Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/25/1984 Southold Town Board of Appeals NIAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 25 .~DUTHr"ILD, L.I., N.Y. 11c:J'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J, DOUGLASS M I N U T E S JOSEPH H. SAWICKI ..... REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 1984 A Regular Meeting of the $outhold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, October 25,'~1'984, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold TG~n~in' Rda'd, S~th~ld~ New York.~ Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., Member; Serge Doyen, Jr.~, Member; and Joseph H. 'Sawicki, Mem- ber. Absent was Robert J. Douglass, 'due to illness. Also present were Victor Lessard, Bui]ding~epartment Administrator, and approxi- mately 30 persons in the audience~ '~ The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded with the fi~.st public.heari~g~ The public hearing in the matter of Appeal No. 3282, Wind~ Wa~ Bui~Tdin§'Corp. commenced at 7:34 p.m. and..t~e min~e~ of ~e ~.e ~6-~'6n ~'r~pa~ under separate cover. Following the pu-blic hearing, the board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article III, Section lO0-31,.Bulk Schedule of the ZQn]ng~Code which requires a minimum reary~rd set- back for a one-family dwelling structure to be no~-'l~s than-35 feet. Applicant ha~.req~sted approval of the constr~ction of the dwelling with an i~suf'ficient rearyard setback-~t 15 feet. The parcel in question f[gnts along thre~ private rights~of~y and technically has th~e front yards. The westerly frQntxard setback is ap.proximately 47 feet; the northerly frontyard setback is 24 feet and the easterly fron'~yard setbac~ is 50±. The parcel is of a size 149± by 97± ~.e~t, with a total area of 14,489 sq~ ft. as shown on survey dated August ~'9, 1979. Southold Town Board '~ Appeals -2- October 25, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3282 - WINDS WAY BUILDING CORP., continued:) During 1979, an application was made requesting an insufficient frontyard setback at 24 feet and an insufficient setback from the southerly property line at 24 feet, and approval of access, which was conditionally approved on October 11, 1979, under Appeal No. 2627 (filed under Gertrude C. McLean). Some time subsequent to the earlier appeal, the applicant was authorized to start constru'ction and at the time of the foundation inspection, it was found the rearyard setback is less than that originally granted by the Board of Appeals. The board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant that the premises is of unique character and that the relie.f as requested is not unreasonable under the circumstances. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the relief as approved is ~.~ substantial; (b) by a, llowing the relief, no substantial detriment to adjoining properti_es would be created; (c) that n~. adverse effects will be prQduced on available governmental facilities of any increased_popul.ation; (d) that the relief will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; (e) the circumstances are unique; (f) that the interests of justice will best be served by allowing the variance, as applied and noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3282 in the matter of the application of_ WINDSWAY~BUILDING_~ CORP. for approval of an insufficient setback of 15 feet from'~the souther!y, proR~rty line, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED'AS'APPLIED. Locati'on of Property: Pr~'~ate Road No. 1 off the North Side of North Bayview RQad, Southold,~ NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 077-03-025. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, and Sawicki. Member Douglass was'absent ~(due to illness)._ This resolutin was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. At 7:41.p.m., a_public bearing was held' in the matter of Appeal No~ 3233, '~OE~h'A. ....... MCK'~ .a~ ~nd Michael' S~''G~ee~]y. The minutes of same ha~e been__.pre~.are~.~nd~r_sep-ara~ cover. Sou:thold Town Board Appeals -3- October 25,-1984 Regular Meeting At 7:52 p.m., a public hearing was held in the matter of Appeal No. 3230 for Jean C. Holland. The minutes of same have been prepared under separate cover. At 8:07 p.m., a public hearing was held in the matter of Appeal No. 3273, for Ad~dem~ Printi'ng~Services~ Inc. The minutes of same have been prepared under separate cover.-- APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr~ Grigonis, 'seconded by Mr. S~t_was ' _ RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the October 11, 1984 meeting as submitted. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs~ Goehringer, D'oyen~ Gr'igonis, and Sawicki._. Member Douglas~ was ~bs~t.(due to illness)~ __T~ resolution was'adopted 'by unanimous vote of~the me~.bers present. At 8:22 p.m., a public hearing was held in the matter of Appeal No. 3283, for'BERNARD AND GERALDINE DEMP.S'EY~ The minutes of same have been prep~unde~parate cover. - At 8:25 pom.,.a public hearing was held in the matter of Appeal No. 3276, for ~C_ Ol'~g.~.t~ De~]i_g? ..~.orp__~. The minutes of same have been prepared ~nder's~ara~e. c~e~ an~ subsequently filed with th.~] ~i~ of ~the Town Cler~ Following the public he~rimg,--the followin.g actions were taken concerning this hea?ing: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED to close the hearing. ~No~]vote.taken) A motion was further made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, to withdraw the previous motion, and the following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr, Doyen, it was - RESOLVED, t~ recess the hearing in the matter o~ ~te'Desi]~L~- Corp. until the next Regular Meeting of November 9, ~1984~-'-~ November 15, 1984). So~thold Town Board ~ Appeals -4- October '25, 1984 Regular Meeting Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Member Douglass was absent._(illness). This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. At 8:40 p.m., a public hearing was held in the matter of Appeal No. 3275, for Southl'~nd Co~p~. The minutes of same have been prepared under separate c09~ ~nd subsequ'ently filed with the Town Cl'~rk. Following the public hearing, the fq]low.ing resolution was adopted: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to recess the hearing i.n the matter of Southl'~d COrp. until the next Regular Meeting of November 9, 1984 (or~ 1984). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Member Douglass was absent_.(illness). This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present.' At 8:'56~p;m:.~.a~p~btic]b~aring.-~w~.sib~ld in the matter of Appeal No. 3272, for'Ed~e~ G. 'C~dran. The hearing was officially clQsgd by unanimous vote aft~--~eiving testimony; and the minutes of same have been prepared and subsequently filed with the Town Clerk ~nder separate cover. The board briefly discussed Colgate Design Corp., and it was the consensus of the_board to consult with the Town Attorney as to whether or not a change in the location of the proposed building from the east side to the west side would require re-noticing to neighbors, re-advertising, et cetera, although the-he'-aring is stil~ in open recess. DATE OF NEXT'REGULAR ME.ET~NG: Inasmuch as the A.§semb'ly Hall is not ava~'le-on ~a~y,-Nqyember 8th, it was the consensus of the board to hgld the regal_ar meeting on the following Thursday, November 15th, and the ~911owing action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, ~at the date of the next Regular Meeting of this board BE AND'HEREBY IS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER ]'5,' 1984 Southold,_ New York. (It was also noted that ~w.o members may not be able to attend the meeting if same were held on the 9th of November.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- October 25, 1984 Regular Meeting Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Member Douglass was absent (illness). This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. APPEAL NO. 3287 - ALFRED N. AND BARBARA H. DiNUNZIO. The board members are in receipt of the October 23, 1984 road report from Mr. Davis, and the board members will be field inspecting the premises and area prior to the next Regular Meeting. APPEAL NO. 3251 RENATE RIEDEL/W. SMITH. The board members are in receipt of correspondence from the N.~.$. D.E~C~ received yesterday indicating that their department WO~l'd not recommend the dwelling be any closer than 72' as approved under their Permit No. 10-84-0042. The Chairman indicat~d.lthat he tried on. several occasions to contact Mr. Hamilton, and that our calls were not returned. The Chairman said he would try again to.~contact Mro Hamilton tomorrow. APPEAL NO. 3242 - HENRY'DOMALESKI. This public hearing on this matter was held and cl.~sed on October ll, 1984. It was the consensus of the board to reserve decision until the next Reqular Meeting to allow all the members to provide their input on t~e access road ~.mprovements. No~.ac~i6~.wa's take'n~ APPEAL NO. 3234 - ABBOTT AND SWANSON/~RUCKENBROD'T. The public hearing on this matter was-held~last'l~ on A~gust ~-T,_ 1984, and to date the hearing has not been offici.~]'l¥ declared closed'for deliberations. It was the con~sus of the board to place this matter on the agenda of the next Regul'ar Meeting when Douglass is~resen~tordete~mine whether additional information ~s needed, or whether deliberations should commence. No action was taken. APPEAL NO. 3293 HAROLD ~. AND JOSEPH DENEEN. The board reviewed this application for a ~ot minor subdivision with insufficient area, width and depth at Main Bayview Road, and it was the consensus of the board ~b~.to schedule this matter for hearing Until comments have been received from .the Planning Board pursuant to Cha~ter Al06, 'and that the applicant submit their proposal to the Suffolk County Health Department for thei~ input or appr.oval, pursuant to Article 6, "Real'~y Subdivisions and Devel.opments.'~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -6y. October 25, 1984 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO. 3295 FLEETS NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION/WADE. The board reviewed the file in the above matter,-~.-f6rl.wh~ch~appeal application and notice to neighbors' form with affidavit of mailing and certified receipts have been submitted in the evening of October 11, 1984. It was the consensus of the board to field inspect and research this matter prior to scheduling for a public hearing. No maps were submitted with this application for review. APPEAL NO. 3299 - DOUGLAS MILLER~ In reviewing this application filed October 15, 1984,~Q~l.~i~n~ action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. G~ggonis, it was RESOLVED, that Ap'peal No. 3299, application for"DOUGL~S'M~LLER for a variance in order ~ allow inclusion of wetland~t~area for approval of a three-lot minor subd-~v~sion,'BE'AND HEREBY IS HELD T~MPORARILY IN ABEYANCE pending receipt o~~g~'-docu- merits: 1. N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation approval or comments; 2. Suffolk Coun'ty8 Departmentlof Health Services review, comments and/or approval; in accordance with Article 6, Realty Subdivisions and Developme~%~: ¥~te~o~h~Boar~: Ayes: Messrs~ Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Member Dou.glass was'absent~_~illness). This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the memberE present. APPEAL NO. 3294 -'P.ETER AND MARGARET. TR'OY~NO~ ~t was noted that the deed which c~nve~s ~'~a~.~s~ ~o~h~ right-of=way,and map certifying the travel.~d.~oad is within the bo~n~ab~es~f the legal right-of-way have no~ been submitted for ?~view prior to field inspecting.~. The secretary was directed to send a letter to the applicant requesting same, and ~o send a letter to. Mr~ Davis requesting his inspection and re~ort. This action was mo'~ed by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Gri~onis, and unanimously carried. APPEAL NO. 3300 JOHN BERTANI. On motion 'by Mr~ Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehrin..ger~ ]-~.w~s RESOLVED, that th~-following Environmenta~ Declaration be and hereby is adopted pursuan~ to the rules and regula~.ons of S,E,Q~R.A: Soufhold Town Board o iAppeals -7- OctQ:ber 25? 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental' Decl'ara%ions, continued.:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3300 PROJECT NAME: JOHN BERTANI This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [-] Type II IX] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Area 0f--t0t 31,000± sq.-ft, is in excess of requirement for B-] Business parcel but is ]ess than 40,000 sq. ft required for "shopping center." '' ' LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town"of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: North Side C.R. 4.8,_ S0uth0ld. -' REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; .... ~ .... ~e ~'operty in question i.s not located near tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen~ Gr'igonis and Sawicki. Member Douglass was abse~_(~l]ness). This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the member6present.- Southold Town Board of Appeals 8- October 25, 1984 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO. 3292 K & L PROPERTIES (DUCHOW). The board reviewed the file and the following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to request an inspection and road report concerning this right-of-way from J~hn!W~.~Davis~and that this matter is tentatively scheduled for public hearing for the Reqular Meeting of December 13, 1984, provided the road report is r~ceived prior to the advertising deadline. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Member Douglass was absent .(illness). This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. APPEAL NO. 3257 ALEXANDER STOLLMEYER. The following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the not~aea6fchearing be published November 8, 1984, scheduling this matter fo~..public-hearing_~t the next Regular Meeting of this board of NOVEMBER 1'5,.] 1984. Vote of the Board: 'Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Member Douglass was'absent (illness). This resolution was adopted by'unanimous vote of the members present. APPEAL NO. 3301 -"AT~]BEHRER by W. Jacobs. On motion by Mr. Grigo~is~.seco~ded~by~ M~nger, it was RESOLVED, that'this ~atter be placed on the early December Regu~iar Meeting agenda for public ~ring (tentative'l_~ December 13th), and %hat'the f~ll~wing Negative~E~ironmental Declaration BE'AND HEREBY ~S ADOPTED pursuant to the rules and regulati-~ns of~'N.Y.S E--~-~'~n~n~'.~Q~-~lity 'Review Act Sout~old Town Board o ~qppeals -9- October 25, ~F984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declaration, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 330l PROJECT NAME: A. BEHRER This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that. this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Accessory garage in fr0-nt yard ~area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town~ of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly k~wn as: Nassau Point R0a.d~ Cutchqgue; 1000-1]l-12-2.l. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; ~ --~ .... S~par'ating~-the project-~n .... ~' · ~ .... ]on frq~m t'he environmental area Is a 50-foot traveled roadway; (3) The relief requested is a setback variance which does not require further processing under "Type II" Actions. (4) Construction is located more than 75 feet from tidal wetlands. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Member Douglass was absent (illness). This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- October 25, 1984 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3267: Application of CONSTANCE' KLAPPER, Box 291, Cutchogue, NY (by Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel~ for a V~riance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III Section 100-31, for approval of insufficient area of lot in this proposed two-lot division (redivision) of land and for approval of insuf- ficient livable floor area of existing principal building. Location of Property: 3300 Dignans (private) Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-83-02-005. The public hearing on this matter was held on September 13, 1984, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending receipt of a requested affidavit concerning the use of the cottage/studio structure on propo'sed parcel 2, and pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article III, Section 100-31 of the Zoning Code for: (a) approval of insufficient area of 1.2± acreage in this proposed set-off of Parcel "2" from Parcel "1" wh.ich will contain 2.2± acres, and (b) approval of'the insufficient livable flgor area of a studio/cottage structure of a size 12' by 20' as show~ on survey mapped December 20, 1983, by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. and existing on proposed Parcel "2." Existing on Parcel "1" is a two-story, one-family dwelling structure ~nd accessory swimmi, ngpo~l. Current town records show that the northerly parcel is now of Constance Klapper and contains approximately 2.4!. acres, and that the southerly parcel is of Murray Klapper, .per deed dated 4/19/83 at Liber 9358 cp 595 and contains approximately one acre w~th 185- foot frontage along a private right-of-way. .The relief requested by this application appears to adjust these lot sizes as noted, supra. For t~he record, it is noted that the premises in question was the subject of a prior appeal, No. 2232, for the applicant herein, in the set-off of a 48,147 .sq. ft. parcel, and for app.roval of access, which was conditionally granted on December 22, 1976. It is also noted that under Ap~al No. 3170 conditional approval of access over this same right-of-waN was granted to Daniel Shellex_on March 2, 1984. Since it is the opinion of the board that this ri§ht-of-~ay has not been brought up to the s'tandards required for emergency vehicles pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-A, no building permit therefore shall be isSued until such improvements have been made and accepted, or a subsequent .application for approval of access is made. Southold Town Board~ Appeals -ll- October 2~., 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3267 - CONSTANCE KLAPPER, continued:) The board members have personally visited the premises in question and are familiar with the statements presented at the public hearing and an Affidavit of Constance Klapper dated September 19, 1984, w~s received as requested by the board indicating that the studio-cottage is a year- round dwelling with its own heating and plumbing systems and separate septic system, and has been used as a dwelling continually for more than 20 years, that the subject premises was acquired approximately 10 years ago, during the 40,000 sq. ft. lot area zoning requirements of the town, and referring to a Certificate of Occupancy dated June 13, 1976, No. Z6523 (for premises containing a total acreage of 5.0± as existed prior to conveyances during 1977 and 1983). On August 27, 1984, a recommendation was made by the Planning Board that this application be approve,d.. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the relief requested .is not substantial; (b) that by allowing the relief no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; (c) that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (d) that the relief will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of zoning; (e) that the circumstances of this appeal are unique; (f) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, the interests of justice would best be served by allowing the requested relief. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the application in behalf of CONSTANCE KLAPPER for approval of insufficient area of proposed Parcel 2 of 1.2± acres and for approval of the insufficient livable ~.loor area of the existing cottage structure on proposed Parcel 2, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That no sideyard reductions to less than that permitted by the code be authorized; 2. That in the event road improvements have not been maae and accepted by the Town as required (under Appeal No. 3170 of 3/2/84) by New York Town Law, Section 280-a, no building permit shall be issued unti'l such improvements have been made and accepted by the town. Location of Property: East Side of Dignan's Road (private right-of-way), Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-83-02- 005 (6.3 and 6.4). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Member Douglass was absent. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. Southold Town Board of Appeals =12- October 25, 1984 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3272: Upon application of ERNEST G. CURRAN, 485 Rabbit Lane, East Marion, NY (by S. Glickman, Esq.) f'o~ a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of par- cels with existing buildings in this proposed division of land located at the north side of Rabbit Lane, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-31-17-13. The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicant seeks a variance from Article III, Sec- tion 100-31 of the Zoning Code for approval of insufficient area of 8,500± sq. ft. and insufficient lot width of 42± feet of two proposed parcels located at the North Side of Rabbit Lane in the Hamlet of East Marion. Existing on proposed Parcel "B" is a one-family, one-story frame dwelling set back at its neares~ point from Rabbit Lane 24 feet and three feet from the easterly side line as proposed. Existing on pro- posed parcel "A" is a one-family, two-story frame dwelling set back 42 feet from its nearest point from Rabbit Lane, nine feet from the easterly side property line and 10 feet from the proposed westerly side property line, and a 12' by 24' accessory storage-garage building situate in the frontyard area 16.5 feet from Rabbit Lane and 3.5 feet from the easterly side line. In viewing the general character of the neighborhood, the board has found that to the east of these premises are several parcels of the same or similiar size, dimensions and character as proposed by this application. Also, the board finds that the two dwellings exist- ing were constructed prior to the inception of zoning (1957) and that by allowing the relief requested no change will be made since the premises would each be improved with one~ one-family dwelling. Each of the dwellings have separate cesspools and a public water station services each. It is further noted that the Planning Board at its September 10, 1984 meeting approved the set-off division of this property subject to approval of this board and consideration of the Suffol'k County Planning Commission. In considering this appeal,t'he board has determined that: (1) the circumstances of this a~R~9~_are unique; (2) that by allowing the relief no detriment to adjoining properties would be created;. (3) no adverse effects will be produced on available governmenta'l facilities $outhold Town Boar~_.~of Appeals. -13- October ~-, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3272 - ERNEST G. CURRAN, continued:) of any increased population; (4) the relief will be in harmony with the intent of zoning; (5) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, the interests of justice would best be served by granting the application as noted below. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr~ Goeh- ringer, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3272 in the matter of ERNEST G. CURRAN for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels as proposed, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That there be no further sideyard reductions on either parcel to less than that permitted by the zoning code; 2. Referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission in accordance with Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter. Location of Property: North Side of Rabbit Lane, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-17-13. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Member Douglass was absent (due to illness). This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3223: Upon application of JOSEPH A. McKAY and MICHAEL S. GREENLY, 14 East 60th Street, New York, NY 10022, (by'G. 'Olin', Esq.} for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 fo~ approval of insuf- ficient area, width, and depth of parcels with'existing dwellings in this proposed division of land located at Fourth, Third and Main Streets, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-D9-16. The public hearing concerning this matter was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending delibera- tions. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article III, Section 100-31 of the Zoning Code for approval of: (a) Parcel 1 of insufficient area of 12,185 sq. ft., lot width along Main Street of 123.20 feet, and lot depth of 90.75 feet along the easterly property line, and (b) Parcel 2 of _ insufficient area of 7,260 sq. ft., lot width along Main Street of 80 feet, and lot depth of 80 feet along the southerly property line. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- October 25, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3233 McKAY AND GREENLY, continued:) Existing on proposed Parcel I are a two-story frame structure presently used as a one-family dwelling located 27.5 feet from the Main Street property line and 33.8 feet from the Fourth Street property line~ and a one-story frame structure also presently used as a one- family dwelling set back lz foot from the southerly property line and l0 feet from the easterly proposed property line. Existing on proposed Parcel 2 are a one-story frame structure presently a one-family residence set back 9.9 feet from the northerly front property line and 6.2 feet from the easterly front property line, and a second one-story frame structure also a one-family residence set back 11.9 feet from the easterly front property line and 10 feet from the southerly property line. All of these structures have received a Certificate of Occupancy of Nonconforming Premises No. Z-12708 dated August 17, 1984 from the building inspector. The board members are familiar with the site in question, and it has been found that the general neighborhood consists of lots of the same size as that proposed, and smaller. The testimony of the licensed appraiser and all other statements during the public hearing has been considered. In considering this appeal, the board has determined that: (1) the circumstances of this appeal are unique; (2) that by allowing the relief no detriment to adjoining properties would be created since the dwellings are existing and no additional dwelling uses are permitted; (3) no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (4) the relief will be in harmony with the intent and purposes of zoning~ (5) the character of the district would not be changed; (5) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, the interests of justice would best be served by allowing the variance, as noted below. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr~ Sawicki, it was RESOLVED~ that the relief requested in Appeal No. 3233 (for Joseph A. McKay and Michael S. Greenly) for approval of insufficient area of 12,185 sq, ft. and 7,260 sq. ft., insufficient lot width of 100.75 feet and 90.75 feet, and insufficient lot depth of 90.75 feet and 80.00 feet, of proposed Parcels 1 and 2, respectively, BE AND HEREBY IS APPRDVED SUBJECT.TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: l. No further lot area reductions of either parcel (for further division); Southold Town Board~f Appeals -15- Octobeb-~2~, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3233 - McKAY AND GREENLY, continued:) 2. No sideyard reductions to less than that permitted by code (for any new construction). Location of Property: Main, Fourth and Third Streets, New Suffolk, N¥~ County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-09-16. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Member Doouglass was absent (due to illness). Thi.s resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3283: Upon application of BERNARD AND GERALDINE DEMPSEY, Stillwater Avenue, CutchDgue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ord'inance, Article III, Sec- tions 100-31 and 100-32, for approval of excessive lot coverage and construction of pool in an area other than the required rearyard located at 5705 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; Fleetwood Cove Subdivision Lots 16 and 17; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-137-04-004. The public hearing on this matter was h61d earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal to Article III: (a) Section 100-31 for approval of the construction of a 14' by 28' swimmingpool which will exceed the 20% lot coverage requirement for all structures, and (b) Section 100-32 for permission to locate an accessory pool and storage shed in the sideyard area. Article III, Section 100~31 permits a maximum of 20% of the total lot for construction. The premises in question fronts along Stillwater Avenue 100 feet in length and contains an area of approximately 7,250 sq. ft. Existing on the premises is a one-family, one-story dwelling and attached garage, which cover approximately 1,268 sq. ft. Twenty percent of the total lot area is 1,450 sq. ft. By an addition of the swimmingpool and 6' by 8' storage shed, the total lot coverage would be 1,708 sq. ft., in excess of approximately 258 sq. ft. The appli- cant does not intend at this time to construct a deck and therefore is not under consideration by this board. The only other structures to be placed is a fence as required by Section 100-30(C)[2] enclosing the pool yard area. Article III, Section 100-32 requires all accessory buildings to be located in the rearyard area. The rearyard area of this parcel is limited with the dwelling set back 12.5± feet from the wood retain- Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- October 25, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3283 - BERNARD AND GERALDINE DEMPSEY, CONTINUED:) ing wall. The pool would be set back eight feet east of the dwelling within the sideyard area; the shed would be placed towards the rear along the easterly side of the dwelling. The board agrees that the areas in question are the most practical under the circumstances. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the relief as approved is not substantial; (b) by allowing the relief, no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; (c) that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (d) that the relief will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; (e) the circumstances are unique; (f) that the interests of justice will best be served by allowing the variance, as applied and noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3283, in the application for BERNARD AND GERALDINE DEMPSEY for approval of the location and construction of a 14' by 28' swimmingpool and 6' by 8' accessory storage building in the sideyard area, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. There be no adverse lighting to neighboring properties; 2. There be no elevated deck (above ground level) unless reappli- cation is made for the additional lot coverage pursuant to Article III, Section 100-31; 3. There be no roofing; 4. The accessory shed be used for storage purposes only. Location of Property: 5705 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; Fleetwood Cove Subdivision Lots 16 and 17; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-137-4-4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Member Douglass was absent (due to illness). This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. 'ENVZRONMENTAL 'DECLARATION- Appe'a] Not 3207 ~ '.SVANTEi'JOHNSON. on -mo~cio~- by.--~-Mr-~ -~ri-g~ni~s, seconded by Mr. ~e. hr.i~n~ger.,--i-t 'was RESOLVED, t-o de. cl--ar~-the ~following Nega't~.ve Enviro~-me~ntal Declara- tion in accordance with the N'.Y.'S_~.. Environmental Qua]i'ty Review Act: Southold Town Board o ~-Appeals -17- October 2~bi, 1984 Regular Meeting NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Si_~nificance APPEAL NO, 3207 PROJECT NAS~: SVANTE JOHNSON/WINDS WAY BU1LDING CORP. This :otice is issued pursuant to-'Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Towr~ of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the-~Jasons indicated- below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or simii~r project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ) Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION~ Area/lot-line variance. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold particularly known as: North S~de of Cedar Po~t Drive Southold~ 1000-90-3-]8. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: {!) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (~) The relief requested is a lot-line'variance which does not require further processing'under "Type II" Actions of the SEQRA rules. (3) Approval and SEQRA determinations have been made by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation under Permit No. 10~84-0226. Vote of the Board: 'Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Member Douglass was'absent (i.llness)~ :This r~6ol_ution was adopted by unanimous vote of the member6.present. Southold Town Board of Appeals ~tB~ October 25, 1984 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARINGS OF NOVEMBER 15TH: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Saw'icki, it was RESOLVED, that the Secretary be and hereby is directed to ADVERTISE the notices of hearings in the official and local news- papers of the town pursuant to law for each of the following matters, to be held at the next Regular Meeting of this Board, ~o wit: November 15,' 1984 commencing at 7:30 o'clock p.m. and to be hel~ at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY: Appeal No. 3257 - ALEXANDER STOLLMEYER; Appeal No. 3288 - JOHN WICKHAM~'R. MELROSE~ Appeal No. 3250 - JAMES AND BEULAH RICKETTS~ Appeal No. 3217 - JOSEPH WANAT' (recessed from July Regular Meeting); Appeal No. 3266 - ANTO~E'MILESKA: Appeal No. 3207 SVANTE JOHNSONJWINDS WAY BUILDING CORP.; Appeal No. 3277 MARiE~P~TERsON; Appeal No. 3280 - ROBER~ DeTREY,~ It was also suggested that a notation be printed in the news- papers concerning the recessed hearings of: Appeal No. 3276 COLGATE DESIGN CORP.; Appeal No. 3275 - SOUTHLAND CORP. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawickio Member Douglass was absent (illness). This re~ol.ution was adopted 'by unanimous vote of the members present.' PUBLIC HEARINGS'OF NOVEMBER 29, 1984: On motion by Mr. Goeh- ringer, seconded b.y Mr. Grig~_was- RESOLVED, that the da{'e, time and place of the second Regular Meeting of the month of November shall be THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29th, 1984, commencing at 7:30 p.m., at the_~Sout~~ Hall~'Main ~ Road, Southold, New York; and that the Secre%ary is h~gby'directed to advertise the notices of hearings for each Q.f the following matters to be h~l~ on November 29th, 1984, eemmencing a~-~:3Q~.p.m.: Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- October 25, 1984 Regular Meeting (November 29, 1984 Public Hear}ngs, continued:) Appeal No. 3279 - ERNEST GUETTINGER; Appeal No. 3285 - JOHN AND MARILYN FLYNN; Appeal No. 3287 - ALFRED N. AND BARBARA H, DiNUNZIO; Appeal No, 3286 JOSEPH GRASSO; Appeal No. FL-15 ~JOSEPH GRASSO~ Appeal No. 3284 - RICHARD SLEDJESKI~ Appeal No. 3290 - GENERAL WAYNE INN (S. DOROSKI); Appeal No. 3291 - ANTHONY PAGOTO, Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. Member Douglass was absent (illness). This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. Being there was no further business properly coming before the board at this time, Mr. Goehringer moved that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and unanimously carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 o'clock p.m. It is noted for the record that the minutes of each public hearing of October 25, 1984 has been prepared under separate cover by Barbara Strang, and that upon submission, same will be filed with the Office of the Town Clerk. Respectfully submitted, /.G. erard P. Goehrihger, C/~airman- - November 15, 1984 - A/~roved - ~ECE1K~ED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TO,TN CLERK DATE I~/,q/~ ~OUB I~.'/~-~ Town C~erk' Towa ~ Southold THURSDAY October 25, 1984 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS At 7:34 p.m. - Public hearing was held in the matter of WINDS WAY BUILDING CORP. for approval of an insufficient rearyard setback of a new dwelling~ The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal app~:ication for the record. MR. ROBERT WENDELL: Good evening. In 1979, there was a variance on this property, which I was aware of and at this time I thought it was 24' off the right-of-way for a sideyard. I submitted a plan for house and got a building permit from the Town and it left 24' on the lefthand side, which I thought was a sideyard. My son lives on the lefthand side, looking at the property and my daughter and her husband live on the other side, and their backyards are towards the north. I went in to get a building permit in August and spoke to Mr. Hindemann and said here's the 24' and the sideyard could be 11.6' put into the old acreage and at that time he agreed and said, yes, there is no problem, so I went ahead and asked permission to go ahead with the foundation because the concrete man was going to leave the North Fork for two or three weeks and go to the South Fork and the Building Department was good enough to say go ahead, in the meantime your building permit will be issued, and you can ask for inspections on your foundation. Then I got a call from Mr. Hindemann , who said he looked up the old records and found out that actually next to my son was considered a rear yard back in 1979. I said I don~.t understand and I did not remember that. So, he said, well that's your rearyard. And I said, well, my daughter is over here, my son is here and their rearyards are the largest part of the property going this way, like 96, whatever it is, to 149 or 150, I don't have it in front of me, but and that's where this house is set up with the sundeck in the back of the house. And he said, no, technically, legally, it's the lefthand side next to my son, not a sideyard. I said that's ridiculous and he said it d~sn't matter, you have to go before the gentlemen for it. CHAIP~4AN GOEHRINGER: So the 15' is merely a rear yard? MR. ROBERT WENDELL; Yes, it is and if you look at the houses it is not, it is a sideyard. It happens to be a strange piece of property because of the right-of-way. CHARIM~LN GOEHRINGER: Okay, thank you very much, let's see if any board members have any questions and this, of ~urse, is a one-family dwelling? MR. ROBERT WENDELL: Yes, it is. CHAIRM~N GOEHRINGER: ~nd you want to get started quickly because you've been held up for two months, now? October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Two MR. ROBERT WENDELL :I would, If you could ido anything about that it would be appreciated. CHAIR~ GOEHRINGER: Very good. MR. ROBERT WENDELL : Anything you could do gentlemen, I would appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIR~N G©EHRINGER: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Would anyone like to speak against the application? Questions from board members? Mr. Wendell , because of the uniqueness of this piece of property, ~the board has looked at it and I dlon't see any par- ticular reason why we couldn't grant it to y!ou tonight, so, I'll make the motion, I'll offer the motion, tolg~ant it as applied for. (Findings and determination in offic'a,/ minutes fi]ed with Town Clerk.) MR.. ROBERT WENDELL : Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor. MEMBERS; Aye. CHAIRMkN GOEHRINGER: Aye. CHAIPJ~AN GOEHRINGER:opened the hearing at 7:4l p.m. in the matter of Joseph A. McKay and Michael S. Greenly. Legal Notice reads as follows: "...by Howard Young, indicating Lot ~1 of 12, 185 s.f. and Lot ~2 of 7,260 s.f. both of which have dwellings on them." Mr. Olsen, would you like to be heard on behalf of this application? GARY OLSEN, ESQ: My name is Gary Olsen and I am the attorney for the applicants. As they pointed out in the application, my clients would like to take the piece of property that has frontage on~ three streets, has' four buildings on it and make it two parcels. Parcel t or Lot 91 would have an area of over 12,000 s.f., it would have frontage on Main Street of about 123' and frontage on Fourth Street of 100' on that piece of property there are two buildings. All the four buildings on both pieces of property pre-exist zoning and we have submitted, pursuant to your request, pre- existing certificates of occupany for all the buildings. The two lots on Parcel ~1 basically tend to...the little house in the back on the south...tends to face towards Fo~tk Street and the main house faces towards Main Street. on Lot #2 there are also two buildings, two one-story frame houses, and you look at the Young and Young survey and you will see that those buildings are way to the east side of the property~ It would have an area October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Three (MacKay and Greenly hearing, continued:) of about 7,260 s.£., with frontage on Main Street )f 80 s.f., of 80', and on Third Street of 90'. I think if y)u look at the property, drive by it and take a look at it, y.)u would almost think, not knowing the situation that these are two separate pieces of property anyway. I respectfully; submit that the granting of the division, this is a naturi~l place to draw the division line between the two halves o~ the pro- perty. Density is nOt being increased, both lots tl and 2 have their own cesspools and their own well points~ so the pieces right now are distinct, separate and apart ~rom each other from that standpoint. I have also made some photocopies of the tax map, which I'll pass to you. I've ma~ked the sub- ject property in red ink. You'll see when you look at the tax map that this piece of property is an oversized parcel, over- sized in looking at the rest of the neighborhood. The granting of the variance basically would create two parcels of property which generally would be in size, shape and character of the other parcels in the neighborhood, so I'll pass these up to you. As the board is aware., Article 12, Section 100-121, SS B does permit the Zoning Boa~rd of Appeals to vary or modify the application of the zoning regulations, so that the spirit of the Chapter will be observed and the public safety and welfare and substantial justice will be done. This whole area, the whole community pre-exists zoning. ~11 these parcels were cu~ up and created way before the zoning code, so to try to apply the 1984 zoning code in this community it's.really inapplicable in my opinion. Again, I don't think that the granting of the variance to create the two pieces would in any way have an adverse effect on the community and would be in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance. As the board knows, in making these determinations you consider among other things the character of the existing uses, the district, the conservation of property value, the effect that the proposed use may have in conjunction with traffic congestion, availability of water supply and sewage disposal that may be created by the variance, whether or not ths use will produce noxious gasses, et¢, and whether the area is sufficient for the use anticipated. Again, those standards, I don't think would be in any way violated. There's nothinq about what we're asking to'do that would violate any of the normal stan- dards that the zoning board would normally look at, in deciding whether a variance would be granted or not. To require my client to have the oversized parcel, to have the four houses, I think is not only a practical difficulty, but an~ unnecessary hardship, not only from the practical standpoint, but also there!s an economic hardship requiring him to have one piece of property with four structures, I do have here tonight, an independent appraiser, by the name of Lance Larsen, whom I am sure you all know, and I would like to ask Lance to come forward and tell us what he can about this piece. October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Four (McKay and Greenly hearing~ continued:) LANCE LARSEN: My name is Lance Larsen. I am a real estate appraiser, with an office here in Southold. I have been in- volved in the appraisal of real estate for over twelve years and the Town of Southold since 1977, both with Sou~otd Savings Bank and s~nce operating Larsen Appraisal Service since 1982. I have been doing properties~in the Town of Southold since that time, a periQd of approximately seven years, and I am significantly aware of the market value trends in both the neighborhood of New'Suffolk and Southold Town as a whole. Mr. Olsen has requested that I take a look at the property for the purpose of determination of market value, one as the property existed and predicated on the r edrawing of the subdivision between the 'two parcels, which I've done, and with your indulgence I'll either read_ you the report or read you the outcome report. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Read us the outcome. LANCE LARSEN: Predicated on the existing use, it's my opinion based on market sales, Which I've had to extrapolate from the entire township, but including the Village of Greenport there were a limited number of proper'ties. The property is currently worth $144,500.00. But the split, if allowed on the property, being the highest and best uss of the property, would be as two separate parcels would have Lot 91 being $98,900 and Lot 92 being worth $80,600 for an increase in marketability of, to $179,500.0~. It represents an economic hardship to the owner currently of approximatel~ $35,0.00.00. This split would also be of benefit to the Township, as it would entail or allow the use .of additional assesed valuation on each parcel, as opposed to a single parcel. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Mr. Olsen, you in- dicated here about c/o~s. I understand that you made the appli- cations. Did you receive the c/o's? GARY OLSEN: Yes, I did. I did mail it to the board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I didn't get a copy. GARY OLSEN: I have the original here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. Yes, we received it. I just hadn't seen all four of them mentioned on one particular form before and I was looking for four separate ones° GARY OLSEN: They are all on one certificate of occupancy CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Five (McKay and Greenly hearing, continued:) GARY OLSEN: Again, in sort of zn conclusion, unless you hav~ questions that you want to ask... CHAIRMAN GOE~RINGER: No, go ahead. GARY OLSEN: Th~ two buildings on Lot E1 are towards the west side of Par~ei ~'1, and building on Parcel ~2 are way on the east side, and again from just viewing it as a stranger would, you would almost think that they were tw© separate and distinct parcels any- way. The variance isn't going to change anything as far as the use is concerned. It just gives the applicant the fullest and best use of his property. The parcel to be created would be in keeping with the size and. shape with the parcels in the neigh- borhood. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you give us some light as to the reason for the subdivision? IS it for sale, is it an estate situation? GARY OLSEN: It's interesting that the buildings on the east side of the property were built by the Navy many, many years ago. It's the applicants' inten~tion to renovats~the buildings and put money into them, but they wouldn't wa~t to do that unless there was a possibility of having that as a separate piece. He wants to up- grade itt but then again .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think.one of the concerns of the board, Mr. Olsen, is what happens in future years. GARY OLSEN: Well, certainly the density could never be increased more than it is now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, but would there be the possibility of another subdivision? GARY OLSEN: Well, we would certainly be willing to put a restrictive covenant on the property if the board should so request, that the property would never be resubdivided. Again, if the buildings weren't there tO ask~ for the subdivision would be difficult. Simultaneously with the application before the ZBA, we also have an application pending with the Planning Board, but because each of the parcels are under two acres, the Zoning Board will have to act first before we get the blessings of the Planning Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to be'heard on behalf of this application? Would anybody like to speak against the application? Questions f~om board members? No further questions. I make a motion to close the hearing, reserving decision until later. Thank you very much for coming in October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Six Chairman Goehringer opened the hearing for Jean C. Holland at 7:52 p.m., read the appeal application and legal notice of healing In ]ts entirety. Jean C. Holland, Legal Notice reads as follows: " Upon the application by Michael' Ha~l, Esq.'for a variance to Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 100-31 for approval insufficient area and width of parcels in this proposed division of land known as Lots 36 and 37 on the Map of W. C. Grabie, Nassau Point, Lots 327 and 328 on Map of Nassau Point Club Properties Section C, Low Lane Road, Cutchogue, County Tax Map,1000-111-10 .... Lot 327 at approximately 58,000 sf and Lot 328 approximately 56,200 sf. These are penciled-in figures and I have a copy of SC Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Hall, w~uld you like to be heard? MICHAEL HALL: As you are aware, the appeal involves the re- subdivision of two lots from an old subdivision map, known as the Amended Map of Nassau Point, which to the best of my records, was filed in Nassau County before 1931. It does involve the lots 327 and 328. The two lots created will also encompass those two little lots, which are known as lots ~36 and 37 on the sub- division Map of Walter Gra~ie, dated March 29, 1938. MICHAEL HALL,~con't: So what this variance in effect will do is create two lots from what are now two tax lots, but on the sub- division maps, four lots. As the record reflected, each of the proposed lots is about 57,000 sf, nearly 1.2 acres, which means each of the lots created is nearly twice the size of almost every other parcel in the immediate vicinity, and the tax map will believe bear me out on that. The entire section 111 on the SC Tax Map shows parcels, most of which are under~an acre_~ we±± unaer, many of which are under half an acre, even though it's Nassau Point. The present size of the parcel, if it's considered as one parcel, is about 115,000 sf and for an individual, both from a tax and maintenance standpoint, it is quite a drain. It's a drain oD this owner and it could be a drain on any subsequent owner. I have filed already with the Suffolk County Clerk a covenant and restriction that the lowland part, that's lots 936 and 37 can never be built on. It's already been filed and I did it at the request of the DEC. As the board is aware, I believe, the board wouldn't entertain this application until we got DEC ap- proval of our application. We did receive that approval and I believe a copy of the DEC permit is in thefile. If it's not, I have the original with meo As I said, the covenant is that that part, the little parcel w~uld never be~built on, with the exception perhaps of a bulkhead or dock, in accordanCe with any permit requirements~that are necessary. I would also like to submit to the board, if it doesn't have it in its file a~ready, an agreement between the Nassau Point CaUseway Association, Inc. and the pre- vious owner of the parcel. The agreement goes back to 1957. October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Seven (Hearing of Jean c. Hol'l'and, continued:) The agreem-ent specifically allowed the. resubdivision of the two big parcels. The reason why, as you can see from this tax map, the location of the house some person inadvertently put the house almost on the cutoff between the two parcels and back in 1957 the entire planning association of Nassau Point at that time specifically approved the placement of another house on lot 327. I would like to hand that to the board right now. I would also like the board to be aware that on or about April 13, 1984 shortly after I sent out the legal notices, I spoke with Mr. William Baxter, who is the adjoining owner. He called me from ConneCticut, I guess he is an-absentee owner, but he called me from Connecticut and said that he was not in any way opposed to this application. He had no problem with it at all. Z just want the record to be aware of that and the board to be aware of that. I'll just conclude briefly. The area - ~ variance sought is o~e not really substantial in relation to the requirements even of the new zoning requirements of 80,000 sf, and here we have almost 60,000 for each lot. It would produce no significant effect on population density or governmental facilities. There is plenty of room up there, and if the board visits the parcel where a house would be built on the new lot, would be well back, well set back and well high from any water salt water, any marshlands, so there's plenty of room to build up there without any crowding or increased density. It would also produce no change in the character of the neighborhood, as my application stated. The neighborhood itself consists of a lot of small lots. This particular lot is huge and the tax map will bear that out. And the two proposed lots are even still better, I think, than the character of the neighborhood, so there wouldn't be any detriment. I believe that it would be in the interests of justice to approve the application as it. sits. ~HAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Hall, in 1959, when thzs agreement was brought about, had there been any change in the house sznce then? Okay, has the house been added to or subtracted from. In other words, was the house built over the line in 1959 also or .... MICHAEL HALL: The answer to your question is no. Since 1959 the house was extended on the other side of the lot, but it crossed the line as it shows on the survey back when that agree- ment was made. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you furnish us with a copy of the restrictive covenant you had placed on the ... MICHAEL HALL: Sure, I have it here. For the record, Parcels 1 and 2 on that refer to the upper big parcel and the lower little parcel. If I may, I would just like to say one more thing, the DEC approval approves a minor subdivision, creating two lots from four with construction of a Proposed single- family dwelling, with appurtenant sewage disposal on one lot and retaining exsiting single-family dwelling on the other. October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Eight (Hearing of Jean C. Holland, continued:) SO, that part of it has already been approved by the DEC. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you placing any restrictions on the lot, the vacant lot, the proposed vacant lot on this particular appli- cation, that would~force the whomever to build a house higher than the existing house? MICHAEL HALD: That is one of the concerns of my client. For the specific purposes of not visual and esthetic reasons, so that the owner of the existing house would never have to look down toward the water at a house. So the answer is, the intent is yes, to create that restriction, so that the house would have to be built upland if you would from the present house, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Also, was there any other entertaining of any other type of conformity of subdivision rather than this particular conformity, or did you just feel that you established the original lot line, thereby cutting the house out. In other words, was there anything else thought about? Did you think of cutting the property, or dividing the property in any other way? MICHAEL HALL: No, I sat one day with my clients and put pencil lines a bunch'of different ways and did try to find alternatives but I believe I also consulted someone in the building department to try to find the least obnoxious way, if you would, to cut the land up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We do have a letter of objection from ~he Nassau Point Property Owners Association. I have a copy for you Mr. Hall. We received it on October 24th, sorry, October 25th, it's dated October 24th. Is there anybody else. I'll give you a chance to comment on that Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any questions from board members? Mr. Hall would you like to. I can recess this for a little while to go over this letter with your clients and come back and read something else into the text if you would like. MICHAEL HALL: I believe I am prepared to address this now, if I may. As to the water supply down there, my clients have been there for about over twenty years and 17 years, correction, and have adequate watsr where they are. They have deep wells, 90' down, .because you know they are very high. I am not familiar with the Baglivi or the Borger application, but I don't know their respective sizes, or what they are looking for or where they are. I would like to take specific exception to the October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Nine (Hearing of Jean C. Holland, continued:) M. HALL, ESQ. (continued:) last paragraph where they say t~at their right-of-way on Meadow Beach Lane into Lowland Road would be eliminated. There is no proposal here to do that. And last they're concerned about the fact that these lots would be across Lowland Road. It wouldn't change anything from it presently exists. Lowland Road would still be on the subdivision map. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, I thank you very much. Any comments from anyone concerning this application? If there are no further comments, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decisi~ until later. All in favor. Aye. MEMBERS: Aye. Chairman Goehringer opened the hearing for Academy Printin~ at 8:07 with the reading of the legal notice and appeal application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRIN~ER: Application on behalf of Academy Printing Services. Legal Notice reads as follows: ...since 1972 indicating the entire parcel of property, including th~ printing services building indicating a division approximately 25' to the rear of that building and giving us a parcel of approximately 19,375 s.f. indicating a parcel of approximately, I don't have a road frontage figure here, 115' by approximately a variable of 124-5. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County~Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. When you are ready, Mr. Hall. MICHAEL HALL: At the end of my last presentation, I briefly outlined five factors that were derived from one of the on~v. · wn~ , Supreme Court cases that has ever come close to definlng/practlcal difficulties are, which is thetstandard which is needed for this area variance. The case was Wachber~er vs. Michaelis, Supreme Court 1959. The five factors are one, h~ substantial the variance is in relation to the requirement. Proposed lot here is 20,000 s.f. the B-1 requirement, as far as I know, is 30,000 s.f. so we .are looking for something that is 2/3 of what the zoning ordinance re- quires. The second factor is the effect, if the variance is al- lowed, of the increased population density produced on available governmental facilities. I think the board will agree with me, that even if this variance is allowed, it wouldn't put any more strain on the property than the present owner just chose to bui~ on it.- Obviously, it's commercial property and they could expand what they've got. The whole reason we are here tonight, as I'm told by Mr. Hagerman from Academy, is that they have no need to increase the size of their building; they have no need to inc~e what the~'ve qot now in t~e.~e~_Acad~my build~q, ~hich is ric~ht October 26, 1984 ZBA Page Ten (Hearing of Academy Printing, continued:) M. HALL (continued):- behind us, so there would be no additional drain on the Town, on the services or on the traffic, whether you subdivide or .again it's built on as it exists. The third factor is whether substantial change will be produced-in the character of the neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood is business, a lot of what is back here on Traveler Street is undeveloped property, woodlands. The first thing going up, as you know, is the new pgstal service building, which is almost finished. So, there is no change in the character of the neighborhood. As to size, I took the liberty of measuring the square foot of every single parcel between Hortons and Beckwith and Main Road and Traveler's and the average size of a parcel was just under half an acre, just about 20,000 s.f. and that's exactly what the proposed parcel is. If you look at the tax mapt there are a couple of huge_parcels, the Town, Pudge Corp. a couple parcels over, but for them, most of the parcels are tiny, some of them are 4-5,000 s.f. specifically over by Beckwith and over ther~soi don't think there's any deprec~ble impact on the character of ths neighborhood. Im- mediately adjacent to the parcel is the Town's 50' right-of- way and Mr. Stankevich's property, which is at this point is a large parcel. Across the street from the proposed lot is the LIRR. There would no additional traffic.strain or any- thing by building across the street, which I think is a bonus here. The fourth factor to be considered is whether the dif- ficulty can be obviated by somme fea~sible method other than a variance. The only other feasible method I can think of, and I don't think it would behoove the Town and I.hope I don't contradict myself six months from now, if I have to do it, would be move to upzone the property from B-1 to B, where 20,000 s.f. parcels are allowed. I don't think that would help the Town and I don't think it would serve anything. If the variance is allowed, there would be another parcel granted, and as you know better than I do, the Planning Board through its sits plan approval coul~ control what went there and how many off-street parking spaces went there, just as well as they could, if again, Academy chose to expand build on the existing parcel. They want to subdivide it strictly for economic reasons. It's too bi~ for what they need now and they want to cut it in half and/~a~e other p~rc~l. The last mentioned factor is whether, in consideration of all the above factors, it's in the interests of justice for the Zoning Board to grant the appeal. I hope the board agrees that in balancing whatever harm there might be, and I can't think of any, in granting the subdivision, it's in exact conformity size-wise with ~e neighborhood, there's an avowed need October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Eleven (Hearing of Academy Printing, continued:) ~ HALL_ (con, inKed:) · the Town zor business space and this, if you will, is off the beaten path. It wouldn't put any strain on the Main Road and it will share whatever traffic is being brought off the Main Road to the new post office, so if the board looks at all the factors here, I hope they'll agree anyway that the variance is appropriate. That's all I have to say for now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Hall. MICHAEL HALL: I hope I don't get any surprise letters. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Would anybody like to speak against the app~lication? Questions from board members? We are aware of where the property is, Mr. Hall and we have not discussed this in any way, ~nner or form, so for that particular reason, I~m going to offer a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until sometime in'the very' near future. MICHAEL HALL: Fine. I don't know if the board has these yet. These are Augu-st 14,' 1984, map Of the proposed subdivision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think we do. You gave us too many of that so I'll give those back. Thank you very much All in favor. Aye. ' At 8:22 p.m. public hearing for BERNARD DEMPSEY commenced. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have-a copy-of-a ~survey dated JuLy 11, 1973, indicating on'that survey a sketched zn area of a pool ap- proximately 12 x 24 in the side yard, approximately 8' , I assume from the fence, or, yes from the fence, which is approximately 4' from the property line. I now have a copy of a proposed change of a pool 14 x 28, again approximately 8' from the east property line and again, approximately 3 to 4 ' from the side yard. I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would somebody like to be heard on behalf of this application? Mr. Dempsey. BERNARD DEMPSEY: Thank ~u, my name is Bernard Dempsey, and I have nothing additional/~d except that in calculating the square footage there's some 900 s.f. on the south side of the bulkhead, which has been excluded from the lot coverage. I realize that probably part of the Town in calculating the square foot, but I just wanted to make a point of that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: South side, meaning to the high water mark? October 2~, 1984 ZBA Page Twelve (Hearing of Appeal No. 3283 - BERNARD DEMPSEY, continued:) BERNARD DEMPSEY: Right. I don't know if that shows on the application or not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you own to the high tide mark? BERNARD DEMPSEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you indicate to us ... BERNARD DEMPSEY: I think it's on a revised sketch. CHAIRM~ GOEHRINGER: Okay. Oh, I see. As of right now, you exceed the lo~ coverage by a Little over 200 s.f., is that correct, Mr. Dempsey? BERNARD DEMPSEY: I'm not too sure how to calculate the lot coverage, to include a fenced in area or just the pool. Just with the pooi area it's abOut 200 s.fo CHAIRMAN C)EHRINGER: I was wondering. I'll pass on that question for the mc ~ent. I was wondering if you were planninq to put any deck, elevated deck around the pool, which would then-increase the lot cover. 'e? BERNARD DI PSEY: No. CHAIRMAN G )EHRINGER: So anything that you woul~ be placing would be either cement slab or interlocking blocks, on the ground? BERNARD DEMPSEY: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would there be any overhead lighting, high overhead lighting? BERNARD DEMPSEY: NO. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You had mentioned in a telephone call to our secretary the possibility of a small storage shed. BERNARD DEMPSEY: Yes, it was an afterthought and she suggested that we include that rather than come back at a latgr date for a variance because if I submitted that later sketch the s~aller shed, the 6 x 8 shed, to be included in the .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you come down to the Building Depart- ment and revise your building permit also to include that? October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Thirteen BERNARD DEMPSEY: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This storage shed will be only used for storage purposes, is that correct? BERNARD DEMPSEY: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It will not be a dressing roDm, shower or anything of that nature? BERNARD DEMPSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's see if anyone else has any questions. Thank you, very much. Is there anybody else who w)uld like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from board members? Did you bring with you anything to indicate the need for this particular pool for a theraputic reason? Any doctors' notes or reports or anything of that nature? BERNARD DEMPSEY: Nothing other than physical evidence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. DO you have anything that you would like to add? Alright. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion to close the hearing, reserving decision. We have not discussed this application in any way manner or form. We have gone down individually and looked at the property and so we are not ready to make a decision on it right at this particular moment and I hope you understand that. Okay, we will try to make a de- cision as quickly as possible. I know our discussion late su~er, okaY, that you want to get it done as quickly as possible. Hearing no further comments, again I reiterate the motion. All in favor. Aye. At ~:25 p.m..Cha~rma~ Goehripger opene~ the h~arin~ fo~'CO[GATE'DESIGN~CORP, by ~i~/~g~a~h~A~~e of nearing ~ ap@ea~ app~ica~il~n-r~.~ ~-~, ~u~~: .... ~...tn~lc'a~zng a P~pose~storage bui~d~- adjacent tD the east ~ide of-Cutch~e-7-~[1 building, approximately 10 x 12 and I hav~ a copy of the Suffolk County Tax map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Esseks. WILLIAM ESSEKS: All the 7-11's that the client owns in the County are making applications to the various boards of appeal, in order to construct prefab buildings measuring 10 x 12 to receive bottles because of the bottle law. Theoretically, they could be put ins~e the building, but two things occur. One is almost all the 7-11's October 2~, 1984 ZBA Page Fourteen (Appeal No. 3275 - COLGATE DESIGN CORP,, continued:) W. ESS'EKS, ESQ. (continued): including the ones in your Town are fully used for either storage foodstuffs or the sale of foodstuffs and generally speaking that the buildings are non-conforming or had been built in the past with the approval of the municipalities to the full setbacks of the then existing zoning. In many instances the zoninq situations were rigorous ............... so variances are necessary~ To put the return cans or bottles inside does not meet with normal respective health standards. People who return bottles and cans for the most part do not clean them partly full of beer or soda and they sit there for days or weeks and if there are more than a dozen different vendors the soda, beer and pick it up at various times, depending on the time of the year. we feel, as do many other purveyors of sodas and beerS that the storage should be kept outside in a unit that can be sealed so people can't get into it, that can be hosed down with hot water, etc.to keep it clean and sanitary to meet the health code requirements. As you know, at 7-11, food is served, not sit-down food, but sandwiches, beer and things like that. Cold meals, hot meals, take out and you have to meet more rigorous health department requirements than other stores. Theoretically, this could be put in the backyard but for our own safety purposes, we think that it is not a wise use of the property because the vendors come in with their trucks they can't really get to the back. Tore- qurie them to go out to the back is I think a practical difficulty for them, stacks up the trucks and also we have a practical problem with employees in the store having the back door open , returns in and out the back door. we think that is a safety hazard and the owner of the franchise is here, and I believe he will testify to that fact. We believe that the proposed temporary structure that could be put at either the west or east side should be erected in a side yard, slightly back from the front yard, and this appl~ cation is for the side yard on the east. Alternatively, if you feel the east side is not the mo.st reasonable place, we would be willing to place it on the west side. The third alternative of putting it in the rear yard, we both respectfully request that you not consider. Mr. Langan is here, the franchisee. Could you explain to the board why you think it is inappropriate to have the storage facility in the rear yard? MR. LANGAN: It would make it very inconvenient for pickups or taking stuff out of the store and putting it back there. In bad weather it would be very hard to get back there. In snow, or rain, and I prefer people working at night do not have to go into the back to do any work. It's not very safe for them. CHAIRMA~ GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Langan. October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Fifteen (Hearing of Appeal No. 3276 COLGATE DESIGN CORP., continued:) WILLIAM ESSEKS: Those are the really practical, practical reasons that we request that you consider this application and you can put it in either the east or west yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Esseks, will there be anybody housed within this structure? WILLIAM ESSEKS: Absolutely not. The pure purpose is sealed storage of beer and soda cans.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, therefore, you had mentioned or alluded to the fact that it was going to be a temporary structure. Of what kind of construction? WILLIAM ESSEKS: It is metal, put on blocks or a slab, in modules of 10 x 12, or alternatively 8 xi6 either way. They come precast. My client is literally buying hundreds of them for various 7-11's throughout the United States, the northeast. All .the state legi- latures are doing the same thing as New York .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, there would be no windows placed in this? Housing anyone that would ~be collecting bottles at certain times of the day. No electricity, air conditioning or any other .... WILLIAM ESSEKS: You would really have to b.e heavy into bottles and cans to want to live there. But it's possible that you will find someone who is really into them, bt we will make a special application at that time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That woUld be a use variance. Moving over to the west side .... WILLIAM ESSEKS: It's such an unusual use, you might not want to grant it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Moving over to west side of the bulding for a second, I believe what exists over there is the garbage dumpster. WILLIAM ESSEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. So in other words, you would have no objection to moving that dumpster either farther to the rear or to the rear of the building. MR. LANGAN: If I put the dumpster in the rear of the building, then I would have to run the very large~.~arbage truck that picks up the dumpster over all the away around to the back. You are c~ing another difficulty. We think it's more practical to have the dumpster on one side and the storage building on the other October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Sixteen (Appeal No. 3276 COLGATE DESLGN ~CO'RP__, conti.nued:) MR.-LANGAN contin-ued: What]s ~nterest'ing is that I can make the same presentation wherever I go. I am going to go, I hope to the Village of Southampton, as soon as you are through here, it will be the same exact lot location, the exact same pr©btem and then we go to some other municipalities. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only concern of this board is there is no access to the rear of the property~ therefore, barring any access would therefore not allow any fire access to the rear of the building if there was a fire, and that's the con- cern of the board at this particular time, and that's the reason I asked you the question about the west side of the building. WILLIAM ESSEKS: If it would be more appropriate, and I have anticipated your co~cern, we could reduce it from 10 x 12 to 8 x16, and move the fence right over to the line, which would give you a 9' side yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That wouldn't help, because the average firetruck is 11' WILLIAM ESSEKS: Also, as a practical matter, the hoses, the truck with the hoses could get around the back. It could also come in through the school field. We do have all the problems that you mention; the day by day mandated by the State of New York with the problem of the bottles is also present, and the owner of the franchise is concerned with his employees, and that's why I thought this metal shed.on the blocks, is not an inappropriate use of the side yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: YOU said the alternate size was what? WILLIAM ESSEKS: 8 x 16. I don't think you care too much about the depth, it's the, it's how far it sticks into the side yard that is a concern of this board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What if you placed the shed on the west side of the building 'in that little jog, where it says 18' from the side yard and put an 8 x 16 building there, then putting the dumpster next to it? WILLIAM ESSEKS: Before the meeting started, I considered that with my clients who elected to go to the Village of Southampton as an alternative you would accept. I tend to think you have ...... on that, I don't know, but it is a different side yard and it would affect a different neighbor, but I would accept that if the board were willing to grant that, but what you could do is adjourn this to the next meeting and re~dvert~$e. October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Seventeen (Colgate Design Corp. Hearing continued:) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, let's take that into consideration. WILLIAM ESSEKS: And you will let me know if yo~ do intend to re~?~ so I can get back and'.represent this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Okay. Is there anyolne else who would like to speak in favor of this applicati~n~? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from board members? There being no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. ~.:40.p.m~ Public H~aring was h~ld in She m~ti~er.iof SOUTHLAND CORP. /ne J~qa~ nO~lCe o~ nearing an~ ap~ea~ apb/l( e~act same appeal CHAIRMA~ GOEHRINGER: ........ Jus~ basica!~y t~i0n wa~ ~-~0~-d. as 3274, correct, 3276, which reads as fotlo~s, again, Upon the application of Southland Corp., 300 Motor ParkwaY, Hauppauge... WILLIAM ESSEKS: I thought that the necessity ofl this application could be obviated by my client using the proposed unit a littl~ bit to the South, put it flush against the east wall of the building and we are trying to arrange to meet with the building inspector and make an application for a permit, ~herefore I would request that you adjour this application to see if the necessity can be obviated. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, We will see if. I'l~ take that up into consideration after I see if there's anybbd¥ in the public that would like to speak. Is there anyone el~e ~ho would like to speak in favor of this application? Would anybody like to speak against the application? Mr. Hunter. JOHN HUTTER: My name is John Hurter , I live next.to 7-11. I object to any'storage or building to be erected and put closer to my property. The manager down there, he has no regret of the way the custom~rs throw the papers and cups and stuff all over the yard, it~ lo~ks like a garbage dump. Even the kids hang around all hoUrs of the night. Pickups and deliveries, all hour day and night. It's becoming a...can't sleep .... they come and pick up in my yard..they throw the papers over I've already erected a snowfence because I am downwind from 7-11, I got all their garbage. Somebody who is in business should not only be interested in the money that he takes, he should also be interested in where the garbage goes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRtNGER: Thank you, Mr. Hunter Is there anybody else who. would like to speak aga±nst the application? Mr. Esseks. October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Eighteen (Appeal No. 3275 - SOUTHLAND CORP., continued:) WILLIAM ESSEKS: I heard' what the gentleman sa~d and I will ad- vise my c~lient of the concerns voiced of the a~legation that there is litter and poor management and if that is correct, I will re- quest them to correct the situation, pick up the litter and in all ways comply with the intent of the various ordinances of the Town. Notwithstanding that, and in .anticipation of the ~ct that we can build a storage building without the necessity of applying for a variance, and in order to avoid readvertislng, in the event that we can't do that, I would request that the board consider adjourning this matter until the next meeting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 'What would be tke effect of closing the hearing, MR. Esseks? WILLIAM ESSEKS: The only effect would be that if it turned out that we were unable ~because of my calculation as I attempted to discuss with you on the phone last week, that my calculations were incorrect and the measurements are not as I anticipated them to be, it would then be necessary to resubmit and-readvertise and get' back for another hearing. If the building inspector will not give us a permit for a 10 x 12 building, a little bit further to the south, against the wall, instead of the setback of the proposed struct~ure or if we can't build an 8 x 16 structure, as I have pDoposed for Cutchogue, then it wilt be necessary to start all over again. ObViously, it is your choice. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I really don't see the effect of closing this hearing. It really has very little effect on the outcome. I understand what you are saying, Mr. Esseks, but I respectfully, I don't see the real problem here. The problem is that you are going to try to obviate this situation with the building depart- ment. Now, if you don't, we certainly are not going to make a decision tonight. If you let us know within the next two weeks if you have come to an agreemen~ with the building department, it would be sometime thereafter that we would be making a deci- sion with you. Okay. What you are in effect saying to me is you may consider to change the location if you can't make a deal with the building department? WILLIAM ESSEKS: It may be that we can get a building permit as a matter of righ~ without going into the side yard. IF we cannot do that, we would then want to reassert our request for a varlanae. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So then you would be placing more evidence · n testimony. Okay, we will grant your request, Mr. Esseks, we will recess until thee next regularly scheduled meeting. It will either be the 9th or the 15th of November. I need a second gentlemen. All in Favor. Aye. October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Nineteen At 8:55 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the matter of ERNEST G. CURRAN, Appeal No. 3272. The legal notice of hearing and appeal application were read aloud. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:...~..RabbSt Lane, East Marion ...... March 28, 1962, indicating the westerly lot is approximately I can't read the dimensions, referred to as parcel B, and parcel A in both cases they have depths of v~riably 200' Mr. Glickman, would you like to be heard on behalf of this application? SAMUEL.GLICKMAN: I would like to point out to the board. First let me show you a picture of the dwellings we are talking about. As you well know, in my application, it shows a water line which is supplied by the Rabbit's Lane Association, it supplies all of Rabbit Lane and is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health. This one large well, which supplies the water to all of the residents. This is basically a summer area. The water goes Off about the second week of November and it starts again in April of the following y~ar. It's just, I would say, nine months or perhaps in that area. The property is houses that Were there purchased in 1962 by-Mr. Curran, they were built much'before that zoning which took effect here in Southold Town in 1957. The house there, the original plot plan, which was Les..., they are all 25' lots. There is houses across the street only on 25' lots. Lots in the subdivision I ask for right now is approximately a little over 40'. You've noticed a picture. The one which we call Parcel A which is a two story which we have a certificate of occupancy when it was remodeled, and I believe that there is a c/o on Parcel B, too. When it was remodeled. That will not change the character of the area. It will not make any more density to it. As a matter of fact, if you look at the picture, they made a big improve- ment to the area. You will find smaller houses on 25' lots Mr. Curran occupies~the house which is on-Parcel A. His children at one time occupied for the summer, the Parcel B and when they didn't, Mr. Curran rented that house out for the season. It would not bring any more people. It would not make any more traffic. It wouldn'~t do anything to the area as it now stands. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Glickman. Do you want your picture back? We are~trying to figure out how you had that picture taken? Did you have a cherry picker? MR. CURRAN: .The new building across the street has a height of 30', it was taken from the roof of that building. It was not by aircraft. SAMUEL GLICKMAN: Let me point out that there's a difference between the width between Parcel A and B buildings approximately 13½' apart, even though they have been split much lower than that, October 25, 1984 ZBA Page Twenty (Hearing of ERNEST'G. CURRAN, Appeali.N0. 3272, continued:) and also the rooms Will not lo~k ~to the other rooms, if that was any concern to the board. Now, we have a contract for Parcel A and a tentative for Parcel B. I would appreciate it if I was able to give an answer from the board in a short space of time. Mr Curran is moving to Tennessee. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are aware of that and we and as I indicated to Mr. and'Mrs. Curran, on Thnrsday when they were in the office is that we haven't discussed the applications and the merits of the applications, but we will be discussing them, if not tonight, in the very near future and we are aware of their concerns and I thank you Mr. GliCkman. SAMUEL GLICKMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application?" Questions from board members? If there are no further questions, I make a motion reserving decision and close the hearing. All in favor. Aye. Have a good night everybody. Respec'tfully submitted, B,~rbara A. Strang Pp. '1-20~. *These minutes were transcribed from tapes as recorded' (.in my ~bsence)