HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/09/1981Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- .STATE ROAD 2.5 .50UTHOLD, L.I., N.Y.
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 9~ 1981
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held
on Thursday, July 9, 1981 at 7:15 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main
Road, Sguthoid, New York 11971.
t~resent were: Charles Grigonis, Jr., Chalirmam; Serge Doyen, Jr.;
Rabert J. Douglass; Gerard P. Goehringer; Joseph H. Sawicki.
The Chairman o~ened the meeting at 7:17 o~clock p.m.
~DSLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2842. Application of Amelia Vaskelis,
P.O'. Box 522, Southo!d, NY £or a Variance to the Zoning Ordinamee, Art. III,
Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with imsufficient rear
yard area at the corner of Jernick ~ane & Oaklawn Avenue, Southo!d, NY;
also known as Harvest Homes Estates Subd. Filed Map #5337 Lot 22; County
Tax Map Item No. 1000-70-3-16. (c/o In, and Homes, Box 117, Mattitmck, NY)o
~. Grigonis abstained from the hearing of Amelia Vaskelis (amd left
the meeting room until the £ol!owing hearing) and requested that Member
Goehringer act as Chairmam i~ his place.
Member Goehringer opened the hearing at 7:17 ~om. by reading the
appeal application an~ related documents, legal motice o£ hearing and
af£idavits attesting to its publication in b~i~h the local and o£ficial
newspapers, Notice o£ ~isapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter
from the Town Clerk that noti£ication to adjoining property owners was
made~ fee paid ~15.00o
M~M~ER GO~HRING~R: We have a co~y of the County Tax Map showing the
surrounding ~ra~erties in the area a~d we also have a survey indicating
the placemen~ of the house, proposed house, approximately fifty feet from
Oaklawn Avenue, fifty feet from Jernick Lane, indicating twenty eight
feet on the eas~ side to lot #23 and indicating a proposed rear yard of
fourty three feet° Is there anybody who would like ~o s~eak in behal£
of this application? You're on.
/. ~guthoEd Sown Boaz~ of Appeals -2- ~ J
July 9, 1981
AMELIA VASXELIS: Well, I'd like to-
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we ask you a favor?
AMELIA VASKELIS: Sure.
MEMBER GOEHRIEGER: We have to tape all of this. Could I ask you
to speak in the microphone?
AMELIA VASKELIS: Can you hear me?
MEMBER GOEHRI~-GER: Beautiful.
AMELIA VASKELIS: Alright. This is what I would like to do--is to
really get on with the job, because I thought, it's just my sister and I,
and when we purchased this lot, 170 by 125, I thought ~hat was going to
be ample for two little old ladies, so I was quite surorised when I was
informed that it was short o£ property, and it's the first time I didn't
~ring my olans inzo your building department, because I was in a hurry
to get th~s house built zo bring my sister back from Florida, where she's
been for five years. So I'm very anxious to get zhis house going, and
then again we must have it up before the snow flies because the car in
Florida doesn't have snow tires. We have to be driving back. But I
would appreciate whatever consideration you could show me. Thank you.
ME~ER GOEHRI~GER. Thank you. Is there anybody who would like to
soeak, also in favor of this application, anybody else, rather?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.)
Anybody like to speak against it?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
Any questions?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.)
Hearing no further-questions, I'll make a motion to approve this application
as applied for.
MEMBER DOUGi~tSS: Seconded.
After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows:
By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct new
one-family dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback of
in trying to maintain frontyard setbacks of 50 as required by the
zoning code. The premises in question contains an area of 21,250
square feet with 170' road frontage along Jernick Lane and 125'
along Oaklawn Avenue. The dwelling proposed is approximately 92'
by 32' The Board agrees with the reasoning of applicant.
~outhold Town Boar~ of Appeals -3- July 9, 1981
The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial
in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief would not
change the character of the neighborhood; that no adverse effect
will be produced on available governmental facilities of any in-
creased population; that the hardship or practical difficulty is
unique and not self-imposed; and that the interests of justice
will be served by granting the relief as requested.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested in the application of
Amelia Vaskelis (by Inland Homes, Inc.) in Appeal No. 2842 be
granted as applied for.
Location of Property: Corner of Jernick Lane and Oaklawn
Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-70-3-16.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer
and Sawicki. Mr. Grigonis abstained.
Member Goehringer left the meeting hall at ~:25 p.m. and returned
at 7:26 ~.m., before the szar~ of the second public hearing.
PI~LIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2841. Application of Tom Crowley &
wife, 745 Cedar Drive, East Marion, NY for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct addition to
dwelling with insufficient side yard area at 745 Cedar Drive, East Marion,
NY; bounded north by Reich; west by Cedar Drive; south by Xapassas; east
by Vasquez and Frumenti; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-22-2-42. (by Peter
R. Stoutenburgh as agent).
The Chairman opened the ~'- 7: .~
he~l~g at 27 ~.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,
~ottce of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the
Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee
paid ~15.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a section of the County Tax Map showing this
property and the surrounding properties. We have a sketch showing the
location of the house and the proposed addition ~f the garage. Is there
anyone here who would like to add anything to the application?
TOM CROWLEY: I'd just like to say that when we built our house
seven years ago that we'd always hoped to put a garage on the north side.
So~thold Town Boa_~ of Appeals -4- ~. ~
July 9, 1981
TOM CROWLEY (CONT.): And at the time we thought we'd left enough
sideyard to put a garage, but since then we've added on a few members of
the family--two., since we built the house, and we just decided that we'd
try to make the garage, instead of a car and a half, a two-car garage.
We'd like to save the south side of the house, later on possibly, to add
some kind of solar sun space on the south side, so we really would not
want to obstruct our sunlight on the south side. We'd like to keep the
garage on the north side, if possible.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crowley. Anyone else to speak for it?
PETER STOUTENBURGH: In considering the location and the size of
this garage petitions, we tried to minimize the width of it as much as
possible. For a two-car garage, eighteen feet's about as narrow as you
can possible make One. Twenty feet.is more customary~and twenty two and
twenty four is not uncommon. We did run it a little bit longer than most
garages, thirty two feet in order to give some storage on the sides and
accessibility in bad weather and stuff like that to get it (word was
inaudible.) One thing that was also a consideration, that even if the
garage was going to go on the south side, although Mr. Crowley had
mentioned that they've got plans for possibly some solar collecting on
the south side there, there are cesspools in the back of the house on
the south side and if the garage was located in that area it would make
it very difficult to ever get to them if they needed to. It's right
now a big open yard and they do own a small stretch of land to the
south of it so there's plenty of access at the moment to get equipment
and machinery in there if they have to. Their ideas are very good about
a garage on the north side, it's good insulation and makes a nice buffer
to the winds that are so common in that area.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Stoutenburgh. Anyone else to speak
for it?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.)
Anyone to speak against it?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.)
I have a l~tter here addressed to the Southold Town Board of Appeals.
~The Chairman read a letter from Mr. Klm T. Dzenkowski of 1000 Cedar
rive, East Marion~ k~'~ dated July 8, 1981, and received by this Board
on July 9, 1981.)
Anyone else? Mr. Goehringer has a question.
MEMBER GOE~INGER: Peter, this is a one story garage?
PA~TER STOUTEkrBURGH: This is a one story garage although there
will be storage area over the garage to more resemble a ~o story
building, it is not meant to be a flat roof garage, it will be more
or less a salt box pattern (remainder of statement was inaudible.)
CHAIRMAN: Any other questions from you gentlemen?
ME~BER GOEh~INGER: Th~uk you.
~ ~Southold Town Board of Appeals
July 9, 1981
MR. CHAIRM~: I'll offer a resolution to close the hearing and
reserve the decision until a little later.
MEM2~ERGOEHRINGER: Second.
On motion by M~. Grigonis~ seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed, Appeal 2841.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
PUBLIC ~WHEARING. Appeal No 2837 Aoo!ication of Frank A. Battel,
c/o Municipal Building, Teterboro, New Jersey (by Richard J. Cron as
attorney) for a Variance to the Zoning 0rdinance~ Art. III, Sec, 100-31
for approval of insufficient area and/or width ox five proposed parcels
known as Shorecrest Subd. Filed Map #5584, Lots 10,11,12,13 & 14; also
known as south side of Bayberry Ls_ue, Greenport, ~; County Tax Map
item No. 1000-52-3-15,16,17,18,19.
The Chairman opened the h~ring at 7:37 p.m. by reading the appeal
application and related documemts~ legal notice of hearing and affidavits
attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers,
Notice of Disapproval from ~ne Building Inspector, ~d letter from the
Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made~ fee
paid $15.00.
MR~ CHAIR~2~: We have a section of the Tax map showing these lots
and the surrounding lots in the area. Is there anyone here that would
like to add anything to what's been stated in the application? That
would be you, ~@. Cron.
RICM~RD J. CRON: Yes, Richard J. Cron for the app!ic~ut, Frank
Battel. The lots that are involved here are on the map of Shorecrest
at Arshamomaque~ This is a ten year old subdivision and to which all of
the roads, all of the sump areas and all of the (word was inaudible)
required by the Town of Southold have been installed. ~ghen this sub-
division was created, it was made up of lots consisting of about two
thirds of an acre and for some unexplainable reason, when the ordinance
was adopted, which required greater than quarter acre parcels and hal£
acre parcels and up to the one acre parcel, some reason this map was not
included in the exceptions. Notwithstanding, at the time the lot sizes
were greater than would have been required with resoect ~o other sub-
divisions. Apparently, the owner of the subdivision never oicked it up,
and there camea time when we had to make aooeals with resoec~ to the
other proper~y owners, to wit, Mrs. Rusch, who owned~a lot of the lots
which she inherited through her husband's estate and J. C. Cornell, who
owne8 and bought some of these lots. At the time we made the application
for the variance, we didn't represent Frank Battel though in some instances
he had notice of the fact t~at variances were being made. Of course, it's
indicated in the application, the variances were granted i~ each instance
with respec~ to the Rusch application and to the Cornell application.
This is not really a subdivision of property, it's a mao that has existed
f ~Southold Town Board of Appeals
July 9, 1981
in its present form, as I say, for about ten years. With all of the
improvements having been made a substantial time ago, to deny the appli-
cation would obviously impose a great deal of practical difficulty and
hardship on the applicant and even more important, would probably lead
to a most unattractive area in that portion of the subdivision, so ix
order to meet current requirements, and in particular as to width require-.
merits and area requirements, you'd end up with substantial road frontages
because of the depth of the lots. So, in the light of the fact that we
have had prior approvals for similar applications and that these are the
only lots that now remain in the subdivision, I would respectfully re-
quest that the Board grant this variance application. Thank you.
M~.. CHAIR~N: Thank you, Mr. Cron. Is there anyone else to speak
for this?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.)
Anyone to speak against it?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.)
Do any of you gentlemen have any questions?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.)
I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision.
MEP~BER GOEHRINGER: Second.
On motion by Mro Grigonis, seconded by ~o Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed., Appeal 2837.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2845. Application of James R. Giambalvo,
72 Columbia Road, Rockvil!e Centre, NY (by Richard Jo Cron as attorney)
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art° III, Sec. 100-31 for per-
mission to divide property into Minor Subdivision of four lots and
approval of insufficient frontage of Lot #1 of said lots at east side of
indian Neck Lane, Peconic, h~; bounded north by Schlumpf; west by Indian
Neck Lane; south by Pontino and Harvey~ east by Richmond Creek; County
Tax Map Item No. 1000-86-5-9.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:47 p.m. by reading the appeal
application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and affidavits
attesting to its publication in bcth the local and official newspapers,
Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the
Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee
paid $15.00.
MR. CH~AIRM~N: Would you like to amend this now, Mr. Cron?
~Southold Town Board of Apyeals -7
July 9, 1981
RIC~tRD J. CRON: I'd like to, if I could make an interjection, move
to amend the name of the applicant to correctly read Peconic Bay Gardens,
Inc. rather than James R. Giambalvo. If you would amend that lung pro
punct, so to speak, I would be very happy if the Board would consider it.
MR. CHAIR~N: Any objections from any of the Board?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: No.
MEN, ER SAWICKI: No.
MEF~ER DOYEN: No.
(The Chairman amended the applications to read Peconic Bay Gardens,
Inc. and continued to read the appeal aoplication~)
MR. CHAIRY~N: We have a map of the area and a section of Cannty~Tax
Map showing this property and the adjoining properties, and the smallest
lot would be nearly two acres, 1.960 and from there they run up to 2.561
acres, 2.481 acres, 2.392 acres, and the smallest one is 1.960 acres.
Is there anyone who would like to add to what has been stated in the
application?
RICHARD J. CRON: If it pleases the Board, Richard J. Cron on behalf
of the applicant, Peconic Bay Gardens Inc. i don't think there's much
that I can add, I think the application itself pretty well speaks for
itself, and I think the examination of the map will show that we're
dealing with rather large, substantial lots in a minor subdivision. I
would point out to the Board that the Southoid Town Planning Board has
already basically approved the subdivision. The Suffolk County Planning
Commission has likewise approved the subdivision, subject %o~heir usual
types of conditions, and I would only add that in terms of percentage
wise, the variance that we're requesting with respect to the width re-
quirements come to about nine and three quarters percent~ which is
rather significant in relation to the width requirement of 150 feet.
So I would ask, in light of the fact that this is an area variance, it's
not going to be any substantial change in any of the neighboring prop-
erties. The density~is not going to change, in light of all the approvals,
and the insignificance of the area variance requested, I would respectfully
request that the Board approve it.
MR. CHAIRM~N: Thank you, Mr. Cron. Anyone else to speak for this?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.)
Anyone to speak against this?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing--any questions, gentlemen?
(~ERE WERE NO QUESTIONS. )
I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision.
ME~ER DOUGLASS: Seconded.
~Southold Town Board o£ Appeals -8-~
July 9, 1981
On motion by ~. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared, closed, Appeal 2845.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and. Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2838. Application of James Coo~er,
865 Love Lane, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct deck addition to
dwelling at 865 Love Lane, Mattituck, NY~ bounded north by Love Lane;
west by County' Road 48; south by Bell Est.; east by Ashton; County
Tax Map Item No. 1000-141-3-26.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:59 p.m. by reading the appeal
application and related dacumemts, 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 $15.00o
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a seFtion of the County Tax Map showing this
property and the surrounding properties and sketches showing the prop-
osed deck addition and the house. Is there anyone here who would like
to speak for the application? That would be you, Mr. Cooper.
JAMES COOPER: We decided to, being so close and that Mr. Ashton
didn't want it done, we decided not to have it done. He didn't speak
to. me, he spoke to my wife one morAing and I'd say, being neighbors, that
we don't see him that much, but still we're neighbors, and we would like
to get along with everybody in town so we decided not to have it done.
MR. CHAIR~N: Well, that makes it easy for us. I'll offer a
resolution withdrawing the application of James R. Cooper, 2838.
MEM~R GOEHRINGER: ~Second.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the application be declared withdrawn without
prejudice, as requested, Appeal 2838.
Vote off the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
The Chairman called a recess from 8:04 p.m. to 8:12 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No~ 2843. A~lication o~ Phebe M. Bridge
~ta.t.e, (Robert W. Gillispie, III, P.O. ~$x 1112, Southold, ~ as a~ent)
for a Variance to the Town~I~aw, Section 280A Subsection 3 and a Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insuffi-
cient area of proposed parcel #1, approval of insufficient area and
~Southold Town Boa/~d of Appeals
-9- / July 9, 198I
width of proposed parcel #2~ approval of access of proposed parc.el
of three proposed parcels at~$o~th side of Main Road, Southold,
(R-0-W off south side of Main Rd~, west by boundary to B~ns Real Estate)$
bo~uded north by Dubovick, Hagerman, Town of Southold, Burns andState
Road25~ west by Sc~eider~ south by Bridge~ east by Cummings, Scott
and Methodist Church~ County Tax Map Item No. 1000-~1-4-2~ 9o
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:12 p~m. by reading the appeal
application and related doc~ments, legal notice of hearing ~ud 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 ~ners was madesfee
paid $15.00.
~o CHA/3E~3~¢: We have a survey showing this proper~y and the
proposed divisions~ we have a section of the County Tax Mao showingthis
property and the adjoining properties. Is there anyone here who would
like to add to anything that's in this application? Do you have anything
you wanted to say, Bob?
ROB~%T W. GILLISPIE, III: Mr. Chairm~u--
i~.. CI43~iR~t~.N: Could you use the mike, Bob~ in case Missy doesn't
get it all; it'll pick it up better.
ROBT. GiLLISPIE, III: Mr. Chairman, all we c~u do is reiterate
basically what's in the application, that these ~vo lots would very
closely meet the area requirements of the use district. Mr. Bridge,
who is h~re tonight, also wishes to acquire what is shown as lot #3 on
the survey for access to his home, which is in the rear of his property.
We fe~l that by subdividing this property into two parcels basically,
the character of the district will be preserved. Thank you.
F~q. C~a.i~3uM: Th~nk you, Mm. Gillispie. A_uyone else to speak for
this?
JiM DUBOViCX: Yeah, I just would like to know, I'm Jim Dubovick,
is there ~ay problem with any of the adjoining properties~ as far as
access or ~ything George, Mr. Gillispie~ in as far as where I would be
concerned?
G~0RGE BRIDGE:
JIM DL~BOVICK~
you know.
I don't think so, I don't see how.
Yeah, I don't either, I'm just asking for tb~ record,
I don't think it wou~d be--
J~ DUBOVICX:
Y~,
JIM DUBOVICK:
~.. CHA I~2~M:
I don't see how it would eider, but--
The map shows 20 feet for the right of way.
Itwouldu't really affect
No.
JIM Db~0ViCK: On any access to it or anything ~'~
~mxe this. No.
haven't seen ~e s,~vey (remainder of statement was inaudible.)
Southold Town Boa.~ of Appeals -10-. July 9~ 1981
~. CPL~_L~N: Bob, can you and George come up here for a minute?
%%~e've got an, Jerry's got an idea here, we're trying to see if we can
think about.
(At this point, Ma, Bridge, ~lr. Gillispie, Mr William Smith~ and
Doctor James Dubovick approached the dias to confer with Board members. )
MR. CH~IB2~LN: You want to run through that again~ Jerry?
ME~ER GOEHRINGER: Are you, is he planning to build on this lot~
eventually, or you want--
GEORGE BRIDGE: Possibly,
MEMBER GOEBi~INGER: Possibly.
GEORGE BRIDGE: Possibly, yeah. I ~n't ws_ut to not be able to,
if I could, someday. I don't have any plans for it~ but I wouldn't
want to--
do!EMBER GOEHRINGER: We were just thinking about the natural topo-
graphy of the land. It seems like a pretty darned difficult lot to
build on.
ROBT. GILLISPIE, III: Don't be mislead--
G~0RGE BRIDGE: No, no.
ROBT. GILLISPIE, III: Because I think you'll find that the (word
was inaudible) on this property is pretty well off that lot.
GEORGE BRIDGE: Yeah, it' s--no, no? no~
ROBT. GILLISPIE, III: There is a gully in there~
MEMBER GOF~HRINGER: Yeah, i know there is. ~e measured the hundred
~_nd, we measured from the corner of the house all the way back, came all
the way back~ ~.~e pretty well know where the lot starts and we prett~y
well know where the lot, where the lots--
MR. CHAIRMAN: We used to plow a garden for you back there.
GEORGE BRIDGE: Yeah. Where it comes, this property comes just Lto
right where the gully starts.
~ER GOEHRINGER: Yeah. Yeah, I ~rnow. It's all that brush over
there on that one side.
GEORGE BRIDGE: 127 foot.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. That's all the question I had, it's just
a question we couldn't pose to you without having you up here.
MR. CF~AIRMA~: Thanks slot. Anyone else to speak for it?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. )
~ Southold Town Board of Appeals
-11-- July 9, 1981
~. CHAIRF~ (CONT.): Anyone to speak against it?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.)
Any of you fellows have any questions?
I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving the decision
until later on.
ME~R GOEHRING~: Second.
On motion by ~h~i Grigonis, seconded by Mro Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed, Appeal 28%3.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis~ Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2839. Application of Colonial Corners~
Inc., Main Road, Southold (William B. Smith, 220 Mechanic Street,
~'6'~Aold, NY as agent) for a Variance to the ZonLug Ordinance, Art. VII,
Sec. 100-71 for approval of insufficient area and yard setback of two
proposed parcels at south side of Mmin Road, Southold (east parcel to
Dubovick), h~; bounded north by State Road 25~ west by Dubovick; south
& east by Methodist Church; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-61-4-7.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:25 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
To~ Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made~ fee
paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIP~V~N: We have a survey of the property and a section of
the Tsx map showing this property and the surrounding areas. Is there
anyone here who wants to speak for this~ with something that's maybe
in the application?
WILL~AM S~ITH. Mr. Chairm~u, i don t have much to add to it~ except
that Colonial Corners intends to refurbish the building, and their
reputation so far is very good, I think they'll fix it up to be s credit
to the village. Thank you.
~. CKAIRM&M: Bilt, while you're up there, Mr. Smith, can you tell
us a little history on who, when it was built, who owned the building
and stuff? I remember when it was being built, I thought it was two
people building it together.
WILLIAM SMITH: Yeah, the big building that is owned by Andrew
KruPski was built by George Terry, but before they built the building,
~'Southold Town Board of Appeals -i-~- July 9, 1981
WILL!~ SMITH (C0k~.): George Terry lived in the front in the house
and he moved the house back and built the new brick building. And Mr.
Bussey lived in the house next to it which was also back, and that left
him a little bit out in the sticks, so he had to add on to the front of
his house~ which now makes the brick front of the Bussey building which
is owned by Andrew Krupski. I though you'd remember that Charlie.
MRo CHAIRM3.N: I remember eveNything but Bussey.
got my first haircut I think~
WILLIAM SMITH: I'm older than you.
MR. CHAIR2~A~: Ge~e~ I wouldn't say that~ Mr~ Smith.
real old. Is there anyone else to speak?
JIM DUBOVICK:
on that?
That's where I
That makes you
Can I, is there any chance of me seeing the survey
Sure.
(At this time~ M~. William Smith and Doctor James Dubovick approached
the dias to see the su~¢ey and to confer with Board members. Atlmany
times~ more than one person was speaking~ and it was unclear as to what
the statements were. Since all statements could not beheard in context~
a verbatim transcription was not possible.)
~R. CHAIF~N: I'll offer a resolution recessing this until
next Thursday.
ME~,~ER GOE~LRINGER: I second that~
On motion by M~. Grigonis~ seconded by Mr. Goehringer~ it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared recessed until Thursday~
July 16,' 1981. Appeal ~ 2839.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
Goehringer, and Sawicki,
Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
PUBLIC HE~ING: Appeal No. 2840. Application of David L. Mudd,
North Road~ Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art.
III~ Sec. 100-30 A & C, 100-32 for oermission to construct accessory
shed with insufficient side & rear yard setbacks at property located on
the north side of C.R. 48, Southold; bounded north by ~zeblezn~ west by
Doroski; south by C.R. 48; east by Morris, Aliano and Latham; County
Tax Mao Item No. 1000-59-9-28.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:45 pom. 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
Tow~ Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made~ fee
~o CHAIR~YN: We have maps of the property and the Covuuty Tax Map
showing this property and the surrounding properties. Is there anyone
here who wishes to speak for this application?
GAIL WICXHAM: Yes, I'm Gail Wickham, the attorney for ~. Mudd and
I'd like to first indicate to the Board that there are ~o aspects of
this appeal and I'd like to put it on the record in order to clarify it.
The first aspect-- we are not applying for a variance at the outset, but
rather are appealing from a decision of the Building Inspector which
denied this application because it was not, the building proposed did
not, in his opinion, fall within 100-30 A (2)i(d~whi~re~ers,~t~ barns~
storage buildings or other related structures. It's our contention that
this is not that type of building but rather it is a private garage that
is permitted by the ordinance under 100-30 C and 100-30(2). It's a
building which is accessory to the principal use of the property which
is f~ming. In the event that the Board decides to uphold the decision
of the, or the construction of the building ~nupector, stating that the
proposed building falls within 100-30 A (2) (d) then, in that event we
would ~ply for a vari~uce for the location of this structure as applied
for on the grounds of hardship, to put the building 5.4 and ~.6 feet,
respectively, off the line~ I'd like to start then with the first appeal
which appeals not as a variance but from the decision of the Building
Inspector~ I'd like to have Mr. Mudd, who is here tonight, first of all
describe what he intends to do and tell you for the record what the use
of property and the building will ben Mr. Mudd could you tell me, tell
the Board what the principle use of your propertyis now on the north
side of Middle Road?
DAVIDMUDD: Commercial agriculture for grapes, peaches, apples ~nd
raspberries.
GAIL W!C~W3aM: Is your agriculture operation only use of the property?
DAVID MUDD: That's right, it is.
GAIL WICF_HAI~: Could you describe the type of building and the use
that you propose?
D;J;IDMUDD: Well, the building is 35 by 60 and it's going to have
a 1~ foot wide door on the front of it and a four foot wide door to the
east side both facing the County Road 48. The windows will be (this
section of the statement was inaudible due to interference on the tape)
and have a new roof put on it and we're going to, expect to use it for
a garage ~d a storage area for agricultural vehicles.
GAIL WICi~M: What is the inside going to be like? Are you going
to have it a big open area?~
DAVID MUDD: It will be all open.
GAIL WICKPL~M: And can you, do you intend to use it for anything
other than the storage of vehicles, what t}~e of vehicles are you going
to store in it?
DAVID MUDD:~Tractors and trucks, the implements we use on the farm
and the farming operation.
, 'Southoid Town Boa-~'~d of Appeals _14_~ /
July 9, 1981
GAIL WICF~W_&M: Will these vehicles be those that are owned byyou?
DAVID ~JDD: They'll all be owned by me.
GAIL WIC~%M: Is the building necessary, or would it be necessary
and accessory and incidental to your principle farming use on. the prop-
erty?
DAVID~Y0DD: Well, it's necessary because at the present time we
have equipment stored in three different areas besides the present place
and that's why we acquired the building so we could coordinate it to get
it on one location.
GAIL WICKH~M: Three different areas off the property?
DAVID lg0DD: Off the property.
GAIL WICEi~M: Equipment that's used on the, for farming that
proper~?
DAVID MUDD: On a rego~ar basis.
GAiL WICEI~L~M: Would you consider this proposed billeting to be a
garage or would you consider it a barn or storage type building?
DAVID~JDD: Well, I'd consider it strictly a garage because a barn,
I'm not going to house any animals in there and I'm not going to have any
hay or storage facilites for animals or anything of that ts~e. It's
strictly gOi~o be a garage operation.
GAIL WIC~qAM: Will you house or store any f~mit or other agric-~l-
tural products in it?
DAVID ~?JDD: No I will not. There won't be any electricity down
there; there won't be any water or anything of that nature.
GAiL WICEZW~.~: Will it be as big as what you would normally consider
a barn to be.
DAVID ML~DD: No,
GAIL WIC]~WJtM: How high will the building be?
DAVT_D~JDD: It's going to be 15 feet, the top of it.
GAIL WIC~HAM: It's our contention that the definition of an
accessory-building is contained in the section 100-13 of the code:
defines as accessory use as a building or use clearly incidental or
subordinate to ~nd customary in connection with the principle building
or use on the same lot. There's no requirement in the code that there
be a principle building for this prop~eR~bu%lding to be accessory to;
it could be accessory to the use~ .~nd that's the basis on which this
applieation is made, that there need not be, according to a strict
reading of the code, a principle building,that your accessor? building
can be incidental to the use, and the use being, as Mr. Mudd indicated,
a commercial agricultural operation, primarily vineyard and fruit farming.
· $outhold Town Bogr~d of Appeals
July 97 1981
GAIL WICKH~M (C0~T.): I'd also like to call your attention to the
definition of a private garage which is also contained in 1t0-13 of the
code. That indicates a private garage is a building used for the storage
of one or more gasoline or other power driven vehicles ov~ed and used by
the owner or tenant of the lot on which the garage is erected. And a
section which does not apply for us, for the storage would not exceeding
two additional vehicles~ not trucks owned or used by others. So the
building that he's proposing is what you would consider under the code,
a private garage.. He's going to be storing vehicles in it for._housing~
them in there for~se on his farm. The section 100~30 of the c6de permits
not only agriculfural operations but accessory use° thereto, and 100-30 C
specifically enumerates what some of those accessory uses are, and one of
those uses is a private garage and there are limitations on how many
vehicles you can use for belonging to others but those do not apply to
us because this would be only his equipment. Also 100-32 regards or
defines accessory structures as buildings which do not exceed 18 feet in
height, shall be setback not less thai three feet from any lot line ,
and do not occupy more than 40 percent of the area, and this building
does qualify under all of those, would qualify under all of those defin-
itions. I have a map that I'd like to submit to the B~ard~ we had Mr.
Van Tuyl go up and, it's a rather large map, I don't know why he did it
this large, but dt does show right at the rear of the property where the
proposed building would be located with the exact setbacks so we know
exactly what we're talking about. So, if you'd like that for your file.
MR. CF~IR/~%~: Thank you.
GAIL WIC~3I: I'm probably going to be referring to that again.
~. C~IR_~N: Alright, we'll leave it here for the time.
(The map was entered into the file for David L. Mudd, appeal # 28~0.)
GAIL WiCXM33I: So, in su~mary, we are requesting the Board make a
determination that the decision of the Building Inspector, considering
this to be a barn or a storage or other related bui!ding~ is not correct,
and that this is a private garage which is permitted in an agriculture or
residential district in the proposed location. A-s I indicated there was
a second aspect to our appeal and this would be contingent on the Board
not making that requested decision~ and in that event we would like to
request a variance from the Zoning Ordinance on the grounds of hardship.
~2~d I'd like to first of all haw M~. Mudd describe for you the hard-
ship that wou~d be created if he had to locate his garage fifty feet from
the rearyard and at least fifteen feet from the sideyard. Could you
describe what problems you would run_ into if you had that problem?
DAVID Mb~DD: If we had to move the building out to accommodate
those marks, it would he a quarter of an acre loss in agriculture, of
course, forever, prime agrcultumal land. Secondly, it's 18,000 dollars
an acre in the grape business to bring a acre of grapes from the time
you plant them to bring them into production which takes three years.
So~ a quarter of an acre lost by moving that building out and forcing
us to put it to those restrictiens would be approximately 450 or there~
about a year loss in revenue forever.
..Southold Town Bo~ of Appeals -la July 9, 1981
GAIL WICKH~: If I could~ I'm not sure, i w~ut to clarify that.
Did you mean to indicate that it costs $18,000 over a three year period
to develoo grapes to production?
DAVID MUDD: It does, yes.
GAIL WIC~MAM: So that would be $4,500 per three years per quarter
acre.
DAVID ~ODD: 45. That's correct.
GAIL WICKHAM: And those are the tpTes of costs you've incurred.
DAVID 5UJDD: To rip that out and to start over again would t~ke that
amount of money to pu£ it back in.
GAIL WICE3I~V~: %~ere did you, how do you compute that you would
require about a quarter of an acre? You would have 50 feet and then
the width of the building is how much?
DAVID MUDD: Thirty five. Then it ~ould have to use another 50
feet in front of the building for a turn around area to get in around
the building ~ud in and out of it.
GAIL WICKH~M: And that comes out to approximately a quarter of an
acre?
DAVID MUDD: About a quarter of an acre.
GAIL WICI~M~34: ~fhat is your net profit per year for farming an
acre of grapes?
DAVID MUDD: At the present time it's figured at about $1,800 a
year per acre.
GAIL WIC~AM: Per acre. So that would be $450 per year per quarter
acre,
DAVID ~q3DD: That's right.
GAIL WICKHAM: Of lost net profit.
~ · ts
DAVID ~JDD. That correct.
This is after all expenses.
GAIL WICKH3~M: If you had to remove a quarter of an acre from
farming.
DAVID MUDD: That's right.
GAiL ~IC~LMAM: I'd like to point ouA that he would not only lose a
lot of prime agricultural land, which is a diminishing quantity and
particularly on a 23 acre farm which is not a large farm. But it's also
a loss of a diminishing natural resource and once you put a building on
it you Sust don't, you aren't able to just start farming again with,
probably with a garage type structure, with the oil and whatnot that is
going to be around there, I don't think it would be suitable to return
,Southold Town Bo~d of Appeals -17- · ~ July 9, 1981
to farming, and that's another reason he would like to put it as far
back in the property as possible. You indicated that you had some
vines ~nat would have to be ripped up? How long have they been there?
DAVID MUDD: Four years.
GAIL WICT~2~: Were they planted by you?
DAVID Mb~D: Yes, theywere~
GAIL WICKHA~: Are they producing now?
DAVID MUDD: They are.
GAIL WICFX=~M: I think that this, the fact that he %ould have
vines here is not what you would consider your normal type of self-
~ ·
imposed hardsn!p. He's been using the l~nd as an agricultural operation
in the ordinary and usual course of business and it's not the usual
type of thing where you go in and you do something or you buy a piece
of property with insufficient setback or whatnot and then are stuck
with it. i don't think it's your normal type of hardship, self-imposed.
I think that the problem he has is unique; he mentioned before that his
building had been cut off. ~hen did you buy the property-?
DAVID MUDD: 1962.
GAiL WIC~3~M: And was it, what were the bounds of the property?
DAVID MUDD: It included all the w~y back to the previous north
road there, then C.R. 48, the County Road 48 that's presently there
confiscated, condemned the house and the barn that's about four times
bigger than the one we presently have, and then put, they took tlaree ~nd
a half acres away from us to put that drain oit out there on one side
and the four lane road on the other, plus the road directly between
Doroski's and my place.
GAIL WIC~M:
DAVID ML~D:
GAIL WIC~X4AM:
DAVID MUDD:
GAIL WIC~M:
~nen did the road divide the property?
I think it was '64-'65.
it was after you acquired the property?
Yes, well after it.
Has the farm been farmed since you acquired it?
DAVID MUDD: Yes, constantly.
GAIL WICFiF_~M~ And was it farmed as one single unit until the
road divided it?
DAViD MUDD: It was, yes.
GAlL W!C~iAM: And were the buildings on the sonth side of the road
used for oart of the ~arming operation?
~ ..S0uthold Town Boa~ ~a of Appeals
July 9~ 1981
DAVIDMLSD: The house that was there was used as a ten~ut house for
Mr. Case when he had it, and after he sold it to me he still used it as
a tenant house and also the barn that was back there was used as a
storage area for their operation.
GAIL WICKPL~: Do you find that vineyard farming is more labor and
equipment intensive than other types of farming in the surrounding area~
for instance potatoes?
DAVID ~D: It's more labor intensive and I think I would have to
say that it's equally if not more equipment intensive.
OAiL WiC¥Jq~]4: So there was a definite value to your having a building
right on the farm in terms of economy?
(At this time the tape was replaced and the verbatim recording was
temporarily interrupted for a matter of approximately !5 seconds. The
recording resumed with the following.)
GAIL WICKF334: I'd also like to point out that the proposed building
would not ch~ge the character of the district. ~!r. Mudd indicated that
it's a fairly low building~ about I think he said 15 feet in overall
height. It will be painted to look attractive. Right now it doesn't
look that way but he's in the process of constn~ction and he would be
fixing it up~ It's consistent with the agricultural use because it's
directly accessory to it, and the neighboring properties would not be
hurt by the building in that location and I'd like him to, Mr. Mudd to
describe what some of the neighboring properties in the immediate
vicinity are.
DAVID MUDD: Well, the property to our east is Latham's sand pits
which is approximately 20 feet deep which is adjacent, about 20 feet to
the east of the present building location~ The building to the, the lot
to the north of us has a high-line r~nning through it. It also has a
s~nd pit in it, so they'd find extensive area of ss~d pits in those
particular two locations°
GAIL WICKHA3~: Are there trees behind the building which~would
screen it?
DAVID I~D: There are.
GAIL WICKH~JkM: And on the side of the building?
D~Z¢IDMZu~D: kmd on the side.
GAIL WICFJtAM: Have you spoken to several of your neighbors~ for
instance, M~. Doroski and Mr~ Morris and Mr., who else?
DAVID MLrDD: Aliano.
GA_~ W±Ct~aM. k~ad did .they -indicate arfy objection to this building?
.S0uthold Town SoaS of peals July
DAVID~?JDD: Mr. Aliano sent a letter in originally voicing an
objection and I called him on the phone and talked to him about it, he
said he did not have an objection and he didn't, he said to feel free to
express that to the BOard. He would not send ~uother letter saying that
he didn't have the objection, but he does not have the objection to it.
Mr. Aliano, I mean~ Mr. Morris, who has since passed away, but his
daughter was here at the last time and she said that she didn't have any
objedtion to it. Mr. Doroski did not have any objection to it. ~. ~
Latham I have not heard from so I presume he did not have any objection
to it. ~i
GA!L WIcEM~a~: I don't have any further. If the Board has questions,
if perhaps something else would come up later I'd like to reserve the
right to reply.
MR. CF~%iP~V~A~: Bob, do you have any questions?
~B~ DOUGLASS: I was just interested in one thing here, how is
your operation listed? Is it a corporation?
DAVID Mb~D: At the present time it's an individual owner.
GAIL WIC~: I~. Mudd o~ns the orooerty. You acquired it in '62
as an individual and you continued to own it in that sort of ownership?
DAVID ~3DD: Still the same ownership.
~.~. CHAIP~MAN: That's it for the moment?
GAiL WICKFJ~M: That's all I have right now, yeah.
MR. CHAIR~: Is there anyone else to speak for this?
(~E WAS NO RESPONSE. )
Anyone to spe~< against it?
HERM~2~ LiEBLEIN: Yes~ I am. Mro Chairman and members of the Board,
I'm Herman Lieblein and I'm the owner of the property directly north of--
~. CPL~IPJ~: Can you come a little closer to the mike? Thank you,
Mr~ Liebleino
HER~3~ LIEBLEIN: I'm Herman Lieblein and I'm the owner of the prop-
erty directly to the north of the property on whichMro Mudd wishes to
build the garage and storage building. As you know, he has already con-
structed the foundation, fo'~r feet from my property line. (This p.hrase
was inaudible) and moved half of an old building on top of it. ]w~ich
incidentally is, I have a picture of it here (the remainder of the state-
ment was inaudible.) Since our last Board meeting, Mr. Mudd has added
what seems to be a fr~e of a greenhouse, to the rest of his foundation,
also within four feet of the property line. The zoning law states that he
must be 50 feet from my property line, and I'd like to see this law en-
forced. In the process of moving half of ~a old dilapidated building on
top of the foundation, ~. Mudd or his contractors drove onto my land
leaving large ruts ~ud also tore out a tree by the roots. As you will
see by the photo which I have here, ~ud I also have a photo which shows
· Southold Town Board of Appeals -2a- July 9, 1981
(HF~W~N LIEBLEIN CO~:) the frame of the greenhouse, and one which
shows a number of logs which were on'~z)property and belong to him (re-
mainder of the statement was inaudible. I'm particularly upset for
several reasons: in the spring of 1977, I looked at my property and saw
between 20 and 25 cords, mostly oak trees, stored on his property next
to my line, since there are no trees on Mr. Mudd's property in that
vicinity and many of wy trees were gone except for the stumps, I leave
it your imagination where ~he~ wood came from. Some time later, my son-
in-law asked me fer some f~rewood, mud I went to my property and found
M~. Mudd's son and what is now I think his son-in-law, loading the remains
of 40 foot diameter oak tree on his pick-up truck. I asked him who gave
him permission to cut the tree and he told me--
GAlL WIC~4: M~. Chairman, may t interrupt?
5~M~N L!EBLEIN: That his father, I'll finish, Miss, that his
father--
GAIL WIC~q~: I'd like to object to this. i don't t_~mnk it's
relevant. If you'd like to hear it (remainder of the statement was
inaudible.)
F~ER~ LIEBLEiT~: Yes, it is relevant (remainder of sentence was
inaudible.) Told me t~at ~is father ave
..... g him permission, that he owns
about fifteen feet into my l~ud. Then, I pointed out ~o him where the
monuments were ~ud i told him that ~u the future he was not to cut any
more my trees without my personal permission. Several months later I
went to ~ck ~ = ....... ~ ....
Ii up ~,~= w~o~ ~ivn my- son-in-~aw and asxed to park on
Mudd's property line ~udM_~. Muddle son ordered me off his prooerty
called the police to have me arrested for trespassing. (Beginning of
sentence was inaudible) bu~ ! felt that cutting do~m half my trees, he
had alot of nerve and accuses me of trespassing. Now he has put (word
was inaudible) on my, into my roots, tore out trees by the roots, parks
hms logs on my land, mt ~e~ms to me that ~. Mudd feels tnat ~he rules
only apply to others and not to _~im~ If ne zs al¢owed to c~nstr~ct thms
building on the present fodndation, i'm so~e he will continue to trespass
on my land since he only left himself four feet. Besides that, he's got
plenty more room without his grapes being planted there. He has at least
50 feet in front of where he is right now. I didn't take a picture of the
grapes, bu~they are there. I've got the other piotures with me. Besides
that I feel the structure he plans to erect is an eyesore and I feel he
should not be allowed to use it at all unless there is some guarantee that
it will be~rehabilitated, ¢ertainl~ when it's four.feet from my property
line. Please remember that somedap I may want to build on my land, and
I have to look at this st~acture which will be blocking my view from the
better half of my property. My property is partly, part of it is excav-
ated, but the part of the property which this building obstructs is on
the good part of my property. Gentlemen, I know you will do the right
thing and uphold the zoning laws which are written to protect the rights
of other property owners. Sincerely, Herman Lieblein.
MR~ CF~IPdWJtN: Thank you, Ym. Liebleino Is there anyone else to
speak?
,Southold Town Board of Appeals -21~~ July 9, 1981
(At this timer Mr~ ~meoie~n nresented seven photographs to the Board of
ApPeals as evidence in the appeal of David L. Mudd~ Appeal ~2840. He
offered the e~lanations of the photographs that appear below.)
PL~WaM~ L!EBLEIN: I've got these photographs. This shows you the
foundation of the building that he has there and the, you can see partially
the heighth of the building. This one, this will show you some of the
ruts over here and you can see a tree torn out by the roots over here~
This is a p~cture of the logs which are on my side of the property line.
Here is another picture of the tree torn out and the ruts over here, which
are about 15 to 20 feet inside my- property line. Here is another picture
of it, over here, this also shows you the height of the building, gives
you an idea. ~md here is a picture taken from the rear, this is~ from
here back is my line.
~. CH3~IR~N: Thank you, M~. Lieblein.
HEi~L~d~ LIEBLEiN: Okay.
~. CHAIR2~2~: Anyone else? Do you have something you want to say
now, Gall? Miss Wickham?
GAIL W!CKH~M: Yes. As I indicated, Mr. Lieblein's testimony is
completely irrelevant and I think it should be stricken from the record
as well as the pictures he took which (one word was inaudible) to
evidence some sort of boundary line dispute apparently between the two
people. He didn't give any testimony or reasons why the property would
hurt bi~ why the building would hurt his property except for two reasons:
number one because of the likelihood of trespass, well that's something
that there are other legal recourse to and apparently there has been a
long history of dispute here° Number two, because it's an eyesore and
will block his view. Well, no one is denying the fact that right now
this building is an eyesore. It doesn't look good. N~. Mudd testified
that it would be fixed up, it would be painted. It's going to be prac-
tically reconstructed. He's just using his shell as a basis for starting
his garage, ~ud as far as blocking his view, no property owner in New
York state has any right a scenic easement over another person's property.
The referance to a Ereenhouse is totally inapplicable, that's got nothing
to do with this case, and as I understand it, the Building Inspector is
not even requiring building permits for greenhouses. I'd just like to
ask Mr. Mudd if he's had any disputes in the past with the gentleman who
just objected.
DAVID Y?u~DD: We did have a dispute with Mr. Lieblein because he
was driving on the property and then he was going into his property with
his son-in-law cutting lumber and wood in there and he was asked not to
do it--
GAIL WIC~HAM: Driving on your property?
DAVID MUDD: On our property, coming down our road, down the road
there on our side, and I wasn't there the time that the police were
called but my son asked~himlto please leave the property and drive out.
He wouldn't do it, he said he was staying there and he wasn't going to do
it until my son called the police.
GAIL WIC~HAM: I'd like to just let that indicate some of the, to
cast a light on the nattu~e of the objection. Also Mr. Mudd indicated
,Southo!d Town Bor~'d of Appea!s -22-~ July 9, 1981
(GAIL WICEF~I, C0hTT~): that this property is subject not only to the
sand pits but the high power lines which certainly affect the value of
the property in any event for a residential dwelling. M~. Mudd, I would
like to ask you, ~. Lieblein indicated ~nd he showed pictures of a
building, can you indicate to the Board exactly why the fo~audation was
put it? Did you, first of all have occasion to apply fora variance
prior to this?
DAVID Mb~DD: Yes~ it was in February when we located the building,
and--
GAIL WICF2iA2~: Did you apply for a variance at that time?
DAVID L~3$D: We applied for a variance at that time when we fox,nd
the building, we came over and apol_em for the vari~uce, for the
building permit.
GAIL WIC~LW~uM: And Was that to put a building three feet off the
line?
DAVID MLq)D: Yes.
GAIL ~IC~H~I: iud then what happened?
DAVID ~D: And I had a, after I was, applied, i had a discussion
with the Chairman of the Appeal Board as to whether it was possible to
get that and he indicated that it was within reasonable bo,s~ds that I
more, could more than likely get it approved. So I did go ahead, put
the foundation in, because in order to move the building I had to do it
before they planted potatoes and while there was still frost on the
ground, I went to 5~. Doroski's property with his permission to take the
building around our place and put it on the foundation, so we did con-
struct the foundation do~,~ there.
GAIL WIC~KF~M: If you hadn't done it then, when would you have been
able to do it?
DAVID ~JDD: The next time would have been in the fall, after the
potatoes were dug ~nd after the frost went back in the ground.
AI= WIC.~AM: I don't have anything else.
M~W~B~q DOUGLASS: May I ask a question? Was there a Stop-Work
Order issued on that fo~udation?
DAVID ~JDD: On the building°
~,~EMBER DOUGLASS:
DAVID M~-DD: Yes, sir~. and the work was stopped,
GAiL WICKH~J~: Does that answer you question?
~q~iBER DOUGLASS: ~m hm. If you're going to put it all in the
minutes, put it all in it.
MP~. CHAIRM_&N: Thank you, Mrs. Liebiein?
MRS, HERF~ LI~BLE±N: Yes~ four feet from our p~opert~_~ liq~ is like
from here to here~ now o~er here is a foundation tha% s higher ~han the
way I stand. Plus, a building that's almost two stories h~gh at the peak°
,~Southold Town Boakm of Appeals -23~-~' July 9, 4981
~S. LIEBLEIN (CONT.): And it takes in, I imagine, over fifty feet. I
should'ye measured it, I didn't, aoross. It's,~ I think, aro,~d 60 feet°
It's the back wall, and on some piece of our property, that's what we're
going to look at, four feet from our property° 'if we ever intend to
build° Bud it's a residential section all in there.
Hm--~_wDt~ LiEBLEIN: And the power line is way on the other side of
the property.
~3. LIEBLEiN: On the other side of the property.
H-~,T LIEBLE~\7: There's nothing to do with the property itself,
it's way to the north of the property,on the, in the north side. Actually,
it is a part of a residential section, and the part where this building is
going is the part that was flat, had not been disturbed, it's a wooded
area. it is to the west of this particular part of the lot that is, that
has the e~ianations where it was set up. And i have permission from Mr.
Doroski to use ti~t road from Route ~8 up to my property ~uytime I wish
~. The only reason I drove on Mr. Mudd's property is, when i wanted to
take a tree out it was easier to get that one tree out of there, that's
the only reason ! drove of his property, where he is on ~v property,
stealing my trees, that's not trespassing,
MR~ CHAIRM~h That's--
H~_~ L!EBLEIN: That's all i want to mention.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright. Anything else?
GAIL WICKHAM: I think there was testimony as to the size and the
height of the building and the foundation, you didn't say how high the
foundation is off the ground.
DAVID~D: Four feet.
~AIL WICL~W324: Four feet.
MRS. LIEBLEIN:
GAIL W!CKHAM:
It's higher than me and I'm more than four feet.
Well, I was just there and it wasn't higher thsm I
was.
MR. CM~IR2~M: That's a!right, I'll walk--
GAIL WICKf~AM.: If I could just make a, ask the Board for permission
to raise an objection later on the grounds of possible abstention of a
member of the voting without making it now but reserve the right to do
so la, er.
MR. CHAIP~Jh%': A!right.
GAIL WIC~24: Because I don't think that oart was (remainder of
statement was inaudible.)
M~MBER DOUGLASS: They said something about a greenhouse, what's
that?
~outhold Town Boa~-~ of Appeals -24- July 9, 1981
GAIL WICKHAM: Do you have a, would you explain what the green--
(The question was directed to David Mudd.
)
FE~.~BER DOUGLASS: W~at do they mean by that?
DAVID MUDD: I don't kmow, I haven't--
~,S. LIEBLEIN: There's a frame there for a greenhouse.
FW_ER,~%I~ LIEBLEIN: If you look at the photo, you'll see the frame
on the photo there.
DAVID ~YJDD: I guess I c~u answer it, i don't know, since it's on
my property, but if they want to answer for me, let them, It's a 14 by
8 foot wide aluminum frame that is in four by fours and portable, and I
use it up at the barn this past spring and ! had plastic over it and we
had heat in it and we hardened over some cuttings we have up there for
the grape operation ~ud after they were hardened over and we took the
plastic off the building and rather than take the four by fours off and
dismantle the rest of the aluminum, we've moved it do%~ there on our
property and it's sitting down there now.
N~EMBER DOUGLASS: Is it a stationary thing or--
DAVID ML~D: ~o, you can, we can put it on a pick-up truck m~d,
in fact there's ~,o men picked it up on the pick-up, put it down there.
But then, it's not on his property, and it--
GAIL WICKH~4: Would you consider it to be what is called a portable
hoop house?
DAVID ~gJDD: Very definitely, it c~u be put on a pick-up truck, taken
anywhere.
GAIL WICI~HAM: Does that answer your question?
~ERDOUGLASS: Yee/a.
GAIL W~CKFJhM: May I look at the pictures that he submitted. I
did_u't see them.
~15 C!~AIP2~N: Yeah, they're part of the evidence, record now.
GAIL WICKHAM: Well, over my objection, or, in light of my objection.
Well, these trees--
MR. CF~%IP$~AN: is this, this is what they're talking about here?
GAIL WICE/~32~: :What?
MR. CHAI~%I~N: That portable thing?
GAiL WIC~H~24: I don't know what he's talking about. There was a
hoop house up there. Here. It's just one of those aluminum frames.
DAVID Mb~D: There's just a frame, it's an aluminum frame.
~q. CHAIR~N: Oh, yeah.
~S0uthold Town Board of Appeals
-25~ July 9, 1981
(The previous statements were made in reference to photographs presented
by ~ Herman Lieblein earlier.during the public hearing, to be used as
evidence in the appeal of David L. Mudd, #2840, over the objection
Abigail Wickham, attorney for M~. Muddo)
GA~ WiCKHA2~: Anything else?
MR. CHaiRMAN: I don't think so, n~. I'll offer a resolution
closing the hearing and reserving the decision.
MEMBER GOEHRING~-V~: Second.
On motion by Mr, Grigonis~ seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOL~FED, that the hearing be declared closed, Appeal 28&0.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEJuRING: Appeal No. 2844, Application of Mark & Frances C.
c~ 88B Vanston Road, Cutchosue, AYf for a Variance to the Zoning
e, Art'~ III~ Sec. 100-35 for permission to extend existing fence
(6 feet high) into frontyard area at 2~95 Vanston Road, Cutchogue, NY;
Nassau Point Subd. Filed Map #806, Lot 357; County Tax Map Item No~
1000-111~6~6o
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:28 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 Ins~ecto_, and letter from the
To%~m Clerk that notification to adjoining property o~ers was made; fee
paid $15.00.
MR. CHAIR2~.~N: We have a sketch on a survey of where the house is
going~ where the house is and how far they intend to go with the fence,
how far the fence is, and we have a Couuty Tax Map showing the area and
the surro~uding area. Is there anyone here to speak for this application?
(THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.)
Do I understand that you're going to go do~m to within ~5 feet of the
road and then from there on there'll be no more, no fence at all.
MARK SQUIRES: That's correct.
~. C~¢LqM_~: Is there anyone else to speak for this?
(THEE WAS NO RESPONSE.)
Anyone to speak against this?
(THR~E WAS NO RESPONSE.)
I'll offer a resolution to close the hearing and reserve the decision
until later.
July 9, 1981
~ER GOE~INGER: Second.
On motion by ~r. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed, Appeal 2844.
Vo~e of the Board:
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
Ayes:
Messrs. Grigor~is, Doyen, Douglass,
PL~LIC REHeaRING: Appeal No. 2766. Application of Rose DanSker,
300 East 56th Street~ Apt. M~, Mew ¥ork~ !~ 10022 (by Gar%~ Flanner
01sen, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art~ II!~ Sec. 100-
31 for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels
located at Wells Road, Peconic~ krf.~ bo~ded north by Weils Road~ west
by Groben~ south byRiohmond Creek~ east by Krueger. Co~uty Tax Map
item No. !000-86-2-10 & 11.
~ C~I~%~N: The next item on the agenda is appeal number 2766,
on behalf of, this is a rehearing. Could I dispense with reading some
of these legal notices?
~2~THO~ TOHILL: Wonderful.
Thank you very much.
The Board members discussed a new development concerning the appeal
of Rose Dansker with Anthony Tohi!!, who was representing Rose Dansker,
A Certificate of Occupancy issued to the dwelling had bean discovered,
and its relationship to this appeal was considered. The C. of O. had
been issued on April 17, 198~and was reviewed at this time. The speakers
were not speaking through the chair and not all statements could be heard
in context~ For this reason, a verbatim transcription was not possible.
l~. CHAIR~32~ (AddressLng members of the audience): This is something
that dam~ up today ~ust a few hours ago, so we were discussing it with
the attorney here. Would you use the microphone, oh, you're going to
read it?
ANTHO!~f TOHILL: No, no~ Good evening, M~. Chairmaan~ Mr. Secretary,
Miss Secretary, ~nd members of the Board° Knowing that the Chairman
occasionally had indigestion, and that Mr. Goehringer has nothing to do
this summer, and that Mr. Doyen has a long ride back home, and that
Mr~ Douglass needs something to read out in the boat in the morning, ~ad
Mr. Sawicki is looking for something to start the fire with here.
(Each Board member received a copy of an affidavit prepared by~. Tohill.)
ME~YBER GOEHR!NGER: We're going to read this in five minutes, Mr.
Tohill?
ANTH0t~ TOHiLL: I have prepared an affidavit which attaches to it
the history of the case so that each of you has in one place something
that you can look at that will refresh your recollection of what has
· ~Southo!d Town Board of Appeals -27- July 9, 1981
(ANTH0h~ TOHILL, C0~TT.): occured in this particular Dansker matter~
Over the past two or three months, I guess now, the effort also is ex-
pressed in au orgainized form, the applicant's position with respect to
the Catch 22 in which she finds herself. You'll note that I have reviewed
in 'that affidavit a family situation, the Dansker family situation, and
I will leave it to the affidavit as to how that situation st~uds after
nine weeks of my personal efforts to get some movement in resolving the
situation, i have failed completely, and I haven't had to admit com-
plete failure too many times working as hard as I have on a project of
that. But I have failed completely to get any results of any- kind. The
affidavit also refers to the absence of bad faith, I hope the presence of
good faith· but what I'm dealing with here is the good faith or the bad
faith of a man whom I never knew and who is deceased but I have put'i~
in there because Bob Tasker raised it~ i £o-~d it an intriguing point~ I
had never had to deal with it before, and so I covered it as best that I
could. I've also referred o~ly briefly to the character of the area, the
standard problem in an area Variance case, ~ad I respectfully ask that
you simply incorporate the documents and minutes of the prior meeting
with respect to that problem, I think that ~@. 01sen, who is away this
evening as a result of a family death, covered that point as best could
be covered. On the water potability problem, which is yOU recall with
a £irm basis for your decision the last time, I have met with Robert
Jule, who~many of you know, at the Suffolk County Health Dep~tment. He
is Roy Reynolds superior, Roy Reynolds is the gentleman who ~ote the
letter to the Board at the time of the last hearing. In a sentence, after
I concluded m~king a presentation informally to Mr~ Juie, he said to me
in his eighteen years as a member of the Suffolk County Health Department
and as a member of the Board of Review of the SuffolkCo~uty ~eaith De-
partment since it was adopted, or since it existed, he had never seen
such as intriguing state of facts or such an unusual case,in any eye,t,
he did confirm what I had reported to you earlier, that Roy ReynOlds~
!$t~ W~s essentially a form letter~ one that is written by the Health
Department without any personal inspection ofproperties. It would be
written and the Board knows this, on almost any property which is water
front, where there is brackish problems, water potability problems, any-
where south of the highway in all of the Town Of Southold and Riverhead,
and I've seen them in Noyack, the same letter. The effort was not to re-
port to the Board in that letter a personal ~ud scientific assessment of
what might occur if there were a subdivision with respect to that problem.
The Suffolk Cosuuty Department of Health now has pending before it, before
its Board of Review,this property and we are asking them to inquire as to
whether or not there is a scientific solution to the problem of placing
a septic tank and a well point on the property. Already, the Suffolk
County Department of Health has told me that their, and they have not
assured me at all there would be any success on the application, but they
have told me that .this kind of problem is not~_uique to these two parcels
at 1~
a_~, and that there are various recommendations that they follow,
including the driving of extremely deep Wells which go into aquifers or
water levels way below the existing area wells and completely different
from what has always been the practice here in the Townof Southold.
know that my ~n home, when I lived here, we were twel¥~ feet to water~
and late in every summer we ran into terrible water problems, and late in
every summer they told us that if we wouldspend a few dollars, they could
assure us of good water, ~ust go dow~ a few h~undred feet ~ud there'll be
water and there'll be good water and it won't bother anybody~ And the
.,Southold To%m Boated of Appeals -28~ / July 9, 1981
(~2~THO~f_ TOHILL, CONT.): Health Department has already indicated that
probably would be a solution that they would ~ to look to. Another
solution which is acceptable to Mrs~ Dansker would be that there would
be an easement placed on an area of the Dansker house parcel in favor of
the vacant parcel, if the vacant parcel ever were to be deve!oped~ in
which, in that easement area, a water pipe could be placed dove. The
well could go in there. For exam~l~ a five foot strip by twenty foot
strip along the edge of the road in front, of the Dansker house, and they
would drive the %ezl there and then bring it over the strip onto the
vacant lot and solve the problem that way. That way they get the hundred
feet, they don~t interfere with any other~neigh~or~,wei!~ they go
do~m as deep as they can, a~d effectively, they have the solution that,
I guess, many homeowners probably would have liked to have adoptedfif-
teen or twenty years ago instead of having the problems that we have now°
So, in short, the matter is before the Health Department, we expect a
date shortly from the Board of Review and we're going to try our luck
at seeing what theli£ield-of~cien~e can dofor this woman and her Catch
22. Now, I have in the affidavit, I think, eve~zthing but the kitchen
sink, and I si~ly ask that you try to stay awake when you try to read
it, prop yourself up or stand on your feet and flip through it as quickly
as you can, I'm going to conclude by,simply offering some oral testimony
from Lew Edson who is here. You'll notice that attached as E×hibitI
to the affidavit is a fourteen page appraisal which Mr. Edson prepared
for purposes of this hearimg~ As Mro Doyen pointed out last time, there
was no economic proof the first time this case c~me up. I think he~s
absolutely right, and I think that the economic proof was necessary if
the Board were to act having all the factors before it. So I wouid tike,
if I could~ to elicit answers to about ten questions from Lew Edson,
and that would be it. Okay.
~_. CM3.I~,~h I have one question for you, Is~it alright if we do
this in installments?
~2~HONY TOHILL: Yeah, it is. Lew.
L~fIS EDSON: How are you?
~. CH_& IP~.?~L~I: ~right.
~THO~ TdHILL: For the benefit of the Board i will hand up I
think something else that wasn't in the record before, which is a photo-
graph on the top of the house and a photograph on the bottom of the
the remainder of the statement was inaudibie~)* Mr. Edson can you state
for the Board your trade or occupation?
L~IS EDSON: I'm a licensed real estate broker.
ANTHO~Yf TOHILL: And for how many years have you been so engaged?
LEWIS EOSON: Five years as a licensed rea]. estate broker and I had
about ten years of previous real estate e×perience.
A~HO~Uf TOHILL: And are you familiar with the premises of Rose
Dansker and a vacant parcel to the South of the premises of RoSe Dansker
on the east side of Wells Road at Peconic?
*Mr o Tohill ~)resented two ? h ~ ~, ~' t%~e
. p~..oto~a~ho~ one of
= .... - ~ze file for Rose ~s~_ ~ ~z~ oo~
the vacant io~ wnzcn were entered into
~Sou~_~old Town Boa~ of Appeals -29 July 97 1981
LE%fiS EDSON: I am.
~x~THO~Yf TOHILL: Airight. And have you, at my request, prepared
an appraisal consisting of fourteen pages, attached as Exhibit I to the
affidavits submitted to the Board this evening?
LEi'fIS EDSON: Yes, I did.
ANTH0~FfTOHILL: A!right. ~d do you affirm the contents of that
appraisal, submitted to the Board this evening?
LEWIS EDSON: ! approve~
iNTH0~ TOHILL: Alright, now, have you personally inspected the
Dansker residence and the vacant parcel?
LEWIS EDSON: Yes, I have.
~NTH0k~fTOHILL: Alright, and on the basis of your personal
inspection can you report briefly to the Board what the appearance is
of the vacant lot and then again the appearance of the residence.
L~TIS EDSON: Yell, the property with the subject, the vacant
parcel along with the parcel with the house on it is ringed by a fence
containing both parcels. When you go on to the interior of the property
the vacant parcel is separatedby a hedge from the house parcel, and it's
also separate as far as the bul~neading is concerned. It would give the
appearance to any layman who walked on the property, of being a completely
separate parcel and not part of the house properS.
ANTHOI~f TOHILL: Has the vacant parcel been improved at a!ior
are the improvements r~sormcted to the house oarce!?
L~IS EDSON: Ail of the improvements are to the house parcel.
INTH0h~T_ TOHILL: On the basis of your inspections and your ex-
perience, can you establish a value for the house and can you report
to the Board how you can establish a value for the house? This is the
house only.
LEWIS EDSON: The house, in my opinion, is up valued at $110,000o
We. have a ready, willing and able buyer under contract to purchase it
for that amount, ~nd based on n~erable comparables in the area, and in
Southold Town, $110,000 is a fair market value.
~TH0~ TOHiLL: Okay, and have you also included in your appraisal
a replacement value analysis for the residence and the lot.
LE~fiS EDSON: Yes, I have.
Ak~HO!,Yf TOHiLL: And with respect to the vacant parcel to the
south, c~n you establish avalue for that?
L~fIS EDSON: Given it's a single and separate parcel and buildable,
it's, I have valued it at $30,000~
BaNTH0k~f TOHILL: And are there comparables with respect to that
parcel in the area?
,.Southold To~rn Boa~ _ of Appeals -30- July 9, 1981
LEYiS EDSON: There are numerable parcels that are comparable.
M~H0!~ TOH!.LL: Fine. And if the owners of the respective
parcels were tunable to obtain municipal approvals with respect to the
house parcel~ can you assess the value of the house parcel as an non-
marketable, atiieast, without municipal approval parcel improved with
a residence.
L~'fiS EDSO~: For the house parcel?
i%~HO!,Yf TOHILL: Yes.
LEW-iS Ft)SOM: Yeah, I would judge the house parcel to be worth
about a third, or about $35,000. The risk being mumarketable title,
not mortgageable, many years of trying to get clear title to it,
enough of a dorm price to create mu interest in a possible profit over
a very long period, mud then to back it up, maybe to rent it out as
a summer rental for somewhere in the vicinity of four to $~,500 for a
stm~ner season, and maybe after eight or nine seasons to recoup the
money.
ANTHON~ TOHILL: Airight.
LE~IS ~SON: But in fact, that may also be a very high number.
Yn~HO~[.~ TOHILL: To the extent--
L~.~IS ~SON: A big risk.
ANTH0~£ TOHILL: To the extent that there's no market for people
buying houses that would not receive t~e approval of the municipality
in which they're located.
L~fIS EDSON: Yeah.
~NTHO~¥~ TOHr~&: Airight. _and with respect to the vacant parcel,
can you establish' how the value would drop ~5 to, ten, from ~5,000,
assu~ing it's a buildable, single and separate parcel~
LEWIS ~SON: I would, my opinion would be that the parcel, if it
was not buildable, would be worth about $10,000 for somebody as a park
to use or as a boat basin or some purpose like that for an auxiliary
use for somebody off the water in that area.
~2~THO~ TOHILL: And similarly with respectto that, wou!d'there
be limitations on the value by reason of the fact that it has no build-
able status under the mo_uicipa! code.
L~fIS ~SON: Yes, yes.
ANTHO~ TOHILL: If the Board has any questions of Mr. Edson. Yes.
~ER DOYE~I: Yeah, will you kindly go over that again, the
finances involved, the buildabie or not buildable, or in other words,
complying with the municipal law.
LEWIS EDSON: Well, if, the secret, in my opinion here, is that
~,Southoid Town Boa~-a of Appeals ~_~- July 9, 1981
(L~IS EDSON, CO~.): you would have a non-marketable, unmarketable
t%tle to the property. You could never get clear title to the property,
Because you could never get a C.O. £rom the Town. If you can't get that
then you've got a big risk, as to what you can do with the property, for~
you can't take it to the bank and get five cents for it.
~BER DOY~Y: But what were the actual figures again, just,
~ · 000 is what I would estimate, about a third of
L~IS ~oON~ ~5,
the, of the appraised value.
~-~ER DOYENS: But then again~ ~ould you say, if it were, if it
did comply with all the mu~icipallaws, how ~ach.would the land and the
house be worth together, you said.
L~W~.~fTM wn~n~.
M~BER DOYEN:
LE~.~IS ~SON:
110. The iand--
The !m~d, being--
ME~B~ DOYEN: Plus the houze.
L~gIS EDSON: Yeah.
M~t3~--~, _ GO~_HRING~. lib.
ANTHO~f TOHILL:
L~.4rIS EDSON: No
ANTHO~f TOHILL:
L~IS ~SON:
M~]~R DOYE~:
LEYIS ~SON:
~,~ DOY~f:
the house ~
~ff~HO~ TOHILL:
L~IS ~SON:
M~ DOY~I:
L~,~IS EDSON:
~ DOYEN:
NO.
The land~-
Separate parcel?
No, wait,
Parcel two.
The house, the parcel that contains the structure,
Yes,
~m ~hm.
W~nat is the difference between--
In total.
tlne house, yeah, the total or in both.~ either way,
I me~n, the l~nd, the house,
L~fIS ~SON: The land and the house I would estimate to be about
110,000.
MELTER DOYET~: The Is~nd smd the house.
~ 80uthold To~.~aa Boa_~d of Appeals -32-~ ~l, July 9, 1981
L~4IS EDSON: The land and the house.
~[TH0~Yf TOHILL: In short, a $75,000 loss, if I may he3~e this right.
M~BER DOYET~: Yeah~ okay.
A~HOh~f TOHILL: Yeah, 75.
M?~fBF~R DOYEN: That's what I was getting at.
AYTHO>Yf TOHILL: 75.
I~R. CI-LAIR~J~7: It's all on page I, Exhibit
M~,¢BER DOYE!~3: Yeah~ I know, but ! haven't read it, that's why
I'm asking.
.~NTHOk~ TOHILL: The problem is, as Mr. Edson has indicated, is
that the only value of the house wo~mld be to somebody who would plunk
down 35,000 in cash, would deal with a purchase money arrangement with
the owner, and then use it as a rental, knowing that they would oay
otherwise $4,500 for x number of summers and they'd get their mo~ey
back but in the meantime there'd be 75,000 loss. So, on a reolacement
bevel, on a sake level, on a comparable level, it's worth 110] On a
r~aTlevel, ~nless we can establish the right to a variance with~ the
Board, it's worth 35. So it's a genuine problem.
M~BERGOE~INGER: Pending She opinion of the Health Department,
of course, is something that we would like to have°
~MTH0h~f TOHILL: Yeah, okay.
M~W~BER GOEHRING~: Do you suggest that we--
A~H0!~f TOHILL: No. Here's what i, the only way that I could see
doing this would be that, and I have no objection to this, and I have
consulted with M~s. Dansker who candidly, still doesn't understand what
I'm trying to say, but if the Board were to. approve the application, I
have no objection to it conditioning its approval on the Suffolk County
Department of Health granting an approval. In other words, I'm not
asking this Board to approve water potability or the hundred foot re-
quirement or any of that~ ! don't see how you could and i don't think
you should be asked to stick your necks out in that direction. That's
supposed to be what that Board of Review with the Health Department is
there to do, they work pretty hard trying to do that, and if they can
establish scientific~&vidence to indicate that it oan do done without
harming anybody in the area, they'll grant an approval. If they can't
they're quick to say no.
M~q SAWICKI: Do you know how long you would have to wait?
~NTHOI~f TOHILL: They're pretty good. It would certainly be
within, I ~outR think, a month. But it's conceivable, with the summer
vacation, there are three members on the panel and then they always
have a fourth sitting there in the event that somebody can't be present.
We may have pDoblems with the delay, but Mr. Jule didn't indicate too
much in that direction~
,'Southold Town Boa~ of Appeals -3~- July 9, 1981
ME~_ G0~WdqINGER: That was my question, Mr. Tohill, i know that
the timeliness of this has gone all the way back to last February, Do
you want us to leave this open ~utii our--
~NTH05~ TOHILL: I would prefer if_it~dicln'~ only because Iwould
like to proceed in as businesslike way -as I can, ~ud Mrs. Dansker is
not doing well ~auder the tension of the experience. C~udidly, i'm not
doing so fancy either, because I~m tired of making telephone calls to
important bankers and lawyers in New York City trying to get some
eration and being met with stone walls. And I would like to get at
least one part behind me so that I can concentrate my efforts there.
If the Board insists, then you have the right not to make the decision
until we ca~ get before the Suffolk County Department of Health. i'd
like to get one thing behind me on my way to the (word was inaudible).
There's still the Planning Board as well, so that the Board's decision
here would be conditioned upon their approval too. It's a long trip
that we have. The secretary's also not so fond preparing a ten-page
affidavit.
M~M~ER GOEHRINGER: I think it's a point of discussion that we
should have before we make the decision~ F~. Chairm~u, why don't we
recess for a second and discuss that in another room and then come
back (the remainder of the statement was inaudible.)
~NTH0~f TOHILL: Some people may ws~ut to speak before the Board.'
~ GOEPLR~GER: Oh yes~ definitely.
(Mr. Tohil! made an inaudible statement regarding his wish to hear amy
statements from anyone opposing the variance application.)
~ER GO~iNGE~: Y~aho
MR. C~¢I~¥~I: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on
this hearing? It's the Dansker hearing.
~Aq~ STA!GER: 0nly that I have no objections to your suggestion~
I happen to live on the road°
MRS. STAIGER: We have the same problem.
k%~HOk~ TOHILL: That was brief and vers~ much to the point.
M~-MB~ GOE~INGER: Can we have your names?
MRS. STAIG~: We have no objection whatsoever. That property is
hers, the other parcel should havenothing to do with her. That is not
hers.
~ GOEPL~.IMGER: Can we have your names?
~. CHAIP~2~: W~nat's your name please?
[~RS. STAIGER: Staiger, s t a i g e r, She has lived there for so
many years thats__e,~ it's hers, and she snou_d' ~ be able to get rid of it
if she w~uts to.
.~Southold Town Bo~d of Appeals
July 9, 1981
~~. CHAI~!A~N: There's several parcels in the same sort of a
situation.
~.S. STAIGER: Yes, we have 110 feet next to our hOuse.
MR. CHAIR~3~: it's surprising since this came up how many more
we've become aware of.
~S. STAIG~:' We thought it was two parcels and now we muderstand
it's one°
MR. CH~iPdW~N: So its got to be resolved sometime.
MRS. STAIGER: ! don't know when that happened.
I~TBER DOYE%~: Mrs° 01ira has a question.
RUTH OLiVA: I believe I stated, Ruth Oliva, North Fork Environ-
mental Co~aucil~ I stated last time that we opposed it~ number one,
because it wasn't even near the acre~zoning that's required~ number two,
if it is allowed, it's only going to be a very small acreage ~nd we are
very concerned about the water and especially the sewe~aEe~fromthe Board
of Health~ that's just draining into the creeks~ the creeks are becoming
more polluted and the more houses you have the more polluted it's going
to get. And more and more people are just not coming here summers~
they're coming out and staying all year long. Amd you're going to have
more and more problems with our creeks. So i'd be very concerned with
the Board of Health, and unfort~uately I feel theBoard of Healthhas
been very ls_x in some of their judgments and i'm very skeptical on their
decisions.
~NTH05~ TOHILL: Two responses. One~ if the only oppQsition were
that it were not an acre~ this Board would be out of business~ because
it's when they're not an acre that the problem comes to thi~Board and
it has to use its experience and judgment in deciding things% In other
words, it's here as an application for a variance.
RUTH 0LiVA: i can't hear you.
~TH0h~ TOHILL: 0h~ I'm sorry.
}~.. CHAIR~t~: Would you use the mike over there?
ANTHOL~ZTOHILL: i said~ if you're only objection were that it were
not an acre--
RL~H OLIVA: I don't disagree with you, but this is a third of an
acre.
ANTHOL7 TOHILL: if your only objection were the size of tbs parcel~
then the Boardwould be out of business~ that's the function of the
Zoning Board, it's there to act as an escape valve for the pressures
that are causedbyup-zonings~hi~h.?,are, across the board, a good idea.
Its sometimes they work a hardship on some people. The second point
you made is that the pollution of the creek or ground water potability~
but that's a scientific problem I'm incompetent to deal with and I'm a
layperson~ as to scientific problems~ and I, the Suffolk County Depart-
~Southold Town Boa~ of Appeals -3~ July 9, 1981
(A~HO!~ TOHILL, COB~.): ment of Health is employed to deal with exactly
that problem and I would just ask forthe opportuni%y to have them--
RUTH OLIVA: Yeah, I know, you have to go along with what they say
but then again the poor person who's stuck with that other piece of lot,
if the Board does decide to divide it, is going to be stuck with an
unbuildab!e lot.
ANTHONY TOHI~m. Well--
~uwm OLIVE!: It's worth practically nothing.
BL~Tn0N_ TOHILL: 0ne;:of the things that I can report to'you--
RL~H 0LIVA: W~nere if You have the whole thing and divide it up
it's so much easier.
~TH05~' TOHILL: Yeah, one of the things that i can report to you,
but, you should not find it chiseled in granite is that there is virtually
no intention to build on that parcel. The only reason we're here is that
we're tr~ing to sell the house and we can't sell the house because the
parcel, the vacant parcel has attached itself by reason of the up-zoning
to the house parcel. So~ we're caught in a very difficult position.
RUTH 0LIVA: Would there be amy covanents put on ~hat other piece
there that's, would be left over if the lot was divided that it would
not be built upon.
ANTHONY TOHILL: Can't do it; we don't own it. That's one of our
problems. If we owned it, we'd be happy to talk to you and try to do
something sensible, but we are really caught in a massive Catch 22 out
of which I can't find any solution. Aud I've been trying ~ ~
~o_ nine
weeks~
RUT_H OL_~VA. I think you've got a problem.
ANTHON7 TOHILL: I don't like being a failure at things, and I've
confessed by failure already this evening.
~. CF~IR2~2~: How about going out and recess for a few minutes and
see if we can come up with something on this.
DOUGLASS: M~ hm.
~IEM~SAWICKI: Yeah.
~_. CHAi~W~N: Have a recess out there for a few minutes, see if
we can come up with something on this.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: I think we ought to go back to Tasker on it.
~ GOE~INGER: No, no. We're talking about if we should
recess it with a date or if we should close the hearing. Recess it to
the next meeting pending the Health Department.
MEP~R DOUGLASS: W~_at, there's no possibility of you coming in
with anything else, if--
,'Southold Town Bo~d of Appeals
-36-~.~/ July 9, 1981
~ER DOUGLASS:
us by then.
ANTHOh~f TOHILL: No, i'm finished.
~!B~R GO~INGF~R: Just the Health Department.
MF~MB_ERDOUGLASS: Well, the Health Department, if you close it,
we've got sixty days.
~.L~H0~Yf TOHILL: i have no objection to extending the sixty days,
if you end up in a pickle on that.
Aped then he should be able to get that back to
~n~HO~ TOHiLL:
would eensider that.
~IE~BER GOEB~iNGER: I 5on't think you can extend the s~_xty days.
A!~TH0~' TOH~L. i'll do it. if i sign my name to it I'm stuck.
~F~°~ GOEB!RING~: You c~u't extend it; I don't think you can
extend it.
~-NTHOkrf TOHILL: Well, what you c~u, yeah, you can. You can do it
this way, you extend it but not closing it except for the submission of
the results of the Department of Health, Board of Appeals. Then it's
not closed ~til the Board of Health thing, and the sixty days doesn't
start ro_~ing.
~--~ DOUGLAS~S: Recess it.
it's
then
k%~HOSYf T~HILL:~ Well, but you close it~ but for that item, then
still not finally closed for the sixty day rule until you get it~.
the sixty day rule starts when i have to give you that.
l_~.. CHAI~¥~2~: Close pending the Healti~ Department.
AMTHO~Yf TOHiLL: Yes, yeah.
P~BER GOE~tINGER: See if there's anybody who w~uts to speak--
M~$~. DOU~GL~S: So, the hearing is closed except for the
Health Department findings.
~ER G0~I~GER: Right.
~ERD0¥EN: Except'for the Health Department findings.
~wlq. CF~IIR~_a~: So, i'll offer a resolution closing the hearing
pending the final decision on the report from that, the Board of Health.
~o~-~p,~ DOUGLASS: I'll second it.
On motion byMr. Grigonis, seconded by i~ Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that decision be reser~zed by this Beard pending receipt
of written decision of the Suffolk Co~J~tyDepartment of Health con-
ceding this project.
.'Southold Town Boa~ of Appeals
July 9~ 1981
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goebminger,
Sawicki, and Grigonis.
Mot~ion was made by Mm. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer and
carried, to recess the re~alar meeting in order to go into "closed
session for deliberations~ at 10:05 o'clock p.m. (a~prox.).
Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer~ seconded by Mm..Grigonis~ 8~d
carried~ to reconvene the regular ~ ~'
m~e~ng at 10:20 o'c!ook p.m. (approx.)
~IS~iP~.._~n DECISION: Appeal No. 2772 (as anaended). Application of
Em~auel M. Kontok~sta~ ~3 West 5~th S~reet, New~York~ ~7 10019 (by
Richard F~ Lark~ ~sq.) for a Special ~ception ~as amended) to the
Zoning 0rdinance~ Art. V, oectzo._ 100-50 for ~ermission to construct
additional residential maits, a coffee shop~ administration office and
swimming pool in an M-! Zoned District (and deleting the 21 motel ur~its
as previously granted 1/17/80). Location of property: West side of
Shipyard Lane, East Marion, ~ bounded north by Parkside Heights Co.~
east by- Shipyard L~ue: south by Gardiners Bay~ west by Parkside Heights
Co.; County T~x Map Item No. lO00-38-7-part of Lot ~.
A public hearing was held and closed on this matter on Ju2ae 11, 1981~
After investigation and inspection~ the Board finds that the
applicant requests permission to erect 45 residential units~ a coffee
shop, an a~ministration office smd a pool at premises located in ~
~'M-1 Multiple Residence District.~ For the use requested herein, a
Special Exception is required by this Board. Applicant's Site Devel-
opment Plan as revised 5/6/81 appears to be in conformance with all
the rules and regulations of the zoning ordinance and this Board has
been informed that the N~YoS. Department of Environmental Conservation
permit application appears to be approvab!e as revised 6/1/81 and the
Suffolk County Department of Health ~ '
~ervmces permit application appears
to be approvable as revised 5/27/81~
The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are
unique~ and that strict application of the ordinance would produce
practical difficulties or u=~aecessary hardship. The Board believes
that the grant of a Special ~ception in this case will not change the
character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the
ordinance.
mo~o~_ made by w Goehringer~ seconded by Mr~ Grigonis~ it was
R~SOLVED, that w~NUU-~LM. KO~OKOSTA~ ~3 West 5~th Street, New
¥ork~ ~! 10019, BE GRJ%NTED a Special --~x~ception to the Zoning Ordinance
for permission to erect 45 residential units, a coffee shop, adminis-
tration office, and cool as per the revised Site Development Plsn dated
5/6/8!, and SUBJECT ~0 TR~ FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Aoproval~ from the Suffolk County Department o~ H~a!~_= ~h Se~ices.
,'Southo!d Tovm Boa~d of Appeals -38~-~ July 9, 198t
2. Approval from the New York State Department of Environmental
Conse~ation~
3. Approval from the Southold To%m Planning Board for Site Plan.
4. Approval from the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant
to Section 153l of the Suffolk County Charter.
5. Approval from the Suffolk Coonty Health Department for the
sewage disposal systems.
6. No further subdivision except by application and approval from
the Southold Town_ Pl~uning Board and Board of Appeals, ~ud appropriate
other agencies when required.
7. No residential structure shall be located within 100 feet of
the mean highwater !ine~
8o No sanitar$~ disposal facility shall be constructed or installed
within 100 feet of mean highwater line.
9~ A conservation buffer or easement having a minimum width of
50 feet shall be established along the shoreline.
10. No storm-water ~mnoff resulting from the development and
improvement of the pending subdivision and any of the lots shall be
discharged directly into Gardiners Bay.
11. ~o loudspeakers or other noise-making devices may be per-
mitted which would disturb the neighborhood.
12. The coffee shop is permitted (50 seat maximum) to be used
exclusively for the occupants of the dwellings and shall not be per-
mitted for use by the general public.
Location of property: Westerly side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion~
bounded north by Parkside Heights Co., east by Shipyard L~ne, south by
Gardiners Bay, west by Parkside Heights Co. County Tax Map Item
lO00-~8-7-part of Lot 4.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen~ Douglass,
Goehringer, and Sawicki.
~ $outhold Town Board-of Appeals -39- July 9, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2841. Application of Thomas
Crowley and wife, 745 Cedar Drive, East Marion, NY for a Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to
construct addition to dwelling with insufficient sideyard area at
745 Cedar Drive, East Marion, NY; bounded north by Reich; west
by Cedar Drive; south by Kapassas; east by Vasqqaz and Frumenti;
County Tax Map Item No. 1000-22-2-42.
A public hearing was held and closed on this matter same date
hereof.
After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows:
By this appeal, appellants seek permission to construct an
18~b~_~2' addition to existing dwelling with a minimum sideyard
setback from the northerly property line of eight feet. Existing
on the subject.premises is a ~1½~story~frame house. The Board
agrees with applicants' reasoning.
The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial
in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief would not
change the character of the neighborhood; that no adverse effect
will be produced on available governmental facilities of any in-
creased population; that the circumstances are unique; and that
the interests of justice will be served by granting the relief
as requested and restricted as~b~low-noted.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested in Appeal No. 2841, by
application of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Crowley be granted, SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. There shall be no living quarters in the garage addition;
2. The garage addition shall have a maintained frontyard set-
back as exists for the main dwelling. [The addition shall not
protrude ahead of the front of the house.]
Location of Property: 745 Cedar Drive, East Marion, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-22-2-42.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer,
Sawicki and Grigonis.
~uthold Town Boa~/of Appeals
-40-
July 9, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2837. Application of Frank A.
Battel, c/o Municipal Building, Teterboro, NJ, (by Richard J.
Cron, Esq.) for a Variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of
parcels known as Shorecrest Subdivision Filed Map No. 5584,
Subdivision Lots No. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 1~; more Particularly
known and located at the south side of Bayberry Lane, Greenport,
NY; County Tax Map Item Nos. 1000-52-3-, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19.
A public hearing was held and closed on this matter same
date hereof.
After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows:
By this appeal, appellant seek approval of insufficient area
of Shorecrest Subdivision Lots No. 10, 1t, 12, 13, and 14 and
insufficient road frontage of Subdivision Lots No. 13, 12, and 10.
Shorecrest Subdivision is not one of the "excepted subdivisions"
in Article I, Section 100-12 of the zoning code but has been an
approved and filed subdivision as of April 6, 1971 pursuant to
the records of the Southold Town Planning Board, Suffolk County
Clerk and information received from the Suffolk County Health
Department. Each of the lots proposed contain an area of approxi-
mately 30,000 square feet, which is similar to those within the
neighborhood as to size and character. The Board agrees with
applicant's reasoning.
The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial
in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief would not
change the character of the neighborhood; that no adverse effect
will be produced on available governmental facilities of any in-
creased population; that the hardship or practical difficulty is
unique and not self-imposed; and that the interests of justice
will be served by granting the relief as requested.
On motion byii~Lr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested in the application of
Frank A. Barrel in Appeal No. 2837 be .granted as appl.i.e~ .for and
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That this matter be referred to the Suffolk County Planning
Commission pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Suffolk
County Charter;
2. That this matter be apProved by the Southold Town Planning
Board.
~o~ation of Property: Bayberry Lane, Greenport,NY; CoUnty
Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-52-3-15, 16, 17, 18 and 19.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
Sawicki and Grigonis.
Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer,
gouthold Town Boar~of Appeals -~1- u~±y 9, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2845. Application of James R.
Giambalvo (later amended to Peconic Bay Gardens, Inc.), 72 Columbia
Road, Rockville Centre, NY, (by Richard J. Cron as attorney) for
a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for per-
mission to divide property into Minor Subdivision of four lots and
approval of insufficient frontage of Lot ~1 of said lots at the
east side of Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY; bounded north by
Schlumpf; west by Indian Neck Lane; south by Pontino and Harvey;
east by Richmond Creek; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-86-5-9.
After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows:
By this appeal, appellants, seeks approval of insufficient road
frontage of 135.16 feet along Indian Neck Lane of one of four
proposed parcels, for which appellant states the Planning Board
has recently approved as a minor subdivision. Each of the parcels
will contain an area of ~substantially more than 40,000 square feet.
The Board agrees with the reasoning of applicant.
The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial
in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief would not
change the character of the neighborhood; that no adverse effect
will be produced on available governmental facilities of any in-
creased population; ~hat the hardship or practical difficulty is
unique and equitab~; and that the interests of justice
will be served by granting the relief as requested.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested in the application of
James R. Giambalvo, recently amended to Peconic Bay Gardens, Inc.,
be granted as applied for and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) That this matter is subject to referral to the Suffolk
County Planning Commission pursuant to the.rules and regulations
of the Suffolk County Charter;
(2) That this matter be referred to the Southold Town Planning
Board for approval.
Location of Property: East side of Indian Neck Lane, Peconic,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-86-5-9.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Sawicki
and Grigonls. Mr. Goehringer abstained.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-22- July 9, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2844. Application of Mark and
Frances C. Squir.es, 88B Vanston Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-35 for permission
to extend existing fence (6 feet high) into frontyard area at
2495 Vanston Road, Cutchogue, NY; Nassau Point Subdivision, Filed
Map No. 806, Lot No 357; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-
111-6-6.
(A public hearing was heard and closed on this appeal July 9,
1981.)
After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows:
By this appeal, appellants seek permission to erect fence
along property lines not closer than 55' east towards dwelling
from Vanston Road. Th~pr~mises in question contains an area of
approximately 30,000 square feet, and the existing one-family
dwelling is setback t10 feet from a tie line from Vanston Road.
The Board agrees with the reasoning of applicants.
The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial
in relation to the Code requirements; that the circumstances are
unique; that the variance if granted will not change the character
of the neighborhood; that the relief requested is within the
spirit of the zoning ordinance; and that the interests-of justice
will be served if this variance is granted.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it
was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested in the application of
Mark and Frances C. Squires in Appeal No. 2844 is granted SUBJECT
.to the following CONDITION:
No further fencing (over four feet high) within 55 feet to the
front property line.
Location of Property: 2495 Vanston Road, Cutchogue, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-111-6-6.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer,
Sawicki and Grigonis.
i ~outhotd Town Board' of Appeals
-43- July 9, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2818. Application of Herbert W.
Davids, by Stanley S. Corwin, Esq., 634 First Street, Greenport, NY
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for
approval of insufficient area and width of three proposed parcels
known as Seawood Acres Subdivision Lots 25, 26 and 27, Filed Map
No. 2575; bounded north and west by Reese, south by McDermott,
east by Seawood Drive; .County Tax Map Item No. 1000-79-7-64, 65
and 66.
(A public hearing on this appeal was held and closed on May 14,
1981.)
After investigation and personal Inspection, the Board finds
and determines as follows:
By this appeal, appellant seeks to divide premises located at
the west side of Seawood Drive, Southold, into three parcels, each
containing an area of approximately 12,500 square feet and with
road frontage of approximately 100 feet. The lots in question appear
to have been transferred to applicant prior to the change of zoning
to 40.,000 square feet in 1971.
The Board finds that the relief requested is substantial in
relation to the Code requirements of 40,000 square feet and 150
feet road frontage; that the circumstances present are not unique;
that the premises are not suitable for three dwellings; that the
spirit of the zoning ordinance would not be observed if the variance
were granted; that a hardship or practical difficulty has not been
shown to be sufficient to warrant the granting of this variance; and
that the interests of justice would be served by denying the variance
as applied for in Appeal No. 2818.
On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief as requested in Appeal No. 2818,
application of Herbert W. Davids, is hereby denied without prejudice.
Location of Property: Seawood Drive, Southold, NY; Seawood
Acres Subdivision Lots 25, 26 and 27, Filed Map $2575; bounded north
and west by Reese; south by McDermott; east by Seawood Drive;
County Tax Map Parcel Nos. 1000-79-7-64, 65 and 66.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass and Goehringer.
Nays: Messrs. Grigonis and Sawicki.
This resolution was duly passed by majority vote.
f ~Southo!d Tom Boa_.d of Appeals -44' July 9, 1981
Motion was made by Mr~ Griganis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, and
unanimously carried,to set the next regular meeting of this Board to
be Thursday, Au~ast 6, 1981 at 7:15 o'clock p.m. to be held at the
Southold Town Hall, Main Road~ Southold, New York.
Member Sawicki left the meeting at 11:00 o'clock p.m.
On motion byMr. Grigonis, seconded by M_~. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the minutes of the Special Meeting of this Board
held We~uesday~ june 24, t981 be approved.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, ~nd
Goehringer. (Mr. Sawicki was absent.)
Motion was made by~ Douglass, seconded by M~. Grigonis, that
the following appeals be scheduled and advertised for public hearings
to be held at the next re~_ar meeting of this Board, to wit, August 6,
1981 at the Southo!d Town Hall, Main Road, Southo~d, New York:
7:15
7:50
8:05
8:20
8:30
8:45
p.mo B~peal of Donald C. DeLalla~ For permission to dock and
moor two boats not o~ed and used by owner of premises for his
personal use, between existing pilings. 5545 Skunk Lane,
Cutchogueo
p.m. Appeal of Patricia Bailey. To subdivide tbm~ee merged
lots, and approval of insufficient area of proposed lot #2,
approval of insufficient front yard of proposed lot #3 of said
lots at 2155 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue~
p.m. Appeal of G~mter Morcheio To construct an inground
swirmming pool in the front yard area at the corner of Nassau
Point Road & 01d Menhaden Road, Cutchouge.
p~m~ Appeal of Warren A~ Sambach. To construct addition with
insufficient side yard area and rear yard setback at Dogwood
Lane, East Marion.
p.m. Appeal of ~e2vatore Cajole, (by Samuel J~ Giickman as
attorney). To amend Building Per-mit #11152 Z~ Which was issued
for storage building, a permitted use, to i~vi~g ~uit, which
isn,t permitted without a ~aria~ce since ther~is an existing
dwelling on premises° 49975 County Road 48~ So~o~thold.
p.m~ Apo~a! of Fremermck T. Horn. For approval of access of
Case's Lnae Exzensmon~ Cutchogo. e. Bounded north by Path Way,
west by Fairway_Warms, South by Case's Lane F~xto ~ east by
Horn, Bouffler.
8:55 p~m. Appeal of Northvil~e rndustries Coro~ For permission to
use part o~ premzses for commercial moc~mng and mooring with
with parking storage area in an A Residential-Agricultural
2 ~'Southo!d Town Boa~ of Appeals
July 9, 1981
ZOne. 610 ~augles Drive: Mattituck.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen~
Goehringer. (Mr. Sawicki was absent~)
and
On motion by Mr. Grigonis~ seconded by Mr. DougLass, it was
RESOLVED~ to declare the following Negative P~vironmentai
Declarazion concerning the matte~ of DOnald C. DeL~la~ App=a~ No~ 2848:
~!R0~{Ft,}TAL ~n ~ ~
Ds~L}~.A ~,. I0N o
} Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y~S. Department of Environ-
mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmantal Conservation
Law~ and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code~ notice is hereby
given that the Southold Towm Board of Appeals has determined that the
subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a ~ype II
Agtion not having a significmnt adverse effect uoon the environment for
the following reason(s): ~
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted
- b
wh!c_~ indicates that no significant adverse effects were !ike!yto
occur should this project be implemented as planned.
The applicant has obtained all necessary permits from the N~Y~S.
Department of Environmental Conservation, the Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers~ and the Board of Southold Town ~rustees to install
four pilings in Baldwin Creek~ Little Peconic Bay~ Cutohogue.
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.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass~ and
Goehringer. (Mr. Sawicki was absent.)
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by ~. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to delcare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Patricia Bailej~, Appeal ~o. 2846:
~A.~iR0 N~YE~AL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y~S. Department of Environ-
mental Consternation Act~ Article 8 of the ~virop~ental Conservation
Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby
given that the Southold Town Board of B~peals has determined that the
subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a TyPe II
Action not having a significant adverse effect uoon the environment for
the following reason(s): -
~::Southoid Town Boa_.~d of Appeals -~6- ~' i July 9, 1981
An ~nvironmenta_ Assessment in the~hort Form has been submitted
which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to
occt~ should this project be implemented as planned.
The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal
wetlands.
This decma_at~on Should wot be considered a de uermznat~on made
for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor
for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, and
Goehringero (~ Sawicki was absent.)
On motion by Mr~ Grigonis~ seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
REoOLVED, to declare the following Negative ~nv_ronmental Declaration
conerning the matter of Gunter Morchel~ Appeal ~o. 28~7:
~A~ IR0.~gENTAL DECLAR~TION:
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y~S~ Department of Environ-
mental Conse~¢ation Act, Article 8 of the ~nvironmental Conservation
Law~ and Section $~-~ of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given
that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subSect
project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a T3~e II Action
not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the
following reason(s):
~na Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted
which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to '
occur should this pro~ect be implemented as planned°
TheiproPerty in question appears to be located within 300 feet
of tidal wetlands but the wetland area is separated by a road or similar
typ_e of barrier.
This declaration should not be considered a determination made
for auy other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for
any other project not covered by the subject appeal application.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
and Goehringer. (Mr. Sawicki was absent.)
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED~ to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of ~arren A. Sambach, Appeal No. 28~9:
Ei\~ iR0h~NTAL DECL~W_~TION:
~mrsuant to Section 617~13 of the N~Y.So Department of Environ-
· mental Conservation Act~ Article 8 of the Environmental Conse~ation
/ ~ -~ ~Sou'tho!d Tova~ Bo~d of Appeals
July 9, 1981
Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southoid To%m Code, notice is hereby
g~ven that the Southold To~,~ Board of opea~s has deverm_ned that the
subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II
action not having a si~nific~at adverse effect uoon the environment ~
~or
the following reason(s~:
An ~vironmentsl Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted
which indicates tna~ no significant adverse effec~ were likely to
occur should this project be implemented as planned.
The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal
wet!~uds~
This'declaration snou_m not be considered a determination made
for ~uy other department or agency which may also be involved, nor
for ~ay other project not covered by the subject appeal application.
Vote of the Boa_m~ Ayes: Messrs Grigonis, Doyen, Dougiass~
and Goehringer. (Mr. Sawicki was absent.)
On motion by Mr~ Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative F~uvironmenta!
Declaration concer~_ing the matter of Salvatore ~aiola, Appeal No. 2851:
~IR0~TAL DECLAP~T!0N:
Pumsumnt to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environ-
mental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Consera~ation
Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby
given that the Southold To~m Board of Appeals has determined that the
subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II
Action not having a significmut adverse effect upon the environment
for the following reason(s):
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted
which indicates that no signific~t adverse effects were _~ely to
occur should this project be ' ~ ~ ~-
3~mp~.e,men~ed as planned~
The project in question is not located within 300~feet of tidal
wetlands.
This declaration should not be considered a determination made
for any other department or agency which may~also be involved, n?r
for any other project not coversd b~' the subject appeal application.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
and Goehringer~ (Mr. Sawicki was absent~)
~? ~ ~Southo!d To~n Board of Appeals -48- '~ -~ July
1981
On motion by Mr~ Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
R~SOLVED, to declare the following Negative E~nvironmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Frederick T. Horn, Appeal No. 2850:
E~Y~r IR 0N~-~TAL DECLAZRATION:
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environ-
mental Conservation Act~ Article 8 of the ~vironmental Conservation
Law, and Section &&-~ of the Southold Town Code~ notice is hereby
given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the
subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type ii
Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the enviromsnent
for the following reason(s):
~ ~avironmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted
which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to
occu~ should this project be implemented as planned,
The propertM in question is not located within 300 feet of
~_da~ wetlands.
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.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs~ Grigonis~ Doyen, Douglass,
and GoeD_~inger. (M_r. Sawicki was absent°)
On motion by Mr~ Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RF~0L~, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration conce_~ning the matter of Northville Industries Corp~
Appeal No. 2833:
E~IROL7~-NTAL DECL~TION:
Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N~Y.S. Department of Environ-
mental Conse~ation Act~ Article 8 of the ~vironmental Conser~ation
Law, and Section ~-4 of the Southold Towr~Code, notice is hereby
given that the Southold Towm Board of Appeals has determined that the
subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type I
Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment
for the following reason(s):
An EnviroD~entai Assessment in the Short Form ~ad Long Form has
been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned.
The project in question appears to be located within 300 feet
of tidal wetlands but thewet!~nd area is separated bya bulkheadl
or similar %~e 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 projecti~notcovered ~by the subject appeal application.
~:~ ~ ~::Southo!d Town Bo~._~d of Appeals
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
e~nd Goehringer.
- 9- July 9, 198!
Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
(Mr. Sawicki was absent.)
Being there was no further business to come before the Board,
the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:10
o~clock pom.
Respectfully submitted,
Eileen M. Carey, Recordi_~_g ~ecre~ary
Sout~old Town Board of Appeals
APPROVED
- Chairma~'"~ 8oard of App~l~