Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/13/1984APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD-BTATE ROAD ~-5 SDUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11cfl71 TELEPHONE (516} 766-1809 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY_. ,~ SEPTEMBER 13, 1984 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on ThU[s~dgy, September 13, 1984 at 7:30 o'clock p..m. at the Southold Town Hall-~ MaW ~-~a~-~, South'old, New York. '- Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Cha'irman; Serge Doyen; Charles Grigonis; Joseph H. Sawicki; Robert J. Douglass. Also present were Victor Lessard, Building Department Administrator and approximately 27 persons in the audience at the opening of the meeting. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. The first hearing on the agenda was for the matter of'HENRY P. SMITH, which was recessed from the July 26, 1984 hearing for additional information. Neither the .applicant or his a%torney was present, and the board decided to al.low the applicant more time and to reconvene later in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3263: Application of ROGER MUNZ, Box 567, Laurel, Ny (by Cardinale and Cardinale, Esqs.)--~-~-~ a Variance for relief f~om Condition No. 7 of the May 27,..1983 deci- sions rendered in Ap.plications No. 3100 and 3101: PrQperty Location: 13175 Main Road, 'M~tti~uq~, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No, I000-140-03-038 (Owners: J~ and C. Moisa/Munz). The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:36 p.m. and read the legal notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area, and I ha~e a copy of the survey Southold Town Board Appeals -2- September i~, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3254 ROGER MUNZ, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN (continued): produced by Paul Canalizo on July 2, 1983 indicating the size of the property in question and the proximity of the existing building on the property. I also have a letter from Mr. Munz which ~ received the other night which reads as follows: · ..At this late hour I reluctantly ask for a postponement of my hearing tomorrow night. During the intervening months s~nce our last meeting in April, the plans and uses of the building I purchased have changed. The site plan, as approved by the Planning Board is no longer valid thereby negating my purposeful meeting tomorrow. This only occured to me last evening, and I am sorry about the last minute notice... " It's signed by the applicant. Is there anybody that would like to speak in behalf of this application? I know there are p. eople here. Anybody like to speak against the application? Mr. Cron? JAMES CRON, ESQ.: Chairman, gentlemen. My name is James Cron, with law offices with Cron and Cron, Main Road, Cutchogue; and our office represents Mr. and Mrs. Navas, who are adjoining property owners to this proposed retail facility. It is my understanding that the transfer of ownership has in fact occurred. Does the board know anything about this? MR. CHAIRMAN: Only a conversation I had with the applicant. He called me at my office today in Hauppauge, and he indicated to me that no transfer has taken place. MR. CRON: Then Mr. Waddington does not own the property? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what he indicated to me, Mr. Cron. MR. CRON: Thank you, Sir. At this time I will speak in opposition to the adjournment, based on the last minute attempt to gain some more time. I think it would be highly inappropriate for this board adjourn it. I would also take issue with the copy of the letter the board has received which was sent to,"I~. believe, Mr. Navas and also on it to Mr. Waddington and to his board. In particular and in the application itself, it mentions that the applicant has been unable to meet Condition No. 7, which was imposed by this board and also by the Planning Board because of the intransigeance of Mr. Navas. Gentlemen that's quite to the contrary. I had a conversation with Mr. Munz requesting and offering to set up a common easement for the benefit of both properties wherein he became very upset and said he was going to run my client out of business. He has been completely intransigeant. He does not wish to discuss it at all, and at this time, I'd like to hand up the copy of t'he letter of October 21st, 1983, which I sent to his counsel, at that time, Mr. Cardinale, along Southold Town Board O~f Appeals -3- September'-13, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3264 - ROGER MUNZ, continued:) MR. CRON (continued): with a copy of the proposed easement, which I will show this board. Apart from that, I know. the boabd's policy as regards adjournments, and if the adjournment is being contemplated, t would first like a ruling on that before I speak in opposition to this particular matter. (Mr. Cron submitted two documents for the record: survey of Maurice Hansen at Mattituck and October 21, 1984 letter from James J. Cron to Philip J. Cardinaleo) MR. CHAIRMAN: Serge (Member Doyen)? MEMBER DOYEN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have not discussed the issue here about .the recess which is the request of Mr. Munz. If you remember, this was the nature of a use variance and Mr. Munz has indicated that because his site plan is no longer which he considers to be proper he wants to go back and resubmit a site plan to the Planning Board and therefore any action t~hat we might to close this hearing might be the nature of re-entertaining another application before this boards or a new application. So how do you feel about the purpose of a recess? I've indicated to this gentleman, meaning the appli- cant, that I have approximately 44 files in our office ready to be heard for public hearings, and t have indicated to him that we will not entertain his application before either December or January of this coming year. And he indicated to me that he cannot sell boats in'the wintertime, and that's fine with him. MEMBER SAWICKI: In other words close it, or recess it? MR. CHAIRMAN: It's 'entirely up to you at this particular point. I'd hate to close the hearing and then make a decision on something that's going to be re=rendered through the Planning Board and which would require a new application at this particular time. MEMBER SAWICKI: or January, whatever. If we recess it to]night, it'll go'to December MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Do you have any objection to that, Bob? MEMBER DOUGLASS:-' If he does this, 'and h~-makes a few cha'nges with the Planning Board, he~s. going t~ put in a whole new file_~nyway isn't he? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it de~ends on how sophisticated the change is. In other words, how material is'the~.change, ok? He has told me that what he is entertaining in the nature of a conversation and I was extremely busy when I had spoken to him ~oday, so therefore I did not spent a lot Of time. It was a matter o~ maybe a two=minute conversation, bu~"th~% he had intended to take..~own less o~-'the building Southold Town Board Appeals -4- Septembe~l~13, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3264 - ROGER MUNZ, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN (continued): than he had originally entertained in taking down. So he doesn't know how the Planning Board feels about that. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Can you recess it, Jerry, with the stipulation that if it is irradical, if the Planning Board comes through with a radical change that it has to be resubmitted rather than-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, there's no question about that All we would do is close the hearing and then probably cation pending a new application. I guess we'll grant Cron. particular point. deny the appli- the recess, Mr. MR. CRON: Can I say something, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. CRON: It is my understanding that, as is yours, that he's going back in for a new site plan approval. I assume, Mr. Lessard, that the original building and demolition permit was based on prior site plan approval. If there's going to be a major change, I would request at this time that the building department review the proposed demolition and new construction in that light, and if the new plan is going to be submitted, I would ask that at this time, normally that the building and demolition permits be revoked. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in opposition to this application? Mr. Schaeff? DAVE SCHAEFF: My name is Dave Schaeff from Mattituck. I live right in the rear of said property, and in my understanding there's going to be a lot of sanding of fiberglass boats and such, and lacquer, and I don't need that kind of environment; my family doesn't need that. And that's the only opposition I have on this application, and I'd like you to consider that before you do approval. MR. CHAIRMAN: We certainly will. (Ms. Gerrari, private stenographer for Mr. Cron interrupted for the spelling of Mr. Schaeff's name.) S-C-H-A-F-F. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of the application? Questions from board members? Then I make a motion recessing this hearing with no date. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was Southold Town Board ppeals -5- September 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3264 - ROGER MUNZ, continued:) RESOLVED, that the matter of Appeal No. 3264, ROGER MUNZ, be and hereby is RECESSED WITHOUT DATE as requested. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3262. Application of J.P. HUBERMAN, 2 Linda Lane, Setauket, NY (by I. Price, Jr., Esq.) for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(C) for permission to establish home occupancy, to wit: physician office, within a one-family residential building exceeding 30% of the maximum-permitted first floor area, at 41505 C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-059-03-023. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a site plan, proposed by Garrett Strang on 4/16/84 indicating the building and the parking lot area. And I have a first-floor plan. I do not have a second-floor plan. Ok. Is there somebody that would like to be heard in behalf of this applica- tion? Mr. Price. IRVING L. PRICE, JR., ESQ.: I'm Irving Price, lawyer with offices at Greenport, on this application in behalf of Doctor Huberman. There's one matter I would like to bring up for the record at the present time, is that the site plan as submitted was dated 4/16/84 but it was also revised on July 7th, 1984. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have July 2nd. MR. PRICE: Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MR. PRICE: This is an application to have the doctor's office in a residential building in a residential district. The building as proposed meets all the requirements as to percentage of the area of the premises being occupied, the side lines, the setbacks, and the ordinance provides as stated in the application that a home occupation for a professional is permitted as long as the office use is limited to 30% of the total area of the residence, and then to avoid any ques- tion as ~o parking provisions, further on it provides that a doctor's office has to provide five parking spaces for each physician. This is a one-man practice, and as you see the site plan provides for l0 spaces. The offices are modern doctors, are for the practice of modern medicine, require more than one room, and I believe that the ordinance itself probably should be amended. When this ordinance was propounded, Southold Town Board s -6- September l~, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3262 - J.P. HUBERMAN, continued:) MR. PRICE (continued)-: thirty percent was probably correct percentage. But now with the present usage, 30% is too little, and it is respectfully requested that a variance be granted for the use as provided on the site plan. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Price, I see that Dr. Huberman is with us in attendance. I was wondering if he could tell the board why he requires 2,300 sq. ft. though. DR. HUBERMAN: The exact dimensions of the office had not been decided. We submitted that as the very maximum. It may not be that much. MR. CHAIRMAN: But you feel you need the entire ground floor area? DR. HUBERMAN: Well, the minimum, the very minimum would be 1,500 sq. ft. 'Well, if that represented 30% of the entire first floor structure, you'd have four or five thousand square feet. It would be an enormous structure, It's impossible. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. ~oul, d there be any other practitioners aside from yourself using this? DR. HUBERMAN: It's possible i~ the future I might have an associate who would work there w_ith me. In the same specialty. the moment there.would not be~ At MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much, Doctor, Did you have anything to add to that, Mr. Price? MR. PRICE: Y'es, one thing. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. PRICE: I believe an inspection of that area will show that it.'s zoned commercial within 300 feet, 200 feet back on the corner of Kenny's Road, the nortbwe~'t corner of Kenny's Road, and at across the street there's either a commercial building~ It's not exactly all residential in that immediate area, there are certain commercial structures. But this is a permitted use in a residential area and the variance is only for the amount of use of this building. I have the architect here ~f you have any questions to ask~ MR. CHAIRMAN: D~ you have any questions, gentlemen, about this? (Board~members nodded ~n the negative.) MR~ CHAIRMAN: No, I jus~ want to say in comment that I hope you're aware Mr~ Price that this particular board is extremely aware of the need for ~actitioners, such as Dr. Huberman, in tb~ parti- cular town. And we have in the past, I can mention two recently: Dr. Slotkin and Dr. Mercier, both of which have gotten variances from Southold Town Board Appeals -7- Septembe~13, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3262 - J.P. HUBERMAN, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued): this board, and I also am aware of the fact that there is a timeliness involved here, which you made my secretary well aware of some time ago. And although we ha~e not discussed this application, ex.cept really to look at the property and look at it, we'll have a decision for you in the very, very near future and it probably will not be tonight, but it will be in the very near future. Ok? And thank you. MR. PRICE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? MR. HEINISCH: Yes. I would. My name is Bernard Heinisch, H-e-i-n-i-s-c-h. I'm the owner of the adjacent property to the west. The hardship as so described is a hardship self-inflicted. There's no reason why a doctor has to build a home utilizing 100% of the first floor area, 2,300 sq. ft. for one person. I believe the zoning code calls'for a stipulation that he must reside and that only person plus one assistant could be in the particular zone. All the adjacent property to this is residential. I have a petition I will give you with approximately 29 names on it asking for your denial on this petition. Also, on your Master Zoning Map, all of this property is shown as A-1 Residential Farming area. I don't know if the doctor knows if the code also and I believe states that he must reside and it's hard to believe that 1,000 sq. ft. for residential on the second floor because there's no floor plan of the second floor submitted, that would be sufficient for two peopl~e to live in, with 2,300 sq. ft. on the first floor. It appear's that he commercializing residential property. There is sufficient commercial property for sale east of this particular piece of property. There's also a professional center, Windsway, right up the street on the east side of this property, on the south side of County Road 48. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Heinisch. (Mr. Heinisch submitted the above-named petition in opposition for the record.) MR. PRICE: Mr. Chairman, may I say something for one moment? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, in one moment please. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, Mr. Price. MR. PRICE: In answer tO Mr. Heinisch, I believe he said his name is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Heinisch. MR. PRICE: I just wanted to point out that this is a permitted use in a residential area and that all the variance is being asked for is to use more than 30% of the residence. Southold Town Board ~iAppeals -8- September-13, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal. No. 3262 - J.'~. HUBERMAN~ continued:) MR~ CNAIRMAN: Doct6~-~o~d I ask you one more question? I would assume by ~he floor plan that' you have s~bmitted that you do intend to live in this residence, or you intend to live on this site with a second story? DR. HUBERMAN: MR. CHAIRMAN: DR, HUBERMAN: MR, CHAIRMAN: I would be living there part-time. But nobo'dy else would be livening there? Nobody el-~e would be livi'~g there~ You wouldn't be renting it to anyone else? DR. HUBERMAN: Absolutely not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Coul~ you give us an idea on how much time you would be utiliz ng the living area? DR. HUBERMAN: I sleep over out here every week the night before I operate, ~nd I'd be using_ the living quarters on weekends. Possibly 50% of the time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you be operating from this building? wouldn't be operating from _this building, that would still be in Eastern Long Island Hospital? _~ You DR. HUBERMAN: I wouldn't be doing any major surgery, I'd be doing minor eye surgery. MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank you again. Does anybody else have any comments concerning this appl_~cation?. QuestionE. from board members? Serge? Any other questions,_ Mr. Heinisch? No? .Hearin'g no further questions, I'll make a motion'closing ~'~e hearing and reserving decision until later. MR. HEINISCH: I would like to ask, will I be sent a notice of decision? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you would not but you're welcome to call the board based upon our next m~ting date. I would suggest calling a week from Friday, a week from tomorrow, ~nd we us~al'ly h~ve a Special Meeting seven to lO..days after the Regular M~nthly meeting to discuss these applications. It really depe~ds on how long we ~go tonight, oko If the.re is any deliberatign or not. That is all I can suggest. Thank you very much everybo'dy for coming in On mo~'ion by Mr'. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decisi'on in the matter of Appeal No. 3262, J.P~ HUBERMAN. Vote of the Board: ~Aye-s: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, G~gonis, Douglass and Sawicki~ This resolution was adopted by .unanimous vote of all the members. Southold Town Board of Appeals =9-' September 13, 1984 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3265. Application of FRED H. and GEORGIA LAMBROU, One Canaan Close, New Canaan, CT 06840, for a Variance to the Z. oning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate accessory garage-story building in the frontyard area at 1365 quaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-022-02~01. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:05 p.m. and read the legal notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of plans indicating a garage of approximately 24' by 24~' We also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I have a copy of a building permit app!ication which indicates the proposed placement of 28 feet from the east line and 20 feet from Aquaview Avenue. Would somebody like to be heard in behalf of this application? FRED LAMBROU: I'm the applicant, Fred Lambrou. I don't have anything further to add. I think I was quite complete in that~ I do want to point out that since I filed the application there was a garage built across the street from me which.is a four-car garage. I don"t know if that was a two-car garage and now is a f~ur-car garage, So this would not be an unusual situation. I thank you. MR~ CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lambrou, in dealing with applications of this nature, this board does place restrictions on these structures, such as the building Shall never be converted to sleeping quarters, apartment~rental, so on and so forth. Do you have any objection to that? MR. LAMBROU: No. I understand that. MRo ~HAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you. Is th~re'~anybo'dy else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anyone. against this applicatilgn? Questions from board~ Members? (NQne) All right, hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion grant, lng this application~, approving it with the following condition, that it always remain as a storage build~i~ng_ a~ that it not be used for any ~abitable occupancy. The board made the following fin.dings and determination: By this appeal, ap.p-~i-'~nts-~'~k to~ocate a 24' x 24' two-car accessory garag~._.~n.~he frgntyard area of..~he premises in questign, approxima~ely 20 feet north of Aquaview Avenue. and 28 fee~.~west of the easterl.~ side_.prope~y line. The premises ~n question is located on the north side of Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- September 13, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3265 FRED H. AND GEORGIA LAMBROU, continued:) Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, with a lot width of approximately 151 feet and lot depth of approximately 320 feet. The premises contains an area of approximately .80 of an acre and fronts along the Long Island Sound. The rearyard area of the subject parcel consists of several well-maintained trees which are needed to support the high bluff area. The premises is improved with a two-story one-family frame dwelling, which is set back approximately lO0 feet from the front property line. For the record, it is noted that similar relief was granted to the easterly adjoining property under Appeal No. 2686 on May 1, 1980. The board agrees with the reasoning of the applicants. In considering this appeal, the board has determined: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the zoning requirements (b) that by granting of the relief requested, the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected or changed; (c) by allowing the variance, no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; (d) no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities if the variance is allowed; (e) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as noted below. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3265, application for FRED H. AND GEORGIA LAMBROU for permission to locate 24' by 24' accessory garage- storage building in the frontyard area approximately 28' from the east side property line and not less than 20' from the front property 1 ine, BE AND HEREBY I.S'AI~PROVED'A.S APPLIED AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The subject accessory building shall be used for storage purposes only and 2. The subject accessory building shall not be used for habitable occupancy. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3264. Application of PATRICIA AND REINER LOLLOT, 2345 Plum Island Lane, Orient, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section lO0-11g-l(A) for permission to erect fence exceeding the maximum four-foot height requirement along frontyard area of this vacant parcel, 1120 Ryder Farm Lane and Uhl Lane, Orient; Orient-By-The-Sea Filed Map 6160, Lot 157; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-015-05-024.11. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:08 p.m. and read the legal notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map. I have a copy of a building permit application, which indicates a five-foot fence around the periphery of the property. It does not indicate how far from the property line this fence lies. Would Southold Town Board 6~ Appeals -11- Septem~6r 13, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3264 - PATRICIA AND REINER LOLLOT, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN (continued): somebody like to speak in behalf of this application? Yes, can I have your name please? PATRICIA LOLLOT: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the board. I am Patricia Lollot~ I am filing for this variance. I feel that we have interpolated as best we can. If you have any questions, we are here to answer them. MR. CHAIRMAN: I noticed in the building permit you have changed the course of the fence in the corner, and it does not appear that that is the way it -ooks when we were out to see the property, Mrs. Lollot. MRS. LOLLOT: My husband perhaps could answer that better. 'What we do is, we normall~ try to cQntour it li_ke you see at the.Big Horse Farm, rounding the.~rners. We were no~ expeditious to do so. We made them at right angles. MR. CHAIRMA'N: What we are rather concerned with at this particular time, since the fence does exist, is to ask you to go to the building department and apply for a building permit for the purpose of placing such an animal on this parcel~ Ok? And we would therefore offer to you a recess of this hearing until you do that. MRS. LOLLOT: All right~ One thing I want to make clear ts that the animals are not being housed there. They are housed on our property where our house is under the accessory ruling. This vacant lot is being used merely as a riding area. The animals are there for maybe an hour or two a day and then brought into the, under the accessory land use building where there are stables. And what we a~e just looking for here is a safety feature so that vehicular traffic doesn't startle the animals and cause possibly injury to ourselves', or anyone else riding or driving by. MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that completely. That's why I don't want to close this hearing. I would like y~u to make the application simultaneously while this application is still open for the purpose of housing this animal on this particular parcel of property. Not housing it=-i~"s actually a use, ok. It's an accessory use on this particular parcel of property, and that's all I can suggest to you at this particular %'ime. We.~an't grant a fence knowing what you are g~ing to use it for until such time y~u know that you are allowed to keep the animal for the time limit that you intend to keep it on this property. YO~ know, whatever the time is, on the daily basis. MRS. LOLLOT: It just seems rather inconsistent, Sir, that if you should tell me that I didn't have th~si~fen, ced in, I could ride the horse for a day there, but because we have a fence there, I h~ave to go to apply for a variance and permission to ride on it. Southold Town Board ~ Appeals -12- Septe~ib~r t3, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3264 PATRICIA AND REINER LOLLOT, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: Well only because the fence exceeds four feet. And that's-- MRS. LOLLOT: Well that would only be the front. You could put an 8' stockade I suppose on three sides .... MR. CHAIRMAN: Six feet. MRS. LOLLDT: Six feet stockade. It just seems very inconsistent. We will do whatever you want, but to go for that when you can ride all day without the fence On the property, it's just as I say, quite inconsistent. MR~ CHAIRMAN: I can't agree with you on this particular situation only because we're guided by counsel on this. And secondly, I would ask you if you will just furnish us with a copy of the covenants and restrictions of the subdivision, and make sure that we are not violating any covenants and restrictions. MRS. LOLLOT: Well, they have been lifted because we received written permission from the developer at the time we built the barn which essentially he approved the building plans, he approved the fact that we wanted to..stable horses on the property with our house, and everything was approved and essentially he meant by doing so lifted the covenant. MR, CHAIRMAN: How long ago was that, Mrs. Lollot? MRS. LOLLOT: A little over a year ago. MR. CHAIRMAN: A~I right, if you would just give us that in the form of a statement so that we could put it in the file at the same time when we receive the building permit, and we'll recess this until the next Regular Meeting so that we don't have to re-advertise. All right? MRS. LOLLOT: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak in behalf of this application? Against ~he~.application? Questions from board memberS? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing this hearing until the next Re§ular Meeting. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to recess Appeal No. 3264, matter of PATRICIA AND REINER LOLLOT, until the next Regular Meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Douglass and Sawicki. of all the members. ~yes: M~ssrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, This resolution was adopted bY unanimous vote Southold Town Board of~'~Appeals -13- September 13, '1984 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3267. Application of CONSTANCE KLAPPER, Box 291, Cutchogue, NY (by Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Ange'l) for a Variance 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 insufficient 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 Chairman opened the hearing at 8:~16 p.m. and read the legal notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the Su.ffolk 'Coun'ty Tax Map and a survey dated December 20, 1983, indicating the nature of this particular parcel to be divided of approxima~61~ 1.2-a~'es, approxi- mately 125' on Long Island Sound and _approx-ima~ly.. 268 feet on a private road. Would somebody'like to be heard in behalf of ~h-~s application? Mr. Angel? CHARLES CUDDY, 'ESQ.: He has blond hair, I don't. I'm Mr. Cud'dy. MR. CHAIRMANi Oh"~~ Mr. Cuddy, ~ apologize.- MR~ CUDDY: I really appea~-'-on b~h~'~f not'-~only of Mrs. K~apper but my partner, Bill Esseks, who handled this ~_~m~t' ~ of th~.~ay and who unfortunately couldn't be here this e~n~gg. Thi.~ matter has been before your board before in connection with a th-'ird l'ot that was separated Off a period bai~k and actually was an access variance. The two lots that are here have been apprQved, I think your records should show the Planning Board just rece~t'lw approved this subdivision~ The subdivision itself is simply an exi_stin.g house that has"2.~2 acres and another house that has ~2 acres. It ~ertainly cannot up.~et the board because the houses have b66~ there for years and years. Mrs. Klapper has indicated to me that when she bouQht it, she understood that she was buying what amounted to three 1-ot~.'- Apparently, ther~e has be~n some ~onfusion going back and forth between this board, the Planning Board. ~t went to D.E:C. They have approval fro~-all the boards and now they look for your board'6, approva.!. I would ask at this time based upon the~Planning Board a~proval~, ba~e~upo.n the area, small area but in very large a~e~, that the board and based upon the~_.bistory, d~'ed~wi~e- tb~s property, and sometimes it's unmerqed and then unfortunatelly th.ey~re back in the same name, that the-board as a matter of justice gra. pt the application. And Mrs. Klapper is here as well as Mr~ Kiapper to answer any questions'of you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Coulld you tell me the approximate square footage of the .studio in question and the nature of a portion of this applica- tion-- -~. 'MR. CUDDY: I understand it's somewhere between 250 and 300 .sq. ft. Southold Town Board o /~ppeals -14- September 13~,' 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3267 - CONSTANCE KLAPPER, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: As it's presently rented at this time as a yearround structure? MR. CUDDY: Yes. And it has been that way for years. MR. CHAIRMAN: As you know, it has not been the nature of this board in situations like this to grant undersized structures~-I'm still referring to it as a structure and not a dwelling, of this nature~ This board has not deliberated upon th,is, and so I don't know what the feeling of the board is, ok? The closest one that I can recollect is one that we had divided in Laurel last year, and that building was approximately 750 sq. ft. The board so indicated that that building had to be brought up to 850 sq. ft. As I said, I~have not discussed this application with the board at this particular time. Do the Klappers have any idea how long this building has been in existence? MR. CUDDY: They could testify to that. Mr. Klapper. MR. KLAPPER: It was there long before we bought our lot. I haven't been able to find out exactly when, but it has been there and rented over the years. It has everything in it. ~MR. CHAIRMAN: It has a separate well, Mr. Klapper? MR. KLAPPER: Yes-- no, it has a separate cesspool. The well is connected to our well. But there are separate pipes involved~ We have a large well. MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. KLAPPER: MR. CHAIRMAN: How is it heated, Mr. Klapper? It's oil, hot air. Does it have a basement? MR. KLAPPER:_ It has a four or five foot crawl space. It's a solid building. It's insulated. And it has been used all the time. What our intentions, what we did when we first bought the p.roperty, we sold off the original piece and from the same map that when we bought it that was given to us, the same survey. When the Zoning Board of Appeals approved selling off that first parcel and we have to improve the road, which the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Department approved, we were unoer the impression that we had the other two separate. We didn't know anything about it not being separated until the two-acre zoning was imminent, we tried, we put the second parcel'--they were both in my wife's name, and we put the second parcel in my name, we found out that it had never been subdivided. Until that point, about eight or nine years, we thought that it had been separate. What we always intended to do was the house on the two acres is a large house, we're only the two of us, so we always intended and still do that itl you know, at the time that we retire we would sell the large parcel and expand the small house and live there. And we still intend to do it. As I said, I al~ays expected Southold Town Board ppeals -15- Septembe~13, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3267 - CONSTANCE KLAPPER, continued:) MR. KLAPPER (continued): that these were three parcels when we had one sold off. MR. CHAIRMAN: Going back to the structure again which you refer as the studio on this map, is there any C of 0 or anything from the Building Department that you received on that? to MR. KLAPPER: I have a C of 0 on the entire thing which says, the best I can recall, says a house, a cottage, with the cottage on the second parcel, and there's a C of 0 on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: In other words, the original C of 0 said that, referred to this studio as a cottage? MR. KLAPPER: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I thank you very much, Mr. Klapper. MR. KLAPPER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything to add to that, Mr. Cuddy? MR. CUDDY: If it would help the board, we could submit an affidavit indicating the date of construction the best we can determine it, for the smaller dwelling which is on the second lot. We believe that dwelling has been there for years prior to the zoning ordinance. They have a preexisting use certificate as indicated on the existing larger parcel, and on the basis that we can do so, I think that would support the preexisting use. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like me to close the hearing then after further testimony, and then you'll give us that some time later? MR. CUDDY: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. So then therefore when I do close the hearing I'll close it pending that particular receipt. BUILDING INSPECTOR LESSARD: Mr. Chairman, if I may throw some light on the whole thing. Originally, the first piece was bought in 1967, '66. The second piece was bought in 1967. The third piece was bought in '72 I believe, and the people got a set-off, I believe that's what you're referring to with your 280-A, at the time that second building originally was an art studio, and in 1975 a.building permit was obtained and a C.O. that it converted to a cottage. And that's where it stands. He has a C.O. for that as a cottage. It was converted from an art studio as it was so-called originally way back. Before zoning by the way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you furnish us with a copy of that, Mr. Cuddy? Is that what you can't find, Mr. Klapper? Southold Town Board o~[~Appeals -16- September-ii3, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3267 - CONSTANCE KLAPPER, continued:) M~. CUDDY: The C.O~? Th~s- is a.copy of the CertificaTe of Occupancy for the purpose of the record, Z6523, June 13, 1975. It says, "Private one-family dwelling with accessory garage and a studio cottage." I'll hand this up to the board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that a copy that we can keep? MR. CUDDY: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (Copy of Z6523, June 13, 1975 Certificate of Occupancy submitted as part of the record.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Would anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from board members? (None) Anything else, Mr. Lessard? B.I. LESSARD: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your input. B.I. LESSARD: To make it so there's no confusion because the property was bought at three different times, the people that owned it was under the impression that they had three separate lots, ok, and at the time the studio was on a second lot but it was purchased at a different time, that's why they were under that impression. And then they merged together, and that's when they found out they didn't have what they thought they did. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I just ~sk you, Mr. Lessard, what is your deter- mination of studio and guest cottage as being a part of this C.O. What are your feelings concerning this, as a permanent structure? B.I. LESSARD: As the plans were submitted, the building permit indicated to be a yearround dwelling, and I believe in '75 the 850 sq. ft. requirement was not ~n effect, so probably that's why it is the size that it is. Actually it is a second dwelling, period. You know, call it a cottage because it's small, but it is actually a one-family dwelling. MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope you don't mind this interrogation, but we are just trying to get the history on this, which you would only get this way if we couldn't have this discourse. We would stil~ be confused. Did you want to say something, Mrs. Klapper? MRS. KLAPPER: I just wanted to add thatlwhen we purchased the property there was someone living in the studio. They lefts and we used it for one summer, and then since them it for about the last six years, a school teacher has been living there and she was living with her son who just went off to college. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions from anyone concerning this application? (None) Southold Town Board o~JAppeals -17- Septemb6~ 13, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3267 - CONSTANCE KLAPPER, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing n~' f'~rther questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing pending receipt o% a sworn affidavit concerning this structure or cottage. MEMBER SAWICKI: Second On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED to close the hearing pending receipt of an affidavit con- cerning the use of the ~u~-~-~--co'tt~ge'' structure. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Gri§onis, Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. At 8:35 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and duly carried, to recess for five minutes. At 8:43 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, to reconvene the Regular Meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. - _.~UBLtC-HEARING: Appeal No. 3242. In ~he Matter of- HENRY DOMALESKI for Variances: (a) to New York Town [aw, Section ~-8~O-~-A--for approval of access, and (b) to Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of w~dth. R-O-W off N/S Oregon Road, Cutchogue; 1000-095- Ol-part of 11. The Chairman opened, th~ h~aring at_8~:44.p.m and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey prepared by Young and Young dated February 28, 1984 indicating a ri~ght-of-way of some great length, and Lot #1 containing 1.949 acres and Lot #2 of 2~051 acres, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Miss Wickham, would you like to be heard in behalf of this application? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ,: Thank you. I don't have too much to say other than the fact that this farm is only 300 feet wide and that creates a hardship. Y'ou just can't get two 175 foot lots without doing a lot line. It seems unfair to require j~st one waterfront lot of 300 feet in width when 160 feet really is more than adequate to construct a residence, and we have gone s~th far enough to create the Southold Town Board of~ppeals -18- September 13~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3242 ~ HENRY DOMALESKI, continued:) A. WICKHAM (continued): required two-acre zoning lot. With regard to the access, I'd just like to note that there is a proposed 25-foot right-of-way all the way ~p from Oregon Road. Glen COurt, which is in_~he.~rch_ Hi_~] Subdivision to the east is a private road and consent has not been_~bta~ned from the owners in that subdivision to use that road, so that's why were _providing for a private 25-foot road. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. While you're up there, let me tell you what has transpired. We, as you know, always send out th~ Town E~gi~er on these private roads. We have not done that in'this particular case because Of vacations and so on and so forth at this particular t~me, but we will contact Mr. Davis in the very near future. I would like to recess this hearing until such time that we get his report becau~e it may not be forthcoming by the ti~me w~-have to make a decision and I wo~d like to recess th~s~until possibly the next regularly scheduled meeting~ and then reopen it at that particular time~ O~...~ourse, I'll take~a~y testi- mony tonight ill, anybody, would like to ad~ to th~s ~appl~cation. However, as you know we don't deal with this until we deal with the engineer's report--I say we don't deal with that, ~e don't deal with the nature of the condition of the right-of-way un~il such time t_hat we have the engineer's report which we don't have at this time. So, d6.you have any objection to that. -' ~ .~, ~ MISS WICKHAM: be acceptable. MR. CHAIRMAN: MISS WICKHAM: MR. CHAIRMAN: If that could go on the next meetin-g, that would Ok. ts there anything else you would like to add? No. I have nothing else to add. Would anybody else like to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody to speak against _~he application? Questions from board members? (None) Hea~ng.no~u~her questions, I~ll make the motion recessing this particul_.ar a.~plication until the next regularly scheduled meeting. . .......... On motion by Mr~ Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki and Mr. Doug= lass, it was RESOLVED, to recess Appeal No. 3242, matter of'HENRY'DOMALESKI until the next Regular Mee~%~in~..o~ the board. _ Vote of the Board: Ayes: '~essrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was adopted by unanimous _vote of all the members. Southold Town Board )peals -19- SeptembeJ3, 1984 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3269. Upon application of THOMAS AND JACqUELINE OCCHIOGROSSO, 77 Vanderbilt Boulevard, Oakdale, Nl~--~-6y Scheinberg, DePetris and Pruzansky) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section lO0-31 for approval of the construction of a new one-family dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback of 12½ feet (reduction of that granted under Appeal No. 3031, 1/27/83). Location of Property: 1580 Corey Creek Lane, Southold, NY; Corey Creek Estates Filed Map #4923, Lot 28; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-78-04-019. The Chairman opened the hearing at p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey of August 23, 1,981, and then further amended to July 6, 1984, indicating the size of the parcel in question referred to as Lot No. 28 of Corey Creek Estates, and indicating the lap measurements, the size of the concrete existing foundation which lies approximately 12~ feet from Corey Creek Lane. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and sur- rounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard in behalf of your application? JANET GEASA, ESQ.: Good evening. My name is Janet Geasa. I am associated with Scheinberg, DePetris and Pruzansky. All that informa- tion in the application was to present you with the background of the case. As you can see in the papers submitted, the Occhiogrossos have come up again with an extreme case of practical difficulty in building on the property. First of all, the virtue of the fact of the shape of the property itself. Corey Creek Lane goes around the property on two sides, and in turn it goes down to the south. Therefore, the property is presented with basically two frontages, therefore, you have to keep the house back off the front pieces of the property. In addition, there's the water south of the property, meaning that the house has to be kept back from the mean high water line there. On the western portions of the property, you have the wetlands, and has been explained, the Environmental Agency's concern has indicated to the Occhiogrossos that they want to keep him at all costs off the wetland on the western portion of the property. Therefore, the Occhiogrossos cannot build their house under the terms of the prior variance. As indicated before, as the D.E.C. told Mr. Occhiogrosso that he should push the house as easterly as possible. They gave him a setback of, variations of setback of 13 feet from the eastern property line. The Department of Health also approved that location and stamped their approval on the maps with the 13' setback. Subsequent to the Zoning Board's granting of the prior variance for a 20' setback, Mr. Occhiogrosso went to the Town Wetlands. They also gave him a 13' setback, so as you can see it was quite confusing to the Occhiogrossos. We all know that when a', conflict occurs, the Zoning Board shall supercede all others; however, · 'Southold Town Board of~ppeals -20- September 13, ~K~984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3269 - OCCHIOGROSSO, continued:) MS. GEASA, ESQ. (continued): they were unaware of that. I would like to say also that the present request is reasonable in that the house is reasonable in size; it fits in the general character of the neighborhood. It's not an overly large house. It's a very reasonable sized house. The garage which is on the normally northeasterly portion of the house is a reasonable request. It's not unusual for any house to have a garage on it. I would also like to state that most of the building that is being constructed is in compliance with the variance, 20 feet back from the street. The house itself is 20 feet back from the street. If it weren't for the turn in that particular area, the whole structure would in fact be 20' back. In addition, the setbacks that we're requesting would not adversely affect the area. As I said only a small portion of the house is in violation. I would like to point out that the setback requested will not harm anyone in the area. The only lot that would be affected would be directly across the street. That lot is all marshland, presently vacant, and it's my understanding that it would not even be a buildable piece. It's all wetlands in there. And that is really the only other problem that would be affected by this request. In addition, I would like to explain that Mr. Occhiogrosso, as I said before, proceeded -- he did violate his prior variance, but he did so out of confusion over whose ruling to follow. It has been stated by other people in addition to myself after reviewing all the papers, that it would be much easier if this was a unified procedure and that all the agencies involved to get together and issue one ruling; however, it's not. And Mr Occhiogrosso did go to the Town Wetlands for the town wetlands permit after the Zoning Board issued the prior variance, and they told him 13 feet was fine. He assumed that was the last ruling on the subject. I think this indicates that the Occhiogrossos had made a good faith effort to comply with every agency that's necessary to comply with. They have been going back and forth on this now since lg79. Every time someone told them to go somewhere, they went there, and asked where should be build the house, and they were told different things, and they followed the last piece of advice that they got. I think it's clear that they would never have proceeded purposely in violation of the zoning board simply by virtue of the fact that it had had problems with the town before with regards to the fill of the property. The town building inspector had been down several times, therefore indicating that the Occhiogrossos knew what was going on and the property was being watched. Therefore, it would be quite foolish of them and financially wasteful to go ahead purposefully in violation of their prior variance. I would also like to say that they should not be punished by the zoning board for having made a mistake since we believe we have reasonable grounds for the request I am making, I don't think it should be held against them, that they made a mistake and they were in violation of their prior variance. Southold Town Board o ppeals -21 - September ~, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3269 - OCCHIOGROSSO, continued:) MS. GEASA, ESQ. (continued): Finally, I would like to indicate that i.f the Zoning Board does approve this variance request, all the agency rulings will be in compliance, and if they don't, I really don't see how it would be possible that they could build any house on the lot given the size of the lot and the surrounding area. They would be pushed right back into the wetlands and therefore would be in violation of the D.E.C. ruling and the town wetland.~ MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to be heard in behalf of this application? (No response.) Would anybody like to speak.against the application? (No response.) Questions from the board members? (None) Do you have anything further, Counsellor, you would like to say? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until some time in the near future. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. RESOLVED, to Close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal No. 3269, for THOMAS AND JACQUE.LINE~HIOGROSSO. Vote of th'e Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. RECESSED HEARING from July 26, 1984: HENRY P. SMITH 'by Philip Ofrias,.-~Esq. This ~tter was..~eadv~tised.~~ Times and [~I. Trave]er-Wat~hman~ No-one appeared either in~b~half ~ ~ga~st the application, a~d inasmuch as ~e boa~d.]~members had .~uestions to ask of the applicant and his attorney, the following resolution was adopted: On motion by Mr. Goehringer~ seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED to f~ther recess App'eal No. 32.06, in the matter of HENRY~P. SMITH wi~.~h~t ~da~.e. at t~_~ t~me in or~er to allow the appl. icant and'his attorney tO be pres'ent ~o~aqee'stions_.~efore cl-'~]sing the hearing. .~ all the members, Vote of the Board: 'Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer~ Doyen, Grigo. nis, Douglass and Doyen. This resolution wa6.__adopted by u~nimous vote'of PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3200.. ROBERT'.ENTE. NMANN by Abiga'il A. Wickham, Esq. Variance .~o ~he Zoning O[di~a.n~,-~r~ III., Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval _9. t insufficient arg.a and w~'dt~'of parcel to be set-off in this..propQ~ed three-lot subdivision 'of land located at the nor{h._ ~ide of ~ound Avenue,-M.~tituck, 'NY; C~y T~ Map Parcel No. 1000-112-1-7. Southold Town Board o ~Appeals -22- September 13~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3200 - ROBERT ENTENMANN, continued:) The Chairman opened the he~ring at 9:00 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicat- ing and surrounding properties and a copy of a survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. August 23, 1983 indicating Parcel #1 of approximately 1.239 acres, 75' by 722 irregularly; and the other two parcels as mentioned in the applica~tion. Miss Wickham, would you like to be heard in behalf of this application? MISS WICKHAM: The lots that you see on th6 tax map to the east of the proper'ty was apparently cut out many years ago leaving the 75' strip that goes up to the Sound~ The immedi~.~e'ly adjoinigg lot to the east~is 75 feet. There are other~ both in that section and f~.~ther to the east which are about 100 feet wide. Without ~his variance, that. 75' is really worthless because you,d be losing that as a buildable parcel'and it's n~t suitable for farming which is the use that's~ being_put on the~est of the property. When I was in f~ont of the Planning Board, they ~iscussed the possibility of increasing the size by ~king an "L-s~haped" appendage to the south and 'that was decided against because i~__real'ly wouldn't create a functional lot. You'd have a useless portion and ~]~o the right-of-way does cut right through it there. So i~ would really be a me'~nin.gle~.s exercise for the sake of getting additional acreage, square foot~ge. One thing I know the board is concerned about i's prededence when you create a lot this size. The farms to the east and the west have not been divided up yet. I don't th~nk you would be creating a precedent ~eme because they don't have a hardship~ There is enough acreage to create enough }~ots there of sufficient size and length~ This just happens to be a remane~t of a very old division way before the'time they required this amount of width and area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you offer any suggestions concerning the right-of-way? MISS WICKHAM: That ag~!n was discussed quite .extensively with~th~ - Planning Board. What--the way the right~ot~y wo~rks, from ~ognd Avenue up about halfway it is a commgn rightco~.rw~ ~.!=th the ~m to the east, now owned by Mr. Simmons, and there is .~ 8' ~asement 9.n...each farm. After that midway point, the'two ~ght-of-w-ays split off~ Th~.Plagning Board wanted to see 25' total width ali __~.he~w'~y ~o ~at we~r~__doi, ng- now is discussing that with Mr. SimmQ~$, Mr. Entenmann and' Mr. Harbe.s, who is buying the farmland here on Parcels 2 and 3. We've asked Van Tuyl to go out before we do amend the maps to show exactly.where the trees and the ro~dw'ay are on the~Simmons' farm to the east~ There is a house about halfway up and we're concerned that if the ~oadwa.y is widened there towards the house they're going to b~ impacting on the privacy of that house and also possibly ~eq~..iri'ng the cut~ti, ng out o~Z quite a few trees. So we~'want the su[veyor'to show exactl~ where ~¥_ery- thing is located so that we can d~scuss_25 feet~being Widened out to the west at that particular point, and once that's been resolved, the road would be 25 feet, as far as the rightJ~f-way.' -~ understand the Planning Board indicate that the improved wi~]h ~.ould proba~iy again be 15 feet. Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- September 1~3, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3200 - ROBERT ENTENMANN, continued:) MISS WICKHAM (continued): Part of the right-of-way is within the subdivision and part of it is not. I think that they would have to look at it because it is partially outside the subdivision, and they are intending to make a determination on it. MR~ CHAIRMAN: Well, we will have to correspondend with the Planning Board'as to who intends to resolve the 280-a requirements. Normally, if the right-of-way is outside of the subdivision, '~t is within the purview ~f this b~ard. MR. LESSARD: If you want me to say most of this is in the Planning Board's jurisdiction, that's the way we will handle it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just so there is no problem, it would mean that you would have to reapply to this board for 280~A if it is not handled by the Planning. Board, and perhaps the Planning Board could do it as part o~.the subdivision. Thank you. Is there anybody else in behalf of the applicant wishing to be heard? Anyone to speak in opposition, r to this application? Comments from the board members? (None) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision pending, deliberations. MEMBER SAWICK~: Second. ~ On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that th~ hearing be declared closed pending delibera- tions in the Matter of ROBERT ENTENMAN~ under Appeal No. 3200. Vote of the Board: Douglass and Sawicki. of all the members. Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote Southold Town Board]d~ Appeals-24- September l~ 1984 Regular Meeting DATE OF SPECIAL MEETING: by Mr. Goehringer, it was On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded RESOLVED, that a date of Thursday, September 20, 1984 be tentatively scheduled for the next Special Meeting of this Board to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NeW York. Vote of the Board: Douglass and Sawicki. of all the members. Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the following Meetings are hereby approved as submitted: Regular Meeting of August 23, 1984; Spe¢i21 Meeting of July 3, 1984. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. The board discussed the abundance of files which are ready for public hearings due to actions by the other agencies, and the board members unanimously agreed that additional help is needed and that perhaps hiring an evening stenographer for the verbatim minutes of the he~r~ngs would be the most helpful at this time. The Chairman would request an appointment with the Town Board for the next available meeting. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the date, time and place of the next Regular Meeting of this board is scheduled for THURSDAY, oC~OB~R_~, 198~ commencing at 7:30 p.m., Southold Town Hall, Main Road~ Southold. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board o -~Appeals -25- September 1~'~ 1984 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3260: Upon application of JOHN GIANNARIS AND OTHERS, by D. Kapell, 400 Front Street, Greenport, NY for a'V'ariance to the'~Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section lO0-112(H) for permission to use adjacent e~sterly premises of the Village of Greenport of .765 acreage for parking acces- sory to the snack bar use existing on the parcel presently owned by the applicants also located at the north side of Main Road, East Marion; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-2-14 and No. 1000-35-2-15.1; see Site Plan revised 5/4/84 and 5/30/84(further amended 8/9/84). The public hearing on this matter was held on July 26, 1984, at which time,the hearing was declared closed pending receipt of the lease agreement between the applicants and the Village of Greenport and receipt of the additional copies of the Amended Site Plan for referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The Village lease was received September 10, 1984. The board deliberated September 13, 1984 and made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from the June 15, 1984 Notice of Disapproval from the building inspector for permission to build a parking lot on property leased from the Village of Greenoort to the applicants herein executed on the lOth of May, 1984. The leased premises consists of a parcel of land located at the north side of Main Road, abutting the "Hellenic Sn~ck~ Bar" premises on the west side and containing an area of .765 acreage, and is' located in the "A-Residential and Agricultural" Zoning District, fronting along the Main Road 120.81 feet. Article III, Section lO0-112(H) of the Zoning Code and the relief granted hereunder requires continued maintenance of the required number of spaces either through the existence of such use to which these are a~ces- sory, or until such spaces are provided elsewhere. The uses to which these parking spaces are accessory are shown on the Site Plan most recently revised 8/9/84, prepared by Kontokosta Associates. Since the parking tot to be leased by ~he applicants is not in the same ownership .to the use to which it is accessory, it should be understood that in the event the lease is terminated, the applicant must return to the Planning Board for a new Site Plan submission and reconsideration thereund.er. Also, in considering this application, it is the recommendation of this board that the existing ingress located at the easterly end of the snack bar, along the north side of the Main Road, should be reloc~.ted further to ~.he east of the subject accessory parking l_ot, and that same should have a minimum width of 18 feet. This recommended relocation woeld be near the access area presently used by the Village and would extend through the Village parcel for_parking~_~ One of.~he boarders concerns with the ingres.s proposed by ap~plicant is customers walking from the parking area across_%he entrance route to the snack bar. Southold Town Board of"Appeals -26- September '1~, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3260 JOHN GIANNARIS, ET AL., continued:) Vehicles entering at that point may not see persons walking directly into them from the accessory parking area. The board members are each familiar with the sites in question as well as the surrounding area. It is also noted for the record that the Planning Board has granted condi.~ional approval at its September 10, 1984 Meeting of the 8/9/84 Amended Site Plan, which has been made a part of this file. The Village of Greenport ten-year lease agreement has also been made part of this file. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3260, in the matter of JOHN GIANNARIS~ ET AL. for permission to build parking lot accessory to ~ Hellenic Snack Bar, BE AND HEREBY IS APPRDVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. Extension ro~ad or'~rive from rear of snack bar/restaurant be fenced along both sides with chainlink or split rail not to exceed four-feet in height (as a safety precaution); 2. A barrier be erected across the front of existing parking area at front of snack bar/restaurant appro×imately three feet inside front p. roperty line to eliminate parkin§ in front of existing snack bar (with or without prQposed improvements to building) ~nd more particular depicted on survey marked in red ink initialed by the Chairman 9-13-84; 3. The recommendation to eliminate existing ingress between snack bar and subject parking lot~'by moving the i~gres9 further to the east of said parking 1.~t; 4. That the words "NO PARKING" be painted in the gutter area along the street pavement ~t the eg~e~s and ingress areas. Location of Property: North Side of Main Road, East Marion, NY; County .Tax Map Parcels No. 1000=35-2-14 and No. 1000-35-2-15~1. Vote of ~he Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. Southold Town Board o~ Appeals -27- September' 13, 1984 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3262: Upon application of J.P.' HUBERMAN, 2 Linda Lane, Setauket, NY (by I. Price, Jr., Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(C) for permission to establish home occupancy, to wit: physician office, within a one-family residential building exceeding 30% of the maximum-permitted first floor area, at 41505 C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-059-03-023. 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: This is an appeal from the June 20, 1984 Notice of Disapproval from the building inspector concerning an application to construct a new, one-family dwelling with phyisician's office on the entire first floor of 2,300 sq. ft. in area. The premises in question is located in the "A-Residential and Agricultural" Zoning District at the n.orth side of County Road 48, Southold~, is vacant and contains an area of approximately 42,900 sq. ft. with 132.17' frontage along the County Road. The subject parcel is bounded on all sides by residentially- agriculturally zoned properties. Approxi~ately 200 feet to the west of this parcel is a parcel of land zoned "B-1 General Business"; and further west of Kenney's Road are premises zoned "B-Light Business." Article III, Section 100=30(C)[1](c) of the Zoning Code provides that a home occupation shall not exceed 30% of the area of one floor of the main building, and the home occupation shall be incidental t9 the residential use of the premlises and shall be carried on in the main building bY the resident th.erein with not more than one nonresident assistant. Article III, Section lO0-112(A) requires a minimum of five parking spaces per each physician~ Thirty percent of the greater floor area (first floor)is 690 sq. ft., the maximum permitted by the zoning ordinance without Board of Appeals approval. Applicant is requesting 2,300 sq. ft., the entire first floor of this proposed one-family residence structure, which is substantially more than 100% of a variance of these regulations. Applicant has assured the board that this structure will be used at least 50% of the time as a resi- dence by himself, and that the structure will not be occupied or leased to others for residenti.al purposes. Applicant has also indicated that the design of this dwelling may be changed. It should be understood that a change in the square footage or percentage of use of the home occupation and residence should be resubmitted for reconsideration if the home occupancy is more than that permitted of that one floor allowed by this decision, or 1500 sq. ft., whichever is less. The board members are familiar with the' site in question as ~Southold Town Board oH-appeals -28- September ,~, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3262 J.P. HUBERMAN, continued:) well as the surrounding neighborhood. Also, the board members have taken into consideration the testimony and documentation both in support and in opposition to this application. For the record, it is noted that a 28-name petition has been submitted in opposition to the application. Although this parcel is vacant and the difficulties or hardship claimed by the applicant are self-imposed and "significant economic injury" has not been proven, the board does agree that 690 sq. ft. of area, 30% of this first floor area, is minimal. The board also agrees that some relief should be granted, that relief would not produce a change on the character of the immediate neighborhood since there are businesses nearby, that the principal use of this structure is one-family residence, with this home occupation as an accessory use, and therefore the public health, safety and welfare will be served by allowing certain relief, as noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal Ne. 3262, in the matter for J.P. HUBERMAN, BE AND HEREBY IS GRANTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the home occupation use shall not exceed 65.2% of the first floor area (in no event more than 65.2% of the requested 2,300 sq. ft., or 1,500 sq. ft. maximum); unless further authorized by this board; 2. That the home occupation is limited to one practitioner (and his assistant); 3. That the principal building must be practitioner's residence (no rental or occupancy_for residence by others).; 4. No expansion of the h'ome occupation use, or the principal buildin§ without the express written consent of the Zoning Board of Appeals after formal application. Location of Property: 41505 C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No~ 1000-022-02-01. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconde~ by Mr. Sa~icki~, 'it was RESOLVED, to declare Negative Environmental Declarations on each of the following as noted therein in accordance with the rules and ~equirements of the N.Y.S. Environmental Qua'lity]R~ie~ Act and Ch. 44 of the Town Code: Southold Town Board o~Appeals -29- September 13, 1984 Regular Meeting NEGATIVE ENVIRONmeNTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificance APPEAL NO.: 3280 PROJECT NAME: ROBERT DeTREY 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 To~ of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the--~asons 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 simil&r project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for insuff, sideyard setback. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as. 62825 C.R. 48, Greenp0rt, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-40-t-10,11. 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; (~) The relief requested is a setback or lot line variance~ which do~s not require further processing under "Type II" Actions of the State Environ- mental Quality Review Act. (3) Construction proposed is located more than 75 feet from the mean high water mark and environmentally sensitive area(s). Southold Town Board~6f Appeals -30- September ,~v~, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3285 PROJECT NAtVlE: JOHN ANDMARILYN FLYNN 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: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Fr0ntyard - accessory building;- LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, county of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 2~50 Littl~ Pec0nic~Bay B0ule~rd, Cutch0gue; 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; ~ 'Rel-~'f~equested is not-dire~Lly r. ela~d-to new construction; (3) Relief requested is a setback variance, which does not require further processing under "Type II" Action of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Southold Town Board off-Appeals -31- September lJ~ (Environmental' 'Decl'arations, continued:) 1984 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL NO.: PROJECT NAME: 3290 G~ERAL WAY1YE I1YN 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 ma~ also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: ['~] Type II [ ~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: 0ff~prem. si~n LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, county of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Or. of 48 & ~/~erley Pond La~e, Southold., NY County ~ax Map #1000-69-2-3 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- mente~ Ds planned; ~-[-2)-..Re!ie£. requeste'd is ncr dq~a~'ly r~la~'~d to new con-s%muQtion. (5) ~he property in question is not located within 500 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. Southold Town Board o~]~Appeals -32- September 1~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental' Declaration_s, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3235 PROJECT NAME: ~c~fAY 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: [3] Type II [~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Area/width. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Sou~hold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: ~ain St.~ ~ew Suffolk~ AT~ County Tax Map ~1000~t17-9-i6 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; ~2~--~-~ke p~operty in' question~is no~ !oca~ed within 300 ~ee~_~f tidal wetlands or other critioal environmental area. (3) Relief requested is not directly related to new construction. Southold Town Board of~Appeals -33-September 13~F 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental' Decl'arat_i]o,n_~s, continued.:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3251 PROJECT NAME: RENATE RTEDEL 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: [9 Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: ~ew dwelling w/insuff, setback LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, county of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 675 Meadow Lane, ~a~tituck_ County Tax Map #1000-115-5-7 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~s planned; --.~.--~ppro~-al has been obtained from the N.Y.S~ Department 0~ F~viro~menta!2 Conservation and/or the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. (3) The relief requested is a setback or lot line variance, which does not require further' processing under "~Type II" Actions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Sour'hold Town Board off-Appeals -34- September lb,, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental' Declarat.i'on~, 'continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3282 PROJECT NAME: W~TDS~Ay BLDG. 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: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Insuff.'~rearyard setbac-k LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kngwn as: off ~orth .Bayview .R~.~ Sou~hold~ ~ County Tax Map #1000-77-3-25 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; "-(2)-"Th~'P~-0perty in question is mot luc~b~w~thin 300 £eet--of tidal wetlands or other critical enviror~ental area. (3) The relief requested is a setback or lot line variance, which does not require further processing under "Type II" Actions of the State Environmehtal Quality Review Act. Sour'hold Town Board of~ppeals -35- September la, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental''Decl'~ration%, 'continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3259 PROJECT NAME: JA~ES ~. PREST0~ 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 re'asons 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 [~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Lot~a~ea/width. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 1190 ~yatt Rd.~ South01d, ~ County Tax Map #!000-50-1-p/o 18.3- 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 shouId this project be imple- mented as planned; .... (~2~'--~epar'ating the project in'~rom the waterfr~ntor enviroumental area is a 50-foot traveled roadway. (3) Relief requested is not directly related to new construction. Southold Town Board off'Appeals -36- September l~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental' Dect~a,rat~i'o,q,~s,, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO.: ~288 PROJECT NAME~ J0~L~ WIC~Lk~ This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.¥.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 [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Relief from 0onditions ~ & 8~ Appeal ~3222. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly k~gwn as: Main Rd.~ Greenpo~t~ ~Y County Ta% Map #1000-~2-5~58 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the shor~ 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; (~)-'--Th% prOperty in question is mob loc-~t~within 300 ~eet-of tidal wetlands or other critical environments! ares. (3) Relief requested is not directly related to new construction. 'Southold Town Board of~Ppeals -37- September 1~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATIVE ENVIRONbIENTAL DECLAP~.TION Notice of Determination o.f Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3287 PROJECT N~L~LE: ALFREDN, ANDBARB~RA'Di~NUNZIO This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.So Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44=4 of the To~m 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: LOCATION OP PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kn~n~ as: Right-0f-.Way off South Side of Wells Road, Pec0nic, NV; ]000-75-6-1. P~EASON(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; ~2) The r~lief,requested is for--a-ppru~a~ Of access over a 94± foot right-of-way, which ~s not directly related to new construction. (3) Approval for construction has been received from the N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation, for which SEQRA compliance was made. Southold Town Board oi~JAppeals -38-September l~ 1984 Re§ular Meeting (Environmental''Declara%.i_o,n.~s, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATI~ ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3250 PROJECT NAME: JA~_ES RIO~ZE~S 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 siqnifi- 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 [9 Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OP ACTION: ~To suLstan~ard lots. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, county of Suffolk, more particularly k~wn as: ~/S 0onklin Rd. (~ant ~lv~.)~ ~a~tituck~ ~ County ~ax ~ap #1000-139-3-19 & 30 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 ~hould this project be imple- mented as planned; (~-~'-'S~epara~in~ ~he project ' ~ .... L~.~ mn--~.~_ ~ram the waterfr6nt er environmental area is a 50-foot traveled roadway. (3) Relief requested is not directly related to new aonstruction. Southold Town Board old'Appeals -39- September 1~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental' 'Dedl'arati'ons, 'continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3286 PROJECT NAME: J©SEt~{ ~RASS0 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.¥.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 r~asons 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 [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: ~D/£ront-yard. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Sou~hold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: ~/S Sotradview Ave.~ SouthoId~ MY County Tax ~ap #I~00-59-6-~ " 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; -~) ..... ~he relief requested is-a se~b~o~ nr lot line varian'c~_ which does not require further processing under "2~rpe II" Actions of the State Enviromm~t~tQuality Review Act. Sour'hold Town Board off'Appeals -40- September l'~ 1984 Regular Meeting (EnvirOnmental' Declarati'o.n~,s~, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL NO.: ~25~ PROJECT NAME: 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 ~] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: 6' kith fence, LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Sou~hold, county of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 0~ of ~8 & ~o0res Lane~ ~reenport~ ~Y Counvy ~ax ~ap #1000k~0-2-2~ REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An EnvironmentaI 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; ~2~ -'-~ property in question is not loca~ed ~ithin 300 ~ee~---o£ tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. ,Southold Town Board off-Appeals -41- September lJ-~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental' ~Dedlarati~on~s, 'continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3285 PROJECT NAME: B~AP~ 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 [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: ~col in sideyard/insu£fi~ient coverage. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, county of Suffolk, more particularly known as: County ~ax ~ap #!000-13~-~-~ 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 environmen~ are likely to occur should this project be imple- mente~as planned; '"~2~--~Separating the project in question f~am t~e waterfront ~r environmental area is a bulkhead or concrete barrier in good condition. (5) ~he relief requested is a setba~ or lot line variance, which does not require further processing under "Type II" Actions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. · Sout'hold Town Board or--Appeals -42- September lJ~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental' Declarations, continued.:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3281 PROJECT NAME: EDWARD L. ~LEP~ 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 simil&r. project. TYPE OF ACTION: ~ Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Insuff. sideyard setback~. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Sou~hold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: W.S Marlene Dr.~ ~at~ituck~_~ County Tax Map #1000-1/!/I 2-~0 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; .... ~ .... ~he ~elief-requested is a ~t~sa~ or 7'or 'li.ne variahca~_~hich does not require further processing t~der "Type II" Actions of the State Environmental Quality Reivew Act. ,Southold Town Board of'LAppeals -43-September l~,, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental' 'Declaration._s_, continued.:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3277 PROJECT NAME: MARIE PATTERSON 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 [~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Varianc~ for division/lots insuff~ area. LOCATION OF 'PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Great Pec0nic Bay Blvd., Laurel, NY County Tax Map ~000-128-~-17 "' 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; ~2~----'Separ~ting the pro~ect in-question fr~om t~e waterfrbntor environmental area is a bulkhead or concrete barrier in good condition. (3) The premises in question is at an elevation of 10 or more feet above mean sea level. Sout~hold Town Board oil-Appeals -44-September 1~-~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued.:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3266 PROJECT NAME: A~TOATE& JEAN~IT~ES~A 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 [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Insuff.-~area & widtk o£ lots. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, county of Suffolk, more particularly known as: ~arratooka Lane~ ~attituck~ ~Y County Tax Map #1000-115-~-9 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; ..... -(2-) ..... Th~ p~emises in question'is ab ~ ~l~ation of 10 ~r more feet above mean sea level. (3) Separating the project in question from the waterfront or environmental area is a 50-foot traveled roadway. -Sout~hold Town Board of~Appeals -45-September l~ 1984 Regular Meeting (EnvirOnmental' 'Decl'arat_i'_o~n__s.., 'continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 32~? PROJECT NAME: 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 simil~r~ project. TYPE OF ACTION: [<] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Insu£f~-area - 10t-set-off. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: ~or~h Sea Dr.: S0~t~old~ ~Y County Tax Hap #I000-54-5-~5.8 & ~5.9 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; (~)'Tk~pr~mises in question is at in elev~{-ion' of !0 or-more-feet above mean sea level. (3) Relief requested is not directly related %o new construction. Soul'hold Town Board of-tAppeals -46-September l~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental''Decl'arati[O,n_s~, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3230 PROJECT NAME: j~ 0. ~0LIAND 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 ~ Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Re-~ivide 2 lots / area / wi~t~ LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Sou~hold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Vanston Rd.~ ~assau_Poi~t~_0utcho~e~ I~f County Tax ~ap Parcel #1000-111-10-18 & 1 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- mente~ as planned; ..... (~2~---~Appro~al has b~n obtained f~n~ ~he N~!.S~ Department of Ervironmental Conservation and/or the Suffolk Co~aty Department ~ Health Services. (3) Relief requested is not directl~ related to new construction. Southold Town Board of Appeals ~.47-' September 13,1984 Special Meeting NEGATI%~ ENVIRON~fENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Si_gnifican_c~ APPEAL NO.: 3273 PROJECT NkWiE: ACADEMY PRINTING SERVICES This notice is issued pursuant to Part 6].7 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-~asons 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 [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for subdivision of property. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Hort0n's Lane, S0uth0]d, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-62-1-2. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (i) An Environmental Assessment in the shor~ 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 property in question is not Zocated within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. adopted by ~ll the members. Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, This resolution was unanimously Southold Town Board of Appeals -48- September 13, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of the Board: Douglass a~ Sawicki. of all the members. 'Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, This resolution ~.as adopted by unani_mous vote Each of the followi-ng matters were reviewed and noted incomplete or held in abeYance pending, documentation as noted: Appeal No. 3215 - Helen and William Coster. Await amended plans. Appeal No~ 3035 - C. Georgiop~ulos, await further instructi~ons from appl..icant's attorney? _ _ Appeal No. 3216 Eugene-'Davison. Await amended plan and Appeal No. 3274 - Best, Schmitt, Syverson. Await P.B., and Co. Health approvals or comments. Appeal No. 3205 John DiVello. Await R~O~W relocation agreement. Appeal No~ 3183.- Mary N. Code Await application to P.B. for comments and revie~ Appeal No. 3214 - Hanuaer and Bagleyo Await Health Dept. Art. 6. Appea.t No. 31.96 = Walter Hairston¥ Await application to P.B. for review and comments. Appeal No. 3191 Herbert Mandel, Await further instructions. Appeal- No. 3-249 - Donald Brickley. Await D.E.C. & Co. Health Art. 6. Appeal No. 3252 John~Charles and M. Sledjeski, Await response and Co. Health Art. 6. Appeal No. 3033 B. Crystal. Await requested survey plan, Julia-K. Tuthill by Irving L. Price, Esq. File incomplete. (No #) Appeal No. 3268 - Julia K. Tuthill. Await ~D.E.C. response~ _~_.~.~.~.~_~_~s?_D.9.~.other business properly coming before the board at this _%ime, ~6tion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seco.nded by Mr. Saw~cki, and unanimously carried,_ to ~adjourn~ The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. November 15, 1984 -//qpproved Respectfully submitted, · .t, Secretar.y Southol d Tow~t.~B~o~.~'~'~A~p~e'~,ls- ·