore had a conflict with that date she could have requested an alternate at that time. Even if she had overlooked the conflict that day she had more,than ample time to request an alternate date. I believe her request for an adjournment due to her taking a vacation which now ti conflicts with the previously agreed to continuance date is without merit and I respectfully request that the ZBA reject said request. Thank you for your courtesy in this matter. Very truly yours, Gott A. 5.14.441 Garrett A. Strang,RA. Architect C. Patricia Moore,Esq. q toe Garrett A. Strang Architect 1230 Traveler St., Box 1412 July 29, 2003 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (631) 765-5455 Fax(631) 765-5490 Ms. Lydia Tortora, Chairperson Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Main Road Southold,NY 1197I A.11. 3 %uG3 " Re: Appeal#5317,Frohne os Dear Ms. Tenon and Members of the Board: a9t1n Although it is not my practice to waste the Board's time with lengthy dissertations, in this instance I find it absolutely necessary to clarify the record by responding to inaccuracies and distortions presented in the report prepared by Mr: Bruce Anderson (Anderson) of Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of and to the benefit of Mr. Peter Cooper(Cooper). Although Anderson's opening description of the premises is accurate in that the total proposed improvements will increase the building area and mass, it is not significant when compared to many of the existing homes in the community and will actually be less visually massive than both adjacent neighboring residences, one of which is 2.5 stories tall. Even when compared to the Cooper residence, which is a split level, flat roofed, battered wall structure, with a +-3,000 s.f upper level footprint and:a roof height of 1$', it becomes obvious that my clients' proposed single story, hip roof structure will be much less massive. Submitted is a copy of a photograph(Exhibit I)of the south facade of the Cooper residence for your reference. Upon review of the Exhibit A photograph of the Anderson report, it was clearly taken from a small, elevated, private balcony on the south side of the Cooper residence, from which there is no panoramic view evident. In reality, any view is already obstructed by the mature vegetation on the property line common with Frahm'and Scalia. The only view from the upper deck of Cooper's is into the Frohne rearyard. Even if a view existed, which it does not,I am of the belief that in the past, this Board'has taken the position that zoning does not guarantee views over the properties of others. Exhibit B of the Anderson report shows a distorted, disproportionate representation of the proposed Frohne addition, which is totally out of scale. Attached is my Exhibit II, which is a more architecturallly correct representation of the originally proposed addition at the 16' dimension, as well as an alternative reduced setback for consideration. Under the section noted as "Zoning Analysis" of the Anderson report, i question his reference to the existing 62' and 64' setbacks from the bulkhead as shown on the survey and site plan, as neither of these dimensions are noted. The dimensions of note and consideration are 48' to the proposed addition from the bulkhead and 83' from the proposed addition to the high water mark. r w Zoning Board of Appeals Page Two July 29, 2003 Regardless,he is correct in his statement that both the existing and proposed setbacks areless than, the required 75''from the bulkhead, as are many of the neighboring properties, including Mr. Cooper's, which is approximately 44' from the bulkhead and ironically was not mentioned in,the I report. Under the section noted as"Variance Criterion" of the Anderson report, I submit that his position in(1)is,only his opinion,and not(founded in fact. First Of all,as previously noted, his Exhibit Bis gro•,i\ exagueratedandMacon atc Second, even if the variance were to be wanted as applied Second, even if the variance.were to be granted 8$applied for, there would he minimal impact to.Cooper as,his upper level decks are elevated above grade, common,with Frohne, by approximately'4', and as can,be seen from the juxtaposed site plans submitted atthe June 1Oe`hearing,,project out beyond our addition, even as applied for. His reference to undesirable chanes to the neighborhood is also without tuerit, as most of the established homesites alone the shore in thedramediate area, have similar setbacks tb that which we propose. As tiirhal rnf talon tothe abort, fi submit Exhibit N1 wl)ichis;a Suffolk County Aerial Topographic jSC'1 I'S) surrey rill structures as they existed'in 1975; and their proximity to the respective bulkheads The landscaping referredto in the Anderson report is not only that between Cooper and Frohne, but also between Frohne and Scalia and I refer you to the tetter submitted to the Board by the Scalia's on July 17, 2003. Regarding Item (2) of the Anderson report, he is not only unfamiliar with Frobne's existing floorplan but also with the proposed alterations, which retains the basic floorplan layout, room positions and their relationships. I refer you to a letter submitted to the Board by the Frohnes dated July 23 2003. Exhibit "C" of the Anderson report is an obvious alternative, albeit without any regard to the floorplan and use of the house, as it suggests placement of the proposed open porch in front of bedrooms, where young grandchildren will be napping in the afternoons, or retiring early in the evenings. The only practical placement is as applied for, in front of the existing living area, which maintains a reasonable distance from the bedrooms. A redesign of the entire floorplan would not only be impractical, but a disproportionate hardship,when compared to therelief sought. Item (3)of the Anderson report mentioned that the proposed encroachment is in fact, an increase and could be considered substantial if it were to be enclosed for year-round use, which it is not, or if it were out of character for the neighborhood, which is not the case, as per my Exhibit Ill Zoning Board of Appeals Page Three July 29, 2003 With respect ta:the Anderson report.referenc to future expansion toward the bulkhead,in the past the Board has granted conditional approval hringing any such addition back to the A for review. Once again, regarding Item (4) of the Anderson report, I find the statements in objection I misleading based on semantics. Without an exhaustive search, which seemed to be a waste of the Board's resources,,I felt it was obvious that most of the properties along the waterfront adjacent to Frohne, are imp o ed With struct l>es, why e R• -0 1 or with additions. that: establish a neighborhood setback `gym the'lr cad, as can been, seen in the S(, •\'I S •,urs. •e�. er h i bit I I1.. better than in taerial pho`to. itis"my,beliefthatour,proposal in k;eping ��iththeestablished setback;not extending heyond. with respect to the Anderson report Exhibit"E' , Appeal#5217 of ANIS,'2003;it appears that the LBA,,in granting alternative relief fora 28' -t- setbaek frown the bulkhead and a corresponding 59'±- setback,to the high' water mark, fora neer residence "...did not`produce an undesirable changesin the character of the neighborhood ora detriment to nearby properties.. " " .and was in keeping with neighborhood setbacks...". AlthoughGthe previous existing,setback;;:derthis appeal was less and the applicant was somewhat mitig lg tate Hort conformity, it is my understanding froth the Buildirili Dbpa!intent (liar once an existing non-conforming structure is destroyed, airy new st'r'uctures-must meet Ilte required zoning I personally concur with the decision rendered by the ZBA in the above referenced application, as it was reasonable;and relative t cthe character of the neighborhood and I am hopeful that the Board will give the same.consideration to,our application, in such a way that we can reach a mutually acceptable alternative relief Once again I apologize for the length of this letter, but felt it was necessary to best represent the interests of my clients. Thank you for your courtesy in connection with this matter. Very truly yours, Q44n6it A. 94aig Garrett A. Strang, R.A. Architect C: Frohne r''o,r Iur< P. Moore,Esq. T Co 4SAQ . Strang_ / _ Architect - 1230 Traveler St., Box 1412 Southold, New York 11971 July 29,2003 Telephone (631) 765-5455 Fax(631) 765-5490 Ms, Lydia Tortora, Chairperson Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals RECEIVED Main Road Southold, NY 11971 JUL 3 o 2003 Re: Appeal#5317,Frohn zoripNa awn OF AFFFALS Dear Ms. Tortora and Members of the Board: Pursuant to the,outcome of the last ZBA hearing in this matter, enclosed for the Board's consideration is a copy of a site plan showing a scaled back version of the proposed, roofed over,open porch from 16' (as applied for)to 10'. _ On behalf of my clients, Fred and Joan Erohne, we are hopeful the Board will look this submission as a favorable alternative. Thank you for your courtesy in this matter. Very truly yours, geaA. 5144.41 Garrett A. Strang, R.A. Architect Encs. C. Patricia Moore, Esq. 5-04 P.- st -Acititirl ). -7/1.,/;3 1. l'• '" t $ n J $y3,2003 X( Ms. Lydia Tortora, Chairwoman JUL 2 2003 ////// (. Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Rsk °A ±eO F ApPEALs —1 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 OP Re:Frohne Residence Variance Request- 4700 Paradise Point Road, Southold Dear Ms. Tortora, When we submitted our renovation plans for approval we did not engage the services of consultants and attorneys to represent us. We believed then and continue to believe that Garrett Strang, Architect, is the right person to represent us and that the application will be evaluated on its merits. Mn Peter Cooper,who is our neighbor tothe east,has submitted an objection prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. and is represented by P. Moore,Esq. We would like to take this opportunity to comment on some,of the issues raised in his objection letter. It should also be noted here that Garret Strang,Architect,has previously done a project for Mr. Cooper and is very familiar with the Cooper property`arid was cognizant of minimizing any impact on our neighbor. The structure in question is an open patio/terrace, not a porch, at ground level that will be covered by a hip roof that will begin at a height of approximately 11 feet. The picture submitted by Mr. Cooper with the superimposed structure appears to exaggerate the size of the structure. There is no interference with any part of the water view and the beach line to the west and we believe the impacts cited(loss of panoramic view,light,air, etc.) to be also greatly exaggerated. The comments about the interior changes are based on assumptions that are incorrect and misleading. The entrance is being relocated along an existing long hall to create a more formal entrance.The garage is obviously being added and the other landward addition is fora master bath. The three bedrooms along the water side remain where they are but upgraded.The living room, dining room, kitchen remain in the same place but are combined into one space and upgraded. In short,we are upgrading the existing structure in place with additions and as such there are nopractical alternatives to the existing proposal as he suggests. We appreciate Mr. Cooper's suggestions for how to rearrange our home but we did not hire him to be our architect. Ilf u 4 .jfi• We believe that changes we propose to make can only have a positive impact on the character of the neighborhood. We would also undertake to upgrade the landscaping in the area under objection. It hasalso come to our attention that Mr. Cooper has arranged for letters to support his position. We believe these letters to be misleading, at best. The first was written by Mr. Cooper for Lynda and Bob Scalia that implied that they agreed with Mr.Cooper but couldn't take a position because they were the brokers when we bought the house. In fart,what Mr. Cooper failed to mention in the letter he wrote for \ them is that they told him thatthey had no;objection to our plan.The Scalia's have told us that they were submitting their own letter to you to correct this impression The second letter was from Mr. Barnard and could be interpreted as representing the position of Paradise Point Association since it references his previous position on the Paradise Point Association Building Committee. I have asked the Association to prepare a letter that states the Associationposition and forward it to you. As we have already stated, we believe that our application is properly represented by Garrett Strang but we wanted to comment directly on the objections raised by Mr. Cooper. We trust that the Board will make its determination based on the merits of the ptoposal. Yours truly, Jo and Fred Frohne 4700 Paradise Point Road Southold 2 7 b I RECEIVED I July 22,2003 i JUL 2 5 2003 Lydia Tortora, Chairwoman I Zoning Board ofAppealsoNIBOARD o �� � s TawnofSouthol`d 53095 Main Street P.O. Box 1179 Southold,N. Y. 11971 Re: Frohn Variance 4700 Paradise Point Road Dear Ms. Tortora: I reside at 4345 Paradise Point Road which is directly across the road from the Frohne property and have no objections to the plans the Frohne's have for renovation of their existing home. In my opinion,the modifications on the road side and the water side will not have any adverse impact on the community. Yours truly, 6L Helen Albert I 1 1 i 91-7 0 ( Alt Robert& Linda Scalia 4550 Paradise Point Road Southold,NY 11971 631-765-2441 RFCE July 17,2003 ' iozi JUL 2 1 2003 AppEALs I /p , �/ 7 Ms.Lydia Tortora,Chairwoman pp Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 6 zotcuRlu Town Hall PO Box 1179 Southold.NY 11971 RE: 'VARIANCE FOR MR. &MRS.FRED FRORNE PARADISE PT. ROAD, SOUTHOLD Dear Ms. Tortora: Neither my wife nor I have any objection to the Frohne's plans and I did tell Mr. Cooper this during our discussion. With the amount of plantings between our properties, we cannot even see the Frohne's yard, nor would the extensions, both landward towards the road and seaward towards the water have any effect upon our views or our privacy. As Realtors,we are often asked our advice regarding variances and we always say that it depends on what the variance is for, how much of a variance is being requested and that we recommend that the property owner seek advice and assistance from consultants and/or their attorneys. I guess legally, we might have a conflict, since my wife happily sold the Frohne's their house on Paradise Point Road, and we are delighted to have them as our neighbor. At no point did we give permission for anyone to speak for us. Very ralyyours, Robert Scam, Linda Scalia II Garrett A. Strang Architect 1230 Traveler St., Box 1412 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (631) 765-5455 Fax(631) 765-5490 June 20, 2003 JUN 2 3 2003 Patricia C-Moore Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold,NY 11971 Re: Frohne Residence Dear Pat Enclosed as per the outcome of our meeting after the ZBA hearing yesterday, is a copy of submittal given to the ZBA, which shows the Frohne site and the two neighboring sites, relative to continuity of setback. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office. Best regards. Very truly yours, GSA• 94,41 Garrett A. Strang, R.A. Architect Encs. C: ZBA MU t. 3-317 0 PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 ED Tel: (631)765-4330 JUN 2 ),-, Fax (631)765-4643 Zoe 804x0 APas8 June 19, 2003 Garrett A. Strang, R.A. Architect P.O. Box 1412 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Frohne Residence 4700 Paradise Point Road, Southold, NY SCTM #1000-81-03-004 Dear Mr. Strang: I represent Peter A. Cooper who is opposing the zoning 1, relief sought by the Frohnes. Enclosed please find letter of Douglas F. Barnard dated June 17, 2003 , letter of Peter A. Cooper dated June 17, 2003 and a report prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. dated June 13, 2003 , which are being forwarded to you at the direction of the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals . If' you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 1 Very truly yours, Patricia C. Moore PCM/mm Enclosures j cc: Town of Southold v/ Zoning Board of Appeals � 11°3 yCD CD �` QY Q�\� /\Y" ' Douglas F. Barnard V' � 4200 Paradise Point Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 June 17,2003 Southold Town Board of Zoning Appeals Main Road Southold,N.Y. 11971 Dear Board of Zoning Appeals, I write concerning the application of Frederick and Joan Frohne,#5317 for a variance with respect to a proposed alteration of their fine residence at 4700 Paradise Point Road in Southold. Having owned our home at 4200 Paradise Point Road since 1968,during that time I have been active in the affairs of the Paradise Point Association.In the recent past as Chairman of the Building Committee and am not aware of any occasion where an existing residence along this waterway has had an addition constructed seaward of the original building. Respectfully, �F ley 7 > ; • ". CD v J II' i �S June 17, 2003 Re: Frohne Variance Bob and, Linda Scalia live on the other side of the Frohnes. In a recent conversation Bob authorized me to advise the Southold Board of Zoning Appeals that he will not attend the hearing on June 19th because: --He will be out of town on that day. --As a matter of principle as a realtor, he does not like to take a position on variance applications. --He is doubly conflicted in the Frohne case because he was the broker in the transaction when the Frohnes purchased the house. Pieter A. Cooper rt / •' n Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village,Main Street,P.O.Box 2003,Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (631)537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5198 Bruce Anderson,M.S.,President .4,19:3,k _ June 13, 2003 Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall P. O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 Attn: Lydia Tortora,Chairwoman Ruth Oliva Terry Goehringer George Horning Vincent Orlando Re: Frohne Residence Situate: 4700 Paradise Point Road(a/k/a Robinson Road), Southold,NY SCTM#: 1000-081-03-04 Dear Members of the Board, This Firm represents Peter.A Cooper who owns a 27,471 square foot parcel improved with a single family dwelling and related residential appurtenances. The Cooper residence is adjacent to and east of the Frohne residence. This report is submitted to you in opposition to the zoning relief sought by Fmhne submitted in February of this year. DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES The Frohne parcel consists of a 29,422 square foot waterfront parcel in the Town of Southold. The Frohne parcel contains a single family residence occupying an area of 3,380 square feet. The Frohne dwelling contains a flat roof which extends approximately 14' feet above grade. Mr. Frohne proposes to construct a 26' x 27.5' foot attached garage landward of the existing building, an at-grade stone terrace seaward of the existing building, a second at-grade stone terrace landward of the residence and a 16' x 14' foot house addition landward of the existing residence, none of which are the subject of the zoning application before you. Mr. Frohne also proposed to construct a 16' x 28' foot roofed structure supported by nine colonnades. The flat roof would be replaced with a hip-roof thereby raising the overall height of the structure to 21' feet above grade rt throughout most of the dwelling and 23' feet above grade at the seaward portion of the IIM house where the proposed porch would be constructed. Thus, the overall structural i improvements proposed by Frohne would significantly increase the overall mass of the building at completion. Mr. Cooper and his family will be impacted by the proposed seaward non- conforming porch addition. The Cooper dwelling is similarly setback from the existing bulkhead as is the Frohne dwelling. Both dwellings have a patio area that extends seaward. The Cooper dwelling and patio is unique in that the patio is sunken into the bank or bluff seaward of the dwelling. Presently, Mr. Cooper and his family enjoy sweeping panoramic views from the northeast to the southwest; Attached herewith: at Exhibit A is a recent photograph taken by Mr. Cooper from his residence facing sottthwest. Thattphoto shows the presently existing Frohne residence in the foreground and the Scalia resielence in the background. That photo demonstrates the panoramic views to the sou .est presently enjoyed by Mr,Cooper: In addition,Mr. cooper enjoys the,benefita of light and air to the southwest Specifically, the Cooper residence benefits from a view of the setting,sun and air provided by the prevailing southwest breeze. Attached herewith at Exhibit B, is the identical photograph contained at Exhibit A. The proposed patio and associated roof lines are superimposed thereon. As can be seen in viewing Exhibit B,the overalllength, height and mass of the proposed dwelling will be highly visible from the dwelling of Cooper. Because the patio of Mr. Cooper is sunken into the batik, the overall length, height and mass of the proposed dwelling will become that much more visible from the patio location. Accordingly, the benefits enjoyed by Mr. Cooper and his family (i.e. view, light, and air) will be,substantially impaired. ZONING ANALYSIS The Frohne residence is located in the R-80 zoning district. Because the Frohne parcel contains less than 80,000 square feet, it is a pre-existing non-conforming parcel. The existing residence is sited approximately 62' feet landward of a wooden bulkhead in accordance with the survey prepared by John C. Ehlers, L.S., dated July 2, 2002, ("Survey")which was submitted with the zoning application. Also submitted with the zoning application is a site plan prepared by Garrett A. Strom, dated January 6,2003, which shows the seaward face of the existing dwelling being located 64' feet from the existing bulkhead,In either event,the existing dwelling is located within 75' feet of the existing bulkhead. As proposed,the porch addition and associated construction of a hip-roof would encroach an additional 16' feet into the prohibited area(ie. 75' feet from the bulkhead) 2 CD 0 §100-239.4(B)(1)of the Town Zoning Law states: "All buildings located on lots upon which a bulkhead concrete wall, riprap or similar structure exists and which are adjacent to tidal water bodies other than sounds shall be set back not less than seventy-five (75)feet the bulkhead Buildings located on lots upon which a bulkhead concrete wall, riprap or similar structure exists and which are adjacent 0 tidal water bodies other than sotmds shall be set back not less thanlseventy- (75)feet from the bulkhead The J llotvi3tt-ec eptions unllRaab: (I)Buildings which are proposed landward of existing buildings." It is the further encroachment caused by the proposed 16'x 28' foot porch with raised hip-roof that creates the need for this zoning variance. In addition, that portion of the hip-roof to be constructed that is landward of the proposed porch and still within 75' feet of the bulkhead is similarly disapproved by the adopted policies of the Building Inspector. In reviewing the zoning application filed on behalf of Frohne,we respectfully disagree with its zoning assessment. The criteria by which any area variances is granted and our assessment of the zoning application before this Board are set forth below: VARIANCE CRITERION (1) Whether the variances sought will result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: We reject the applicant's stated position that "the immediate adjacent neighbors will not be visually impacted by the proposed work due to existing landscaping. The proposed structure, although roofed over, is not enclosed." As clearly shown in Exhibit B,the proposed porch addition with raised hip-roof will be highly visible from the Cooper residence. In addition, it is important to note that the landscaping referred to in the application is not the landscaping of Frohne but rather is the landscaping of Cooper. It is equally important to note that the landscaping at present is sparse. Finally, additional landscaping installed by Frohne would not accrue to the benefit of Cooper as such landscaping would diminish the degree of light and air. This variance, if granted,would result in an undesirable change to theneighborhood and a detriment to nearby properties. 3 ` s jl (2) Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance: We reject the applicant's stated position that, "the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because; the intended use is for a roofed over, outdoor sun shelter,accessory to the existing water side living space, which precludes any other location as being a practical alternative."The site plan submitted by the applicant discloses at 26'x 27.5"foot attached garage-mud a 16'x1,4' foot hoose addition on the Tand‘Nttrd side of the house_ Inadditiot',the frontentrance to the dAAellln %%mild he relocated atpprokintatel\ 8"-1.2' feetwestofitspresent Iccation. l ndtmtMed ly, the interior floor plan for the Frojitieatsidgnce will be substmtiallyaed. your Board inanppmpria{elvretitiest exIstin*and propased Thoorplarisp ihe>. %%opId, di-close subsiant,ial changes,in the interior flo't':Of the dmti'llini : Since the interior Ilom•oftbe house gill be substantialiv altered. there are practical ah,ertautiAes mailable to theapprimant„ Attached herewith at Exhibit C, is a partiM copy of thesite plan which shows an alternative location for the proposed porch. Selection of the alternative location would obviate the need fora zoning variance. §100-242 (A)of the Town Zoning Law states: "Nothing in this article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement of a nonconforming building containing a conforming use, provided that such action does not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. " A strict reading of the code demonstrates that said relocation would be permissible despite the Building Inspector's determination to reject any construction within the prohibited area. In any event, selection of the alternative location shown at Exhibit C would be supported by Mr. Cooper and would not cause an unnecessary or substantial hardship to the applicant given the applicant's proposed interior renovations that would substantially alter the interior flow of the house. That is to say,the proposed interior layout could be amended to provide for the porch and provide the outdoor sun shelter desired by the applicant. (3) Whether the variance sought is substantial: We reject the applipant's stated position, "that the amount of relief requested is not substantial because: the proposed structure is unimposing as an open 4 colonnade,with a rooffor sun shelter,extending only one-third the width of the house and although 48'feet from the bulkheat4 is in excess of 80'feetfrom the mean high water marls" The relief sought is clearly substantial. As stated above,the survey and site plan disclose the existing house to be 62' and 64'feet, respectively. In other wards, a portion of the existing dwelling is presently located within the prohibited area( .e.75 feet). The site plan reveals that the proposed porch would be 48'feet from the bulkhead.Accordingly, approval of this variance request would result in a 25%increase in the degree of non-conformity that exists today. In total,the existing dwelling with proposed porch world extend some 2,6' feet into the prohibited area, The variance sought is substantial because it greatly inereases the'degree ofnon-confarmity;that already exists. In addition,the granting of such variance could result in further house expansion towards the bulkhead bysome 32' feet pursuant to §L00-239.4 (B) (I) because such future house expansion could occur landward of the then existing building. §100-239.4(B) (1) excepts buildings which are proposed landward of existing buildings. (4) Whether the variance will cause an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood: We reject the applicant's stated position that, "the variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: the majority of the surrounding residences have been improved in a similar fashion."Attached herewith at Exhibit D is an aerial photograph of the neighborhood which shows a substantial number of the existing waterfront dwellings to have been sited in the prohibited area. While it is true that the majority of residence are located in the prohibited area,the applicant fails to demonstrate that they have been"improved in similar fashion."Rather, the existence of waterfront dwellings on Robinson Road facing Peconic Bay in the prohibited area reflects the widespread existence of pre-existing non- conforming dwellings. That is,the dwellings were constructed prior to the restrictive statute. Upon information and belief,there have been no existing dwellings further improved in similar fashion as stated by the applicant. Attached herewith at Exhibit E is the findings, deliberations and determination rendered by your Board in the matter of Linda S. Sanford(Appl.No. 5217 issued on April 3, 2003). In that determination, your Board found that even though the requested area variance was substantial,the reconstruction of the existing non-conforming house would increase the rear yard and bulkhead setbacks thereby warranting the granting of a zoning variance. Thus,the Sanford building proposal sought to decrease the degree of non-conformity whereas the Frohne building proposal seeks to increase the degree of non-conformity. it 5 , - It is our position that the practical hardship claimed by the applicant is in fact self- created. Given that this variance application is part of a proposal for the full renovation of the dwelling, including but not limited to_ bedroom expansion and relocation along the seaward face of the building, creation of a living room space from the new garage to the proposed porch, it is apparent that the porch addition could be sited at an alternative location including that location disclosed at Exhibit In C. doing so,no further degree of non-conformity would be created.More hupor[hntly,rejection of the proposed zoning variance:would eliminate any precedent that could be applied to future similar applications: Please be advised that Mr. Cooper and his family do not object to the proposed hip-roof over the existing dwelling even though part of the existing dwelling is located within the prohibited area., Mr. Cooper objects to the porch expansion as it will increase the degree of non-conformity. Such a proposal will impact the use and enjoyment of his own property. I trust that this Board will render the appropriate determination in this matter. Respectfull submitted, at or 4io, it----- .. Bruce A. Anderson cc. P. Cooper P. Moore, Esq. 6 y,.+ ( EXHIBIT' E APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ee°"`0S11F0(gCO• ee ) • Southold Town Hall G Lydia A.Tortora, Chairwoman c . :tc • 53095 Main Road t P.O. Box Gerard P. Goehrnger y hi : 1179 hi George Horning ` �° '�e Southold,New York 11971-0959 g et-4'd OZ se ZBA Fax(631) 765-9064 Ruth D. Oliva _ 1° t**,„et Vincent Orlando B®ee Telephone(631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northrork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 14, 2003 Mr. Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 2003 Bridgehampton NY 11932-2003 Re: Appl No. 5217 —Variance Determination (Sanford) .ccs Dear r, son: Enclosed please find a copy of the Board's determination regarding the above referenced application for a zoning variance. Please be sure to follow-up with the Building Department for the next step in the zoning review and application process. Before commencing construction activities, a building permit and possibly other agency approvals are necessary. An extra copy of this determination should be made available (if requested) at the Building Department when submitting final drawings and any other required documentation. This will assist their office during final reviews. Thank you. Very truly yours, nit %zzie Linda Kowalski Enclosure Extra Copy on 4/14/03 to: Building Department Ives•-e__ ''� UFF01 - APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS e e S ,,°° =�Q� - Ca�� Southold Town all Lydia A.Tortora, Chairwoman r �1 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer e y x ; P.O. Box 1179 George Horning 'e O °°° Southold,New York 11971-0959 Muth D. OIiva - ;' . •QT°°°° 7.13A Fax(631)765-9064 Vincent Orlando = '� 4 'e° Telephone(631) 765-1809 ve.ve. http:/lsoutholdtnwn.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF APRIL 3, 2003 Appl, No. 5217- Linda S. Sanford Property Location: 780 Private Road 17, Southold Parcel 81-3-27.1. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List`of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 93,663.23 sq. ft. parcel has 143.67ft. fronts e along a private right-of-way along the northerly propertyline, and the premises is improved with. an existing one-story +- 2365 sq. ft. dwelling and deck addition, accessory shed„pergola, and garage structures, as shown on the survey prepared February 18, 2002, amended June 4, 2002, by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S. BASIS OF APPLICATION: . Building Department's August 20, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended January 22, 2003, in applicant's proposal to demolish the existing dwelling and to construct a new dwelling at less than 75 feet from the rear lot line and bulkhead. Also requested are anew swimming pool structure at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead, and Variances under Section 100-235A(1) and Town Law Section 280-A, for a determination regarding improvements over an existing private right-of-way for sufficient access,by fire and emergency vehicles. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 20, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: VARIANCE REQUESTS: Applicant proposes to construct a new dwelling, after removal of the existing dwelling with additions. The new dwelling is shown at an improved angled, allowing for an increased overall setback from the bulkhead and rear lines, utilizing a portion of the existing nonconforming yard for a new porch. The closest corner of the new porch will be 25 feet from the existing bulkhead and approximately 56 feet from the apparent high water line shown on the site plan map prepared by Charles A. Napoli, Architect dated June 27, 2002,revised January 20, 2003. Applicant also requests approvals under New York Town Law, Section 280-A, and Zoning Section 100-235 (A-1) concerning sufficient egress and ingress over an existing 0 Page 2-April 3,2003 Appl. No. 5217-Linda S. Sanford 81-3-27.1 at 780 Private Road#17, Southold • traveled right-of-way extending over privately owned lands now or formerly of Kaytis, and land of McDonald, from a point starting along the east side of Paradise Point Road, Southold,, to the applicant's lot. ' REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the variances requested will, not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, The proposed reconstruction,of the dwelling,,is, within keeping of the neighborhood setbacks, which houses have similar slopingand pitched roofs and traditional gables, open porch design. 2. ,The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant topursue, other than variance requests. 3. The requested area variance is substantial, however this is a reconstruction of an existing nonconforming house, and applicant has agreed to move the house to increase the rear yard setback enddecreasing the front setback, and removing the proposed swimming pool from the plan', The code requirement is 75 feet setback from the ( bulkhead, 4. The difficulty is self-created since properties are acquired with knowledge of nonconformities andlimitations of the existing building and property. 5. No.evidence has been submitted to suggest that the new dwelling will have an adverse impact on physical or environmentalconditions in the neighborhood. By letter dated August 1, 2002, the Board of Town Trustees granted approval with conditions at Regular Meeting held July 24, 2002 for construction of a new residence after demolishing the existing residence. 6. Grant of the requested variances is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a dwelling, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by chairwoman Tortora, and duly carried, to DENY the setback relief requested for a 25.75 ft. setback at its closest point to the bulkhead, and to Page 3 Apri13, 2003 Appel. No. 5217—Linda S.Sanford 81-3-27.1 at 780 Private Road#17, Southold GRANT Alternative Relief, as shown on the site plan prepared by Charles A. hlapoli, Architect dated June 27, 2002, revised January,20, 2003, with a new setback of-27.65 feet from the bulkhead, and 59.25 feet to a tie line along,the appuirement arent high water`mark, atter reducing the square footage to meet this req (16111 sqft, to 276 sq. ft.) and omitting the proposal for a,swimming pool s acture in the rear yard;and to GRAFT a Variance under New York Town Law, Section 280-A, arid Zoning Sectio 1,dp„235A, SUBJECT to continued maintenance of the private right-of- way, with base improvements at a Minimum width of 15 feet within the easement area, at .all times for safe and adequate ingress/egress by fire and other emergency vehtcles to the applicant's dwelling, and full unobstructed vehicular passage-` This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature x1 tjie subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks.and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board; Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman)„ Goehringer, Oliva, and Orlando. (Absent was Member Horning of Fishers Island.) This R- • "ion was duly adopted (40). �.� /%/�JJ� Lydia A. To%:ra, Chairwdman -,Approved for Filing 4/ /5//08 "ems AFFIDAVIT ogAsc Re: Premises, 4700 Paradise Point Road Southold,NY SCTM#1000-81-03-04 TO Wlifli4IIT MAY CONCERN: A copy of Variance Application has been served on the Southold Building Department on February 14,2003. Dated: February 14,2003 GARRETT A.STRANG ARCHITECT/AGENT 0 0 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION RE: Premises, 4700 Paradise Point Road,Southold,New York 11971 SCTMW1000- I, FREDERICK J. and/or JOAN V. FROHNE, Hereby authorize.GARRETT A. STRANG,ARCHITECT to act on my(our) behalf(s) when making application(s)to New York State, Stiffolk County, Southold Town and any other government agency in connection with the above referenced premises. This authorization expires June 30, 2004. Date: November 26, 2002 � L �• 1 stir F , DERICK J. 0,0 greO S / - J I AN V. FROHNE Sworn to before me this aC Day of hl Qverib-c ,2002 Notary Public State of New York Cowl o'Nossav , M.ems iPE t ER J. tvIERCALDC °IOTARY PUBLIC, State of a t'ew No. 01 ME5028435 Qualified in Nassau o -„ty ern .+,sior Exp.�j� 6G 0 ,1�' %UFFOLIt;- • O ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE ��h: G'y • Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK O P.O. Box 1179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS W 41's ,i, Southold, New York 11971 � � t• 1 Fax(631) 76 6 45 MARRIAGE 5 OFFICER 1 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER dpi •4" Telephone(631) 765-1800:: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION'OFFICER .s •� souholdtown.nox•thforknet OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk DATED: February 24, 2003 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 5317 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 5317 of Frederick and Joan Frohne for a variance. Also included is: project description; Applicant Transactional Disclosure Form; ZBA Questionnaire; Short Environmental Statement Form; letter of transmittal from Garret Strang dated 2/14/03; Notice of Disappoval dated February 3, 2003; Affidavit by Garrett Strang dated February 14, 2003; letter of authorization; survey; and plans. lil „ )Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 02/24/03 Receipt#: 3061 Transaction(s): Subtotal 1 Application Fees $400.00 Check#: 3061 Total Paid: $400.00 • it II i . I11, I 1 ame: Frohne, Frederick J. &Joan V I 14 East High Rd Port Washington, NY 11050 lark ID: LINDAC Internal ID:71038 IL I II Garrett A. Strang Architect February 14, 2003 1230 TravelerSt., Box 1412 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (631) 765-5455 Fax(631) 765-5490 Ms. Lydia Tortora,Chairperson Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Frohn Residence,4700 Paradise Point Road Southold, NY SCTM#1000-81-03-04 Dear Ms. Tortora and Members of the Board: Enclosed are original and six(6)copies of all required elements in connection with the above referenced matter, together with required fee and one copy of an affidavit of service n the Building Department. The applicant seeks relief from the requirement that the proposed work be set back not less than 75' from the bulkhead. Given the placement of the existing house on the property, there is no other option to pursue other than to seek a variance. For the record,the proposed work is an accessory, roofed over, unenclosed colonnade sun shelter,to be placed adjacent the living area. If after reviewing the application, you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at the office. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, gewizu A. 9444,1 Garrett A. Strang, R.A. Architect Encs. ISI CD APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �.S.FFO(gco,, i 4 G �; Southold Town Hall Lydia A.Tortora, Chairwoman g y 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer t H Z ; P.O. Box 1179 George Horning O try t Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ruth D.Oliva s ?J�� Otr'� ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 V ncent Orlando oft Telephone(631)765-1809 sed...•es http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 22, 2003 By Fax 765-5490 and Regular Mail Mr. Garrett Strang, R.A. P.O. Box 1412 Southold, NY 11971 Re: AP . No. 5317— F. and J. Frohne Dear i•. g: Enclosed please find a copy of the findings and determination, with conditions, rendered at Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting held August 21, 2003. Please be sure to follow-up with the Building Department for the next step in this building-permit application process. When returning to the Building Department, please provide their office with an extra copy of the enclosed determination and, if applicable, the amendment to the maps to show conformity with the Board's decision and conditions, as may be noted. Thank you. Very truly yours, Lihda Kowa lski Enclosure Copy of Decision to: Building Department Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 9/22/03 Cr CD September 23, 2003 Mr. Gerald G. Newman, Chief Planner Suffolk County Department of Planning P. 0. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Dear Mr. Newman: Please find enclosed the following application with related documents for review pursuant to Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code: AppI. No. 5317— Frohne, Frederick Action Requested: Additions/alterations, bulkhead setback. Within 500.feet of: State or County Road X Waterway(Bay, Sound, or Estuary) Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State, Federal land If any other information is needed, please do not hesitate to call us. Thank you. Very truly yours, Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman Southold Zoning Board of Appeals LAT:jb Enc. j', r`' COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Xo3 Cis-1,09/41:-/-t-L-4/11 F - & a E ,r g'- ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE THOMAS ISLES, AICP DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ^^11P7.ECTOR=OFPLAN HNG September 29, 2003 OCT 8 2003 Town of Southold # Zoning Board of Appeals Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the following application(s)submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is/are considered to be a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or a disapproval. Applicant(s) - Municipal File Number(s) New Suffolk Shipyard* 5149 Melhado, Warren 5287 Sonnenborn, Donald 5315 ✓Trohne Frederick 5317 Hurtado,John** 5319 - Antoniou,Lefkios 5344 Cephas,.Derrick*** 5346 McKee, James 5350 St.Pielie, Joseph 5351 Rock,Crystal 5352 Carney,'Thomas 5353 Rapisarada,Noel 5354 Reed, William 5356 Kennedy,Jay 5358 Stein,Nancy 5360 Baig,Tarig** 5369 Goggins, William&Donna 5382 *Alternate relief appears warranted consistent with appropriate developmental restrictions, particularly as set forth by the Z.B.A. - ** Appears inappropriate as sufficient information has not been submitted to demonstrate compliance with applicable variance criteria,particularly as relates to the swimming pool (#5319) and two,family dwelling (#5389). LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H, LEE DENNISON BLDG. -4TH FLOOR • P.0. BOX 6100 • - - (516)853-5190 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGENY 117E5-0099 TELECOPIER(51 6)853-4044 September 29, 2003 QFOLK COUNTY PLANNING DEPARNT Page 2'" ***Premises should be encumbered by appropriate developmental restrictions, particularly as set forth by the Z.B.A. Very truly yours, Thomas Isles Director of Planning S/s Gerald G.Newman Chief Planner GGNtcc. G:\CCHORNYVONINGZONING\WORKING\LD2003\SEP\SD5149.SEP 9 g1 OCT 8 2003 LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS -: I. LEE DENNISON BLDG. -4TH.FLOOR ■ P. 0. BOX 6100 ■ (51 6)853-5190 trt " 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE. NY 1 1 788-0099 TELECOP6(R(5 I 6) 853-4044 il lk 17.. - , O4 -- ?7- J'-5t T kN OF Ol9THOLD siatiROP RTY RECORD CARD )WN(yER ^[/ 'i TREET 1-1 (J'€f f VILLAGE DISTRICT SUB. LOT • • r� tr‘c.K vJ t 4..b�Q W,n. y - ' e fr.� „„te�rr ,frrj ja ,p(//gyp +.� _ 111dddcy�� ACREAGE g bR, ER QW< R N L.DLA)ola I .3 s44,„,.r-" 4. wt, +� " Sa 1-1-0444-q- S 0, W , TYPE OF BUILDING �� //� / q �tfLLPcK 'L,Li/ ' a �1&t t_s7 ES. JD SEAS. VL. FARM COMM. IND. 1 CB. MISC. — IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS y -. gid £ a -30® PJ i s S /17 ik r r- r - 6 � 9 -' `"' / -74,J L w7 s x:j'(o `� ✓ - . / �a/a V',/.`G `,� . 9o, a " " l `'-r<' + 790 3 6 o 0 /o C 4- ^,d / .,e 6 B 2/4,5-../-' 4 J o — L c - , -0 -Av . (I r : ;s i —4 se f. , N Q a g-Li_ gg7la Lea 1 - ?7e iscr ,-roi,s-fie e -{ ae r-f�c.h i AGE BUILDING CONDITION 1-1- aq Ca BP-#., 8$3.(0— (, .,1 j-&,rg 1gns NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE Farm Acre Value Per Acre Value ,/1 filia 1 /—.. . y' 'f"r'st t / rt-i— rlllable,_ 2 . ._ - 7A3/69 Ll aa.Drfili q -6,ert`61 &k: 9r6/hil_e:, ii,t)(- 00(3 Cap 6 Tillable 3 - 11,oodland . i 311iiiiialand 3rushland House Plot . • d 'Total • L1 -_ _ I Y re „r e r s y *�� P" ,kya, o®n8 r �° gl - pip .-.r 1 j� us tV'M{ ' :rv_ r r 1111 WI* Iii ! e lit rE. jk mow . _ _ ,.. , ms..,. • , R 41 . Bldg. .L YC.,5`' = %661 Foundation Gi 7/C Both / t 2_ Va. 1)-,-4i xtension 2 d k': pea," w _. 1 — ii xf ii Basement el- Floors CO iNit-V -rhe' xtension 2 X 3p 7i Ext. WallstilfeAnterior Finish .Th�.M q xt9,.... +>n -7 4 3 3:5-0 ,4 U,944Fire Place Heat Porch Attic Porch Rooms 1st Floor reezeway _ Patio Rooms 2nd Floor 3 8,,,„,, garage Driveway fLtdiq . B. // ,.( f_ rr y e...➢- S u Ci '4"4`4.2 - NOTICE JUNE 19,2003 PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearings wilt be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on Thursday, June 19, 2003, at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter as possible): 10:40 a.m. FREDERICK and JOAN FROHNE #5317. Request for a Variance under Section 100-239.4B, based on the Building Department's February 3, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes additions and alterations to dwelling in a location at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead: Location of Property: 4700'P`xradise Point Road,Southold; CTM#1000.81-3-4. f h The Board of Appeals w`II hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit,written statements before the conclusion of each hewing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above_ Files are avaiiade for review during regular business hours. If you have questions, please do St hesitate tQ call (631) 765-1809. Dated: May 20, 2003. Lydia A.Tortora, Chairwoman Board of Appeals ill,, w _ _ NO HE R 4x A public "hcarinwill be held by the Southold Town Appeals Board at Town Hall, 5 9`5 Main Road, Southold, concerning this property APPLICANT: frohnt F t') 4 4 p _ 4 c TAXMAP #: p ) - 3 - i REQUEST: VariOct - set buk . Addns/A14s . fox , -. . 11 h t TIME & DATE: jurS.) Su It 19 ao0 3 0 ;._ o aril . If you are interested in this project, you may review the Town file(s) prior to the hearing during normal business days between the hours of Sam and 3pm. ZONING BOARD *TOWN OF SOUTHOLD • 631 -765-1809 1 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD AUGUST 7, 2003 (Prepared by Jessica Boger) Present were: Chairwoman Lydia A. Tortora Member Gerard P. Goehringer Member Ruth D. Oliva Member Vincent Orlando Clerk Paula Quintieri Absent were: Member George Horning 6:45 p.m. Appl. No. 5317 — FREDERICK and JOAN FROHNE (continued from 6/19/03). Request for a Variance under Section 100-239.4B, based on the Building Department's February 3, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes additions and alterations to dwelling in a location at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Location of Property: 4700 Paradise Point Road, Southold; CTM #1000-81-3-4. POSSIBLE RESOLUTION TO consider 7/31 letter from P. Moore, attorney for P. Cooper, for adjournment. Also letter from G. Strang,Architect for applicant objecting to adjournment. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? GARRETT STRANG, ARCH: Good evening, my name is Garrett Strang, architect, representing Mr. and Mrs. Frohne, the applicant. CHAIRWOMAN: Just one moment. We have some last minute correspondence apparently. I'm sorry, could you continue, Mr. Strang? MR. STRANG: Certainly. I'll be brief, I promise. Once I apologize for having to submit the lengthy dissertation. It's not something I enjoy doing. And I'm sure it didn't make for much of an interesting read,but I did have to set the record straight. Since the adjournment last time, obviously I did submit that particular rebuttal and some additional documents. In addition, I believe the ZBA has been in receipt of correspondence from Mr. Scalia, the neighbor to the opposite side. And a letter also from the applicant, Mr. Frohne. I submitted today,which unfortunately I only received today, a letter from the Paradise Point Association (PPA), which essentially indicates that there's no violations to their C&R's based on our original application. And I also submitted an altered site plan showing an alternative reduction in the size of this open porch. Although our preference would be to have it as original applied for or as we mentioned at the last hearing, reduce the 12' to be sensitive to Mr.Cooper. But we have considered the size 10' Page 2 • 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing as well. With respect to the submittals I made, I'm not sure the board has any questions at this time to clarify. CHARWOMAN: So the new plans, I'm sorry we didn't get a chance,the correspondence that came in on the 7th, we're just kind of getting it now. MR. STRANG: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN: So the new plans would bring us, how far, how much closer? MR. STRANG: The new plan would reduce, the original application was for a 16' open,roofed over,but open. At the testimony last time, I offered a 12'and that was in response to Mr. Cooper's suggestion. And in further consideration with my client, we're bringing it back to 10' at this point,which I believe, you have a site plan in front of you, I believe brings it 54' off the bulkhead. And it's obviously much further from the high water mark, but that's where we are this point. MEMBER OLIVA: And it would be open, not closed? MR. STRANG: It's open to remain open,unenclosed. We are receptive to a condition if the board wants to put such on it, that it's not to be enclosed at any point in the future. I know there was a point, and if you haven't read my submittal, there's a point that was brought up in the documents submitted by Mr. Cooper that he felt that if this relief were granted, or alternative relief were granted, that it would open the door for an addition on the house. What we are submitting now having established a setback. And we're offering that we would be willing to accept a condition by this board that if there were to be any additions to the house in the future, that it would have to come back to this board for review. So that wouldn't establish a precedent on our particular parcel. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we know that he was referring to additions as meaning the enclosure of this particular application or was he referring to multiple additions that might be on the house? MR. STRANG: My understanding of having read that particular document he submitted was that they were concerned that it would, the way the code reads, if I understand it correctly that this setback has to be landward of an established setback. And I believe his position was if this variance were granted and we built the screen room, it would establish the setback and we could put an addition on the house. Again,using that as,the established setback, and be landward of that. But it would obviously be a massive encroachment on the setback. And we are willing to say, we wouldn't do that without coming back to this board, if the board so chooses to put that condition on. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Strang, one other question, that 54' at 10' from the house in depth, which you are proposing at this point, that is to the lowest bulkhead. Is that correct? Page 2 of 13 • Page 3 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: There is only 1 bulkhead. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's a lot of tiers in that area because of the steepness of that area. MR. STRANG: That is a bulkhead that's been established. It's a wooden bulkhead that's down at the bottom at the foot of the bluff. There is a well vegetated and stable bluff at the top. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How is that measured by the way? Is it measured straight out, and up like this? MR. STRANG: That is correct. It is. It's a horizontal dimension view. Took the bulkhead line and came vertical with, and measured horizontally to the proposed addition, that would be it. We're not measuring the hypotenuse of the... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just didn't know if there was another bulkhead buried in there and that's the reason I asked. MR. STRANG: Not on our property. I believe on the adjacent property, the Coopers have several terraces that are built into the bluff that they, I guess the previous owner before Cooper, had excavated. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: No, I don't have any further questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: The only thing I would like to know for the record is that the attorney for the adjoining neighbor has requested that this hearing be postponed, as the attorney is going to be out of town. And you have written a response to that letter. What is the board's pleasure? MEMBER•GOEHRINGER: I think we should just leave the time open for the attorney to reflect any concerns she may have. Then we go from there. She has the plan. There's no reason to continue it. - CHAIRWOMAN: Verbally or in writing? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In writing. CHAIRWOMAN: The only problem with that is then we get into final rebuttals. Page 3 of 13 Page 4 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. All the final rebuttals have to be in by the 21St,by the next meeting. And we officially close the hearing. And that's it. MR. STRANG: My only challenge with that would be if the rebuttal from Mr. Cooper's attorney arrives within a short timeframe of the date you've established. CHAIRWOMAN: At 4:00 on the deadline date? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then we'll extend it for you, Garrett. CHAIRWOMAN: No, no. MR. STRANG: I have a philosophical challenge with the attorney's request for the fact that she was here at the last meeting,we all agreed to the date. There was no challenge at that time. She had when she could oppose it. She had ample opportunity shortly thereafter to ask for an adjournment, which, you know. But to come in a week, or less than a week before the hearing and ask for an adjournment, for the purpose of the fact that she's on vacation, I really have a philosophical challenge with that. In my position, my feeling is that's an affront to this board. This board asks for,is this date agreeable to you? We said "yes". You've taken the time to put it on your calendar. And I think for the attorney to take a vacation,knowing full well that she had a commitment and an obligation to stay, is not nice. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a suggestion? I can take care of this whole thing. CHAIRWOMAN: You're not the chairperson. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that. CHAIRWOMAN: Please let me do that. I'm not really in favor of(inaudible) I really... MEMBER ORLANDO: Close it. MEMBER OLIVA: Close it. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't see any reason to continue it anyway. There's no, I mean, there's absolutely no... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You've got the time limit to do that. You can give her until next Friday, and then Mr. Strang has until the meeting if there's any rebuttal. It's very easy, you have 2 weeks. MEMBER OLIVA: Close it. Page 4 of 13 Page 5 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just saying. CHAIRWOMAN: I mean, we could do that,but what's the purpose? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As I said in the beginning of the hearing,there really is no purpose. Because Mr. Strang has already submitted, she is aware of this 10'. CHAIRWOMAN: Exactly, she has... MR. STRANG: She has been given, everything that the board was given was given to her. CHAIRWOMAN: If she wasn't given a copy of the plans,then that would be different. I make a motion to close the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just reflect, for the record, that I would keep it open until the 21St MR. STRANG: Appreciate your consideration. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 5 of 13 Page 6 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.Appl.No. 5355-TOWBEE,LLC (continued from 6/19/03).Amended Request for Variances under Sections 100-142, 100-143A, and 100-143C, based on the Building Department's February 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended June 19, 2003. Applicant proposes two new buildings in this LI Industrial Zone District with: (a) side yard setbacks at less than 20 feet, (b) rear yard setbacks at less than 70 feet, (c) building linear frontages greater than 60 feet along two average of 90 feet from the front lot line, and (d) a portion of the new construction will be greater than the code limitation of 2-1/2 stories.Location of Property: 700 Hummel Avenue,Southold; CTM#1000-63-2-30.1. CHAIRWOMAN: The next hearing is on behalf of Towbee. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of that application? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ: Good evening. Abigail Wickham, for the applicant. We're not going to repeat everything that we went through last time. But I do want to just refresh the board's memory because it's been a long time. And you've had a lot of intervening matters that we are seeking to replace. An existing concrete block building,which is right on the Hummel Avenue line with 2 structures and refurbishing of a 3`d existing structure. If you recall, the maps you had at the last meeting have not changed. I did put in new maps today. I'm sorry they came in so late. But they are pretty, they are exactly what you looked at before with the exception of additional information in the way of drainage and that type of thing. CHAIRWOMAN: There's no change in the placement... MS. WICKHAM: There's no change in the placement of the setbacks,no. A little more parking has been provided and a little more detail on the square footage. But there was some confusion at the last hearing as to which were the right maps. I just want to be sure we were all looking at the same thing. In any event, the new office building, if you recall is 60x80 sq. ft. office building of 58 more or less feet from Hummel Avenue. And 70 to 117' from Boisseau Ave. The 2"d new building is the warehouse,which is 70x40. A single story structure with a setback of 5' from the rear line at the closest point, 7 1/2' at the furthest point, and 6.3' from the side yard, which is the applicant's side yard. The applicant owning the adjoining property. And 5' at the closest point from the rear yard. The setbacks which are on the Hummel Avenue side, which are nonconforming to the 100' average setback, are certainly not out of character with what's in the neighborhood now. If you recall, the building at the western end of the block is right on the line. And it's a very long building. Our office building on Hummel is an average of 59' from Hummel. If you average all of the buildings,because it is considered a single structure, it's 85'. There is no, there is an excess of setback from Boisseau Avenue as it's proposed. That's not a problem. The setback from Hummel, while it's 59', which is under the standard, is certainly an improvement over the setback of that ugly, existing, concrete block building, which will be removed that has a 4' setback. It's also a much nicer looking building, and is certainly much further away than the buildings in the neighborhood. The old Southold Savings Bank on the corner near the RR tracks is about 36'back from Youngs. So this is much further setback than Page 6 of 13 Page 7 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing that. I would like to also mention, as I said,the side yard setback is a significant reduction,but it does abut the applicants other property. So they are not going to be impacting strangers. And the rear yard reductions, which are significant are on the RR side, and well within the fence. And we've discussed fire access and that type of thing. Also, if you recall, it says here on rear elevation, that would be the elevation facing the RR tracks, there are no buildings, no windows, proposed. So there will not be an impact on privacy to the extent that 2nd story would overlook onto the Colonial Village property. So those people will not be worried about people looking over into their yards. One thing we did not address specifically last time was the 3rd story for which the Notice of Disapproval was amended. It would, as I understand the code,be considered an attic, except for the access, which is proposed,which is not only by a stairway,but also by an elevator. And the reason,well, first of all, the attic space, which is considered a 3r1 floor under the code, is less than half of the actual floor area of that upper floor. It is just under 2000 sq. ft. less whatever area is taken up by the elevator and the stairway. It is going to be used, and the reason the elevator is going up there is first of all, they have to put an elevator in there anyway. And they need to do monthly storage and periodic retrieval of records for their thousands of memberships and reports. They keep them seven years. And the access by the elevator will not only facilitate getting them up and down,but will also assist with handicap clerical employees that would be able to accommodate that section of the building. It will not be used for office space. The file storage is in sealed, fireproof, locked, files. And that's the only furniture that would be up there other than maybe a file system of some sort. The appearance of the building is the same whether it's interior space that's considered a 3rd story or not. It's just part of the roof. And we'd like to submit that given the cost of this building, it really would be an economic hardship to deprive the applicant of the use of this space. It's not a visual impediment. He has to build a roof over area anyway. And he has to build the elevator anyway. And file storage in a paper intensive business, as you are undoubtedly well aware, is really critical to a business. So they would like to be able to access it in a more economic fashion. We had mentioned briefly, last time, the fact that this business, salvage does sea rescue. And the coordination with some of the emergency response agencies is quite critical to their business. They do have a relationship with the Coast Guard. And I submitted a letter from the Coast Guard indicating that they are working closely with them. They have open discussions with FEMA in terms of possible use of this facility as some sort of emergency shelter because the facilities in this town are not what they probably could be. I'm advised that this will be considered a green building, which means it is environmentally sound. It is to qualify for lead credits for energy. And Joe can explain to you exactly what it means. But it's supposed to be built as a very sound, over, a building exceeding usual construction standards. And maybe used as a model for some future construction standards in areas where emergency shelter is important. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where would that be done in that building? MS. WICKHAM: It's in a preliminary discussion at this point. Probably the open area would be downstairs. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the basement? Page 7 of 13 Page 8 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing You have a couple of floors. CHAIRWOMAN: Please state your name for the record. CAPTAIN JOE FROHNHOEFER: Captain Joe Frohnhoefer. The lead credits,by the way, are leadership and environmental design and engineering. The building is going to be built, probably to exceed any of the standards, especially in this wind zone. The loading for this wind zone, as you know,is 120 mph. We are just on the tip from Riverhead out. A lot of people are having problems with that. We are going to try to show them how to solve it. It's going to be a model building, for environmental design, energy design,we are working with LIPA, we are working with emergency management,NYS and Suffolk County. We are working with a few other people. And our communication setup within the building will be a backup facility for a number of different people. We are looking at redundancy across Shelter Island for our T1 lines. We are doing the satellite stuff from the building. And I can assure you that the antennas for those are extremely small. They have changed those, and the engineering of those has changed tremendously. As you can tell from just the TV dishes, are smaller. These probably will be smaller than that. There's a lot of things that we're looking at working with the government on. And we're exceeding, and quite far ahead right now. On the 20`h, I will in Houston at Lockheed, Martin, and Nassau space center. And we are releasing some of our developments down there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask a question, Joe, if you don't mind. If the building is an office building on the first and second story, for FEMA to utilize this building as a headquarters, okay, they certainly wouldn't be taking over your area, so you will be utilizing probably the basement? MR. FROHNHOEFER: Yes. We would be, the basement is set up for classrooms. We would be using a combination, our communication system may be taken over. And work with them, hand in hand. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand. In a real significant emergency. MEMBER ORLANDO: Based on a disaster, how much they need. MR. FROHNHOEFER: Based on whatever. We are going to have a generator, 60KW generator, 200 amps to back us up. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On natural gas? MR. FROHNHOEFER: Most likely, that or propane on the RR track side, in the back, hidden. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And this building is fully sprinklered? MR. FROHNHOEFER: Doesn't have to be. It's a fireproof building. It has over a 4 or 5 hour fire rating. Just from the nature of it. It's poured concrete inside the insulated ICS, concrete Page 8 of 13 Page 9 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing forms. You're talking about an 8"reinforced concrete wall, 5/8's re-rod,horizontal and vertical. The floors are concrete. There's not a lot in that building that can burn. Just the paper. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Paper on the 3rd story. MR. FROHNHOEFER: That's about it. And that's in fireproof cabinets. The loading of the floors,I can tell you, is extreme. We're using % re-rod in the eye beams. The eye beams are approximately 8", I think, across, 8 or 9" inches across, top on bottom. We are actually putting more re-rod into than is called for. The only engineer that's qualified for this is out of up NYS. And he's coming down to work with us on the actual, finished,product. MS. WICKHAM: I think the obvious question for the board is why do we need a building that's that big,which causes the setback reductions. Again, the setback reductions are,we think, on sides that are not as significant. And we are significantly improving the setback distance from the residential and Boisseau Avenue side. But in specific answer to that issue, the building was designed to precisely accommodate the business and represent,really, the minimum space that they've evaluated as necessary in order to house not only their employees,but their computer and office equipment. Their technological equipment, radar, sonar, and satellite tracking as well as the warehousing in the outbuildings for their products, files, and in the 3rd building, #3, some boat configurations. As a result,they really don't feel they have any feasible alternative. If you recall other reasons we are here on this many variances is because it is a corner lot. And it is a narrow lot. So I'd be happy to try and answer any specific questions the board might have. I did, if I could just, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention, Ms. Oliva last time asked a little bit about the employee access to the building in terms of staffing levels at various hours of the day. And I gave you a chart that reflects the fact that this is a while it's a 7 day a week, 24 hour a day building in terms of employees, the staffing for most of that time is quite minimal. The staffing during the peak hours is staggered so that employees will not be coming in and leaving at the same time throughout the day and competing for spaces. So we've spoken twice now, the Planning Board about parking and we're going to be going back there again. We've presented a couple of plans. But the employees have very carefully mapped out what the office space is designed for. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see if anyone in the audience has any questions. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or against the application? Or who has more questions about this? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have more questions. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't see any hands. You have fairly well gone through the variance aspects both at this hearing and at the prior hearing. Let's see if we have any issues to be resolved. Do you have another question? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have 2 more questions,just of Captain Joe, if he doesn't mind. Page 9 of 13 Page 10 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MR. FROHNHEIFER: Yes sir. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have indicated to us the certain need for this site and I went down and inspected the RR area and I think that's certainly adequate enough to really bring in emergency vehicles and do what has to be done if anything has to be done, god forbid. Hopefully nothing has to be done. Or an access to that area. The only other concern I have are the residents that are on Hummel Ave. and anybody that might hear anything from this building. This is going to be a neighbor-friendly building. MR. FROHNHOEFER: You're not going to hear a pin drop either inside or out. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're not going to have any outside, loud speakers. Everything is going to be done by individual radio? MR. FROHNHOEFER: We try to keep it as quiet as we can, and as secure as we can. No. You don't hear anything now. There's no outside speakers. It's not like Agway where you have the PA and call the guys in the back. We can hear them. Or over at Burt's, I mean that's normal for their business. They are trying to get guys in the yard. We're not working in a yard. We are working in a concrete building with 13 1/4" walls all total. And our rating of R50,which exceeds anything you can even get with regular insulation. We are going to probably heat it with a candle and cool it with an ice cube. You're not going to hear anything outside. And as a matter of fact, inside, it's extremely quiet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's talk about the warehouse buildings. Everything, again, is done by individual radio to the individual employees. MR. FROHNHOEFER: We do everything by phone, inside. We have intercoms, intercom phone system. The phone system alone is $200K. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there's not going to be any exterior speakers? MR. FROHNHOEFER: No, not unless she wants to play music at Christmas. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I had another question,but somehow I forgot it. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: No,he answered all the questions I had. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: A quick one. I think it's a great structure, and I applaud you for grabbing the tiger by the tail for this project here. Just like I think Jerry tapped on it, I just want Page 10 of 13 Page 11 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing to make sure. Reservations on the 3`d floor, obviously you're going to have air conditioning up there, I would guess, maybe, for the files? MR. FROHNHOEFER: For the entire building because of the tightness of the building. We have to have air exchange. So we will be heating by air ducts and hot air enforced cooling air. All of the air conditioning will be on the backside by the RR track. It will not be heard, it's extremely quiet. MEMBER ORLANDO: Because that 3rd floor will heated and cooled just for mold control, dampness, etc. MR. FROHNHOEFER: And electronics if we have any electronics up there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have a question. Is there a kitchen in the building? MR. FROHNHOEFER: There is a break room. That's it. There may be a microwave. We're not talking about anything else. No sleeping. You can't sleep on duty. MS. WICKHAM: Just answer a little bit further your question on noise. You recall the 3 buildings are connected internally, so that will minimize outside interference. MR. FROHNHOEFER: Yes,but they are also separated by steel doors. Fireproof walkways in- between. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Knowing Capt. Joe's operation, I would assume if he wanted to contact someone, then he would either by radio or telephone. MR. FROHNHOEFER: That's the way we do it. Pagers... CHAIRWOMAN: Seeing there are no other questions, do you have anything else you'd like to add? MR. FROHNHOEFER: I'd just like to, when we get it done, I hope we can get it done, invite everybody down to take a look. Because it's probably going to be the newest technology around. And the most leading stuff in the east end. Also it's going to be an example, we have people from NY coming out to take a look at it because it's that close to being explosion proof. One of the very interesting things we found,just to give you a heads up, is that with the insulated concrete forms, and the fact that it's an 8" poured concrete wall with reinforcing, they set off 30 pounds of dynamite 30' away from the building. And they found it did no damage whatsoever. It was absorbed. The impact from the explosion was absorbed by the styrofoam on the blocks. So it was the closest thing they have right now to an explosion proof building. There's a lot of people that are very interested. MEMBER ORLANDO: When's the potential start date? Page 11 of 13 Page 12 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MR. FROHNHOEFER: As soon as I get approval. MEMBER ORLANDO: How long is the project going to take? A year? MR. FROHNHOEFER: It's not going to take that long. This stuff is like Lego toys. It goes up pretty quick. The biggest thing is going to be the dry time for the concrete, which goes in at 3,000 pound concrete and dries up to 5,000 pound strength because of the cure time. You've got a 2 week cure time. Seeing the form itself and it continues to build strength within the next number of months, I think 6 months, it's up to like 4,800 pounds strength. I was down there cleaning up and doing exploratory scraping to find out what we had underneath. And because every place I dig down there I run into a wall no matter where I scoop down and take a shovel. It's a 24" concrete wall, and I haven't hit the bottom yet. I don't know where it goes. It's deep and there's a bunch of them. There's 3 or 4 of them. This was the old fertilizer factory years ago. And that's all cleaned out. But the concrete walls were so thick, that middle building that exists now, that building, the walls on that are 13 or 14" of poured concrete with 6 abutments inside the basement. I could set off an explosion down there and nobody would even know it. It's unbelievable. CHAIRWOMAN: And it was built that thick? MR. FROHNHOEFER: It was built that thick and the timbers in the basement of that thing are... MEMBER ORLANDO: What's GLF? MR. FROHNHOEFER: Name of the fertilizer company, a long time ago. MS. OLIVA: Why would they build that deep? Because of explosions with the fertilizer? MR. FROHNHOEFER: They used to put the fertilizer in the basements or the buildings, and it would pick up moister and harden, and they'd take little hard sticks of dynamite to blow it up. CHAIRWOMAN: I make a motion to close the hearing so we don't have to transcribe all of this. MS. WICKHAM: There was a point to that historical segway. If on building#3 they find that this footing, or foundation is a problem, would you object to putting an alternative provision in your decision should you grant what we ask for, to move that building#3 up to, you think 3'? MR. FROHNHOEFER: 1 1/2 - 2'. MS. WICKHAM: Up to 2' further north. Page 12 of 13 Page 13 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Tell you what, Ms. Wickham,here's what I would like you to do. I'd like you to just give us a couple of paragraphs, a synopsis, where it would be exactly, 3'to the north, east, south, west... MS. WICKHAM: As an alternative should construction determine... CHAIRWOMAN: Construction should not remove the remains of the fertilizer factory. MR. FROHNHOEFER: The middle building has a basement. The other does not, strictly a 4' footing,no. You're only talking about a foot, foot and a half. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to close the hearing pending receipt of letter from Ms. Wickham who will give us the letter by next week, Friday. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 13 of 13 SOLD SAY , - 5 - � /, PARADISE POINT , 1 ,,. iiiiiiiii jam ii 34.5 ib *k •CZL iv 10.5 / ____ c):s 4IL � x� `D� � 26.5 � / � �3.0 IN *i , 0...: . . • .. /// i , 3.0 . . g2.& 1 # ii...,.. .-Az--..&--. ..E.-- ! i .. OA '7.--16111111LILIP1144"------ - / . slo - ; / 305 �/ razE.,..%a�- • .:"iiplc : �i - , /1142P - -L.�t=1 E:- o 7 _, i .- 0 _ . ,,4„,,riwei. •. &. • 9.5 'J. e‘ 19.5 O I8.0 .i / •,•0.5 C-5 • �I(�.2:1� 19.0 � - �; �� -----_fix _� � � I T - - --- - f � 24.�5 � -- ...4 �• 1-1 1-- ROBINSON II. � --- = - �' 9.5 O vipH NE, A-1 ' r - 1GAT (,, �t_ *1° 17.0 - 14 0\ -- _ _ _ - - .&.'I��' /� I .#= S 3 1 '7 105 ) 70 I / x?4 5 ,.JUNE 19,2003 PUBLIC HEARINGS )UTHOLD TOWN BOARD _;. OF.APPEALS ` OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, rsuant to Section 267 of the COUNTY OF SUFFOLK wn Law and Chapter 100 STATE OF NEW YORK ss: �g� Code of the Town of uthoid, the following public Lise Marinace, being duly sworn, says 1arin s will be held: by the �` l/' she is the Legal Advertising IQLD TOWN BOARD r APPEALS at the Town Hall, / MAY 2C ordinator, of the Traveler Watchman, 095 Main Road, P.O. Box 79, Southold, New York 2003 public newspaper printed at Southold, P1-0959, on Thursday, Juneonnirn e ' Suffolk County; and that the notice of k2003, at. the times noted �q hichOF the annexed is aprinted co has w (or as soon thereafter as q p _ Py' ssible): p�Ats been published in said Traveler ),:50 a:m. LEONARD AND ..EN COSTA #5337 - Watchman once each week :quest for a Variance under for l week(- successively, ction 100-244, based on the aiding Department's March 6, commencin,, tn t e 2Z day of (13, Notice of Disapproval. e . .. .,., 2003. ricants propose a�tions alterations to an existing WI Aill' with a front yard set- /y 1. 2, 0;oes,;than 35 feet,at 90A Lane,, Southold; CT 3ii'8g-3-11." ' Q;'®0''tin. ROBERT REILLY• 316,-A'Variance is requested e'SecBuilding g100-244,Dep based on is Sworn before me this -2--7' day of e: `Building Depathnent's� niry 24, 2003 Notice of I , 2003. sapprovat.Applicant proposes. ditions And. m a. 1111 Dation:atrlestithan 35feet'from ,I'rop Y.ltit line. Location of (Z OPS`" t,410,(•,(new WO) WA 'Lang;'Sould;-::CTM Notary Public /04-01 ,3-30.1,,(49 040 30 ►lti>pled as one). - 1 -0 'LPL ,,JOHN-„AND a�,+r ..'i;T45$28 - Emily Hamill . ,Fli:.aVaflancE;,,under NOTARY PUBLIC,State of New York - +- No.01HA5059984 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission expires May 06,2006 Legals from preceding page Island Sound. The swimming (b) proposed additions/alter- Building Department's February .;;a�sse pool also is proposed in a side ations to a non-habitable acces- 27,2003 Notice of Disapproval. U'-a Section 100-244B,based on the yard location instead of a code sory building, and (c) "as built” Applicant proposes an addition ha Building Department's February required rear yard. Location of accessory shed located in an to the existing nonconformin . an 5, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Property: 2670 Grandview area other than the code required dwelling with a single side yar ur Applicants are proposing to con Drive, Orient; CTM 1000-14-2= rear yard. Location of Property: of less than 10 feet and total side tlx struct a deck addition at less 3.6. 8310 Soundview Avenue, yards of less than 25 feet, and of than 35 feet from the front prop 11:00 a.m. BLUEPOINTS Southold; CTM #1000-59-7- rear yard of less than 35 feet. 4E erty line at 1060_Navy Street, CO., INC. #5335. Request for: 29.6 Ref. CTM #1000-48-2-19 (and 3- Onent; a an Interpretation under`y 1:10 p.m.DAVID PAGE AND 40). Parcel 1000-25-4-3. ) rp 10:20 a.m. DEBRA VICTO- section 100-242A regarding thej SHINN VINEYARD #5339'. 1:40 p.m. TOWBEE, LLC D ROFF #5334. Request for a nonconforming location of an Request for a Variance under. #5355 - Request for a Variance VV Variance under Section 100 accessory garage building with Section 100-31A(2-c), based on under Section 100-142, based 3( 244, based on the Building like-kind rehabilitation; and (b) the Building Department's on the Building Department's D Department February 11, 2003 if necessary, 100-71C 1 a February 28, 2003 Notice of February 19, 2002 Notice of N Notice of Disapproval. Variance under Section 100- Disapproval, amended March 5, Disapproval, amended April 10, A Applicant proposes a dwelling 71C-1, based on the Building 2003.Applicants propose demo- 2003. Applicant proposes two ar at less than 35 feet from the Department's January 21, 2003 lition of an accessory building new buildings in this LI ar front property line and less than Notice of Disapproval,amended and to construct an accessory Industrial Zone District with: (a) In 35 feet from the rear lot line, at March 10, 2001 Applicant pro- equipment storage building at single side yard setback at less D 445 and 505 Dogwood Lane, poses a demolition and recon- less than 20 feet from the side than 20 feet, (b) rear yard set- 1( Southold; CTM #1000-54-5-55 struction of an accessory garage line. Location of Property: 2000 back at less than 70 feet,and(c) S4 &29.1 (as one lot). "as built" at less than five feet Oregon Road, Mattituck; CTM building linear frontage greater 10:30 a.m. LAUREN ZAM- from the rear lot line, at 1240 #1000-100-4-3.1. than 60 feet for Building #1, #: BRELLI #5322. Request for a Love Lane, Mattituck; CTM 1:20 pm. GARY AND DEB- having a front setback at an ui Variance under Sections 100- 1000-140-1-23.1. ORA STROUD#5326. Request average of 90 feet. Location of 11 242A and 100-244,based on the 11:10 a.m. JOHN AND for a Variance under Section Property: 700 Hummel Avenue, B Building Department's February PATRICIA CLARK #5336. 100-244B, based on the Southold; CTM #1000-63-2- 1 21,2003 Notice of Disapproval. Request for a Variance under Building Department's February 30 1. A Applicant proposes additions to Section 100-244B, based on the 28,2003 Notice of Disapproval. 1:50 p.m. EDGEWATER II, al the existing dwelling in a non- Building Department's January Applicants propose an addition LLC #5330. Request for a tc conformingfootprint, resulting9, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, to the existing dwelling with a, Variance under Section 100-32, bi in setbacks at es than 10 feet amended January 21, 2003. single side yard at less than 15, based on the Buildin °ft on a single side and less than 25 Applicants propose additions feet, at 480 Soundview Avenue Department's March 3, 200 ' P feet total sides. Location of and alterations to the dwelling West, Peconic; CTM #1000-74- Notice of Disapproval,amende C Property:4910 Pequash Avenue, which results in a lot coverage 2-7. March 11, 2003. Applicant pro- Cutchogue; CTM 1000-110-3- exceeding the code limitation of 1.30 p.m. MILLENIUM poses a new dwelling with a S 27 20%for all building area,at 800 HOMES AND JOSEP-I, third story, instead of the code R 10:40 a.m. FREDERICK Albo Drive, Mattituck; CTM JOHNS. Location of Property: limitation of 2-1/2 stories with, S AND JOAN FROHNE #5317. #1000-126-3-9. 970 and 1020 Seventh Street, 35 ft. maximum height. B Request for a Variance under 11.15 a.m. DONNA AN Greenport. Location of Property: 63735. 1 Section 100-239.4B, based on LEONARD SCHLEGEL #5333 - Request for a Waiver C.R. 48, Greenport; CTM A the Building Department's #5327. Request for a Variance of Merger under Section 100-26, #1000-40-1-20.2 g under Section 100-231, based based on the Buildin 2:10 p.m. HELEN THEO- c February 3, 2003 Notice o Disapproval. Applicant propos on the Building Departments Department's January 12, 2002 HARTS #5331. Request for a. A es additions and alterations to January 27, 2003 Notice of Notice of Disapproval,amended. Waiver of Merger under Section # dwelling in a location at less Disapproval. Applicant propos- February 27, 2003, for the rea- 100-26, based on the Building than 75 feet from the bulkhead. es to construct a fence exceed- sons that(a)#1000-48-2-19 and Department's February 18,2003 h Location of Property: 4700 ing the code limitation of four #1000-48-2-40 are merged as Notice of Disapproval s, Paradise Point Road, Southold; feet when located in the front one lot, and (b) that each lot is Applicant proposes to unmerge a CTM#1000-81-3-4. yard. Location of Property: developed with a single-family CTM #1000-22-4-10 (Stars t( 10:50 a.m.JOHN HURTADO, 1480 Westphalia Road, dwelling having a floor area of Manor #12) from CTM #1000- b JR. #5319 - Request for Mattituck; CTM #1000-114-7- less than 850 sq. ft. Applicant 22-4-11 (Stars Manor #11); h Variances under Sections 100- 13.1. proposes to unmerge 1000-48-2- vacant land. Location of s 30A.4, 100-33C and 100- 1:00 p.m. VIRGINIA AND 19 (part of Greenport Driving Proper: 1625 and 1745 Stars a 239.4A(1), based on the CHRISTOPHER COYNE Park #57), from 1000-48-2-40 Road, East Manon. r Rriildina Denartment's January #5323. Request fors Variances (Greenport Driving Park #56), u 2:20 p.m. TARIQTM AHMOD h AUTO;19„2003-,PURr IC .' 3VT140,Ta TOWN BOARD ,. ::OF,APPEALS ' 1u,,' NICE IS HEREBY GIVEN; 'pliant-to Section 267 of-the COUNTY OF SUFFOLK lain Law and Chapter 10,0-, ,� STATE OF NEW YORK ss: uthaant ', the following peso %" -_ Lise Marinate, being duly sworn, says ltir•as \\ 11 be held bv1rthe �g 11 'IrC)I I) ,'l)\\\ Itr)\I,I) ' br a'• she •is the Legal Advertising :, \ \I i r II.; Ip,:u I I:i11. f 2 Coordinator, of the Traveler Watchman, i19� \Ira pond. pa Ito\ 'i, oud:old. \ lo'., 2003 •public newspaper printed at Southold, ./-1-u0-79.rI•.I ,<I . lu' otn • Suffolk County; and that the notice of s sstble) 'I"'"1 lime, I , l: o ��®FAPp- beenInch the publisheddlin printeds a aid ?rpaveler ):5n all. I EON"t RD .\'\" I.1 \ cos I \ ?- - Watchman once each week 'tor mo n, 'i . Ilse for week( successively, i ' narlinel eparf neirt•"s M ivh-h• commencin% in me day of 11 0 dam, rI ,l)I, poi I 1. - i ., 2003. + \III' J ilii him Iid i. O �1 �/ ` r G tiiat35:'teels#•. CJ` S$u 941 `biz",. 1 , oicr6s:ffi.i. 16. ',\ \ I i ned I1 i:q.i,:.lal 1 ter .. moo j01i_'Is.uil.:tl o.: ''. 11:1 II ll '• U: i .. p .moll;•, Sworn o before me this 2'�-. ,day of . ,;' T u!mn :1 :dui \olj:,:, h:,, , 2003- 6 ,iI jxo, 1 1 pl alai proro.:,. dl ,•, and I ! 7 no , :1 III ii II'a P I . Ili i I : ii iron, v "or! Io, Illi 10i-too.; 7,1 tIld:1•1 .I i.l i•. sloulliold. l'i \I Notary Public 0011-4," _ai I ',I am: :11 • Ii 1111:71 : OI1.'I. 1.0:111 :1`'I, .1011\ \\I) \Rill V '11, II;WI1. • -..S - Emily Hamill 'eS...c- ,a \. 'i::i:,:e ,Jlk::l' NOTARY PUBLIC,State of New York 1 No.01HA5059984 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission expires May 06,2006 IOght from Ore ddiboa.ge lskand 'Satin`. e.The swimming ' :(h) prtipos`ed <addifirnrs/alter ' Builds, I®t • .n® nts Febtu �e -pool also vs`, oposed in a side ations to anon-habitable acces- ' 27 2ff03Notice of Disappprove sr'a Section 100-244B,based on'tbe yard location instead of a code sort'building, and (c) "as built" Applicant proposes an addition ha B ilding Depa tment's February required rear hard. Location of accessory.•shed located in an to the existing nonconforming an II 5; 2003 Notice.cif Disapproval. . Property: 2.70 Grandview area other than the code required dwelling with a single side yar un Applicants areproposing to con- Drive, Orient; CTM 1000-14-2; rear yard.Location of Property: of less than 10 feet and total side is struct a deck addition at less 3-6- - 8310 Soundview - Avenue, yards of less than 25 feet, and of than 35 feet from the front prop= 11:00 a.m BLUEPOINTS Southold; CTM #1000-59rear yard of-less than 35 feet. 4t' cityline at 1060.Na Street CO., INC. #5135. Request for: .,29.6 ✓✓✓ Ref. CTM #1000-48-2-19 (and 3- Orient;Parcel 1000-25-3- ' _(a) an Intep.retation under p5 1:10p.m.DAVID PAC-RAND 40). 10.20- a.m. DEBRA VICTO- Section 100-2'2A regarding the) SHINN VINEYARD #5339. • 1:40 p.m TOWBEE, LLC D ROW #5334- Request for a nonconformin_• location of an Request for a Variance under #5355 - Request for a Variance Vi Valiance under Section 100 accessory gar ge building with Section 100-31A(2-c),based on under Section 100 142, based 3( 244, 'based on the. Buifding� like-kind reha.ilitation; and (b) the Building Department's on the Building Department's. D Department February 11, 2003 if necessa / 100-71C.1 a. February 28, 2003 Notice of February 18, 2002 Notice of N Notice of Disapproval: Variance ung-r Section 100- Disapproval, amended March 5, ` Disapproval, amended April 10, A Applicant proposes a dwelling 71C-1, based on the Building 20031 Applicants propose demo 2003. Applicant proposes two ar I at less than 35 feet from the Department's I anuaiy 21, 2003 lition of an accessory building new buildings in this LI at front property line and less than. Notice ofDis..proval,amended and to construct an accessory Industrial.Zone District with:(a) In 35 feetfrom-the rear lot End, at. March 10,2011 Applicant pro- equipment storage building at single side yard setback at less D 445 and 505 Dogwood Lane, poses a demolition and recon- less than 20 feet from the side than 20 feet,(b) rear yard set- H Southold; CTM #1000-54-5-55 - struction of.. accessory garage line.Location of Property:,2000 back at less than 70 feet, and(c) Si &;29.1 (as one lot)- 'as built" at 1-ss than five feet Oregon Road, Mattituck; CTM, building linear frontage greater 10:30 a.m.`LAUREN ZAM- from the rear lot Irne, at 1240 #1000-100-4-3A. than 60 feet for Building #1, #: BRELLL✓I #5322. Request for a Love Lane, attituck; CTM 1:20 p.m. GARY AND DEB- having a front setback at an in Varianbe under, Sections 100- 1000440-1-2-.1. ORA STROUD#5326.Request average of 90 feet. Location of 11 242Aand 100-244• based on the 11:10 tin. -JOHN AND for a Variance under Section Property::700 Hummel Avenue; B ' Building DepartMent's -February PATRICIA (LARK #5336. 100-244B, based on the Southold CTM #1000-63-2- 1 ' 21 2003 Notice•ofDisapprovaall. Request for . Variance under Building Depathuent's February30.1. A i ' Applicant proposes additions to Section 100-2'4B,based on the 28,2003 Notice of Disapproval. 1:50 p.m. EDGEWATER II, ai 1 the existing dwelling ince non- Bull-thug Dep. u.ents"Jana Applicants propose an addition LLC 5330'. Request for a tc 1 conforming footprint, resulting 9, 2003 Notice•of Disapproval, to the existing dwelling with a, Variance under Section 100-32, bi j in setbacks at less than 10 feet amended Jan ary 2.1, 2003. single side yard at less than 15. based on the Buildin fr on a single side and less than125 Applicants p 'pose additions feet, at 480 Soundview Avenue Department's March 3, 2003'-a P feet total sides. Location'of and alteration- to the dwelling West, Peconic; CTM#1000-74- Notice of Disapproval,amended' C Property:4910 P�equashAvenue, which results . a lot coverage 2-7. March 1T;2003.Applicant pro- Cutchogne; CTMI 1000-110-3- excceeding•the 'ode limitation of 1:30' p.m. MILLENIUM poses a new dwelling with a S 27, - 20%for.all b ' ding area,at 800 HOMES AND JOSEPFI;ri third story, instead of the code. R I 10;40 a.m- FREDERICK Albo Drive, i attituck; CTM JOHNS. Location of Property; limitation of 2-1/2 stones with. S AND JOAN, FROHNE #5317. #1000-126-3-9 970 and 1020 Seventh Street, 35 -ft: maximum height. B Request for a Variance Under 11:15 a.m. DONNA AN Greenport. Lobation of Property 63735 1 Section 100-239.4B, based an LEONARD SCHLEGE #5333 - Request for a Waiver C.R. 48, Greenport; CTM A the Building Department's aa#5327. Reque• for a Variance of Merger under Section 100 26, #1000-40-1-20.2 g February •3, 2003 Notice o£-I" under Section I, based based on the, Building 2:10 p.p HELEN THEO c Disapproval: Applicant<•propos= on the Biala-ig Department's Department's January 12, 2002 HARTS #5331-, Request for a. P es additions.. and alterations tq January 27, .003 •Notice of Notice of Disapproval,amended Waiver of Merger under Section # Selling ina location at less Disapproval. ••..licant;propos- February 27, 2003, for the rea- 100-26, based on the Building than 75 feet from the bulkhead. es to construct a fence exceed- sons that(a)#1000-48-2-19 and Department's;February 18,2003 h Location of Propeerrtyry: 4700 mg the code 11 '-talion of four #1000-48-2-40 are merged as Notice of Disapproval. 5, 1 Paradise Point Road, Southold; feet when) in the front one lot, and (b) that each lot is Applicant proposes,to unmerge a j 4 CTM#1000-81-3-4. yard. Lodatio I of Property: developed with a single-family CTM #1000-22-4-10 (Stars n 1 1050 an JOHNHURTADO, 1480 Wes .babaRoad, dwelling having a floor area of ' -M' dnor#12) from CTM#1000- b JR. #5319 - Req-uest for Mattituck;•C 1 #1000-114-7- less than 850-sq. ft. Applicant 22-4-11 (Stars Manor #11); li 1 Variances under Sections 100 131. proposes tounmerge1000-48-2 vacant Iand. Location of.- s I30AA.4, 100-33C and 1(10- 1:00 p.m. I 'GINIA AND 19 (part of Greenport Driving Property: 1625 and 1745 Stars a 239-4A(1), ' based on the CHRISTOP D1' COYNE Park #57), from 1000-48-2-40 Road,East Marion. r Buildin¢ Department's January #53'23. Requ - for Variances (Greenport Driving Park #56), 2:20 p.m. TAI#IQ MAI-IMOD h nn n . .. __r __a _-.1.---..,. 1,,. ..r,,... nAU:: .nri RTRk'..AT lana-TAR n Ails SURVEY Or PRO RTY SITUATE: PARADISE POINT TONNA' SOUTFIOLI7 - +SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY SURVEYED 07-02 -02 \ 49 e p SUFFOLK,POUNTY TAX # 1000-5I- -4 1 PARADISE POINT ROAD R® ISO :ROAD f RIGHT OF NA �..I , R` EDGE \ _ . E p : isa;* �ENr '5011 ' JOAN ® B 1225.00' Ins EN a I^ '.CIE COMPANY • t 1 I 1 i j • ! ` F� it a i Ca � r'I I �P 1 ' 5TON8 DRIVEWAY I O W -- O Im 1 A 1i 1C Ham- �- is A I Ir 1 Z mN Rm If z 6,0AA 6� - ,, N d i BAY T D. C7 >z ---wV � ,..o "On oz 0 [Y ;a IIA I C I FSTORY �� � p o rn mA z` RAMS ' 2 T_ --- HOUSE y ➢rb ni 73T 1 L I�._- 52 Fao= OVERHAV.,CA m O A n ill 73 7j 73 N -, Cao fict o_ C 5 1A55kR". N PATIO I W o vi Is W - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Ill - TOP OF BANK In w rn oN I InF. H IC WOOD I ��m EGK OVA--` yb¶x_ 8 DECK �m - y��OOD BULKHEAD SNEAD. BHEAD. - I' W. 34 NI 3 4 O. rn A� Q., o• _ _ z --�` TEt LINE ALONG A.HyVm 1 SSIa43'29'W 125.58' J' j SOUTHOLD, SAY --`` $- ------- / OF NFA s ;, c: 84' e:. NOTES: 4. `5 `, -CC'PCP®I3• lI IN MONUMENT FOUND I<. 41 s I :. . crinki• • ti • ti,a ..'. • -rtn+a-' 1 O 1� m'.— h .a 9 4i,.. I • 50 'c �44.�/ ;�y S LAND 5�� AREA 2q422, SF OR 0.68 ACRES " :AND o. JO � I h C FILB.P, LA D S t�.l i!YE °i'+ 6 EAST MAIN STREET N.Y.S.LIC.NO.50202 I GRAPH1J SCALE 1"= 30' RIVERHEAD,N.Y. 11901 ® MIp � 369-8288 Fax 369-8287 REF.\\IIp server\d\PROS\02-154.pro I I P: V 1 1 _—__ I it. _ J NOTE : — —._.. % �Ki THIS SITE PLAN WAS PREPARED WITH INFORMATION �''�ILI. \ \ 1 7� TAKEN FROM A SURVEY MADE BY JOHN F RMATIEHLERS, N LAND SURVEYOR, RNERHEAD, NEW YORK \I u r2 \\ II �'� v �- ' DATED JULY 2,2002. a I Yf r(� la- 1 J.; VS Ilkill 411111%* NA. II \ • N 1 I EXI-sTl,,,a4 I t. � Vi:. �� \ na s I I E,L.L. 1-14•114*.- I\ I� / / 1 . i -. tic , 1 . i' Pb Bar 1 _ _ I N \ > \ I °j 1 SOOT NOLD ' \ C AL-[ s- -E..I. I li STOI-a e- _ 1 le-- E--Th- /.ting \ \ oely rte.w.�-rJ. j TR.=p: SITE DATA \ / 4P-$AGL \ \ _ - f' / \ I SITE AREA .680 ACRES-29,422 SQ. FT. 19 i ---'er r4 .. �hE+P9c.tiPE.o -� n1 - «. spoor TAX MAP 2E� 1000 -81 -03 - 04 �r P` 6 ZONING R80/RESIDENTIAL ? r ee.ea ;; " r FLOOD ZONE .� F d / ^ \\\\\; \` ; v\\L„ 7 l i i MAY 4, 1998 MAP #36103C0167G \\ �;; ,� o Ill d ' 1 ,- cm < WATER SUPPLY SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY c x I`'T' ` I T� v_ OWNER FREDRICK J. AND JOAN V. FROHNE " �� ^ v �" ti 4 x 14 EAST HIGH ROAD as ---- m � Iv-J \� PORT r s�. WASHINGTON, NY 11050 11 rRcr1, \A 1�`���IT�- ` ‘ �Ar� < X1 USE \ =---- \= \\ \ \\ \\ \\\‘‘ ‘ Existing SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING • — --.\�\\\\\``\\\\\\\ T Proposed SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING -r T o - \ ` \\\ \ - �d 1 5Ta._LE. tSgcsGa AAAvAvA\• \ j m� G< ' \\• `\\ \`:,: f Z I BUILDING AREA sxI�TII--1a �.-.w-Iv \\\\\L\ �s� ..,�:_ ca-tee:.--a F .4.1. -?ter=r Existing 3,380 SQ. FT. =InC)Or cTaaCaF�P_r� i . \ C rt.�Yz,¢¢szr-z�Q, ,.-nn 4,450 $Q. FT. _Ea mCs-w-rh-r-la }uevaarINI 1i. ze -Ir� -4 c�r_T>•t sa_it- - --- __ Proposed rePSC ic:r4P THI-s--'h1Z4A A ._!__�_ y I ' r+leo �+..SF-1+ 1-Ic-w I laril r�N4 LOT COVERAGE 92'( LAIC STD I.IE \vh\-1,.- Y /AA a.r nl4 \\11-R1-1 '12C-11-1 ...s -ol:lEurs� r�C.uuap oc.t.� 4. 'r Prop Existing 11.50 % ',:� Tyr u£ 1 ----......1 K- a _ <\ � ege Proposed T _ L� — . _+� ,°7' I 15.10 % la t _ q,; I'; . Q .0 I 911 FG14E.-1-,11"4 X'! lVdea PSJL It 1.4 Ir.Arr R+' N,r,ir ., - ---I------'- _ - • f:-X Y44% 4 LE%bT4. b .GH T / • QGF.� k T �12- • - • •• —r ,.4SEL • FiL• _` /I 1 _ I.L- :.s� � • C ,SII O I- s. s 8' - . 0-) (--2 u � q„ L0 0 i o 1 . 7 �Gp��E\I :ttc.734,_ r ..' i>Lr? i��sE -T= QT/ S� I TI �' rJ �\ GARR Ti� . r�STRANG -rtZ.� 611,-1 — -IE.X01 I `T- .- f' L,- ,p\ �.=%= architect LOCATION 7�� r _ � >p1� .,,,..s" - r�rJ Y L-( .> Li--17' " F--1 E,.�Y ---• ...a k=r K-- 4,R -� ✓-b,�l-�_ I . _ Z e7 + �' SC.LE WLAWIIIO'M! ` s 015244 1230 Traveler Street Southold N,Y.,11971 At Uo e� � REVISED _._ .2). 015244 OF NEW VAP DAVE I. 3a=ae. AP C" o ' co eet_ r �f> rOltri 631 - 765 - 5455 I - �c. -zn Erkr-s*oa'rsrr -re, z.is - r IT 4 ,6.-- - — PROJECT No --_—_._ TOWN OF,SOUTHOLD - BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST BUILDING DEPARTMENT Do you have or need the following,before applying? TOWN HALL Board of Health SOUTHOLD,NY 11971 3 sets of Building Plans TEL: 765-1802 Survey PERMIT NO. Check Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trustees Examined ,20 Contact: Approved ,20 Mail to: Disapproved a/c 2131; 07_ Phone: "' 77 Building Inspector PLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date ,.J 3/ , 206'1 INSTRUCTIONS a. This application MUST be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale.Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises,relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and waterways. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application,the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e.No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose what-so-ever until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York,and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings,additions,or alterations or for removal or demolition as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws,ordinances,building code,housing code,and regulations,and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. (Signature of applicant or name,if a corporation) 'o,B / 1/t, 1 (97/ (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician,plumber or builder Name of owner of premises —2o00✓E, �2��Q,c, Ti. Jo A V. (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer iv (Name and title of corporate officer) Builders License No. do T LE c re--A f• Plumbers License No. Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No. 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be doiv: 171 7vo A d-A b I S E Pe)/rY T ,L'o n j House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section E 1 Block 0 3 Lot "`f Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot (Name) 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy Si nJe L E 'c- , /lis /a E ti c t" • b. Intended use and occupancy SA M e 3. Nature of wgrk(check which applicable):New Building Addition Alteration X Repair )( Removal Demolition Other Work (Description) 4. Estimated Cost ,3oo) oco Fee (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units / Number of dwelling units on each floor If garage, number of cars u/A 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use. N�A 7. Dimensions of existing structures,if any: Front . Rear 26 Depth Height /216 Number of Stories I Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front Rear Depth / C> e Height Z .f3 Number of Stories. 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front Rear Depth Height Number of Stories 9. Size of lot: Front / 2 S.-- Rear Z Depth Z.3 C, 10. Date of Purchase Z o©2 Name of Former Owner 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated X - Ro 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: YeS 13. Will lot be re-graded m D Will excess fill be removed from premises: YES NO 14. Names of Owner of premises 1/2OH,i Address/l/ N/G#ieo f.W Phone No. 76� -� Name of Architect Srw-p Al G Address Po6/sty 2. Seo.. �o Phone No 761-- Name 6 Name of Contractor Address Phone No. 15. Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland? *YES A NO • IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED 16. Provide survey, to scale,with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17. If elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below,must provide topographical data on survey. STATE OF NEW YORK) n SS: COUNTY OF irkjCC, ) gj AQto,r A . ST-44n1G being duly sworn, deposes and says that(s)he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract)above named, (S)He is the A ,E c it c.T (Contractor,Agent,Corpora Officer,etc.) of said owner or owners,and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said-work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me this 3/ sr day of T/ANvAA-'/ 2003 741 -7-Y /�' • Notary Public Signature of Applicant acitbstril A, Strang NOTAR\' PUBLIC, New York No. 4730095 Qualified - Suffolk County Comm Expires July 315 __ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD AUGUST 7,2003 (Prepared by Jessica Boger) Present were: Chairwoman Lydia A. Tortora Member Gerard P. Goehringer Member Ruth D. Oliva Member Vincent Orlando Clerk Paula Quintieri Absent were: Member George Horning 6:45 p.m. Appl. No. 5317 — FREDERICK and JOAN FROHNE (continued from 6/19/03). Request for a Variance under Section 100-239.4B, based on the Building Department's February 3, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes additions and alterations to dwelling in a location at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Location of Property: 4700 Paradise Point Road, Southold; CTM #1000-81-3-4. POSSIBLE RESOLUTION TO consider 7/31 letter from P. Moore, attorney for P. Cooper, for adjournment. Also letter from G. Strang,Architect for applicant objecting to adjournment. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? GARRETT STRANG, ARCH: Good evening, my name is Garrett Strang, architect, representing Mr. and Mrs. Frohne, the applicant. CHAIRWOMAN: Just one moment. We have some last minute correspondence apparently. I'm sorry, could you continue, Mr. Strang? MR. STRANG: Certainly. I'll be brief, I promise. Once I apologize for having to submit the lengthy dissertation. It's not something I enjoy doing. And I'm sure it didn't make for much of an interesting read,but I did have to set the record straight. Since the adjournment last time, obviously I did submit that particular rebuttal and some additional documents. In addition, I believe the ZBA has been in receipt of correspondence from Mr. Scalia, the neighbor to the opposite side. And a letter also from the applicant, Mr. Frohne. I submitted today, which unfortunately I only received today, a letter from the Paradise Point Association (PPA), which essentially indicates that there's no violations to their C&R's based on our original application. And I also submitted an altered site plan showing an alternative reduction in the size of this open porch. Although our preference would be to have it as original applied for or as we mentioned at the last hearing, reduce the 12' to be sensitive to Mr.Cooper. But we have considered the size 10' Page 2 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing as well. With respect to the submittals I made, I'm not sure the board has any questions at this time to clarify. CHAIRWOMAN: So the new plans, I'm sorry we didn't get a chance, the correspondence that came in on the 7th, we're just kind of getting it now. MR. STRANG: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN: So the new plans would bring us, how far, how much closer? MR. STRANG: The new plan would reduce, the original application was for a 16' open, roofed over,but open. At the testimony last time, I offered a 12' and that was in response to Mr. Cooper's suggestion. And in further consideration with my client, we're bringing it back to 10' at this point, which I believe, you have a site plan in front of you, I believe brings it 54' off the bulkhead. And it's obviously much further from the high water mark,but that's where we are this point. MEMBER OLIVA: And it would be open, not closed? MR. STRANG: It's open to remain open, unenclosed. We are receptive to a condition if the board wants to put such on it, that it's not to be enclosed at any point in the future. I know there was a point, and if you haven't read my submittal, there's a point that was brought up in the documents submitted by Mr. Cooper that he felt that if this relief were granted, or alternative relief were granted, that it would open the door for an addition on the house. What we are submitting now having established a setback. And we're offering that we would be willing to accept a condition by this board that if there were to be any additions to the house in the future, that it would have to come back to this board for review. So that wouldn't establish a precedent on our particular parcel. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we know that he was referring to additions as meaning the enclosure of this particular application or was he referring to multiple additions that might be on the house? MR. STRANG: My understanding of having read that particular document he submitted was that they were concerned that it would, the way the code reads, if I understand it correctly that this setback has to be landward of an established setback. And I believe his position was if this variance were granted and we built the screen room, it would establish the setback and we could put an addition on the house. Again, using that as the established setback, and be landward of that. But it would obviously be a massive encroachment on the setback. And we are willing to say, we wouldn't do that without coming back to this board, if the board so chooses to put that condition on. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Strang, one other question, that 54' at 10' from the house in depth, which you are proposing at this point, that is to the lowest bulkhead. Is that correct? Page 2 of 13 Page 3 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: There is only 1 bulkhead. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's a lot of tiers in that area because of the steepness of that area. MR. STRANG: That is a bulkhead that's been established. It's a wooden bulkhead that's down at the bottom at the foot of the bluff. There is a well vegetated and stable bluff at the top. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How is that measured by the way? Is it measured straight out, and up like this? MR. STRANG: That is correct. It is. It's a horizontal dimension view. Took the bulkhead line and came vertical with, and measured horizontally to the proposed addition, that would be it. We're not measuring the hypotenuse of the... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just didn't know if there was another bulkhead buried in there and that's the reason I asked. MR. STRANG: Not on our property. I believe on the adjacent property, the Coopers have several terraces that are built into the bluff that they, I guess the previous owner before Cooper, had excavated. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: No, I don't have any further questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: The only thing I would like to know for the record is that the attorney for the adjoining neighbor has requested that this hearing be postponed, as the attorney is going to be out of town. And you have written a response to that letter. What is the board's pleasure? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we should just leave the time open for the attorney to reflect any concerns she may have. Then we go from there. She has the plan. There's no reason to continue it. CHAIRWOMAN: Verbally or in writing? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In writing. CHAIRWOMAN: The only problem with that is then we get into final rebuttals. Page 3 of 13 Page 4 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. All the final rebuttals have to be in by the 215t,by the next meeting. And we officially close the hearing. And that's it. MR. STRANG: My only challenge with that would be if the rebuttal from Mr. Cooper's attorney arrives within a short timeframe of the date you've established. CHAIRWOMAN: At 4:00 on the deadline date? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then we'll extend it for you, Garrett. CHAIRWOMAN: No, no. MR. STRANG: I have a philosophical challenge with the attorney's request for the fact that she was here at the last meeting,we all agreed to the date. There was no challenge at that time. She had when she could oppose it. She had ample opportunity shortly thereafter to ask for an adjournment, which, you know. But to come in a week, or less than a week before the hearing and ask for an adjournment, for the purpose of the fact that she's on vacation, I really have a philosophical challenge with that. In my position, my feeling is that's an affront to this board. This board asks for, is this date agreeable to you? We said "yes". You've taken the time to put it on your calendar. And I think for the attorney to take a vacation, knowing full well that she had a commitment and an obligation to stay, is not nice. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a suggestion? I can take care of this whole thing. CHAIRWOMAN: You're not the chairperson. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that. CHAIRWOMAN: Please let me do that. I'm not really in favor of(inaudible) I really... MEMBER ORLANDO: Close it. MEMBER OLIVA: Close it. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't see any reason to continue it anyway. There's no, I mean, there's absolutely no... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You've got the time limit to do that. You can give her until next Friday, and then Mr. Strang has until the meeting if there's any rebuttal. It's very easy, you have 2 weeks. MEMBER OLIVA: Close it. Page 4 of 13 Page 5 8-7-03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just saying. CHAIRWOMAN: I mean, we could do that, but what's the purpose? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As I said in the beginning of the hearing, there really is no purpose. Because Mr. Strang has already submitted, she is aware of this 10'. CHAIRWOMAN: Exactly, she has... MR. STRANG: She has been given, everything that the board was given was given to her. CHAIRWOMAN: If she wasn't given a copy of the plans, then that would be different. I make a motion to close the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just reflect, for the record, that I would keep it open until the 21st MR. STRANG: Appreciate your consideration. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 5 of 13 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD JUNE 19, 2003 (Prepared by Jessica Boger) Present were: Chairwoman Lydia A. Tortora Member Vincent Orlando Member Gerard P. Goehringer Member George Horning(until 4:15) Member Ruth D. Oliva Board Secretary Kowalski PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9:38 am KENNETH CERRETA#5282 (carryover from 5/15). Based on the Building Department's October 9,2002 Notice of Disapproval, this is a request for Variances under Section 100-244B for a garage addition at less than 10' for a single side yard, less than 25' for total side yards, and less than 35' from the front lot line, at 1655 Bay Shore Road, Greenport; Parcel 53-4-6 CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? KEN CERRETA: I'm in favor of the application. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm shocked. MEMBER OLIVA: I wonder why. MR. CERRETA: They did away with the 2-car garage. CHAIRWOMAN: Could you speak into the microphone? It may be a little hard to pick you up. MEMBER OLIVA: Just turn the microphone around. That's right. MR. CERRETA: Eliminated the 2-car garage, made it a one car. And put it back almost even with the house. But the garage next door is like 5' past my house, so we tried to make a little porch there,just for aesthetics, more than anything else. And I hope that's okay. CHAIRWOMAN: I see that you brought it back, you did not bring it back level with the house as we had discussed. What was the reason for that? A 30 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 11:00 a.m. FREDERICK and JOAN FROHNE #5317. Request for a Variance under Section 100-239.4B, based on the Building Department's February 3, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes additions and alterations to dwelling in a location at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Location of Property: 4700 Paradise Point Road, Southold; CTM #1000-81-3-4. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? GARRETT STRANG, ARCH: Yes. Good morning, Garrett Strang, architect, representing the Frohnes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I ask a question? I understand. MR. STRANG: My clients bought the house about a year or so ago, and obviously our intention was to modify it so it suited their needs for their use, and improve upon it so it's more in keeping with the neighborhood as opposed to, they don't feel the present look is one that's compatible with the neighborhood. It's an existing one-story 3 bedroom home, single family dwelling, obviously. The proposed use is exactly the same. One story, 3 bedroom home. The appeal here is for, part of the program is to add a 16x28' addition off the water side of the house, which is going to be in front of the living/dining area. It's going to be roofed over, but unenclosed. The intention is primarily to provide protection from the sun when seated outdoors. This is a bayfront piece and exposure is quite open. It will also allow them to have some outdoor seating for both dining and relaxation. In the event of inclement weather, they can be seated under a covered area out of the weather. The positioning of this particular addition is really the only one that is practical inasmuch as it's in front of the living/dining part of the house. And that's the intended use. It's an extension of the living/dining part of the house. Albeit open and unenclosed, it still is roofed over. It's my belief that what we are proposing has a minimal impact since there's already an existing stone terrace there that exists. So I'd be going partially over that. It's a low profile addition since it's a one-story addition with a hipped roof, which minimizes the massing. It's a gable end. It's a hipped roof that slopes back. CHAIRWOMAN: Would it be screened in? MR. STRANG: No. CHAIRWOMAN: So it's just... MEMBER OLIVA: Open. MR. STRANG: It's an open colonnade. MEMBER OLIVA: Just with a roof? Page 30 of 133 31 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: Just with a roof There's not an intention to screen it in, or enclose it at this time, or anytime in the future. CHAIRWOMAN: Question, Mr. Strang. You're proposing a 48' setback from the bulkhead, right? MR. STRANG: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN: The addition you're proposing could be put flush with that L-shaped part in the house. Because if that's the living area, living/dining area, it would have access opening to it right there, which would increase your setback to 64' from the bulkhead. MR. STRANG: We appreciate that. And that was a consideration although it then puts it in front of the bedrooms. And they are going to have their children and their grandchildren, obviously, visiting them and it would be in front of the grandchildren's bedroom. And we believe that use, if you will, congregation of adults, conversation, the like, in front of the children's bedroom is not the best location. CHAIRWOMAN: You're proposing a terrace there anyway. MR. STRANG: Yes, the terrace is open, and most likely, people will be congregating in the area for the roofed-over addition. I'd like to also call to the boards attention that the setback you make reference to is actually less than the setback of the neighbor to our east's deck, which is about 44' back from the bulkhead. So we feel like it's not out of character with an established setback. CHAIRWOMAN: And what's the setback on the neighbor to the west? MR. STRANG: Setback on the neighbor to the west is a new home. And his home was built under the present zoning criteria. So his setback is approximately 75'. CHAIRWOMAN: That's what I found when I was down there. MEMBER HORNING: To the deck? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. It is 75' to the deck. And that's why I'm personally not in favor of this because I think, you have a lot of options here. And the living area is where you described it, and if it's, it can be, you know, fit in that niche. If it requires creativity and architecture and design, so be it. I don't, I really think you have alternatives that could substantially reduce this variance. And we're not in favor of going any further forward toward the bulkhead on this. Page 31 of 133 32 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: It's not the fact that the neighboring house is close to the bulkhead enter the picture? CHAIRWOMAN: That's a very, very, old house. MR. STRANG: Yes it is, it's about the same age as my clients house. CHAIRWOMAN: You do have options here. MR. STRANG: Not practically. Maybe in theory, yes, but, to put a living area in front of a child's bedroom is really not the best solution. Keeping the uses from a practical point of view, from a design point of you, from my professional opinion, keeping the uses as presented, where you've got a living/dining area that's part of the house and an outdoor living/dining area in front of that is the best use. To put it in front of a bedroom, really, is, it makes the bedroom unusable for the point of time that area will be used. Given the fact that it's a summer home, it's meant to be used in the summer. Take advantage of the bay front that they have, and to have that use moved around in front of a bedroom where it's going to cause a disturbance to young children trying to sleep in the evening. I don't think is the best solution either. I do have,just for the record, I do have an approval from the, well, I shouldn't say approval, I have a letter of non jurisdiction from the DEC as well as a permit from the Trustees for this work. And I'd like to submit that at this time. I'd also like to submit for the board's information, and for the file, a copy of the, actually, I've made several, numerous copies of the exterior views of the house so that you can see exactly what we're proposing here, since that hasn't been done. Again, I call to the board's attention, the fact that it does already exist, a terrace, a stone terrace, a grade, in this area. And that this roofed over enclosure is over the terrace. MEMBER OLIVA: Garrett, where are the children's bedrooms? MR STRANG: What I may do, if the board pleases... MEMBER OLIVA: Because I'm confused. MR. STRANG: I have a copy of the floor plan, actually. Let me submit that to you as well. I only have one copy with me in the file. I believe I have it in the file. It will show you the layout of the house. The bedroom wing of the house is not substantially changing. It's being left as it is. This is the living/dining/kitchen area of the house as it presently exists. This is the outdoor, roofed over terrace. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: May I see also, I represent the neighbor, Cooper, and rather than, in the back. CHAIRWOMAN: It's too far away for all of us to see at this point. Page 32 of 133 33 June 19,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: We have the living/dining/kitchen here as presently exists although we are doing some upgrading to it internally. The footprint of the house with the exception of this element, and the garage which doesn't is being added. But the focus of our application is, basically is, this roofed over area here. CHAIRWOMAN: This is not showing up on our site plan. This little part, this little part that's jutting out. If you, this is this terrace? MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, that's the terrace. MR. STRANG: This is the terrace here, this is where the living area is. This is primarily where the congregation, this area would probably be used during daytime hours. It is kind of sheltered, it's outdoors, the roof is... CHAIRWOMAN: This is where the proposed addition is? MEMBER OLIVA: You're complaining about the kid's bedrooms, but you're in front of the 2 bedrooms anyway. MR. STRANG: His bedroom is here. If we move this, as you're suggesting, to here, it's in front of the bedrooms. MEMBER ORLANDO: Because you want to get out of the sun, you'd be there during the daytime hours, not the nighttime hours. MR. STRANG: We'd be here in the daytime if it's inclement weather or evening, you want to sit outdoors, but you don't necessarily... MEMBER ORLANDO: Right. So you wouldn't be disturbing the children because it's during the day. At night, you can go over there. MR. STRANG: If it's drizzly, the gray weather we've had recently, you may want to sit out here and have dinner. The kids may have already had their dinner and gone to bed. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Strang, this is going to be renovated, this bedroom? MR. STRANG: No, it's there. CHAIRWOMAN: It says "altered bedroom"? MR. STRANG: Yes,because we are moving closets around. MEMBER ORLANDO: Now it's the master bedroom. Page 33 of 133 34 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: The master bedroom is down at the end of the house. The existing floor plan is bedroom, baths, bedroom, master bedroom. They are staying, doing minor alterations by reconfiguring closets, redoing bathrooms, but the configuration of the house is exactly as it is with the exception of adding a master bath here, or adding a two- car garage here... CHAIRWOMAN: And you're shifting the closets and baths... MR. STRANG: We're moving the closet. The closet now is on this wall. This bedroom doesn't even have a closet presently. So... MEMBER HORNING: I'm sorry, I mean, we are talking about a family here, so I'm having a hard time buying into the argument of something outside the kid's bedroom because, you know, we're family. And if they can't have their appropriate conversations anywhere in the house, then the family is dysfunctional or something. MR. STRANG: Adult conversation over dinner and the like in front of a child's bedroom. MEMBER HORNING: We don't consider those types of issues, though. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's, Mr. Goehringer, do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can see architecturally, Garrett, apart from the use situation why you would want to put something like that on because particularly the way the pillars are drawn, you know. I can see it. I would not object to anything that would still allow you to do that architecturally, but would be somewhat meaningless in reference to depth. I think this could be treated in a different vein. I think you could use a roll up awning, an automatic roll up awning, which I don't think needs a variance. It's a temporary thing. It's not supported in any other way. But I would, I would entertain an architectural cut of a certain amount of feet, you know, to give you that effect. Okay, then the use of an awning for sun prevention. MR. STRANG: I'm sure my client is receptive. In fact, we've had some discussions with a neighbor, who has voiced his objection. And we have offered to cut it, scale it back somewhat, but he was adamant that he didn't want it all. And we felt that was kind of unfair since he has his. It's like well I have mine, you're not getting yours. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But I'm just saying that I think I can see it from an architectural point of view. And how it would lend itself to the house. Again, we haven't discussed the footage, the depth of the footage. Again, I still think it could be done from an awning point of view, and then retracted at night. MR. STRANG: It could be done from an awning point of view. It's not as aesthetically Page 34 of 133 35 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing pleasing on a house, you know we're talking about houses in that area in the multimillion dollar range along the bay. So to hang an awning off the house really is not that attractive a solution. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm referring to an automatic one that goes out and comes right back and withdraws, and you know, is water sensitive, withdraws automatically, and so on and so forth. MR. STRANG: Yes. I'm familiar with those. It's just a little lean to that rolls out. MEMBER ORLANDO: I would think is a major construction, though. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reconstruction of the house is a major... MEMBER ORLANDO: Because the roofline looks nothing like this. MR. STRANG: We're doing a major alteration to the house. But within the footprint of the house with the exception of the two elements that I mentioned that come toward the road, and, of course, the porch. So, again, as I mentioned, they are trying to enhance the appearance of the house so it's in keeping with the neighborhood and the value of the neighborhood. And not have what my clients refer to in their joking way as the Jetson's motel. MEMBER ORLANDO: It does look like that, yes, it does. MR. STRANG: And they don't want that. They feel it's a detriment to the community, and they want to improve upon that. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, Mrs. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: I was just thinking if you could cut back that terrace, you know, right in here, instead of sweeping it all the way around here, you could just fit it right into here. CHAIRWOMAN: That's what we had said originally. MR. STRANG: You're suggesting that the roofed over area go in front of the bedrooms. And that's, from a practical point of view, is what I believe, what my clients believe, is not the best solution. CHAIRWOMAN: We've gone down that road, and, so, if you're not willing to go there, then, the board will have to take action in that direction. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? Page 35 of 133 • 36 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Cooper, who is the neighbor directly to the east. What I have is, Mr. Cooper couldn't be here, and he had originally gotten Bruce Anderson to prepare a report, a written report, which is very comprehensive, on the character of the area. And I'll submit that to the board. It's his report. As I said, it's very well done, and I would ask you to read it and refer to it as you'd like. I'd like to address certain specific points as we go. So I will, if it's alright, I'll submit this. Do we have enough copies? Bruce goes through the whole description of the premises and all the criteria, which you are very familiar with and would address. But more specifically, I'd like to deal with certain issues that are kind of, bring it out to the forefront of the, why Mr. Cooper has an objection to really just the backend, which you've identified. He has no objection to the renovations that are being proposed, the garage in the front. His whole focus and they, or, he tried to convince Mr. Frohne to come up with a different alternative, which is in line with what you've been recommending. Putting in, or putting the addition, or the sunscreen that goes along, it can go along the entire length of the back of the house, provide adequate protection. One, certainly, design feature, which I noticed is that he has his master bedroom on the other side. Since there is so much renovation being done to this house, you could make the master bedroom be the one that is in front of what he wants as the dining area. Extend the dining, outdoor dining area. And because there's a bathroom that goes right out of that bedroom, the children's bedroom, as they describe it, they could change the interior layout and make the master bedroom away from what is the activity of the evening or daylight activity with adults be on the opposite end of where the overhang would be. Or the roofed over open patio would be. So there are design alternatives. I know Garrett's a very talented architect. And he can come up with a, it's really up to the client to accept his alternatives. I have the elevation of the house. And when you see the east elevation, it pretty much focus's why the objection by Mr. Cooper. The existing building right now is 63.5' in length. What he's proposing to extend to is 107' in length, when you include both the garage on the front of the house, and the overhang on the back of the house. And it's not just a little, you know, little covered over porch. It's an extension of the roofline. And it is a significant structure in the back. And that's, if you look the east elevation I submitted, you can see that, that is the side that Mr. Cooper is going to be facing. And it is going to take, for the most part, the entire length of the common property line. And that's intrusive to a neighbor. What we also have is, from Douglas Barnard, who was the let's see, he was active in the affairs of the Paradise Point Association (PPA) and he was the past chairman of the building committee. I don't know if this project has been approved by the building committee of the PPA. But he can recall, in all the time that he's been involved in the building committee, that the PPA, they've controlled the extension of houses towards the water because of the goal to keep everyone at a common rear yard setback. So I have a • letter, an original letter from Douglas Bernard and then if you would also look at a photograph. I have a very nice aerial photograph from Mr. Amiaga. And what I did is I took a line,just a paper, and put a straight line of what is the common rear property line property line between Scalia, is the newest home, he's to the south. Frohne is the center property, the subject of this application, then to the north is Cooper. And you can see that all the homes here have, are consistently in line in the rear of the property. With respect Page 36 of 133 37 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing to you have yours and I can't have mine, that is not the case. In fact both houses, or all three houses, have extensions. And it's just a question of how far you want to go. They all have patios and unenclosed patios have never been an objection. They are pre- existing. The objections are always the roof. CHAIRWOMAN: Mrs. Moore, on our exhibit, there is no mark. MS. MOORE: No, I have it on mine. CHAIRWOMAN: Which means, in other words, it doesn't mean anything to us. MS. MOORE: Right. I'm going to give you this one. Before I hand it over, I want to describe it. You can see, I just took this, that's a photocopy of this aerial photograph. And you see it take off just a straight piece of paper, and you can identify who the owners are. And you can see that they are all extended, they both, here's the letter from You can see that they are all in line. It doesn't take a great deal of sophistication, just that straight lined paper to see that, how the character of the community has been expanded. With respect to the approvals, the Town Trustees (TT), Mr. Cooper did not appear before the TT. It was his opinion that he TT, generally, when there is a patio, once there's been disturbance, the TT do not, for the most part, give a hard time about expanding on top of already and existing disturbed area. So he felt it was, those issues might be environmental issues. And this is more in keeping with this board's consideration, which is the character of the area. So I think if I had known him at the time, I would have told him, advised him, he should have made an objection because sometimes the TT do try to retain the existing setbacks as a policy even though it's not one of their designated criteria for the standards of a TT permit. Those are the points that I want to bring up to the board, I'm sorry, I have one more letter. Mr. Scalia, Mr. Cooper gave me a letter with respect to speaking with Mr. Scalia. Mr. Scalia doesn't take a position one way or another because he sold the house to Mr. Frohne. I think it would be awkward as the broker to oppose any renovations that Frohne would have. But I have that letter here so you know, as far as Scalia goes, he's not taking any position. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? MR. STRANG: Yes, if I may, I'd like to address some of the points that were brought up by Ms. Moore, and again, she's representing her client, Mr. Cooper, who is immediately a neighbor to the east. And I've had some conversations with Mr. Cooper as my client. Just quickly to review some of the points that were brought up on behalf of Mr. Cooper by Ms. Moore. I haven't seen the information that was presented to you by Mr. Anderson. So I have no idea what he may be, so if I could get a copy of that, that would be, I think, helpful. Secondly, with respect to the association, the association has been given the plans that you see in front of you for their review and comment, which is part of the covenants and restrictions (C&R's). They have not convened yet, their final Page 37 of 133 38 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing meeting to vote. However, according to the association president, he indicates that the board has been polled, and some of the neighbors have been polled. And even Mr. Cooper has agreed that everything that we're proposing is not in any violation of any of the C&R's of the association. And that he association, in general, CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Strang... MR. STRANG: May I finish? CHAIRWOMAN: I'm just going to save you some time. I should have said the same thing when Pat Moore was giving her presentation. The ZBA does not enforce (C&R's). MR. STRANG: I understand that. But since it was raised, I just wanted let you know what the PPA's position is. There is no objections at this point and time to what's been presented. And they've seen everything that you've seen. So we're expecting a blanket approval from them once they meet. But, again, that's not in your area to enforce or not enforce. But it's a point of information. To redesign the house the way Mr. Cooper has suggested, I guess would be nice if Mr. Cooper was going to live there, and it was his house, and he'd lay it out as he so chooses. But my client is going to live in the house. And he'd like it designed to meet his needs, and his families needs without doing major changes with respect to yes, I'll concur that they were making major changes with changing the roof design. But the basic layout of the house, the placement of the bedrooms, the placement of the living areas, is exactly the way it is now with some enhanced tweaks internally. So, with respect to the length of the east elevation, yes it's correct, the existing house is 60 some feet in length and it will be 107 in length if everything were added as we've made our application. But just for the record, Mr. Cooper's house is 92' in length on his east elevation. And he's closer, again, he's closer to the bulkhead then we are. So that objection, although it has some merit, I think we're, our house, I could do a quick rundown if you'd like, but the Frohne house is basically in keeping in size, in scale, with everything else. Mr. Cooper's house is about 4600 sq. ft. of building area. CHAIRWOMAN: It's the setbacks we're concerned about. MR. STRANG: Okay, well Mr. Cooper is 44. We are 48 at this point. If this board asks us to cut this porch back somewhat, that's certainly an option that can be considered. One of the other submittals I'd like to make is, as much as an aerial is attractive, and is nice, what I'd like to present to the board is an actual overlay. The three neighboring that shows the actual location. And yes, keeping a house in line is important. And we address that. This is Mr. Cooper's property, okay? This is my client's property, the Frohne's. This is Mr. Scalia. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Scalia had to be 75' back because he had a new house. If you take the line of Mr. Cooper's deck and shoot it across, it's in front of our 16' addition. This whole house is in front of our house as it is. There's vegetation on each side here, which may or may not enter the picture, but one of Page 38 of 133 39 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing these photographs shows the fact that Mr. Cooper's house, presently, is in front of ours. MEMBER ORLANDO: But the new house, you say, is 75' back. So your new addition should be 75' back as well. MR. STRANG: Well our house isn't 75' back, because here's the 75' setback line. So our existing house doesn't comply. MEMBER ORLANDO: But your neighbor... CHAIRWOMAN: I think we've kind of beat this point to death. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I see that one minute, Garrett? MR. STRANG: I understand the board has it's concerns. And we are willing to address those and work with them. I think Mr. Cooper's concerns have some validity, but I think they are more personal in nature then they are having to do with what this board has to deal with. And I would certainly be willing to discuss with this board and my client as to what alternatives we have. I don't, again, I don't believe that putting this porch in front of the bedroom element of the house is the correct placement of it. It doesn't necessarily say we are not willing to scale back. We have already made that overture to Mr. Cooper, but he was not receptive to entertaining that. So... MEMBER ORLANDO: But the one thing that no one has brought up yet, but we all know about is the bluff is very steep there. CHAIRWOMAN: It's very steep, and you're very close. MEMBER ORLANDO: Every house there that has steps to the beach has a platform because it's so steep, you cannot do a continuous. So any further building close, even though it's quite vegetated, it's a severely steep drop-off. So any construction close to it is not good for it. MR. STRANG: Again, our construction is limited to the placement of several columns around the perimeter. We're not excavating and tearing everything up. MEMBER ORLANDO: Well you'd probably have to put some sort of footing in there. MR. STRANG: All we need to do is a hole to set a column in. It's minimal disturbance. My client doesn't want his house to wash into the bay either. So he wants to be aware of doing the least amount of disturbance as far as construction goes, in that area, as possible. This was a concern, which was also voiced by the TT, and they concurred that it really wasn't going to pose an issue. The bluff is relatively, heavily, vegetated and stabilized. Page 39 of 133 40 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, Mr. Goehringer, Mr. Horning, we really have to get moving. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What are you going to do? Are you going to close it? CHAIRWOMAN: Couple of things. Mrs. Moore, please give Mr. Strang, provide Mr. Strang a copy of all your submissions. Likewise anything you have submitted. Does the board wish to hold this hearing open? ZONING BOARD: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want to go back and look at it again. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the purpose of holding it open? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would like Garrett to go back to his client and find out if there's any way that an architectural cut can be put in. But at the same time, not request what he's requesting at this point. And possibly we could work out something on that basis. CHAIRWOMAN: In terms of what are we talking? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just a small overhang to make it, you know, architecturally aesthetic to the reconstruction of the house. But at the same time, you know, appease the neighbor. CHAIRWOMAN: And also appease the board. I'm not quite sure what you are talking about because I don't want to misguide Mr. Strang. So that he's going back and creating a plan that would not fly with the rest of the board. MEMBER ORLANDO: I think Mr. Goehringer was more in favor of a retractable awning. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From an architectural point of view, as I first mentioned, not to be redundant, and again, I'm being redundant. But to say if he was willing to take say a 6' overhang at that point to create those pillars that exist in the original plan,just to create a walkway there, which I,-it appears, the board, you know... CHAIRWOMAN: What are we talking about, a 6' patio? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what I was thinking. MR. STRANG: I can take that to my client. I'm not sure if, practically, that addresses the need for outdoor seating and outdoor dining, which was the whole intention of this. Page 40 of 133 • 41 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: It wouldn't be to scale. 6' with the huge pillars. MR. STRANG: We did, so this board is aware, we made an overture to Mr. Cooper that we could cut it back to 12', instead of the 16, and still feel that it was practically usable at that point. CHAIRWOMAN: I think what you're hearing from all of us is put it in the notch. I mean we can waste a lot of time. We can continue this till doomsday. But if you're not willing to do that, if you're not willing to redesign it, then the board, there's no reason to adjourn this. The board will vote on it. MR. STRANG: Well I can't say that until I've had an opportunity to speak to my client. So I would suggest that possibly we do as Mr. Goehringer suggested, hold it open. If you would consider that so I can confer with my client to see what options he may be receptive to. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, we will do it on the basis that you will go back to your client and ask him is he's willing to put it in the notch. When do we want to adjourn this to? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I wanted to ask if we could have the amended plans, is that what you're considering? MR. STRANG: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: At least the Friday before the meeting. MR. STRANG: Certainly. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Several sets, please. August 7th is our special meeting. CHAIRWOMAN: Is that too soon for you? MR. STRANG: No, that's fine. CHAIRWOMAN: Sometimes it isn't. MR. STRANG: No, I understand. CHAIRWOMAN: What time? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: In the evening. The first hearing would start at 6. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion to adjourn the hearing until Aug. 7th at 6:45. Page 41 of 133 0 New York State Depa. ___lent of Environmental Coni_. vation Aft Division of Environmental Permits, Region One Building 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 glible Phone: (631)444-0365 • FAX: (631)444-0360 - Website: www.dec.state.ny.us Erin M.Crotty Commissioner �\QA\ l' 7 LETTER OF NON JURISDICTION-TIDAL WETLANDS Frederick . and Joan V. Frohne March 13, 2003 14E High Road Port Washington, NY 11050 Re: Application #1-4738-00724/00005 Frohne Property, 4700 Paradise Point Road, Southold, NY SCTM #1000-81-3-4 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Frohne: Based on the information you have submitted, this Department has determined that: The property landward of the bulkhead constructed prior to August 20, 1977 as shown on the survey prepared by Van Tuyl & Son dated June 10, 1969 and confirmed on infrared aerial photograph #274, is beyond the jurisdiction of Article 25 (Tidal Wetlands Act). Therefore, in accordance with the current Tidal Wetlands Regulations (6NYCRR Part 661) no permit is required. Please be advised, however, that no construction, sedimentation or disturbance of any kind may take place seaward of the tidal wetlands jurisdictional boundary, as indicated above, without a permit. It is your responsibility to ensure that all precautions are taken to prevent any sedimentation or other alteration or disturbance to the ground surface or vegetation wifrin Tidal Wetlands jurisdiction which may result from your project. Such precautions may include maintaining adequate work area between the tidal wetland jurisdictional boundary and your project (i.e. a 15' to 20' wide construction area) or erecting a temporary fence, barrier, or hale bay berm. Please be further advised that this letter does not relieve you of the responsibility of obtaining any necessary permits or approvals from other agencies. Sincerely, .6L Mark C. Carrara Permit Administrator cc: Garrett A. Strang, Architect BMHP File StfFOLf Albert J. Krupski, President ,� �� Co Town Hall James King,Vice-Presidentam, 53095 Route 25 • Artie Foster % p P.O.Box 1179 Ken Poliwoda H Southold New York 11971-0959 kti Peggy A. Dickerson .fi ON. e1 Telephone(631) 765-1892 A``c'\\' ='O' * Nolo Fax(631) 765-1366 a 00S° \ q, BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES February 26, 2003 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Garrett A. Strang, Architect P.O. Box 1412 Southold,NY 11971 RE: FREDERICK J. & JOAN V. FROHNE 4700 PARADISE POINT RD., SOUTHOLD SCTM#81-3-4 Dear Mr. Strang: The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of FREDERICK J. & JOAN V. FROHNE applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated January 6, 2003, and, .r- ?I's • WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on February 26, 2003, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS, the structure complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code, ,.L WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approve the application of FREDERICK J. & JOAN V. FROHNE for alterations to the existing residence including a portico with open sides and roof,new stone terrace addition @ grade, decorative stone landscape wall and planters, and repairs to wood walks, stairs, deck and cabana in-place and in-kind, all with the condition that the height of the cabana does not increase, and as depicted on the approve site plan dated January 6, 2003 and last revised January 30, 2003. Permit to construct and complete project will expire two years from the date the permit is signed. Fees must be paid, if applicable, and permit issued within six months of the date of this notification. Inspections are required at a fee of$5.00 per inspection. (See attached schedule.) Fees: $5.00 - r Very truly yours, atz,,,„/ Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK/hns ,. l• - , . . . , . . -' - .0 _ .- ,,,,•,-''' .. ,,„„ ., %,.. , xtliu-ii"N'4 3 A . -..-, ,., ,, -,07.- ; . • 1\tr-s1, fi , • , :, 44c,— ' 1' III , •, 1-: ••f ,,,,*(11.'' -- '. .t ,x_i• 4,. ' ,A • '. -. ' 4 1 •S i '''. . 1.I 144bi ., - ni •Fillirr 0' 31 , . • . . , _•,,, , , . ., . - -' ' , , iok TOk ' S, • i t, opiki 11, F . , - 0 I 4i:6, • '', :fr. . ' : t I;...? C ( )1, ' - ..,,,. , • ,' ill,;v , 4if iid _A..: 4 ., -, , - • ' :( • ': i ',.‘• ' ..• ' A Ai - '', O/ 40;1114'.. A . . '• ,,it . 4, '" "--- . , , •,s — - _ 4,,, '. f.ti., .;. ..., 1. - • • .,'II.' ' '•,' 1 * • ' - ' - - -01P ; • ,,,4.11 .* F*0. 'L:, . ,.. .1 „ .ii .,', . \ " ,, •70-,..or • In ' '',i .4 ) ,t , , ' , , ., ' • , ,,,' 1,' , I.:, ,-, . ,•,* -t.• .,I , .1/2' -, 't ',,' ,.,1 ''' I 1 'I 1. ' 4 . ' . , , ..,24i,-•1i1,f11,i"-t.4-"-'.01‘..4.,.'{*,.,'."',''';s'.,.,.A'''«z.,'-'t:-1'..,•,,1.))t.7'1,..'.,4;••:,,,L'v,.",-,`:,-•-,,.;•-„,-A1,,1'..,,.,.-',,4A• ,•'"""i.:y1..'.: ,,4.N'A„;,,*,,,_<_•,,41,,,4-"Ajs,• . X44o 1 ., • , - .•. . te , .,•;, ''. . ” - - , , 'le'4'S., lit ' -‘. ,&•-''e, .•,. stf ‘.. .% -,lm * . ,.'• , . , „a , .S, ,),A0 -, . 2^ : ,,:' 0:;' 1i'4 . 3., '.. .4 ;. 4' ' •• 0 ;.s,,, )?$A ,, ,.,,,..,.t., , _• .. ' . "!141 ' - : ,`-;e-,, , . '... 11,.., .,. 4-• \4.1' z ,if ''' ' 4 ,, '',,.; f 4°A ' --„., ,.. . 'Yk:4,...`,17,. 'i' 6..' ),,'''' \i„'•':— , ' i •,'-'' - -., ,' t . . '...,.t .',••k„, Ak, . .i *, - ., ii7. 7k,410.1.iki - • ' lit ••• '''''.:;) ' ''k'' ''A )1k.'1', 14 ‘t•.;;.., ''' ''''111441'' , 1,' , 'i 4,1i,',,,'I''..1.,.• i• :,'''' . 4.,'', ,r,.--k”' !,,,!..-'1;`- ..... • -., ..,,,Ak,,, F• , ,,,,. r..•, „,,,,, ..„.*. -., ?.4,,,.. . .,,, . , , • - •x4.1,• ' '..,,-, oil.. ,-,t, ,-,.4„: - - -- •, .,. 4•,„.. •,,,,:.; ------14::‘:,' .,.. ..,.„. ,,,:,. .,...,,- N:'• '4.1 f r i!,`f .. i.Alp, , 4. •;'1 ', L Alilg*, 01 ,. „.....,,.. ,, 4 ,,,,,„ 4,..,,,,, , ,,,. : 4r.0,, 41 ,i:7 .•° ).‘ r.'-!;, ,, '44.,.....,,Ifiz.,. ..t.,'..- 44' 171 ',:-.‘4:..., ' .r-- cs.,,,•--, '3' `, -41f,`. ,• ' '....*Zc: '...` k. -. ?t•Y.,4".;:,;-.‘• 11.N.,7:014.:-.• ,A,', , -*"..' . , y..74 '': i„ •:?, '',..„ t -p,..•„ ',-;14;-,7,,,,,tx.'• ";••r'' • -"-- -•.:. -re. ., ... . ,„ .,.•:1 ,,,, -i .. ...e, 4 • _ . ....,,_ .., 46... ....• .,,, ' ' 1 •4•4, ,,•i,..., . , T:p."...:• ,Jr .,....,V'4.I,,iii'd•'':i.-,.:.;. ,,,i,n•\A1), 4' . .,,•./t':,i:‘'", f;.-,•:,::',•‘I.f4dit.i.,y''-'''*,J''•,'r,.,-4L',,-'-;..,.-.',t,.c-14,4i',,..,I,.—,:.c,'.F,',-:..72,Ar,,,_.., i•.*'./,,-1 0—',.•.,'..:..p*.-.--,i.•••-•"'',' -.:':1-_r-.-' '-..-,':,-,-,:aiI,-'''.,..•;'4';:''',''.f.'..':',:,-l4q.i.—'„,,4.;'r- ,..,.-)..,,. . Ni' ,0 . , W ' p im•ilf,, i/ il-kt . 1 .., ' `4,, ' ',.1...., $. ` ....-1, 1 ,,... , ,.. , , . , - -,.. • 3 . . •, , i 1.- . --. .1''ll.1 ' '1 I; .""'.'•-:' :--4112 ' •1 ' '' . - .. P .:.• \,' .,.,,':.:t•I&?:, L '".. 1 ' l' ,-7.*.,_....,--r_ .....,.....***. _.__ • - ..,- --LIP Y.101-cii[ammiaa rantimix rrc• WafilaISNMILMIREMIXONLOAMPROMEIV1W IN Complete Items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Sit . item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X 0 Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse `' i 0 ..dressee so that we can return the card to you. B. -=.rived �n 0. C. • MI this card to the back of the mailpiece, fir r► ry r .lf/i or on the front if space permits. - • A v 0-5 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? 0 Yes If YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No 1, . k v Zip 4 • i/ ` 4„,,s- 4se / 6Service 3. Type TvISpf entified Mail 0 Express Mail DI Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise S 4)170-04-0 iti /M?( 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. r 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. 7002 2030 0000 2027 1123 PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 2ACPRI-03-P-4081 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail I Dill Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name,address,and ZIP+4 in this box • STZ.4 Af& PO /W2- J2+ 4_o / J 1/17/ - ii<KUifiGWIafIMIIJSM14•lIL•1E THIS SE I• • wa:Y • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete 117 .11w item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ❑Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse 0 •..ressee so that we can return the card to you. • ived by(Printed N: :) c. t:of De• e • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from item 1? • Yes if YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No 141// 7• (00 p6_ z AAAO/SE Pr-4 3. Service Type ❑Certified Mail., 0 Express Mail p� 0 Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise SD(1741"d L 0# /1 / 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. 7002 2030 0000 2027 1116 • PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 2ACPRI-03-P-4081 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 111111 Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G10 • Sender.Please print your name,address,and ZIP+4 in this box • STk 4 ArG St)Jj t- Pi 1197( Les0-1#1-l0-969ZOl 0e0ey wnleu o!isewoo 100Z isn6ny'I.I.8£w.iod Sd OETT L202 0000 0E02 200L ro .z SOA❑ (Bad 1x3)Ltianpad peloulsaa 17 /�/ I/v,J� y���'L� •Q•p•0 0 Hew peinsu! 0 esipueyoJe4 Jo;id!aoea wnlab•E _-_peaels!6ay /� RN ss- .rc 41�Y4k,'?0 ‘k ?ON ._� , _ag • £ 1 1 y ,J N47 ri 0)`) EOOZ 6 Z AVIV S S po 1/I W i• /2:097r7 s?wp►I' MO seA 0 L`wl!Luc :: ,::..^ yep SI •0 :04 passa�PPb 0104.1V 'L 'wined eoeds 4!lua;eql uo JO `eoe!d!!ew NI to moeq eq of!Imo s!4l 4geAy IN lueni!ep;o elep •0 (eweN pe;uud)Aq pen!eoea •g •nog(of p.m eq wnlaJ ueo am leyl os eesseJppy 0 Y `h���, X esaanaa eyl uo ssaippe pus eweu ano�C luud • 4ue6y❑ A Wv �, Y -e I .paa!sep s!/Genoa peloulsea 4!t wal! 1 rrr/// m u6!g •y o4e!dwoo ow•g pue'Z`l swat!ele!dwoO ■ UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 111111 Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • Safi/d& to 6 iip2 SO 077fot-D, 11197/ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NEW YORK i x In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDAVIT Cie / /l.ICk t AAAI ceo t1& OF SIGN (Name of Applicant) POSTING Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as 1000- gj -03 - 09- x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, aAe 7T4 crre44/6 residing at /no (-62. fi 9q - , " 1 / , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the day of �vA/6- , 2003, I personally placed the Town's official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of my application noted thereon, securely upon my property, located ten (10) feet or closer from the street or right-of-way (driveway entrance) - facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance;*and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the subject hearing date, which hearing date was shown to be Sun 1 c 2bO3 (Signature) Sworn to before me this 677, day of JTUNE , 2003. csarbara A. Strang NOTARY PUBLIC, New York No. 4730095 (Notary Public) Qualified Suffolk County Comm. Expires July 31, • *near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property, as the area most visible to passersby. U.S. Postal ServiceTM cr CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT o ra (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) rq For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.coma N rU SOUTICUY, iff 1197,i c3 ILI0.37 UNIT ID: 0971 Postage $ CI- CI 'Certified Fee _ 2.30 0 Postmark C3 Return Rodent Fee 1.75 Here (EndorsJment Required) I=1 ' Restrictbd Delii t'l Tri A Clerk: KF9CWM m (Endorsement ReWee4) t, i LUJ O ru Total Postage&Fees $ , , 4.42 05/27/03 c-j Sent To CI N gtreet,Apt.No.; or PO Box No. KJ—fp A it City,State.State liaMMT^Mk .Zwasoz,zialaiiiiiikarl:gl1 P+4 Lk 4 U.S. Postal ServiceTr, m0- CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT ra (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) rl For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.comx UNIT ID: 0971 Postage $ O4 Certified Fee le i 2.3 0 Postmark 0 Return Reciept Fee Here (Endorsement Required) ' Clerk: KF9C114 , 0• Restricted Delivery Fee rri (Endorsement Required) ru �' 05/27/03 Total Postage&Fees e 11.1 00 Sent 7o h fri // 2 vpA N street Apt.No.; 4510-r�/ /clop /� or PO Box No. 4-AQ' rr City,State,ZIP+4 p JOtm1ovb /-t/ /Priamtecrus U.S. Postal ServiceTM P CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT r4 (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) rg For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.coms MI 9TH0004 1101, I= ru 0.37 UNIT ID: 0971 Postage $ 1:=1 .- 1=1 Certified Fee —, _ 2.30 o Postmark 0 Return Reclept Fee Here (Endorsement Required) 1=3' Restricted Delivery F== Clerk: KF9Ciel m (Endorsement ReqirstV I CI MI Total Postage&Fees $ , 4.42 05/27/03 ru _ _ cmSent To =I A , A44,441 •• en,/, &?_____45 ricisle . 1"' -*reef,Apt No.; or PO Box No.**it A) A Lige I10015gy_.3 City,State,ZIF44 0 or401. # i, U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT ,-q rq (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) rq For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.come ru 99.41,41),c_iiY j 101 " co ru ' 0.37 UNIT ID: 0971 Postage $ ,‘ 0 • 7 eat*Fee 2.30 Postmark Return Reciept Fee (.103 1.75 Here (Endorsement Required) RestriCted DellvevyFaa Clerk: KF9CWM ffl (Endorsement Required), nJ • Total Postage&Fees $ 05/27/03 ru CI Sent To (20on N Street,Apt.No.; or PO Box No. SO A ILA 015 tr. 4 City,State,ZIP+4 tff 6L-1) /15'7 C103ell ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDAVIT FREDERICK AND JOAN FROHNE OF MAILINGS SCTM PARCEL #1000-81-03-04 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, GARRETT A. STRANG, residing at 1230 Traveler Street, Southold, New York, being duly sworn, deposes and say that: On the 27th day of MAY, 2003, I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in Southold, New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice, in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the Assessors Office of the Town of Southold for every property which abuts and is across a public or private street, or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the applicant's property. Signature Sworn to before me this 27th day of MAY 2003 Barbara A. Strang J,------*/ NOTARY PUBLIC, New York No. 4730095 Nota Public Qualified - Suffolk County / ry ) nomm. Expires July 31,&2e , _ • • t____, .,___.1 , I1 �i .. • ..._ , ,ir . - ' #1 I 1 I, i _ _4.,..........:-_—__...Th Ste= LL _t �i L: r.it �;P •-1 I �, sirl ff., � , fr, , ---„,„r .j �jLI I I `x - tel! 1 1 1 . , L' 1, , 1 , _,. ____ , , - 1! , . 1 fi • _ • • 1 t.........1 63 .... ... .....„.. _T..... 1..„4. .5.- L......... E.........\\/AN.._,,..r. 1 6, 11,,, A .t'v , —.L_ .. . 1/ ', = I.' - a " - G-...6--L-- E..--: 1/eg ,. - 1I - " • • • - -- -- — ___ - _ . .,_ r ., .-_. ., _. .- ._... --s_ ._._. >, Tom- ..-. ..�.s . M 11 DI , ri E.....:1 . .., _ 1 . ; i ,__ ,Irl 1M _....„ ......,..., ........, , . . ' 0 • 1 /I till [1.I 14[Til 1 11 1 , , ...._,---1 : . ii, ,..............., 1...._. 1....„-...--. , • yj G.,•/Is__ t__ E_____ • ► /. " - I '-a" _ :-- -_ 1_,_. .- i / e,•• - r ` - ,..?•E \ / �vAl I/ r 14 6 \ t, $ .A_y V j) -1, ',., „b\v/ • • k\. G A R E T T A-. S T -- • G _ architect 1230 Traveler Street Southold N.Y. 11971 • •631 - 765 - 5455 TITLE -.t:�' 'i`J 42 1:..7; 47 f\ 1----1-- �i �� i (7- -2.5.,T y' -r-,,, -I- 1-4 CI--- r- 1--1 t--1 E-- .-- -L--..J1-1:7' --t--1 G• ..- LOCATION 4-7,9.42 IN. /d`- I ' c— - .o 11,--i-'r _---e_ v--...-_-, 1..-1. --r-k i 4 L.. P'`, H'-',,,,/ ---c"4- ';-..' 1G.-- SCALE A.5 14 ai'e,.,V REVISED • DRAWING N? DATE 4 - (4 - S . DRAWN all PROJECT MQ Q � I Z O .�,- •