Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/06/1981Southold Town Board o£Appeals MAIN RE3AD-STATE RI:3AD ~-5 SI:3UTHDLD, L.I.. N.Y, 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR.. CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI M I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 6, 1981 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, August 6, 1981 at 7:15 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Charles Grigonis, Jr., Chairman; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Robert J. Douglass; Gerard P. Goehringer; Joseph H. Sawicki. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:20 o'clock p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2848. Application of Donald C. DeLalla, P.O. Box 526, Cutchogue, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Crd- inance, Art. III, Sec. 100-30 B (9) (a) for permission to dock and moor two boats not owned and used by owner of premises for his personal use between existing pilings at 5545 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Timpson; west by Baldwin's Creek; south by Faraguna; east by Bay Avenue (Skunk Lane); County Tax Map Item No. 1000-138-2-18. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:20 p.m. by reading the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid S15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a section of the County Tax Map showing the premises, this property and we have a sketch showing existing piles. Is there someone here who wishes to speak for this application? Would you please come up to the mic up there so everyone can hear you, and this is going on the tape also. DONALD DeLALSA: I'm Donald C. DeLalla, and I have a approval of the Board for what I am requesting. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else? DONALD DeLALLA: That's all. (Remainder of statement was lnaud- i~!e.) Southold Town Boamd of Appeals August 6, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: You may be seated then. Is there anyone else who has anything to say for this? GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE: I didn't understand what his statement was. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry; I was rustling papers. Could you repeat your statement? Those people say they didn't hear you. Maybe pull the mlc down a little bit. DONALD DeLALLA: I just wish to bring to your attention that what- ever has been said by you now has been approved by the Board of Appeals in a letter here. GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE: This is the Board of Appeals. DONALD DeLALLA: It has been approved. They sent me a letter to that effect. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I-- DONALD DeLALLA: Whatever has been said now has been approved, and whatever is taken up now is part of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we see that letter, or could we have a copy of it? One of the two. (Mr. DeLalla brought his Environmental Notice of Declaration to the Board.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, this is a declaration about the environmental-- DONALD DeLALLA: But it does say all the permits have been granted and everything is in order. That's the point I wanted to make. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, this is the, this is the assessment, environ- mental assessment, short form. This just, doesn't give any permission to put up anything. I'm not going to put up anythzng. It's there DONALD DeLALLA: already. MR. CHAIRMAN: DONALD DeLALLA: MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a-- I~s been there since '79. It says "This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application." That's something that goes with every, it just states that it does not affect the environment. DONALD DeLALLA: But whatever I'm here for, in 1979 all this, these pilings were put in with the approval of the three agencies, Trustees, D.E.C., and the Army Engzneers. MR. CH2tIRMAN: Atright. You can sit down. Anyone else to speak for it? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) I have several letters here that I'll Southold Town BoaYu of Appeals -3- - August 6, 1981 have to read in. I'll go through the file here reading the permits or whatever letters he had from the different trustees and the boards of the Town. (The Chairman read the following letters and permits: a letter dated October 26, 1979 from the Southold Town Board of Town Trustees, application for mooring in Town controlled waters, also by the Town Trustees, dated March 20, 1979, a letter received by the Board of Appeals on August"5, 1981 from John E. Timpson, a letter received August 5, 1981 by the Board of Appeals from W. S. Gardner, President, Nassau Point Property Owners Association,a letter received on August 4, 1981 from Gloria T. Nixon, a letter received August 3, 1981 from Kunigunde Dunhuber, Doris Dunhuber, and Lorraine Dunhuber, a letter received July 29, 1981 from 'Joseph P. Kirwin, a letter received July 28, 1981 from Roy & Dorothy DeMott, a letter received July 27, 1981 from Laurence T. Waitz, a copy of a letter to Mr. DeLalla from the Board of Town Trustees, dated July 27, 1981, received July 27, 1981 from Marian Goubeaud, Secretary, Town Trustees.) Mr. DeLalla, do you want to say something else? DONALD DeLALLA: Can I speak now? MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. DONALD DeLALLA: First, let me say that where the rumors started about me adding more poles, I don't know. It's a rumor; it is not true. I am not in the intention of adding poles or adding any more than what I have right now which are four poles accommodating my boat and two other friends of mine. I never had the intention of adding any more poles. Now, what I wanted to know is why all these people who are objecting to whatever they're objecting to did not come forward when I first applied for these poles in 1979. Why at this date they are coming forward, when it was publicized in 1979. in the papers for them to come forward and say their objections. Nothing was said, I was given the permits, and I went ahead. I put the poles in. Third, I have eliminated some stanchions in front of my bulkheaded property to accommodate cars that are going to use those boats that are being used there including my own. We are off the road, not a hazard to any road traffic or anybody using that road, running, bicycling or anything else. We are off the road. On my own property these cars are being kept. As far as that camper is concerned, he was a friend of mine, he came up from Florida and I got permission from Mr. Hindermann to have that mobile home there until the thirty-first of July, and before that time those people had left. They agreed to it and they had left, so that was the end. But, I just want to leave this, in closing, there has never been any intention to commercialize what I have there. It was just an intention of mine to have my own boat and two others, friends of mine, to moor them at that point. That's about all. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Can I ask you a question sir? Have you ever been before this Board before for an application? DONALD DeLALLA: Not the Board of Appeals. In fact, I was told by the Board of Trustees when I applied for the original poles, that I would have to apply to the D.E.C. and the Army Engineers only. They never requested or said or advised me as to the Board of Appeals application. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Is this why you put the application in now? Southcld Town Boa~ of Appeals -4- ~. August 6, 1981 DONALD DeLALLA: Mr. Hindermann came to my home and said I had a violation and I asked him, I'd like to go ahead with the necessary papers to clear it, he, I filled out the papers in front of him in his office, and it seems to me from what I gathered that everything had been cleared. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now, to reiterate, Mr. DeLalla, there are three boats there at this particular time. DONALD DeLALLA: That's right. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Could you just give us briefly the size of those three boats? DONALD DeLALLA: Mine is a 28 foot, there's a 35 foot and another 28 foot. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are these, those~wo boats other than yours the only ones that are tied up in there? There's been rumors around that at different times there's different boats in there. DONALD DeLALLA: Well, at the present time there is another boat in slip, in the third, in the north slip because that owner of that boat is having his motor overhauled so I'm doing a favor to Mr. Maylin who lives around the corner to leave his boat in, just put in the water last Sunday, to let it swell up, and then he's going to move it possibly today or tomorrow. But that boat's going to be out of there and the original fellow holding the slip is going to be in there by next week. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you charge any fees or anything? DONALD DeLALLA: Absolutely not. MEMBER DOYEN: Does anybody reside in those boats, or li~e on them? DONALD DeLALLA: No, no, it's just for mooring. MEMBER DOYEN: Just for mooring. DONALD DeLALLA: Just mooring, in and out. Nothinq else is being done there, if they sit on the boat there that,s about it, or doing a little repair work on the motor and things like that. But there is no residing. Where the rumor started about this putting more poles, I don't know. (Remainder of the statement was inaudible.) MR. CHAIRMAN: That's about all you have to say? DONALD DeLALLA: Unless you have any questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the Board seems to be alright. Does anyone else have anything that they wish to speak on about this matter. If not, I'll, oh, excuse me. W.S. GARDNER: In opposition or for it? Southold Town Boam~ of Appeals August 6, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Do you want to get up and say something? W.S. GARDNER: Yeah, I will. I'm W. S. Gardner; I'm President of the Nassau Point Association. I wrote you a letter. This is not on our property, but I think it's starting to set some precedent. First I must say that I agree with Mr. DeLalla that some of the letters that were written to you were not on the point of this hearing. Theywere on another subject, more poles, more bulkheading. I don't think they're on the point of this hearing at all. But they raised the question that why are we raising the issues at this time when he got the permission for the poles last time. Well~, the reason was, as I understood it, that he put those poles in for use of boats of his or his relatives. I understand that is what the question is now. That these people are not his relatives; he can say he's not getting anything, but my experience is you don't do nothing for nothing. You get some return for something. I've seen boats change there, different boats come in. I think one of the things we should establish, if these are relatives of his, he should tell us what the relatives are, and what the relation is. If they're not relations, they should not be kept there. I know in Wunneweta Pond, I live in Wunneweta Pond, I could put'three boats out on my property. Somebody next to me could put six boats because he has two lots there. That I don't want to see. That's why I'm fighting this thing, because I think it's a bad precedent. It's going to foul the waters; it's got to. Cars are parked there, people can do all sorts of things there. I'm against it and that's why I wrote the letter. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Waitz. LAWRENCE WAITZ: I'd like to further reiterate my opposition to this variance. I admit that my letter was slightly off base because I thought he was asking for extra piles. But the main issue is the commercialism of this vmnture. He spent the money for the bulkheading and pilings, lights for each boat, a bubble system, and you don't do that just for your friends unless you're a very wealthy person, and I talked to Paul Stoutenburgh this morning, he regretted he couldn't be here, but he said that the Town Constable had spoken to one of these people on one of ~hese boats ~nd he said that he was paying for the privilege of keeping the boat there~ and then another thing~ the one boat has a large bow soread which sticks w~y out beyond the others right out into the channel. And it is not just a simole thing of h~ing your friends or relatives there; it is beyond that~ As Mr~ Gardner said~ there have been different boats there~ They come and they go, and lately~ they've been gone. Now~ another thing, he says that they just work on their motors, but people have been there on weekends -~ntil 11:00 o'clock at night with radios playing~ people sit in the cockpits~ and they sit on the beach there~ ~nd they're there all day long and far Lnto the night maybe overnight. I don't kuow about that. But they have to use facilities on those boats umless they have the propert facilities they're in violation of the environmental laws also. Thank you. ~q. CPLgIP~%N: Thmnk you~ Mir. Waitz~ Yes sir~ your name p!ease~ Southo!d Town Board of Appeals Au~3.st 6~ 1981 JOSEPH F~W'IN: Mr. Joseph Xerwin~ and as I say~ Z think if we're going to hope that this permit is granted, in any way~ I think we're going to open a Pandora's box. You have a letter from M~s~ Dunhuber~ They're across the creek~ they have 600 feet and if he's allowed to go on enlarging and improving, they should be granted the same permit~ and we're going to have a lot of problems in there~ That creek isn't that big, ~ad for these big boats that are in there, they can't even turn around (this ohrase was inaudfole.) They ~nn the motors~ they knaock the '~ sz~, and dirt all over and into the chsnnels. It's not right. I've got two pieces of property on the water~ I~m not in the market for that kind of stuff° We live on the creek because we like it~ and I think we sho~zld really thi~dc serious about these conditions. ~e got other residents coming up for bulkheading and stuff~ we got a oier and bul~duead line~ These docks and stuff are out beyond that~ and I think if the Board was down and looks at it~ they can see for them- selves what's going on. We've been do~ there° JOSEPH XERWIN: Well, as I say, the pier and bu!khead.~ you're not supposed be out beyond that~ These docks sad stuff s_nd way' beyond these Diet and bulkhead lines established by the goverD~nent~ Thank you° e_se. Mr. DeLallao Thank vou~. Anyone ~ ~ DONALD DeL~LA: First of a!!~ when that bulkhead was built~ 11 years ago by Rambo all legal permits end acceptances and so on was granted for him to go ahead to put it where it now is. There was no. there was no objection as to where it is now. That's 1~ years ago, for the b~mlkheading. Now, that hulkheading is on my property, i can go down on that bulkhead and sit down there all day long in the su:n~ there's nobody that says I can't, with my friends or anybody else ! wish to sit on my ow~ property. I'm not, there has never been any abuse of loud music or any disturbance as this gentleman mentioned before. That is absurd. It's never been that way. The boat that is there now~ somebody said that the~ there's been different boats there~ Now let me e~lain that. The boat that is there in the center of the slip now is there for one reason. The one that occupied t~a~ space originally, the man took sick last yes_r, has cancer~ and as of today it was hauled out of my backyard down to Corrigans Boatyard in H~mpton Bays to be sold~ i had that slip empt~v~ I had a friend of mine come to me and say i noticed that that slip is empty could I use it, ! said sure~ I'll even give you his name~ his name is Fred Meyers~ ~nat t~<es care of that s!ip~ Now, the end slip I just exp!~ined before, that there's ~uother boat there because it is empty~ The slip is empty, the man just put the boat in the water, he wants it to swell up and he's going to move it either today- or tomorrow~ ~ud the boat that originally belongs there is now being renaimed mn Southold Shipyard, ~ud wh~.~ that is repaired it will come back in its original slipo And that will be Southold Town Boaf~. o£ Appeals -7- ~ August 6, 1981 (DONALD DeLALLA~ C0~r.): the way the set 'up is. There'll be no additions as i~ve heard. Mow~ as I said~ i got a 60 foot bulkhead there by 12 foot. It's my property~ I can h~¢e my f~iends sit on that and sun themselves or do whatever they please on there without making a nuisance of themselves. That's within the law. That's about all I thirE{ I can sap- right mow° if I can be sho~n where I must have relatives occupy those spaces, I~d like to.see it. ~hy it can't be £r~ads~ as previously mentioned it had to be relatives. Now just one thing in passing~ i wish to say that this was set up in 1979; there was no objections at that time. I've been doing whatever I've been doing for these past few years and no one has come forward or has Sha~any objection in these few years° Now~ someone's coming forward~ ~ud there has been no~ violations as far as I'm concerned. That's allo ~.~ C7~.IRY~IM: A!right~ th~nk you. I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and-- GE~w~&~ I~ AUDIENCE: There's a question over here. MR~ CHAiR~N: Wait a minute~ oh, excuse me. WILLIkM PET,S: My name is ~illiam Peters. I'm a member of the Creek Committee of the Nassau Farms Association. I'd like a clarifica~ tion of the code~ As I understand it~ the code says you can have two boats other than your o%m for your own private use. For your own personal use. Does that mean that you csn only use boats for your own personal use, or does that mean that you can have boats there that be~ long to your friends. ~. CHAiRM&N: You can have two boats other than those that are~- W~I. PETERS: i'm trying to come from memory as to what the code s~ys, you read the code ~ud the second~ second letter. MR. CHAI.~WL~: Yeah. That ' s it. ~L PETERS: It's my understanding that you can have boats other your own there, if you are using the boats° ~5{. CP~IPJ~L~{: it's~ "There shall be docking or mooring facilities for no more than two boats other than those owned and used by the owner of the premises for __ms personal use.~ It means if he owns two boats~ there c~u be ~3~o other boats~ a friend's or someone else. %,/~. PETERS: No, I think it~ he c~ have two boats not o%~ed by him~ ~ CF~i~%N: No, it doesn't, that's where there's a catch in this thing here that, he may have three or fo~c boats of his o~n, ~ud accord~ ing to the way I interpret this, He could still put in two more boats he!onging to someone else. Southold Town Boar~ of Appeals -8- August 6 ~ 1981 w~ S. GARD_N~R~ But he needs a opec_~al Excep~zon, that's what this hearing is about. ~L· ~ _~_~_.'~w~.~. A!right, okay. ~. C~.I~32~: The whole thing is by Special Exception~ that's why the application~- ~i~. PET~P~: As a member of the Nassau Farms Creek Committee, I think I~d like to go on record as saying that we oppose this on a matter of principle because we feel that this will set a precedent. On the other side of Mud Creek is 600 foot of Space~ which could have some 30 boats moored there. ~Lq. CF~I~: Somebody the Other night told me she's going to do it~ ~uyone else? This gentleman over here~ ROY DeM0~To i'm Roy DeMott, 103 Bay Avenue~ I oo0ec~ to Mr. DeLaiia's having the three boats at the dock from early spring to late fall~ and then they come out~ they go to a marina~ they're taken out of the water ~nd they're stored in the lot next door to him along with a camper, all winter long, then they come out and go back in the water again. Now~ if that's not a marina operation~ i don't know what is~ And they're the same boats~ Plus the fact that last year there was people living on the boats for well over a month. Groceries going on ~d off and the trash was coding, on ~d offo And I don~t think that conforms to the coder that you c~u live on a boat~ Moored at the dock continuously. MR, C~_I726~2~T: Thank you. We!l~ we've got several hearings to go and it's getting into the evening, so I~!l offer a resolution closing this hearing and reserving the decision until a later date~ ~,.~!~E~ GOEHRIMGER: Second~ On motion made by Mr. Grigonis~ seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was R~SOLV~, that the hearing be declared clmsed and decision reserved in the matter of Appeal No. 2858~ application of Donald C~ DeLalla~ Vote of ihs Board: ~es: Messrs. Grigonis~ DSyen, Dougiass~ Goenrmnoer~ ~d Sawicki. PUBLIC F~%ING: .knpea~_ No. 2852. Application of Margaret McGowan~ ~ '~ Street~ _ ~ 17 ~be~deen Maive~ae~ ~f_ 11565 (by Ga~ Fl~mer 0!sen as a~o~ne¢ ) for a Va~_an~e to the Zoning Ordins~ce, A~t~ III Sec. 100~31 for approval insufficient area and/or width of two parcels due to the re~oca~szon of lot lines~ Location of property: R-O-W south of Great Peconic Bay Bou~evarm, Laurel~ bo~aded north by ~on_~e~ly¢ east by ~o~ston & ~,~o~z~e~ south by~exanm~ ~.~ ~, west by Kenne!ly~ Co~aty T~ Southold Tovm~ Boar~of Appeals -9- ... August 6~ 1981 M~p Item No~ 1000-128-4-11 & 14o The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:06 p.m. by reading the appeal application mad related docu~ents~ legal notice of he8ring and affi- davits attesting to ~= .~s publication in both the local and official newspapers~ Notice of Disapproval from the Building inspector~ and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made~ fee paid $15.00. MA~.~ CF~I~N: We have a copy of the Cou3nty Tax Map ~ud a survey by Van TuYl that was just done andsubmitted to us showing the division~ Is there ~uything that you would like to add to what has been said in here~ Mm. 01sen? G~Y 0LSEN, ES©.: I don't think so~ Just for the record, my name is Gary 01sen; I'm an attorney in Mattituck and I represent McGowan and as i indicated in the application, she is in the process of selling parcel ~! on the map that Vmu Tuyl submitted, which is part of this application. The map is dated July.28~n, 1981. As you are aware~ wewere before this Board ~mader appeal #2800 and in the decision whioh, a denial at that time, the Board stated that it's the opinion of ~ .... Board that lot 11 should be increased in size. Right now lot 11~ that'~s Tax Map lot 11 shown on Van Tuyl's s~arvey of July 28th now as being parcel #2~ has about 2700 square feet~ The Board stated that it's the view~"the opinion of this Board that lot 1! should be increased in size in view of the fact that it's substantially substandard~ However~ the Board is of the opinion that a larger area of land shored be set aside for lot 11. Accordingly~ the Board denies the a~peal without prejudice and urges the applicant toset aside more land for lot 11 mad reapply to the Board." .~nd its this reapplication that we're now presenting to the Board~ I've had Vs~uTuyl try to seDarate these two pieces in a logical fashion~ giving as much possible area from Tax lot #1&, which is owned by M_rs. McGowan~ to Tax Lot ~11~ which is owned by the Estate of J. Har~y McGowan. The way the lines are now re-defined, Tax lot #15 would have appro×imat~ly 8500 square feet. You'll see on Van Yuyl~s survey, which you have before you, that~ he states the area would be 7200 square feet but that only goes ~ to the Right o£ Way, and if you include the area of the Right of Way, it's about another 1385, I'm sorry, 1355 square feet. It brings up the total piece up to about 8855 square feet. Then Tax lot 1~, parcel 2 on the s~vey, we brought up to 5000 s~mare feet, which is substantially above what it is now. Now it's about' 2700. I thi~ it's a, you know~ if the Board apparently was not pleased with just cutting a back yard arc,md the house on lot 2 out, it wmuted more area and we're trying to comply with your wishes in that prior decision of appeal #2800by this division. There are real economic, and obviously practical diffic~2- ties in leaving the parcels the way they are now wi+Ynout redefining the lot lines mud it's fort~muate that we can do that~ It'd difficult to sell a piece of property with a house encroaching on it ~nd the parties seem to be willing to redefine them so we ask the Board's approval~ ~ad since the last hearing~ I'd just like to again bring your a~tent_on to the zact tna~ r do have two Ge~vmfmcates of 0ccup~cy~ SouthOld Town Boa~' of Appeals August 6, 198l one for P~s~ McGowan's house, lot #14, that's a #Z 10493 and on Tmx lot 11 owned by 'the Estate of J. Harry McGowan, I have a pre-existing C.0. #Z 10492. Again, we're not trying to increase 'the density of the area. It will still be two houses~ it's just, we're changing the line, smd we need the approval of the Zoning Board to do that~ MR. CF~i~: Thsmkyou. ~_uyone else to speak f~r this? (T~2ERE W.6$ NO RESPONSE.) Anyone to speak against it? (TH~ZE ~%~ NO R~PONSE.) ~my questions from am_)- of the members of the Board? (TP~ %J~ NO GU~TiONS.) i'll offer a resolu%ion ~anting this as applied for, ~GO~P~!NG~: Second. ~. CHAI~X~: The findings ~e.~__at they inoreased the lot as aocorded~ requested~ ~d it's not ef~eoting the neighborhood in ~uy other way~ just another line on the map. Subject to Pla~ing Board approval, another thing you need~ The Board made the following findings ~d dete~inations: Southold Town Bo,.~ ~ of Appeals ~11- .ugust 6, 1981 Appellant by this appeal seeks to change lot lines between two parcels in order to give more room to the easterly parcel owned by the Estate of J. Harry McGowan, which will contain an area of approximately 5,000 square feet. The westerly parcel owned by Margaret McGowan will contain an area of approximately 7,200 square feet (exclusive of the 15-foot right-of-way at the northerly end) and the existing home with porch and patio will have a rearyard setback of approximately 22 feet. The existing house on the easterly parcel encroached onto the westerly parcel with its present lot line loCation, and if this variance is granted, the house on the easterly parcel will have a yard setback from the proposed new division line of approximately 30 feet. Appellant previously applied for a variance to change lot line in Appeal No. 2800 in which appellant requested a variance from the required lot area of approximately 92½%, or 3,000 square feet for the easterly parcel (Lot 11). The Board denied same without prejudice urging applicant to set aside more land for the easterly parcel. In considering this instant appeal, the Board determines that the circumstances herein are unique and the practical difficulties have been shown; that the grant of the variance would not produce a substantial detriment to adjoining resi- dential properties; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to the appellant, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available govern- mental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of the zoning code; and in view of the manner of which the difficulty arose, the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 2852, application of Margaret McGowan, be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance to change lot line as requested and subject to written approval of the Southold Town Planning Board. Location of Property: Private Right-of-Way south of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-128-4-11 and 14. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goeh- ringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Sout~_old To%~ Boai of Apoeals -12- : Aug~o. st 6~ 198~ PUBLIC ~I~G: Appeal No~ 2853~ Application of Kenneth I~ & J_~8~M~ McFall~ 2~5 East ~Oth Street~ Mew York, ~£ 100~8--~oy Gary Flanner Olsen as attorney) for a Vari~aoe to the Zoning Ordinance~ Art° III Sec. 100~31 for permission to construct one~f~mily dwelling from pre~existingohapel with insufficient rear yard setback at 7216 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard~ Laurel~ also known as Lao~el Acres Minor Subd~ (Piccione Minor Subd~) Map Nco 12A~ Lot 2~ Co~nty Tax Map item Mo~ 1000~126-10-part of 1~3~ The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:19 p~m. by reading the appeal application and related doc~=ments~ !egalnotice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers~ No~zce of Disapproval from the Building ~nopector~ and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made~ fee paid $15.00. MR. CF~I~xT~N: We have a copy of the section of the Coo~ty Tax Map showing the area ~nd a survey showing the property with the building situated on it. Is there anyone here, do you have ~aything that you would like to add to it~ Mr~ 01sen? G~RY OLS~, ESQ~: Yes~ Gary Olsen~ attorney in Mattituck for the applic~ut~ I'm representing people that are in the process of buying ~o~ ~ on a minor subdivision which was approved by the Southoid To~n Planning Board~ ~o~na as Laurel Aores~ back on February 7~ 1977~ The subdivision was prepared for a H~as Rein~ r e i n, in the Estate o~ a Nicholas Picoione, i ~ess~ ~ i o c i o n e~ The subdivision map that was approved showed m~ay buildings which were to be removed and have been. Remaining on parcel ~2 which my o!ients are in the process of purchasing is a one~sto~y fr~e building shown on the s~div~ ion map~ and~ as you're aware it has been used as a ohaoel~ MM olients~ this property is zoned agric~t~al-residential~ their ideas for the building is to renovate it for single family residenoe~ I suggested that making sure that all bases were touched in the process of buying this piece that they go to the Building Znspector to see whether they would have ~uy problems in making the renovations ~ud the Building inspector gave us a Notice of Disapproval on the basis that the building appee~s to be about ~0~ appears to have a rearward of about ~7 feet instead of the required 50 feet~ This is a pre-existing building. It's been here for many many years ~ud it's a substantial structure to require the applio~at~s to move it for three feet in order to have a 50 foot rear- yard wou!~ be a reai!~, ~ economic hardship and a practical dif~iculty~ It wo~2d not subst~tialiy change the character of the neighborhood leave it ~uere it is~ and it's my ~=uderstanding that if my o!ients did not put more then 50% of the value of the building into renovation~ they wo~t even have to get the varianoe~ We're doing this to be safe so that ~ they do put more then ~0, of the value of the building into renovations~ requiring a building pe~it~ that they would be able to get one~ And again~ we're looking for about a three foot variance. Y~ CHAIP~M~: Thank you. Southo!d Totem Boa~ .... of Appeals -13- ,~ .~ Aug~st 6, 1981 GARY OLSEN, ESG.: Other then that~ i have nothing else to add. ~ CM~qlRM~&N: Thank you Mr~ Olsen. speak for this? (T~E ~AS N0 R_ESPONSE~ ) Anyone to speak against it? (THEP~E WAS NO RE~PONS~ ~ Is there anyone else to Any ~estions from any of the members of the Board? MEMBER DOUGLASS: There's practically two acres of land with that piece isn't there? 86-- GARY OLS~, ESQ.: It's a lot of orooerty~ it's 86,131 square feet. ~B~ DOUGLASS: Yeah. G~R¥ OLSET~ ESQ.: Yeah. The problem is the resa~yard is s!ight!¥~ by today's standards, uudersized. It wasn't-- M~ER DOUGLASS: Yeah, I know. G~RY 0LS~ ESQ.: It wasn't when the chapel was put up~ but~ ~ ~IRM_~N~ I thimk this pre-existed the ordinance~ the building ~ ' - G.~30LS~,ESQ~: It pre-existed ~ud the only thing is that they would have to coms in for a new building permit to renovate it, pending on the dollar value, cumlatively, the dollar value of the im~ provements, and the Building Inspector told us that, not ~uowing what the dollar value would be, it would be best to come Lu and apply for the variance so that's what we're doing° ME~ER DOUGLASS: They'll spend more th~u half. Gk~f OLSET~, ESQ.: It's a big building, it has about 5~000 square feet~ I don't think they're going to~.renovate the whole thing. It'll be part of it~ but-- DOUGLASS: Even then~ they'll still spena more than hs2f~ GiRY OLSEM~ ESQ.: But even so, yeah. / Southold Town Boa~ of Appeals -14- ~. CF~IP~ Do you have any questions? August 6, 1981 (Negative.) The Board made the following findings and determinations: Appellant by this appeal seeks approval of an insufficient rearyard setback of existing chapel approximately 47 feet from rear property line. Appellant is contract vendee for the parcel mn question (Lot 2, Laurel Acres Subdivision as approved 2/7/77). Appellant plans to renovate the existing structure for one-family dwelling use. The Board agrees with the reasoning of appellant. In considering this appeal, the Board determines that the variance request in relation to the code requirements is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique and prac- tical difficulty has been shown; that the relief if granted will not change the character of the neighborhood and will be in har- mony with and promote the general purposes of the zoning code; that if the relief is granted no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by some method feasible to appellant other than a variance; that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that a variance to the zoning ordinance be granted as applied for in Appeal No. 2853, application of Kenneth I. and Judy M. McFall, subject to referral~of.~his matter to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter. Location of Property: 7216 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-126-10- part of parcel 1.3. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Sawicki and Grigonis. Mr. Goehringer abstained from vote. PUBLIC ~H~3_ING: Appeal No. 28~6~ Application of Patricia A. Bai!e)% P2~ #1, Box 114~ Cutcho~e~ ~' for a Variance to the Zonin~ Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100~31 for permission tO subdivide t~ee _n~u~=m~ent area of proposed lo2 #2~ merged lots, and approva!~of approval of znsufzzcment fronzyard of proposed lot #3 of said lots at 2155 Sk~ Lane (Bay A~e~), Cutchogde, ~Yff. Above mentioned front yard of proposed lot #3 faces Leslie Road~ Cutchog~e; bounded north by Nerone~ Fich%, McC!eery~ bounded west by Bay Avenue~ bounded south by Ma!y~ Price~ Leslie Road~ bo~mnded east by Swiatocha~ County Tax Map item No. 1000-97-~11~ 12, 17. ~outhold Town Boaz~..o£ Appeals -15~ i August 6~ 1981 The Chair~nmu opened the hearing at 8:30 p,m, by reading the appeal application mud related docu~ents~ legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers~ Notice of Disapproval from the Building inspector~ mud letter from the Tow~ Clerk that notification to adjoiming property owners was made~ fee paid $15o00. ~Zqo Cbl~iP3~M: We have a section of the County Tax Map showing this property and a map of the property. Is there anyone here who wishes to,speak for this application? PATRICIA BAILEY: I would Oust like to say ~na~ I believe the law changed in 1972. Is that correct? As far as lots being one acre land, one acre lot? ~-~. CI~kL~3L~N: Yeah~ but-~ PATRiCiA BAIL~£: Well~ at that time, my husband was extremely ill, a_a if I had ~no%~m that the law was going to be che~uged, I would have made sure that I had I had made sure that ail my lots had been separate. Also I'd like to say something off 'the record. ~. CHA_T~2~.o Sure. (The Cha~rmmu indicated to the recording secretary to ~mrn off the dictation machine The ~e~o~a~g of meeting resumes with the following:) Thank you. Is there emyone else to speak for this? (TF~z~%E ~iAS NO R~PONoE. ) ~_~yone to speak against it? Any questions ~from any of the Board members? (T~RE ~%E ~0 QUESTIONS.) We were do%m~ and we were a little bit confused when we were looking at it after we got ~nother look at it, so I would like to recess this 'till a future date so we can go back and go over it. Perhaps get a hold of you and you could show Us better and ~lain i~ PATRIC!A =~,~=_~ ~ I don't know where the di{ficu!ty would be. ~. CHJ. I~%l: Yeil: I t.__n~ we were on the wrong road when we were there in the first place to !mok at it~ it had the wrong angle on it~ We saw some-- PATRICIA BAIL~: Wel!~ it's Harold Price~s old barns~ I'm sure you know where that is~ Sou~.nold To~n Boar~ jcl Appe_~_s -16- ,~ ...... + 6 1981 ~. CH~LP~!3~: Yeah~ yeah. PATRICIA BAIL~: six acres in the back. at the present time~ Okay, that would be one ~iece __aromd Price's I have no intention of sel!ing any of this land ~ C~&I?2~5~d~: Right~ _ _ ~h~n my roll. PA~RICYA BAILEY: Nothing would be changed~ other ~ ~ _~, CH~IRM~flt~: I~lt c~ose· the he'a~ring~ i~0ff~r a r~go~utibn to c!ose the~ea~ -~o and reserve the aecz~on~ ' ~' u~atil a little later date. ~ DDUGLASS: SeConded~ On motion bY Mr~ Grigonis~ seconded by ~ Douglass, it was RESOLV~ tna~ the he=r_ng be declared closed and decision reserved in the matter of Appeal No. 28~6, application of Patricia Bailey. Vote of the Board: Ayes Messrs. Grigonis~ Doyen, ~ouoiass, Goehringer~ and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARINC: Appeal No~ 28A7~ Application of G~u~ter Morche!~ Masse~ Point Road~ Cutchogo. e~ A~ (Swim Ming Pools~ Route 25A~ Rocky Point~h~£ 11778 as agent) for a Variance to.~t~ Zoning Ordinance~ A~t. Ii!~ Sec. 100-32 for permission to construct an ingrou_ud swimming pool in the frontyard area at the corner of Nassau Point Road & 01d Menhaden Road, Cutchogae, h~I; also knowm as ~assau Point Subd~ Filed Map #156, Lots 17, 18~ County TaxMap Item Nco 1000-111-9-3~ ~_~ CKAIR/~a/~: The next item~ 28~7~ on behalf of Gunter Morchel has been Withdrawn. r have a statement here that says~ dated Augusv 1981, ~To~m of Southold~ Board of Appeals... Gentlemen: This is to advise that we are withdrawing our application for a variance with regard to an~18 x 36 swimming pool at the reSidence~of Gunter Morchel~ 3~83 ~assau ~oint Road~ Cutchogue, A~Z~ We submittea this date cOpies of an u~dated survey showing the approved location for said pool. Said surveys were presented to ~. Edward Hindermann~ Thank you for your cooperati°n in this matter. Yours truly~ Swim King Poals~ Inc.~ Moreen Hager.~ They're putting the pool in the backyard so. there's no variance re~ired. I~ll make a motion granting this withdi~awal~ ~EMB~ GOEHRIMGER: Second. On motion by Mr, Grigonis, seconded by M~. Goeb~inger~ it was RESOLVW_D~ that Appeal No. 2847~ application of G~ter Morchel dated June 24~ 1981 is b~reoy withdra~ as _ecues~ea. Southold Tov~ Board of Y~peals Augo~st 6~ 1981 Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs~ Grigonis~ Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer~ and Sawicki. PUBLIC HE.~RING: ~jppeal No. 2849. Application of Warren Ac Sambach, 173 Hillside Avenu. e~ Williston Park~ !~Yf 11596 for a Variance to the Zoning 0rdin~uce~ Art. Iii Sec. 100-31 & Sec. 100-36 for per- mission to construct addition with insufficient side yard are ~ud rear yard setback at Dogwood~an~ ~ ~ ~~as~ ~ Marion~ ~f~. also kzaown as Garainer~ Bay Estates Subd~, Filed Map #95, Lot 96~ Co~uty Tax Mao Ztem Mo~ 1000- 37-1-9~ The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:~2 pom. by reading the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of besting s~d affi~ davits ~stmng to its publication in oot~_ the local ~ad o~fzc~m. newspapers~ Notice of Dis~oproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the To~ Clerk that notification to adjoining property o~ners was made$ fee paid $15o00, ~.. CM~I~Wi~M: ~e have a Cotmty Tax Map showing the area sad the s~ro~mding~ and this property and the surrounding area~ We have a map of the property showing the location of the house sad the proposed addition. Is there anyone here who would like to soeak for this? ~f~_EN S~CH: I'm ~[arren Sambac~, ~n~ owner ~. C~-li~itq: is there anything that you we~nt toaadd to? ~ ~ well covered all of it, M~ W~w~Rm-$? SJI~ACH: I think we p~et~ Chairman~ !~. CBt~w3[~Y: Thank:~uu, We were down s~d looked at it mud it's a nice area in there, It's the £irst time in years t==v !~ve been back in there, ! forggt how nice it was in there~ ~>~E~,E S~¥,~BACH: ~L~ Dyer, who built the original house, faced it in the soutb~zesteriy direction, I hope you noticed~ and it's set well back from the road so it has created a hardship to conform to sideyard and rearyard requirement~ I~, CM~i±P~Z~Y: Thank you, Is there ~nyone else to speak for ~h~_s. Anyone to speak against it? WAS N0 R~O~SE.) questions from any of you gentlemen of the BOard? ~, Doug!ass, Southold Town Boar--.icl Appeals -18- ~/ August 6~ 1981 M~ ER DOUGLASS lots doesn?t it? W;a~R ~ SAY. BACH: ~ER DOUGLASS ~ DOUGL2~S ~BER DOU~JL~ S It sits on two of the original~ twoormg_na=' ~ ~ That's right~ it's not one lot. ~o~ That was two original lotso Two original lots~ yeah, 95 and 96. Right~ ~.~ C!~IPJ~N: _~yone else have any questions? (Negative.) Bob: you w~ut to offer your resolution? ~. DOUGL.~SS: _,'I! make a mo ~zon that it be approved as asked for. ~Z~ER ~A3~¥mCKI: I second Southold Town Board of Appeals August 6, 1981 The Board made the following findings ~ad determinations: Appellant by this appeal seeks permission to construct an addition to existing one-family dwelling leaving a total of both sideyards approximately 22 feet (rather than the required 26.3 feet) and leaving a rearyard setback of approximately 38 feet (rather than the required 50 feet). The premises in q~es- tion are improved with a one-family one-and one-half-story frame dwelling with attached one-car garage, and contains an area of approximately 20,080 square feet with ll8-foot road frontage. The subject premises are known as Gardiner's Bay Estates, Section II, Subdivision Lots 95 and 96, and filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office as Map No. 275. In considering this appeal, the Board determines that the variance request in relation to the code requirements is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique and prac- tical difficulty has been shown; that the relief if granted will not change the character of the neighborhood and will be in har- mony with and promote the general purposes of the zoning code; that if the relief is granted no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by some method feasible to appellant other than a variance; that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that a variance to the zoning ordinance as applied for in Appeal No. 2849, application of Warren A. Sambach be granted. Location of Property: East side of Dogwood Lane, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-37-1-9. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goeh- ringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. PL~BLIC ~a~ING: Appeal Nog 2851~ Application of Salvatore Caiola~ 74 Irving Place~ New York~ Y~ 10003 (by Samuel J~ Glickman ~orney) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance~ .Art, III~ Sections IO0-~OA (1) & 100-~2 for permission to amend Building Permit #11152 Z~ which was issued for storage bui!ding~ a permitted use '~m~endment to living unit is not permitted with an existing dwelling on premises without a Variance, Location of property: 49975 Couun~ Road Southold~ ~IY; bounded north by Sound View Avenue~ west by Sawicki~ /south by C~R~ 27~ Droskoski; Wolanski~ east by Madsen~ K~mps~ Demitrack~ D~<is~ Andriotis, County Tax Map Item NOo 1000-5~-3-8~ 9~ 12,2~ I Au~ast 6~ 198t 'Southold Town Boar~/of Appeals -20 ~ ~ The Chairmmn opened the haaring at 8~50 p.m. by reading the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of hearing e~d affidavits attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers~ Notice of Disapproval £rom the Building Inspector, ~nd letter £rom.:~he Town Clerk 2hat notifica2ion to adjoining property owners was made~ fee paid ~15~00. MR~ CHEIP~a2~: We have a section of the Comity Tax Map and a survey of the property. Is zher~ anyone who wishes to speax for this? S~JEL J~ GLICtC~M: My name is Sa~ael J~ G!ic~-man~ attorney in Greenport. I wish to show the Board at this time a survey showing the s~rrounding propert~ies of approximately 15 acres or more which abuts to the property that we are asking for the e~en~ment of the original building permit~ Originally there was going to be a storage~ and~ when we bought~ when M~ Caiola bought the property from Mrs~ Frody~ Mro Caiota had no intentions~ he was going to remodel it and didn't kuow what to do. He then decided~ while in the middle of building the storage area that we was going to remodel the big fa~ouse and live for him- self~ At that time, t~ubeknow~ to.himself and to the~ to change the building permit~ he went ahead and put up a fancy building~ After it, while in pro~ss of it and he was then in violation of his building permit~ ~=nd i'm here now to~ the building peri, it was refused because of the ordinance. I'm here now to ask that the~ the Board grant a variance and building permit as to the property~ the house that was there~ The servant's quarters abuts to his ls~ad foo a small piece~ the land w~aich is owned by M_r~ Sawicki-~not the M~ Sawicki sittingon this Board so we don't have ~uy conflict here. ~d~ we are in the process of dickering with Mr~ Sawicki to straighten~ if you look at the su~ey I Oust handed you, we were going to buy property from M~o Sawicki to take in the Caiola property and straighten the line out and it would be about 20 some odd acres of land~ which will be in one n~me~ comes one piece under the Board~ and askl that it be grouted. It will never hurt the character of the area because you have a florist~ or hot house~ whatever you want to call it, west of it~ There is~ east of it~ I'm sorry, there's nothing in the character that will ch~uge anything~ There's plenty of land. The fallacy here is that it abuts another piece of land, doesn't have a sideyard~ backyard big enough~ And the Frody!property unit itself is approximately an acre and a half~ Co,t- ing that and about 20 acres, you've got approximately ~5~16 acres that is one piece of land~ And i ask that it wouldn't hurt anybody because I don't believe they was anyone who has spoken~ who has written in objecting to itc Therefore i ask that the variance be granted~ MRo CPD. I~?~: Thank you Mr. G!iokman. Is there anyone else here who ~ishes to speak for this? (T~E WY_S ~[0 RESPONSE. ) ~nyone to speak against it? (T~RE ~I~S NO R~PONSE~ ) oout_.oia To%~m Boa~<~.of A ppeais -2t ¢ August 6~ 1981 F~, C~iIR~L~.i~: Just where would the line be that you were going to straighten SYa~j~,._L J~ GLICI~2~: Let me show you on these~ ~_ne followinE statements are referring to building plans of the applicsmt which were not prov~med to the secretary for reference at the time of testimony,) S~EL j. GLIC~: Alright~ it wo~d go approximately like this~ so we'd have one big piece (remainder of statement was inaudible.) M~ER GO~I~G~: How many acres is. this ~ Mr ~ G!ic!~an? S~&$~L J~ GLIC!~32~: This piece here is approximately 13 acres of land. ~,~ER GOE~ING~,: This is 13~ S~2~JEL J~ GLIC~A&[~[: That's 13. ~ GObblINGS: ~d you've got one ~ud a h~f do,ma here, S3~UJEL j~ GLiCK~: ~proximately one ~d a half here~ Approx- imately two acres back to here I think it is, ~f~$~q DOYEN: How much do y~u intend to leave? S~L J~ GLEG~L&2~: Just what-- ~. DOt~: Each structure~ or two structures? S~W[~L J. GLICI~32q: ~e're not, we're not ~oing to do anything. We're going to leave as is~ ~. CHAI~[: ~The old house exists, ~ER DOYE~: ~BER DO¥~: Mia~ o CF~kIPj~2~: The old house-- No~ but I mesm, when you get all tD~ough~ There'il be two. How much longer-- Two huiidings on the 15~ 16 acres., Southold To,a% Board o£ Appeals -22- August 6~ 1981 SAMUEL J. GLIC~2~/~: shed. This was placed, comes out to these. Let me show you, There's the old storage the new part over here instead, the driveway (Mr~ Doyen asked a question %~nich was not fully audible on the taped recording of the public hearing.) S~L j~ GLICK~N: This will remain as is here. You've got approximately sn acre~ over an acre. ~BER DOYEN: Yeah, (remainder of statement was inaudible.) I~tCJEL J. GLiCI~Y: Right. ~BER GOEB~INGER: Now~ I'm with the underste~.ding that you're negotiating with Mr~ Sawicki"now. S~EL J~ GLICK~2~i: Yes, I am. M~. Caio!a said he's negotiating to straighten it out~ If he buys it~ or he doesn't buy it~ he still has all that land~ There is no question, there is no question of a subdivision now~ !'11 be honest with you. I~ER GOEP~INGER: Do we have a copy of this Charles? (At this time during the hearing, more than one person was speaking, and individual statements could not be heard in context.) ~ER GOE,~W~-~ING~: We have a copy of this~ I mean~ as good as this copy. MR. C~IR3~J~: It's not too bad~ M~BER GOEBlqINGER: Not too bad? I had a little trouble reading those. Okay, good. Thank you. ~Th~r~ was a question brought up which could not be heard on the tape. ) S~U~_~ J. GLICF~Y: If we~ in the future-- M_~ER DOYEN: It's academic at the moment~ but someday~ unless one burns down~ you're going to have to have two legal lots. $~rJEL J. GLIC~t~N: That is right. I ,~nderstand that it's going to have to be two legal lots for that accessory house someday in the future. Letme be honest with you, we have nointention to do ~uything right now. I've submitted plans for condominiums on ~uother piece of land, just purchased another 26 acres on the so%md~ which we intend to Southold Town Boated of Appeals August 6~ 1981 develop, l~e dontt intend to develop this right at the present time at all. 'Ye have ~o in the process. Would you like this back Mr~ G!ickman? SY~TJEL J~ GLICEt~_~: Thank you. ~4B~ GOESlqINGk-q: Thank you~ I~. CF~t~3~7: E'd like to keep one for the fi!e. S~3~JEL Jo GLIC~5~: Take them all. i dontt need them~ 1.~ C~.iR~J~.~%T: Thank you. Are there any other questions from any of the Board members? (Negative.) I~ll offer a resolution closing the hea_~ing and reser~¢ing decision tuati! a little later date. ~IBER GOEC.,~ ING~R: Second. On motion bp- Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLV-~, that the hearing be declared closed and decision reserved in the matter of Appeal Mo. 2851, ~pplication of Salvatore Calola. Vote of the Bos~d: Ayes: Messrs~ Grigonis~ Doyen~ Douglass~ Goebm~inger~ and Sawicki. PL~LIC H~RING: Appeal Mo. 2850~ Application of Frederick T. Horn, 297 Sunset Avenue, Westh~npton Beach, ~f 11978 for a Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 of the Town Law for approval of access of Case's Lane Extension, Cutchog~e$ bo%reded north by Path Way, west by Fai~;ay Earms~ south by Case's Lane Ext~, east by Horn, Bouf~_er$ County Tax Map Item No~ 1000~109~5-north section of The ~hamr_an opened uhe hearing at 9:02 p.m. by reading the appeal application mud related dooume~=s, i~gai notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the local mud officisl newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector~ mud letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property ovmers was made; fee paid $15.00. ~.. CF~IRt~32~Y: We have a section of the Co~muty Tax Map sh~wing th~s property and the surro~uding ~' ~ ~ ' _ ~sa~,~mud we have a s~etch of the property showing the access roadthat they wish to apply for approval for, have applied for rather. Is there e~yone here who wishes to speak in behalf of this? ' Southo!d Tovm Boa of Appeals -24- Augo~st 6, 1981 FR W_ED ~--P. ICK questions I'm Fred Horn~ I~!l be glad to smswer any ~.. CF~L~Z~: Is this going to go on through and connect on to that little road further south? FRED HORI~: No. ~. C~iR~Y: No~ ~ HOR~i: Not that I'm aware of~ ~. CM3.!R~N:~ Airight~ Do any of you gentlemen have say questions you'd like to ask this gentleman? MSiMB~ DOUGL~S: It just goes to the golf coumse house then~ right? FRFD H0~Y: That's cor~ecto ~. CY~IIP~%~$~: To the club house there~ right? To the club house, ~ DOUGLASS: FRE~ HORN: Yes, M~ERDOUGLASS~ The part that's already black-topped. FRED HOP2~: That's correct. ~. C~J~2~: J~ybod~ else? (Negative~) Th~nk you very much~ Is ~ne_e~ ~nvone. else to speak for it? (Negative~) Anyone to speak against it? (Negative~) i'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving the meozs_on ~nt_~ a _~ ~e_ date~ Mw~ER GOEI~IRINGER: Second.~ 0n motion by Mr. Grigonis~ seconded by M~ Goehringer~ it was RESOLV~O, that the hearing be deo!ared closed and decision ~reserved in the matter o~ Appeal No~ 2850~ app!ioation of Frederick T,. Horn~ Vote of the Board~ Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis~ Doyen~ Doug!ass~ Goebm~inger, and Sawioki. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 6, 1981 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2833. Application of Northville Industries Corp., P.O. Box lll, Riverhead, NY 11901, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-30 (A & B) for permis- sion to use part of premises for commercial docking and mooring with parking storage area in an A-Residential-Agricultural Zone. Location of Property: 610 Naugles Drive, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Petersen~and Robinson; west by Naugles Road; south by McKenna; east by Mattituck Creek; County Tax Map Item No. 1000- 99-4-18. (Owners of subject premises: Mr. and Mrs. Joel McElear- ney). The Chairman asked Member Goehringer to read the documents concerning this appeal, and as follows: appeal application, building inspector's Notice of Disapproval, miscellaneous corres- pondence. Mr. Grigonis then resumed chairmanship~at 9:11 p.m. The Chairman read the entire letter dated May 30, 1981 from the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee addressed to the Southold Town Board of Appeals. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a section of the County Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding properties; and we have a map of the area showing this property and the surrounding properties on Naugles Drive. Is there anyone here to speak for this application? EARL ESPALAND: Yes, I'm here, my name is Earl Espaland. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you speak right into that mike there, if you would sir? MR. ESPALAND: My name is Earl Espaland. I'm General Manager of Domestic Terminal Operations for Northville Industries. My office was formerly located here in Riverhead. And Captain Dudley who has been dealing with this subject is currently out of the Country. I'm here to represent Northville in this matter. Northville has for many years been operating an off-shore tanker-birthing operation for the reception a~d shipment of various petroleum products. In this operation it is necessary for us to maintain water-boring equipment, a water barge to ser- vice the equipment, both along side the dock as well as undsrground equipment, underwater equipment. We also have a launch which is birthed in Mattituck Inlet, which is the only one' in this area and the only area where we can receive a safe birth. During the years we have been maintaining our equipment formerly at the Naugles dock and most recently what is known as the Petersen Property. We have there maintained the property that we have been using, and maintained the dock at which the barge has been birthed. We have at that location maintained a small storage area for our own equip- ment, and a small tank for the purpose of refueling our marine Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- August 6, 1981 (Earl Espaland continued): equipment. Very little maintenance work is done right at that loca- tion. The matters or the points of arguments that have been presented in the letter from the Mattituck Advisory Board to some extent are quite exaggerated. The small amount of sandblasting that we do amounts to I think at the very most six hours over an annual period. We do maintain our vessels there, our small work boat, which is a 65', 5½-foot draft. The work barge is 85' by 40' It does have a crane, and it draws 2½' The purpose for moving into the McElearney Property is to obtain a long-term lease for the purpose of mooring our equipment, something that we can rely upon for the purpose of servicing our platform. I have here a map of the area that I would like to show you if I may. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. I think we have that map in our file. MR. ESPALAND: Oh, the Board has these? MR. CHAIRMAN: Looks like it. MR. ESPALAND: Oh, you have it there. Ok. The ~pr0perty is designated, is shown there ther 50' by 100' area that wetwould occupy on the McEIearney Property, and then the barge and the work boat off the dock, off the bulkhead. We will-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe it would be better if you used the mike. MR. ESPALAND: The location or the area that we would occupy on the McElearney Property is designated, and off the bulkhead we show the location of where the barge would be, the work barge, ~gi~h the board, as well as the work boat. In this location we are really further away from the working channel of Mattituck Inlet than we were before. We find this to be appropriate for our requirements, and we have the opportunity at this point to obtain a reliable lease which we would, would enhance our opportunities and reliability of servicing our operation, which is vital to this area. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have on this. MR.~CHAIRMAN: Bob, do you have anythlng you would like to ask? MEMBER DOUGLASS: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: N0~ nOt[.~ight at the moment, maybe-- MR. ESPALAND: Our intention, of course, is, ~we have demonstrated this in the past, that we have maintained our facilities in very good order and we would make any improvements that were necessary to reach your requirements. Southold Town Board of Appeals ~27~ August 6, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right, thank you for the moment. If we have some questions a little later-- Is there anyone else to speak for this? (Negative) Is there anyone to speak against this? MICHAEL MADAS: My name is Michael Madas. I'm Secretary of the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee. The Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee is a group of concerned citizens. The creation of the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee was taken by the Town Board on May 20, 1980. The purpose of the Committee is stated as follows: The purpose of the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee is to address planning options for the Mattituck Inlet area and make recommendations to the Town Board. I want to make it clear this evening that the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee does not represent the Town Board. The Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee presence here this evening is only to give information to the Zoning Board of Appeals and nothing more. We have been studying this property for almost two years now, on both a formal and informal basis. First as a group of concerned citizens, secondly as a more formal group with the sanction of the Town Board. If this Town can go back 25 or 30 years, there is no way I feel that the Town would have ever permitted the creation of the monster that we have now in the commercial heavy-industrial area at the mouth of Mattituck Inlet. This is a blighted area. This area has been designated by the Long Island Regional Planning Commission, as we stated in our letter to you which you read into the record a few moments ago, asa geographic area of particular concern. Particular concern because the situation down there now which hurts our local tourist industry, which is polluting our off-shore waters and our fresh-water supply down there, and also because of the visual pollu- tion down there. Our beaches have been closed. Homeowners have been had to suffer the disturbances of.heavy truck traffic. If anything the members of Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee are looking to improve the area. Improving an area does not mean that an area is going to be expanded. If anything the area down there should be contracted-- it should be eliminated. If the Zoning Board of Appeals were to approve the application of Mr. and Mrs. McElearney, we would in effect be expanding a blighted area. ~!~'~.~ We have stated several reasons for objections in our letter, but I must ~ake exception to a statement made here this~evening about the fact that ~rthville's storage of boats and other vessels on the McElearney Property if it were to be permitted would place these vessels further from the working channel of Mattituck Inlet. A study of the map in front of you will show actually that that property juts our further into the channel. The channel there moves to the left. Boats going out of Mattituck Inlet keep to the left. And therefore it approached the land much closer with the McElearney Southold Town Board of Appeals ~28~ August 6, 1981 (Michael Madas continued): Property than they would, say, if they were to approach Petersen's Property. Petersen's Property tends to veer away from the working channel. ~ Many of our residents are down here this evening because they have heard about this hearing and they are very concerned about it. As I said before, I speak only for the Mattituck Inlet~Advisory Committee this evening, but I know that behind me there are literally hundreds of residents concerned about this matter that could not be here for one reason or another. Some of them don't wish to be here because they don't like getting up in front of public and make them say it in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. But I can tell you that if the Zoning Board of Appeals is to have the best interest of the people of our area at heart, it would not expand this area. And I urge you not Go do it this evening. Thank you. MR. CHAIRM~N: Thank you. Mr. Madas, there's a letter here from the Town Clerk that you're supposed to picky.up. I was just made aware of it. Is there anyone else to speak against this? FRANKLIN BEAR: My name is Franklin Bear, and I'm also a member of the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee. Naturally I support everything that Michael Madas has said and everything in the letter to the Board, and I would like to say that we're not here to oppose Northville Industries as an operation, but to oppose the expansion of that areav-that industrial area into residential area. And for all the reasons that are mentioned in that letter, we believe that for Northville to move to the south in effect would be a very serious, brings about a very serious bad effect on that entire area and would extend an industrial area further. I~ould think that they could work out an arrangement with the present owner, Mr. Petersen, and would seem to me that that would be a proper placement and to remain. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bear. Yes, ma'am? MRS. OTERO: I'm Mrs. Otero, and we live adjoining to the North- ville Property. At that point there there's a very dangerous hill. It's downhill and there are kids there which even in normal times, and mentioncof the area you study, are going to have difficulty in seeing and judging the traffic. Any extra traffic on that area is going to make more hazardous than ever. I'm definitely not for it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir? MR. PETERSEN: I'm Mr. Petersen, and I am willing to arrange a lease agreement with Northville at any time they wish. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? RUTH OLIVA: Ruth 0tiva, President, North Fork Environmental Council. We would wish to concur with the findings of the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee, in_~whom we have the greatest respect for their judgment. Thank you. Southold Town Board of Appeals ~29~ August 6, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Do you have any rebuttal you would like to make, Mr. Espaland? MR. ESPALAND: We also share the concerns that obviously have been demonstrated here by the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Board and others. It is not our intention to do anything different than what we've done before. We are also only seeking to occupy a very small portion of the McElaarney Property. And the work or the boats that we will be mooring there are not going to be in any way a detriment to the area. We are concerned about the environment here. We have done many things within the Mattituck Inlet and also within Long Island Sound to assure that. We have helped in many areas with res- pect to' safety and with people lost off shore, etc. Me have done many things to help in that area, and our service here to this particular location has a strong record. The traffic mn the area is going to be minimal. We're only talking about tops, six or eight people working there at any one particular time. We have on many occasions before been seeking a lease agreement with Mr. Petersen, and h~ has not been willing to do that until this time. I don't know what that lease agreement would mean at this point, and I therefore would appeal to you that we be granted this varmance so that the equipment that we are dealing with to operate in this area can be safely moored and with some reliability. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any of you gentlemen have any questions? (Negative) I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving the decision until a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing in the matter of Northville Industries Corp., Appeal No. 2833, be closed and decision reserved until a later date. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Motion. was made by~ ~,~r. Grigonis~ seconded by M~. Qoekringer ~ud carried~ to recess the reg~tarmee~ing in order to go into "closed ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ 9:a0 o~clock p,m. (appr0x.~ session for deliberations, au /, Motion was made by ?m~. ~oehr_~=~r~ seconded by ~ Grigonis~ carried~ to reconYene the regular meeting at 10:00 o~clock~p~m¢ and (approx~)~ Southold Town ~oard of Appeals ~30- August 6, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2843. Application of Phebe M. Bridge Estate, c/o Robert W. Gillispie III as agent, P.O. Box 1112, Southold, NY 11971, for a Variance to New York Town Law, Section 280A, Subsection 3, and for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area of proposed Parcel No. 1, approval of insufficient area and width of proposed Parcel No. 2, approval of access of three proposed'parcels at the south side of Main Road, Southold, NY (R-O-W off south side of Main Road, west of boundary to Burns Real Estate); bounded north by Dubovick, Hagerman, Town of Southold, Burns and S.R. 25; west by Schnei- der; south by Bridge; east by Cummings, Scott and Methodist Church; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-61-4-2 and 9. Appellant by this appeal seeks: (1) approval of access to two parcels in a proposed minor subdivision over a 20-foot wide right-of-way labeled No. "3" on survey mapped April 21, 1981 submitted with this appeal; (2) approval of insufficient area of each of ~the two parcels, 27,546 and 28,475 square feet; (3) approval of insufficient width of Parcel No. 2, to wit, 127.11 feet. Parcel No. 1 is improved with a two-story framed house and accessory garage. Parcel No. 2 is vacant. In considering this appeal, the Board determines that the variance request in relation to the code requirements is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique and the practical difficulties have been shown; that the grant of the variance would not produce a substantial detriment to adjoin- ing properties; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to the appellant, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available govern- mental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of the zoning code; and in view of the manner of which the difficulty arose, the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that a variance be granted as applied for in Appeal No. 2843, application of .Phebe M. Brid.ge Estate, SUB- JECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That Lots 2 and 3 as labeled on survey mapped April 21, 1981 submitted with this appeal, be combined as one; 2. (a) That such access road shall have a width of not less than 15 feet and shall be cleared of all trees, brush and other obssructions to a width of 15 feet. (b) That such access road shall be improved in Southold Town ,ard of Appeals -31- August 6, 1981 (Phebe M. Bridge Estate, Appeal No. 2843 continued): EITHER of the following two methods: (1) Surfaced with a minimum depth of four inches of packed three-quarter inch stone blend so as to afford access for emergency vehicles. Such stone blend may be either applied to the ground surface and shaped, or the surface may be excavated to permit the application of packed blend to a depth of four inches; OR (2) Shall have topsoil removed to a depth of eight inches and then filled with eight inches of a good grade stone and sand bank run. The surface shall then be covered with a layer of two to four inches of three-quarter-inch stone blend, or in the alternative oiled with a minimum of 4/10ths of a gallon of road oil per square yard. (c) No building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the construction of any buildings or structures on the premises to which this access is referred until all of the conditions set forth herein have been complied with. (d) Where the terrain of the land over which such access road is traversed is such that drainage problems may occur, the applicant shall be required to have constructed such drainage facilities as may be recommended by the Town Engineer. (e) That the access road be approved by the Town Engineer, Town Building Inspector or Board of Appeals as to meeting the above requirements. 3. That this matter is subject to referral to the SUffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Section 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter. 4. That this matter is subject to approval of the Southold Town Planning Board. Location of Property: Right-of-way off the south side of Main Road, Southold, NY; Parcel 1000-61-4-2 and 9. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goeh- ringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. 'Southold Town Boa~ of Appeals -[ August 6, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2839. Application of Albertson & Katz (a/k/a uo_onmal Corners, Inc.). ~amn Road. Southo~d, NY, (by Wit_tam B. Smith as agent], for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. VII, Sec. 100-71 for approval of insufficient area and yard set- back of two proposed parcels at the south side of Main Road, Southold, NY; east parcel to Dubovick; bounded, north by State Road 25; south and east by Methodist Church. County Tax Map Parcel item No. IOO0-61-4-7. Appellant by this appeal seeks approval of insufficient area of two proposed parcels, of approximately 3,075 and 4~200 square feet, and will front on State Route 25 24.87!fleet and 25.00 feet respectively. Each of the parcels contain preexisting two-story frame buildings be- tween which the dividing line is proposed. Along the easterly side of the existing building on proposed ~arcel 2 is a right-of-way, as shown on surveyed submitted with this appeal and dated July 16, 1969. The premises are zoned B-1Gen'eral Business. In considering this appeal, the Board determines that the circum- stances herein are unique and practical difficulty has been shown~ that the relief if granted will not change the character of the~neigh- borhood; that if the relief is granted no adverse effects will be pro- duced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article VII, Sectmon 100-7, be granted as applmed fo_ mn A~ea! No. 2839, appli- cation of Albertso~ & K~z (a/~/a Colonial Co~ers.~ Inc.)~ SUBJECT TO THE ~OLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the square footage of the buildings cannot be increased from their present size; 2. That the buildings cannot encroach on neighbor's property line any more than presently exists. 3. That this matter is subject to referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Section 1323, et seq. of the Stuffolk County Charter. 4, That this matter is subject to the approval of the Southold Town Planning Board. Location of Property: South side of Main Road (S.R. 25), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-61-4-7. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen~ ~ouglass, Goehringer, Sawicki, and Grigonis. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 6, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2850. Application of Frederick T. Horn, 297 Sunset Avenue, Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 for a Variance to Section 280A, Subsection 3 of the Town Law for approval of access of Case's Lane Extension, Cutchogue, NY bounded north by Path Way, west by Fairway Farms, south by Case's Lane Ext., east by Horn, Bouff- ler. County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-109-5-14.1. Appellant by this appeal seeks approval of access over a private road, "Case's Lane Extension," which is paved and in good condition,~and approximately 50 feet in width. In considering this appeal, the Board determines that the variance request is not Substantial; that~th~_~circumstances herein are unique and practical difficulty has been shown; that the relief if granted will not change the character of the neighborhood and will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of Town Law and town rules2~and regulations; that the grant of this variance will not produce a detriment to adjoining propertieS; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellant other than a variance; and that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that a variance be granted as requested in Appeal No. 2850, application of Frederick T. Horn~ for approval of access at Case's Lane Extension, Cutchogue, New York, premises more particularly known as County Tax Map District No. 1000, Section 109, Block 005, Parcel 14.1. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Appeal No~ 2168~ Ho Horace & Ruth E~ Teri~-~The Chairm~a said that he was familiar with the problem and that it wou~d be taken care of. Appeal No~ 2831~ Fr~k J~ Abbadessa~ The Board reviewed and discussed Mr. Abbadessa~s letter dated 7/27/81 and received 7/31/81~ addressed to the Board of Appeals~ ~ad it is the consensus of the Board not to re-hear this matter to change~ modify or reverse its decision of Ju_ne 18~ 1981~ It was suggested that ~o Abbadessa con~ tact the Bui!~i'~g Department in order to find out what alternatives he would have for constructing a storage faci!ity~ Southo!d Tow~ Board of Appeals -34- Au~mst 6, 1981 Motion was made by ~.~h~ Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis.~ and ~aanimous!y carried~ to set the next regular meeting of this Board to be Thursday~ September 3, 1981 at 7:15 o'clock p.m~ to be h~lm at the Southold Tow~ Hall~ Main Road~ Southold~ Mew ¥orko Member Sawicki =~_~ the meeting at 10:55 o'Clock p.m~ On motion by M~. Goehringer~ seconded by Mm~. Crigonis~ it was RESOLVED, that the amended minUtes of the Special Meeting held by this Board cfi Wednesday, J~ue 2~ 1981 be approved. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen~ Douglas and Goehringer~ (Absent a - w s.~ Mr. Sawicki.) Motion was made by Mr~ Grigonis~ seconded by Mm~ Doug!ass~ that the following appeals be scheduled and advertised for public hearings to be held at the next re~g!ar meeting of this Board, to wit, Septembe~ 3, 1981 at the Southoid To~n Hall~ Main Road~ Southold, New York: 7:15 7:25 p.mo Appeal of ~ichael A. LoGr~nde~ E/s Stillwater Ave~, Cutchogs~e~ Insufficient frontyard setback for ~ew 8mei!ing~ p~m~ Appeal of Richard Possj~o 3!45 Ole Ju!e Ls~ue~ Mattituck~ Insufficient rearyard setback for new dwelling~ 7:30 7:aO p.m. Appeal of Demetrios and Joanne Joannides. 60 Central Drive~ Mattituck. In~u~f_omen~ zrontya~d setback for proposed deck/addition, p~m. Appeal of Harry P.. Fagan~ Jr~ 500 Betts Street~ Cutcho~me. Insufficient rearyard setback for proposed .addition. 7:50 p.m. Appeal of Thomas and Phyllis Maus. 480 Oakwood Drive, Southo!d. Variance for approval of access. 7:55 p.m~ Appeal of James Gen.o.yes__~e~ 620 L~ke Drive~ Southold. Insufficient frontyard setback of proposed addition. 8:05 p~m~ Appeal of Jon C. Kerbs. Insufficient area determinations. N/s Fleetneck Road~ Cutcho~ae. Four proposed lots~ Yard ~ Southold Tova~ B~j d of Appeals -35-~ . August 6~ 1981 8:20 p~m~ Appeal of Mary Ray° 375 Factory Av~nue~ Mattituck. Insufficient side and rear yard setbacks for carport. 8:30 p~m. ~peai of Gladys G. Bayles by- Richard F~ Lark, Esq~ To convert accessory building with ~est room to dwelling use~ ~ ~ ~ Cutchogue~ Smith Road (orivate)~ Nassau 8:50 pom~ Appeal of Donald J~ Finnerty~ 1530 Fleetwood Road ~ud Betts Sm~eet~ Cutoho~e~ To const~.ct add~tion_ to accessory building in the frontyard area~ 9:05 p~m~ ~opea! of ~.~!liam ~ud Ann Zold?ssy. S/s Bergen Avenue~ Mattx~ucm~ Insufficient area and w~tn of two proposed parcels° 9:15 p~mo Appeal of ~or~y Bro~m~ To use existing building as sa automobile repair shop (and/or reestablish use to permit use as an automobile repair shop)~ 73225 Ma~n Road (S~R~ 25)~ Greenport~ 9:30 p~m~ Appeal of Anthony G~ ~ud Helen M~ Nowachek~ (a) To construct deck/a~dition to dwelling with insufficient front- yard setbamk~ or (b) determining this improvement not to be an addition to existDng st~cture ~uder the ordinances~ Corner of Pequash Ave~ ~ud Fleetwood Road~ Cutchogue~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: s~ud u-oenr~nge_ o (Absent was: Messrs~ Grigonis, Doyen~ Douglass, F~ Sawioki~) On motion by M~. Grigonis~ seconded by Mr. Doug!ass~ it was RES~ ~, tO declare the following Negative Euvironmental Declaratio~ concerming the matter of Michael.. ~ .LoGrande 28~a ~ ~iROk~NTAL DECL.~q~TI ON: Pursuant to Section 617~13 of the N~Y~S~ Department of Environ~ mental Conse~ation Act~ Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law~ and Section &$-& of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Sou~hold Totem Board of Appeals has determined that the subject pro~ect as proposed herein is hereby classified as a T~?e Ii Action not having a significmut adverse effect uoon the environment for the following reason(s): ka Environmental Assessment in the Short For~ has been submitted which ~ndxc=tes tnau no si !f~cant adve~ occur should this oro~ect ~,~mented~ effects were likely to - ~ - ~ ple_nned. ' Southold To~m Be ~d of A~pea~ s -36~ August 6, 1981 Permission has bean obtained from the No¥.S~ Department of ~avironmental Conse~Tation pursuant to 6 ~CP~ Part 661 requiring this and all structures and construction activities to be within 95 feet of Stillwater Avenue~ Septic system is to be placed within 20 feet of road° Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis~ Douglass~ Doyen, and Goehringero (Absent was: ~. Sawicki~) On motion by l@~ Grigonis~ seconded by F~o Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative EnviroDmental Declaration concerning the matter of ~iphard ~osselt, Appeal ~o. 2855: E~Mf IR0~$~rAL DECLA~P_iTION: Pursuant to Section 617~13 of the N~Y.S~ Department of Dna. iron- mental Conservation Act~ Article 8 of the ~vironmental Conservation Law~ and Section 44-g of the Southold Towm Code~ notice is hereby giYen that the Southold Towm Board of Appeals has determined that the subject pro~ect as proposed herein is hereby classified as a T~pe ii Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the envirom~nent for the Following reason(s): Bm Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as p!ar~ed~ The property in question appears to be located within 300 fee~ of tidal wetlands area, but the wetl~ads area is seoaratedby a road or similar type of barrier~ This meclar~t~on sno~!d not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also',be invo!ved~ nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen~ and Goehringer~ (Absent was: ~ Sawicki~) On motion by Mr. Grigonis~ seconded by Mr~ Douglass, it was P~F~BOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration %oncerning the matter of p?.....& Joanne Joannides, Appeal No~ 2857: SoUtho!d Tov~ Board of Appeals -37- -' Au~.st 6s 1981 Pursuant to Section 617o13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environ~ mental Conser~.~ation Act, ~rticle 8 of the Elavironmental Conservation Law, and Section ~-~ of the Southo!d Town Codes notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the sub- jeot project as proposed herein is hereby c!assified as a Type II Action not having a significmut adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An ~viron~menta! Assessment in the ShO~t Form has been submitted which indicates~+~a+~ no ~~~o~--~ adverse effects were likely to occur snouid this projec~ be ~mp!emen~ed~ planned. T~ne project proposed does not appear to be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area~ This Declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved~ nor for ~ ~ _ ~ ~u~ other project not covered by the subject aopea! aoplication~ Vote of the Board~' Ayes: Messrs~ Grigoniss Doyen~ Douglass~ ~?~d ~ Mr~ Sawicki~ ) Goehringer ~ (A~z entwas~ On motion b$~Mr~ Grigonis~ seconded by M~ Douglass~ it was R~SOLVED~ to decla_~e the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of Harry P, Fags3~ Jr~ Appeal 2858~ E~£IRO_%~?TAL DE~D~ h&TI0~ ~ ~rsuant to Section 617~13 of the N~Y.S~ Department of Environ~ mental Conservation Acts~^~=,~ 8 of the ~nv~ronm~n~a± Conservation Laws ~ud Section ~ ~f the Southold To~m~ Codes notice is hereby given that the Soda,hold Totem Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Tp~e IX Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the en~ vironment for the following reason(s): .ku Emviror=mental Assessment in the Short Form has been which _ndzca~e.. tha~ no sign_ ificant adverse effects were iikel~to occur s=.o~m this project be implemented as plmaned~ The pro~e ct proposed does not appear to be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area~ So~thoid Town Board of Appeals -38~ August 6, 198! This ~ =~ ' de~=ara~=on should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for auy other project not covered by the subject appeal application. ~o~e o~_ the Board~ Ayes: Messrs~ Grigonis~ Goehringer~ (Absent was ~ Mr~ Sawicki~ ) On motion hymn. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED~ to declare the following Negative ~virommenta! Declaration concerning the matter of ~homas & Phyllis Maus, Appeal EN=g!ROA~NTAL DECL~_W_~.TION: Ptu~suant to Section 6!7~13 of the N~Y~S~ Department of Environ- mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ~ad Section ~-& of the Southo!d To.~a~ Code, notice is hereby given that the Southo!d To~,~ Board of Appeals has dete~ined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type Ii Action not having a signific~at adverse effect upon the environraent for the following reason(s): ~n ~nvz~on~enta! Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted 'which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely.to occur should this project be implemented as pl~a~ed, The project proposed does not appear to be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area° This declamamzon should not be considered a determination:~made for any other d~partmenu or agency which may also be invo!ved~ nor for any other oroject~ not covered by the subject a~peaz~ ~ app!mc=u_on~° ~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. urmgon_s, Doyen, Douglass~ and Goehringer. (Absent was: Mr. Sawicki.) On motion by P~ Grigonis, seconded by M~ Douglass, it was RE~0L~ to dec!~r~ the fo~lowzno Negative ,Environmental Declaration concerning the m~ze~ of james Genovese, Aopea! Southo!d To%~n B~rd of Appeals August 6, 1981 ~mrsuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of En¥iron- mental Con-serv~ion Act~ Article 8 of the Environ_mental Conse~zation Law~ ~nd Section ~-$ of the Southold Tova~ Code~ he, ice is hereby given that the Sou%hold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject QroSect as proposed ~ '~ _ nere~n is hereby c~assified as a Type ii Action not having a si~aific~at adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): ku .Environmental Assessment ~n the Short Form has been submitted which indicates ~'~ ~- no significant adverse effects were likely to ocou~ should this pro~ect be implemented as p!anmed, ~b~_e project proposed is ~ocated within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area but is separated by a road or similar type of barrier. This declaration:should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the suDOect appeal application. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs~ Grigonis, Doyen, ~ouo!ass~ mud Goeb~inger. (Absent was: ~[~. Sawicki~) On motion by Mr. Grigonis~ seconded by ~ Dougiass~ it was P~ESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of Jori C~ Xerbs~ Appeal No. 2866: ~hR~ IR 0!\5~b~ .~L DEC L~.T I 0 N: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.s. Department of Environ- mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conser~fation Law, ~ud Section ~-5 ofthe Southold Tm~m Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Tovm Board ofA ppeals has deterge:ned that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type Ii Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the enviroD=ment for the following reason(s): AD. mnv=ronme~%tal Assessment in the Short Form has been sub~ mitred which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as p~ar=.ed. The project proposed does not appear to be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area~ Southo!d T~n Board of Appeals ~0-~'' A~_~st 6 ~ 1981 This declaration should not be considered a determination made £or aD_y other department or agency which may also be involved~ nor for ~uy other project not covered blz the subject appeal application. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs~ Grigonis, Doyen, Doug!ass~ and Goehringer. (Absent was: Mr~ Sawicki~) On motio~ by Mr~ Grigonis~ seconded by Mr~ Douglass~ it was R~SOLVE~, to declare the fo~owing NegatiVe ~v~ronmental Declaration concerning the matter Of Mary Ray, Appeal No~ 2862: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.¥oS. Department of ~viron- mental ~ +~ ~ Conse~a~_on Act~ Article 8 of the w~nviro~mental Conservation Law~ and Section 4J+~$ o£ the Southold To%~n Codeine%ice is hereby ~__at the SOuthold =~-~ given ~h ~uw_~ Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II Action not having a stgnific~at adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): ~a E~vironmental Assessment in the Short Form has o~en submitted which indicates that no si~ificant adverse effects w'ere likely to occur shou~_~ this pro.jeer be zmplemented as _ wm~z_~n 300 The project proposed does not aopear to be located "~' feet of tidal we~Is~_as area~ This declaration should not be considered a determination made ~ ~ which for any o~her department or =ge~cy may also be involved~ nor for ~ v _ ~ ~n~ other ~roject not covered oy the subject appeal application~ %fot~ of the ~oard: Ayes Messrs~ Grigonis, Doyen~ Dougiass~ a~m Goehr~ e~ (Absent was: M~ Sawicki ) On motio~-by ~5r~ Grigonis, seconded by Mro Doug!ass~ it was RESOLVED, to declare tb~ ~olmow~ng Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of Gladys G. Bayles~ Appeal No. 2864: ~/!R0k~ES~ 'AL DECL~ATION: Au~ast 6 ~ !98I ~rsuant to Secuio__ 617~!3 of the N.¥:S~ Department of ~¥~rou~ mental Conser~-ation Act~ Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law~ and Section ~$=~ of the Southold Town Code~ notice is hereby given that the Southold To~rn Board of Appeals has determined that the sub~eco pro,eot as proposed herein is he~e~y classified as a Type II Action not having a si~nifics~t adverse effect upon the environment for ~Le following reason(s% An Znvironmentai Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this ~ ~' ~_ ~o~,~ be implemented as p!anned~ This dec,afar_on snou_d not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be invoived~ nor ~or any other ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ . _ p~o~e~u not covered by the subject appeal a~ication~ Vote of the ~"' . Boa~a. Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis~ Doyen¢ Douglass~ and Goehringer. (Absent was: Mr. Sawicki.) On motion by ~ ' ' =~ ~=. Grlgonms~ seconm~d by Mr~ Douglass~ it was RESOL~D~ to declare ~n= following Negative Enviro~nental ~ ~ '' ~e matter of Donald J~ Fin~.erty~ Appeal D~c~ara~!on concerning +~ 2861: E%~¢IR0~D~TAL DECLAP~TION: Pursuant to Section 617~13 of the N:Y~S~ Department of Environ- mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the EnviroDffaental Conservation ~ t 44-4 . ~ ~ Law~ and ~.~t_on of the Southold Town uome~ notice is hereby given that the Southold Tow~ Board of Appeals has determined that the suodect project as proposed herein ms hereby classifzed as a Type II Action not ~ -°~ __ ~_=c~ upon the navz~g a significant adverse ~v^ ~ enviro~mment for the fo~lo~,mng reason(s]~ ~ Environmental As~essmen~ in the Short Form has been submitted which indicates that no si~ificant adverse ~fzec~s ~ occur s~_ou~ this pro,eot be implemented as planned° The project proposed does not appear to be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area. This ~ ~ ~' ueola~aomon should not be considered a dete~ination made ¢o~ ~nv other deo~ru=enu or agency which may also be invo!ved~ nor for any other ~ 4 *' p~oCe~% not covered by the subject appeal application. Southo_,m Tova~ Board o£ Appeals -42- ~ August 6~ 1981 Vate of t~e Board: Ayes: and Goe?~inger. (Absent was: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen~ Douglass~ !~ Sawicki.) On motion by Mro Grigonis~ seconded by M~. Douglass~ it was RESOLV~ to declare t_~e fo!!owzng Negative Envm~onmen,a~ Declaration concerning the matter of William & Ann Zo!dessM, Appeal No, 2872: E~V ZR0h_~r~[,~AL DECL_&P~&T I0N: Pursuant to Section 6!7~13 of the A[.Y.S~ Departmer~t of Environmental Conservation Act.~ Article 8 of the ~avironmental Conservation Law~ ~nd Section 45-&~ of the Southold To%ua Code~ no~i6e is hereby given that the Southoid Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject pro~ect as proposed herein is hereby- classified as a Type II Action not having a significant ad3~erse e~_ec~ upon the enviro~n~ent for the following reason(s): Y~ Envirornuentai Assessment in t_~eh Short Form has been o~b- mitred which indicates that no significant adverse effects were like!~ to occur shou!d this pro~ect be ~mp_emented' ~ ~ ~s~ p!~ued. The pro~ect proposed does not appear to be located 300 feet of tidal wetl~uds area~ This declaration should not be considered a determination made for ~y ~ ~ o~_e~ department or agency which may al~o be involved, nor for any other pro~ect not covered by the subject appeal application~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. GrigoAis~ Doyen~ Douglass, and Goehringer. (Absent was: M~. Sawicki.) On motion by Mr. Grigoniss secondedby~&r~ Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative ~nviro~entat Declaration concerning the matter of Sonny Brown, Appeal No. 2873: ~g. ~IR0~ME~AL DECL~RAT I0N: Southold Town Boai~d of Appeal~ August 6, 198I' ~suant to Section 6!7,13 of the M,Y~S. Department of.~viron- mental Conse~ation Ac% Article 8 of the Environmental Conse~;ation Law~ ~ad Section ~-~ of the Southold To~, Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proDesed herein is hereby classified as a T~rpe ii Action not having a signific~ut adverse effectupon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment_n~ the Short Form has been ~ubmzzted which indicates that no s_gn~_~cmu~ adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as The project proposed does not appear to be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands area~ This declaration shoU[~:not be considered a determination made " ~ ~.epc~ ~m~n~ agency which may ~ ~ for any o~e_ M ~ ~ = or a~_s~ be invo!ved~ nor ~or any other project not covered by the subject appeal ~ppiicaz_,o~ Vote of ~.e Board: Y~yes: Messrs. Grigoni~, Doyen~ Dougiass, and Goehringer~ ~Abs,~nt was: Mr~ Sawioki~) On motion by Mr~ Grigonis~ seconded by ~. Dougiass~ it was P~OL!~_D, to declare the following Negative Enviror,mental Declaration concerning the matter of Anthony G,,. & Helen 7 - Appeal No~ 28.1, E~UfTR0~NTAL Pursu@nt to S~ct=o~_ 617,13 the N.Y.S~ Deoaromenz of -Environ~ mental Conser~zation Act, Article 8 of the ~vironmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code~ notice is hereby given that the Southold Tovm Board of Appeals has dete~mined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Td~e ii Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the short FOrm has been submitted which znmmcazes ~haz no sz~nzmmcsmt adverse effects were likely to o~u_ should this project be implemented as pla~ed, The project proposed does not appear to be located within feet of ~ ~_a=l wet!smds area. Southo!d To~ Board of Appeals -44- August 6~ 1981 This declaration should not be considered a determination made £or s. ny other department or agency which may also be involved, nor £or any other project not covered by the subject appeal app!ioation~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs~ Grigonis~ Doyen~ Douglass~ and Goehringer~ (Absent was: Mr~ Sawicki.) Being m~ere was no further business to come before the Board~ motion was made by Mr. GOehringer~ seconded by ~ · ~, Grigonis~ and carried to adjourn. Respectfully submitted~ Eileen M~ Carey~ Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals Linda F~ Kowalski~ Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals