Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5149 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �ti FF0 SUFFot� N..* o. :` Southold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman o= , 53095 Main Road %Gerard P. Goehringer tH x P.O. Box 1179 George Horning ;O .j���� Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva '; *j 0-Jl ZBA Fax (631)765-9064 Vincent Orlando :i *�� .1 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS RECEIVED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ,Q FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION AUG 2 7 ; rr 3:COpm. MEETING OF JUNE 19, 2003 C4 Appl. No. 5149 - New Suffolk Shipyard outhold Town Clerk Property Location: 5775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk; 1000-117-5-29.1. 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 parcel is 2.287 acres in size with 264.07 feet along the east side of New Suffolk Road in New Suffolk. The property is managed as a boat yard and marina in a waterfront, boating community. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's March 27, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, citing Section 100- 121C1, in its denial of a building permit to construct accessory open storage racks within the area zoned M-II, proposed at a height over the code's 18 ft. limitation and in an area other than a rear yard. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 20, 2003 and May 1, 2003 with written extended to May 15, 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: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant's original request is shown on the Peconic Surveyors, P.C. map dated December 13, 1999, revised January 9, 2002, for two open storage racks, noted as follows: (1) rack 'A' at 14' wide x 76' long x 26' high with a location five (5) feet from the closest northerly property line, in between the existing metal/frame building to the west and the shed to the east; and (2) rack 'B' of a size 14' x 50', and proposed to be at a maximum height of 26 feet and will be located inside an open notch immediately abutting the existing 86.2' metal storage building, as shown on the plan prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. dated December 13, 1999, revised January 9, 2002. Rack "A" will have two storage tiers, and rack "B" will have three storage tiers. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: An an alternative, the applicants submitted a revised plan dated April 30, 2003, by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. The alternative plan shows an increased setback for storage rack "A" from 5 feet to 10 feet from the northerly property line; and includes a plan for a landscape buffer of screening between rack "A" and the northerly property line, as described below. The applicants also confirmed that they wish to withdraw their initial request for a height variance with respect to storage rack "A." REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: Page 2-June 19,2003 Appl. No. 5149—New Suffolk Shipyard 117-5-29.1 at New Suffolk 1. A) Grant of alternative relief with respect to rack "A" will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Proposed storage rack "A" will not exceed the code's height limitation of 18 feet and will be ten (10) feet from the closest northerly property line. A landscape buffer will be provided and maintained in the northerly yard adjacent to the northerly house near rack "A". The buffer will consist of 12-14 ft. Eastern Cedar Trees and 6' high slated privacy chain-link fence. B) Grant of alternative relief with respect to rack "B" will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The maximum height of rack "B" will be 26 feet, and will be shielded in the requested location, within an open notch immediately adjacent and close to the existing 86.2' metal storage building. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The waterway and wetlands exist along the shorelines, and the applicant testified that the environmental agencies governing these sensitive environmental areas prefer a location that will not impact the waterways. Storage racks are common to all boat yards/shipyards and marinas in the Town of Southold. The only alternative to store the boats is on this type of open rack. 3. The relief granted is substantial relative to open storage rack "A" because it is a 50% reduction in the 20 ft. minimum setback requirement of the code. The relief granted is substantial relative to storage rack "B" because it is an 8 ft. increase in the 18 ft. maximum height limitation of the code pertaining to accessory structures. 4. The difficulty was self-created when applicant planned to locate the open storage racks. 5. Claims of excessive noise, air pollution, excessive traffic and have been submitted relative to the storage of boats on the proposed open racks. The Board finds no substantial evidence to suggest that the proposed two accessory storage racks will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The storage racks will be placed away from traffic areas and traffic circulation and will be placed where large boats have been stored. 6. Grant of alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable applicants to enjoy the benefit of locating accessory storage racks, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, on motion by Member Orlando, seconded by Member Oliva, it was RESOLVED, to DENY the variances as applied, and to GRANT ALTERNATIVE RELIEF as follows: 1. Rack 'A' is limited to 18 feet in height to meet the code requirement and shall be a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the northerly property line, as shown on the revised plan prepared April 30, 2003, by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. 2. Rack 'B' is limited to 26 feet height and shall be positioned in the area as requested and shown on the revised plan prepared April 30, 2003, by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. Page 3 -Jure 19,2003 Appl. No. 5149—New Suffolk Shipyard 117-5-29.1 at New Suffolk 3. A screened, landscape buffer shall be planted and maintained between the northerly property line and proposed rack 'A', and a slatted privacy, chain-link fence in good condition north of the landscape buffer. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Horning, Oliva, and Orlando. Nay: Member Goehringer. This Resolution was duly adopted (4-1 . i Z,i i Lydia Tortora, Chairwoman 8/27/03 Approved for Filing E"C° F , 'T) rt s _- .. T7 stP - 3:000)+1 ... . .. ;n t. CI tri FORM NO. 3 w` TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT MAR 2 SOUTHOLD,N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL TO: Patricia Moore A/C New Suffolk Properties DATE: March 27, 2002 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Please take notice that your application dated March 11, 2002 For permit for construction of two sets pf accessory boat racks at Location of property: 5775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 117 Block 5 Lot 29.1 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed construction, on a 99,672 square foot lot in the M-II District, is not permitted pursuant to Article XII, Section 100-121C(1), which states, "Accessory uses as set forth in and regulated by 100-31C(1) through (7) of the Agricultural- Conservation District, and subject to the conditions of 100-33 thereof,"which states, "In the Agricultural-Conservation District and Low-Density Residential R-80, R-120, R-200, and R- 400 Districts, accessory buildings and structures or other accessory uses shall be located in the required rear yard, subject to the following requirements: "A. Such buildings shall not exceed (18) feet in height," and B(4), which states, "On lots containing in excess of seventy-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine (79,999) square feet, such buildings shall be set back no less than twenty(20) feet from any lot line." The first set of proposed boat racks, located on the northern side of the property, are noted as being located in the side yard, five feet from the side lot line and measure+/- 26 feet in height. ThThe second set of proposed boat racks, located on the southern portion of the property, are noted as being located in the side yard and measure +/- 26 feet in height. Total lot coverage, following the proposed addition, would be approxi v . - y this - p 3)percent. • uthorized Signature Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. Cc: File, ZBA - Assigned No. For Office Use Only: Fee$ b0. , TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR /� ctr�� �7 , tC 2--� DATE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION APPEALED: J'� I New Suffolk Shipyard TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: I (We) (Appellant) of... (Tel # 734- 6311 ) HEREBY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED 3/11/02 ..3117�FOR: 02 WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED (X ) Permit to Build ( ) Permit for Occupancy ( ) Permit to Use ( ) Permit for As-Built ( ) Other: 5775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk Zone M-II 1. Location of Property New Suffolk Properties District 1000 Section 117 Block 5 Lot(s) 29'1 Current Owner 2. Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and paragraph of Zoning Ordnance by numbers. Do)of quote the law.) Article XII Section 100- 121 Sub-Section RECEIVED 3. Type of Appeal. Appeal is made herewith for: (X ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A Variance due to lack of access as required by New York Town La'MAY 1 0 2002 ;hap. 62, Cons. Laws Art. 16, Section 280-A. ( ) Interpretation of Article Section 100- ( ) Reversal or Other: Southold Town Mork.... 4. Previous Appeal. A previous appeal (has) (has not) been made with respect to this property or with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector (Appeal # Year ) REASONS FOR APPEAL (Additional sheets may be used with applicant's signaturel: AREA VARIANCE REASONS: (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if granted, because: see attached reasons (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: (5) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( ) Yes, or ( ) No. This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ( ) Check this box if USE VARIANCE STANDAR ar! =m -t and a ached. �iSTAND/7 Sworn to 6e o . m; this (Si��re of Appellant • • uthori ed Agent) 3o da -. '". 1i" 20G_ (Agent must submit • • • ' - '•n from Owner) e Notary Public ZBA App 08/00 PATRICIA C.MOORE Notary Public,State of New York Suffolk County-No.4861668 Commission Expires June 16, Reason for Appeal Continued Zoning Board of Appeals re : New Suffolk Properties Pursuant to Town Law section 267b-3 the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals is to analyze and assess the personal benefits anticipated by the applicant against the potentially deleterious effects that a grant of the relief requested would have on the health, safety and welfare of the effected neighborhood or community. In performing this balancing test, the Zoning Board is charged with the responsibility to consider the five factors enumerated in Town Law Section 267b-3 (b) . The variance should be granted for the following reasons : 1 . No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if the variance is granted. The subject property is a marina with the accessory storage of boats on the property. Additional boat storage is requested with unenclosed "Racks" . The location of the boat storage racks must be placed out of the way of vehicle and traffic circulation. The rack on the north side is to be located between two existing buildings and in the location where boats are presently stored. The second rack is to be located behind the metal storage building. The adjacent property (n/f Michael Withers) is a private marina and seasonal residence . The rack system will be located where large boats have been historically stored, the rack could be screened with fence or planters, as the Planning Board or Zoning Board may direct . 2 . The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance . Boat storage racks enable the Marina to operate efficiently by locating the boats in a neat and orderly manner. A Marina' s business operation relies on Boat storage to maintain the consequential boat repairs and service for their customers . Rack storage enables the Marina to function and meet their customer' s expectations . In addition the demand for boat dockage exceeds the supply, New Suffolk Shipyard has a 75 person waiting list for dock space, • QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION A. Please disclose the names of the owner(s) and any other individuals •(and entities) having a financial interest in the subject premises and a description of their interests: (Separate sheet may be attached. ) Michael Irving, Manager of New Suffolk Shipyard B. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale or being shown to prospective buyers? ( ) Yes { X } No. (If Yes, please attach copy of "conditions" of sale. ) C. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours? { } Yes {X} No D. 1. Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? yes 2. Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted with this application? edge of wetland shown on site plan 3 . Is the property bulkheaded between the wetlands area and the upland building area? see site plan (in part) 4. If your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have you contacted the Office of the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? yes, simultaneously with this application E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? nO (If not applicable, state "N.A." ) F. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences which exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? no If none exist, please state "none."_ . G. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? no If yes, please Submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department. If none, please state. H. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? Ro If yes, please explain where or submit copies • of deeds. I. Please list present use or operations conducted at this 4 parcel Marina/Boat yard and proposed use continue _�.9` V/�3%z A-- :— ed Date . Michael Irving 3/87, 10/901k . 1416-e 17/871—Teat 17 • PROJECT 1.0.NUMBER 617.21 S EO R Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I—PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) I. APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME Michael Irving of New Suffolk Shipyar New Suffolk Shipyard 3. PROJECT LOCATION: D17, -New but Yolk Road Munlcloallty New Suffolk, Southold County Suffolk 4. PRECISE LOCATION(Street address and toad Mleaeotlona.prominent landmarks.etc.,or Provide maol 1000-117-5-29. 1 New Suffolk Shipyard 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: ONew ®Esoanalon OModifcation/alteration High & Dry storage racks 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: . High & Dry storage racks to existing Shipyard for boats which do not exceed 25' in size 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: MIIIally a acres URlmately 2.2 acres 6. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LANE/USE RESTRICTIONS? Y13 ONO It No.describe briefly Marina an&r.boatel storage permitted use racks provide organized, clean storage of small boats 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? —1 0 Residential ❑Industrial ®commercial 0Agriculture OPsrk/ForesuOpenspace 0Olner Describe 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL OR FUNDING.NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY(FEDERAL STATE OR LOCAL)? lJ Yes 0 No I1 yes,list agenesis'and Dermivaoprovats Site plan from PLanning Board, poss. Town Trustees 11. COES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTI.:Y HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? O Yes aN' 11 yea list agency name and permtUapproval ZBA first 17. AS A RESULT pO�F PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REOUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑Yea LINo I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE irhael Irving of New Suffolk Shipyard [� Aoplicantlso• •r nano: Dau: ' . S&Onalu • 4 � it the action is in the Coastal Arca, and you are a stale agency, complete Ine Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 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 . YOUR NAME: Michael Irving • (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 ' s or company ' s name . ) NATURE OF APPLICATION! (Check all 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 If you answered "YES, " complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself ( the applicant ) and the town officer or employee . Either check the appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe 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 noncorporate 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 • /j Submitted th - . a of `7 Ill Signatury /e Print name Michael Irving Page 59 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CPQ r 1 p, .t,Cea �ov 2:30 p.m. New Suffolk Shipyard #5149 — Applicant requests a Variance under Section 100- A 121 C I, based on the Building Department's March 27, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes two sets of accessory boat rack structures in this M-lI Zone District, in a side yard and at a height over the code's 18 ft. limitation, at 5775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk; 1000-117- 5-29.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? This is 3 in a row then. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: It's your schedule, not mine, but that's alright. Let me just take 2 seconds. I do have photographs which I want to place in the record. I also just so you have everything at one time. I also have the recommendation in case it hasn't come over to you yet from the planning board which agrees with our location and our efforts at mitigation at site plan. So I've included that in the package. I have an original set of photographs and I have a good photocopy. We submitted as you know from your own records, we've submitted this plan to the Planning Board. We also had a hearing before the Trustees actually yesterday evening and they approved the plan so you will be getting a written permit as soon as I get it so they had a chance to review certainly the environmental issues related to the racks that were proposed. When the racks were being originally considered and where to place them, New Suffolk Shipyard tried to place them in the least offensive location. The alternative locations would have been blocking the waterfront. The one rack which is obviously stuck into the building. I don't believe anybody has a problem with that. The rack height is 26' and it's the most safe height which allows the existing equipment which they now presently have to maneuver a place for the boats in the racks. Going any higher than that I asked Mike from New Suffolk Shipyard and he said now you get into the training aspect of the equipment and then the safety aspect of having the boats up on the racks. So the rack height is a comfortable safe rack height at least for New Suffolk Shipyard for to maintain the boats in a safe manner. I have to point out that NS Shipyard has many safety features to maintain the boats in a safe manner. I have to point out that NS Shipyard has many safety features as well as environmental features that they have implemented. They have a pump out station. They have the wash down station so when the boats come off the rack, they can be washed down and it's all with proper drainage so the marina because it's a commercial marina, it implements all of the safety measures, all the DEC recommendations. They are regulated on all sources. The dryrack system is the what is being proposed in the industry. It is what marinas are going to be faced with because of the difficulty in getting additional boat slips. It is an environmental permitting nightmare to try to get permits for additional dockage. So what you're going to be seeing is this rack system. You've seen them from other marinas and I know they've come before this board. What you're seeing are the enclosures, the most obvious one is the Port of Egypt right by Albertsons, it's very tall and it's very large. This rack system only goes to about 26' in height. It's open rack system and adjustable. It can be taken down and put up if need be. In this case it's going to be stationary, but it is the industry standard right now. What I also want to point out is NS Shipyard benefits the rack system in order to provide for additional boat storage it will generate income to the marina. Not having it obviously is going to put financial pressure on the marina and they have to grow and they have to serve their customers. The benefit to the community is they presently employ 8 local families with good salaries, Page 59 of 96 Page 60 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing benefits, the marina has 24 hour supervision. Unlike and I know the neighbor has at least in the press objected to this proposal they also have a marina next door and 1 think you can see from the photographs I've submitted the dock I took photographs photograph #2 is the last dock that is in the NS Shipyard. From that point forward, Mr. Withers has a marina and those docks are his. So you can see there are numerous docks that are adjacent property owner has. The house he maintains a residence in is in photograph 3 &4 shows their - that house is setback quite far from the NS property line. 200-250' and it faces his own docks. So he has actually the benefit of having a marina there but without any constraints that we face as far as a professional marina and that's why I was raising the issue of a pump out station and all of the environmental safety features that NS Shipyard has to maintain our neighbor who I presume is going to object has all the benefits, but none of the constraints. Some of the other benefits that NS Shipyard provides to the community is that there is right now a maintenance dredging permit that goes until 2007 and in the past NS Shipyard has paid for the dredging of that canal. Mr. Withers has benefited because his boats that occupy his marina are quite substantial. They are 20-30' boats. Meanwhile NS Shipyard has maintained and dredged and they've been recently requested in inquiring whether or not they'll maintain the dredging permit. They also voluntarily place the channel markers and replace the channel markers into that waterway, the canal. Each channel marker is about$450 so they have benefited the community with they're essentially doing things to benefit their shipyard, but also for the benefit of everyone who uses the canal which again Mr. Withers is a prime recipient. There are about 204 boats that as a physical count that use the canal that NS Shipyard is one of their boats. They have 68 slips and the boats that are using that canal are 204 so you can see that proportionately NS Shipyard is not the major user of that canal. All of these facts, keep in mind NS Shipyard has to do all of these things for the community and to maintain a healthy viable shipyard you have to be able to provide for the industry and to provide for the customers so these racks are just one leads to the other. You start denying these racks on the shipyards, this and any other you start impacting the industry, you start impacting the industry, you start impacting the financial viability of enterprise. And there are other ramifications. There are other effects on the community so when you're balancing, weighing the test on whether or not to grant this variance, keep in mind all of the beneficial aspects of what this shipyard does. With the specifics of the racks, we've already provided to you in written form that they're about the size of the boats that go on these racks are generally 15-20' on average, they don't exceed 25' for purposes of size that you can get an idea of what kind of size boats that are there. If I could refer to you again to some of the photographs. If you look at photo 7 that shows you what is presently on the shipyard. The area where the racks are proposed along the property line, that area is usable space. That's where they actually store some of the larger boats so it is actively used. It is actively it is not an open space that a neighbor would be accustom to open space. That area from end to end the shipyard is constantly in some form of use and being stored. The racks will provide an organized, neat, format for the storage of the boats. To an extent in the summertime at the high season you're going to have boats that are out of the slip, the people that have the slips go out for the weekend, they have empty slips in the water. You are going to have some activity so the racks in the summertime may not be full. There may be some boats there some that are not. It's going to be a transient type of use there. I don't use that term in the transient using the wrong term, but the boats that are placed there on the racks are not, some are going to be there, some are not and there's going to be activity so you're going to one of the concerns I'm sure the neighbors are going to raise, you're going to see a wall of boats. Page 60 of 96 Page 61 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing That's not true. There's going to be activity that boats are going to come off, they are going to go in the water, there's going to be some boats that don't go up, they arc in and out all weekend. You may have the boat down at the slip while the rack is left vacant. I'd also like to point out that there is - we are zoned MII, MI and MIL The taxed of what the NS Shipyard that they pay are double what the neighbor pays with respect to even though he has dockage when you look at what a professionally run marina is obligated to pay, it's double. So keeping that in mind as well that there is not an equal benefit between the 2. With respect to the construction if you have specific questions about the construction, I could have Mike come up and discuss that for you. Why don't you put it on the record instead of having my reading it. CHAIRWOMAN: We need to move the pace up a little bit. MS. MOORE: Do you want to know how they are constructed or do you not care? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know how they are constructed. How do you actually buffer this? MS. MOORE: We have a landscape plan for the lower canopy. There are mature trees and I tried to show that to you in paragraph 8 and photograph 1. There is a small shed there. The rack is going between the 2 sheds on the property. You can see that there are 50 year old trees, 40 year old trees that line the perimeter of this property. CHAIRWOMAN: The rack would start off going between what and what? MS. MOORE: You see the shed there in photo 1 there's a small shed. To the west of that shed if you refer to the site plan, you'll see that the rack system is going between that shed and- you'll see that it makes sense to put them there. You'll see there's a metal shed that is behind the Alexander property and then there is that small shed that's on the water side. The rack system is going between those 2 structures. CHAIRWOMAN: If I'm looking at photo 1, the racks would be directly which parallels with the surveys, it would be directly behind where that shed is. MS. MOORE: We set it 5' off the property line in order to be able to maintain the mature trees and the landscape plans that you saw had the evergreens that will buffer that property. Keeping in mind the property next door has ample room to put landscaping in, has a marina and if you really want to not see anything could put in his own row of evergreens, but because he doesn't have to go through the site plan process or never has gone through the site plan process. He merely got a building permit at the residence to renovate the house. He's not obligated to do all the same things we are obligated to do even though we both have the same use going. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see if there's anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ: I'm representing Mr. Withers, the neighbor and I would like to be heard in opposition to this particular application. I sat here and listened with great interest to the Page 61 of 96 Page 62 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing presentation on behalf of the shipyard and I heard much being made about what a wonderful operation the marina is and I suppose by implication how fortunate we should be that we have them as neighbors and how this board should not do anything to stifle the marina business, but what I didn't hear was any good reason for granting this application. I heard vague generalities concerning the fact that the marine business needed to be encouraged but I didn't hear any hardship, I didn't hear any need. I heard a desire, but I didn't hear any want and I think it almost goes without saying that this board hears almost every day people who want things. But it's not always people who need things. Is there any justification for what they are asking for here today. Is there any justification other than the fact and of course there's no proof of this that perhaps they'll make more money. Although as I've said, there's no evidence of that before you at all. all you hear is that they want to expand their operation by roughly 50%. That's what it looks like by the numbers in terms of boat slips. They want to go from 68 to 36 more. More than a 50% increase. There's no justification for that. We've heard nothing about the traffic impacts whether it be on the creek or whether it be on the local roads in the area. The coming and the going. We are told that it's a good thing these people are transients. I'm not so sure that's not a double edged sword. Maybe in some way the surrounding neighborhood would be better off if the people weren't coming and going all the time creating additional traffic problems. Maybe everyone would be better off if the forklifts weren't groaning up and down moving in and out and sliding these boats in and out of their locations. Maybe we won't see a wall of boats every day, but probably most of the time since these people are going to come and go mostly on weekends. Basically what we have is a wall of boats and we're told the structure is 26' high and how high on top of that with boats - I don't know, we're not told that. But we're told basically that there's going to be a wall of boats and it's going to be 5' off of our line with no justification for it. I'm looking at the site plan. I hope you have the same site plan that I do and it looks like this boat rack storage is tucked right in there 5' off the line between these 2 sheds and right in front of there, there's proposed parking. For the life of me I just can't see how that's going to work. I don't know how you're going to have a line of cars parked right in front of those boat racks. I guess people are going to be moving cars back and forth all the time and all around as boats come in and go out and the forklifts are going to go in there and they are going to get access. I guess it's going to be like one of those parking lots in the city where you leave your keys and people are going to be moving your car around as they need to get in and out. And I guess if there's a problem down there, and emergency services are needed, I suppose they're going to have a fleet of employees who are going to rush out with the keys and they are going to move all those cars out of the way so the emergency vehicles and personnel can come in and deal with the problem that may exist. You're having boats up on racks with flammables contained in there. You don't know if anybody ever been a party to flammables around fiberglass and things, maybe Mr. Goehringer has, maybe some volunteer firemen have. Not a pretty sight. Emergency people have to get in there and I'm looking at this and wondering how that's going to happen. Not to mention that fact that the racks are enclosed on 2 sides by sheds and on the backside by some scrawny trees and a fence so there's no way for emergency personnel to get to 3 sides of this particular location and the 4th is going to be blocked by cars. It doesn't make any sense to me. I think it's stupid. I think it's unsafe and I just don't see how that's going to work. That impacts us as the neighbor to the north and whether we have some slips there which house only a fraction of the boats on a pre-existing basis or otherwise that does not diminish the concerns to our property. I almost heard the plea to the board that the fact that we have a mixed use somehow entitles us to Page 62 of 96 Page 63 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing less protection. I don't see why that should be so. To take up on the point that was made by board member Goehringcr 5' and screening, how are these trees going to be able to grow anywhere at all. They are not going to be able to grow 30' tall. They are not going to he able to grow big and strong and thrive and screen. So now it's our problem to be able to provide the screening? A very novel approach to this problem. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's why I asked that question. 1 was aware of this plan, but that has been the major thrust and the problem with every one of these applications for boat rack storage. How do you screen it? Before we even get into the aspects of the other things you were discussing. MR. BRESSLER: I just don't see it and I would respectfully refer this board to it's prior decision involving this piece of property and I know the board has it in it's file, that would be the application appeal #3148 Ropes Marina and the issue of what use that side of the property was to be put to was an issue and it was on a violation and an application for a reversal of a violation that this matter came on to be heard before this board. A matter with which I have some familiarity. And at that time, the board determined that there should be a 15' buffer area for safety for concerns the board correctly identified at that time to my way of thinking having changed safety, his safety, his safety that's not true the only thing that has changed is the application now before the board raises even greater safety implications and I don't see how in good conscience the plan that has been put before the board meets those safety issues whether they be fire, boats falling off racks, whether it be the next hurricane and we all know that there will be one. There's a whole panoply of those types of issues. It seems to me on balance considering all of these factors, that there's really no reason that's been presented so far as to why this application should be granted. I would note one or two other things in closing first that it's been our experience in dealing with these matters that nominal size of the boat rack is rarely what you get. There's normally height on top. There's normally overhangs in the back. There's normally overhangs in the front. I have some photographs that I'd like to offer up to the board. Photograph number a shows the current state of the property line and the matter in which the marina is maintaining it's property b is a photograph of racks and it shows the overhang c is a photograph that shows New Suffolk after a hurricane d is a photograph which shows the property line and how it looks today and it demonstrates at least as to the 15' setback, that's not being complied with and photograph e is your standard wall of boats. Based on the pay ton deficiencies and the application and the issues that we've raised just now, we urge the board to reject this application. There's no foundation for it and the legitimate concerns of the neighbors in the neighborhoods have not been met by what we consider to be a and adequate site plan. CHAIRWOMAN: I do have a question because there was a prior on this decision on this marina and I am reading through it now and one of the conditions was that there be no storage within 15' of that property line. Are you aware of that, Mrs. Moore? All boats and materials within 15' of the residential area/property line be clear for safety reasons. So in view of that I can do some research on it more, but in view of that you may want to consider amending your request because you would have to revisit that issue in terms of res judicata and also in terms of hearing what's before us today. Page 63 of 96 Page 64 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: Let me place some issues on the record if you don't mind. To begin with, Mr. Bressler well knows that it's not financial hardship that's standard before this board. It's weighing the benefits verses the impact on the neighborhood, or to the neighbor. He doesn't really address the fact that he's got a marina right next door that the house is 200' from this property line. At the time that that condition was imposed. What conditions, what the property looked like at that time since then it's been cleaned up significantly. Both the marina has been cleaned up under the management of the present ownership and the neighbor next door has brand new docks. Now whether or not the use is grandfathered it's appropriately zoned so he may have docks, that's not a complaint nor is it an issue but he has replaced all the docks with new structures that are nearer the dock that we have. CHAIRWOMAN: Can I ask you a question? Mr. Bressler did mention there's existing 68 boat slips'? MS. MOORE: Presently on the property? Whatever the site plan showed. If that number is correct or not, let me look. It's less than 68, that's what I thought. CHAIRWOMAN: And this would create how many more? MS. MOORE: It's a maximum number. Why don't you come up Mike. I think what you have to address is that in a perfect world the rack system is proposed, we may be able to get in 36 boats between both rack systems. However not every boat is the same width so consequently if we're lucky we'll get an additional maybe 30 boats and again that's assuming those racks are full. There should be no additional impact on the creek, there should be no additional impact to the environment. The usage of boats in a rack system environmentally is actually far better environmentally than leaving them in water. CHAIRWOMAN: Are you planning to increase the boat slips and what is the maximum? MICHAEL IRVING: No we don't plan to increase the boat slips. MS. MOORE: We have no plans to increase the slips. This rack system will allow the movement for some of the boats that are presently there and store them on the racks. CHAIRWOMAN: The one question - the racks are 26'high. How high would it be with the boats? MR. IRVING: Depended on how high the boat is on the top rack, generally speaking you don't put the big boats on the top. Generally speaking it's the small boats on the top, so I would guess 6-8'. CHAIRWOMAN: The other question I ask is the boat storage racks are like this and the boats go across, what's the overhang on the boats? Page 64 of 96 Page 65 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. IRVING: It varies on the size of the boat. There's probably 4 or 5' overhang over the racks on the larger boats. Sonic boats are probably going to be smaller than the rack there. CHAIRWOMAN: I have to say I don't know how you could possibly put the boat storage racks 5' from the property line if you've got a 5' overhang and then in that 5' space have buffering. It doesn't work. MR. IRVING: It's simple. The trees that pre-exist are going to cover the upper levels. The lower levers the tree you aren't going to park in front of a boat nose. I mean that's logical you're going to offset it to the side of the rack and the intent is to obscure the rack. The boats exist there now so there should be no objection to seeing boats. It's a boat yard. CHAIRWOMAN: I recognize that but- MR. IRVING: The buildings that exist there now are less than 5' from the property line. The reason that we place the racks there are to be less intrusive to the rest of the marina. CHAIRWOMAN: I think, Mrs. Moore, you may want to review some of the exhibits that Mr. Bressler has given. If you would trade information, and the other question is pretty obvious, the question of how to - because it looks like that's backed in and even if you look at the survey here on the scale is 1" equals 40'. MS. MOORE: I have a larger scale if that would be helpful. CHAIRWOMAN: It's not going to make any difference. I don't see how you can possibly get anything between the metal building and what is shown as parking space 21. MS. MOORE: Keep in mind that this is a gravel parking area. The number of parking spaces that can be maxed out here have been shown for purposes of the site plan. The fact is that this is a marina that actually is a community marina. People walk there. They may park there, they may not park there. There is always ample room for parking and the Planning Board recognized that in their recommendation for the board. They reviewed the site plan and they realized that while the code says you need x number of parking spaces, the practical effect of this marina is that it's a community marina and that some people come in by boat, some walk over, the parking is a technical requirement but in practical effect it's never going to be used. MR. IRVING: Mr. Bressler indicated that there was a problem with parking and moving the cars. If you actually reviewed the dockage and rack storage contract, anybody who leaves a car in the marina is required to leave a set of keys in the office and that is for security reasons and if we ever had a problem we need to have access to vehicles and the ability to move them. MS. MOORE: Mr. Bressler also made an issue of the fire safety. Why don't you put on the record what you do to prevent any kind of- Page 65 of 96 Page 66 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. IRVING: Rack systems, I guess you have a fireman on your hoard, obviously the stacking of the boats is not conducive to a tire, however, there are a lot of precautions that are taken that alleviate this problem. One of which we install and require off and on switches which is a switch that cuts out the electrical system in a boat. We also require the boats are stored in racks with full fuel tanks. It's been my experience before and I have been involved in marina tire that boats with full fuel tanks do not burn. The outside may burn the engines may burn, but you'll find that the bottom of the boat and the fuel tank remain. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? MS. MOORE: I'd also like to point out as the board knows that you have the right to amend any condition that you have imposed on a prior application. So as far as those conditions go, given the application before you, you have within your power the right to amend that condition if the circumstances today do not warrant them. So keep that in mind as well. MIKE WITHERS: My name is Mike Withers. I own the property directly north of New Suffolk Shipyard. I've owned it since 1974. A number of things that were said. I think may need correcting a bit. First of all the last time the creek was dredged I did contribute money to that dredging. That was done in order to dredge it to a greater depth to the bulkhead which is at the entrance to the creek which is now shallow again and does not allow more than 1 boat to pass at a time. Also I see down the creek from my house every day and very few boats are out for the night and very few boats the size that are being proposed here go out for weekends, they are really day boats so I disagree that the racks would be partially empty at any given time. I think there would be a lot of traffic pulling boats in and out of there. Obviously there are issues with the screening of these racks. In my opinion the racks are proposed too close because of the overhang of the boats, but it would feel for me that I would have for insurance reasons need to remove the trees that currently exist there in order to protect myself from those trees falling on the boat racks and damaging the boats or ruining the racks in case of a hurricane or storm so I would incur a great expense having to remove those trees to protect myself from liability. My biggest fear here is safety. I have adequate parking for the people in my marina. I should say that very often there are 2-3 cars per boat - people invite quests out on their boat so it isn't an issue of 1 car per boat. I've witnessed this over the years. When people are washing down their boats on my docks, very often the families, the kids will sit by that fence in the shade of those trees. I find that kind of frightening the fact that they would be loading boats on the racks. That area is also used for people to pull their sails. The idea that we would have the sound of these forklifts from early in the morning until late in the evening of these boats being constantly moved back and forth seems very damaging to the community. The fact is that the area where the boats will be removed is probably the furthest distance from the racks against my property increasing this noise considerably rather than if the racks were close by the travel lift. I think most of the other things have been touched upon by Mr. Bressler. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Page 66 of 96 Page 67 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing LAUREN GRANT: My name is Lauren Grant, I'm president of the New Suffolk Civic Association. In that office I have received many phone calls from people living in New Suffolk expressing concern about the boat racks. They are also torn because they want the shipyard to succeed and we would like to be able to work with the shipyard in making this happen however having toured the site yesterday and seeing the amount of parking I have trouble with that. Parking is difficult in New Suffolk anyway on a good day. If you come down and see the boats going off of the ramp we have day trailers all over the place barely providing us with accessibility to the town beach. So my concerns are parking. The concerns of the residents of New Suffolk are parking. I was told that not that many would come on a given day to use the boats and I believe that's quite true however nobody can ever really know for sure. I have concerns on safety as to the residents of New Suffolk on stories I've read about on boats and fires on these racks I was told that equipment can be installed to prevent this from happening but there still are instances where it does happen. I have a magazine with me called US Boats which goes into quite detail on fires on boat racks. Our last concern is noise pollution and that is the noise of these forklifts taking the boats on and off to the people in the area that's just total disruption. However they live near a shipyard they have to expect the noise. But this would just enhance the noise that already takes place there. So we have parking, we have safety and now we have the aesthetics of the whole thing. I'm not convinced that trees going in there will help as a barrier at all. I was also told there was a 2"11 section where a boat rack could have gone in a shipyard and that was chosen or the owner decided not to use that area. That seems to me as though that might be a solution here to take that 2"d area for the 2"d boat rack and utilize have maybe not quite as big a boat rack and put it there. Also to not use the top tier of the boat rack might help as far as looking at this thing from another angle, but putting a rack between the two sheds is a safety issue and not a good one. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Moore, is there an alternative plan to putting the boat storage racks to the north side of the property and then we're going to have to wrap this up. MS. MOORE: Let me, we had considered an alternative location, but he felt it was much more intrusive visually to the neighborhood and I can show you where it was proposed. MR. IRVING: There's an alternative place for the racks which would be along the bulkhead and faces basically to the southwest. The reason I didn't choose that and believe me it is a lot more aggravation to have go before the board for this is that on the opposite side of the creek there's numerous houses there also the entrance to the creek is right in front and visually you would constantly be looking at a set of racks instead of an open area. This entire area is all open in the summer. The reason that these racks were chosen in here is it's basically blocked in view by the the entrances you do not see them. The roadways you do not see them. The only objective person and I can understand his concerns is Mr. Withers to the north and obviously I feel better to have one person mad at me than instead of a whole team. MS. MOORE: For the record I did ask if there's room to move it forward, but he problem is that the turning radius for the equipment is hampered that way so this is an optimum location for the turning of the equipment. Page 67 of 96 Page 68 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER OLIVA: Just 5' doesn't leave you any room for emergency equipment to get back there. CHAIRWOMAN: If you stake this out -this here to scale with this, I don't think you could get a fork lift in there and maneuver in there. MR. IRVING: There's no designated parking in a marina and you can't have designated parking because you've got to move the equipment around. CHAIRWOMAN: Why not take this and move it 15' off the property line? MR. IRVING: Because you cannot swing a forklift with a boat to get an adequate tack into the racks. MS. MOORE: Even without the parking. CHAIRWOMAN: Wait - if this was eliminated- MS. MOORE: If you have somebody that's using one of the boats on a rack and a car is parked there temporarily that works as a parking space but there's no sanctions. Everything is bluestone. MEMBER ORLANDO: This rack will be typically empty Spring, Summer, Fall - so it's just a winter storage rack? MS. MOORE: It's in lieu of a slip in the summer. This is becoming the standard in lieu of more docks. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's a land slip constantly being used in/out. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If I may make a suggestion, you should reinvestigate that area upon the schoolhouse creek side even to the point where if you had to park a car on the first tier underneath and you significantly screen it from the water. MEMBER ORLANDO: You have a 25' boat and you have 4' behind you- MR. IRVING: This is the only alternative for the 74-100 people we have on a waiting list for slip space. CHAIRWOMAN: Come back with something that is going to be off that property line by more than 5' because there's no way in heck you're going to tell us you can keep the trees alive in 5' or landscape- MS. MOORE: Keep in mind that we have to have people safely operating these forklifts. MR. WITHERS: The way that the property line is maintained by the shipyard is Page 68 of 96 Page 69 March 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just for the record I'm the only person here and somebody else can stand up that can tell you point blank that I rented from the predecessors of this gentlemen, I rented from Mr. Withers and I still occupy a slip in the creek right across from Mr. Bressler so quite honestly there isn't anybody except for Mr. Bressler and myself and Mr. Withers and Mr. Irving that know this area better and I have to tell you everybody is wonderful, everything is fine, but when you start talking about the increases of the activity in this creek you have to talk about concrete specific situations on how you're going to rectify CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to adjourn this until May l" at 7pm. You're going to come back to us with a plan to get that off the property line. FRAN PESCI: My name is Fran Peschi and I am a New Suffolk how do you call it I live there. I started summering there 57 years ago. 10 years ago we moved out permanently and I love New Suffolk and it seems to me everybody who comes, the quality which attracts them is the quality they move in and destroy. The only reason for me to speak to you is this. I would invite you the board to come to the shipyard and take an up close and personal look and make your decision. I cannot imagine how looking at pictures can help you sitting on chairs with due respect. You've been there then you know the story. We have one road in and one road out. I would like to say to you that I live 3 blocks up the hill from the shipyard and every morning at 8am I am disturbed by the noises that are happening. The summer is a zoo. The people who work there are probably gentlemen and lovely but this type of operation was never designed for this tiny little hamlet and we are a hamlet. I feel that if they don't have enough room for the new boats they want to put up on the racks they should go someplace else and build another boat yard. I would like to see New Suffolk Shipyard and what it used to be and of course that will never happen but in the meantime I think you ladies and gentlemen have to remember that we residents do have a right to a decent kind of existence there and between Legends and the boat yard, that existence is slowly dissolving and I thank you for listening. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion to adjourn this to adjourn this May 1st 7pm. Page 69 of 96 Page 18 May 1, 2003 1 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting ublic Hearing a c ao 6 2 Asim0r 8:00 p.m. New Suffolk Shipyard #5149— (continued from 3/20/03) Applicant requests a Variance under Section 100-121C1, based on the Building Department's March 27, 2002, Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes two sets of accessory boat rack structures in this M-11 Zone District, in a side yard and at a height over the code's 18ft. limitation, at 5775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk; 1000-117-5-29.1 CHAIRWOMAN: The NOD is for height in excess of 18' and less than 25' from any lot line. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: We'd be okay on that side if they measure from the lot line because we have 20' from the schoolhouse creek the only issue is whether or not they'd consider the bulkhead a setback that we'd have to come to this board for. We own up to where the property line tie line is. CHAIRWOMAN: The tie line is that jagged line there. That would be okay the 2 outstanding issues would be whether the bulkhead is going to fall under that. Maybe can finish this up today with respect that those applications will go back we'll trust the board will have a memory of our alternative plan for the 3` tier since we have DEC and we have Trustees we can go to the PB talk to them conceptually about this location while we have to back to the DEC and ask their permission to put this alternative rack here and also deal with the issue with BD so we think it might go faster and simpler if we just come back to you with whatever variance because if the DEC says we don't like it here and we want it someplace else maybe it's not here so we'll go with we withdraw our application for the variance for rack a for the height variance so the only issue you have to deal with is the setback to the property line and address whether or not that condition is even applicable in either location. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Rack a will only be 2 tiers high in either location. MS. MOORE: Either location will be either the property line for sure and not to exceed the 18' is our accessory structure height so we wouldn't be back here on that. CHAIRWOMAN: A you're going to withdraw the height variance request- MS. MOORE: The original rack that runs along the north property line adjacent to Withers. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Notwithstanding what you've just said you are going to go to the BD and ask if the alternate rack a at the schoolhouse creek portion where you own to the tie line which is underwater land is within the 75' restriction and therefore are they going to cite you for that? MS. MOORE: I think the question I'm going to ask the BD is whether the bulkhead that is landward of that tie line whether it's considered the bulkhead that provision of the code the 75' setback from a bulkhead whether it applies in this instance and so if they say yes I will be before this board requesting a variance for a setback presumably if the DEC says I think strategically I have to make sure the DEC is going to allow us to put it here. If they say yes or if they move us Page 18 of 37 Page 19 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing around we'll come back if we need to come back whatever the final location of the 3id tier where it's being relocated because we are really talking about those boats we've lost by reducing the height along the north property line. MEMBER ORLANDO: How many boats are you going to lose by 1 tier? 5 or 6 boats. MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that worth it to go through all the gyration to wouldn't it be more logical to go with original a 14' and then bat 26' and then eliminate 2"d day. We'd like to get approval on the 2 tiers and then 3 tiers by the building. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason I ask that question is I don't want to come back to you at another hearing without the issue of setbacks on the schoolhouse creek side within their opinion. MS. MOORE: What I'm trying to avoid is a continuation of this hearing because it's not so much you guys because it more site plan issues location setback to the bulkhead is mostly applicable in residential structures and setbacks for warehouses and sanitary systems and that are going to go. When you are talking about a marina which is all surrounded by water and bulkheading presumably you're going to have accessory structures closer because that's the nature of a marina so it may or may not be applicable to get that answer from the BD that could take some time but more importantly the DEC has looked at the rack a location the original rack a they like that location it is not doesn't effect there's no drainage issues nothing because there's a structure on both sides of it and as far as the DEC is concerned it's really not an environmental it doesn't effect the environment here we try to relocate it in another location they might have other issues they'll be looking at drainage and those type of things. The relocation may or may not be worth his time money wise to go through the process and the DEC may say you know we don't like it here we recommend you put it on the other side or they say how about relocating it more here in the center than where you proposed it and that measurement is going to change so they're really going to be the lead I think because of environmental issues they are the stop and go of where this would go and then after that the BD will determine whether or not we have to come back to you or not for setbacks. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How high is the building under the eaves on the side you are putting the rack? You don't have to answer me now,just before the end of the meeting. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ: I've listened with great interest to the presentation this evening as I'm sure you did. It seems to have taken on a chameleon like nature tonight it looks like we are dealing with something more than just slightly different here. The notion that rack a can somehow be bifurcated creating a substantially different plan with respect to this marina is a very Page 19 of 37 Page 20 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing interesting one. One would think in the first instance that if there were concern about the neighbors and the neighborhood that a suggestion such as moving rack a would naturally come to mind and indeed when we look at the proposed plan we see an alternative site for rack a down by the bulkhead that looks just like rack a up by Withers all the way down to the 26' height it looks the same so the first question that comes to mind is if we are embarking on a project that involves removing a tier of rack a why don't we do what the plans suggests and look into moving rack a if we are going to require or seek the approval of the dept. of environmental conservation and the Trustees for the placement of what must have been described somewhat tongue and cheek as a temporary structure I think these things are far from temporary if you are going to look into putting the structure there then why don't we look into putting the structure there in it's entirety that relieves the necessity for any sort of a variance with respect to side yard up by Mr. Withers that's now gone. What else is gone is the noise the forklift activity and all of the attendant dangers that go along with it over by that line. They are now moved to an area where they are minimized. Now why do I say that well for 2 reasons first of all it's away from any of the neighbors so in terms of noise and other aspects the effect is greatly attenuated and secondly in looking at this plan it appears as though the ramp to put these boats in is very close to the alternative location for ramp a this to me seems like a logical place to want to keep your boats nice and close a lot less forklift and it looks like a good place to be and indeed if there's going to be an inquiry made, let's make the appropriate inquiry. The other thing that strikes me about this particular aspect of the application is it somewhat cart and horse. You were told the DEC is somewhat driving this application and the DEC had no problem with that. Well if we are going to go back to the DEC then go back to the DEC and ask them about this. If they are going to do the driving and they find that to be satisfactory you don't need variance relief and of course one of the criteria is there some other way to accomplish this well there may be. I think put another way then to come before this board well that's what DEC has approved doesn't answer the question. That might be one thing the DEC approved it may not be the only thing they approve and we've all been around long enough to know that sometimes you go to somebody first and you get an answer and it's not really the right answer and sometimes you have to go back after coming to the second or third board and circle the wagons again so it seems to me that almost all of the objections that we have are going to be diminished or muted by an application that moves this to another location. Another benefit from that is that now all the boats are in one place instead of having them in 3 separate locations about the property so it seems to me in looking at this thing as a whole that there's no reason why this alternative site should not be considered as it shows right here on the plan as a true alternative site. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Bressler Ijust wanted to one thing I just think it's going to end up one way or another if it's move because you asked about the NOD you're talking about accessory structures from 131 such buildings shall not exceed 18' in height in lots containing in excess of 79,999' such buildings shall be setback no less than 20' from any lot line so it's not just the rear yard it's a question of being the side yard it's the lot line. MR. BRESSLER: And what I'm saying is by making the suggestion not only do you have a 20' issue here you will have another 20'issue down there and you may get rid of your 18' issue or you may not I don't think the board and certainly I don't have a clear understanding of what the total height of 2 tiers with 2 boats on top is going to be but what I'm saying is you don't get a net Page 20 of 37 Page 21 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing gain in terms of required variances when you consider what you just mentioned and the height requirement. CHAIRWOMAN: The only thing you may get is if they back the plans for where the particular set of storage racks now if they put all of those down on Schoolhouse Creek that would definitely by 3 tiers so you would be in for a height variance. MR. BRESSLER: So if you split it now you have one height on rack B and two 20' variances if on the other hand you don't split it and you move it, you're back to the same height and 20' so what I'm saying is there isn't really a net gain maybe you change the character of the application that's before you and in addition now you spread out the boats and you leave some all the way across the property away from the entrance ramp and all those things all I'm suggesting is that we don't have enough gain. CHAIRWOMAN: The only thing I'm concerned about it is I was looking through the file trying to remember yes this would be less of an impact to the neighbors but if you place a 3 tier storage rack right on Schoolhouse Creek as you're entering Schoolhouse Creek I think if we had that plan reviewed by the Planning Board I think they would be dead against it. MR. BRESSLER: When you say entering Schoolhouse Creek this is actually at the deadend of the creek. You really don't see that as a practical matter until you come around and what you'd see would be these racks which apparently with respect to certain of the buildings are not going to be any larger and the metal storage building we are told is 35' high and there's another boat storage building down there. I'm not saying that other boards may not have input what I'm suggesting by making all these comments is I don't think we've had a full and thorough examination between all of the different jurisdictions to consider all of the different alternatives and there are alternatives here which in many ways may be superior and I think I may be guilty of this sometimes representing applicants you get set going down one road and you make your application and you keep going and at some later stage you find out that there are other avenues that need to be explored and I think that's the general thrust of my comments in that regard. CHAIRWOMAN: What I'm concerned about at this juncture and sometimes this happens when you get into alternative plans. The neighbors that are here are concerned because of the noise and the visual impact where it's located on the north side of the property. This is the plan they have reviewed and looked at and anyone who's been interested in this plan has seen. What I'm concerned about is if we start to focus on a new location on Schoolhouse Creek that perhaps people who had come in before and said I don't have a problem with it now have not had an opportunity to see this. The reason I say that is that happened to us recently very recently and I found it disturbing so I'm not sure everybody may say that's wonderful let's put it on Schoolhouse Creek that's everybody in this room. MR. BRESSLER: I don't disagree with you and I think contrary to the suggestions that have been made I don't think this is the end of it tonight for that very reason I don't think that people should be deprived of the opportunity that you just eluded to I think this an important issue I think based on the numbers the capacity of the marina is being expanded by 50% I take note of Page 21 of 37 Page 22 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing the fact that agencies have considered this to be environmentally superior to other alternatives I note in the same breath however that it's slipped up so you're really not comparing a boat rack system to a docking system unless of course the applicant is suggesting there will be a removal of those structures from the creek in preference to these boat rack structures but of course that isn't the proposal of the applicant it's quite simply to expand the marina by 50% and that's what it is and regardless of who the neighbors are or what they do or however much fingerpointing there may be in that regard nothing changes the underlying fact that this is a simple application to increase the capacity of the marina by more than 50% that's what it is and I think like I said before I think given the location of the ramp and all of the other things it bears a slightly more thorough examination the last thing I think I'd like to say is having some involvement with the previous matter involving this property I respectfully disagree with the characterization and I think those members of the board who were part of the board at the time can withhold their recollections to see whether the ruling in that case was so limited in it's scope regardless of how it arose it seems to me that the ruling is what it is and that the reason for it was sound at the time notwithstanding the fact we were on the other side but it was sound at the time and it's sound today and nothing changes the fact that we are still dealing with 20' today so my suggestion is that if there's going to be an effort by the applicant to reasonably meet what we consider to be legitimate concerns that there be a full court press in that regard and you look at all the alternatives and then come back and give everybody a full and fair opportunity I think then the board can make a fully informed decision. And I know other people would like to speak who are not here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Irving could you come up and look at the survey? Could you describe the metal storage building? And tell me where the doors are on the building. The question I have is how come and this is not sarcastic, you really didn't attempt to put racks in front of 79, 78, 76, and so on? MR. IRVING: Because this area is narrower than what it looks like and you can understand you are going to make a swing with the machine this here is a service shop so often on the cement the boats are being worked on so this would be a dangerous area to put racks on. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So this portion we refer to as the lazy L in a swimming pool, what is this part of the building? MR. IRVING: There is a very small garage here, there's just general storage this is a boiler room and you'll see there's a wall that comes here over in this corner is a RPZ valve for the water system and over in here is also the access to the water. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there's no way of running that rack system through the building in any way. MR. IRVING: No I don't think it would be feasible. I will say originally from the old drawings and permits I've seen there is original wood structure which they had a permit that was approved for- Page 22 of 37 Page 23 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Even if you got 2&3 to raise it above? MR. IRVING: It would be too high. This drops down considerably from the main building. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know what I'm saying, you couldn't put rack 2&3 above this? MR. IRVING: It would be constantly smashing the building and pulling boats in. This is an alternative area here but I will take you that I work often with the DEC on a board I sit on and from an environmental standpoint this is not as attractive as this. MS. MOORE: Keep in mind that the DEC may not have such an objection to one rack as they would to a 3 rack system the environmental effects are the boats and that's their concern. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only concern about the Schoolhouse Creek side is the obvious look, visual impairment. MS. MOORE: The reason we suggested there's going to be need for variances because of the way the code is written and you are at a marina that takes from end to end some form of storage- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bressler just asked the question how high I think you really have to go down to Strongs Marina and look at them because they are there and that will give you an example of how high they are because it has to be a maximum of height to accommodate a specific kind of boat. CHAIRWOMAN: It depends how deep the drop is outside the boats are. I figured they could go up about 34-36'. That's what I figured. MR. IRVING: That's what preceded to take off the top rack Im not trying to start a war with the neighbors, but that's one of the requirements MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was why I wanted to know how high the side of the building was that the racks are definitely going to go under the side of the building on rack B. MR. IRVING: Yes they will. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But you have to go down to Strong's it's a prime example of it and I think you will see there is substantial strengthening in these things because there's a phenomenal amount of weight. There's also a wind factor so both of the ones both at Port of Egypt which are enclosed but there are some outside ones and Strong's are prime examples of what we have. MS. MOORE: From a visual, it's much better. CHAIRWOMAN: There's no question about it. The minute you get into a 3 tier go to Strongs go anywhere you want you have a potential for a Page 23 of 37 Page 24 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: And we are sensitive to that and that's why we and no offense- CHAIRWOMAN: I understand the DEC is not going to look or may not look favorably on the Schoolhouse Creek location but quite frankly I think a 3 tiered rack on the creek 36' high would he a visual blight. MS. MOORE: It's not appropriate and Eric is correct, putting them on both ends is a difficult it will create more work for them and to the extent that Michael has agreed to split the job up this way I give him credit because he's trying to address the concerns and the primary concern is as to the 2 types of variances the side yard variance verses a height variance we all can agree that a height variance is certainly more intrusive than a setback variance particularly when you own a marina where again you have storage and dockage you have activity from end to end. CHAIRWOMAN: Let me ask what to me seems like an obvious question but I'm sure there's a really good answer I'm missing. Why can't you put the boat storage rack where you have the parking and put the parking where you have the boat storage? MICHAEL IRVING: Where, on the north property line. Because the easiest way to think of it is if you have a tractor in front of you and you have to come in here and maneuver and make the swing you wouldn't be able to do it unless you keep this as close to that property line unfortunately as possible that leaves you enough room here to cone in with your vehicle and safely swing and set the boat in. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the width of the section? MR. IRVING: The way to visualize it you can raise and lower the bar heights so if you have a higher boat in the bottom you can raise the bar and put a smaller boat on top CHAIRWOMAN: And the 76 width is an add on? MR. IRVING: There's separate sections here and I'll look back in the notes there are 2 28' sections and a 25' section. CHAIRWOMAN: The width of this is two 28' sections, the depth is 14. MR. IRVING: The 28' sections will allow you if you have the appropriate width boats to put 3 boats in that section and the 20' could allow a maximum of 2. That doesn't mean that you would have these full because you may have a wider boat in the 28' section and you might have- CHAIRWOMAN: I guess there's no way to stack them back to back because of the overhang. MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Irving you're putting in boats about 22' long what's an average beam of 22'? MR. IRVING: Page 24 of 37 Page 25 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: For a stall you could put 3 boats on there comfortably. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you the real question. These boats you are racking may or may not have trailers so you will probably get a winter storage out of those so therefore there will be no relief in reference to the ground storage with the rack system. MR. IRVING: If you put in a permanent system you'd have to utilize the square footage or you'd be losing money. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I thank you for that. That's a fair answer and I appreciate that. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? FRED ENDEMAN: I'm a part owner of the property across from Mike Withers on Schoolhouse Creek I've been sort of hanging around the shipyard all my life almost 53 years so I know it very well I know Mike, I do business there I know it's tough to make business in a small boat yard up to now they've done wonderful improvements the gravel parking the new storage shed really top notch good looking yard and they've kept the old buildings up nicely too. Visually these boat storage racks are I think just atrocious as you know from Port of Egypt the boats are this size and the racks with the overhangs are quite a bit bigger. In terms of parking I think there will be a crowding problem I think boats will be getting launched early in the morning and coming in later at night and it will be the worst time of day for the extra noise and traffic. There's a limited space in the yard and the rack B is the one that really makes sense it's right up against the building and there's a notch in it but anywhere else in the yard would be a visual problem I think. Along the creek there's a very nice view from the road and they'd be very evident. Even though it's the end of a creek it's a nice little venue to look down into the east and this would block the view from almost everywhere. I know you have to make money in a shipyard, I think there's better ways to get bigger boats in or to make it more of a full service yard I just hate to see the move to the boat rack system. I don't have a home nearby but the property I own we loan to the Civic Assoc. for picnics and there's even been a wedding there and it's an awful nice view and I hate to see it destroyed by the boat rack system and I wasn't able to make the first meeting when I found out it was too late so I sent a letter to the Town Board I don't know if you got it. It was written by myself and the other owners of the property. But if you can dig it up it will basically it's a visual and crowding problem. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? CORIN DOUBLEDAY: Hi I'm Corin Doubleday and my husband Jake Doubleday and I just want to point out even though Mike Withers property adjoins the shipyard our house is actually the closest house to the shipyard and we've on the north side where the A rack will be. About 75' from that property and I also agree with Mr. Endemen I don't like the racks in general. This one definitely is going to effect us the most but 3 tiers high, it's just enormous and I also have Page 25 of 37 Page 26 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing concerns about putting 36 boats in that creek which is full you can't get a slip anywhere in the creek, it's always been full and adding that amount of boats and people and cars I just can't see how you can do it without impacting the whole neighborhood and of course especially us we live right next door. MR. IRVING: Constantly everybody refers to the Port of Egypt racks. These racks are nothing in comparison to these racks and the board can certainly go down and take a look at them. They are a 4 tier enclosed system, they are a monstrous rack system. The intent here is to provide to the community reasonable dockage in that 13-19' size range. We have an active waiting list for 60-70 people looking for dockage not all of those are in that size range, but there's a good 20-30 people a lot of them are local people that would fit into that rack system. CHAIRWOMAN: Rack A what is the height of the 2"d tier? MR. IRVING: It would be 13.4 you'd have 2' at the bottom before your 1" wrung your barb for your first set of boats and then the top bar would be at 13.2 there would be 11.4 inbetween. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the boat on the 2"d rack would be at 13.4 to the keel of the boat. CHAIRWOMAN: Can we have a copy of this for our records? MS. MOORE: You have it, it's been submitted a couple of times. Does that answer your question? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, I just wish you could cut into the other area. CHAIRWOMAN: I personally would hope that you could stick to 2 tiers. I recognize all the environmental reasons why you are trying to keep boats out of the water, I've read it, I've seen it I've seen all the pros and cons but unless they are tucked away they're visually very outstanding and they do have an impact. MS. MOORE: I think we agree if we do stick to rack B that is the logical place for the 3 tier because it's already touching the building and so far everybody's been in agreement with that location. I'm not sure are we in agreement? CHAIRWOMAN: If you are saying you are going to limit to 2- MS. MOORE: But you're not including rack B in that because that one has to be 3. We can't reduce down that much. CHAIRWOMAN: As Mr. Bressler said there's a lot of ifs we have to go down roads for. One of them is- MS. MOORE: We've already agreed that rack A we've withdrawn our request for the 3`d tier but I want you to remember in good faith, we've reduced it to try to locate it to take the same number Page 26 of 37 Page 27 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing of boats assuming it's financially feasible for them but to find an alternative location so when we're back to you possibly on setback variances that you recognize that's in an effort to address the neighbors concerns. CHAIRWOMAN: What would be the number of boats that you would place on the 2 tier rack, rack A? MS. MOORE: Keep in mind it depends on the size of the boats because you could take 3 small boats or 2 big ones. CHAIRWOMAN: But I though you had initially talked about one tier holding 5 or 6 boats. MS. MOORE: My concern is if you write it into the decision you lose a lot of flexibility. We can give you a max number but you may have a demand for it by his customers for 20' size boats or you may have a demand for the 13' size boats so the number there that area is going to have the boats and the demand that the supply demand is going to dictate how it's going to be filled so I'm concerned. MR. IRVING: I see what you are getting at you just want to see what the volume of boats is in there. We've gone around so many times I'm not sure if there's 2 28' sections or 3 28' sections, but basically you would have maximum 12 there and an additional 4 on the 20' section. MR. BRESSLER: I'd still like to know how high it's going to be when the boats are on top to say we're going down to 2 tiers and we don't need a variance I respectfully disagree. CHAIRWOMAN: Theist tier would start at 13'. MR. BRESSLER: But then you'd have a boat on top of that. CHAIRWOMAN: I know but the BD won't consider that a structure. If that's the result that comes out of this let me just say we're not content with that finding we think if there's going to be storage there over the winter that's not a proper interpretation. That may not be before you now, it may be before you at some other time. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bressler, can we just clear this one thing up - the ladies and gentlemen that you represent, are they opposed to rack B against the building? MR. BRESSLER: No, we're not objecting to rack B. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't we just deal with rack B and let you go back and deal with the DEC? Then we will be able to go back through a period of time and see how this rack system works so we can deal with other aspects of it. MS. MOORE: Because you are asking an enormous expense of the client. We have DEC and we have Trustee and our only once we are done with you we are nearly done with the site plan Page 27 of 37 Page 28 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing process because we have a pre-existing marina and the fact that we are there for site plan is minimal at best because we don't have a parking issue we don't have anything here. We don't have drainage. If these are truly little metal boxes for the storage of the boats they are already stored on the property so we are not changing anything other than the configuration of the storage of the boats. We've already conceded and given up a great deal by moving the structure away addressing the issues that came up last time we gave more of a setback from the Wither's property line we still are going to do the landscaping the vegetation there so that area is going to be on our side, we'll be vegetated I do want to put on the record the issue of the Wither's property that I want to make sure you're aware of it so again going back to that 15' setback they were trying to Mr. Bressler was trying to apply it to the Wither's property and I want you to see I have 2 site plans here coming from the Planning Board office. Wither's had come in they have the house that's all the way to the north they have 5 or 6 docks that are shown here that is certainly not the number of docks that are presently there. What they had to do was in '97 they got site plan approval for the reconfiguration of their parking lot and they changed the access to go closer to NS Shipyard, they reconfigured the parking lot provided parking for the marina and the BD interpreted as far as the building permit went they were able to renovate the house because as a residence it didn't require site plan however when they realigned the parking area they had to come in for site plan approval and the docks they did some construction and renovations to some dock maybe add a dock and they reconfigured the parking so I have some site plans here and you can see that the property line between Wither's and New Suffolk is a parking lot is an access point it's a gravel ingress egress to the parking lot. The commercial parking that goes along with commercial boat slips is adjacent to the NS Shipyard so as far as a residential use which with that condition imposed again it goes along with the reasoning in the '80's for the Miller Roake controversy it did not apply then to Wither's and certainly would not apply to Wither's now because it's the residential use and the residential use is all the way at the north. The commercial use which was site planned and recognized as a commercial use is the area adjacent to NS Shipyard so I do want to put that on the record and I have the PB site plan resolution. CHAIRWOMAN: I do think we have the photos of the driveway. MS. MOORE: Do you want a copy of the records from the PB for your file? CHAIRWOMAN: Is that an extra set? MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: The other thing is could we get a copy on the prior on the decision on the other piece on Alexander. MS. MOORE: The Roake decision is 8-17-83 the transcript is appeal # 3148 and it is 7-28-83 the transcript is from your own file. Paula copied it for me. If you like I can give you this so you can read it I can always get it back from Paula after you've copied it. CHAIRWOMAN: I just want to say one thing with the withdrawal of the plan for the 3rd tier the height variance issue on Raffe is gone so we're down to a height variance on B rack which there Page 28 of 37 Page 29 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing is no objection to and we're down to a setback variance on the north side and those are the only remaining issue at this point. Let's talk about the landscaping plan, has everyone reviewed that? MS. MOORE: The plantings are the same that was presented to the PB. CHAIRWOMAN: [ have a copy here and some questions about it. You're proposing to plant eastern red cedar 10-12' high with a chain link fence. What's the distance they'd be set apart? MR. IRVING: The round circles shaded in are existing trees so the concept behind them was to set those inbetween the tress to alleviate any looking at bows of boats and that kind of thing because your screening is up high the existing trees that are there so you'd have to try to hide the bottom half of the racks. CHAIRWOMAN: And this is the plan the PB approved? MS. MOORE: We haven't yet approved it but they've reviewed it. MEMBER ORLANDO: According to the scale it looks like they are 10' on center approximately. MS. MOORE: Yeah they are going to go inbetween the other trees so it's just approximately. MR. IRVING: The concept is to screen so they won't be- MR. BRESSLER: The plan as proposed is going to create the screen that I think is contemplated by the board I heard there was a concept of a canopy that sounds to me like it might be deciduous tree which provides screening and all except during the times when the leaves are out how big are these cedars going to be when they are planted? MS. MOORE: 10-12' and the structure is 13. MR. BRESSLER: The visual impact of this structure is going to be calculated by the board the last time at least 82 thirds of the height calculation at least 22/23' if you figure 30 something. CHAIRWOMAN: No, if you start at 13 let's go back what's the maximum height? MS. MOORE: They are sitting in cradles. CHAIRWOMAN: This is what I'd like comments from the neighbors on. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My 23' boat in there standing next to it with it on the ground so the boat is 6'high. The bar is straight and the cradle is in but when he's saying 13.4 he's talking to the bar not the cradle so it's above that. Think of a 12' Christmas tree. This is recommended to go under a canopy of locust. Page 29 of 37 Page 30 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MR. BRESSLER: What I'm suggesting is slightly larger trees because you're going to have on the onset 19-20' when you start putting boats there. MR. IRVING: What kind of trees, what height, let's go. MR. BRESSLER: I'm not a landscape expert- MR. IRVING: I'm shocked. MR. BRESSLER: I want trees that are going to screen 19-20'. Basically you're going to have a tier of boats exposed. That's what you're going to have. MR. IRVING: But you already have boats there. MR. BRESSLER: Not where they are now. MR. IRVING: Sure there are. MR. BRESSLER: You have boats 13' in the air? MR. IRVING: I have sailboats with keels easily 13'. MEMBER ORLANDO: Pat maybe when you speak to the landscaper find out the growth rate per year, 1' or 6" per year. So if you put a 14' tree in, in 2 years it will be- MR. IRVING: I think the real gist of the thing is the boats are higher than the racks what are we talking about, would you rather look at trees or some boats? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only difference is the boats leave and then come back again in the fall. MR. IRVING: No they don't because I use the lot area there and I try to open up the marina for the dock people. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's get everything on the record. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're still trying to measure additional traffic not only internally within the marina but as the neighbors have mentioned on the creek itself and that's the situation so I'm still trying to determine that. I have to tell you we have a gentleman here from the east end of LI named Frank Flynn who came before us innumerable amounts of times he would tell you this is an increase in use and he would tell you that you need more of this and more of that and more parking and this and that and he would go on and on. We understand it is an existing marina and we understand there is a maxim that you can deal with an existing marina. I am still trying to understand this impact and I'm a boater. I love boating. I am trying and none of my Page 30 of 37 Page 31 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing statements are meant to be derogatory toward you or your marina because it is a beautiful marina and I just I'm still trying to measure this impact and it's very difficult for me to understand. MS. MOORE: Jerry if it will help you what did the DEC tell you because I think it's an interesting point he made. MR. IRVING: The DEC that was there was very cooperative to us more than I thought and I indicated boats handled by an independent marina then to have them in people's yards and houses and is there going to be an increase in traffic, yes there is, there's going to be more boats up and down the creek. Is that detrimental? No because it provides vitality to the existing marina and that's what that marina needs creating 100 slip spaces give or take a couple as it exists now it doesn't and as is mentioned here in the article of service we are full service. I have 3 mechanics. I have a re-finisher. I have a rigger. I have 3 yard guys and that's what that marina needs but it makes no sense until we have all the numbers together and the dockage is a very important number. Without those extra dockage then you look at the numbers and you look at what you have to put out on the upkeep and cost of the marina and it's not worth it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is not a use variance, but are you making money? MR. IRVING: Yes but you need those to make it reasonable. But without those extra boats in the marina the service for new boat sales without the extra dockage then it doesn't make much sense. As far as the neighbors and everybody who is concerned quite frankly anybody else that comes in knows marina management looks at the facility look at the docks that are available, look at the growth extension that is available there and they'll go CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to interrupt you a lot of times what happens especially when with the PB they will approve your landscaping plan, correct Mrs. Moore? MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: In this case if we approve it, if we approve a variance what we would actually say is it would be subject you won't get a CO until the landscaping plan is in. You won't have a rack. You won't have anything there until the landscaping plan is complete. The reason why is sometimes that gets delayed so it would be contingent. The CO would be contingent on the landscaping plan being submitted. MR. IRVING: The landscaping and setup has to go in first once the racks go in you can't go back there to landscape so I don't mind that but what I would mind is doing the landscaping which I personally might feel is more than adequate and then having the board tell me okay this is what we want 15' redwood trees and Duncan spurs- CHAIRWOMAN: No we would approve a plan and it would say- Page 31 of 37 Page 32 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MR. IRVING: I would submit a plan to you and if you would approve it and I would put it in and you would come down and say okay you did what you said you were going to do I'd have no problem with that at all. CHAIRWOMAN: This proposed plan that I assume the PB has reviewed it? MS. MOORE: Yes, they reviewed it. What they did with it I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN: Do you want to improve on this plan at all? MR. IRVING: The placement of those tress as you see in the plan are not necessarily as an architect designs them with 10' centers they may be staggered you may have 2 trees close together to cover a valve in the area and then another space because you have regular hard wood tree there and then a couple more close together. CHAIRWOMAN: What we are really looking at is a nice visual screen. MR. IRVING: The reality is I don't need Mr. Withers calling every 2 days and complaining about the boats. I'm going to put them in as best as I can with the most accurate screening. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question Madam Chairman is where do we go from here? MR. BRESSLER: I want to comment on one thing Mr. Goehringer was questioning about and that was an issue I raised the last time and it's the end of the record and that was the characterization of type of variance this is. Nonetheless I think the issues that were raised are relevant and I think a total failure of proof in that regard is amend the application on that type of issue. MR. IRVING: I didn't follow that. MR. BRESSLER: I raised this the last time, Mr. Goehringer raised it tonight about the dollars and cents and Ms. Moore has stated you don't have to do that you don't have to make any showing I respectfully disagree with respect to that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you give us any case law on that? MR. BRESSLER: I would be pleased to submit something on that particularly based on response to your questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know my situation I'd like to try and get every rock in place before a final determination of closing the hearing occurs. That's what I'm concerned about here I still see unrest and we have this issue of what, I'll answer the question for you Lydia, what's going to happen with this other rack that's over on Schoolhouse Creek side and if it's going to be denied or disapproved if it is. Page 32 of 37 Page 33 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: It's not before us, there's no application or NOD. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it will be before us. MS. MOORE: Only when I know it's been approved by other agencies because it may not be in this location it may be 10' back or- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that so you're just dealing with rack A in it's original position now as applied before us. CHAIRWOMAN: There is no alternate, nothing is properly before us, nothing's been properly noticed the whole 9 yards. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Therefore we are only going on rack A and it's original position. MS. MOORE: Original position but reduced in height because this no longer needs a height variance. That portion has been removed from your consideration. CHAIRWOMAN: If it's a 10' setback there's no height variance on that. Rack B there's no change because there's no objection on rack B, so that's what's before us, there's nothing else before us. MR. BRESSLER: Let me just say that with respect to the height there's the question that's been put to me and my client that there's no objection on B with respect to the height of my client to say there's no objection to rack B may overstate the case because there were other people here who spoke who had objections to the density and the additional traffic and all the other issues that were created so I didn't mean to create a false impression by saying with respect to that particular narrow issue and my client that there was not objection on the record from other people or to other issues that they be created by the entire plan so I just want to make sure that everyone considers the full record with respect to- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's why I asked the question. CHAIRWOMAN: I had taken your comment from before if you remember and since it was stated again I wanted to make clear just what the extent of that particular comment meant and I hope I clarified that. MS. MOORE: We understand there is general objections to racks and to additional boats. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is one more particular issue and that is the drone of the motor, at what time are the racks going to be utilized and so and so. We have residential property around this and that is what the concern is. In other words, I want to make sure no stone is unturned. Page 33 of 37 Page 34 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: I understand that but what you're almost to the point of ignoring is a functional full-service marina here that is a permitted use. I understand you want to try to address every single possible concern- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me explain why that's a possibility because they are not using those functions ordinarily on a daily basis at this present time. MS. MOORE: Yes they are. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But not in the location you are proposing. MS. MOORE: Yes in the exact location. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is the reason Mike, I asked you to tell me where the doors were and so on and so forth. MR. BRESSLER: The issue is volume, Mr. Goehringer, you will increase by 50% the volume so even if he says well there's a boat there or even if he says we have a forklift now it's increasing by 50% and I think the point is well taken you can't argue with that. That has to be addressed. MS. MOORE: I will respectfully disagree with that point, but it's his opinion and we'll allow him to express it. CHAIRWOMAN: Where does the 50% come from? MS. MOORE: I don't know. MR. BRESSLER: Based upon the number of slips they have and the number of racks they are adding it's actually more than 50, but I discounted it because they have some single storage. MRS. DOUBLEDAY: It's not in use the way they say nothing's changing. These boats go in the water in the morning come out of the water. That's 2 trips everyday. None of the boats now do that. They go in in the Spring they stay in the water. You're not having a forklift running around. Now they take them out they work on them and put them back in. But you are talking about 36 boats moving in and out of the water with a forklift could possibly be every day. I know it's going to be Sat. and Sun. so you're increasing the use a lot. Yes they use the forklift now but these boats can only be moved with the forklift. Every one that's there now stays in the water and doesn't get touched by the forklift until it comes out in October. MS. MOORE: I understand her point but we seem to be moving this hearing into a use variance criteria as if this was not a permitted use. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No we're not doing that. Page 34 of 37 Page 35 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: But in a sense you are because this is MI, Mil all the uses we are talking about the intensity of the use is not an issue when you have a permitted use at the property. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I could not agree with you more Pat if we were talking about the Port of Egypt because the it's surrounded by commercial property except on the Willow Point side. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry I still disagree that Michael Withers is a commercial property. It is Mil zoned and it operates a commercial use by the BD's determination by the site plan it is a commercial use. MR. BRESSLER: There seems to be a misunderstanding as to whether or not the use is regulated and I only suggest to the board that it clearly is not so. There are height limitations as structures on the property. This clearly has an impact on intensity of use. There are setback limitations. This clearly has a consequential limitation on intensity of use necessarily so you can't be within so many feet therefore you can't use it for that. You can't be more than this number of feet high therefore you can't have a building or structure and use it which would create greater intensity for the record here that there is not such a clear demarcation between the use and the area variances. Area variances by their nature impact usage and how do we know that's true? Because if it weren't true they wouldn't be seeking to increase by such a great percentage and have to come before you for area variances trying to use parts of the property and their air which they were not allowed to use because if they didn't request those variances the use would be down. I think that's the last thing I want to say about that. MS. MOORE: I won't teach you the law, I think you know it already. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you're going to give us some case law on this and you're going to give council case law and us? MR. BRESSLER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: We're going to close this to oral testimony. Does this board have jurisdiction over the aesthetics of the racks? CHAIRWOMAN: Generally that's something the PB handles. If we handle it, we're pretty tough and we usually do screening. If there's site plan involved, usually the PB does screening. If we have shall we say very particular concerns and it involves a variance then we will- The context of my question is it seems to me was dimensions and I'm very interested in the aesthetic aspect of this and they are effected by the design of the racks, the positioning, but also the operation of the racks has an aesthetic impact on the balance of the shipyard, the motion and the summer parking of cars and winter parking of boats, are all of those things within the jurisdiction of this board? Page 35 of 37 Page 36 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Parking is not within the jurisdiction of this board on this and the only reason that I have expressed a lot of concern about this landscaping is because Fin concerned about a really sufficient buffer on anything we approve and the neighbors. Normally the PB would handle that though. I think Mrs. Moore would tell you that our buffering is generally a lot tougher than PB's which is why we usually take it if we feel it's necessary. We are going to close this to oral, you are going to submit case law regarding intensity of use- MS. MOORE: Dollars and cents criteria. MR. BRESSLER: As to dollars and cents on this particular case given the nature of the case and the testimony. CHAIRWOMAN: Dollars and cents in terms of town law 267B as amended to- MR. BRESSLER: Just how it has impact to the answers given here tonight. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember that when that happens we go back to council so it takes a little bit longer when we deal with these aspects. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the deadline for written? Eric, how long? Our next regular meeting is May 15`h. MS. MOORE: Can you have it a little sooner so we can respond? MR. BRESSLER: No absolutely not. CHAIRWOMAN: But you will have it to us the Friday before the 15`h. MR. BRESSLER: I don't know if I can do that. CHAIRWOMAN: Monday before the 15`h? MR. BRESSLER: I was counting on 2 weeks. CHAIRWOMAN: Well the 15th is our meeting so we would like to- MR. BRESSLER: I'll get it to you as quickly as I can before then. I've got a trial scheduled before then. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we'll move it to June 5`h. MS. MOORE: Keep in mind this is really an irrelevant point and we all know it. There is no dollars and cents criteria with respect to area variances. It's practical difficulty. We all know that the treatises are complete with respect that the law change the state law. He's just blowing Page 36 of 37 Page 37 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing you know what up my you know what. I just think it's a tactic to delay. We need a variance from you and then we have to go to the PB for site plans. MR. BRESSLER: _ _ you see what the standards are and you look at the various factors- CHAIRWOMAN: Just give us the case law, give us the memorandum by the 156h. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:50pm - Public Hearing ended Page 37 of 37 e 4;;r '`T F• ,,,,.._---- `PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ,le ° fFOL/i\- ...0..\, OL- - -"� BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. �� Q�' Co%., P.O. Box 1179 -1_ \\\J Chairman (� yTown Hall, 53095 State Route 25 N o % Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGIANO yrrt Z $ Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J. CREMERS kt O if Fax (631) 765-3136 KENNETH L.MARTIN H. SIIDORDS ``t C' ilig +00 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ip , a 1.-, Sr ./, ' _` C"-Gail To: Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman, Zoning Board of Appeals From: Bennet Orlowski Jr., Chairman, Planning Bo Re: New Suffolk Shipyard Application # 5149 SCTM: 1000-117-05-29.1 Date: March 11,2003 The Planning Board reviewed this matter at its Work Session on March 10,2003, and offers the following comments: The applicant proposes two boat storage racks, 26 ft in height, and located in the side yard at less than the required 20' setback. The storage rack on the southerly side of the property is located in close proximity to the existing building, and will not be intrusive. The second storage rack, along the northerly property line, and setback 5 feet, will be landscaped by the applicant. This appears adequate, in light of the actual uses occurring on the abutting property. The Planning Board further reviewed the proposed site plan, the landscaping plan, and the applicant's description of the proposed operation with the applicant and his Attorney. The Planning Board reviewed the availability of adequate parking (83 spaces) for both the current marina operation, and the additional boat storage racks, and feels that because of the seasonal usage of the boat racks, and the local nature of this marina where many customers walk to the facility, sufficient parking can be accommodated on site. Note was made of the area wide shortage of boat slips, and that storage racks of this type help alleviate this overall shortage. Such uses are now common to marinas in the area. w _ _ _- ,s-._- 1 TO4Vil OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD ._ OWNER STREET \•PFJ Su-ffopcle_s j VILLAGE DISTRICT SUB. LOT J\i£L) Sul MQYI not- LUC. • �.Y-14.. 'w' -• K.,.„,•,q V' ..: re,_ ,•.A., FORMER OWNER \v\-1-e✓re l N L[vr/� rt1 �� ���° `' -t1(IT coi'r Ectfri;rsc +� i H '---- \,1./ l/iA'S E ACREAGE. 5 i, 6. ,,,-A.,,,<_ r , ,4; -yoke _ me4cr,, s' Jcfdr�4 r 'C3 - t t; � Tn S W �' f /;j V 5 °' [ TYPE OF BUILDING Cl/r A SEAS. °J ; �O.Gn4Y"»; Ne y Jii+ar (k Rd . RES. VL. FARM } COMM. L- I IND. I CB. I MISC. -AND Est. Mkt. Value IMP. TOTAL DATE I REMARKS ) .. rU d 0 C�� O . h O 00 iu? / 7 /i;Caare, 2 �r- ..) 6 n . ,�0-„) / C r` �. , s ' f.�.& /14 c/Go%CCi9 ,,716 e F %.Ire 1 Ai�r r "r �l- u _ e r , l-. ;-�ra '';%I IIFa A, - y l A o� e✓ - ` " ---r4{_ •4 - - _. ..tiY - 5 -d-:) )J�J& ('Q$ /: ,,;;" 1 ,:-- A 9 ts8- Lio F / �j 9sq :I -f J .,c„ ` '.'8 `''- ,1 ii -) J ' � �/E.t. P �� '�I -�0 2 is 1�i;e �d CUrf-l��r E�� p� I Y �2 �7©O Z�l �OCJ 5 r-t-li re 0 or e � ' / _: c<,f /)1/ /'ta f,,,-/z a a �?.tea ( (coo NEW O. AL 31 �� �� 0 • we ✓I ' vc�I ,J'' LJ;�P " I 'J °'"N I O o r 2 a A^' E FRONTAGE ON WATER 21 ` � , Farm IA O.r fC'%0 J45 a f..�"ca.,,l.`. Acre Value Per Acre . M FRONTAGE ON ROAD _ �4 Tillooie 1 '��T. U 'lt /��r'�s/.ai " t-�",, LL,t' AOcid, BULKHEAD Tillable 2 al DOCK Tillable 3 Woodland yi r - t c r .� SwamplandLI , d 3. f . /it's__ /t„ / > D Y - Brushland i7 d k.1' /Jr� 6 .z &rr'ei- ' House Plot ( -, i # 're" ° .aa9cdca ,� i� , Total ta.c 2' �q� r �.{ t , !l ,l iF;. t . L3 . %FMc_ a 1 ' ec Yeco aira;r I_. ),(:)„. 1 P - la-I3 aI9G...L4aDIDAQaD1-inferred-ivdeivS ; bps.44no;t9 ),• , '" C' /fon „ — , TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD ,., c,2 - ) , 17- ,,. Th2 i 7-1 .2- OWNER STREET VILLAGE DISTRICT SUB. 1 LOT fei/CI e-4-1 /1- 4e.rc FORMER OWNER NE El t ACREAGE a / 2 ,./ ite5 jApresi 6 0 7 7/4 . 1 S r--. W , TYPE OF BUILDING / le'Vt-e -2- ,) r-e /... 1 '' ':,i / - -.'1. ' ' ,4”.0,12SoAt Add. I - 1: : , -. , e e I-6 RES. 1/45-7-1 1 SEAS. VL. FARM COMM, (NO / 1 Ca. MISC. t Est Mkt. Value l REMARKS ._AND IMP. TOTAL DATE ci 4$A.) rhiti e,..ef.-/Qii-ce4, 2 )170 0 /6 e a --- / i c 21 1 t ii.5 u2 A.,';I r;(5 £4/1 / q. /hk' (tie // Cc i/L.:,, c/ -ce v AGE BUILDING CONDITION ' 4, ...J.-, 2 'Fr NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE FRONTAGE ON WATER.Vorgi, 4 4 ,. A1 do/4 0 cc c 6-ee k Farm Acre Value Per Acre Value FRONTAGE ON ROAD..Wptiilt, /442dr, /t/ " 4, e ,I, Tillable 1 BULKHEAD ."2 Tillable 2 DOCK Tillable 3 I ' - 2 — Woodland Swampland , .., Brushland 4, House Plot -......4 -€4- -- ,— --ys Total 1 . C � ..— I F yY ,. , 1--<v r 844: [ 1-- t— I me L/ s --. ° 1 1 I 11..11r 1 I I —Jr / yo, 4 is !> J NE nisi,, i ,----,J4- sow , `.,. assimow Si?,, 2—iir 1 P a'.4 S 111_ f 1 i T /2c, rp fe. — "C '?-tot-, c; 4Q en/0 ii°2.J M Bldg. 7�3 Foundation j Both j Extension q 1 �--_ 1 u 4 ca ._ °if Basement T- Floors Extension I Ext. Walls Interior Finish -- -- I 1 1Gd „s. i — Extension 1 1 Fire Place 1 /%G' Heat 7: / '� : f O Y/ = (.5a -7 ;I , u" 3- Porch : c,., Roof Type I Porch Rooms 1st Floor i wl — v- ---,— 6xezeway i ; r I 1 .A I Patio � Rooms 2nd Floor Garage -l- Driveway 3oSs^ Dormer I 2 e.-4 [ @Li r—k , r • r_. I ram sit , 4 F 17 _ COLOR ` ri L i C-L.1.--F--"I° t`le;j u _ 51ng1 1 .P 2a TRIM i Ir - s ri eg 9 22 / ct° \ I I o " 414115° Q(P Foundation c s Bath Dinette M. Bldg. Kalb-- 6 , 4)51- 4.S SQ to. \ FULL Ext nsion P ' o 2z So asement CRAWL Floors Kit . 30.\rt.- ntipteq',,,= 3o K 3� _ 90� aaL sue --- —�- t 3o a 3ca 400 ioo y'o 0 Extension Ext. Its Interior Finish L R. Ai 1nrt 70 X til LI 80 '480 ------ Extension 1160i Op it e Fire Place Heat D.R. y�yN- Patioe` 4,,,,t-; � Lk ' = �l3" t� �13� Woodstove BR. y Porch 1 lits.- `'b`�F'tx'e _ alb Dormer ,� Fin. B. SK-� N 1 . _______ /Le,._savF,_ / Attic ck '12x15 / *ROT 3Breezeway Z� Y Ztr ^ 72 tII 72 $ Rooms 1st Floor prraac - w3ro �1 - - Gaage es y�r''r, - C'} DrivewayRooms 2nd Floor O.B. (Coo `W q 23 rk slew,t1 -�- 14 SZ2I(R 34-12 \_`1 L 1t_ a- tr 4j rr . Poet t oetc e r ) i 1 h i-{ a �� 'cva Co S t1tiA 55=ts WQxzCita y:rea..,.csir K CLOS,P CLS,QA rrrgr.(';p -.} Z,Zct I - ..; _. a, '4 619 ' ,: 1° - f;..3(-) i'"'' ,rt. c i I a 6.(r O _ . •,,, oFFO(i- ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE te h� 4•\ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road a TOWN CLERK , y n1 P.O. Box 1179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS ?✓ Southold, New York 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER L y ������� Fax (631) 765-6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER `_'JO" 4 g 4: 0I Telephone (631) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER -,,,-- ���� southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville DATED: May 16, 2002 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 5149 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 5149—New Suffolk Shipyard -Zoning Board of Appeals application for variance. Also included is a letter from Pat Moore, applicant transactional disclosure form, SEQR form, ZBA questionnaire,notice of disapproval, and survey. Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 05/13/02 Receipt#: 3177 Transaction(s): Subtotal 1 Application Fees $600.00 Check#: 3177 Total Paid: $600.00 Name: New, Suffolk Shipyard Pob 276 New Suffolk Road New Suffolk, NY 11956 Clerk ID: LINDAC Internal ID:54546 1}Let Z.54 cva , .�l th 4tg �1k ' 4/1?A 3 /- 5 7 " /VLE PATRICIA C. MOORS S ` Attorney at Law 742 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631)765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 p Margaret Rutkowski P"1 ECF' `)`>-. n Secretary MAY 2L 2.003 PERlif geatic Aa.-6, )1/2 May 20 , 2003 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS R: f-Ce-t,(�(; u�? dde -17 � Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 7JL ` / ��U// Lydia Tortora, Chairwoman Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re : New Suffolk Shipyard Dear Chairwoman and Board members : In response to Mr. Bressler' s letter dated May 13 , 2003 we submit the following : In 1992 Town Law 267-b (3) was amended and the standards for review of an area variance were codified. Contrary to Mr. Bressler' s assertion, 267-b (3) does not list economic consideration as a factor in determining whether an area variance should be granted. Financial consideration is certainly not a mandatory prerequisite for demonstrating entitlement to relief, financial considerations may be relevant, under the appropriate circumstances, in balancing the equities and evaluating the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted as weighed against the detriment to the neighborhood and community. The statute is clear and unequivocal as to the standards . Mr. Bressler is trying to incorporate the financial hardship standard which was clearly eliminated from area variance considerations . The case Mr. Bressler sites for the proposition that financial considerations are controlling is misapplied. Tetra Builders v Scheyer, 251 AD2d 589, 674 NYS2d 765 (2dDept . , 1998) upheld denial of a variance . The Zoning Board was not found to be arbitrary and capricious for denial of the Variance . The denial was based primarily due to the cumulative effect of multiple variances . The builder was a contract vendee, his contract was made subject to obtaining variances, therefore the Zoning Board concluded that the builder p would suffer only a minimum financial loss by denial of the application. The Court concluded that given the cumulative effect of the multiple variances, and that the applicant was a contract vendee, the Court would not substitute their judgement for that of the Zoning Board. The Court implied that had the owner, not the contract vendee, applied for the variances the result may have been different . Nevertheless, the decision does not establish a new standard of review. Towns and Villages are not permitted to adopt standards which deviate from Town Law 267-b. The Court of Appeals has sustained the Appellate Court' s ruling that local area variance standards are preempted by the State Law. Cohen v Board of Appeals of the Village of Sadd Rock, 297 AD2d 38 , 746 NYS2d 506 (2d Dept . 2002) attache, New Suffolk Shipyard submitted ample testimony to meet the enumerated standards of Town Law 276-b (3) . In response to a question from a Board member of why the Marina is proposing racks, the applicant stated that the dry rack storage is undertaken, among other reasons, with obvious economic considerations, there is a very strong demand for dock space . No business will undertake any improvements without an expectation of a favorable financial return. Moreover, in balancing the equities, there is a benefit to the neighborhood to having a financially successful full service Marina. The continued financial strength is implicit in any application made by a business . Improvements are not undertaken by a business in order to lose money. In accordance with the record before the Board, the subject property is a marina with the accessory storage of boats on the property. Additional boat storage is requested with unenclosed "Racks" . As a fully functioning, full service, Marina, the location of the boat storage racks is carefully considered by the Marina. The racks must be placed where it is least visible from the street and the creek, while also out of the way of customer vehicle and traffic circulation, out of the way of the Boat repair shop, and with easy access to and from the water. With all these considerations in mind, the optimal placement of the racks is along the north property line, screened with vegetation, between two existing buildings . In an effort to address the Zoning Board' s and neighbor' s concerns the applicant moved the racks an additional 5 feet away from the property line, the rack is now proposed at 10 feet from the side property line. The adjacent property of Michael Withers is also a commercial marina. The residence on the Wither' s property is more than 100 feet from the New Suffolk Shipyard property line . The second rack is to be located behind the two- story metal storage building, the height of the racks along the storage building is lower than the building, consequently it is hidden from view. Moreover, the northerly rack located adjacent to the property line has been reduced in height to comply with the zoning code . The racks will be a maximum of 18 ' in height as accessory structures . The height variance for the racks adjacent to the Wither' s property line is eliminated and made conforming as to height, the rack will be screened from view with shrubs . T h e reduction of the height mitigates the expressed concerns by the objecting neighbors . Despite this major concession by New Suffolk Shipyard, Wither' s attorney insists that the racks be relocated to another area of the property, consequently disregarding the standards this board should consider with regard to the impact to the neighborhood. Balancing the equities favors grant of the variance . It is well recognized that additional dockage is needed in the community. In assessing the equities the Board considers, among other factors, that the dry rack use has certain environmental benefits . The Trustees and DEC approved the location. The DEC and Trustees favor meeting the demand for dockage through expansion of "Commercial" Marinas, rather than allowing private docks to meet the demand. The Trustees and DEC policies are to limit private dockage at residences . Commercial Marinas such as New Suffolk Shipyard have a pump out station and a wash down station (lift out pad w/cement pad below with drainage) . Racks are favored because they reduce maintenance and leaks of fuel , oil & grease into the water. Finally, racks limit the need for bottom paint which leaches into the water. Overall, racks are the preferred method of meeting the demand. New Suffolk Shipyard has a 75 person waiting list for dock space, the dry storage provides alternative dockage to the community. New Suffolk Shipyard provides many benefits to the community which outweighs the detriment to one neighbor. New Suffolk Shipyard employs 8 local families . The shipyard must support the employees with the commercial operation, the storage and dockage of boats is fundamental to a successful commercial marina' s business . A marina' s business relies on Boat storage to maintain the consequential boat repairs and service for their customers . The neighborhood has benefitted from New Suffolk Shipyard with the following services they provide to the neighborhood and community: 1 . New Suffolk Shipyard has pursued Maintenance dredging ( their permit runs till 2007) The neighborhood has benefitted, at no cost . 2 . New Suffolk Shipyard has maintained the Channel Markers ($450/each) 3 . New Suffolk Shipyard maintains 24 hour supervision. A professionally run full service Marina watches for emergency and environmental emergencies along the creek. 4 . New Suffolk Shipyard pays commercial taxes . These factors are relevant because a financially strong Marina can provide services to the neighborhood and community which go unnoticed. Taking into consideration the benefit to the applicant to have accessory storage racks, as weighed against the de minimis detriment to the health, safety, and welfare to the neighborhood, the variance should be granted. Very truly yours, -- Patricia C . Moore cc : New Suffolk Shipyard Eric Bressler Esq.,/ ? tilt/ 746 N.Y.S.2d 506 ,(,v 4', . Page 1 2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 06255 / `6 '/ '1 -, ^ (Cite as: 297 A.D.2d 38, 746 N.Y.S.2d 506) L rc {_r, s cs Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second FRED T. SANTUCCI. J.P., MYRIAM J. Department, New York. ALTMAN, ANITA R. Ft ORIO and GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ. In the Matter of Jack COHEN, Respondent, v. SANTUCCI, J.P. BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF SADDLE ROCK, Appellant. [1] On this appeal we consider the question of whether, upon an application for an area variance, Aug. 26, 2002. the "practical difficulty" standard set forth in the Village of Saddle Rock Village Code (hereinafter the Landowner brought article 78 proceeding, Village Code) is preempted y the statutory criteria challenging village's denial of his application for an expressed in Village Law § 7-712-b(3). For the area variance. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, reasons set forth below we conclude that the Allan Winick, J., granted petition, and village question should he **507 answered in the affirmative appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and that Village Law § 7-71:1-b(3) is the controlling Santucci, J., held that Village Law provision statute. establishing criteria for granting area variance preempted "practical difficulty" standard in village's The Facts zoning ordinance. In 1999 the petitioner, Jack Cohen, applied to the Affirmed. Village of Saddle Rock Building Inspector (hereinafter the Building I-tspector) for building West Headnotes permits to construct a single-family residence on an unimproved parcel of waterfront property. The [1] Zoning and Planning € 14 Building Inspector denied the application on the 414k14 ground that it violated provisions of the Village Code. Thereafter, the petitioner appealed to the [1] Zoning and Planning Cz503 Board of Appeals claiming that he was entitled either 414k503 to the building permits as of right, or, alternatively, area variances. After a hearing, during which Village Law provision establishing criteria for neighbors complained that the proposed home would granting area variance preempted "practical block their water views across the unimproved difficulty" standard in village's zoning ordinance. parcel, the Board of Appeals sustained the denial. In McKinney's Village Law§ 7-712-b, subd. 3. doing so, the Board of Appeals applied the Village Code standard, as opposed to the Village Law [2] Zoning and Planning € '14 standard, for area variances, and specifically found 414k14 that the petitioner failed to demonstrate "practical difficulty or unnecessary hardships in the way of By enacting Village Law provision establishing carrying out the provisions" of the Village's zoning criteria for granting area variance, Legislature regulation (Village Code§ 150-24[B] ). expressed desire to preempt entire field of area variances, thereby precluding village from enacting The petitioner then commenced a proceeding its own standard under Municipal Home Rule Law. pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review and annul the McKinney's Village Law § 7-712-b, subd. 3; determination of the *40 Board of Appeals. In McKinney's Municipal Home Rule Law § 10, subd. addition to maintaining his entitlement to a building 1(h) e(3). permit or area variances, as of right, the petitioner **506 *39 Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., contended that the standard For area variances applied Mineola, N.Y. (A. Thomas Levin and Jayson J.R. by the Board of Appeals was preempted by the Choi of counsel), for appellant. standard set forth in the Village Law. The Supreme Court agreed with the latter contention, did not make Sylvor & Richman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Iris S. any findings with respect to the merits of the Board Richman of counsel), for respondent. of Appeals' determination, invalidated the Village Code standard for area variances, and remitted the Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 746 N.Y.S.2d 506 Page 2 (Cite as: 297 A.D.2d 38, *40, 746 N.Y.S.2d 506, **507) matter to the Board of Appeals for a new NYS Archive Services # 12590, fiche 1 of 1, p. 19) determination consistent with Village Law § (Senate Memo., 3526-A). Before the 1993 7-712-b(3). The Board of Appeals now appeals. enactment of this legislation, the criteria which had to be demonstrated in order to establish entitlement to The Law an area variance was clouded by uncertainty. For example, in Matter of Bienstock v. Zoning Bd. of Under Village Law § 7-712-b(3)(b), a zoning board Appeals of Town of E. Hampton, 187 A.D.2d 578, of appeals, when making its determination whether to 589 N.Y.S.2d 1004, this court stated: grant an area variance, must take into consideration "It is incumbent upon an applicant for an area "the benefit to the applicant if the variance is variance to demonstrate that 'strict compliance with granted, as weighed against the detriment to the the zoning ordinance will result in practical health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or difficulties' (Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d community by such grant. In making such 441, 445 [410 N.Y.S.2d 56, 382 N.E.2d 756]; determination, the board shall also consider: (1) Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of whether an undesirable change will be produced in Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309 [386 N.Y.S.2d 681, 353 the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to N.E.2d 594]). While there is no precise definition nearby properties will be created by the granting of of the term 'practical difficulties', in general, the the area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by petitioner must show that as a practical matter he the applicant can be achieved by some method, cannot utilize his property or a structure thereon feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an 'without coming into conflict with certain of the area variance; (3) whether the requested area restrictions of the zoning ordinance' (emphasis variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed supplied) (Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, variance will have an adverse effect or impact on 445 [410 N.Y.S.2d 56, 382 N.E.2d 756])." the physical or environmental conditions of the This lack of "precise definition" for the practical neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the difficulty standard led to amorphous descriptions of alleged difficulty was self-created, which the required area variance criteria. Consequently, consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the there resulted contradictory case law and confusion board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude among applicants as well as zoning boards of appeal the granting of the area variance." see Matter of Fulling v. Palumbo, 21 N.Y.2d 30, 286 N.Y.S.2d 249, 233 N.E.2d 272; Friendly Ice Cream However, pursuant to Village Code § 150-24, Corp. v. Barrett, 106 A.D.2d 748, 483 N.Y.S.2d Village Law § 7-712- b(3)(b) was "repealed and 782; Human Dev. Servs. of Port Chester v. Zoning superseded [FN*] in [its] application to the Village Bd. of Appeals of WI. of Port Chester, 110 A.D.2d of Saddle Rock" and replaced by a provision which, 135, 493 N.Y.S.2d 481, affd. 67 N.Y.2d 702, 499 inter alia, stated that "the Board of Appeals may N.Y.S.2d 927, 490 N.E.2d 846; Matter of Saliemo **508 grant *41 an area or dimensional variance v. Briggs, 141 A.D.2d 547, 529 N.Y.S.2d 159; from the zoning regulations contained in this chapter Matter of Vilardi v. Roth, 192 A.D.2d 662, 597 only upon a showing of practical difficulty or N.Y.S.2d 86). unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the provisions of such regulations." As stated in a July 12, 1991, memorandum from James Baldwin, Executive Deputy Secretary of State, FN* It should be noted that while the Municipal to Honorable Elizabeth D. Moore, Counsel to the Home Rule Law empowers a locality to adopt local Governor, prior to passage of the statute: laws which are not inconsistent with general laws, the "The rules governing the granting of area variances Village of Saddle Rock lacked the power to "repeal" a that have been established by the courts are not *42 general statewide statute. However, it is not nearly as clear as those governing use variances, necessary to reach this issue on this appeal. and the result has been a great deal of confusion by boards of appeals, with a high degree of potential An analysis of the legislative history leading to the exposure to litigation. The new Town Law, passage of Village Law § 7-712-b indicates that it was section 267-b(3) and Village Law, section intended "to incorporate and standardize the 7-712-b[3] resolve this problem by establishing a universally acknowledged concepts of 'use' and statutory test for the issuance of area variances 'area' variances in the statute" (N.Y.S Counsel to the which is flexible and which incorporates what we Governor, 1991, ch. 692, Legislative Bill Jackets, believe are the best features of the court decisions in Copr. ©West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 746 N.Y.S.2d 506 Page 3 (Cite as: 297 A.D.2d 38, *42, 746 N.Y.S.2d 506, **508) order to protect the community." applying it to applications for area variances. Bill Jacket, L 1991, ch 692, at 26, Mem of Executive Deputy Secretary of State James Baldwin. [2J However, by enacting Village Law § 7-712-b, the Legislature expressed a desire to preempt the Nevertheless, despite the passage of Village Law § entire field of area variances, thereby precluding a 7-712-b and its corollary legislation, Town Law § Village from enacting its own standard. In 267, the "practical difficulty" standard was still held Incorporated Vil. of Nyack v. Daytop Vil., 78 N.Y.2d to be the applicable criteria for area variance 500, 505, 577 N.Y.S.2d 215, 583 N.E.2d 928, the applications (Matter of Delavore v. Scheyer, 215 Court of Appeals described the preemption doctrine A.D.2d 478, 626 N.Y.S.2d 260; Matter of O'Keefe as follows: v. Donovan, 199 A.D.2d 681, 605 N.Y.S.2d 150; "Where the State has demonstrated its intent to Matter of Vilardi v. Roth, 192 A.D.2d 662, 597 preempt an entire field and preclude any further N.Y.S.2d 86). Finally, *909 in the 1995 case of local regulation, local law regulating the same Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 633 subject matter is considered inconsistent and will N.Y.S.2d 259, 657 N.E.2d 254, the Court of not be given effect * * * This finding of preemption Appeals determined that an area variance applicant is justified by the belief that [s]uch laws, were they need not demonstrate "practical difficulties." permitted to operate in a field preempted by State Instead, the Court held that after considering the law, would tend to inhibit the operation of the enumerated statutory criteria, a board must balance State's general law and thereby thwart the operation the competing equities in assessing the of the State's overriding policy concerns * * * The appropriateness of relief. Legislature's intent to so preempt a particular area can be inferred from a declaration of policy or from It would thus appear that a Village which seeks to a comprehensive or detailed scheme in a given area retain the "practical difficulties" standard would * * * [T]hat the State and local laws touch upon the otherwise be precluded from doing so under Matter same area is insufficient to support a determination of Sasso v. Osgood, supra. However, against this that the State has preempted the entire field of backdrop is Municipal Home Rule Law § regulation in a given area." 10(1)(ii)(e)(3), which provides: "[E]very local government, as provided in this Moreover, in Albany Area Bidrs. Assn. v. Town of chapter, shall have power to adopt and amend local Guilderland, 74 N.Y.2d 372, 376-377, 547 laws not inconsistent with the provisions of the N.Y.S.2d 627, 546 N.E.2d 920, the Court of constitution or not inconsistent with any general Appeals stated the long-standing rule that law, relating to the following subjects, whether or notwithstanding the Municipal Home Rule Law, a not they relate to the property, affairs or local government's superseding and amending powers government of such local government, except to the under the preemption doctrine represent a extent that the legislature shall restrict the adoption fundamental limitation on the "home rule powers" of of such a local law relating to other than the a municipality. This is especially true where the property, affairs or government of such local State's intent to preempt, although not explicit, is government * * * A village * * * The amendment evident *910 through its enactment of a or supersession in its application to it, of any comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme in the provision of the village law relating to the property, same field as the local *44 law. Here, by codifying affairs or government of the village or to other and enacting a comprehensive standard for area matters in relation to which and to the extent to variances, in the explicit effort to eliminate confusion which *43 it is authorized to adopt local law by this and inconsistent case law, the State clearly evinced an section, notwithstanding that such provision is a intent to preclude the enactment of conflicting local general law, unless the legislature expressly shall law (see Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, supra). have prohibited the adoption of such a local law." Here, the Village Law codifications of the standard Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly held that the for area variances do not contain any explicit Village of Saddle Rock Board of Appeals applied the language precluding the respective Village from wrong standard in determining the petitioner's area adopting a different standard, such as that contained variance application. Since the determination was in Village Code § 150-24(B). Thus, the appellant affected by error of law, the matter was appropriately maintains that the Village standard was properly remitted to the Board of Appeals of the Village of enacted and that the Village was not precluded from Saddle Rock for new determinations consistent with Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 746 N.Y.S.2d 506 Page 4 (Cite as: 297 A.D.2d 38, *44 , 746 N.Y.S.2d 506, **510) the criteria set forth in Village Law § 7-712-b(3). amended order; and it is further, Accordingly, the amended order is affirmed. ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed; and it is further, In light of these determinations, it is unnecessary to consider the appellant's remaining contentions. ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the petitioner. notices of appeal from the order and the amended order are treated as applications for leave to appeal, ALTMAN, FLORIO and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur. and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[b][1][c] ); and it is further, 746 N.Y.S.2d 506, 297 A.D.2d 38, 2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 06255 ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed, as the order was superseded by the END OF DOCUMENT Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 753 N.Y.S.2d 806 (Table) Page 5 (Cite as: 99 N.Y.2d 503, 783 N.E.2d 896, 753 N.Y.S.2d 806) (The decision of the Court of Appeals of New York is referenced in the New York Supplement and North December 12, 2002 Eastern Reporter in a "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions".) 297 A.D.2d 38, 746 N.Y.S.2d 50. Court of Appeals of New York Granted. In Matter of Jack Cohen v 753 N.Y.S.2d 806 (Table), 99 N.Y.2d 503, 783 Board of Appeals of Village of Saddle Rock N.E.2d 896 NOS. 2-10, 1136 END OF DOCUMENT 1` MAY 2 2 2003 / /2(e. , Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, BRESSLER, GORDON & GEASA, P.C. 13015 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 ERIC J. BRESSLER MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND WILLIAM WICKHAM (06-02) ABIGAIL A.WICKHAM NEW YORK 11952 LYNNE M. GORDONQ1-1 wM1 , MELVILLE OFFICE JANET GEASA 631-298-8353 275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD SUITE / C/ , 111 TELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565 MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 Y✓✓✓1 ' • wwblaw@aol.com 0 631-249-9480 TELEFAX NO. 631-249-9484 May 13, 2003 RFC z MAY 1 5 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold �/e� @ Town Hall 94 611 5 0 3 6 l Southold,New York 11971 ZONING POAP; Oc oPEALS RE: Application of New Suffolk Ship Yard Ladies and Gentlemen: We are the attorneys for Objectant Michael Withers and are writing to you pursuant to the discussion on the record at the May 1,2003 continued hearing of this application. At the time the Objectant restated his position that the Applicant failed to introduce any economic proof to justify its application. The Applicant took the rather novel position that economic factors are no longer part of the analysis in considering an area variance. No doubt recognizing that the Applicant's characterization of the Objectant's argument as "smoke"was suspect,the Board requested that the Objectant present its authority for the well established rule that economic factors are relevant and significant in determining an area variance. This authority is set forth below and in the attachments to this letter. The instant application is governed by Town Law Section 276-b(3)which provides in relevant part: 3. Area Variance.... (b) In making its determination,the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the Applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. Thus, the statute requires a balancing test with the benefit to the Applicant on one side of the equation. Sasso v. Osgood, 86N.Y.2d 374, 633 N.Y.S.2d 259, 657 NE.2d 254(1995). It is exactly this claimed "benefit to the Applicant"which triggers the economic analysis in this case. It is beyond argument that significant detriment to the neighborhood and Zoning Board of Appeals Of the Town of Southold Town Hall Southold,New York 11971 May 13, 2003 Page 2 community exists by reason of increased noise, traffic, safety, canal congestion,and interference with light and air. At the outset it should be noted that this case involves a commercial use of property which is presently existing and concededly profitable,according to the hearing testimony. Thus, there can be no claim that absent the requested variance the parcel cannot be used or operated profitably. The only possible benefit to the Applicant could be increased profits from greater boat storage. However, there was a total failure of proof in this case as to that issue. The Applicant failed to establish how many boats it presently slips or stores,the amount it receives for same,the increased number of boats it would be able to store, and the income received from same. In this regard it should be noted that Applicant's counsel asserted that the racks would accommodate only the boats currently stored on the property. If this is so, plainly no relief is appropriate. In cases decided post—Su_� supra,the Appellate Courts have recognized that economic factors play a significant role in the balancing analysis required under Town Law 267-a(3). In Tetra Builders, Inc. v. Scheyer, 251 A.D.2d 589, 674 N Y.S.2d 764 (2d Dept, 1998), the Second Department upheld the denial of an area variance based, in part, upon the absence of any economic loss. There a contract vendee had conditioned its contract to buy upon the issuance of necessary permits and as a result would suffer no economic consequences. Similarly, in Tanglewood Shopping Center Co., Inc. v. Cianciulli, 224 A.D.2d 43Z 637 N.YS.2d 756(2d Dept, 1996),the Second Department upheld the granting of an area variance based upon, in part,the existence of a detailed economic feasibility study. There the Zoning Board of Appeals granted variance on commercial property with irregular size. Finally, in Wilson v. Town of Mohawk, 246 A.D.2d 762, 668 NY..S.2d 62 (3d Dept, 1998), the Third Department squarely acknowledged that dollars and cents proof was a significant factor in area variances. There the Court overturned the denial of an area variance based, in part, upon the economic detriment which would be suffered by the Applicant. In this case, the Applicant can install a portion of the requested boat racks without any variances at all and a further portion without any side yard variance. No reason as to why the number of requested racks is appropriate or necessary or even desirable is set forth. Accordingly, Applicant has totally failed to meet its burden under the statute and the application should be denied. Very trulyruyou s, L ERIC J. ' SSL ' EJB/frd Enclosure(s) ., O 764 674 NEW YORK SUPT MENT, 2d SERIES 1' employee. The letter which was sent by the District at the end of the school year re- 251 A.D.2d 589 "'Iferred to the petitioner's "continuing" em- In the Matter of TETRA BUILDERS, ', ployment. In addition, the benefits provided INC., Respondent, — -- - - W the petitioner under-the collective-bargain- v.. ing agreement, including, for example, step increases in salary and eligibility for longevi- Richard I. SCHEYER, et al., Appellants. '., I ty payments,were typically reserved for full- Supreme Court, Appellate Division, time employees. Moreover, the petitioner, Second Department. i' who was employed on a five-day work week, five and one-half hours a day, was never June 22, 1998. given any indication that she was considered 1 to be employed part-time in the six years Developer brought article 78 proceeding that she worked for the District. In fact, the to review decision of town board of zoning 111 District's job postings state whether a posi- tion is part-time, and the job posting for the appeals denying application for several area variances with respect to property partially I 'I; petitioner's position gave no indication that located in wetlands district. The Supreme I i111 the job.was part-time. I Court, Suffolk County, Floyd, J., annulled 11 determ nation. On appeal, the Supreme ��', [2I Although the District never affirma- Court, Appellate Division, held that evidence tively awarded her tenure, the petitioner ac- supported board's denial of variances. quired tenure by estoppel as she continued to 1 be employed as a full-time teaching assistant Judgment reversed, petition denied, and in the area of special education, with the Proceeding dismissed. � 1'1 knowledge of the board, beyond the required three-year probationary period (see, Edu- 1. Zoning and Planning @503 ' II cation Law § 3012; Matter of McManus V. Town zoning board's denial of develop- Board of Educ. of Hempstead Union Free er's application for several area variances I1 'I ' School Dist., 87 N.Y.2d 183, 638 N.Y.S.2d with respect to property partially located in 411, 661 N.E.2d 984; Matter of Gould v. wetlands district was not arbitrary and capri- Board Board of Educ. ofSewanhaka Cent. H' h 'uJ cious, in light of cumulative effect of van- 11 School Dist., 81 N.Y.2d 446, 599 N.Y.S.2d ances. 787, 616 N.E.2d 142; Ricca v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 47 2. Zoning and Planning @503 N.Y.2d 385, 418 N.Y.S.2d 345, 391 N.E.2d Any possible hardship to owners of lots .1 , ' 1322; Matter of Mack v. Board of Educ. of which were partially located in wetlands dis- ', W. Hempstead Union Free School Dist., 209 trict, which developer intended to purchase I 1 I i A.D.2d 416, 618 N.Y.S.2d 432; Matter of contingent upon obtaining necessary permits, Pascal v. Board of Ethic. of City School Dist and which were subject of developer's unsuc- of City of N.Y., 100 A.D.2d 622, 473 N.Y.S.2d cessful area variances application, was large- d! 583) ly self-created;while it was true that owners purchased lots before zoning ordinance was changed and wetlands district was created, there was never any guarantee that lots -� ' 'I' could be developed, either individually or in 11 o I w combination. O IRn NUMBER S ryl�r 111 1 T EP "-S_Zoni g and Planning @709 I Su reme Court cannot substitute its MAY 1 5 200gdgme t for that of the zoning board where I 1 , '.. there is substantial evidence in the record to suppo i the board's denial of the variance ZONING SOAOD OF A4"'4Wi1-.'on • . 4 '1 I,. 11 , 1 i ) 401 11 I ill ri ! , I l 1 i t PEOPLE v. HAYNES 765 Cite as 674 N.Y.S.2d 765 (A.D.2 Dept. 1998) 7 1 Vincent J. Messina, Jr., Town Attorney, variance in the total lot size and a 70% Islip (Richard Hoffmann, of counsel), for ap- variance in the back yard size requirement. pellants. In light of the cumulative effect of the multi- i ,' Donald A. Rettaliata, Hauppauge, for re- ple variances, we cannot conclude that the spondent. Zoning Board's denial of the application was arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of r , MANGANO,P.J., BRACKEN, McGlasson Realty v. Town of Patterson Bd. I KRAUSMAN and McGINITY,JJ. of Appeals,234 A.D.2d 462,651 N.Y.S.2d 131; I,, Matter of Robbins v. Seife, 215 A.D.2d 665, MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. 628 N.Y.S.2d 311). Moreover, inasmuch as In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article Tetra's contract to purchase the five lots was � il 78 to review a determination of the Board of contingent on obtaining the permits neces- Zoning Appeals of the Town of Islip, dated sar•y to build the house,its economic loss was November 14, 1995, which, after a hearing, minimal. As for the owners of the property, ,1 denied the petitioner's application for several any possible hardship.was largely self-creat- �.I..,i area variances, the appeal is from a judg- ed. While it is true that they purchased the lots before theordinancechangediI meet of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County zoning was I (Floyd, J.), entered July 17, 1997, which an- and the wetlands district was created, there was never any guarantee that the lots could 'Ij nulled the determination and remitted the 1 I matter to the Board of Zoning Appeals with be developed, either individually or in combi- I. the direction that it grant the variances. nation. Although there were some factors weighing in favor of granting the variances, ,I I' ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, the Supreme Court cannot substitute its on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, judgment for that of the zoning board where, I 'I and the proceeding is dismissed. as here, there is substantial evidence in the In 1995,the petitioner, Tetra Builders, Inc. record to support the Zoning Board's denial (hereinafter Tetra),entered into a contract to of the application (see, Matter of Cowan v. 1 purchase five parcels of property located in Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591, 599, 394 N.Y.S.2d 579, the Town of Islip. A rider to the contract 363 N.E.2d 305). i provided that the sale was contingent on Tetra's obtaining the permits necessary to w I construct a single-family house on the five 0 E KEY NUMBER SYSTEM ". lots. When the five lots are consolidated, they forma "U"-shaped parcel, which has a H total combined area of 38,500 square feet. 1 I" The five lots are located in a triple "A" II" residential zone, requiring a front yard set- I' back of 50 feet and a back yard setback of 40 251 A.D.2d Sv5 feet. A portion of the property, which mea- The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, sures 11,960 square feet or approximately v 31% of the combined area, falls within the Town of Islip's wetland district, which re- Reginald HAYNES, Appellant. quires a minimum lot area of one acre, or Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1 43,560 square feet. Second Department. I 1 [1-3] It is undisputed that Tetra needed i June 22, 1998. i 1 a 10% relaxation of the 50-foot setback re- ti quirement in the front yard. Although the I [ figures set forth by—the—Board ofZoning __ _Defendant-was-convicted_i the Count._.-___ _ Appeals of the Town of Islip (hereinafter the Court, Orange County, Berry, J., of first- Zoning Board) differed from Tetra's, assum- degree criminal possession of controlled sub- log, arguendo, that Tetra's figures were cor- stance and second-degree obstructing gov- rect, it also needed an approximately 12% ernmental administration. Defendant appeal- I . 756 637 NEW YORK SUPPLEMEI\ 2d SERIES ment as a secretarial assistant, the petitioner Vit of Westbury v. Department of Trans p, appeals from an order and judgment (one supra, at 73, 550 N.Y.S.2d 604, 549 N.E.2d paper) of the Supreme Court, Rockland 1175; Matter of Castaways Motel v. Schuyl_ County (Weiner, JJ, dated July 27, 1994, er, 24 N.Y.2d 120, 126-127,299 N.Y.S.2d 148, --- i whi�i, upon gi•antmg the motion of�ertafn 247-aT_E2Matter atter of Chaban v,hoard__ ; I respondents to dismiss the proceeding, dis- of Educ. of City of N.Y, 201 A.D.2d 646, 608 missed the proceeding as time barred. N.Y.S.2d 229). t s ORDERED that the order and judgment [4] The record reveals that, although r is modified, on the law and the facts, by there were a series of ambiguous communica- reinstating the first, second, fourth, and fifth tions between the parties, and the petition- causes of action in the petition; as so moth- er's employment status was unclear at differ- fled, the order and judgment is affirmed, ent times, the petitioner was not informed Z �.` without costs or disbursements. prior to August 9, 1993, that she would not The petitioner, a former employee of the be permitted to return to her former posi- of Town of Orangetown, commenced this pro- tion. Any ambiguity created by the respon- de ceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 dents must be resolved against them (see, si: a:" against the respondents on December 3, Matter of Biondo v. New York State Bd. of tr 1993, in which she sought, inter alfa, rein- Parole, 60 N.Y.2d 832,834,470 N.Y.S.2d 130, J"i���; statement to her position. The 11 causes of `58 N.E2d 371; Matter of Castaways Motel ec action in the petition were based on various v. Schuyler, supra; Mundy v. Nassau Coun- 1 events which occurred between November ty Cu,. Sero. Commr , 44 N.Y.2d 352, 405 iiii 1991 and September 1993. With respect to N.Y.S.2d 660, 376 N.E.2d 1305). According- it'!' the termination of her employment, the peti- ly, we find that the proceeding pursuant toCPLR article 78 was timely commenced inso- Yo ,I ', tioner alleged that she was not notified of far as it challenged the determination ren- res her termination until she received a letter dered on August 9, 1993, and the first, sec- 1 dated August 9, 1993, informing her that '`' Ir she would not be permitted to return to her ond, fourth, and fifth causes of action were y�, former position following an extended ab- improperly dismissed as time barred. tin( Bence due to illness. The Supreme Court We conclude that the remaining causes of spo determined that the proceeding was time action in the petition were properly dis barred because the final determination for missed based on the grounds the- - Statute of Limitations purposes was made respondents in the Supreme C .p .. - l_.) 0': �I�1 ! on November 25, 1991, when the petitioner w IIIIIwas suspended from her job. o TKEY NUM BER SYSTEM MAY 15213 (14] A proceeding pursuant to CPLR 78 article 78 "must be commenced within four months after the determination to be re- 224 A.D.2d 432 ZOMnV '4O , n 'PEA:' I' viewed becomes final and bindingupon the Eater P In the Matter of TANGLEWOOD a petitioner" (CPLR 217). "For a determina- SHOPPING CENTER CO., pph TO I I�� tion to be final `upon the petitioner' it must INC., Appellant, Chref cent be dear that the petitioner seeking review v etiti III has been aggrieved by it" (Matter of Martin Joseph CIANCIULLI, et al., Respondents- Supn :pi HI v. Ronan, 44 N.Y.2d 374, 380, 405 N.Y.S.2d Respondents, man, j� 671, 376 N.E.2d 1316). "A determination generally becomes binding when the ag- 16 Crisfield Street Corp., Intervenor- tion' grieved party is `notified'" (Matter of Vit of Respondent. OR Westbury v. Department of Transp., 75Supreme Court,Appellate Division, with I'I N.Y.2d 62, 72, 550 N.Y.S2d 604, 549 N.E.2d Supreme 1175). The burden rests on the party seek- Second Department. Pewit , I, II ing to assert the Statute of Limitations as a Feb. 5, 1996. Con defense to establish that its decision provided the re notice more than four months before the Petitioner filed for review of city zoning the proceeding was commenced (see, Matter of board of appeals' grant of application for CT S ' Iiia i, illIP VALLE v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 757 Cite as 637 N.Y.S.2d 757 (AD.2 Dept. 1996) variances on commercial property adjacent to variances to the intervenor-respondent (see, property owned by petitioner. The Supreme Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Rd of Court, Westchester County, Silverman, J., Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 386 N.Y.S2d 681, denied petition, and petitioner appealed. 353 N.E.2d 594). Rather,given the irregular The Supreme Court,Appellate Division, held size of the buildable area of the property , F that determination granting variances was which is traversed by a brook, and in light of supported by substantial evidence and had the other evidence adduced by the interve- rational basis. nor-respondent before the Zoning Board of Affirmed. Appeals, including a detailed economic feasi- bility study and a traffic study,it is clear that the determination granting the variances is Zoning and Planning€538 supported by substantial evidence and has a Grant of variances by city's zoning board rational basis (see, Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, i of appeals was supported by substantial evi- 45 N.Y2d 441, 410 N.Y.S.2d 56, 382 N.E.2d .; dence and had rational basis, given irregular 756; Matter of Malhotra v. Town of Brook- size of buildable area of property that was haven, 185 A.D.2d 817, 586 N.Y.S.2d 643). LI traversed by brook, and in light of detailed We have reviewed the petitioner's remain- economic feasibility study and traffic study. ing contentions and find them to be without merit. Robert I.Eber,Yonkers,for appellant. Christina Lomolino, Corporation Counsel, o Stn NUMBER SYSTEM Yonkers (Alain M. Natchev, of counsel), for 7 respondents-respondents. DelBello, Donnellan &Weingarten, L.L.P., • White Plains (William E. Dumke and Chris- tine Moccia, of counsel), for intervenor-re- spondent. 224 A.D.2d 433 In the Matter of Grecia Before BALLETTA,J.P.,and MILLER, VALLE, Appellant, O'BRIEN and SULLIVAN,JJ. v. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. a NEW YORK CITY HOUSING In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR articleAUTHORITY, Respondent. 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Yonkers, Supreme Court,Appellate Division, 1. • dated March 30, 1993, which granted the Second Department. " application of the intervenor-respondent for Feb. 5, 1996. three variances on commercial property adja- cent to the property of the petitioner, the Petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Individual brought action against city Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silver- housing authority, arising from alleged slip man, J.), July 1, 1994,which denied the peti- and fall. Individual petitioned to deem tion, amended notice of claim timely served. Au- ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, thority cross-moved to dismiss complaint. with one bill of costs to the respondents- The Supreme Court, Kings County, Shaw,J., respondents and intervenor-respondent ap- denied petition and granted cross-motion. - - Fearing-separatelyand_filinpseparate briefs,_ Individual appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that Supreme Court - _- Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, �. the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of did not improvidently exercise its discretion the City of Yonkers did not act in an arbi- m denying petition. trary and capricious manner in granting the Affirmed. #} • - 62 668 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES '"OEkts� ing Rodriguez v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., ing board of appeals which denied his re- in Montgomery 234 A.D.2d 156, 651 N.Y.S.2d 475, quoting quest for area variance. The Supreme tioner's applica Terranova v. City of New York, 197 A.D.2d Court, Montgomery County, Best, J., grant- to CPLR artic 402, 602 N.Y.S.2d 830). Having dismissed ed owner's application. Appeal was taken by determination plaintiffs negligence claims and cause of ac- neighboring property owner who had inter- peals of the D tion under Labor Law § 200 and, in so do- vened in action. The Supreme Court,Appel- tioner's request ing, having concluded that BBL was not ac- late Division, Mercure, J., held that denial of Petitioner ov tively negligent, it necessary follows that owner's variance request was not supported ed in an R-2 r BBL is entitled to contractual indemnifica- by substantial evidence. of Mohawk, M tion from SSC for any wrongdoing on the Affirmed. eel is triangular part of SSC's agent, Brownell, and is entitled ing on Getmai to common-law indemnification from Brow- feet and the H nell as well. The parties' remaining conten- 1. Zoning and Planning x538 back to a poin tions have been examined and found to be petitioner appli lacking in merit. Substantial evidence did not support de- ufactured hom cision of town zoning board of appeals to ORDERED that the order is modified, ondeny property owner's request for area vari- submitted wit' the law, without costs, by reversing so much ance from 50-foot rear lot line setback re- general locatic thereof as denied motions by defendants toquirement; board relied solely on neighbors' which was to h dismiss plaintiffs causes of action assertingthe rear of th objection to type of residence that owner was negligence and violations of Labor Lawplacing on site, owner had been granted the angled rig § 200 and as denied a motion by defendant Zoning and bu building permit on assumption that 20-foot Barry, Bette & Led Duke Inc. for summaryside line setback applied and that his house Petitioner prop judgment against defendant Schenectady was in full conformity with zoning ordinance, including the Steel Company Inc. and third-party defen- closest neighboring residence was located 150 erete slab and dant for indemnification; motions granted tofeet from owner's residence, requested van- titcal, plumbic said extent and said causes of action dis- manufactured ante was for only ten feet, and owner would missed; and,as so modified,affirmed. have to pay $8,300 to comply with 50-foot fixed to the fc setback requirement. McKinney's Town was completed MIKOLL,J.P., and MERCURE, Law§ 267-b,subd. 3(b). days later. ( YESAWICH and PETERS,JJ.,concur. Town Code El 2. Zoning and Planning(3=503 titioner to cea: 0 SKLYNUM8n5SffM Zoning boards considering area variance a determinatic requests are to engage in balancing test, the house viol weighing benefit to applicant against detri- setback requix termined that 246 A.D.2d 762 meet to health, safety and welfare of neigh- such that its r In the Matter of Michael WILSON, borhood or community if variance were to be granted. McKinney's Town Law § 267-b, respectively 4i Respondent, subd.3(b). lot's right sidi v. apparently bE line because c TOWN OF MOHAWK et the house pan al., Respondents, Gerard C. De Cusatis, Amsterdam, for ap- pellant. Petitioner and Town of Moh Leila Reynolds, Johnstown, for Michael (hereinafter tI Kathy Conboy, Appellant. Wilson,respondent. ing a determif Supreme Court, Appellate Division, actually a sic Third Department. Before CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, setback requ —CREW,WHITE and SPAIN JJ. alternative re Jan. 15, 1998. -- _-- -- — --- variance. Ba: MERCURE,Justice. as to the pre Property owner brought Article 78 pro- Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme line and, in f ceeding to annul determination of town zon- Court (Best, J.), entered December 11, 1996 the residence WILSON v. TOWN OF MULL I 63 I Cite as 668 N.Y.S.2d 62 (A.D.3 Dept. 19...) denied his re- in Montgomery County, which granted peti- requirement, the matter was adjourned for .p. The Supreme tioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant preparation of a survey. The proceeding Best, J., grant- to CPLR article 78, to, inter alia, annul a continued on July 30, 1996. For reasons that 'al was taken by determination of the Zoning Board of Ap- are unclear, at that time the ZBA essentially - - Whohad inter- --_. _peals of the Town of Mohawk denying peti- ignored petitioner's primary avenue of relief ne Court,Appel- tioner's request for an area variance. and limited its attention to the variance re- 1d that denial of Petitioner owns a parcel of property locat- quest. After considerable discussion among is not supported ed in an R-2 residential district of the Town the members of the ZBA and comments by i of Mohawk, Montgomery County. The par- the public, the ZBA voted 4 to 3 to deny the cel is triangular in shape,with one side front- variance request. The ZBA's written deci- ing on Getman Road for a distance of 320 sion dated August 8, 1996 relied exclusively I It upon the objections of several of petitioner's feet and the right and left side lines angling neighbors as the basis for the denial, citing !I =538 back to a point in the rear. In April 19%, I petitioner applied for permits to place a man- specifically to the neighbors' comments that II d not support de- ufactured home on the property. A sketch the variance would depreciate the value of #€ rd of appeals to submitted with the applications showed the their homes, that petitioner should have i�; lest for area vari- general location of the proposed residence, known the building requirements, that "any i. ; line setback re- which was to be situated on the lot such that deviation from the requirements of the Zon- I Lely on neighbors' the rear of the building roughly paralleled ing Ordinance were self imposed * * * [and ce that owner was the angled right side line of the property. that] the granting of this variance would ad been granted Zoning and building permits were issued and create a precedence [sic]". Petitioner then 1 ption that 20-foot petitioner proceeded with site preparation, challenged the ZBA's determination in the and that his house including the construction of a poured con- present CPLR article 78 proceeding. Su- ([ zoning ordinance, Crete slab and installation of a well and elec- preme Court granted the petition, annulled i ice was located 150trim', plumbing and septic systems. The the ZBA's determination and ordered the f, 2e, requested vari- manufactured home was delivered and af- Code Enforcement Officer to grant petitioner and owner would fixed to the foundation on June 18, 19%; it an area variance and a permanent certificate mply with 50-footwas completed and ready for occupancy two of occupancy. Respondent Kathy Conboy, McKinney's Town days later. On June 28, 1996, respondent an owner of the lot bounding petitioner's on Town Code Enforcement Officer directed pe- the right who had joined in the proceeding as j� iititioner to cease work on the project pending an intervenor,appeals. I c=503 a determination of whether the placement of [1,2] We affirm. Under current law, 1''i. Bring area variance the house violated the 50-foot rear lot line zoning boards considering area variance re- 1..s in balancing test, .i setback requirement. Ultimately, it was de- quests are to engage in a balancing test, �1 icant against detri- termined that the house had been placed "weighing the benefit to the applicant' id welfare of neigh- such that its right and left rear corners were against the detriment to the health, safety ii variance were to be respectively 40.4 feet and 46.2 feet from theand welfare of the neighborhood or communi- 'own Law § 267-b, lot's right side line, which was at that pointty'"if the variance were to be granted (Mat- c. apparently being considered the lot's rear ter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384, ii. line because of the placement of the rear of {' 633 N.Y.S.2d 259, 657 N.E.2d 254, quoting '.q. the house parallel to it. Town Law § 267-b [3][b]; see, Matter of Amsterdam, for ap- Petitioner appeared before respondent Stewart v. Ferris, 236 A.D.2d 767, 653 ii Town of Mohawk Zoning Board of Appeals N.Y.S.2d 973; Rice, Supplementary Practice 11 istown, for Michael (hereinafter the ZBA) on July 16, 19%, seek- Commentaries, McKinney's Cons.Laws of ing a determination that the line at issue was N.Y., Book 61, Town Law § 267-b, at 109). actually a side line and thus implicated a The factors to be considered by the zoning .J., and MERCURE, setback requirement of only 20 feet. As board are: 'MN,JJ. alternative relief, petitioner sought an area * * * (1) whether an undesirable change variance. Based upon the ZBA's uncertainty will be produced in the character of the as to the precise location of the subject lot neighborhood or a detriment to nearby line and, in fact, whether the placement of properties will be created by the granting cent of the Supreme the residence violated even a 50-foot setback of the area variance; (2)whether the bene- d December 11, 1996 • • 64 668 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES fit sought by the applicant can be achieved Filially, absent the variance, petitioner will Dawson, J., partially dei by some method, feasible for the applicant have to pay approximately $8,300 to add 10 er's motion for summar to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) feet of concrete to the existing slab and ing the complaints. Ma whether the requested area variance is disassemble and then reconstruct the home. The Supreme Court, AI substantial; (4)whether the proposed vari- Under the circumstances, we agree with Su- ters, J., held that genui ance will have an adverse effect or impact preme Court that there was not substantial fact existed about whe on the physical or environmental condi- evidence to support the ZBA's determination modification to a safety tions in the neighborhood or district; and (see, Matter of Stewart v. Ferris, supra, standing control panel e (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self- Matter of O'Hara v. Zoning Bd of Appeals facturer from liability f created, which consideration shall be rele- of Vil. of Irvington, 226 A.D.2d 537, 641 ries when a 20,000 you vant to the decision of the board of ap- N.Y.S.2d 87, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 810, 649 and crushed them and peals, but shall not necessarily preclude N.Y.S.2d 377, 672 N.E.2d 603; cf., Matter of equipment was reasons the granting of the area variance (Town Segal v. Zoning Rd of Appeals of Town of tured and sold. Law§ 267-b[3][b]). Bethel, 191 A.D.2d 873, 594 N.Y.S.2d 459). Order affirmed. Based upon our review of the record, we ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, conclude that the ZBA gave no real consider- without costs. - ation to any of the statutory factors but, 1. Products Liability rather, rendered its determination solely on CARDONA, P.J., and CREW,WHITE Third-party modifu the basis of neighbors' objection to the type and SPAIN,JJ.,concur. functional utility of safes of residence that petitioner was placing on safe product defective, the site,a concern having nothing at all to do e which would typically with the application that was before the o Te[r NUMBER SYSTEM ZBA It is our further view that, had the 2. Products Liability ZBA given due consideration to the relevant Existence of more factors, it would have found a dearth of evi- cause for accident in wt dence supporting a denial of the variance 246 A.D.2d 768 by allegedly unsafe equ request. First, we perceive no basis for a Marie L. BUSH, as Administrator of crate manufacturer froi finding that petitioner's hardship was self- the Estate of William J. Bush, turer's negligence and created. The record shows that petitioner- Deceased, Respondent, shown to be substan which produced injury. sited his residence and was granted a build- v ing permit on the assumption (a correct one, 3. Judgment€'185.3(2 we believe)that the 20-foot side line setback LAMB-GRAYS HARBOR COMPANY, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Genuine issues of applied and that the placement of petitioner's house was in full conformity with the Zoning precluding summary j Ordinance. We do not believe that greater (And a Third-Party Action.) liability action against 1 winding equipment, at P diligence would have prevented this "error". Richard J. WHITTEMORE, Respondent, er's modification to the Second, no competent evidence was ad- v. standing control panel duced to support a finding that granting the LAMB-GRAYS HARBOR COMPANY, turer from liability I variance would bring about an undesirablewhen 20,000 pound nAppellant. (Action No. 2.) change in the character of the neighborhood crushed them and whment was reasonably or a detriment to nearby properties. The (And a Third-Party Action.) closest neighboring residence was located ap- and sold; there was pn proximately 150 feet from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, dangerously discharge p y petitioner's and the overall effect on the neighborhood was so Third Department. adequate protection b minuscule that, absent a survey, the ZBA Jan. 15, 1998. modification and there was unable to determine whether there was native designs. any violation at all. Similarlythe requested variance, amounting to only 10 feet, was in- Injured worker and another worker's substantial (see, Matter of Townwide Props. widow filed products liability action against Smith, Sovik, Kendr v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hunt- the manufacturer of paper winding equip- Paul Ringwood, of cc ington, 143 A.D.2d 757, 533 N.Y.S.2d 466). ment. The Supreme Court, Essex County, appellant. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS t�,' '�,%S pfFOL,,C ,'S. 4.A‘ Southold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer Co x ; P.O. Box 1179 George Horning V O .F 0 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ?4iffa$' d ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando -. ' ", ''1tTelephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 27, 2003 Eric J. Bressler, Esq. Wickham Wickham & Bressler, P.C. Main Road P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Appl. No. 5149 — New Suffolk Shipyard Dear Mr. Bressler: As per your request, I enclose a copy of the determination rendered by the Board of Appeals at its June 19, 2003 meeting and filed today with the Town Clerk's Office. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Enclosure Copy of Decision today to: Building Department Planning Board ,,,,,,,_-_- APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ,� ,OFF0(4-Co--% 0}`ON 0`: �� 1 53095 Main Road Southold Town Hall � Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman = Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 1.1. rill George Horning 1. 0 I Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva `_y�IJO .97� ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando =- 1 �'.� Telephone (631) 765-1809 „as http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 27, 2003 Fax and Regular Mail(765-46411 New Suffolk Shipyard c/o Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appl. No. 5149 — Variances for Storage Racks Dear Sir or Madam:: Enclosed please find a copy of the determination rendered by the Board of Appeals at its June 19, 2003 meeting and filed today with the Office of the Town Clerk. Before commencing construction activities, a building permit will be necessary. Please be sure to follow-up with the Building Department and Planning Board for the next step in the zoning review/application process. Another copy of the enclosed determination should be made available to the Building Department and Planning Board at the time of submitting your maps and any other required documentation in the next step. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Enclosure Copy of Decision today to: Building Department Planning Board Eric J. Bressler, Esq. NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD ti "i • P.O. Box 276 • New Suffolk Road • New Suffolk, NY 11956 : >vo.1w•��.44' ° Tel.: 631-734-6311 • Fax: 631-734-6246 4 Y•� i newsuffolkship@aol.com "Highest Quality Workmanship at Down-to-Earth Prices" AUG 1 1 Z003 August 8, 2003 Mc-- Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Goehringer: The New Suffolk Shipyard has proceeded with the Town's permit system at a great expense both monetary and time, to reach a point where a local tabloid prints an article claiming a compromise has been reached on our application for rack storage and yet we continue to wait, over 2 months for a written decision from the board. As both East End forks develop, greater and greater controversy evolves over docks, boating and related environmental issues, Marinas such as the New Suffolk Shipyard should receive more attention from local government. Development is here to stay and is a necessary evil for the continued financial health of our community. Marina growth and development is an alternative to private dock installations. The Shipyard recognizes its' responsibility to the community and environment. Yard personnel sit on the board of directors of the"Association of Marine Industries";participate in the "EPA" "low Pollution Marine Engine"program with the "Empire State Marine Trades Association"; and participate in the "Clean Marina"program with the "AMI". We accept our responsibility in providing a safe and clean boating environment but we need your help. The Shipyard needs to continue on in the permit process but to do so requires your boards' cooperation in providing a written decision. The Yard is a seasonal business and this project requires completion within a time frame. I ask for your consideration in forwarding the board's decision in a timely manner so we can proceed with the project. R• _ '•- y • New Suffolk Shipy. d FULL SERVICE MARINA INBOARD&OUTBOARD REPAIRS•HULL REPAIRS&REFINISHING•INDOOR/OUTDOOR STORAGE•SLIPS&GAS DOCK•BOAT SALES /' PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971-4616 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 April 30 , 2003 BY HAND Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall �I C `' Main Road 1'>FrEIVE® Southold, NY 11971 APR 3 0 2003 RE : New Suffolk Shipyard 4gIWq Lkw SutAblL PN SIi/D ZONING BOAR4 ut, APPEALS Dear Members of the Board: Enclosed please find seven (7) prints of the revised survey for the above referenced matter which is scheduled for a hearing tomorrow May 1, 2003 . If you need anything else, please do not hesitate to contact me . Thank you. Very truly yours, \.„..___Pt7.I:'icia C. Moore PCM/mr Enols . tk) Otag, A 5 tp` \rt +tel " ` PATRICIA C. MOORE � Attorney at Law 51020Main Road Southoldd,, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary February 11, 2003 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals �c Lydia Tortora, Chairwoman Ct3 i 1 Southold Town Hall =� .5 CI 53095 Main Road tt Southold, NY 11971 Re : New Suffolk Shipyard Dear Chairwoman and Board members : In response to your September 3 , 2002 reply form enclosed please find the following (7 submitted) : 1 . Parking Plan and screening plan submitted to the Planning Board on February 6 , 2003 . 2 . An amended site plan was filed with the Planning Board on February 6, 2003 which include the enclosed site plan and landscape plan. The entire system (both racks) will accommodate only 36 boats, the boats are only 15 ' to 25 ' in size . The rack system is, at most, a three tier open racks considered to be "Temporary Structures" . Rack A: The rack along the north property line (shown as Rack "A") will be only 2-tier and can accommodate 21 boats . The first tier having a 12 ' clearance and the second tier a 10 ' clearance. The total height of Rack "A" is 25 '4" (allowing for ground clearance and bar spacing) . The location was chosen because it will not be visible from the road and will not be visible to the waterfront property owners or block the waterfront . The landscape plan shows suitable screening. Rack B : The rack along the existing building (shown as Rack "B") will be three-tier for 15 boats. The plan shows the required parking. The parking lot is crushed stone and prevents marked painted parking stalls . We ask that the matter be placed on the calender as soon as possible. The Marina will need to have the racks in place for the season. Very truly yours, / l Patricia C. Moore q �c e / e� `.,. ..r..- R- iforrZ.,/ 7 � d.��� iza-76-3 1 �Jl���/% Uttc ti /77 1* et- ) NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD a -* P.O. Box 276 • New Suffolk Road • New Suffolk, NY 11956 t " Tel.: 631-734-6311 • Fax: 631-734-6246 ? arV►,`''r newsuffolkship@aol.com V• "Highest Quality Workmanship at Down-to-Earth Prices" SEP 4 32 September 2, 2002 Lauren K. Grant: President And the New Suffolk Civic Association Inc. P.O. Box 642 New Suffolk NY. 11956 New Suffolk Civic Assoc. In response to your letter to the Southold Town Board of Appeals dated August 18, 2002, in reference to the New Suffolk Shipyard' s variance application#5149 I am most disappointed at your presentation of misinformation and hope this letter addresses your concerns by providing correct data on our proposed project. As you would agree, New Suffolk is a boating community and the demand for slip space is strong. We have experienced 100% occupancy for the past three years and have an active waiting list. Our proposed rack system is intended to serve the community of New Suffolk, as 80% of our customer base is from the New Suffolk/Cutchogue area. Contrary to your letter, the proposed system will only accommodate (36) Boats in the 15' to 25' range. The rack system is a three tier open (not enclosed as in your comparison of "Port of Egypt's" system). Thirty-Six additional boats would not over tax the present traffic on New Suffolk Road or Avenue. Certainly the growth of New Suffolk's bars and restaurants has had a far greater impact on traffic than the boating community. I also find it hard to understand your logic that the Shipyard's customers will violate the local speed limits. The driving hazard in New Suffolk is more likely alcohol induced. With 2.287 acres at the Shipyard, (a present 11% lot coverage) - (13% after the projects completion) it is hard to understand your parking concern. In regard to the height variance requested, let me provide you with the correct data. The rack along the north property line will be 2-tier. The fist tier having a 12' clearance the second a 10'. Total height is 25'4" allowing for the ground clearance and bar spacing. Total length is 73'4". The total number of boats to be served by this rack is 21. The additional 15' boats will be racked along the building to the south. The reason for the side lot variance is to lessen the visual impact of the racks. With proper screening the placement of the racks will be hidden from(neighbor's view) and I stress this, the less expensive alternative, requiring fewer permits would put them in full view. FULL SERVICE MARINA INBOARD&OUTBOARD REPAIRS•HULL REPAIRS&REFINISHING•INDOOR/OUTDOOR STORAGE•SLIPS&GAS DOCK•BOAT SALES Pal NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD �:,e'�aT P.O. Box 276 • New Suffolk Road • New Suffolk, NY 11956 z� � w.v.1 _— : • Tel.: 631-734-6311 • Fax: 631-734-6246 Vy I; to newsuffolkship@aol.com •ti "Highest Quality Workmanship at Down-to-Earth Prices" AILS I would like to address your environmental concerns. Being in the Marina Management business for over 20 years and presently serving on the Association of Marine Industries Board along with committee involvement with the Peconic Estuary program there are few marina operators with a greater concern for the environment than the Shipyard's management. The Shipyard's business plan is based on a"Best Policy" program and tries to address environmental, community, and visual concerns in all our business decisions. We have approached the revitalization of the Shipyard through a series of logical steps but the continuance of this requires a supporting cash flow. The Shipyard needs the addition income, which can be generated by the "Best Policy" use of the facility. The shipyard is here to serve the boating needs of the community. I have postponed the hearing on the Shipyards application#5149 in order to address any community concerns. My office is open and I encourage any one with questions to contact me directly. I would be happy to bring any interested parties through the yard to explain the need for the application and to show you our intent in the project. Respectively Submitted, New S. ' ozieheinty d Michael Irving cc: Gerald Goehringer 4 FULL SERVICE MARINA INBOARD&OUTBOARD REPAIRS•HULL REPAIRS&REFINISHING•INDOOR/OUTDOOR STORAGE•SLIPS&GAS DOCK•BOAT SALES LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, WICKHAM a BRESSLER, P.C. 10315 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 WILLIAM WICKHAM MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND MELVILLE OFFICE ERIC J. BRESSLER NEW YORK 11952 275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD ABIGAIL A.WICKHAM SUITE III LYNNE M. GORDON 631-298-8353 MELVILLE. NEW YORK 11747 JANET GEASA, TELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565 631-249-9480 TELEFAX NO. 631-249-9484 • bAUG Southold Town Board of Appeals �, 2 6 OJT Zoning Board of Appeals ' f '_ 9 Town Hall L 44.: 53095 Main Road 7 `� P.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 • RE: New Suffolk Shipyard Appeal No.: 5149 Ladies and Gentlemen: This will confirm that we are the attorneys for Michael Withers, a neighbor of the applicant and intend to appear at the public hearing of this matter and make objection to the relief requested. We thank you for notice that the public hearing has been adjourned from August 22, 2002 and ask that you please put us on the notice list for this matter so that we may be assured of having the opportunity to protect our client's interest. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours, ERIC J. B SSLER EJB/frd U APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS •,,,,, ,,Wit �i� cQG Southold Town Hall L. Gerard P Goehringer, Chairman 110 y 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora t Z . P.O. Box 1179 George Horning %"' ��� Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva 0 , O� ��� ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 ��= Vincent Orlando = �1 * * olt Telephone(631)765-1809 „ este http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 20, 2002 Mrs. Lauren K. Grant, President New Suffolk Civic Association P.O. Box 642 New Suffolk, NY 11956 Re: Your Recent Letter and Inquiry - Appl. No. 5149 —New Suffolk Shipyard Dear Mrs. Grant: With reference to the questions and concerns raised regarding the above application, it is suggested that a member or other person(s) attend the public hearing in your behalf for discussions if you are not able to appear. One of the purposes of the public hearing is to ask questions, and additional information should be made available to the Board and the audience in attendance at that time which may also be of interest to you. Thank you. Very truly yours, ZBA Office • \ \k' Z6- ` CC <l:c��--1� 2 0 �,J. - August 18. 2002 Mr. Gerald Goehringer, Chairman And the Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. LJ. Box r79 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Re: New Suf olk Shipyard, 5775 New Suffolk Road,New Suffolk- Parcel 117-4-21-I Appl. No. 5149 Dear Mr. Goehringer: In response to the notice of a Public Hearing by the Southold Town Board of Appeals on Thursday,August 22. 2002 at 8:10 PM - Appl. No. 5149 - New Suffolk Shipyard, I am writing you on behalf of the New Suffolk Civic Association and our concerns pertaining to the variance for proposed boat racks on height and side yard location.While our concerns may seem trivial to the Shipyard they are very real to the majority of the members of our Association.This is especially true in light of the tremendous eyesore on Route 25 at the Port of Egypt. Our first concern pertains to putting in a boat storage rack of the size proposed to hold over IOU boats. How will this affect traffic in an already overburden area.The number of cars coming to the Shipyard to take their boats out of the racks via New Suffolk Road or New Suffolk Avenue would create safety issues and parking issues. If a small number of 20 people call the shipyard requesting that their boats be ready for their use on any day of the week.that would be an additional 20 cars. If those people invite friends to join them, and they come in separate cars that number could increase to 40 or GO cars. Sixty more cars driving through the small town of New Suffolk at a speed which I am confident would be much higher than our speed limit of 30 mph. would be hazardous and this is only GO cars. Our second area of concern pertains to the height and location of the boat racks.The request of the Shipyard is for a height greater than the allowed 18 feet and for the location to be in a side yard.The side yard proposed is adjacent to several private residences and a short distance across the creek from another heavily residentialed area.Would this not be an intensity of use issue? In addition the height and size of these boat racks would do a great deal to change the overall character of the surrounding immediate area on both sides of the waterway leading up to the proposed area. The final concern of our membership is in regards to the additional noise and air pollution that would come with the actual workings of this type of a facility.Taking the boats out and launching them will have to be done with forklifts of some type,which again would bring unwanted noise to the surrounding residential area.Then again,those same boats would have to be taken out of the water and put back in the boat racks after use, again adding to the noise and air pollution the equipment used would bring. NEW SUFFOLK CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. POST OFFICE BOX 642 NEW SUFFOLK, NY 119)6 In addition to all of the concerns listeu and knowing that environmental impact is not an issue with which the ZBA is normally concerned,it is an issue about which the Civic Association is very much concerned.Another I00-150 motorboats in Peconic Bay will just add to the further pollution and destruction of the bay from the gasoline and oil from the motors. We would ask that your recommendation be that the Shipyard seek another way to keep themselves a viable and thriving business. The New Suffolk Civic Association is well aware of the fact that a going business has to keep coming up with new ways to attract customers and meet the needs of those customers. But to do it at the expense of the residents in the community is simply not acceptable. It is with regret that I, personally,will be out of town on August 22nd and,therefore,unable to attend the hearing. Please let me know if there is any way the New Suffolk Civic Association can be of assistance in this matter. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Lauren K. Grant President New Suffolk Civic Association s PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary May 1 , 2002 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re : New Suffolk Shipyard variance application Dear Linda : Enclosed please find an original and 6 copies of the application for a variance, transactional disclosure form, short EAF, Questionnaire, notice of disapproval and survey. Also enclosed is my client ' s check in the amount of $600 . 00 . If there is anything else you or the board need please do not hesitate to contact me . Very tru)ly yours, Patricia C. Moore cc : Michael Irving, New Suffolk Shipyard APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �,•.00FFO(,�c ihre Oljy�` Southold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman O A. . 53095 Main Road rV Gerard P. Goehringer to Z P.O. Box 1179 I George Horning O i� Southold,New York 11971-0959 V Nu. Ruth D. Oliva � �J� X00- ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 /-\)\\ r,/-. Vincent Orlando ,a. Telephone(631) 765-1809 (V\ http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TOWN MEMO TO: Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman, Planning Board FROM: Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman, Zoning Board of Appeals DATE: March 6, 2003 SUBJECT: Request for Comments — New Suffolk Shipyard (117-5-29.1) Variance/Site Plan Application Reviews The above variance application (#5149) was submitted to our department, for which a March 20, 2003 public hearing has been scheduled. Your comments are requested concerning the site plan/zoning elements related to the proposed two boat rack structures. For your convenience, we attach a copy of the application. We understand that the applicant's attorney has submitted a site plan amended January 8, 2002 and landscape plan dated February 4, 2003 under the review process. By way of a copy of this letter, we are asking the applicant's attorney to contact your Department (765-1938) directly to determine whether or not other documentation or information has been submitted or may be necessary. The ZBA file is available for review at any time that is convenient for your department. Thank you. cc: Patricia C. Moore, Esq. cv- f 3 76s ZBA Members Subject- 1000-117-5-29.1 1000-117-5-24 Michael J. Withers and Celia Withers 6635 New Suffolk Road, P.O. Box 654 New Suffolk, NY 11956 1000-117-5-27 Shane G. Alexander and Agnes Alexander P.O. Box 214 New Suffolk, NY 11956 1000-117-5-49.1 underwater land 1000-117-5-47 underwater land 1000-117-6-6 Thomas E. Christianson and Beverly J. Christianson 7050 New Suffolk Road, P.O. Box 65 New Suffolk, NY 11956 1000-117-4-30 Anthony C. Meisel 227 Park Avenue Hoboken, NJ 07030 1000-117-4-31 Mary Ekster Main Street, P.O. Box 64 New Suffolk, NY 11956 1000-117-4-32 Marianne Collins and Paul Schultze P.O. Box 134 New Suffolk, NY 11956 77 (Lai 65 /7 ra COUNTY OF SUFFOLK d'1)-�ci/ �<5tne the � d t r • i ZZ ' ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE THOMAS ISLES, AICP DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING September 29, 2003 OCT 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 Frohne, Frederick 5317 Hurtado, John" 5319 Antoniou, Lefkios 5344 Cephas, Derrick*** 5346 McKee, James 5350 St. Pierre, Joseph 5351 Rock, Crystal 5352 Carney, Thomas 5 353 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. - 4T1-1 FLOOR • P. O. BOX 6100 ■ (51 6) 853-5190 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE. NY I 1788-0099 TELECOPIER(5 16) 853-4044 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �, ''OFFOUre; 0 � \ Southold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer H 2 P.O. Box 1179 George Horning ;$ .te$ Southold, New York 11971-0959 i." Ruth D. Oliva '_'y4 , ..$' ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando _ •' Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 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: Appl. No. 5149 — New Suffolk Shipyard Action Requested: Accessory boat racks, location. 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. -- - I . - r - - \It ' � D . % -N / I \� CUTMOGUE • N/O/F MICHAEL I WITHERS - --,`_• V HARBOR • '4 rn� �!�v 00 �/'� & Ncs�r Chao Mkt ._,� 1 • O CS Ch KEY M,�\ — , S. 87°55'00" E. fence(5/a ted o./' 157.56' 1 I obi/,CI,e� r- -1 \1 I __ Wire fence ' N/OiFSG. & A. —4_4:I� 4.s' - �� ALEXANDER Z /5.3 �r 43 AL, /sfy,�Y.' sii S T ° L f"a-ss I Prof olea.ri s to), a9 ria \ ' shed . _�� .5/�+ 1 k,gcel A ' I k; \ - IP7on OO /f�� 2G iHGNIT ' � /8•+y• O d `o er E S 87'55' E. • _ 20.9' ' • I ` 1 Q-, - no,, O _ Cr i ...jet.' 40.00' 0.3' ; .ifill . rib2/ I 1 1 \ 5,-...,5/ o - • " C 27 �� (11 A o /0 2o_ e - • it �` -o N� 1\—I—al wON;� M I Zo. 4 o �N O � � �- -s a (/P to (e)ie/iogl ZUN/NG ® e ` Q W D��r,2/cr 6 'fl 4 8 cMit: (���----so' is p O 0 L/uk ex., CS. - O o be OY /�9 �� k f, . . �4 30.3 `7-- _ \. C.. .J 1 ' —go . � •• �- - Qf . • e4 a - it no . -R CKI° i Nt... /0.-0/414.,,„ o 6 0 ` , Jr �!r"� t Jy. h'tj. fr. S in Meow svo�aje 11; • e \ 'I 11 N , " 6°'�d%0y ® \�� PARKING CALCULATIONS �9• a° ism /p5 '_/sa' laa �P `� MARINA / SPACE PER BOAT SLIP• 4s5 0 $�` : • PoNE 'Z �� �\ , - - PARKING SPACES REQUIRED ° /o - I1" ZONE �` ° a 4 C EXISTING • ® .A za ' J � M w 58SLIPS = = 58 SPACES .. r \ 5EMPLOYEES = 5 -a� RETAIL SALES = 2 to3' y / ' _ 7g ; o . � "° ' - 65SPAES " : - ;c Q ( P,' �l s�. a� . . ,�' _ -o�y0• ..o. \ SRORAGEDRACKT A STORAGE TRACKS . .. • ' ,O 20.3lb Lit s X00.3 ' f 'I covers •c�o�. - rt 0 rnf.F' , = 2I BOATS '� 1 '/ s • _`, ° e 0 . ,, `p) l - �'��� STORAGE RACK "B" = 5x. 3 T_!ER = l5 BOATS `�` d • r I ZaBofp;.- 9.� ' illW �� \\\ 4- C ALONG EXISTING BLDG. / . //ems {, ' L �wM . - 36 BOATS • rw ® - i r��'G' sj, �- O` 6 00.'C- S/7eo1. -;� \ \ N - v/■ a w°od ,N sfo�� �. l SPACE FOR 2 BOATS = 18 SPACES tl w,rss ram e = 83 SPACES N, P. y. 4,4 ,.3 fdm�' �' - °' ,</ b/ V IL EXISTING SPA CES 83 • 9w Per N Z(Vass6uiAhea 'un,p • o 5.7. HWM9 \ _ n, vt.c 6Esti e of 30.3-xN2eM • o b► ' , � / /ACS �! , ' P / ca. /,r . n e ' •�� 26, c c . a \ O Al- 82 03,30" /� ►�' V N. Z l �. �� W /93.5- oa�;� \ \ o -� m I 9 �� \ \ / a, - C fl o O ' o \� . �i \� 0 _, , , R w Sk \ - , k 3. , , , • • -v- , ( / caa \ ' °z. N \ 2s` \\\ ? \ _�� N \ • \ • �� \` Mf/Y(/M fi/i/. ` \ % • , io • HOUSE 3 - -Ili r ,,,,,\, , ,.1/4,., _,,. ,, el si..4 . - 5 . ' \ -0 l*xtEcP,73\p\>1\)40) : RE: New Suffolk Shipyard SCTM # 1000-117-05-29.1 Existing Marina and Boat Yard- Temporary Open Boat storage racks I 42. -4_ _ ; ' 1.'7 '...."... .::.. iie -,• : , .-. - -athi * A - *ilk' 04 , is. -'' 1"4------.0 I . . _ .. ......:_- _ 7---d ---L— """---___:.„___.- . . .... i gill *:- / low• 4 Ily71 i •-• 7 1 • ----------1--4Zu .11111 �-- L.A. MIMI _ ,__ . 1--I ign * F� +� • ' ' �• E - A *dill • t kr. trte-,+ -- —— .......,.____ _____.„. , ._.._, ....:..... iiii,,,010_ ______.= . , ryair4 , pui 41 lf . • 111.. ' ,/j �'h=F'4; ;:iti(;� dip ' Iiit. ��i ,. 1 ___:::_!!!!!!eillftliaL.7..4 -__w a .4‘ RE: New Suffolk Shipyard SCTM # 1000-117-05-29.1 Existing Marina and Boat Yard- Temporary Open Boat storage racks 5 01111 . ';1.0 et! ` i , , -�. -�_�� f •111111141414114: ;10,..1. = E 1 I M lk `� RE: New Suffolk Shipyard SCTM # 1000-117-05-29.1 Existing Marina and Boat Yard- Temporary Open Boat storage racks I __ . ell*. v. riUix it k - — ( i tri 1..fir- -r. C 6 - 1 0 ) di 1-t" 11' c 1,1 ir ING B f" MEMBERS 'I����OSOFF�LI�'CO BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. Q G P.O. Box 1179 �� Chairman ���h� * ; Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 o �'� Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGIANO rPr t Telephone(631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREMERS O 0 Fax(631) 765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS `,. yQ! Os MARTIN H. SIDOR `-.:1491 lig *a •' PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAR I I /C 3 ez_} To• Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman, Zoning Board of Appeals From: Bennet Orlowski Jr., Chairman, Planning Boir Re: New Suffolk Shipyard Application# 5149 SCTM: 1000-117-05-29.1 Date: March 11,2003 The Planning Board reviewed this matter at its Work Session on March 10,2003, and offers the following comments: The applicant proposes two boat storage racks, 26 ft in height, and located in the side yard at less than the required 20' setback. The storage rack on the southerly side of the property is located in close proximity to the existing building, and will not be intrusive. The second storage rack, along the northerly property line, and setback 5 feet,will be landscaped by the applicant. This appears adequate, in light of the actual uses occurring on the abutting property. The Planning Board further reviewed the proposed site plan,the landscaping plan, and the applicant's description of the proposed operation with the applicant and his Attorney. The Planning Board reviewed the availability of adequate parking(83 spaces) for both the current marina operation, and the additional boat storage racks, and feels that because of the seasonal usage of the boat racks, and the local nature of this marina where many customers walk to the facility, sufficient parking can be accommodated on site. Note was made of the area wide shortage of boat slips, and that storage racks of this ' type help alleviate this overall shortage. Such uses are now common to marinas in the area. >11. ,r,/ < aQ i t,a ' •• • • ••, , __ l .• . . 4' ' . 91' ..A.SA. '' '4 41( 1 .i.'.* • • ;...?tt . •11., P.:",,, .. .. • oot; "Ale',al i'l 4 . . • ' .(44% .A lr-e• ti '%.,..‘tik•., ' .I a ' .. • 'I Ai•.,. 0 ,,,:.40,.. • • •••• , • 1411% lit . ••• A .. lir '% ' • ket • -' . Alliet.A.0 . 10,44 Ai,. .N,• .t;' . .4: -. .. N.' -• . • • . - 11` re ,* ..I ' A ..• Aft= A ,v. r , , !lit . •, • s„,,,,S. - ,* , ,,.' .. * • •-• • - . , ..., , • .s. ' 'a • •. 111 7.4k •• • .4P„ '..i ; 1 4' . ' ..••• ' dl: 44r- • • 'P'.4:. : •Vic • '' n• •• ' t.... **1 o%II A itAAM., . • a . •* *. 4....-. a,„. •• .f. '; .4- ,tve- '4 ".-...• ..,. , • • .gi. • 4146-01- OP e Se *...• •r" t, A .0- I', /4' .1., ii.04• • . if. • -- J..' ....,: ".1. .A 1,,,41 ... • ••••4 ''' - NI • s,,.. . Alt,..., vv`• - , •tif 11 ..;, . . rill*'' 1' ' , V • -•A'y 4, 0 - ' • . ,,„'t ,„. ,' -11,T. • "t` . t- • 1..11). ..Q • ' ' ,,,,,11 •. ,„4„,..... ,,,, .- t s A ' - 4 i ••• ••'••0 _or .t'S Irk .., .4- *or • 4 iS1.• : V'. ..',,„,^i" -44....1.4, A .-. • ',..41" .i-4 ;•• -- ..140. ro, 44 i •• ot..V ...•,...• .../‘ . ii • Allir4 rl'it, „I 1, 4 a ' 41•1*,.-..:0 . i .6,60 ,,,,,, 44 ... , AJ • il,.40/ • 4 .04. •••,1W-,.1' •• C 0 o(\ * 1,"t.' •;' 1.‘ 4 , olio P .7, . .0.,, ....Jr : ••„re'. --.. *.r,.'"'".„ . ....- -4 ,,; ' , •. • • _, •• ' 47 ''' I. :1 •Ro, t ."...• tir illirk. • * 44.• /4 . 4> 4. ' !•"' i. Llie."4 P .. -WI • • Sr '.. . . • , •. ,, ' ••*A •: • ..jql' - V • "4„1 ‘ , ' " • I, ...'l',•1 / .. ‘.../. 1 -, . . ,,Ipki . ' • ' N • .,' IA, .s. _ .., r,. , ..4 7*. , ...' -.• 4 A •••t ft • t 1,..y..„. '4 1 1r- . - 4. 1,„, • ...%...40.4 ...„ r -. • .a• . , a. • ,; • lik. ' .J." , ..: „ ,: 1. . ,i, 41. :Ai..•. . !1• '',v : .. r. 7 A , s '" .40. -r , ..,._:,.,:..,. . ...)4 . • ...., .,.„,. . ., 1.• "41, I . ..,'. : • ' k i .- • -,if. #1. a•I . . :311111t11.'0 f •Ark. a it"' , ,..• ii .1 Igo , .. ." .. , r II, .le.$'• t..‘in'''. i. • 1 , \ . t,.1 • .. . ., , ,,,, ... • ir it 1' • • -s. , JP. i, . . , , • ...•• -1 4 '.'.. . .. ;., t> • 0 1%. . .. 4 '4 1r • ..14,4 . . .. : .),.-. . • 4-140_ , , ,d I *r 1 .. • -. - ..,,.7‘ 1„ ,A • 4 ,. A iit, • . , . , • ,. , . 'Z-1; t . • . 'a jt el„,,N.. ilsor .. •46• ...,;,4, o• i AA., t t , . ...„:„ ' t . dd. . . ••, ••...,.... . ,: V 44•; 1 I PI -'••,',•,,s L''.Pr 4 Z1 NI WI r r . ... ...01.1444/4110101, lir • * ; . 0114•‘ • 4 • ' ' ‘* RI‘. 14'' .10 • 1..!.• it .4 . *t . ,4 ",lin,..,. II ••,,• e ':' "kk' .• ' . I - ..a. . t - •' i t4 t' c 4r.1 4 a.r k . 1 b , • ' • • •. , . */ , -• ' ... ...St ' "v , . .._ __„„.,,-* . '... 4 t i• ... •+• 'e:•, 4 '*. * ,..• . . r' ' • ' - .. . . ‘ It t * i ti' •% i ,' .,..` . "*„. , . - t r , .. ,,: ' .14's, ', " " ; • • ' V - - , . - - - ... , ,........-..• - - , .4„. z. 2 a„---- --- •"- - ,.. _•'. t•110141t1 . . I:t , , iiirI:li-;::,',t;.`.t.,'•4, ,',... 1 a t4l . k-• ••'k•, * , 4•i • •,. ,;,*". -'• • , y77-7._ , , 4 --a, 4• • - K_. rwe.". .44. 46 71"'7161"11.** ' 604 I - vitik ..ke '''', :. 1 . • ..4. 4 '' VA • •••• • A . % *" MOW • •,• •' ••A •'•'•• lir.,„ '•.4.'44" 1,.... ' -` I.' 4 .7 - , 4 - t '11 , _.A (4'1'-..4‘-'•tt: ' ., '4; A ' cr';# k .111.41rir- ../ , .. • "". ..._.-- .....' • \ k 1 • , . „ \.•-c) /14,111 . . , . . .• •. . • _ - . . ... t . . 44••`• ' • - .• '-**** • - • •" 1-'A1 •I-! • . . . - .. , ,. . , , • . . . q-,414RA*5 vP eqa4/Aks7 ri-/&- A'o/1607-Y //%1 -E-- 6 m .il...., -'.-.---X-------ig..'lliis"Illtllipil,i1/4' ' 441111111111.111111111' O - '411111119111111111111140:3, 11111.1°' 1011111' 111E:4 MP ej .44 I , Frit _ "At- .allkiiiiiiik" --. V'r......\,- ,.' r� 44.144• =.4,,. . _ , t --, _L4 .. . . . iiv_._, I I/..N ,.... !, .. 1 , 4 _ ;1 _. ,,, ., - f . .14 N ii MI r iilir • .., .. ____,................. _____ % . __ .... ... .... ,.... t , , , 1:-..... . ., . • . . •.. L , \ - -Tr „ A ,�, .. . a girl . . . . , _ . . . . i ...06. 7-1//s P1/O70 St/ok/S Holv F4/2 QTS OVERf1AN 4 THE.80/9-7- 64C K 5 , S'' cue ~RE !! ts`o r'Cl , -) t 1 c 94 .,- , '� . ,. : - `14- 4 .yam ► ' i.' ' 4 '. 4 0-Wr ' w :... -lie * _. S. . _r`gypmar Yom' Myo- t''^' , - ": .avirmrvmg.wwir....i...aai.44o.••wammiwir...., . rerp, ..• , i e617S /At ,VE/4/SvfFO1.,C 4FTEIe A. -g-TO R M dffeic-1 A . e. i-f-e . , .• ... , 4; ... • t-4"i.i4apl..j41.,..,,il''•'','!.'v e' 1•441,4„„,i17.14:,7.V0 f•A:iiif.O,l,k.o.„1i..g1i,i.}•t-....„.•.?.,.,,4 70-11.,.""A•P'"..,„.....,#;'1.ViSl?",l6it','1iI1:i;o1Ii,-'.r",;"'1,,';M.-,,.','1174„0-•:-W.‘,...•-,,1-,.,.t4".•-1•..-4111o...l,•.,eOAd;t.0.,1.4-,0;„c.-i,,-,li4.,r0M4$744-.1)I:T1•A,,t.'.-Zra1 ' -'44 1 tief1..7""..k1.. 4../,..4 ,.;.-,,4..,,t1/t*4T*;..'44i:t4.0;,li:,#ery.o."is-40:,I.g_1 S4p#,l.''e-;0.1Y.44-.4fitri;414.4-,:,-efti40,'6f t:•-:„,.ii 6,A'.'.4#'.ts-.:L.-l!.j4,,:i..,OI.,,,'..'•",P,;:-;Ay.r d.,4m.:.r,s/.•'.,i,v..•!,s,T,4.e,f-.rr.„„f."4.'.4/',ip;:.I•.,.• .;.;.'•.4$",„?'°1, TfA4r4? ../;:,4,”b,.O..-,,e.,,;,.r..,'--.•.'-r:.:,..,.•.,:,''i.;o.7-,”-,.,r'•.I t.-;4,;,',_,.,-:,,,...',•-.,,-•:'..•,•,,,../ ';-......-•--..1,-.--:.•1.,..,;,10,._-,,..-..c',....o...4 -;.'.:.,..,. .*. '-. 0 / 'v. 4: •-• ' • _.-4 --' - —ctrie f'71.J.r Par '4 lie CI i - 'Iottips ';', ....40,i/ '' Arl 1 z.. .4V.4.1iit‘ ,,,,,..4‘. e,..%V. , .s. itisey , it.,,,.._ • ALL'.141:-7.:.:•= - ....1,- inur.' 0 4 iieiris tt .,., '7,1 ,i .., t-' , ` .0' ..-: rt 40 l?,,,:s.',:rS.11r a 14.1, .",-•- -.--, -*V.° ,..1.1:N .0 i „ dog, ... ,y:,..,*:4 -., " • _..s...,. • 1.....-.4 re- • . Ay. -- 4:f4'7,,. ,..., ...-- 1.....,it •40, .nr gef.„1, n ,' • ta,1%10 ) 1?A, '1'.fil'ay.; 1:;!Or'-': . / ,,,... 0.;,.. y;viq. i. _ ....,.... \ u 4 . ,.. ., • , -- , f iii , , , , .., \ s ' fir:, ,...,.....,....... 4 .i. e , .. N Al f:- F ! - - , , ,46•'' ': -.7,:,.'' it Lu / ,4‘ 1-r- '..-•:- ;;;...... - . .- , at . 1 ' • f iksi-''' ,--4:::t7i-1.1/;.:,4.,:ft;L'L'" ; 4:': - 4 Wo 401101 111' t to 40.11......... , . Nk 1 4 A 4•0••• Or --..w.•0 . .,,,,,,..' - (-- Ill "l air#Awk:abom ' 1 -4 41 AI' I iii,., .441111111 V:.00. r . .0. )11 .:-i IIII-10.4."41,ikihraiNPATS ': -r,;A --ri.-- -- -- iP• ., -,..: il, I " .I IrOiltitila ., 101(111 i If 1 41' AIL , 1 r „fietripi,R1,_ P..- ' 1 ' VIII, r.7411111101111 if ,. 1 1111 111 ' t . 11• ,,:,,w• -:6-‘--141:•„_4511 ------....... -,.. . , .„._ „ 0, 44 4.64.0.6tam44 ,. , 4411$60". , -''' - 440alaat •a4. .- . S . ' '. ''''' •I. e e 4.,. ... -r- Y 7Wg .517 . /4- ir1-4° 5 °PA r 3/26/63 v • /',0 Os ,000/. --m. 4011011111„—.. r t * rY.M: - re. s. J-0 -- il`OGV 7j SITE /Volla0!'iOOK W/711 Ce0g7 R,KKS s,.If our (6), *as PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Off' OG /Ls ykris Town Hall, 530'5 Main RO d BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. - Z Y P.O. Box 1179 Chairman .%.41 Southold, New York 11971 WILLIAM J. CREMERS �w � � !. Fax (516) 765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWAR.DS � t71 a Telephone(516) 765-1938 GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM,JR. olg RICHARD G WARD PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 13, 1997 Nancy Steelman Samuels & Steelman Architects 25235 Main Rd. Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Request for site plan waiver for Withers Residence/Marina, New Suffolk SCTM# 1000-117-5-24 Dear Ms. Steelman. The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, May 12, 1997: WHEREAS, Michael Withers is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM# 1000-117-5-24 located on New Suffolk Road in New Suffolk; and WHEREAS, this site plan is for an addition to a residence and to expand an existing marina parking lot, and to create a new entrance to the parking area, separate from the entrance to the residence; and WHEREAS, the residence and marina would require 12 parking spaces; and WHEREAS, provision has been made for 12 parking spaces; and WHEREAS, an examination has been made of all uses and the existing parking was determined to be adequate for all uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes of an addition to the residence and expansion of the parking lot will not be a more intensive use of this property; and WHEREAS, the subject property is 1.62 acres, and has been improved by a pre- existing 1-1/2 story residence, five floating docks, and one stationary dock; and Page 2 Site plan waiver for Michael Withers May 13, 1997 WHEREAS, both the residence and the marina are permitted uses in this Marine I (M-I) zone; and WHEREAS, any violation of the conditions of this resolution may be grounds for rescinding this waiver; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a waiver of site plan requirements. Please contact this office if there are any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, / ,� � Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Building Department Zoning Board of Appeals Ed Forrester, Town Investigator 110 cAo2A- • Datert 116 Igg7 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman r 11 "s. Southold Town Planning Board _ - P.O. Box 11794 Southold, NY 11971 gJIIP APR 2 21991 Dear Mr. Orlowski: `°}ITHO1D TOWN I would like to request a waiver of site plan requirements. The following data is provided for your review: Tax Map # 1000- 117- O -24 Location of Project (street address and distance, E,S,N,W, relative to nearest intersection, hamlet) 11 S k I� �� olk, ( M � nor_EN_ Flis.NNIN RC) Brief Description of project and reason for waiver request (square footage of existing building area and how it will be used, r :co Otto 2+'P, 1000 office space). �!. , r'G* 4,41.116i; 4. m _� �_ _ •.I •IL. .9 4 I1,* • • . [ g4 ' .11. Al .1 G. ma' re,.:G,.t • -_ 1 _ • _ -Lion QF .•ilk`_ ra . • c►. .. •__ O.. �� I. • •" i he '- At prOpet Ilrr, >`A-k pgrkar9; ra. y dr lye t q oar Existing and proposed uses Xr-Tlt\II.•-121eNrP, Vasil z. ResicQnce.,. - 2 sig Lot area 1.(472 Ac. Zoning District Ht Parking required . a_ - • .r•�. Name 'r' NICD i r - 31AJ i 'Z' -ffB1T4 Renter/Owner? C)k i JFJ2_ (If renter, attach owner's permission to pursue this inquiry). Address O "'Tv T . • ► 4.10 Phone (212) 21r) - Please attach a survey or sketch of the properly, at a 1"to 20' scale, showing the location of all existing and proposed buildings and required parking spaces, for all uses proposed and existing on site. Show which buildings will have which use. If you need any additional information, or have any questions, please contact Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer, at(516) 765-1938 • RK SAMUEL S & STEELMAN April 16, 1997 Mr. Robert Kassner Town of Southold 7 ;" $? 441 Planning Department Main Road :2 > -r.:1:4.. .„,. Southold, NY 11971 " RE: Withers Residence/Marina New Suffolk, New York Dear Mr Kassner, As per our discussion, I am sending you a Site Plan and an existing survey of the Withers Property in New Suffolk. Please include this project on the Planning Board Work Session agenda for Monday, April 21, 1997. The property is currently being used as a single family residence and marina for summer dockage. The existing property has operated as a marina for at least 30 to 40 years if not longer The existing boat house was converted to a residence in the mid 70's. The property is currently zoned M I -Marina. Currently our office is involved in designing a new addition and renovations to the existing residence, and seeking approvals from the Town Trustees and DEC for these proposed improvements The proposed improvements are indicated on the enclosed Site Plan. Prior to finalizing the approvals and working drawings for the new construction, the owner would like to start construction on a new fence along the western property line. A permit application was filed with the building department for the fence only Mr Boufis felt that the Planning Board should review the proposed fence prior to issuing a building permit. G ' L {17 !`, 0 N ARCHITECTS 25235 MAIN ROAD CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935 APR ' 7 l9n7 (51(3)734-6405 FAX(516)73416407 If we can answer any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, SAMUEL . & STEE N ARCHITECTS , a `y L./ ` -elman, Principal Architect NLS:If 1 . 110 1110 M‘ :hael Withers 20 East 9th Street, (12M) Nc N York City, N. . 10003 21 -677-6339 April 16th 1997 Dc it Nancy, I s oke to Larry Tuthill last night about the date the Marina was constructed. To :he best of his knowledge Schoolhouse Creek was dredged in 1927, th( docks were put in around 1930 and the steel bulkhead on my property ; installed in 1950. , . . . .._, 1'n faxing an old.photo of...tha,,area, and can drop off wwb Etercopy at th( weekend. Ri ;aids, /41 y APR 17 Southold Town Board cff Appeals • -2$- November 20 , 1980 On motion by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it was RESOLVED, that Charles and Maruaret ebus be granted a variance to the zoning or. inance , Arti e III , Section 100-32 for permission to construct garage a applied for in Appeal No . 2757 . Location of property : 214 ' Wells Avenue (Road) , Southold , NY; bounded north by Benson . d West Hill Road ; east by Benson ; south by Edson and Wells R. .d ; west by Wells Road. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-70-4-2,. Vote of the Boar': Ayes : Messrs . Douglass , Doyen , Goehringer and Sawicki . Absent/was : Mr. Grigonis . RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No. 2742. Application of William Hatfield, d/bJa Northeast Enterprises , Inc . , New Suffolk Road , New Suffolk , NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article VIII , Section 100-81 for approval of parcel to be established with insufficient area and width at 6725 and 6775 New Suffolk Road , New Suffolk , NY; bounded north by Withers ; east and south by School- house Creek ; west by New Suffolk Road. County Tax Map Item No . 1000-117-5-28 and 29. After investigation and personal inspection , the Board finds as follows : Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance for approval of insufficient area and width , 5,600 square feet and 70 feet wide , respectively, of a parcel to be established in a C-zone at New Suffolk. Existing on the premises from which this parcel will be taken are several buildings : garage , shed , boat storage shed , show room, small frame building , office and another boat shed, and a two-story frame house on the subject parcel . Applicant states that he would be unable to sell the house and adjacent property without the granting of this variance ; however , no documents were submitted supporting the statements . Applicant also states that the dwelling has been and is presently rented as a residence. This appeal being an area and width variance variance , it is incumbent upon the appellant to prove that a literal applica- tion. of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties . Appellant is not required to prove unnecessary hardship as is in the case of a use variance. The courts had heldthat in determining the question of "practical difficulties , " a board of appeals should consider : (1 ) how substantial thevariation is in relation to the require- ment, (2 ) the effect if the variance is allowed , of the increased population density thus produced on available govern- mental facilities , (3) whether a substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a substantial detriment to the adjoining properties created , (4) whether the -110 110 s, Southold Town Board of Appeals . -29- November 20 , 1980 detriment to the adjoining properties created , (4 ) whether the difficulty can be obviated by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance , and (5 ). whether in view of the matter in which the difficulty arose and considering all of the above factors , the interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance . Applying the above factors to this case , the Board finds and determines that the variance requested in relation to the Code requirements is substantial ; that if the variance is granted , a substantial detriment to adjoining property will be created ; that the difficulty can be obviated by a method feasible to the appel - lant other than a variance ; and that considering all of the above factors , the interests of justice will be served by denying the variance applied for herein. On motion by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it was RESOLVED, that William Hatfield, d/b/a Northeast Enterprises , Inc. be denied a variance to the zoning ordinance , Article VIII , Section 100-81 , Appeal No . 2742 . Location of property: 6725 and 6775 New Suffolk Road , New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Withers ; east and south by School - house Creek ; west by New Suffolk Road. County Tax Map. Item No. 1000-117-5-28 and 29. Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Douglass , Doyen and Sawicki . Member Goehri.nger abstained. Chairman Gri.go.nis. .was absent. * * * RESERVED. DECISI ►N : Appeal No. 2750. Ap' lication of Harry J. and Lillian A. Baglivi Nassau Point Road, C , tchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning dinance , Art. III, Sec. 10:0-31 for approval • of insufficient area and idth of three prasosed parcels . Location of properties : Nassau Poi Road and Wunn -weta Road , Cutchogue , NY ; bounded north by Alexander a d Golden ; we . t by Wunneweta Road ; south by Horowitz; east by Nassau Pont Road . County Tax Map Item No. 1000-111 -4-32 . After investigation and perso . 1 nspection , the Board finds as follows : Appellants have appealed to thi . : lard seeking a variance for approval of the insufficient area and w .th of three proposed par- cels , 24,635 square feet, 20,630 s• are ' et, and 20 ,620 square feet , and 101 .36 feet, 100.28 feet, and 29.60 f- et in width , respectively, located at Nassau Point and also nown as Na, sau Point Amended Map No , 156 , Lots 168 and part of 16 ' . There is , resently erected on proposed Lot No. 2 (easterly ha f of Subdivisi • n Lot No.. 168 ) a one-story frame house ; present erected ora pro ►osed Lot No. 1 (easterly half of Subdivision of No. 169) a gar. ge and small shed. Appellants have stated their ntention to constru ' t an in-ground swimmingpool in Appeal No. 2 51 , simultaneously filed and heard with this variance applicat 'on ,on proposed Lot No . 3 (westerly half of Subdivision Lot No . 16.8 . -, P,Rbo fes Southold Town Boar ,_ )Pippeals • -3- August 17 , Special Meeting �-. fi9"4 RESERVED DECISION.: Appeal No. 3148. Upon application for ROKE 'S MARINA,. INC. d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, by A.A. Wickham, Esq. , Main Road, Mattituck, NY appealing a decision of the building inspector to vacate Order to Remedy Violation, pursuant to Article XII, Section 100-121A. Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed: Articles I, 100-13; II, 100-23A; VIII, 100-80 (B) [14} [15] ; XIV, 100-144 (A) [2] (B) ; XI, 100-118 . Location of Property: East Side of New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-117- 5-28 and 29. The public hearing concerning this matter was held on July 28, 1983, at which time the hearing was declared closed, pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal to vacate an Order to Remedy Violation dated April 22, 1983 issued per Articles II, Section 100-23 (A) ; VIII, Section 100-,80 (B) [141 [15] ; and Article XIV, Section 100-144 (A) [2] (B) of the Zoning Code, which states, " . . .Boat storage and boat sales has been expanded to the northwest corner of premises without a Certificate of Occupancy to extend land use. . . .A Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals and Site Plan Approval from the Planniing..'Board. is required, . . . " Signed statements have been submitted for the record indicating that the area of which is the subject of this application has never been used as. a sales or storage area for boats, equipment or any other shipyard accessory.. A petition with 26 residents' signatures was 'films in c positic i, Two affidavits .have been submitted for the record which show that the premises was used as a shipyard from the period approximately 1954 to 1972 and was engaged in sales, repair and storage of boats. The area which is the subject hereof is the most northerly section, particularly that area along the south and east sides of the parcel identified on the County Tax Map as District 100.0, Section 117, Block 05, Lot .2.7, now of Jeffrey D. and Susan E. Miller_ (containing a residence) . The premises in question is identified as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 117, Block 05, Lot 29.1 (28 and 29) and contains an area of approximately 2.6 acres, located on the east side .of New. Suffolk.Road, Neat Suffolk. The premises is in a "C-Light. Industrial" Zoning District. In considering this matter, it is apparently evident that the premises has been used .for the sales, repair and storage of boats continuously since on or before the adoption of zoning in 1957. Although prior court decisions prevail (People v. .P.erkins 282 N.Y, 329, and People v. Bonnerwith, 79 Mis Reports 2d 242) it is. the opinion and recommendation of this board:.that the areas which adjoin the residential zone, particularly along the northerly section, should. be cleared of all boats and materials within 15 feet of the property line for safety reasons. Southold Town Board)oi-'Appeals , -4- , August 17, 1_ 3 ' (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE' S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:) Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3148, application of ROKE' S MARINA INC. d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD to vacate Order to Remedy Violation, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION: That all boats and materials within 15 feet of the residential areas/northerly property line be cleared for safety reasons. Location of Property: East Side of New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-5-28 and 29 (29.1) . Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent. ) This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESER. 4 DECISION: Appeal No. 3152. Upon app 'cation of JOHN ANTONIOU, 155 East Road, v .ttituck, NY for a Variance to t e Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sect' •n 100-34 for per- mission to const ct deck addition with an insuff ici- t frontyard setback, at 155 East Road, attituck, NY; Cpt. Kidd' s Esta -s Map 1672, Lot 111; County Tax Map Parc- No. 1000-106-03-009. The. public heari s concerning this applica ion was held on July 28, 1983. The board made the ollowing findings .nd determination: By this appeal, appell- t seeks app,oval of a 21' deep by 37. 3 ' width deck (which includes - existing ' ' by 12' wide deck) , leaving an insufficient- frontyard setback fr. the northerly property line along East Road at approximately 22.9 . T - setback of the .existing one-family dwelling without the deck area I. 3, .9' as shown on survey dated Septem- ber 23, 1974 prepared by Young & ' .ung. Upon investigation and ins•-cti•n, it has been found that the dwelling on the east of the s •ject p•emises has a setback from the East Road northerly property ine of a• •roximately 32h feet. The average setback of dwellings along this oad is not closer than 34. 2 feet.. The relief requested is approxima -ly 11.4 feet, or 31% of a variance. The board members h. e visited the site in question and are familiar with the land, 4 ' provements and imme.iate surroundings. In considering th. s appeal, the board dete , ines: (1) that the variance request , s .not ' substantiml in r.elat .n to the require- ments of the zoning ode [31%] ; (2) that the. cir stances are not unique; (3) that •y allowing the variance as app 'ed, other properties may be affected; (4) that the difficult can be obvi- ated by a metho• feasible other than a variance; (5 that the . 1 Jo 0,,,,,r ;, : ridec3. 1 T Crillfil OF SOUTHOLD PitOPERTY RECORD clip --- ....mokoem.0... ' OWNER STREET ...-- / ',I IT VILLAGE DISTRICT SUB. LOT ! / ........) N,toi sack,INC Ropet-4-fe.,5 Li-e- f- , . "‘ 1 NtiA) Su (D)J( marintx_ L.1...t.., , , Aie diiv .7-j-e, ,-.'A tc oaq /14424V— .-,'77-''''`I i A: */(r. 46t,;%:', FORMER OWNER lYvi-errea.1 N Land PKiL4P , r E . , 4 ACREAGE ' Ar-1-- Zarr- eo.Aerprs . NI i He.),- ---r. In//iNz--As' fisho6igaDee-,...)--e e.A: - ..z.E....; —7"T"jfr÷' -74,t1, ,;..,:ec,-/..... ,-:Ito k, MCgt/e..t-) s_. , 1, W' TYPE OF BUILDING 1 rit ,iv v .. 6 ',A4d,-Ageb-eeit .,-- afIcak____Rd.„ l P Est. Mkt. Value( RES. 37 6 SEAS. VL. FARM &A. i-- t IND. 1 CB. MISC. LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS 5;/0/ /wizeArs,..- -di.... 4175/. 0.4v 7,-,.. ; /hi/ 300 0 /2 0 6 4L2 0 6 • i/.//72_ J6 /13( /./.,: i 2--rc f-/* ,A. /{5-9 -,-..,:.... . , 4 . c-e' 1/3,4-71 ).--- 3/r)- ss;dtt.,:j,,,,, ,-,k,;),.//i i . • ,-/ ) , ? i,--, , et, : e cerl if-, la/02 - C.,e1-cfv104Ac_d z. . 4ti 95o,,000 \l'oo n i I 0. „',),,-,,, ;! . ?.,,,;:f:,) :Q I cV. (ff!, ,z, 919 g8- L 1 0 sila lc)4 51 -kbIce -1-6 Cur- --t 3 a rr \ r‘,._ ,,,:),.. \,..). B 3 .2,.-4,4, ) r.• I - /Fifi!„,V q ' 8f 1 Li25' teivoilet'ilddVi6 lir- ,:'_::,:: e..`q Oki'-ff",'{a5474#1 . , A04 16eir ,/ alikirg ..7,e.0?). .1 (000 - \-2_ , 7O c.) 214). 300 /31/ci i cOz-flqc--1-1_1051lto-E.:914111r1-"e--% 4f01 ilderre(I i IV 7 La/le a EW iS INFOWL 24,afge z/zifk,FiE FRONTAGE ON WATER....7 ,,,e, :::,74 6,1 j2„4,/,;‘, 4 ,e a e„.4.:., ) 1 4N00 I Farm Acre Value Per Acre KValue FRONTAGE ON ROAD - Tillable 1 BULKHEAD Tillable 2 DOCK Tillable 3 Woodland t. 61, : '/' -, ? /2„, _, ....,,.. .. Swampland Brushland 1 2-e 6a k sr '-,Z7a, '4.-ct cl 01 41:;;‘."e House Plot X 4//ft) - p_48 -I 9061 - Altno id a)1 e A:7Y 1 ve 9/05 a ,;,Z,D..k - Daryl r,.. &Si 5247erte-7e -4.-Jefrk.ca ti_)Pe , C, 2-1 *qr. ,1 e-C 51ef eV Total , 3/9Z4F4 ett? -'. 3 i 7 - Re(Y\ LW e .;-/1 50 racirticizic;..1 pi-,_mit i - • ,. Paw i• , . / . , r.--- : Coul-d 1- 1 1 11 i 2 MINIMINAMEMENNIMMOM __., , ,c,,.,, • IMMEMON INIONEMEMOMMI 3 111111111111 i 111111111111111111111111 3 x LI '_? ij.: ,, .-, 6 ‘ 1111111111111 111111111111111111111111 , 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 3 x - E i v11111111 , IIMINEMMIliall 6 i - e 6 mil i ill1111111111111MMIIIII /...i .3 '<- 0 1 - &it.,,I1TaiiIPISMIPZ5111111111111111111111 .._ ... /, 7 1..--4-1' V/1/6g-I--- itcts 1-- 161111111411111111111111111111111111111 3 Y 6, c .,, , / / 1111111111 . 1 1111111111 — i 1 111111111111111111MIM11111111 _ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111011 111111111111111 Mall , , v , I ; , . B . . / / I Foundation I Bath . • _ ension ; Basement ' Floors l' . ____ ____ ension , ,. i _______ .. ''' Ext. Walls Interior Finish K ; . _ 7.---=----.— ----,— 1— — ---------- tension jii v 1 V,i,114 I Fire Place I Heat S./1 ' ; Porch 1 Roof Type _ —1- 1 -,-\ ' ,:. 1 _i i _ * i Porch 1,Rooms 1st Floor . b---- : t- ‘''., `..-,, ••• • . ______I_____ -_i_ _ /._______.7 .---T.„--- — ., ireezewayN Patio - \, ,,--71-------- Rooms 2nd Floor 1 arage ' Driveway I Dormer F, , t• ' /, • ••. ."---..„4,, _ --I : I ; . i ---- . , t.JYYINCK STREET VILLAGE DISTRICT SUB. LOT . . #- - 4 -, ,,,,,,„,,... ; /..."-- he-r. ,.-• FORMER OWNER N .„ El ACREAGE / I ./ r v ,.." ' ',1• i pc?„i".I ‘. .-7 7." Al0 6 t;CC)Gi-J 74- (2 e •1"'•'••-' 1- A/rd c.•:-ti a -7 ./1(4,'0• -, - /I,-I i A/ • . S f•-, W / TYPE OF BUILDING , / 41 i krY.1—e c -:-.:... 0 i;.•-1! A. j-'d 0 i ''''-.;_.i." ' - _ - RES. ,,...57 I SEAS. VL. FARM COMM. (1•70 / I CB. 1 MISC. I Bi-. Mkt. Value , * ,-1‘;',. ."-.'; ' , • ..'4., , ...7;,,, -) i//r.4. rr! 4 i-,V"•"-H LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS Li\---//, / ..2/. (.2. .3[6- 2/ail /4:i'//,..,.0 0 0 /, ' 0 d 0 /2 j—li ,'...; / 7 TA Q; / 6" LICI-j P14, ••4& 4 ,-1 d f,:i.%Pr 44 i-c-,,, ' . .--- ..--,,,...,. ..7- -, '.7 ,••• :...-/;1.4 . . .. • F , ' , 1 ...- ,. ... ' .1 , ., s. . , cii„' ›, /o r- 41'7 ::' - '' / ' /''' ' ' ^ LL-___- - c ,__. ._., '-')- i' , /...., . -,,--: 4,/ / q , i'‘.•,--• /7 . r' 2'' ..±- AGE BUILDING CONDITION 5 4"illtri NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE FRONTAGE ON WATER24rg/ , LJ A 40/10(14.re Farm Acre Value Per Acre Value FRONTAGE ON ROAD.;411;li I Tillable 1 BULKHEAD 7/e-F • Tillable 2 DOCK tk Tillable 3 --52t1-:', .9) . c:/.- , ..., Woodland Swampland , Brush land House Plot -496.6 aiiii, -.aro. ... .... . oiler. mole' ...Goo 1 , , , , - Total - ligiiilibmwers.....• • . — „— . .. • . -, '--.... ....-...._____._.........- "I L.... - ---- - - --- - C,61Z Iv, - ,., ... .., ..._- - * : ,,,,,, . .,,.... .1.-- „-- - .. ...i.......,,,,,,k4f .,,,,, ---- '1- '',0;-',Y.'`'- t 1 _ I _i7,(:-Lf / . (Ott r \ , —..011.-miv.r-4•• ''43 4 ---. i r. 14 ...,. - . kt ' , - b S * - ,--- 4 - 4 4 , .- , ,--- , 1 ---) 4 1' ! . (., 2- 0 ii . Li:AL - 2-4117 - , 1 1 ; I t(LA 9 OP , 1 1 , - -11' eFF'(.0.a all 2-; -, ""C - • r0e) eI emer 41 .604,41` 41'kt:i..,c: f_.. 1 Bath / Bldg. '-'i / 3 4/4, Foundation 1 ,2 1 „.,....f, ... ...-- ension I i 2. 1 ,e.. -,, 18 0..) — , t4:, 1 4 0 -2,7,1 -2_ Basement . 7,- Floors ...... )n i 1 Ext. Walls 47/ - ' Interior Finish ,‘-?:0:.-.71_,_„t 1 .• r.`:'` c en`ktE5Ph Fire Place //L:' Heat 1 -7/‘ ill/ I : oeAt r Lei 6 1 / ..1/ ,.. Porch ,,,_ „, Roof Type if 1 Porch Rooms 1st Floor 4 -1 wwe , ,, •,- .; ,,, ri '. ',....) 85,_, Patio Rooms 2nd Floor age ---' .-.!..„.e.<5:•-•• Driveway 0 s-s— Dormer cosi- ,- B. V() cI.4 I ) ,i4 -,i i I -- • 2"...,e1 • . _ .. - ,. , Ot, c4t 11.L ,�-. .. ,r K� v -7,-- t e s P _ _ .e0 COLOR I 3f-D41- - ; 60 ri w _ -- SC TRIM a�Qlo co "� ` 1 42- • eg__, low eib C4. :•n rr :�. to,"l'^.... .rte, �i , �t g l`- x4.......... 40 I:4mo qfp Foundation C8 Bath Dinette M. Bld FULL 6 $ 9o�eEsTh 2z p sement CRAWL Floors Kit. Ex nsion 3o K. 30 = 4OD Z SLAB.y„: uu 3 o R 3C) Q OC3 I” q° Q Ext. •IIs Interior Finish L.R. sion 20 X 2-! X80 Extension 112e '� Fire Place Heat D.R. ��Y 7:- 16€) Woodstove R. Patio O � � 135"Z) t 13�� 5+10 ' Fin. B. Porch ��emt, sb�' � — �..�).,..))0 . Dormer '*••J 5 � ,,„•''' '..144;b1- , Attic ck I Z`�t� Breezeway Z _ �Z� t 728 Rooms 1st Floor �R Garage �3 a "so Fa Driveway 'ooms 2nd Floor � -- - _ , �kzx8� = 36 t i 2.1 O.B.- Cara 71C q23 ► • - -�. . p Pool �e-tG �E, r& II 441 ®,t I�eo,� VV-A. ) et. � a�,antec[ doh - C* .4.: ( O"D ) ua i2��0 I «,.rao->r$+ ,.., 2c- Zoe?_4- 4e ®1— - f 10 1� e e :, , ..�4 i3��.g- . 110- inwo rn ' Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- July 28, 1983 RegularyMeeting . (Appeal No. 3147 - DAVID AND BONNIE PASCOE, continued: ) DAVID PASCOE: Yes, sir. The only point I 'd like to make is if any of the board members are interested, I have some photographs which might illustrate why we're considering doing this. MR. CHAIRMAN: We were up there and did look at it. No one was home at the time we were there. Can we have these for the record, - Mr. Pascoe? MR. PASCOE: Sure. (Mr. Pascoe gave three photographs for the record. ) MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pascoe, is there any reason why you selected to go 100 ' into your frontyard? MR. PASCOE: Yes, I think it will effectively, from the living quarters of the house, screen effectively the two houses from each other. I think an extension beyond that would be a pointless exercise. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody wishing to speak against the application? Questions from board members? (None) Gentlemen, a motion is in order on this one. Would anyone like to make a motion on this? MEMBER SAWICKI : So moved, to approve as applied for. MR. CHAIRMAN : I ' ll second it. Granted as applied for. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellants seek permission to erect a 6 ' high fence from a point along the southeasterly side property line from the front of the existing dwelling structure and extending 100' into the yard area in front of the house. Technically, the yard area in front of the house is deemed by the zoning code to be "frontyard" and Article III, Section 100-119B restricts the height of the fence to be no higher than four feet. The dwelling structure is set back from Haywaters Road approximately 238 feet. If the structure were located approximately 75' from the street/property line, the area along where the proposed 6 ' high fence is would be considered rear yard area, and where a 6' high fence would be per- mitted without a variance. It is also noted for the record that the neighboring residence along the southeasterly side is situated approximately 95' forward of the subject residence, and this similar area would be considered rearyard if they applied for the same project. It is the opinion of the board that applicants have demonstrated practical difficulties in the development of this property necessitating the grant • i of the relief requested. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- July 28, 1983 Regular Meeting • ' • (Appeal No. 3147 - DAVID AND BONNIE PASCOE, continued: ) In considering this appeal, the board determines: (1) that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the require- ments of the zoning code; (2) that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellants other than a variance; (3) that the circumstances are unique; (4) that by allowing the variance, no detriment to adjoining properties would be created; (5) that no adverse effects would be produced on available govern- mental facilities of any increased population; (6) that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and (7) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance as requested. On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3147, application of DAVID AND BONNIE PASCOE for permission to erect a six-foot high fence be and hereby IS APPROVED AS APPLIED IN THE SUBJECT APPLICATION filed June 14, 1983 . Location of Property: Nassau Point Properties Lot 11, Map 763; 900 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 111-03-06 . Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. • r PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No. 3148 . Application for RQKE ' S MARINA, INC.d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, by A. A. Wickham, Esq. , Main Road, Mattituck, NY, appealing a decision of the building inspector to vacate Order to Remedy Violation, pursuant to Article XII , Section 100-121A. Provisions of the Zoning Ordi- nance Appealed: Articles I, 100-13; II, 100-23A; VIII, 100-80 (B) - [14] [15] ; XIV, 100-144 (A) [2] (B) ; XI, 100-118. Location of Property: East Side of New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-117-5-28 and 29. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8: 28 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Wickham. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ. : You might be tired of hearing variances, so this will give you something else to think about. It' s actually unfortunate I think that we have to be hear to argue and discuss this case tonight because really I think what happened was, this Spring a dispute arose betweenthe Rokes and their neighbor as to parking of cars along this area on the northwest corner, which resulted in a complaint to the Building Department, and dragged the Building Depart- ment into trying to settle the dispute. However, I think there are factual legal issues here, or issues here that would resolve this case clearly. The Shipyard that we' re looking at is without question t • 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- July 28 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE ' S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued: ) MISS WICKHAM continued: a nonconforming use to the full extent of the premises. Although they were not able to attend tonight, I have affidavits from Alvin Smith and Michael Wieczorek, who are two prior owners of the shipyard--if the board would accept them in their action. They merely state that the shipyard was in operation on this entire premises from the period from 1964 to 1972 under their respective ownership. (Miss Wickham submitted the two affidavits with a copy of a survey. ) ©vn personal knowledge that since 1972 when Mr. hi and `was used in its-entirety as a shipyard, and tTia T encu` paS.sesa, , storage wit. , c.4re., and mantenappe of,. bbats arida znot'or , . at , cetra .„, � continuing without dhthig , ancI therefore it would not be necessary to implement any site laiu`a other `provisions of the zoning ordinance as required by the -- order of the building inspector. Section 100-144 (A) [3] states that a C/O and therefore the other requirements of the code are not necessary unless there is a change in the use of a nonconforming use. We don' t have that here. We have merely a continuation of that use. Section 100-13 defines a noncon- forming use as the use of a building or, and I quote, "a tract of land” or both. So the use would extend to the property, not to any particular portion of it. And 100-118 indicates that a lawful use of the building on the premises may be continued. There is also quite a bit of case law in New York State, which supports this argument. The building inspector did state an expansion of use. I don ' t know any facts that could support that--but even if there were an expansion of the use, the Court of Appeals of New York, and more recently, the Appellate Division, which is the second highest court in New York, have stated that even though there has been an increase of volume of use, it does not mean that the nonconforming use has exceeded its boundaries, and I' d just like to mention those cases. The Court of Appeals' cases, People v. Perkins, 292 N.Y. 329 and the 2d Dept. of the Appellate Divi- sion, which is within our jurisdiction, this portion of New York State, is People v. Bonnerwith, 79 Misc. Reports 2d 242. MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you very much. MISS WICKHAM: In summary then since the entire property has been used for these purposes, I don' t believe that because a boat is stored on one particular portion or another it can be said to be a violation. And since the property is a nonconforming use, I believe that it does not fall within the guideline of the code in terms of when a Special Exception, et cetera is needed, unless what' s happened takes it out of that section by changing the use or doing something that would terminate in some way the nonconforming use. Thank you. J MR. CHAIRMAN : Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Mr. Miller. Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- . July 28 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE 'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued: ) JEFF MILLER: Jeff Miller Ney.,.Suffolk Road, New _Suffolk. There can be no doubt that t h la :cT �: ,ui-ment on the north side of the • s e y :.of „the Iea S fglkk Shipyard constitutes a new and expanded use of the shipyard property. Affidavits submitted to the Building Department by the vice presi- dent of the New Suffolk Civic Association -- a lifelong resident of the area , as well as a former owner of the shipyard, for more than a decade prior to Mr. Roke' s purchase, make this fact perfectly clear. In addition, many other long-term New Suffolk residents have attested to this fact; this is an expanded use of the shipyard. In further agreement is the Southold Town Building Department, which issued the applicant an Order to Remedy, which directed him to move the boats and equipment by May 6 , 1983 . That Order was ignored. The applicant applied for relief from the Order of the Building Inspector well after that date on June 15th. In his application, he contends that the premises have been used in their entirety for boat storage and sales since before the enactment of the zoning ordinance. This is untruee. Furthermore, he states that it was during recent renovations of the house on the property that the boats and equipment were moved to the northern boundary line. This, too, is untrue. They actually were moved well prior to the renovation immediately following our f refusal to sell the Rokes our house. After several offers to pur- chase our residence, which we were unable to accept because of the unavailability of real estate within our price range and the impend- ing birth of our daughter, Mr. Roke stated, and I quote, " If you don't sell me your house, I'm going to have to start parking boats on your property line. " Shortly thereafter, between Christmas and New Year' s, he acted on his threat and parked first, one large cabin cruiser, then a smaller boat, a trailer and a saw horse sign in a line along our southern boundary. Construction on his house didn't begin until several months later. Regarding the contention of his appeal that the applicant would incur a financial hardship if he were required to comply with the order, we respectfully submit that moving the boats and equipment now in violation of the zoning ordinance to an accepted site on the premises would involve no expense whatsoever. Moving the boats is not even mentioned in his appeal. Instead, he refers to the high cost of obtaining a survey and site plan. Although we realize that it is up to this board to determine whether or not this is a valid argument, we feel that the cost of such items should not even enter into the question of hardship; especially since it would be an expense he chose to bear over the simplier and cost-free task of immediate compliance. As former shipyard owners have verified, 444WPW44494,4WY no need to utilize the small northwest section of the sh ard` PY property for storage or sales. There is a great deal of available • • 411 Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- July 28, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE 'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued: ) MR. MILLER continued: space now vacant in areas where boats have traditionally been stored. Therefore, we believe that the new practice of parking boats and equipment along our lot line can be attributed to pressure tactics and spite, not hardship or established usage. Furthermore, we also object to the delaying tactics used by the applicant in avoiding compliance. The boats and equipment, as well as the illegal sign as per Section 100-110A of the Town Code, have been stored in violation since before January 1, 1983 . We have had to endure this unsightly and dangerous situation for some 8 months, yet still the applicant has made an effort only to get the Order to Remedy vacated, not to apply for the necessary variance for continued usage of the area in question. Anyone familiar with baots including former shipyard owners have- agrees that this is a hazardous condition. Boats w. th. ca4, 0 arP rd parked no mo , than 12 feet from our house anc ,three f eet< from-our ptb erty'ft e, in violation of Section 100-114 of the Town Code, which prohibits in all districts any fire hazard or anything which might cause injury, annoyance or disturbance to surrounding properties and their occupants. For the past eight months, when looking out of our living room windows, we have been unable to see anything but a cabin cruiser which rises nearly to the height of our second-story windows. This is an annoyance and a disturbance inasmuch as this particular boat obstructs our view. Also, it is not impossible that a boat could catch fire or topple over onto our property, damaging our house and anyone in its path. We submit that a neighboring property owner should not have to endure these hazards and that the town is obligated to protect the health, welfare and safety of its residents by prohibiting this new use. Also, there can be no doubt that the new storage area will have a negative effect on our property value. A legal precedent was set by this board under Appeal #825, Strong ' s Marina, Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. In 1971, the ZBA approved outdoor storage of boats at the marina with the conditions that they not be stored closer than 25 feet to any property line. To disregard our plea that the same conditions be imposed at the New Suffolk Shipyard, we feel would be inconsistent on the part of this board. We ask for the same protection granted the neighbors of Strong' s Marina. At the time of the board' s decision, Strong' s Marina was an existing shipyard and boat storage facility. Additional boat storage was considered an expansion of use by this board. As an analogy, we point to the case of a restaurant that suddenly decides to set up tables and begin serving in an area of its lot not previously used for food service. The fact that the entire parcel may be zoned business does not give its owners the inherent right to expand their seating capacity -- say along a neighboring lot line, at their own discretion. Such a move would Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- .July 28, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE 'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued: ) MR. MILLER continued: require site plan approval by the Planning Board at the very least. In closing, we respectfully urge this board to verify that the recent storage and sale of boats and equipment in said location does in fact constitute a new use, and to enforce the Order to Remedy with all possible haste. Furthermore, we strenuously object to the issuance of any variance or approval that would circumvent this order to comply. I ' d like to submit the transcript of this as well as photographs of the situation. (Mr. Miller submitted a three-page transcript and nine photographs of the subject premises and storage area for the record. ) Also, a 26-name petition signed by area residents protest- ing the extension of the shipyard. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Miller. MISS WICKHAM: May I ask Mr. Miller a question about them? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller, would you stand at the mike please. MISS WICKHAM: I see a picture of a brown car here next to the fence on the shipyard property. Is that your car? MR. MILLER: Yes, it is. t MISS WICKHAM: Thank you. I see a blue car on the shipyard property next to the fence in the area in dispute. Is that your car? MR. MILLER: Yes, partially on their property. MISS WICKHAM: Partially on who else' s property? MR. MILLER: Mine. MISS WICKHAM: Your property extends southward of the fence? MR. MILLER: Yes, it does. MISS WICKHAM: There ' s another photograph here with two cars-- a brown car and a blue car on the shipyard line there. Are those your cars? MR. MILLER: Yes they are. MISS WICKHAM: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Regarding them, if I may speak again. MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly. MR. MILLER: Cars of the owners of my house have been parked ' Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- July 28 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE 'S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued: ) MR. MILLER continued: there since the house was built in 1940. This has been attested to by former owners and area residents and former shipyard owners. We are currently researching a move to establish a restrictive easement on that narrow strip that has caused all this hullabaloo. MR. CHAIRMAN : How much of an area would you say that would be, Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER;., Fifty square feet at the most, which we offered to purchase but were turned down. They said"if you want that, sell me your house. " MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller, there' s one picture here that reflects debris. Could you tell me where on the southeast property line? MR. MILLER: That' s right on the property line behind my house and right on the line between the two houses. That was the condition I would say for, up until very recently there is still open storage-- open garbage cans have been on the lot line--things have not improved on that location since they moved in. MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak against this application? Please state your name, Ma 'am. MARY FERGUSON: I 'm Mary Ferguson and I live on the north side of the Miller property between Withers, Millers and the boatyard. I 've been a resident here at that property for 29 years, and for the 29 years that I have been there, most boat owners, whom I have seen come and go, have kept that property in an orderly manner. Now since the new owners took the property, they have parked boats right along the side of Miller' s property. They have put trailers along side of Miller ' s property which never has been done in all the 29 years I have lived there. And to me I think that is a terrible hazard, and the debris that' s piled in the back which stayed clean that they have not enough available space while they're renovating-- if they would remove the debris or use the open stalls, they would have had no problem to store boats next to the Millers' property. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, ma 'am. Would anybody else like to speak against the application? Miss Wickham, do you have anything in rebuttal? MISS WICKHAM: I think Mr. Miller ' s comments and his pictures illustrate that this is in fact a neighborly dispute that should be e a41q, 4 tgs n. the :�. sx. terns ,a :.-whca, has the right �o use that gproperty and not drag it into the building department and the ZBA. The law is very clear, and in fact the case I gave you, People v. Perkins directly addresses the issue of expansion, whether boats were ever stored there before or not .4 is not the issue. The issue is that the entire property was used . _>' as the shipyard and they were stored at various places throughout the shipyard during that period. Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- July 28 , 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE ' S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued:.) MS. WICKHAM continued: r when -fir. _, .,, dear, bou ht the, pxoger, y, he, new° there_ was a shipyard there, an ` I '°dan't see tat he is getting into anything that he ' didn't know as there ahead, of time, Section 100-114 on the other items he mentioned regarding safety and fire hazard were not cited by the building inspector as a violation. I would think that if they were, he would have certainly mentioned it. As to Strong' s Marina, he did not show that they were the same circumstances that it was a nonconforming use and that the storage issue was in any way related. MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you. MRS. FERGUSON: May I say something. Again I say, at no time in all the 29 years that I have lived there, I have ever ,seen a boat next to the property that Miller lives in now. When Miller bought the property, there were other owners in that boatyard. The people that haven' t were not there. And had he seen the condition that he sees now, I 'm sure that he would not have bought that property. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller. MR. MILLER: I underscore that heartily, plus the issue of cars never came up until well after this whole situation happened when Mr. Roke bought the shipyard. Even before he was in I was made an offer on the house which I could not accept not being able to find one. It was that that lead to this dispute and nothing else. The parking of boats is nothing but an irritant I feel . MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to say anything concerning this application? Mrs. DeMaggio. MRS. DeMAGGIO: I am not an interested party at all. I just have a question and it just comes to mind as a preexisting business use. And I don' t know if it' s proper to ask it of this board. Since we have a similar situation not in this area--if it' s a preexisting use and the property owners come in and this use has existed I understand even before 1954, even though the property owner that comes in changes the position of various vehicles if it were vehicles or boats as it applies and this has not been traditional, why would the board have to rule on it. I don ' t understand what' s happening here. Mr. Lessard, could you tell me? Other than a personal dispute- I can see that. But I 'm concerned with the nonconforming use because we have been interested in purchasing property with a nonconforming use. We would be new owners in a similar position. MR. LESSARD : What are you asking? MRS. DeMAGGIO : What I am asking you is, why does the Zoning Appeals Board have the right to tell the new owners that they must Southold Town Board of Appeal -25- July 28, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE ' S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued: ) MRS. DeMAGGIO continued: change the way they want to operate in a nonconforming preexisting use? Would you have that right? I don 't know if I 'm making that clear. I ' ll try and say it again. If I were to own this boatyard, assuming I intended to buy it, and I wanted to change the geography but within my lines, I just wanted to change it around, ok? Moving things that normally can be moved, for instance, cars, boats, trailers, or areas related to whatever the preexisting nonconforming use would be. Why would I need to have a ruling by this board before I am allowed to do that? It' s very pertinent to a purchase that I intend to make. MS. WICKHAM: I think I can answer that. MR. LESSARD: The law is very specific. It says that a noncon- forming use, if it exists, cannot be expanded. And the question before this board from where I 'm sitting is, was it or wasn ' t it expanded? I 'm not about to elaborate one way or the other on that. MRS. DeMAGGIO: That' s exactly my question. How are we to find it expanded? Are they going out of their boundary? And that' s why I 'm asking. I formerly owned a house almost adjacent to this boatyard, so it' s a concern to me but not now. I no longer own it. But I 'm concerned as to the ruling by this board on expansion . Has there been an expansion is my question . I don ' t know the situation. So that is what I would like to know. MR. CHAIRMAN : Mrs. DeMaggio, I think you have to bear in mind and some people lose sight of this, and you haven 't I don' t think, but most people don' t realize that we only act upon a disapproval of the building inspector. So in this particular case, we weren't the ones making the determination of what was supposedly violated, or whatever way you would like to state it. So to answer your question, it' s really a legal question that I think the Town Attorney should answer. Ok? However, I just want you to be aware that we do some times ask the Town Attorney these questions, and-- MRS . DeMAGGIO : I thought it might be. I was just concerned with another property which we intend to purchase, and I know that there ' s always some sort of a residual when a new owner comes in and asks for the preexisting nonconforming use, and that' s what I wanted a ruling on, whether you have the right to rule on whether in fact it was an expansion. And that would be a legal question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes . MRS. DeMAGGIO : Ok. I 'm sorry I 've taken your time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other statements from either side concerning this application? Ok, hearing no further questions, I ' ll ask the board members if they have any questions? (None) Hearing no further questions, I ' ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- July 28 , 1983 Regular Meeting, (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE ' S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued: ) On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. 3148, for ROKE ' S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. * * * TEMPORARY RECESS : On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to*recess temporarily for approximately five minutes, at which time the Regular Meeting would be reconvened. *8 : 54 - 9:05 p.m. ) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. * * * RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING : At 9 : 05 p.m. , the meeting was reconvened, after motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Doyen, to RECONVENE THE REGULAR MEETING. ,__.� Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, tJ Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. * * * PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No. 3149. Application of PHILIP FRUMENTI, 3825 Stars Road, East Marion, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct carport in the frontyard area, at 3825 Stars Road, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-022-06-026 . The Chairman opened the hearing at 9 : 05 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and application. MR. CHAIRMAN : Is there anyone wishing to speak in behalf of this application? PHILIP FRUMENTI : It' s what you have said there. I have no other place where I can put the carport except where it is now in that driveway. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Frumenti, is there any reason why you can' t push the carport back a little bit farther? MR. FRUMENTI : A few reasons. One of the reasons is that I have some huge white pines right behind there. I also store some of my work equipment in that general area. If I moved that, I 'm stuck. That ' s about the only place I have. ELIZA"TH _ _. NEVILLE,TOWN CLERK • Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 Phone: 631-765-1800 PERMIT/RECEIPT #5149 New, Suffolk Shipyard Pob 276 New Suffolk Road New Suffolk, NY 11956 Received $ 600.00 for Permits - Application Fees on 05/13/2002. Thank you. It has been our pleasure to serve you. Re: New Suffolk Properties TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING P AIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST BUILDING DEPARTMENT Do yo 'e or need the following,before applying? TOWN HALL Board of Health SOUTHOLD,NY 11971 3 sets of Building Plans TEL: (631) 765-1802 Planning Board approval FAX: (631) 765-9502 Survey PERMIT NO. Check Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trustees Examined ,20 Contact: Approved ,20 Mail to: Disapproved a/c Phone: Expiration ,20 �' Building Inspector c �w_ �..__ MAR ° • 'PLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT PLOG. DEPT. Date , 20 IF S UTHOLD 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 the Building Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy. f. Every building permit shall expire if the work authorized has not commenced within 12 months after the date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date. If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the property have been enacted in the interim,the Building Inspector may authorize, in writing,the extension of the permit for an addition six months. Thereafter, a new permit shall be required. 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 authonzed inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. (Signature of applicant or name,if a corporation) (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder A."LT,t' Ship /s 'c( - Giy pa frc.«. ( iocr- -C` - V Name of owner of premises (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer /Vali Ilc <Sh . (Name and title of corporate officer) Builders License No. Plumbers License No. Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No. 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: N2%,J / Cita, /V Si IV__ House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section // 7 Block 0) Lot c9 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot (Name) 2. State existing use and occupa._.,, of premises and intended use and occ,.t,..acy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy eptnt boa f cS roc cam, nve,4 . Ii ei i sfi:i+7 5 y zi d b. Intended use and occupancy ba2-1' SJcrrargc on caei(-s . e C C ecJ 3. Nature of work(check which applicable): New Building - ddition Alteration Repair Removal Demolition Other Work (Description) 4. Estimated Cost 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 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use. tp.iet/Get 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Font Rear Depth Height Number of Stories Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front Rear Depth Height Number of Stories, :w: 0 4 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front Rear Depth Height Number of Stories 9. Size of lot: Front Rear Depth 10. Date of Purchase Name of Former Owner 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation?YES NO 13. Will lot be re-graded? YES NO Will excess fill be removed from premises? YES NO 14. Names of Owner of premises Address Phone No. Name of Architect Address Phone No Name of Contractor Address Phone No. 15 a. Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a freshwater wetland? *YES NO * IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES &D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b. Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland? *YES NO * IF YES, D.E.C. 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) SS: COUNTY OF SA K- ) Pct a 4 (7e /// er being duly sworn, deposes and says that(s)he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named, (S)He is the (Contrac r,Agent,Corporate 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 t b fore me this day of /20 Nbtary Public Signature of Applicant CLAIRE L GLEW Notary public,State of New York No.01GL4879606 Qualified in Suffolk Cou Commission Expires Dec.8, ,.. ii ... :.. H .! ______. _____ . •.. ,..:.; ‘i , H ,., N1— --- _...1 ,1 1 1 ... s\. . • , , /)• s\ . 1 i . . .. . . • . . .. _ ._ ._. , .. - - - - —- ----; , t 20' --------- - ------4 -----. -- 20 , L . . . . _e . .. 1 _ 4. L' ,:L•0 1 , . ..- 11'0 . 1. -. - ... .. ....-- .. ..._,.._....._ . .- . I r .... ,e S --,- 1 1.1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 Minuteman Boat Handling Equipment Inc. Plymouth, MA _ SCALE: ----- APPROVED 8Y: DRAWN 8Y DATE. K.;)/"?..„I/Q ' REVISED .,..... -3 '-..-- C.--I-. Qz--1 OE t)"' o 61,7s- "L•-.,,,,e,,c4,c ,-) DRAWING NUMBER 1i1 k' ,/ .L' (--,'" , Ki14:71=1411M_1111:Moi 412 Domestic Mail Onl •No Insurance Covera•e Provt.e m 2 IT Qe1 - • Postage �• Certified Fee f7.1 Return Receipt Fee min M A' +} .j PM' p (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee 1.111115. �� (Endorsement Required) 9 1=1 MEM S ra Total Postage&Fees U'1 f J Sent To Mary Ekster (Shipyard) ra Street,Apt.No., p or PO Box No. Main Street, P.O. Box 64 rs- City,State,ZIP+4 xlMX New Suffolk, NY 11956 N•14:1=1 14.1 Ji 1_1111:1X•141:4 Domestic Mail Onl •No Insurance overa.e •rovt.e• fs- s U, �r i1Postage '• , lT Certified Fee W 3D < Postm@rk f J Return Receipt Fee ?no? Herl p (Endorsement Required) 7 imp .! 31't 1 Restricted Delivery Fee IL (Endorsement Required) OEM. � 1A1j1> ra Total Postage&Fees fU Sent To Mr. and Mrs. Thomas E. Christians. Street,Apt.No., CI or PO Box No. New Suffolk Road, P.O. Box 65 N City,State,ZIP+4 New Suffolk, NY 11956 (Shipyard) RUM orirMituet Domestic Mail Onl -No Insurance Covera.e Prov' e. Ls, m Postage M' _o Cr Certified Fee Itr', �/' -// stmark PU Return Receipt Fee ir ere ID (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) 2003 • ▪ Total Postage&Fees 4'24f f:.._ • fL▪ Sent To . '*rB - Anthony C. Meisel Street,Apt.No., 0 or PO Box No. 227 Park Avenue • City,State,ZIP+4 Hoboken, NJ 07030 (Shipyard) NUMB tzlz- npi: 1014: 1401 AIMIi1412 Domestic Mail Onl •No Insurance Covera.e Provided co r'- LI) 1714 Postage 1111FAN 1.0 p- Certified Fee lir r' rk ru Return Receipt Fee - Her p (Endorsement Required) C 7003 Restncted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) / Total Postage&Fees ru Sent To Marianne Collins and Paul Schultze Cl TStreet,Apt.No. .O. Box 134 NG ,State ZIP+4 New Suffolk, NY 11956 (Shipyard) t014:1=149-1M1111111:101412 Domestic Mail Onl No Insurance Covera.e Provide. m - - ru Fel U, Postage ' , Certified Fee .lye Pos i ark Return Receipt Fee He ▪ (Endorsement Required) r O Restricted Delivery Fee • y� . 003 (Endorsement Required) MA Total Postage&Fees 1113 vw•r,. L./ and ▪ Sent Tor. Shane G. Alexa <- - `-gnes Alexander r-a Street,Apt.No, 0 or PO Box No. P.O. Box 214 City State,ZIP+a r` New Suffolk, NY 11956 tai►. .0S 7�►1DI Nei 4141•11AITM1114103 412 Domestic Val •n y; 'o nsurance overa•e -rov,.e• m 0 m Postage —D �/ i a-' Certified Fee ME 3 t..4Y1/j f? n F z� ?Mit'lark in RseFeeMIL Here (Endorsement Required)ired) p Restricted Delivery Fee • 1 (Endorsement Required) A911\7/ p 1 ,-q Total Postage&Fees $ 4.4 (Shipyard) ru Sent To Michael J. Withers & Celia Withers Street,Apt.No., 0 or PO Box No. 6635 New Suffolk Road, P.O. Box 651 �O City,State,ZIP+4 New Suffolk, NY 11956 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD.NEW YORK x In the Matter of the Application of New Suffolk Shipyard AFFIDAVIT OF (Name of Applicants) MAILINGS CTM Parcel #1000- 117 - 5 - 29. 1 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) ! I, Melissa McGowan residing at 555 Marlene Lane, Mattituck , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: . On the 3rd day of March , 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 (x) Assessors, or ( ) County Real Property Office , 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. /2/LtLCta d a [dtuucu, (Signature) Melissa McGowan Sworn to before me this 3rd day of March , 200 3 otary Public) MARGARET C. RUTKOWSKI Notary P ,State of New York No. 4982528 Qualified in Suffolk Counlr PLEASE list, on the back of�idaviitt o own a s eetof paper, the lot numbers next to the owner names and addresses for which notices were mailed. Thank you. y d. n V 1 6 , AO Opened 3/17/03 Hi Departments, In reference to the proposed work at: New Suffolk Shipyard 5775 New Suffolk Road New Suffolk, N.Y SCTM: 1000-97-5-4.5 This email is for information only and is to keep all parties up to date. The following is scheduled: Trustee's Public Hearing for March 18, 2003 on or about 7:15pm Zoning Board Hearing for March 20, 2003 on or about 2:00 pm At the Planning Board Work session held on March 10, 2003 the project was discussed and a memo went out to Z.B.A., attached is a copy of the P.B. memo. Please forward this email to all department personnel, boards members, trustee's and etc as required. If you have any questions or concerns, I can be contacted at 631-765-1938 x229. Thank You Bruno Semon Senior Site Plan Reviewer lirl New S.Shipyard.doc Also forwarded by ZBA to Ed F 3/17/03 in the event of an interest by Ed of this. PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary March 3 , 2003 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Neighbors Re : New Suffolk Shipyard 5775 New Suffolk Road New Suffolk, NY SCTM# 1000-117-5-29 . 1 Dear Neighbor: I represent New Suffolk Shipyard with regard to the property located at 5775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY. They are seeking a variance under Section 100-121C (1) , based on the Building Department' s March 27, 2002 Notice of Disapproval for proposed boat racks at a height greater than the code limitation of 18 feet, and within a side yard location rather than a rear yard. Enclosed is the Notice of Hearing and the applicable portion of the survey. The hearing on this matter has been scheduled for Thursday, March 20, 2003 at 2 : 00 p.m. at Southold Town Hall . If you have any questions, or you wish to support this application, please do not hesitate to contact me . Very truly yours, Patricia C. Moore PCM/mm Enclosures r. LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING 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 hearing will 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, March 20, 2003, at the time noted below(or as soon thereafter as possible): 2:00 p.m. New Suffolk Shipyard #5149 — Applicant requests a Variance under Section 100-121C1, based on the Building Department's March 27, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes two sets of accessory boat rack structures in this M-II Zone District, in a side yard and at a height over the code's 18 ft. limitation, at 5775 New Suffolk Road,New Suffolk; 1000-117-5-29.1. The Board of Appeals will 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 hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: February 25,2003. Lydia A.Tortora, Chairwoman Board of Appeals • 3- • N/O/F MICHAEL I WITHERS 4o ot , 'oP 6/I N r \�\\ '�� G9ai�/ioK 1 e. S. 87'55'00'E. {s'Oe(s/atanJ 11 Iu/Xh N/o/F S. G.&A. -I\ , _"°re!fence 157.56' ALEXANDER 2 sa- �` — e., wE7,� — � T T-- t— w /,/ S 7'. .� Priv 6o7a t s�bra ' shed •� /)..1'7/ �R aw � RACK :4� �` .. 4's29 E S. 87'55' E /S 3- PO.3 7� 1 -� /e., op /3 1 ki, Ynd 40.00'O.3 I s111111111 irlaZZat • k. /o N o '0 6 / v so n J 1�\ ��? CZ) N od tont to Ickes A I N1iiii 30.3 bs t OYP�+ li.) N clic. \' ,,i®--- ll vq t' z' ni, 6oi/d.a9 �i/ \ ,Iti : ... IA \_ 8G.2 ip-®� 2a ��lim t. \ o • t • 7.S' 60.z , , lit!tiff,s 7, ilifilliana ilk ..— q /,'''Yr 9 ar , oFf.ce A T 5 hi O 20.,`� I Go 3 C • Q u O r7 c s 1 ,y0 1, �/ tt l 0 / . c.veroO ,� °• CY J r I o n(d� - .,. " ip 4010,•• s Cl) 1 rnir�y4 n f'_ \ \ ` J 0 /� w..d 6 0o r ' shoot ON wet, _f/ `, ,,,a,pP S�o/ c 11, max 9v P.l�! ,•r A3.e b/ ace \ _ c _ , ci ' a ili sic dpr � "o <a� -��'///r ,,e , r0 / N82'0330- w,n_ . I ♦ a y /935 /1.,,,,,,-,y 4. \...._._ .:1 P3 `4* n � ' o\\14. ,^, cam\\ ‘1C/10 4,, ,J ` Au M y° SE C ' �`,_. REEK N. 8• 5 22.40- W. 1 I/6' e //yes --------A., ORCHARD STREET • AREA = 2287 Acres to tie line's LOT COVERAGE SURVEY OF EXISTING E II X NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AT COMPLET NOF CONSTRUCTION AT NEW SUFFOLK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY 1000 - 117- 05-29.1 • Scale: 1"=40' Dec. 13, 1999 ANY ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION FEB. 22, 2002 ,OF SECTION PER SE7209 CTIONN 7HE 209 YORK BDIVIS ON 2.ATE ALL O CERTIFICATIONS HEREON JAN. 8, 2002 (PARKING! HEREON ARE VALID FOR THIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONLY IF SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE'IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR WHOSE SIGNATURE APPEARS HEREON. ADDITIONALLY TO COMPLY WITH SAID LAW THE TERM 'ALTERED BY' MUST BE USED BY ANY AND ALL SURVFY/1RA urn 17tur, A rnov r ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS • TOWN OF SOUTHOLD.NEW YORK -----------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of New Suffolk Shi AFFIDAVIT pyard OF SIGN (Name of Applicant) POSTING Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as 1000- 117 - 5 - 29.1 ----------------- ------x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) Patricia C. Moore residing at 370 Terry Lane, Southold , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the 7 day of March , 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 remai r-• in p -ce for seven days prior to the date of the subject hearing date, . - •T=: l ate was shown to be March 20, 2003. - (Signature) Patricia C. Moore Sworn to before me this //q# day of March , 2003 . JI LL <-1-41.4 Mce(cLUCLI--- (Notary Public) MELISSA McGOWAN Notary Public,State of New Ybrk No.4995913 Qualified In Suffolk County Commission Expires May 4 20 *near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property, the area most visible to passersby. • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signa item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 0 Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse X 0 Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. R" ed by(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, it//77/ i2. S or on the front if space permits. , D. Is delivery address different from item 17-0 Yes--- 1 Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address belovG 0 No Michael J. Withers and / Celia Withers //cr, 6635 New Suffolk Road P.O. R..,x 654 -- -i-f— ; New Suffolk, NY 11956 3. Service Type ®Certified Mail 0 Express Mail 0 Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4 Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number 7001 2510 0002 9603 4530 (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-01-M-2509 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 • PATRICIA C. MOORE ATTORNEY AT LAW 51020 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 New Suffolk Shipyard ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. / 0 Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse X`� '_ _ _ 0 Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Rec.') .• by(Printed Name) C. Dat=of +elivery • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, _ or on the front if space permits. K • en - c?r - E' J G D Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1 Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below' 0 No Mary gkster Main Street P.O. Box 64 New Suffolk, NY 11956 3. Service Type ®Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4 Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7001 2510 0002 9603 4561 PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-01-M-2509 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 1 0 0 1 Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • PATRICIA C. MOORS ATTORNEY AT LAW 51020 MAIN ROAD SOUTHQLD NY 11971 New Suffolk Shipyard ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete o\ item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ❑.Ag • Print your name and address on the reverse � r 0 Addr= so that we can return the card to you. eived byktc r +3) C\C to of Del • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, L s or on the front if space permits. ��� D Is delivery address different from i : 11? 0 Y 1 Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address be1oW ' tglNo Marianne Collins and Paul Schultze P.O. Box 134 New Suffolk, NY 11956 3. Service Type ®Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4 Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number 7001 2510 0002 9603 4578 (transfer from service label) PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-01-M-250` UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 111111 First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • PATRICIA C. MOORE ATTORNEY AT LAW 51020 MAIN ROAD • SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 New Suffolk Shipyard ...1411111 4:11MUTIN1141-0111MIXtureANKohtialiatIMINAIRIX•Hydaremaiggivigly • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. SiL". n .re item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. gent • Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addre = so that we can return the card to you. c. Receive. f Pn ed Name) C. Da • .f D-every • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, , 3 i or on the front if space permits. ' D. Is delivery address different from item 1 • Y.s 1 Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below 0 o Anthony C. Meisel 227 Park Avenue Hoboken, NJ 07030 3. Service Type la Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4 Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Numberfrom 7001 2510 0002 9603 4554 (transfer from service label) PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-01-M-250r UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE �r�.�'st-Class QC 'vv0 0 .Q • •, ,, .Pos ei_ USPS---- Permit-No.Permit No.G-1D _. - j ` • Sender: Please print yo na.rne, ddress, and ZIP+4 in thisbox• "-- PATRICIA C. MOORE • ATTORNEY AT LAW 51020 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 New Suffolk Shipyard I, fii � � , e: f rt i r di •!!!!!i!!f ! f! if i (!fits [Hi ..!i!!(I!!!; InII yizi m- •m' auminimfmage7P-t i.�wx�■r�c��yx rrc.�.�x.�rx.»���xa' • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A.Ait tura: item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X0 Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse _ - _ _ IS Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. e' 5 - ' D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1 Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below. No Mr. and Mrs. Thomas E. Christian .on New Suffolk Road P.O. Box 65 New Suffolk, NY 11956 3. Service Type ®Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4 Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number (transfer from service labeQ 7001 2 510 0002 9603 4547 PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 1o2595-01-M-25O UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 111111 First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • PATRICIA C. MOORE • ATTORNEY AT LAW 51020 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 New Suffolk Shipyard • PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel:(631)765-4330 Fax:•(631)765-4643 March 13 , 2003 Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: New Suffolk Shipyard Appl . No. 5149 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please find five (5) signed Return Receipt cards for the above referenced matter. Very truly yours, POn-ccf. C7Y/oolkt Patricia C. Moore By: Melissa McGowan, Secretary /mm Enclosures 1 PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel:(631)765-4330 Fax::(631)765-4643 March 6, 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE : New Suffolk Shipyard Premises : 5775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY SCTM: 1000-117 . 00-05 . 00-029 . 001 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please find the Affidavit of Mailing, six (6) Certified Mail Receipts and the Affidavit of Posting for the above referenced matter. We will forward the signed Return Receipt Cards to you upon our receipt of same . Very truly yours, r +'C,tikiCcek in. 1)JoO,tii Patricia C. Moore By: Melissa McGowan, Secretary /mm Enclosures Ndltice of Hearltg A public hearing will be held by the Southold Town Appeals Board at Town Hall 53095 Main Road, Southold, concerning this property APPLICATION: NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD TAX MAP #: 117-5-29.1 PROJECT: SIDEYARD & HEIGHT VARIANCES DESCRIPTION: 2 ACCY BOAT RACKS TIME & DATE: THURS. MAR. 20, 2003 2:00 PM If you have an interest in this project, you are invited to view the Town file(s) which are available for inspection prior to the hearing during normal business days between the hours of 8am and 3pm. ZONING BOARD - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - 631 -765-1809 4 LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY,MARCH 20,2003 PUBLIC HEARING 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 hearing will 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, March 20, 2003, at the time noted below(or as soon thereafter as possible): 2:00 p.m. New Suffolk Shipyard #5149 — Applicant requests a Variance under Section 100-121C1, based on the Building Department's March 27, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes two sets of accessory boat rack structures in this M-II Zone District, in a side yard and at a height over the code's 18 ft. limitation, at 5775 New Suffolk Road,New Suffolk; 1000-117-5-29.1. The Board of Appeals will 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 hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: February 25, 2003. Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman Board of Appeals „ , ( APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS /0,0•1'',SVf F0 �'�, Co Southold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwomanc 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer ; ti i ; P.O. Box 1179 George Horning ;O 'V' 0 Southold,New York 11971-0959 �Q/ Ruth D. Oliva j�l ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando _ * ,.” Telephone(631)765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 27, 2003 To Eric J Bressler, Esq Wickham, Wicham & Bressler, P C Main Road P O. Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11952 Mrs Lauren Grant New Suffolk Civic Association, Inc. P O. Box 642 New Suffolk, NY 11956 Re. Appl. No. 5149 — New Suffolk Marina Variance Request Dear Mrs. Grant and Mr Bressler. In response to your previous written inquiries, this will confirm that the public hearing on the above application has been advertised for March 20, 2003 for 2:00 p.m. (Legal Notice enclosed). Certified mail notices are expected to be sent by the applicant during the week of March 5, 2003. Please feel free to review the file at your convenience. Sincerely yours, Linda Kowalski Secretary OFFICE OF•Stit/t)°'/ BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 765-1809 tel. 765-9064 ZBA fax. ,***k***********,***A*******•k,*****,*, , **•k*************,******* * ,k, , * REPLY FORM Dated: 9-3-0'°1- TO: TO: ` ammo( 44C, /X ece � Tp14-Your application is incomplete for the reasons noted below. ( ) It is requested that the following be forwarded as soon as possible (within about 7 days, if feasible). The advertising deadline is 22 days before the meeting date and the information is necessary for review and advertising purposes. You may forward the information by fax at 765- 9064, however, please send the original by mail. Thank you. ( ) The appeal was not filed within 60 days of the decision of the Building Inspector. ivy Missing information - please see missing information checked below. Please submit all the documentation, together with information noted below. If you have any questions, please call us at 765-1809. Thank you. Information requested: ( ) Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector after his/her review of this • particular project map. ( ) Check payable to the Town of Southold totaling $ ( ) Signature and notary public information are needed. ( ) An original and six prints of the map were not included. (Preparer's name and date of preparation to be shown.) ( ) Setbacks must be shown for the subject building to all property lines, with preparers name. ( ) Six (6) sets of a diagram showing the doors, number of stories, and average height (from natural grade). ( ) Ownership Search back to April 23, 1957 for the subject parcel and all adjoining parcels, certified by a title insurance company, and insuring the Town for$25,000. ( ) Copies of all current deeds and tax bills of the parcels back to 1174\b4)) Other: . A fra-s.., ,4 JO l -� z--/5/9 a,,..cL c v , .°/.j, a-�—/oma,., �'�"�ch aC� 6 I �') cy. 0)-3' „ PLAI NNING BOARD MEMBE 1' Q Co BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. ,/��h�0 oy�` P.O. Box 1179 Chairman o IITown Hall, 53095 State Route 25 •t $ Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGIANO ; , Telephone(631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREMERS �i 0� 111 Fax (631) 765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS �0 a 1 MARTIN SIDOR = '� •.,1 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AUG 2 Date: August 21, 2002 To: Gerry Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals From: Bennett Orlowski Jr., Chairman, Planning Boar® Re: New Suffolk Shipyard 5557 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk,NY SCTM# 1000-117-5-29.1 With regard to Application Number 5149, referenced above, the Planning Board offers the following comments: 1. The proposed boat racks on the northerly property line, approximately 76 feet long, are too close to residential uses on the adjacent property. There is virtually no buffer between the properties, and the wire fence affords no screening. Additionally the proposed height of the storage racks would present a sheer wall of boat storage to the neighbors and be very visible from many perspectives. The Planning Board suggests a maximum height of eighteen feet at this location, heavily screened, and set back ten feet. 2. We note that no parking is shown or designated on the proposed plan. The Planning Board recommends one space for every two boats stored in the racks, and they should be indicated on the plan. This applies to both storage racks, if they are approved. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY CHECKLIST FOR NEW PROJECTS ✓ LABEL APPL# ASSESSORS CARD (7 COPIES) NAME /I CJ C i _ �! ✓/ CTY. TAX MAP (7 COPIES + 1) CTM# //7- -, Q• PAkev INDEX CARD (ATTACH OLD) TOWN /WGU SZiA4VG , fS L PHArBOOK RESEARCH ALPHA COPY PRIORS „ Xi - //w* 170 $IX COPIES 3/4/g 9/i ?/13 Dec. INSPECTION PACKETS COMPLETE REF: UPDATED NEW INFORMATION )1861o3 (Vic l up-41- x/6/0 s t ///VVV'""'���/l 1 1G � �SUFFOt,t , Pc64 cla I LANNING BOARD MEMBERS P.O. 0.'i' BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR -- G.f, ; P.O. Box 1179 Chairman 'j o , Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 v3 m ; Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGIANO /�� Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J CREMERS ` y / Fax(631) 765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS �I �, MARTIN SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I Date: August 21, 2002 AUG 2 , To: Gerry Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals From: Bennett Orlowski Jr., Chairman, Planning Boart° Re: New Suffolk Shipyard 5557 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY SCTM# 1000-117-5-29.1 With regard to Application Number 5149, referenced above, the Planning Board offers the following comments: 1. The proposed boat racks on the northerly property line, approximately 76 feet long, are too close to residential uses on the adjacent property. There is virtually no buffer between the properties, and the wire fence affords no screening. Additionally the proposed height of the storage racks would present a sheer wall of boat storage to the neighbors and be very visible from many perspectives. The Planning Board suggests a maximum height of eighteen feet at this location, heavily screened, and set back ten feet. 2. We note that no parking is shown or designated on the proposed plan. The Planning Board recommends one space for every two boats stored in the racks, and they should be indicated on the plan. This applies to both storage racks, if they are approved. OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Email: Linda.Kowalski(niTown.Southold.ny.us or Paula.Quintieri(it,Town.Southold.ny.us http://southoldtown.northfork.net (631) 765-1809 fax (631) 765-1823 (alt. 9064) FAX TRANSMISSION FAX# I(06-- l&�-3 ATTN: 7' L? ) -CAp . DATE: e /02/ /2002 11 REF /7.7 - )(au J t. ?Lt-OLAzi' MESSAGE: Please feel free to call if you did not receive all sheets. Town Hall hours are between 8 and 4. Thank you. Pages to follow: RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME : 08/21/2002 10:58 DATE,TIME 08/21 10:57 FAX NO./NAME 7654643 DURATION 00:00:48 PAGE(S) 02 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM 1 --rtif, lift,,;(, 0 \‘‘• 4\ STATE OF NEW YORK) t') - ;/'-'40 „61- -)of-t-/ :47",.,,,,:'!:17 )SS: �Y OF SUFFOLK) .. , �°002 j,o i, 11,iL2k, ,L of Mattituck, in said , ;4:k I !,•, 111171f� ,per- county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal and t 44 - er•l 1 e o,° clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES,a weekly newspaper,pub- Chapter t ,1 �de'►f g To, , •.���...,,, ,, lished at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of ti . wit- be `card b e s t" ai?" TOWKBoARD OF Suffolk and State of New York,and that the Notice of which • ••; ;s at the TownHall, 53095 the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly pub- 'n Road,S�outhold,Nwyork 11971,Ilished in said Newspaper once each week on Th u slay,.Augusst` 22, 2002, at the stioted below(or as soon thetenfter for / weeks successively, commencing sab ey. ,, , 3 on the / day ;3A „ , s oS'7— 2001 • Rd 1, 10 3/►;;SOON flhe-Building 't;g lizenitJaii4116<' j, „b'''‘4.1`°--'171:77,47',77 2, r.s of of S„,'-', ," "'on Principal Clerk S1 _ , ",' •i' 't, ',•1, . ' lilt' Sworn to ore me this aiitoguC�r 1 1-1g,4: .1a; l�,��f g o p:t<%A5-0,31,-.=,1o.5149 ' is 1 / day of 20 �� LAAA,t_a { // 1 SUFFOLK SHIPYARD. 'Phis is a ` I� 1t'lCrt.Citaz- t regiiesttor.a �a �R� under mon a 1 ►i lCttf, b 4 oa O0 N C0f e LAURA E. BONDARCHUK e__• nu' '21,. teG Notary Public, State of New York Dila '..r No 01 B06067958 a 1 4 than the code ' 'o l of side f e. Qualified in Suffolk County Dr— of, My Commission Expires Dec.24, 20_ ' 'mue M, Road,Ne ' 1`yam 9.1. T. • � f� .:1111:6' F n 1`. 1No.5150- 1.-AN A g K phis is a-request for \ �i :�, 6aed-N6t1 , two stone viall- 4 1s 'Aofr. r , EIt, • t,when located in '- jI I p on: 635 Kiln' fly 1 �1e ' 204. t_,,,,,, y.�`-�la,�lf -Parcel 11 4 . ' `, ki,fz. ,., ` s rim 3 • oti ' hears g. ', . "t41 09t start 1:' , ; Filesare availsblC f m '1 ar Town Ha bu: ,.:.,. 10 : „-',, �, r;a 3�0 pm). lease,do lot hesi-' � 4 3outholii 0#16• peals Soyertifirlii414959 \ J APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS II,��OQtFFO(,tl' 1'�����. OGy 530951d Main Road Town 1 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 4 • lr Lydia A.Tortora % co P.O. Box 1179 lk George Horning ^�+ �� Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva '* l� / ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 Vincent Orlando . ( At 4,•• Telephone(631) 765-1809 .... , ''� http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 21, 2002 -FaIc Transr t. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appl. No 5149—New Suffolk Shipyard Variances Deary.Ps ore: This will confirm that the public hearing, advertised by our Department for tomorrow's calendar, will be canceled until such time as certified mail notices have been filed (for all adjacent landowners). At this time a tentative calendar date is expected for either September 19, 2002 or October 3, 2002. We will advise when the Board has adopted a Resolution confirming the date. Thank you. Very truly yours, ZBA Office -RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME : 08/21/2002 15:50 DATE,TIME 08/21 15:50 FAX NO. /NAME 7654643 DURATION 00:00:27 PAGE(S) 01 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM /( APPVia BOARD MEMBERS ��of° oFFOL4' Southo1'����0�0 COGy 530951 Main Road Halld Town Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A.Tortora ky = P.O. Box 1179 v- �++ Southold,New York 11971-0959 George Horning • ��, so-D. Oliva . � Vincent Orlando 'T'-' sZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 01 * �►a,.1' Telephone(631)765-1809 ....•'' http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TOWN MEMO TO: Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman, Planning Board FROM: Jerry Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Appeals Board DATE: July 24, 2002 SUBJ: Request for Planning Board Coordination Reply The following map reviews are pending before the Zoning Board of Appeals, and calendared for a public hearing and possible decision on August 22, 2002: A. Referrals) kinder Site Plan Provisions. Appl. No. 5149 — New Suffolk Shipyard Project Description: Two boat rack struct -s _ Location of Property: 5775 New - - . Road, New Suffolk 117-5-29.1 Appl. No. 5084 - 640 Church St. LLC/Chituk Pools Project Description. Pool Company with Indoor Storage Location of Property: 640 Church Lane, Cutchogue LIO Zone. Would you please forward comments or suggestions on the building layout or site issues that may be of concern to the Planning Board under the site plan or subdivision jurisdiction reviews. By way of a copy of this letter, we are also asking the applicants to contact your Department (765-1938) to determine if original maps, an application, or other documentation may be necessary for your department to commence this preliminary review. Please feel free to review the official ZBA file at any time that is convenient for your staff. Thank you. cc: New Suffolk Shipyard do Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 640 Church St. LLC do McCarthy Management, Inc. 3al11a i reci1 iggagi Miciti»4iattai:StaiI[i ozeftegi/ s— ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. z ❑ gent • Print your name and address on the reverse '� l / ; ` _-' Addressee so that we can return the card to you. ;r C. D. e of Delivery • Attach this card to the back of the mail iece, or on the front if space permits. p WA iV` i t♦� D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ,,,,■ Yes 1 Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: No Michael J. Withers Celia' Withers P.O. Box 654 New Suffolk, NY 11956 3. Service Type ®Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail 0 Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4 Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number 7001 1940 0007 1427 6511 (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-01-M-250 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 • PAT,. .0 , C. MOORE • LAW 51020 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 (New Suffolk Shipyard) I1II(I�IIIII1111I�,�I I I I I i�III I�II�����I I�II����ISI II�����I�iI ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Si.nature item is desired. 4 Restrict anaddress Delivery ess on the reverse ��� / / is Addressee • Printyour nameand so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by( 'tinted Name) C. Date of Delivery • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. _ D Is delivery address different from item 1? 7. Yes 1 Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delive address below. 0 No Thomas E. Christianson ,p, i3eY Beverly J. Christianson 7050 New Suffolk Road 1V 4%/%1*- �� � ��•4`�/�v�1/j�/�[ New Suffolk, NY 11956 3. Service Type ®Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4 Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service labe 7001 1940 0007 1427 6535 PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-01-M-250V- UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE I 11, II I First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • PATRICIA C. MOORS ATTORNEY AT LAVV 51020 MAN ROAD SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 (New Suffolk Shipyard) 141 9 ': COMPLETE THIS SECTION <KUfiglIMIMI-MN IXONIaCM0»1►v14-f • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Received by(Please Print Clearly) B. Date of Delivery item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can retthe card to you. C. Signature urn • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, X ❑Agent or on the front if space permits. 0 Addressee D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below ❑ No Michele Cusumano P.O. Box 117 New Suffolk, NY 11956 3. Service Type l Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number(Cop] 7001 1940 0007 1427 6559 PS Form 3811,July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-00-M-0952 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 • PATRICIA C. MOORE - ATTORNEY AT LAW 51020 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 (New Suffolk Shipyard) • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. -eceived by(P/:-se PriiClearly) B. *,te• Delivery item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. -d it r i i g'e s'L • Print your name and address on the reverse ` so that we can return the card to you. r n. ure • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, Agent or on the front if space permits. I A 0 Addressee D. Is der ery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1 ArticleAddressed to: of YE',enter delivery address below- 'KW 1 ""l itte 66040 Pc 131x <11 N' c I� 01 10'56 3. S ice Type rrll ertified Mail CIExpress Mail ❑ R istered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4 Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number(Copy from service label) JL/� /�� 1 ttl` 07 X42? `� PS Form 3811,July 1999 /Domestic Return Receipt // (/Y/ 102595.00-M-0952 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 LSend r sep t yob �e, address,and ZIP+4 in this box • UQ vl � kkcci& C I'It _ 'dOv e At Li_ _SCOW 4,x. � 6.31A4Olei Nvf 1111 PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel:(631)765-4330 Fax: (631)765-4643 August 16, 2002 Board of Appeals Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: New Suffolk Shipyard Premises : 5775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY SCTM: 1000-117 . 00-05 . 00-029 . 001 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please find four (4) signed Return Receipt cards for the above referenced matter. Very truly yours, i (ti C' 711ccAl Patricia C. Moore By: Melissa McGowan, Secretary /mm Enclosures PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road AUG 13 Southold, New York 11971 Tel:(631)765-4330 Fax::(631)765-4643 August 9, 2002 Board of Appeals Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE : New Suffolk Shipyard Premises : 5775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY SCTM: 1000-117 . 00-05 . 00-029 . 001 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please find the Affidavit of Mailing, five (5) Certified Mail Receipts and the Affidavit of Posting for the above referenced matter. We will forward the signed Return Receipt Cards to you upon our receipt of same . Very truly yours, Patricia C. Moore By: Melissa McGowan, Secretary /mm Enclosures •Ontest,c 'al •n y: To assurance overa.e Trov, ec c0 [1A9FFICIAL US E7 Postage $ . 3.7 - rR Certified Fee J. • �� 1'� �� Return Receipt Fee /• ; 5 (Endorsement Required) • q lie I= � U 8 2002 f Postage&Fees $ y,*011/4\ � Sent To Shane G. Alnd'P'}�( ipyard) rg _Anes Alexande __ S Pope XNo' P.O. Box 214 �tty,State,��4 N New Suffolk, NY 11956 ___ orm :ro, anuar rr ee severs- .r n tr rant; WitVIMFa1[:zaiRrr_ t�l�:i�l�l��l►�i►ell�:�x�l�li Domestic ral •n y: To nsurance overa.e •rov, e 0^ trn'IOFFICIAL usEl Free $ 3 7 r "��,Ntal►oto J� r-9 Certified Fee 3v -"'�`�'�`� 'dr Postm\tk Return Receipt Fee / 5 Here 0 (Endorsement Required) n O Restricted Delivery Fee UG '% 200 O (Endorsement Required) ci MU'Postage&Fees $ y• 41; ,J r.0 0"' Sent To !•_ 11 ra Michele Cusumano yard) Street,Apt.No.; or PO Box No. P.O. Box 117 N City,were,Z114-41N ew Suffolk, NY 11956 d .`lra ricin 2;r asiri�`[ :i it.TJiitircalz MIlltzlItTitifinsit 7 ' R E 01412 `pr. UMTSTILOT LOWnTIitxlnEsrrt . 0 - .0.mrtM ru , a— s .L:' I. e s y •••i —0 I . 3.7 ' . ru Postage $ ` 1/Jdi-- r� _ Certified Fee v'.L)YY _ ReturnReceipt Fee /. 75 `' r 2 O (Endorsement Required) O Restricted Delivery Fee ....\` p (Endorsement Required) /� `,;0\- p . „— f O Total Postage d Fees L/ _/ >,,,I,...,:_7 � : Er Sent To ra Joseph Judjinski (Shipyard) rg Street,Apt.Na: or PO Box No. 564 First Street C3 ctry,srere,z►P«4Brooklyn, NY 11215 PS Form 3800, anuary s ee •everse or nstru um, Wilimairivis. M•14:111214911MAIMIlatali Domestic rag on y: ‘0 nsurance overa e 'row e ix) I0 F F i C 1 A IC", -,..,,,,, i.,... ..o . D- - Postage $ ' 37 ru = -' .2• Sy Certified Fee i-4 - i Return Receipt Fee i r- ' 7 5- , A1UGII (Endorsement Required) CI CI RestrIcb3d Delivery Fee i'rA ‘,.... o 8 2°02 ci (Endorsement Required) Mtn!Postage&Fees $ L/ ../43.. ,,,,c),..:--....---- / 1=1 a- SentTo Thomas E. Christian 1 pyard) 1-9 Beverly J. Christianson Street,Apt.No.; rl or PO Box No. 7050 New Suffolk Road a 1=1 City,Stair,WP+4 N New Suffolk, NY 11956 P mm 8S0, anuar IS '41171=112MIZISLIIIITIZiratr; MEMIRMLOVMMB5END MilandigialolivAllila01412 Domestic Mail On! ; No Insurance Covera•e Provided rR ri ,(--t Z% e), Ui ,,,,, r r ...0 .. r- . Postage $ • 37 " ,\ ru 4 .9 3— ‘',--'------.\fvf Certified Fee ,-- . (,..) . ra • 4 ' \ Postmark Return Receipt Fee /. 7 (F_ndorsement Required) 'WG 0 8 .t702 al C) Restricted Delivery Fee i ci (Endorsement Required) .• ,..,\'`........,-**d.e\ ,I Total Postage&Fees $ pyard) o- Sent To Michael J. Withers—tstri r-q Celia Withers , Street,Apt.No.; '—' or PO Box No. P.O. Box 654 0 C:1 City,State,ZIP*A N Suffolk, NY 11956 P orm 810 anuar ii IWZMIMITNSIZIMillinircii: 0 AUG 1 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NEW YORK x In the Matter of the Application of New Suffolk Shipyard AFFIDAVIT OF (Name of Applicants) MAILINGS CTM Parcel #1000- 117 - 5 - 29.1 x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) 1, Melissa McGowan residing at 555 Marlene Lane, Mattituck , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the 8th day of August , 2002, 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 (x) Assessors, or • ( ) County Real Property Office , 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. J.( %)/eclat Melissa McGowanatUre)• 'n Sworn to before me this 9tlday of August , 200 2 /7/074667417/ MARGARET C. RUTKOYVSlO ary Public) Notary Public,state of NOW York No. 4982520 Commission ExpiresJuneJure o�-� PLEASE list, on the back of this Affidavit or on a sheet of paper, the lot numbers next to the owner names and addresses for which notices were mailed. Thank '` you. AUG 13 Subject - 1000-117-5-29.1 1000-117-5-24 Michael J. Withers and Celia Withers 6635 New Suffolk Road, P.O. Box 654 New Suffolk,NY 11956 1000-117-5-27 Shane G. Alexander and Agnes Alexander P.O. Box 214 New Suffolk,NY 11956 1000-117-5-49.1 underwater land 1000-117-5-47 underwater land 1000-117-4-30 Thomas E. Christianson and Beverly J. Christianson 7050 New Suffolk Road New Suffolk,NY 11956 1000-117-4-31 Joseph Fudjinski 564 First Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 1000-117-4-32 Michele Cusumano 35 Orchard Street, P.O. Box 117 New Suffolk, NY 11956 • PATRICIA C. MOORE AUG 3 Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary August 8, 2002 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Neighbors Re : New Suffolk Shipyard 5775 New Suffolk Road New Suffolk, NY SCTM# 1000-117-5-29 . 1 Dear Neighbor: I represent New Suffolk Shipyard with regard to the property located at 5775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY. They are seeking a variance under Section 100-121C (1) , based on the Building Department' s March 27, 2002 Notice of Disapproval for proposed boat racks at a height greater than the code limitation of 18 feet, and within a side yard location rather than a rear yard. Enclosed is the Notice of Hearing and the applicable portion of the survey. The hearing on this matter has been scheduled for Thursday, August 22 , 2002 at 8 : 10 p.m. at Southold Town Hall . If you have any questions, or you wish to support this application, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yol .rs, Patricia C . Moore PCM/mm Enclosures • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 2002 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following application will be heard by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 2002, at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter as may be possible): 8:10 pm Appl. No. 5149 - NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-121C(1), based on the Building Department's March 27, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for proposed boat racks at a height greater than the code limitation of 18 feet, and within a side yard location rather than a rear yard. Location of Property: 5775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk; Parcel 117-5-29.1. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representative, desiring to be heard at the hearing, or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of this hearing. This hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review at the Town Hall (between 8 and 3 p.m.) If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated July 23, 2002. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 N/O/F MICHAEL J. WITHERS W °°° \\tr)CS --►� V► o.,. S. 87°55'00° E. k �e Fe,�� /57.56' , �o/,rhes N/O/F S. —�=— s ii ALEXANDER z °353. ,irk , �— ,— !s/ 4 FR ti, • S7 ir i • shed f,;� 45.24• E. S. 87°55' E. /5.3 2,3. 76/o.r�o 60�/J IC:; :,77-\"-+4� rc.c, ,,s 03 \ fwd 4000'0 3 4veI 44 {_, p ! � N o.! VTj 0, ° 6 / v 9 s 7/ o n C • �`'- o Nbs�on� /0 /vis �o�c O 3v3• a oved , I , -.. ,ozio es a / \\' °o h �4 Y h ry a I �Q C k5 1, 8.6 G.a' a ea. fillz� 50./• : _: I::: // o c mea/ _i��y f� y m s�ora9� fhae. o N 3. ' fJUi/di n9 � psi, /2.0 � I9• 9 s _ /a�P 84.2. \• \\ ZS. T� 60 2 -- -m� ktoy , // O of{,Ga q p n __'' ' X03 C Y Cg, Y `1 / , - o •- o III • y r ' �ro J �N • rw ✓/e y 0 6octr shao-, V, a Weed N _ .. I4.c` P' / ° 14-...,=.- o N r 9.1.5 Per 1 .N f34 . b/dry . I.7 - i6�..,rhBev ‘ .....e... /54 ^'^'� J el.N �/ L, / ' .. _ / 1 • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD'NEW YORK x In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDAVIT New Suffolk Shipyard OF SIGN (Name of Applicant) POSTING Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as 1000- 117 - 5 - 29.1 x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) Patricia C. Moore residing at 370 Terry Lane, Southold , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the 8th day of August , 2002, 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 h maine• •- pla e for seven days prior to the date of the subject hearing ate •• date was shown to be .......... Patricianature) PaiC(.130 oore Sworn to before me this / `-' day of August , 2002 . / 4,1<1.4_ 71 c ji cocu,_ MELISSA McGOWAN Notary public,State of New.** (Notary Public) No.4995913 Oual hied in SuffolkMay County , Commission Expiresn20 *near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property, as the area most visible to passersby. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 2002 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following application will be heard by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 2002, at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter as may be possible): 8:10 pm Appl. No. 5149 - NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-121C(1), based on the Building Department's March 27, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for proposed boat racks at a height greater than the code limitation of 18 feet, and within a side yard location rather than a rear yard. Location of Property: 5775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk; Parcel 117-5-29.1. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representative, desiring to be heard at the hearing, or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of this hearing. This hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review at the Town Hall (between 8 and 3 p.m.) If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated July 23, 2002. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Email: Linda.Kowalskk Town.Southold.ny.us or Paula.Quintieri(d Town.Southold.ny.us (631) 765-1809 fax (631) 765-1823 July 23, 2002 Re: Chapter 58 — Public Notice for Thursday, August 22, 2002 Hearing Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Suffolk Times. 1) Pursuant to Chapter 58 of the Southold Town Code (copy enclosed), formal notice of your application and hearing must be now mailed with a map or sketch showing the construction area or variance being considered. Send the enclosed Notice CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, with the above sketch or survey showing the new construction area, or details of your request, by Saturday, August 9th to all owners of land (vacant or improved) surrounding yours, including land across any street or right-of-way that borders your property. Use the current addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office (765-1937) or the County Real Property Office in Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. 2) When picking up the sign, a $15 check will be requested for each poster (or metal stand if needed) as a deposit. Please post the Town's official poster/sign no later than Thursday, August 15th. Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, no more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. (If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is available for the additional front yard.) The sign(s) must remain in place for at least seven (7) days, and should remain posted through the day of the hearing. If you need a replacement poster board, please contact us. 3) By August 17th, please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers noted for each, and return it with the white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. The original Affidavit is due not later than the date of the hearing. Also, when the green signature cards are returned to you by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the hearing, if possible. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board at the hearing. These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. 4) By August 22nd after the signs have been in place for seven (7) days, please submit your signed Affidavit of Posting to our office. If you do not meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Enclosures Zoning Appeals Board and Staff P.S. Please pick up the poster sign between August 5th and 12th between 8-12, or 1:30-3. Thank you. Southold Town Board df Appeals -28- November 20 , 1980 On motion by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it was RESOLVED, that Charles and Margaret Mebus be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance , Article III , Section 100-32 for permission to construct garage as applied for in Appeal No . 2757. Location of property : 2145 Wells Avenue (Road) , Southold , NY ; bounded north by Benson and West Hill Road ; east by Benson ; south by Edson and Wells Road ; west by Wells Road. County Tax Map Item No . 1000-70-4-21 . Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Douglass , Doyen , Goehringer and Sawicki . Absent was : Mr. Grigonis . * RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No . 2742 . Application of William Hatfield , d/b/a Northeast Enterprises , Inc . , New Suffolk Road , New Suffolk , NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article VIII , Section 100-81 for approval of parcel to be established with insufficient area and width at 6725 and 6775 New Suffolk Road , New Suffolk , NY ; bounded north by Withers ; east and south by School - house Creek ; west by New Suffolk Road. County Tax Map Item No . 1000-117-5-28 and 29. After investigation and personal inspection , the Board finds as follows : Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance for approval of insufficient area and width , 5 ,600 square feet and 70 feet wide , respectively, of a parcel to be established in a C-zone at New Suffolk . Existing on the premises from which this parcel will be taken are several buildings : garage , shed , boat storage shed , show room, small frame building , office and another boat shed , and a two-story frame house on the subject parcel . Applicant states that he would be unable to sell the house and adjacent property without the granting of this variance ; however , no documents were submitted supporting the statements . Applicant also states that the dwelling has been and is presently rented as a residence. This appeal being an area and width variance variance , it is incumbent upon the appellant to prove that a literal applica- tion of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties . Appellant is not required to prove unnecessary hardship as is in the case of a use variance. The courts had held that in determining the question of "practical difficulties , " a board of appeals should consider: (1 ) how substantial the variation is in relation to the require- ment , (2 ) the effect if the variance is allowed , of the increased population density thus produced on available govern- mental facilities , (3 ) whether a substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a substantial detriment to the adjoining properties created , (4 ) whether the Southold Town Board off Appeals -29- November 20 , 1980 detriment to the adjoining properties created , (4 ) whether the difficulty can be obviated by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance , and (5 ) whether in view of the matter in which the difficulty arose and considering all of the above factors , the interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance . Applying the above factors to this case , the Board finds and determines that the variance requested in relation to the Code requirements is substantial ; that if the variance is granted , a substantial detriment to adjoining property will be created ; that the difficulty can be obviated by a method feasible to the appel - lant other than a variance ; and that considering all of the above factors , the interests of justice will be served by denying the variance applied for herein . On motion by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it was RESOLVED, that William Hatfield , d/b/a Northeast Enterprises , Inc. be denied a variance to the zoning ordinance , Article VIII , Section 100-81 , Appeal No . 2742 . Location of property : 6725 and 6775 New Suffolk Road , New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Withers ; east and south by School - house Creek ; west by New Suffolk Road. County Tax Map. Item No. 1000-117-5-28 and 29. Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Douglass , Doyen and Sawicki . Member Goehringer abstained. Chairman Grigonis was absent . * * * 4 RESERVED DECISIcN : Appeal No . 2750. Apalication of Harry J. and Lillian A. Baglivi Nassau Point Road , C , tchogue , NY for a Variance to the Zoning c dinance , Art. III , Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and idth of three prs •osed parcels . Location of properties : Nassau Poi Road and Wunn •weta Road , Cutchogue , NY ; bounded north by Alexander a d Golden ; west by Wunneweta Road ; south by Horowitz; east by Nassau Pont Road. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-111 -4-32 . After investigation and perso . 1 nspection , the Board finds as follows : Appellants have appealed to thi . : . ard seeking a variance for approval of the insufficient area and wisth of three proposed par- cels , 24,635 square feet, 20,630 s. are . et, and 20 ,620 square feet , and 101 .36 feet , 100.28 feet, and 29 .60 f• et in width , respectively, located at Nassau Point and also nown as Nassau Point Amended Map No . 156 , Lots 168 and part of 16 ' . There is . resently erected on proposed Lot No. 2 (easterly ha f of Subdivisi ► n Lot No. 168 ) a one-story frame house ; present erected on pro►osed Lot No . 1 (easterly half of Subdivision of No . 169) a gar. ge and small shed. Appellants have stated their ntention to constru t an in-ground swimmingpool in Appeal No. 2 51 , simultaneously filed and heard with this variance applicat ' on on proposed Lot No . 3 (westerly half of Subdivision Lot No. 168 . Southold Town Boar appeals -3- August 17, `3 Special Meeting * * * RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3148. Upon application for RORE 'S MARINA, INC. d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, by A.A. Wickham, Esq. , Main Road, Mattituck, NY appealing a decision of the building inspector to vacate Order to Remedy Violation, pursuant to Article XII, Section 100-121A. Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed: Articles I, 100-13; II, 100-23A; VIII, 100-80 (B) [14] [15] ; XIV, 100-144 (A) [2] (B) ; XI, 100-118. Location of Property: East Side of New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-117- 5-28 and 29. The public hearing concerning this matter was held on July 28, 1983, at which time the hearing was declaredclosed, pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal to vacate an Order to Remedy Violation dated April 22, 1983 issued per Articles II, Section 100-23 (A) ; VIII, Section 100-80 (B) [14] [15] ; and Article XIV, Section 100-144 (A) [2] (B) of the Zoning Code, which states, " . . .Boat storage and boat sales has been expanded to the northwest corner of premises without a Certificate of Occupancy to extend land use. . . .A Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals and Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board is required, . . . " Signed statements have been submitted for the record indicating that the area of which is the subject ofthis application has never been used as a sales or storage area for boats, equipment or any other shipyard accessory. A petition with 26 residents' signatures was filed in opposition. Two affidavits have been submitted for the record which show that the premises was used as a shipyard from the period approximately 1954 to 1972 and was engaged in sales, repair and storage of boats. The area which is the subject hereof is the most northerly section, particularly that area along the south and east sides of the parcelidentified on the County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 117, Block 05, Lot 27, now of Jeffrey D. and Susan E. Miller (containing a residence) . The premises in question is identified as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 11-7, Block 05, Lot 29.1 (28 and 29) and contains an area of approximately 2.6 acres, located on the east side of New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. The premises is in a "C-Light Industrial" Zoning District. In considering this matter, it is apparently evident that the premises has been used for the sales, repair and storage of boats continuously since on or before the adoption of zoning in 1957. Although prior court decisions prevail (People v. •Perkins 282 N.Y. 329, and People v. Bonnerwith, 79 Mis Reports 2d 242) it is the opinion and recommendation of this board that the areas which adjoin the residential zone, particularly along the northerly section, shouldbe cleared of all boats and materials within 15 feet of the property line for safety reasons. Southold Town Boaru.oz-'Appeals -4- August 17, r" (Appeal No. 3148 - ROKE ' S MARINA d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, continued: ) Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3148, application of ROKE'S MARINA INC. d/b/a NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD to vacate Order to Remedy Violation, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING RF,COMMENDATION: That all boats and materials within 15 feet of the residential areas/northerly property line be cleared for safety reasons. Location of Property: East Side of New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-5-28 and 29 (29.1) . Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent. ) This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVE, DECISION: Appeal No. 3152. Upon app 'cation of JOHN ANTONIOU, 155 East Road, •ttituck, NY for a Variance to e Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sect' •n 100-34 for per- mission to const ct deck addition with an insuffici= t frontyard setback, at 155 East Road, 'attituck, NY; Cpt. Kidd' s Esta -s Map 1672, Lot 111; County Tax Map Parc- No. 1000-106-03-009. The public heari s concerning this applica ion was held on July 28, 1983. The board made the following findings -nd determination: By this appeal, appell- t seeks app•oval of a 21 ' deep by 37. 3 ' width deck (which includes a existing s ' by 12' wide deck) , leaving an insufficient frontyard setb•;ck fro the northerly property line along East Road at approximately 22.9 . T - setback of the existing one-family dwelling without the deck area i 3' . 9 ' as shown on survey dated Septem- ber 23, 1974 prepared by Young & ' •ung. Upon investigation and ins.-cti,•n, it has been found that the dwelling on the east of the s eject p•emises has a setback from the East Road northerly property ine of a• •roximately 321/2 feet. The average setback of dwellings along this oad is not closer than 34. 2 feet. The relief requested is approxima -ly 11. 4 feet, or 31% of a variance. The board members h- e visited the site in question and are familiar with the land, A provements and immediate surroundings. In considering th. s appeal, the board dete , ines: (1) that the variance request . s .not substantial in relat •n to the require- ments of the zoning ode [31%] ; (2) that the cir instances are not unique; (3) that •y allowing the variance as app 'ed, other properties may be affected; (4) that the difficult can be obvi- ated by a metho• feasible other than a variance; (5 that the / J. ,s,....aci TaiNil' OF SOUTHOLD PitOPERTY RECORD CUP ,) ,. OWNER STREET . ,---- VILLAGE DISTRICT SUB. LOT 'kw S 1.1.CR)IN (3.o pe.,41 e..5 LL-C-- # ._ Nitu) 6 Ug-D)K 1,4 a ri'nok_ L,L.C.., • /IC'.4.", " -" ' .r.,-" •'f:. */..r. Z)e-1 ' FORMER OWNER 1 Yv4•elf-r ,I N y Lar ( 3111.cit" E --. .., .1 ACREAGE LAr-1- ?:-.2Cirr Eolert7nr,---A_:-.--, _ . NI i' v,-(e.1-- -- w -/-i .S` ; 7z:A% -1"-'11•J es//I:We,......)-t, N, -• ,:-...)E; V..-771"2"4/t". /4":L 711. ,_;,e. :: oltli...-(.7 i v 1 n r mcl S W TYPE OF BUILDING TA - C.- Ra.,. RES. _57 el SEAS. VL. FARM &M:_„„) L - t IND. 1 CB. MISC. Est. Mkt. Value LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS -6/ 4ie /j j //.2. O 6 V.‘,2 o o• 4122... f(s /a,/..._ ..t, ,. ,-. L/ - , : tc-,/r3 - ..;f-,,,il-D)pcc) 2. , 9f.-4,000 k ,„',::, -):7 I (...;'. / 1 , II '_.-, ,, , '\ .._ .:- _),_. 1 : /, .:-2, -- :2- .? ..:/ z/ 24/,.. / lr<BP# 1 L7-2-5" 011 e{tic I of e ws 4 r '2<(/ /-)1(:' ' 0v- * , • ,0,-1- r .friti dV .9,tX>C. it (GOO - V2. )70o .2-ii 3 o o .. /3 1/61 i 6.pzi/ge-Li/0Atp-z_-,i4t,r_pr_46_s _1 ---1(4e.r-rei i ivy Lim -L, k-io vy--,/ b, 4 - ,- NEW I?) 11531 RA"L 24,/1F.AW 212 tyfipiE FRONTAGE ON WATER....7, 6 y'74, O J-2., ,-",,,& r FRONTAGE ON ROAD ...x_ c7i, 4,pi yva•2,4/,,',.,,../.:i.f,,;('',fe oleic' Farm Acre Value Per Acre kalue Tillable 1 BULKHEAD Tillable 2 DOCK ,42-1' e f' 1 Tillable 3 -.) f ift, -•-• L; :.0?`,*/ te _.... Li el Woodland /I ' , _, c, J44. ,', /':2i `''' 1 1 - l'. -r" i Swampland '' L 7 4 ( Brushland J 2 I tr a k J' —DI. .e--Qi e e" /fie ••e i":-Ce House Plot X 4/ , - g v- - ATK ; , Ad •(7. ' A . : —AA -----)t L. id 7i;?::, '13 p9, - De_ry)r, F-Tx/'7,4 gOS 57/47.-a,,i,,I- .4-- /fP.A/ce r, t..)Pe4.4, ( ttvek, Total lofr ,., 33 I 7 ( e ry;_ov e- '-(4---1 75e-c AS')ef,'VD I-_ . .,.. _ ._.. ...el.." i...i...._ ..I L. al. •e‘ AA ....A l .01..- 411 CP1k1.1 _____Irie---fi ' w^ •41, � ' . a - - � - _' - - '_ �__-__--__'___-__-___- -__ -_____- _ - --- _ -_--- -.- COLMS I- ' ,t) �- � o C �� ,/e' / I 1 / | � � ^ - � 7, �o | _ | 3 y `/ '6, / / - � '/ , e----� | � ' 1 / } -- , , ||\ )` 3 Y 14 7 i ' � ' m / \ } 7 | / f � � � � � y � � / ' \ -5 N�^ - 3 + � � /J' , �0 '� ,. --- � �&,r � � | | i -! 3 ,� 6/ /� _ 4/ vp//�' � / ' � | '- ^ ( .- /- / 7 ._ '. ^ / ) |\ 1 - � m \ \ ! � '- � ° Si � i � � ° � \ i � ! \ i | / --| > )/ � | i ! � � \ - i � � ''� � `� � � \ \ � ! \ \ � | \ --i - � < � / - ^r ! \ | | , ) \ | �� l i \ ' | 'f | i ��-| (f. (--1(� �--�-� \ i \ | � � � i | / ' - � x / ^ . � _'~~_ � Bath -- \ � / ( ' | Foundotion ' . ~ :_. _ -------'--- -- : — �---� -- '--�-- -- Floors � i Basementutenson \ ' � -L' -- ---�-'� 1 �--�------ - ' ----� _� _- ____- / Ext or Finish xtonai 6 ' | - � � / \ Walls ! � ____� 1 ` �� Fire Place _ ,,,\ r7 _| '� --- ---� - / Porch Roof Type -'_� '----� \ ' Porch Rooms 1st '.°". ___________ ______�_-_ _____ ,‘ /4______\' ~ --�' - - - ---------�T / �- Rooms 2nd Floor Breezeway \ `_ ' .\�a ' . Patio -----�---' ------� ! --- '�----- � ^�� Dormer! � ! ``� ' Chive�oy __ _ - ___� � ' �~�` , | � — -t-----'--- �' " - `^``` [- \ / , vvvivtrc STREET ',A(31t ' :: )12 / / VILLAGE DISTRICT SUB. LOT FORMER DOWNER �- �' .� A �. rt " f� r`r / /` , /��.� � _: 7 i E. ,. ACREAGE _._________i,_ ' S W r TYPE OF BUILDING _RES. `- SEAS. VL. FARM COMM. IND'-. ._ I CB. I MISC. Est. Mkt. Value LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS1/4_5I —a D t- r1��. /uo` a d J - f u h r I I: ! 6. AGE BUILDING CONDITION NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE FRONTAGE ON WATER t' E _a ,, � ff�f, a„ ��OCr��o vf'e aee k, Farm Acre Value Per Acre Value FRONTAGE ON ROAD1/ p Tillable 1 / ' o'7 /vt2 (1 -50 ' /Ka)C/, BULKHEAD Tillable 2 .1 DOCK Tillable 3 Woodland S ._ i, ./ c-.: ti C /, c t Swampland Brushland • House Plot Total • CAk) NV A -+ 1--"'.1 r:lo 1 L,,, _.I 1,.' , ._..._._ _ a `r I r j 1 �" f . 1 At y �- I -�'l ili r' II '} di = 4 1, / .1.j i I : t y 1 — amii 5i L C410 Vyeelf%/I'S-42. Bldg. __. 'i 9 �, �(' ).- 701-- 3 Foundation _ Bath tension ,rj l ' i �C I �� ", - c i., c.� ,, ; - Basement •°' Floors 1 ,/ 1 tension 1 Ext. Walls ` 67/ Interior Finish � ter� �.,�, Fire Place -/ Heat — - -t - ! i -xr,. i b ?�('� / `�C� ,.° ' 7 b .. x Porch 1 % Roof Type I Porch Rooms 1st Floor \-4,_)\,..,,:.h. 1 — I — — — y 3 a r .,,,„, I Patio Rooms 2nd Floor --- rage - — T a� Driveway �© r�5--� Dormer oli B. ZQ 1 {"sit ) r j L ,_ _ 1 s'''Y I s O 30 SV.a.wook_ COLOR I) ., . 3c3 -A4-9- - - 7,0 TraL _ , . . ql .C:.,wo,co o er \ 112 - La TRIM eo \N � _ g� Bath Dinette . -� d= 4" p Foundation P M. Bldg. xQ. : ��wuD 9 'µ07-Z CB FULL ( t S 5o 10 CRAWL Floors Kit. Extension l' 210 ,Z2,5o 'asement SLAB 5txvo airsWi d, 30 K. 3c) 9o0 •+ a X, Bo ` 2e-10 I oeg Ext. •IIs Interior Finish L.R. Extension 20 X 2 ,c{ t 1-180 e,,A•� :..�i aFP Heat D.R. Extension 4 to Fire Place Woodstove BR. Patio 44.1&,t6.- ,sky.. = t. s.,C-' l od \3 Sa a 7 Fin. B. Porch \e'4 s-b ,�,. Dormer _ S k--..3-2-."'" r� Ge� C grZd1 / J� Attic ( rAIZI Rooms 1st Floor Breezeway _ .7 1 91 I 72 t�`cdaP Z� X2to - �� 0 �, 1: "3k, 'µ.. Driveway 'ooms 2nd Floor Garage C A ,` SbcQ A2-)(6):4" aro IL itL 12_ gsr 4 o - O B. Ca�� -1E CI 2_31 32.2w60 (pdpp Pool -bock'�ee �.t k 1 ) (I 4i4 o..[ arAk -A ) vQ2)-0 ata `raawa e, -.1t10, ir1.. 3�Q i,43.-0,_: (11 a 22.-a I _ r IZto(D(o 13,0 a‹raaii.... . �V 4 ' Z1Q � �loc" f`t�C� 12�S�Q1 --14 /q7 - tn` J — '• r !v t • • k j r''t : ,#. oma - .� ti « <• < - - - ,. t • . ._ 4 • - .. - „ , ' t •, - ' _ J' ••rj'� ,Cr •S PLANT • it y _ • - .{ LIST T . CODE 0TY. SG I.ENTI F I G NAME . COMMON NAME ' - SIZE REMARKS '",,,h'r�, ' it , ., " t a * • r �;r = GROWN OF ROOT BALL SHALL BEAR SAME >< T ': ? Juni eros .`✓ir iniana ' Eastern Red Cedar 10 - 12 B$ B/Heavy -- , .� LA JON . h ° �' I ', •,i�✓ Cl - p ',►; (OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE) TO FINISHED GRADE S IT : :. :. z'' I a O. - SORE TO PREVIOUS , O S GRADE. :, - +,14;14% 4.1,17 I - i,qt' •:l ,,� - k. 9q• j-� s•314114079144,••yPINE BARK MULCH ,. : �r ilti slll�it j 1 , CREATE SOIL SAUCER WITH TOPSOIL 6" MIN. " 111 �Ili=lll = %;/ �%2/ , �/��% ,, I" ' _ ,+•:+ -t ". . _ ii�lil + ��,�,��,���i���O��i' --` FOLD DOWN OR CUT AND REMOVE TOP 1/3 GF BURLAP .1 = II = 'i'I+i'isi`� '�'►�ydi 1 - ;=11 IF NON-BIODEGRADABLE WRAP IS USED. REMOVE TOTALLY. _ _ PREPARED SOIL BACKFILL •V V . n . • • . �=: II II • IIII=IIII=III =iii ~I = _ PREPARED ADMIXTURE BACKFILL OR NATiv 501E it i ,t " PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS = I == 11 -- H �111�=1111 lll.r If _ SCALE : II - 10 , q j T I - WEIJI-allIls1111 I =___-- ' I. DE�.�GRIPTION OF WORK: - _ _ t 2X BALL DIA, MIN, : = • FURNISH ALL LABOR, PLANT MATERIALS AND ALL OTHER MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR THE f ., o PROPER INSTALLATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANTINGS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS N AND AS DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING - MEDIUM DUTY • 2. QUALITY INSURANCE:- .3) . •NOT TO SCALE. - CO I V • HEALTHY SPEGiMENS CAPABLE OF `✓IGOROUS GROWTH ' • CONFORMANCE IN SIZE AND SHAPE WITH AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK ` FOR SIZE SPECIFIED -1I kr: 3 • PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE.AT ANY TIME ;=OR INSPECTION BY LANDSCAPE • ` II a i �l, AIxGHITEGT. I ` ', ` ' 3• DELIVERY, STORAGE, AND HANDLING: y „' I • • PROTECT ALL PLANTS FROM DESSICATION DURING TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE ON � I - ' `' - C ' "�'`'{ - " - SITE WITH TARPS, SUITABLE COVER AND WATER. 1 �' c - • • REMOVE ALL PLANTS WITH ROOT BALLS DAMAGED BY PROPPING OR ROLLING, ,AND }" PLANTS WITH DAMAGED BARK. l Jy"stm //� �'� {k� �/�f k' NTlNG PROCEDURE: I '`- +-SIRV1 /.ri`w.'_ M i ' - • `•, . . . . . .._ 4. PLA 1 i - . , I , VJl-�'N �, • . _ I.2/- I� - -i '. , _� , • INSTALL PLANT MATERIALS ONLY WHEN WEATHER GOND' IONS ARE FAVORABLE OR WHEN t4 7riL. lilt-. Ftht•�..,. Vii ' sl 1 , . 0 ., ,. . Y MATERIALS HAVE BEEN HARDENED OFF. t stet W \{,� 'e ' X11( �X4 t; i 1 : .. • PLANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANTING DETAIL SHOWN ON PLAN. — - x -• .s � �' -•. -. — _�_ _ � _M- � �� - µ'�- , cp v PLACE AND PLUMB IN PIT WITHOUT DAMAGING ROOT B ILL `� + - "max\ `• ,f' w"►, �F �As x+ i _ j. • REMOVE ALL INORGANIC ROOT BALL COVERING AND TAINE. LEAVE INTACT ALL -I•-- .,•.., ,� + '' .0 +- -. - - - -- I _ ,�-_. t -- ��' r k= � � �_ ,. ,,-. 1 ' - ' t NON-TREATED14' BURLAP. ! 7�";` ` - 5 . 1 I ;: 5. PLANTING MIXTURE: :Lritis , o o '• •rD` Iice {,A, - ` • • "ff m J l o ' •• ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLANTED INA MIXTURE''. WHICH WILL CONSIST OF 50%1 �. f .'. IH.„1:7.:::..HrstSTc tTOPSOIL + 5090 COMPOST• THIS PLANTING MIXTURE SHALL BE UNIFORMLY MIXED ON SITE i Y�t I I �� 7' .?� ,_ /Y1F- V g - AND BACKFILLED IN THE PLANT PITS AS INDICATED. ON 1••HE PLANTING DETAILS. �, _"'_` _ -- _�- ' - L _ r -0 ` •, - • COMPOST SHALL CONTAIN ORGANIC MATTER T ER OR MATE AL OF A GENERALLY HUMUS NATURE CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING THE GROWTH OF VEGETATION, WITH NO FOREIGN I `' T I Kt .7101 t? MATTER (I.E. GLASS, PLASTIC ETC ) OR MATERIAL TOXIC TO PLANT GROWTH. `` d i r• L Q t� i C�.l C • COMPOST SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OR PROPERTIES: . f7 •• j i PH: 5.5-8.5 �. I MOISTURE CONTENT: 135% - 55% I I. ' - - • • ' m ' PARTICLE SIZE: 1< 2" • -`01177777- _ M 't G:N RATIO: I i 5-30:1 -. . 7' .,... v .: etill M° �. •6x MAINTENANCE ff GUARANTEE: _._ __- .-_ _._ .__ IT _...____� _.,..- .._ __.�_. . .. _....�__._.. f --.._.� ..__._� .• • . ,r ,! "F-1, I. 4:-. I !Ji + (~a•. T_,..' .r I",r ` ' • UPON SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION •OF ALL PLANTING OR ��T THE END OF .A PLANTING t` r ' t ' SEASON. AN INSPECTION SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. UPON I T ,y` V I• ' ACCEPTANCE OF PLANTING A GUARANTEE PERIOD OF ONEIYEAR SHALL COMMENCE. J I .. .k.o.. - �,. " Y I', n - . ,5� ,, , A SUM EQUAL TO 10% OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE PLANTING SHALL SE RETAINED- - • rI 4 • DU1ING THE GUARANTEE PERIOD: 1 • - •• \ , 1 y • MAINTAIN ALL MATERIAL TO SUSTAIN GOOD, VIc1OROUS GROWTH- . - - �'` • REMOVE ALL DEAD PLANT MATERIAL FROM SITE IMMEDIATELY. - • REPLACE ANY PLANT MATERIAL AS 500N AS V'�EATHER CONDITIONS PERMIT. ' : ;; • GUARANTEE SHALL ALSO COVER REPAIR OF ANY PART OF THE PREMISES i ,, 77) DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF THE PLANTING PROCEDURE. i 1 ' " •• Y rIJG 5{Z E. — `'�' CG rG<iL - . - • , • (.t.,c7z N .ror At,...4.T. t.,.le-N., ,L.4 .r‹ . , • L •C) . a - NOTES: < , I. S•C.T•M• # 1000-I17-05-2g-Ii I it THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED FROM' A PORTION OF I • , • :' - - A SURVEY PREPARED BY. PECONIC SURVEYORS, P•G•, L,. ,'., • LAND SURVEYORS OF SOUTHOLD; N.Y. 11q-71 • , ' i ' 5 ' r; DATED DEG. 13, Ig99, REDATED JAN• 8., 2002 (PARKING), . . , ' , ' _ - • - '' - . r ' AND FEB: 22, 2002. ; =='' Project Drawing Title Job No., "020403 Drawing No.' - AREA = 2.281 ACRES �`� o kaRAIJ yo, :':: Landscape Architects i t• �G : '„ slte Planners Date t ti. O, . , . ,, . . :WNER:•`NEW SUFFOLK 5HIPYAR>2 NEW SUFFOLK ROAD ' '. . , ' ►, ► ( j i �� rz Development strategtats SUFOLKF',LANTIN6 FEBRUARY 4;2003 5OUTHOLD, NEW YORK IIg71 ' 4, '" t �, e�garram u•to I Scale 1" 10' , 1 c ?; "'. . 88 Main Street a �' �� ARAIyS 5oton N Y. I l�ibl� 9 'f Fy oa 681 288- 1181 RVR ; ' Date Description No. �'as., .E ,•r s' / D S SIGN (631) 2153-6677 (Pox) '1I . �, R.L A. �rmx�ra aTtECTURa infb•aratysdesign.com Ghkd. By _ ,' Revisions N.Y.S. LIG. NO 852 SOUTHOLD NEW CORK• TAR • x `4�.� { - i �-•"" - , .. , .`'4.�~_ , - _ `'�' • H • i • N/O/F MICHAEL J. WITHERS � \\ � /�''oP N�NT Cha,. bore \ O d o./• S. 87'55'00" E. r/c�ce(5�`vre"157.56' \ 10./*/4'/4e,, _(�-ms , " w,re ie•lcc N/O/F S. G. & A. —,.= a.5• ` �, ALEXANDER Zkkl. '5.3. me ; ,---�,� /s/y.�: S, j5./t, Etax r, - �r RA Ko :Al:_Ale\ shed \�!���'� o)on 45 00"`C /sa 1‘, 7Gi . , O fwd 2Si• S. 87'55' E. -�20,E 4-.- n,cn 7 littlita j. 03 w`en . 40.00'03' t M 1 7 in l�\ am Z.;B . ,zo ,.� �k ' S'i�� P 1 o /q 2o. i ' \ \ N�9 .o \ . 2° o, is 0 6 / v e s o !� B � I ` o N0 6/ries ` ,o` �o be lanA /v L 111111111 ::1 I 4 4 re oved F O 1.7 O 303 �-, `T -r �/o 6 , o Q N a iQR.�C�g' :it �c n` %-t. \ 1.1. \ . .-P , I� .7• 50./' iI . ,1,77,-,.:',,,-12 . w m mea( s�oyaje 3 h" 6 * bo//d;ny ® \. PARKING CAL CUL A TIONS ® 's �z.o r - %5.3; ���� MARINA I SPACE PER BOAT SLIP ::: • 84.2' 0-••• \�� \----; Q EX PARKING SPACES REQUIRED y`�'� p PI* ' /Ls • � , 58 SLIPS =tN = 58 SPACES ®© J , s 5 EMPL 0 YEES = 5 7 00 Z. .' �0 �----� G> RETAIL SALES = 2 s• Nw ?s 7* �+ o \ ,-' 65 SPACES ,- •• gs . y f. Cr. 9 a. . ti , / v e S G r 10 PROPOSED BOAT S T ORA GE RACKS O "a•cf{e,, T"' M . : �, 9 o� C r .. '' STORAGE RACK "A"--= 2 TIER , p },d �J " " = 2/ BOATS ?cos` r.. �`a o Jr '; hu ,-.0 N , 'c}� �� •404i ��tn l STORAGE RACK "B" = 5x.3 TIER = 15 BOATS• '/`1/4 . ° - :o aoko -9.7' v '\ Q ALONG EXISTING BLDG. 36 BOATS J M l SPACE FOR 2 BOATS = 18 SPACES L "+/��i�•P' o �0 6 0�,r ahem �\wM �' = 83 SPACES ti N - i Ql LR rn'' .-S-/CV- - t- \ /bm p' �_ ...-----;:76\::"..4 .q.° o•°w'`" f/ i °• `+ a • bi _- -� � EXISTING SPACES = 83 'ooe�'• 9'V�P'� 1 t+e-2'4.4 r I I b�,khea "Mo plstj NNM/ L r �4/ 11 �/ / \ N6.W r' 4i • N �1---_ __ - % O,r,e,c.ox ,P a I{ o n Faye o f �, /��� �� -� — ..4,3,- 0 / 2 �i �\ WPf/cr nd 0 7,-_-_-__--� w e d 3e -. ...,/ \ — --- ' ______I __ ___Cf_____77 __ _ __ . - / /rocs N. Q O/ k l 82 03 30" W /93.5 float,, � ~,� m I i ,4' x3a JO� �y / S) . 4-Sj \\ 5y t. k� NN 9 \ . \\ I ( �' t N 2 si ti \\4111>40 0 HEWN V{, \C• OL l' O HODS 6� p _ V- E 1 �► 4 CREEK k • 8522'40" N! - 74e %nes --z.'" 3 200.00 ' ORCHARD SIRE . ET s AREA = 2287 Acres to tie line's . SURVEY OF LOT COVERAGE . NEW SUFFOLK SHIP YARD • . • EXISTING = 1I% PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION = 29: A T NEW SUFFOLK AT COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION TOWN OF SOUTIbLD 'f:.-\17:: r- -t r r SUFFOLK COUNT) N. Y. i, E,.. _\ -' • i); ,)F NEW YO • 1000 - 117- 05 - 29.1 s ! FEB y 2 �ti Meru �y Scale: 1" =40' 'i, y,`Q t. �* Dec. 13,.1999 $ •';,.,~�� FEB. 2; LOOc , �iV = Jc� ANY ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION JAN. 8, 2002 (PARKING., ; OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. d 4' I EXCEPT AS PER SECTION 7209 - SUBDIVISION 2. ALL CERTIFICATIONS `AiVt. ,+ A96�S��,. Y.S. LIC. ND. 4961E HEREON ARE VALID FOR THIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONLY IF _ �.SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR ��, /Ii�"� ' WHOSE SIGNATURE APPEARS HEREON. �'. f iv ,. ... , P.C. ADDITIONALLY TO COMPLY WITH SAID LAW THE TERM "ALTERED BY" (63/) 765 - 5020 FAX ( 6311 765 - 1797 MUST BE USED BY ANY AND ALL SURVEYORS UTILIZING A COPY P. O. BOX 909 OF ANOTHER SURVEYOR'S MAP. TERMS SUCH AS 'INSPECTED' AND • 1230 TRAVELER STREET BOUGHT-TO-DATE' ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. . . SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 . j • . 94 -" 105