HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/21/1989 HEAR 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF APPEALS
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
CHARIRMAN
DOREEN FERWERDA,
Secretary to Board
Town Hall
State Road 25
P.O. Box 179
Southold, New
September 21,
7:30 P.M.
ORIGINAL
York 11971
1989
1
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. GOEHRINGER: We are ready to welcome
you all tonight on this rather foggy evening.
This is the first meeting we've had since the
early part of September. So we can't call out
the regularly scheduled meeting. We'd like to
introduce Doreen Ferwerda. We have a court
reporter, and we ask you to use the mike when
you speak. There may a time when certain words
may
you
not be available to this
to repeat what you said.
THE
calendar
lady, so we'll ask
CHAIRMAN: The first appeal on the
is Appeal Number 3861.
(Reading)
THE CHAIRMAN:
January 20,
indicating
addition.
building,
A copy of the survey dated
1980 from Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C.,
a two-story brick building with an
I'm sure everybody is aware of the
being in the area of Southold. I have
a copy Suffolk County tax map indicating
surrounding properties near it.
Anyone like to be heard on behalf of this
application?
(Show of hands)
MR. GOEHRINGER: Use the mike, please,
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sir, and use your name.
MR. SAMUELS: Mr. Chairman and members of
the board, my name is Tom Samuels, architecht
for the Southold Free Library. My office is in
Cuthogue on Main Road. I would like to go
through the application so you understand the
reason for the appeal, and the reason why the
library considers the application to be a
hardship and is looking for a variance.
The library is here; the existing
building. The Main Road is to your right. The
building sits on a relatively narrow lot that
runs between the Main Road and Travelers Street.
Basically the library has been for years
and years, looking to raise funds to build an
addition onto the building. As you know, the
library is a a masonry building from the 1800's.
It was the Southold Savings Bank. It was
subsequently converted to a library in the '20s.
The library is making this appeal
basically in order to add onto this building
without disturbing it too much because it is
historic and because it is very
mean two-foot thick walls.
heavy masonry, I
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The library and us as the architects
come up with a plan which attempts to both
respect the path entrance and
entrance to the building. In
have
also create a new
the past the
entrance was from the front door. Up until this
day, at the front door. Now they're putting
more parking in the rear. However, seeing as a
lot of the traffic in the library has been
determined to be for the traffic from people who
are doing other things in town, we have tried to
create a plan which links the Main Road with the
parking lot via a pedestrian route which runs
along the property line and also abuts Feather
Hill Shopping Center. By doing that, we have
essentially located our entrance about midway
along that path into what would be the center of
the building.
Again, it's been determined from design
study and a lot of exhaustive consultations with
the library staff that a central entrance and
circulation would work the best for them
they have the children on one end and
central
because
adult section on the other end. So with this
site plan, we've tried to create a situation
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
where we are lining up the parking area with the
Main Road and also have the building function as
efficiently as possible via the central
entrance. Instead of coming in, for example, at
the very end and having all the kids traipse
through the main space or some kind of hallway
or something which would take up space and not
yield any utility.
It's been also determined from meetings
with the staff that the central relationships
include a need for control for the building, who
is coming in and out and going in and out and
who is going up and down the stairs and who is
going up and down the elevator. Ail the control
functions, meaning the control desk and the
administration area, are located central to the
and the main
the building
and elevator, in a
that
see
building,
exterior
such.
door and the stairs
have to be close by to
sense,
control point.
Even this working drawing, what you will
is the exterior wall of the existing
which runs as such, and then the
wall of the new building, which runs as
The new entrance, as I said, is towards
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the center, you're coming up in the handicap
door, where the control desk is. Close by, as I
said, are located the stairs and the elevator so
the staff would have control over their use.
As I said originally, the library is a
masonry building, which means it's difficult to
alter the existing structure very much.
However, we do need to maintain an open clear
path from the new to old building so it
functions as one. We tried to do that. The
emphasis in design had been to use the existing
openings as
expense and
new large
walls.
much as possible because of the
the structural problem with making
openings in the existing masonry
So basically the existing windows are
located here, here and here. We are trying to
reuse all of those things and at the same time
keep the functions of circulation and control
close to that center point in the building. So
what we found, again, after truly exhaustive
design study, the best place for those things
was against the existing exterior wall of the
building here.
6
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
What we did, therefore, was locate the
stair in the center between the two windows. It
just fit and the elevator behind the stairs,
again, on the other side of the existing
opening. That left us sticking out from the
existing building face three feet eight inches,
and that is the encroachment which even though
itself does not violate the side yard setback,
when added to the setback on the other side of
the building, something around twelve feet
violates the needed total setback.
We tried locating that elevator in many
other locations, for example out here or over
here. Or where the stair is, and then put the
stair other places. Basically we are sliding it
all around this control administration area, but
found that it just wasn't working for an
efficient -- in an efficient means, and it was
causing us to add on great deal excess square
footage just
function.
So the
variance had
elevator and
to make the main reading room
reason for the request for a
to do with the location of that
the fact that it was sticking out
7
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from the building that
Since it's a total
occurred to us, well, we
three foot eight inches.
side yard situation, it
can maybe place it up
on the other side, meaning on this side. But,
again, finding, and -- with the idea we were
trying to link the Main Road and pedestrian
circulation that the library has always gotten,
the patrons of the library
walking from the Main Road
the rear.
So we were
are familiar from
and the parking in
in a sense bound by that site
planning decision and found that the entrance
was -- could not be pushed back into the
building to make up the distance. Again, the
side yards are maintained on this side, the west
8
side, but together with the side yard on the
other side of the building it basically did not
meet the total side yard requirement.
So the hardship basically that we are
claiming in -- in the first aspect of the
hardship that we are claiming in this was the
hardship of this building that we are working
with, the old building, being rather intractable
and on a narrow lot and having to add onto it in
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
a way that the library can
additional square footage.
if you will, as it can be.
The library is strapped for
afford without any
It's as bare bones,
funds. They
haven't raised the total amount they need yet.
They are trying desperately to get the amount
and go to bid and hopefully start construction
at some point, pending approval here or
something else. But the building is a difficult
building to add onto, is what I'm getting at.
With existing openings and the library's need to
control the buildings or staff's need to control
the building in the most efficient possible way,
it kind of led us to this path.
We believe the hardship is unique because
the building is unique in this district and in
this town, being heavy masonry, as opposed to a
frame building which you can cut open and make
all kinds of changes. A masonry building you
can't. You have to respect it. Therefore, at
that level the building itself is unique.
Also in the district the building is
unique because it was intended as a bank. At
the time it was seen as sitting alone on a big
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
site and all
right up to
Street is now
the other buildings were built
the property line and therefore
Main
the zoning ordinance
side yards that need
a continuous store front. Then
changed and now we have
to be respected. However,
this building does not -- is not like the other
buildings in the center of the hamlet but it
has these setbacks and now has to respect them
whereas the others don't.
Also, it has an existing second floor,
which these days in a public building means it
It has an existing second
They can only use
trustee meeting of
needs an elevator.
floor which they can't use.
it now for their occasional
which even so, if you looked at it, they
shouldn't be having a second floor of the
building without an elevator, as a public
meeting.
We were also proposing a second floor
10
meeting room which seals the fate of that. We
are looking to save construction costs by
limiting the size of the foundation. The roof
area, by building a two-story building, which
generally speaking is less expensive than a
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
larger one-story building would be.
Furthermore, we believe that the variance
would observe the spirit of the ordinance
because it does not change the character of the
district.
The third drawing we have shows the
eastern elevation, which is the site of this
encroachment. And basically what you see here
is the existing building coming back this far.
This is the side that faces the old post office.
The addition is in the rear. As a link between
them in a sense on the elevation, at least, is
11
this elevator which sticks out three and a
feet, three foot eight, off the building.
It's
most part,
half
a non-residential district for the
all the neighbors are
non-residential. The building, the existing
library has established a character of its own
in its own setting. We are trying to remain
faithful to the style of the building in all
ways, and the encroachment on the side yard,
seeing as it comes at this time, does not affect
the character of the district because all the
other buildings in the downtown of the hamlet
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
have zero side yards.
So with our ending up with an eleven foot
side yard, we don't feel that that will disturb
the character of the district in any way.
Basically by adding on this in this same
12
style
we are hoping we can in fact
extent. And also this is virtually
from the street because it's behind
on a narrow lot.
That's basically it.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Mr. Samuels,
have the proposed addition on
2,324.5 square feet. Is that
enhance it to an
invisible
the building
I notice you
the first floor as
approximately the
same on the second floor also?
MR. SAMUELS: The second floor is less.
Because we do not want to build over the
entrance lobby, because we were trying to
maintain light to the existing historical books
collection on the second floor. We did not want
to wrap the second floor addition around the
existing building, because we would cut off all
the light.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Give us the square
footage figure for the second floor.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SAMEULS:
below, total sqare
would be in
feet.
MR.
MR.
MR.
speak
There are meeting rooms
footage of the new building
the neighborhood of 6500 square
against this
(None).
GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much.
SAMUELS: You're welcome.
GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to
in favor of this application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like
application?
to speak
MR. GOEHRINGER: Questions for Board
members?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further
questions, make a motion to close the hearing
and reserving the decision until later?
MR. SAWICKI: Second.
MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
(Ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much for
coming in.
The next appeal is 3857.
13
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CBAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZlO, JR.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- BTATI~' Rr'IAO 25 c=r'IUTHE]LD, I_.1., N.Y. 11~'71
TELEPHONE (5161 765-1809
TYPE II
September 21,
ACTION DECLARATION
1989
Appeal No. 3861
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Southold Free Library
1000-61-1-14
Main Road, Southold,
NY
Relief RequestedYJurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Construct addition with insufficient sideyard setbacks.
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.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further information, please contact the office of the
Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
(516) 765-1809.
t~
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P, GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, .IR.
SERGE DOYEN, .IR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
JAMES DINIZIO, .IR.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (§16} 765-1809
FAX NO. (516) 765-1823
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 3861:
Matter of SOUTHOLD FREE LIBRARY. Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article IX, Section 100-102, as Disapproved,
(nonconforming Bulk area and parking requirements of the Hamlet
Business District) Proposed construction will have insufficient
total side yard setbacks. Property Location: 53705 Main Road,
Southold; County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 61, Block 1, Lot 14.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of SOUTHOLD
FREE LIBRARY under appeal 3861; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is'located along the north
side of Main Road, Route 25, Town of Southold, and is identified
on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 61,
Block 1, Lot 14.
2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning
Code Article IX, Section 100-102, for permission to construct
addition on to existing building, (nonconforming bulk and
parking requirement of the Hamlet Business District, Proposed
construction will have insufficient total side yard setbacks.
Page 2 - Appl. No. ~9=J9
Decision rendered October
SOUTHOLD FREE LIBRARY,
4, 1989
3. Article IX, Section 100-102, requires no building or
premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be
erected or alter in the B District unless the same conforms to
the Bulk Schedule and Parking and Loading Schedules incorporated
into this chapter by reference.
4. The subject premises is known and referred to as
having Lot the total area of .832 acres, the existing building
is approximately 2333 sq. ft. first level, proposed construction
on the first level will be 2324.5 sq. ft., for the total
addition of all three floors will be approximately 6,500 sq. ft.
inclusive.
5. In considering this application, the Board finds and
determines:
{a) in carefully considering the record and all the above
factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the
variance, as applied and conditionally noted below.
(b) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial
effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience
and/or order of the Town;
(c) it is the position of this Board that granting the 11
feet on one side and that of 11 1/2 ft. on the other side, this
would not be out of character with the general existence in the
immediate area.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, Seconded by Mr.
Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
Application of SOUTHOLD FREE LIBRARY as applied under appeal NO.
3861 for the construction to existing dwelling with insufficient
total side yard setback, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The one side yard will be that of 11 feet and the
other be that of 11 1/2 feet on the other side of this building.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted.
df
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Reading).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Copy of a survey dated
December 2, the most recent date, 1-84 by
Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C., indicating a rather
large two-story frame house which presently is
almost directly in the center of the lot from
the bank, from the lip of the bank to North Sea
Drive some 48 feet from the road, 75 feet from
the top of the bank or lip of the bank, as we
say. And the applicant is proposing a 16-by-32
foot swimming pool, skewed a little more toward
the west side, and which would leave us an
insufficient area to the bulkhead. We have a
hundred foot under the guise of 23 D. We have
county tax map indicating this and surrounding
properties in the area.
Would you people like to speak?
MR. SCHWARTING: I own Southold Pools.
I'm the one contracting the swimming pool. We
are seeking the variance to build this pool
within 45 feet.
MR. GOEHRINGER: The deck area will be in
45 feet.
MR. SCHWARTING: The deck will be brick
14
a
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and sand at grade level.
MR. GOEHRINGER: So the pool is 45 feet?
MR. $CHWARTING: Right.
MR. GOEHRINGER: What about from the west
15
side or west
MR. SCHWARTING:
within the community.
side of the property line?
25 feet, which is a code
MR. GOEHRINGER: Had this building been
roofed in any way?
MR. SCHWARTING: No.
MR. GOEHRINGER: It will remain open.
What will be the total grade of the deck and the
pool above
MR. $CHWARTING:
MR. GOEHRINGER:
MR.SCHWARTING:
MR. GOEHRINGER:
the existing grading?
It will be within grade.
Totally within grade?
Yes.
Had there been any
changes to the overall character of the rear
lawn now when the pool is completed?
MR. SCHWARTING: No, just a swimming pool.
MR. GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much.
Anybody else like to speak in favor of this
application?
(None).
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MR. GOEHRINGER: Now you're welcome to
stand, sir.
MR. LORE: Dominic
Sea Drive in Orient.
My objection -- I have
file, there.
My objection to the thing
LoRe, I live at North
a letter in the
is the safety
factor. I'm concerned about my children and the
other children in the area. I think personally
that swimming pools are dangerous things. This
past summer in Phoenix, Arizona they were losing
a child a day, one little human being every day.
That scaress me. It sounds like murder to me,
particularly 25
to me.
That's
feet away from me or next door
the
away from my
the house
about all, except that
16
filtering system will be 25 feet
porch, which is the best part of
overlooks the sound, that's why we spend so much
money buying the house to sit on the porch and
view the sound. I'm going to have a filtering
system buzzing in my ear.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who
would like to speak against this application?
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
(None).
MR. SCHWARTING: Could you please tell us,
concerning the placement of the fuel filter and
state law, concerning the fencing around the
pool somewhat do you have a copy of the survey?
MR. GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MR. SCHWARTING: Pool filter be
approximately 25 feet away from his property
line, and we can enclose it. As far as the
buzzing sound, it's not very loud at all. The
fencing will be around the whole property to
code, four foot high.
MR. GOEHRINGER: The entire piece of
property.
MR.
property.
MR.
MR.
SCHWARTING: Not the entire piece
As far as you can see around.
GOEHRINGER: The whole rear yard?
$CHWARTING: Right, the rear yard.
Self-closing gates.
As far as the safety factor, ninety
of
percent of these drownings are because of
parents neglecting the children, that's the
reason they're drowning. The reason it's become
an issue now, is because swimming pools are more
17
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
popular now. He's worried about people drowning
in the swimming pool, why does he live on the
sound? I don't understand that. Everything is
to code.
MR.
any other
MR.
sounds makes
to the beach we
can't supervise
day, It they're
over the fence.
GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
comments, sir?
LORE: The sound thing is a fact. The
sense. When we send our children
go down there and supervise. We
our children every moment in the
in the backyard they may climb
They're under total supervision
when they're on the beach.
MR. GOEHRINGER: I see.
Is there anybody else who would like
reference to this particular hearing
or con?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Hearing no
comments, motion to close hearing
decision until later?
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Ail
(Ail ayes).
to speak in
either pro
further
reserving
in favor?
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
APPEALS BOARD '
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAW[CKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
NAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y'. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
TYPE II
September 21,
S.E.O..R.A.
ACTION DECLARATION
1989
Appeal No. 3859
Project/Applicants: Emanuel Pipera~is & Dimitrios Argiropoulous
County Tax Map No. 1000- 15-1-3
Location of Project: 3410 North Sea Drive, Orient, NY
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Construct pool within 100' of Sound bluff
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.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further information, please contact the Office of the
Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
(516) 765-1809.
tr
i $outhold Town Boartt of Appeals
MAIN ROAD ' STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N~Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (5~6) 765-1809
FAX NO. (516) 765-1823
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 3859
Matter of EMANUAL PIPERAKIS AND DIMITHIOS AGRIROPOLOUS.
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section
100-239d (A) (1), as disapproved, for permission to construct an
inground pool with deck and fence, within 100 feet from the
Sound in this R-40 Zone District. Property Location: 3410
North Sea Drive,. Orient; County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 15
Block 1, Lot 3.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of EMANUAL
PIPERAKIS AND DIMITRIOS AGRIROPOLOUS. under appeal 3859; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in questionis located along the north
side of North Sea Drive, Town of Orient, and is identified on
the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 15, Block
1, Lot 3.
2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning
Code Article XXIII, Section 100-239d (A) (1), for permission to
construct an inground pool with deck and fence, proposed
construction will be within 100 feet of the Sound.
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3859
Matter of PIPERAKIS AND AGIROPOLOUS
Decision rendered October 4, 1989
3. Article XXIII, Section 100-239d (A) (1), requires all
buildings located on lots adjacent to Long Island Sound and upon
which there exists a bluff or bank landward of the shore or
beach shall be set back not less than one hundred (100~ feet
from the top of such bluff or bank.
4. The subject premises from the proposed pool is known
and referred to as being 40' from the top of the 15' high
contour and 65' from the bluff, they are 22' from the property
line on the west side and 53' from the east side of the property
line, the pool will be 16~ x 32' in width and length.
5. In considering this application, the Board finds and
determines:
[a) that the circumstances of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(bi that there is no other method for appellants to
pursue; and placing the proposed pool and deck in any other
location on the premises will require other variance relief;
(c) that the area chosen for pool and deck is not
unreasonably located;
(d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial
effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience
and/or order of the Town;
(e) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance, as applied conditionally notes below.
Accordingly,
Dinizio, it was
on motion by Mr. Goehringer,
seconded by Mr.
Page 3- Appl. No. 3859
Matter of PIPERAKIS AND AGIROPOLOUS
Decision rendered October 4, 1989
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
application of EMANUAL PIPERAKI$ AND DIMITRIOS AGRIROPOLOUS as
applied under Appeal No. 3859 for the placement of a 16' by 32'
pool (as described in the above Finding Paragraph ~3), SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That the pool be approximately 22 feet from the West
property line, based upon the updated site plan.
2. That the entire enclosure be fenced in with a minimum
of a four foot fence, unable to be climbed by youngsters or
children and that the gates should be self closing and locked
from the outside.
3. That the filter be enclosed with a structure composed
of sound deadening material (wood or other composition) so as
not to cause noise for surrounding neighbors.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted.
df
/GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, .CHAIP~L%N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
6
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
Thank you for addressing this.
addressing this on October 5th.
6th of October and thank
coming in, all of you.
MR. GOEHRINGER:
application number
(Reading).
MR. GOEHRINGER:
We will be
Call us on the
you very much for
The next application is
3798.
A copy of a site plan
together with a type of survey from Chandler in
Norwich, Connecticut dated March 3rd, 1988, most
recent date revised is March 13, 1989,
indicating lots one, two, three and four as
mentioned; all of which have houses on them at
this present time. I have a copy of the Suffolk
County tax map.
I think you're representing the applicant,
Mr. Lark?
MR. LARK: Thank you. Richard Lark, Main
Road, Cutchogue, New York, 11345.
If you read the petition, I can't add much
to it. It's more or less making the best out of
a bad situation, here. The Planning Board has
basically agreed to all the lot lines that are
on there now. The reason that the fourth lot
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
was included, that's probably the only dwelling
on the premise year round rented to Mrs.
Pickett. That property
to the parcel solely as
has seen it. They know
lot number 4 was added
a protection. The Board
that they're all
dwellings are on there just as
portrayed on the map. I can't
the application.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Can we get
seasonal aspect of the dwellings
pre C.O.'s?
MR. LARK: I'm going to hand
the way they are
add much more to
into the
or is it simply
up to you
tonight the
the property going
dwellings on there
this as part
Now,
certificatess of occupancy
had on
Ail of the
So you can have
back to '62.
have C.O.'s.
of your record.
the buildings themselves,
all of them
are year-round buildings, with the exception of
what's going to be utilized by the family's old
chauffeur's cottage--guest cottage on there.
It's not to be used as an independent dwelling.
The owner would be happy to file a covenant on
lot number three.
The building on lot number one is a
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
substantial building and has a C.O. going back
to '62. There was an add-on when they added on
a deck and everything there.
The one on number two did not have a
until Mr. Lazaar issued one there when he
C.O.'s on one lot for all three dwellings.
only modern house there was the one on lot
number three, built in 1978, and got a C.O.
Lot number four got a C.O. from Mr. Lazar as
independent one and that's an old house. The
others are all used for family.
As Mr. Dinizio knows, talking to Mrs.
McCance, I put in the application, the reason
for this, this has been kicking around in town
CoOo
issued
The
an
for a number of years. She's trying to make the
best out of a bad situation. She acquired the
parcel through her family with the exception of
lot four. That she bought independently. The
houses were there. It's the old Furgeson
estate. The houses were there.
Now she has gotten to the point, 78 years
of age, she wants to deed over lot one to one of
her children; two to the other one; three and
four will remain as is.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
As I say, kicking around for a number of
years, they were going to co-op it. I advised
them against it, because that would lead to
nothing but problems, even though legal. It was
at the Planning Board and with the Town
Attorney's assistance that lot number four got
included so it would be
So it's one great big thing
whole thing.
In my talks with the
all a package situation.
for variance for the
Planning Board,
they're going to go along with the lot lines the
way they are now. They tried to move them, but
it's like that jigsaw puzzle, once you move one
thing, you move five other things. Because of
the topgraphics, they're going to leave
everything the way it is. So that's the request
for the variance. Again, it's to clean up one
of those old things that existed from an old
estate over there. Now the time has it come to
divide it up to the kids.
22
MR. GOEHRINGER: I remember looking at the
C.O.'s before you handed them up. You mentioned
about lot number three concerning the butler's.
MR. LARK: It was originally the
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
chauffeurs'
MR. GOEHRINGER:
of the building that
cottage on the estate.
The cottage to the left
was built in '71, what were
you
covenant?
to be an
accessory
by the
Appeal, the applicant
a covenant making it
They put the
referring to in reference to the
MR. LARK: That's not going
independent structure. Strictly
structure. Any assurances wanted
Planning Board or Board of
has no objection to filing
in effect a guest cottage.
grandchildren in there or her
great-grandchildren.
MR. GOEHRINGER:
facilities in there?
MR. LARK: There was
So there are no cooking
one time. If you go
in the building you take one look in there and
shake your head. There was an old gas stove in
there. But that's not a problem. They'll take
it out.
MR.
speak in favor
(None).
GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to
of this application?
MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak
against the application? Questions from Board
23
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
Southold Town Board of Appeals
APPEALS BOARD '
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
,JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
September
TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION
21, 1989
Appeal No. 3798
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Elizabeth McCance
1000- 6-5-3 & 5.1
F6~ Avenue & Sappho
Drive, Fishers Island
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Subdivision of three lots insufficient area.
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 $outhold.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitte~
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further information, please contact the Office of the
Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
(516) 765-1809.
tr
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I.,'N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516~ 76~18~
FAX NO. (516) 76~1823
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN. JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, .JR.
ACTION OF THE BOAI~D OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 3798
Matter of ELIZABETH McCANCE Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article I Section 106-20 [Article III, Section 100-31
as disapproved) for approval of insufficient area in this
pending division of property. (R-80 Zone District) Property
Location: Mansion House Drive, Fishers Island; County Tax Map
District 1000, Section 06, Block 05, Lot 3-5.1.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of ELIZABETH
McCANCE under Appeal No. 3798; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. the premises in question is located along the east
side of Fox Avenue, Fishers Island and is identified on the
Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 06, Block 05,
_Lot 3-5.1.
2. this is an application for Variances from the Zoning
Code Article I, Section 106-20 (Article III, Section 100-31, for ·
approval of insufficient area in this pending division of
property.
3. Article III, Section 100-31, as disapproved by the
Building Inspector, in this pending division of improved land,
in a R-80 Zoning District.
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3798
Matter of ELIZABETH McCANCE
Decision rendered October 4, 1989
4. The subject premises for the proposed lots are as
follows, approximately 1.51+- acres for lot one (1), Lot two (2)
is 1.00+- acres, lot three (3) is 1.54+- acres and lot four (4)
is 0.689+- acres.
(a) F~r the record, each lot is improved with preexisting
dwellings, except for lot #3, which consists of a main dwelling
and a cottage.
5. In considering this application, the Board finds and
determines:
(a) that the circumstances of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(b) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial
effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort convenience
and/or order of the Town;
(c) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr.
Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
application of ELIZABETH McCANCE as applied under Appeal No.
3798 for approval of insufficient area in this division of land.
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(a) the only requirement is that the kitchen be taken out
of the accessory cottage in lot 3, and it only be used for
sleeping quarters.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted.
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
members?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Hearing none, I'll make a
motion to reserve decision and make decision
later.
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
(All ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you again.
MR. GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is 3863.
(Reading).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Copy of the survey most
recent date is November 18, 1986 on behalf of
the surveyor, Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C.,
indicating a footprint of a dwelling
approximately 30 by 46, approximately 50 feet
from the lip of the cliff. And approximately 35
24
feet from Sound Drive. I have a copy of the
Suffolk County tax map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area.
Is there somebody who would like to be
heard?
MR. TSIRKAS: Things now stand with a foot
set back from the lip and 40 foot from the
street, I end up with about 16 percent of the
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
lot to build on. I have a minimum requirement
within the community of 1,200 square-foot plus
an attached garage. The house on the left is
built on the bluff. The house on the right is
19 feet back from the bluff. The effect, if I
don't get the additional five feet is, I'm going
to be way back from those houses and I'm going
to end up building a long narrow house, totally
out of the character with the houses that are
there now.
MR. GOEHRINGER: I know that you went
before the trustees concerning this application
that was concerning the rear yard.
MR. TSIRKAS: Right.
MR. GOEHRINGER: That was for leveling
that particular area?
MR. TSIRKAS: No, originally I had wanted
to build within 35 feet. Then you ruled in '86
it was 50. At that time I didn't build it.
When I went back this summer to start filing I
found out the rule had been changed earlier this
year.
MR. GOEHRINGER: So what rule was that?
MR. TSIRKAS: The front yard going from 35
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONtS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICK~
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN RrlAD-STATE RnAD 25 ¢:OUTHI3LD, L.I., N.Y.
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
September 21, 1989
S.E.Q.R.A.
TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION
Appeal No. 3863
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Nicholas Tsirkas
1000- 33-1-11
2700 Sound Avenue.
Greenport, NY
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Construct dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback
at 35', as previously considered under prior Variance #3471.
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.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further
Board of Appeals,
{516) 765-1809.
information, please contact the Office of the
Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
tr
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOERRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN. JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
Sou hold Town Board o£ Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I.,'N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516} 765-1809
FAX NO. (516) 765-1823
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 3863
Matter o.~ NICHOLAS TSIRKAS. Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article XXIV, Section 100-244, as disapproved, for
permission to construct a one family dwelling with insufficient
40' frontyard setback in this R-40 Zone District. Property
Location 2700 Sound Avenue, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000,
Section 033, Block 01, Lot 11.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of NICHOLAS
TSIPJ{AS under Appeal No. 3863; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all these who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the north
side of Sound Drive, Greenport and is identified on the Suffolk
County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 033, Block 01, Lot 11.
2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning
Code Article XXIV, Section 100-244, for permission to construct
a one family dwelling with an insufficient 40' frontyard setback.
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3863
Matter of NICHOLAS TsIRKAS
Decision rendered October 4,
1989
3. Article XXIV, Section 100-244, (B) A nonconforming
lot separately owned and not adjoining any lot or land in the
same ownership at the effective date of this Article and not
adjoining any lot or land in the same ownership at any time
subsequent to such date may be used, or a building or structure
may be erected on such lot for use, in accordance with all the
other applicable provisions of this chapter, provided that proof
of such separate ownership is submitted in the form of an
abstract of title showing changes of title to said lot, which
abstract shall be in the usual form, shall be certified by an
attorney or a company regularly licensed to examine and ensure
title to real property in Suffolk County and shall contain a
certification that no contiguous property was owned by an owner
of the property involved since the date of any previously
applicable Zoning Law.
4. The subject premises is vacant and consists of a total
lot area of 25,250 sq. ft., lot width of 100 feet and total
average depth of 261+- feet., The proposed dwelling will have
insufficient 40' frontyard setback.
5. It is noted for the record that by a prior application
under Appeal No. 3471 , a variance to locate a new single-family
dwelling with an insufficient setback from the edge of bank
along the Long Island Sound, was approved conditionally under
the following stipulations.
6. It was the opinion of the Board that: (a) no
construction be located closer than 50 feet at the nearest point
from the top of the bank.
7. In considering this application, the Board finds and
determines:
(a) that the circumstances of this application
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
are
(b) that there is no other method fo~ appellants to
pursue; and placing the proposed dwelling in any other location
on the premises will require other variance relief;
Page 3 - Appl. No. 3863
Matter of NICHOLAS TSIRKAS
Decision rendered October 4, 1989
(c) that the area chosen for this single-family dwelling
is not unreasonably located;
(d) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr.
Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the application
of NICHOLAS TSKIRKAS as applied under Appeal No. 3863 for the
construction of a single-family dwelling {as described in the
above Finding Paragraph 93), SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That the single-family dwelling be no closer than
thirty five feet to sound Drive.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This Resolution was duly adopted.
df
//GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,/ CHAIEi~AN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to 40.
MR.
problem with
We thank you.
we can dispose
Anybody else
this application?
(None).
GOEHRINGER: I have no particular
it. We'll see if the Board does.
Nice seeing you again. We hope
of it at this particular point.
like to speak in favor of
MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody
against the application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER:
members?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER:
making motion to reserve
(All ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGER:
appeal is number 3827.
(Reading).
like to speak
Questions from Board
Motion to close hearing
decision until later.
Thank you. The next
MR. GOEHRINGER: Copy of a survey most
recent date June 8, 1988, indicating three
parcels in question and copy of Suffolk County
tax map indicating this and surrounding
26
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
properties in the area.
Would you like to be heard?
MS. ONGONI: I think the application
itself is fairly straightforward. I would like
to explain the circumstances of the merger
problem. Mr. and Mrs. Kinscherf purchased these
three separate parcels at separate times back in
the 1950s. Parcel A, they purchased house
presently occupied in 1952 in their joint names.
In '59 they purchased B. Mr. Kinscherf
purchased lot B. Mrs. Kinscherf purchased lot
C.
However at the time of Mrs. Kinscherf's
death in 1967, Mr. Kinscherf, as being her sole
beneficiary and inheriting the lots, the three
lots merged. He's now faced with the situation
of having a merger problem here. That one
parcel collectively currently has two houses on
it. The house which faces on Inlet Lane, which
is occupied by Mr. Kinscherf and then there is a
house on lot 29, which is currently rented.
Mr. Kinscherf would like to build a house
for one of his six children on parcel C, lot 30.
He is unable to do so because of the merger
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
8
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
problem. We are now making this request to
split the lots in accordance with the original
filed map Fordham Acres.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Could
lot C was purchased by Mrs.
date?
MS. ONGONI:
MR. GOEHRINGER:
I don't recollect.
MS. ONGONI: That
Kinscherf and lot B was
MR. GOEHRINGER:
MS. ONGONI:
lot?
1959.
MR. GOEHRINGER:
was purchased when?
I ask you again,
Kinscherf in what
in
Let me double check.
I have the
deeds also but
is right, lot C was Mrs.
Mr. Kinscherf.
When did he purchase the
She purchased lot B
May 22,
That was lot B. Lot C
MS. ONGONI: C was purchased
1959 by Mr. Kinscherf.
MS. ONGONI:
the same date
28
been sitting for
problem and he'd
records.
MR.
She died in '67 and he has
over 20 years with this merger
like to correct it for the
GOEHRINGER: Very good. They have
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
town water down there, right?
MS. ONGONI: That is correct.
MR. GOEHRINGER: I notice you
proposed building envelope on lot C.
have a
Does that
presently conform to the new zoning ordinance,
do you know?
MS. ONGONI: The structure itself?
MR. GOEHRINGER: Well, the setback.
MS. ONGONI: The setbacks do not conform.
So we'd also require a variance from the
setbacks.
MR. GOEHRINGER: I don't know if we
advertised for that. We'll see what we can do
on this.
Anybody else like to be heard on behalf of
this application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak
against the application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Questions from Board
members?
(None).
MR. GEOHRINGER: If there are no further
29
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE C~OYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE RI-lAD ~-5 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y; 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1609
TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION
Appeal No. 3827
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Edwin Kinscherf
1000-43-4-29,30, 35
350 Wood Lane, Greenport,
NY
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Approval of insufficient areas in pendihg subdivision.
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.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further information, please contact the Office of the
Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, $outhold, NY 11971 at
(516) 765-1809.
tm
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, .IR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD ' STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N,Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1509
EAX NO. (516) 755-1823
ACTTON OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appeal No. 3827:
Application of EDWIN KINSCHERF for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article I, Section 106-20,(Article III, Section
100-31, as disapproved) for approval of insufficient areas in
this pending subdivision. Property Location 2700 Sound Avenue,
Greenport, County Tax Map District 1000, Section 043, Block 04,
Lot 29, 30, 35.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and conclude on
September 21, 1989 in the Matter of the Application of EDWIN
KINSCHERF under Appeal No. 3827; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and-are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the west
side of Inlet Lane, in the Town of Greenport, and is identified
on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 043,
Block 04, Lots 29-30-35.
2. This is an application for a Variances from the Zoning
Code Article I, Section 106-20, Article III, Section 100-31, for
approval in this pending division of land, proposed subdivision
will have insufficient areas.
Page 2 Appl. No. 3827
Matter of EDWIN KINSCHERF
Decision rendered October 4, 1989
3. The subject premises for the proposed subdivision is
known and referred to as being divided into 3 lots, on the
Survey by Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C. Dated June 23, 1986, the first
Lot A will have 10,000+- sq. ft., Lot B will have 5,000+- sq.
ft., and Lot C will have 5,000 sq. ft.
4. In considering this application, the Board finds and
determines:
(a) that the circumstances of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(b) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial
effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience
and/or order of the Town;
(c) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr.
Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
application of EDWIN KINSCHERF as applied under Appeal No. 3827
for a division of land, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That Lot Set off "C" shall conform with all setback
requirements.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted.
df
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
questions, I'll make a motion for closing the
hearing, reserving decision until later.
At this time I make a motion to close
hearing and reserve decision. All in favor?
(All ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is number
3864.
the
(Reading).
MR. GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey
again introduced by Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C.,
most recent date May 23, 1988. I have a copy of
this indicating a proposed house approximately
28 feet from Bay View Drive. It's most closest
point is 20 feet from Spring Pond.
I have a copy of Suffolk County tax map
indicating this and surrounding properties in
the area. Somebody like to be heard concerning
this application?
MR. WIGGINS: Merle Wiggins, Peconic
Association, for the applicant.
3O
The application has to do with the
building of the house on the lot that is neither
75 feet from the bulkhead nor the 35 feet rear
yard setback. The circumstances surrounding this
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
was a subdivision as of 1927. The present
applicant owner purchased it in 1975. The lot
is not deep enough so you can get the 75 feet.
The other bit of information that has a
bearing on it is that the Spring Pond, which is
the total bulkhead property is not public waters
or town waters but privately owned which the
owner pays a yearly fee for that. Not that it
makes any difference, but that's one of the
things that was perhaps not clear in the
beginning.
The owner purchased this a long
with the hopeful anticipation that he
a retirement type home and move to this
time ago
could
property. Now he's faced with insufficient
yard setback.
Since the application was made
variance, there has been some further
with the building department with the
have
rear
made that if the house could be moved
the east, it would increase the rear yard
setback.
Now ~
small portion of the lot
for
discussion
suggestion
further to
when this was originally laid out the
was considered having
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
zoned
on Larch Lane and one on Bay
two front yards
View.
You can see that's not a straight clear
cut front yard, because it's at an angle.
Also the lot next to it on the east is
so that it is not a buildable lot. He uses
that as an access dock for people who rent in
the area. It's not a buildable lot and not meant
circumstances.
you actually
change --
To consider that a side yard
than a front yard would
bulkhead by about
to be a buildable lot.
That brings out the
Any questions?
MR. GOEHRINGER: Are
suggesting that you
MR. WIGGINS:
of 15 feet rather
increase the distance from the
three or four feet.
MR. GOEHRINGER: This is
Orchard Lane?
the one on
32
MR. WIGGINS: Yes.
MR. GOEHRINGER: You're thinking about
pushing the house over to 15 feet.
MR. WIGGINS: Yes, legal side yard
setback.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that,
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
open until
receipt of
GOEHRINGER: Do you have a copy of
superimposed anything for that?
WIGGINS: I will submit that tomorrow.
GOEHRINGER: Can you do that?
WIGGINS: Yes.
GOEHRINGER:
like to speak
33
We'll leave the hearing
October 5th and close it pending
that. And hopefully we can make a
decision expeditiously thereafter. I want to go
down there and make a few more measurements.
MR. WIGGINS: Fine, thank you.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
Anybody else like to speak in favor over this
application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Anydody
against the application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: The only
was this is a one-story house.
MR. WIGGINS: Two-story.
footage would be around 1300,
on the lot itself.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
question I had
The square
1500 square feet
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
APPEALS BOARO
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWrCKI
JAMES D[NIZIO, JR.
Southolcl Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE RDAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.YI 11~'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
S,E.O,.R.A..
TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION
Appeal No. 3864
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Leopold Stern
1000-.~7-5-22
1390 Bayview Drive,
East Marion, NY
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this
Construct one family dwelling with insufficient
rearyard setback,' 75' fro~ bulkhead.
Project:
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.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further information, please contact the Office of the
Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
(516) 765-1809.
tm
Southolcl Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (5'16) 765-1809
FAX NO. (516) 765-1823
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 3864:
Matter of LEOPOLD STERN. Variance to the Zoning ordinance,
Article XXIII, Section 100-239d, B, (Article XXIV, Section
100-244, as disapproved) for permission to construct a one
family dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback,
approximately 75 feet from the bulkhead in this R-40 Zone
District. Property Location: 1390 Bayview Drive, East Marion,
County Tax Map District 1000, Section 37, Block 5, Lot 22.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of LEOPOLD
STERN. under Appeal 3864; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning-and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the south
side of Bayview Drive, East Marion, and is identified on the
Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 37, Block ~,
Lot 22.
2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning
Code Article FO{III, Section 100-239d, B. (Article XXIV, Section
100-244) with insufficient rear yard setbacks, approximately 75
feet from the bulkhead.
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3864
Matter of LEOPOLD STERN
Decision rendered October 12,
1989
3. Article XXIII, Section 100-239d, B, all buildings
located on lots upon which a bulkhead, concrete wall, riprap or
similar structure exists and which are adjacent to tidal water
bodies other than sounds shall be set back not less than seventy
five (75) feet from the bulkhead.
Article XXIV Section 100-244 (A), this subsection is
intended to provide minimum standards for granting of a building
permit for lots made nonconforming or continued in a state of
nonconformance by the adoption of this Article and that were
singly and separately owned as of the effectige date of this
Article.
4. The subject premises is vacant and consists of
lot area of .301+- acre, the proposed dwelling will have
nonconforming setbacks, in front and rearyard areas.
a total
5. %n considering this application, the Board finds and
determines:
(a) that the circumstances of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(b) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial
effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience
and/or order of the Town;
(c) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance, as applied conditionally notes below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, Seconded by Mr.
Grigonis, it was
Page 3 - Appl. No. 3864
Matter of LEOPOLD STERN
Decision rendered October 12,
1989
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
application of LEOPOLD STERN as applied under Appeal No. 3864
for the placement of a single-family dwelling, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That the existing setbacks remain the same, with the
exception of the setback of Spring Pond which will be 21+- feet,
as shown on survey; dated 9/26/89, prepared by R. Van Tuyle P.E.
2. A suggestion in the construction p~ocess that
straw/hay bales be placed approximately 15 feet from the
bulkhead, running the distance of the construction, during
construction period so that there will be no soil intrusion into
Spring Pond.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
(absent, Serge Doyen, Fishers Island and Joe Sawicki). This
resolution was duly adopted.
df
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, ~AIRMAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion
recessing until October 5th pending the receipt
of another footprint area on the parcel and for
further measurements for the Board. I'll offer
that motion, gentlemen.
MR. SAWICKI: Second.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Are all in favor?
(All ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
I want to change that meeting day. It's recessed
until October 4th, not October 5th.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
MR. GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is appeal
number 3865.
(Reading).
MR. GOEHRINGER: We are waiting response
from water conservation.
I have a copy of the surveys, Roderick Van
Tuyl, P.C., amended date of June 27, 1989.
Indicating one and a half story framed
house presently. Approximately 7 feet from the
northeast property line and approximately four
feet from the southwest property line, 30 feet
from the bulkhead of the creek and quite a
34
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
distance
Road. I
properties
Anybody like
MR. BREWER:
Southold.
from the right-of-way to Windy Point
have a copy of tax map indicating
in the surrounding area.
to be heard?
Rudolph Brewer, Main
His architect is here, Mr.
Road,
Schoenstein.
I noticed, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the
fact you should have a letter from the Town
trustees that they recommended the approval of
this application.
MR. GOEHRINGER: That was the one dated
August 1, 1989.
MR. BREWER: That is correct. Mr. Burst
told me outside a little while ago he received
in the mail, and I didn't, a statement that the
D.E.C. has approved this. I would submit this
to
the Board as soon as I get a copy of it.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Great.
MR. BREWER: You will notice we are
appealing a provision of the ordinance that says
basically: "No building or premises shall be
used or no building or part shall be
low
35
erected in
density R zone unless same conforms to above
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
36
parking schedule. With the same even force as
regulations set forth herein."
If you look at the existing dwelling that
sits there now could not comply with the
ordinance. It seems kind of funny that the Town
insists upon creating restrictions where they
know houses that exist can't conform. There is
a hardship here but more definitely a practical
difficulty with respect
The downstairs of the existing
conform to the existing zoning
approximately 615 square feet -- a
square feet.
What the applicant
enlarge his house so he
is an individual who has owned this property for
some 20 years. He has indicated that he would
like to proceed with this addition after a great
deal of thought. The only way to do it is to go
to this application.
house doesn't
code in that it's
hundred
really wants to do is
can enjoy it. Mr. Burst
upwards, which is basically what we are doing.
We have an existing structure. He can't
go out to the side yards really that much. You
can't go anywhere but basically up.
Aesthetically, what he has submitted to the
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
building inspector is the logical plan.
The existing house goes out, I think, two
feet, I think, on either side--the upper
level--other wise it's pretty much on the same
footprint as what exists, and that includes the
decking.
The only
on the eastern
exception, I might say, is that
side the decking goes out to the
property of Patricia
than the existing decking.
that--and into the
bit in that corner,
pretty much within
are not that close
property on the west,
approximately that
line.
We are where
waterfront. As you
James maybe a little closer
But other than
rear, on the west a little
north-west corner, it's
the footprint. Yet, again, we
to the side yard to the
this -- existing stoop is
distance from the property
we are with respect to the
have already noted, the Town
trustees have indicated their approval.
This situation is definitely a unique one.
It's unique due to the size and dimensions of
the property and where it is. Look at the
survey I believe you all have before you, you
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
can see that basically although a little bit
larger than this piece of property, all of them
are small. It definitely is nothing to change
the character of the neighborhood. The
neighborhood is going
to continue to be a one-family
continue to be the same owner.
to remain the same,
dwelling,
He and his
come out and enjoy it occasionally with
two grown-up children.
We respectfully request that the Board
grant the application.
MR. GOEHRINGER: This deck
the entire circumference of the
that correct?
MR. BREWER: No.
water-side front.
MR. GOEHRINGER: So
showing what?
MR. BREWER: Showing,
It goes
going
wife
their
is going around
second story; is
just on the
the dotted line is
basically, a little
bit of the building going outward and the roof
line. I believe it goes out, if I'm not
mistaken Mr. Schoenstein can tell you?
MR. SCHOENFELD: Cantilevered two feet.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Cantilevering the
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building over the existing structure two feet.
MR. SCHOENFELD: That would come off.
MR. GOEHRINGER: The only problem that we
have, or that I have, we went down on Saturday
morning, again, Mr.
to provide access to
vehicles or whatever
we have
the rear fire
the case There
some overgrown hedges that are probably
are
Dinizio and myself,
yard, for
might be.
going to be taken out anyway. You have a stoop
there appears to be placed in a different spot,
that's the stoop against your neighbors' line,
the James'
I notice, there, also on the survey that
you're showing approximately a clear seven feet
between the house and that property line, is
that going to exist, that seven feet? Is it
going to survive?
MR. SCHOENFELD: Yes, it will.
MR. GOEHRINGER: It will survive.
MR. BREWER: What are we talking about?
GOEHRINGER: We are talking about this
This is all closed up.
We normally ask for
feet, we probably could with live with
MR.
seven feet, right here.
You can't get through.
eight
39
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
seven feet. This
MR. BREWER:
Schoenstein.
MR.
has got to remain open.
Let me talk to Mr.
side, the
different
The stoop
side yard
MR.
an angle. The
about getting
That would be
GOEHRINGER: Referring to the east
stoop is going to be placed in a
spot, or will the stoop remain there.
is closer to here, which reduces the
that much greater. It's tight.
SCHOENSTEIN: The deck is cut off to
big thing that you're talking
around would be the shrubbery.
eliminated.
MR. GOEHRINGER: The only intrusion we
have is the second floor, which is going to be
elevated above that anyway so there would still
be access.
MR. SCHOENSTEIN: Yes.
MR. GOEHRINGER: In writing the decision
when we get to that particular point if we call
for a seven-foot side yard on that particular
side, so the encroachment is -- on the lower
level any encroachment would be two feet above,
approximately how high Mr. Shown 16.
MR. SCHOENSTEIN: Ten feet up
from grade
4O
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
level.
41
MR. GOEHRINGER: Ail right.
MR. SCHOENSTEIN: You have to consider the
foundation and eight feet for the first floor.
MR. GOEHRINGER: So we get that straight.
MR. BREWER: I want everybody to
understand what you're talking about.
MR. GOEHRINGER: I have no further
questions at this particular point. I thank you
very much for getting that area cleared up.
Anybody else like to speak concerning this
application in favor?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak
against?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: If there are no further
questions, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing, reserving decision until later.
MR.SAWICKI: Second.
MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
(All ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGER: We will be addressing
this on October 4th. Thank you. Have a good
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE OOYEN. JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICK[
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- ~TATE ROAD 25 SOUTHrlLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
S.E.O.R.~.
TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION
Appeal No. 3865
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Charles & Carol
1000- 87-4-6
705 Windy Point
Burst
Rd.,Southold,
NY
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Construct addition with insufficient side and
rearyard setbacks.
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.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further information, please contact the office of the
Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
(516) 765-1809.
tm
off o um oar o ea
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I.,'N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE {516} 765-1809
FAX NO. (596) 765-1823
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl.'No. 3865
Matter of CHARLES AND CAROL BURST. Variance to the Zoning.
Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, as disapproved,
for permission to construct addition with insufficient side and
rear yard setbacks in this R-40 Zone District. Property
Location: 705 Windy Point Road, County Map District 1000,
Section 87, Block 4, Lot 6.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of CHARLES AND CAROL BURST.
under Appeal No. 3865; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the south of
Bayview Road, Town of Southold, and is identified on the Suffolk
County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 87, Block 4, Lot 6.
2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning
Code Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, for permission to
construct an addition with insufficient side and rear yard
setbacks.
Psge 2 - Appl. No. 3865
Matter of CHARLES AND CAROL BURST
~ecision rendered October 4, 1959
3. Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, no building or
premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be
erected or altered in the Low Density Residential R-40 District
unless the same conforms to the requirements of the Bulk
Schedule and of the Parking Schedule, with the same force and
effect as if such regulations were set forth hearin in full.
4. The subject premises on the northeast side of the
house will be 7+- feet from the property line, there is
approximately .21 acreage at this location.
5. In considering this application, the Board finds and
determines:
(a) that the circumstances of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(b) that.the variance will not in turn cause a substantial
effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience
and/or order of the Town;
(c) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, Seconded by Mr.
Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
application of CHARLES AND CAROL BURST as applied under Appeal
No. 3865 for approval of a addition with insufficient side and
rear yard setbacks, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That on the northeast side that the bushes be trimmed
back to 7 feet so to remain open and unobstructed, of a height
of minimum of 10 feet, for fire apparatus or other emergency
vehicles to have access around the house.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted.
df
GERARD P. GOEHRINGE,R/, CHAIR~DAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
evening.
The next
42
appeal is number 3866.
(Reading).
MR. GOEHRINGER: A copy of a survey dated
May 3, 1988, Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C., indicating
this parcel. Don't have a total acreage figure
on it. We'll ask the attorney that question. I
have a copy of the Suffolk County tax map
indicating this and sounding properties in the
area.
What is the actual square footage of the
parcel? The date on this map is July 28th, 1989
from Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C. The lot in
question is lot number 4 of this particular
subdivision which I believe is the only
parcel of
MR.
MR.
79,222--I
correct?
MR.
here.
MR.
MR.
the subdivision.
BREWER: It used to be more.
GOEHRINGER: It is totally a --
believe it should be 80,000; is
BREWER: That's the reason we are
GOEHRINGER: You're on.
BREWER: Rudolph Brewer,
business
that
Main Road,
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Southold, on behalf of Mr. Arbeeny.
This is a file that started out and is
still with the Planning Board going back to, I
guess, December of 1985. And due to their
typical speed we are now here because the zoning
ordinances changed in January 10th of this year.
This started out being, I think, a seven lot
subdivision of which there were going to be
three business lots for which we had
approximately, I think, most if not all the
approvals except the final one. What held it up
for a while was the water problems with
Greenport and the architect asking for fees that
were double really what they finally settled for
after very numerous months of negotiations.
What you basically have here is the
ordinance changed in January. Instead of having
three lots of 20,000 square feet which we
thought we had, we now have one lot of 79,222.
That is the only business lot on the property
and the hardship here is that the Town Board has
shown that it wants this property to be limited
business zone and yet it's a piece of property
that technically doesn't comply with the 80,000
43
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
square feet.
don't get that, we basically can't
the land which is
If we
use 79,222 square feet of
designated for business.
I think that would be some type of inverse
taking either by the Town or somebody in this
Town. I think it would be a great injustice to
Mr. Arbeeny who has been proceeding in good
faith along with this subdivision which all of a
sudden the Planning Board reidentified in March
that they had to stop and refer this matter to
us to refer to here.
I think it's a unique situation. I don't
think you're going to find too many pieces of
property in the town having the problem being
mostly residential but having a substantial part
of its property like 79,000 square-feet-plus
designated this year as being business property
44
and not being able to use it for that purpose.
I think that in itself is a hardship, plus
I think it's unique. It's not going to change
the character of the neighborhood. You're all
aware of the businesses that are up there on the
Main Road to the east and to the west and across
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
the street from this property.
You're aware of the residential property
to the north. Again, if you have -- I would
request that you grant the application. I think
this is clearly one of hardship. I think this
is the "hardship" hardship case.
MR. GOEHRINGER: You've got me speechless
on this one. I don't have a thing to ask, and
that's it.
MR.
Anything
MR.
Have
BREWER: Great. About time.
else?
GOEHRINGER: No, I don't think so.
this
a good evening.
Anybody else
application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER:
like to speak in behalf of
Against this application?
Hearing no further
comment, and seeing no further hands, make a
motion closing the hearing reserving decision
until later.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
(Ayes).
MR.GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much for
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR.
SERGE DOYEN. JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR,
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROADo STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 1]971
TELEPHONE (516) 765 1809
TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION
Appeal No. 3866
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Henry Arbeeny
1000- 59-7-31
Route 48, Kenny's
Rd., Southold, NY
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Approval of insufficient area in pending subdivision
(Light Business Zoning District (LB),
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 $outhold.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further information, please contact the Office of the
Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
(516) 765-1809.
tr
ROAD - ~TATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOOTHOLD, L.I., ~.Y. ]]971
FAX No. (516) 76~1823
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHmNGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH N. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 3866
Matter of HENRY ARBEENY. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article VIII, Section 100-82, as disapproved, for approval of
insufficient area in this pending subdivision, (Light Business
Zoning District (LB), Property Location: Route 48 Kenny's Road,
Southold, County Tax Map District 1000, Section 059, Block 07,
Lot 31.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of HENRY
ARBEENY, under Appeal 3866; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the west
side of Middle Road, Route 48, Town of Southold and is
identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000,
Section 059, Block 07, Lot 31.
2. This application for Variances from the Zoning Code
Article VIII, Section 100-82, for approval of insufficient area
in this pending subdivision.
Page 2 - Appl. No..3866
Matter of HENRY ARBEENY
Decision rendered October 4,
1989
3. Article VIII, Section 100-82, bulk, area and parking
regulations, except as otherwise provided herein, no buildings
or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall
be erected or altered in the LB District unless the same
conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parking and Loading Schedules
incorporated into this chapter by reference, with the same force
and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein full.
4. The subject premises for the proposed subdivision is
as follows, Lot 1, is 80,000+- sq. feet, Lot 2, 80,001+- sq.
feet, Lot 3, 91,502+- sq. feet, lot 4, 79,222+- sq. feet.
5. In considering this applications, the Board finds and
determines:
(a) that the circumstances of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(b) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial
effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience
and/or order of the Town;
(c) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, Seconded by Mr.
Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
application of HENRY ARBEENY as applied under Appeal No. 3866
for approval of insufficient area in this division of land,
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Sawicki, and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted.
df
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
coming in. Have a good evening.
MR. BREWER: Thank you.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Next appeal
3849.
(Reading).
is number
MR. GOEHRINGER: Copy of site plan
indicating structure approximately 5 feet from
Pettis (ph.) Beight. The closest point in line
about 50 feet from the top of the bank, which is
a swimming pool and decking area attached to the
structure, dwelling.
Suffolk -- I'm sorry,
Associates. The most
received by 4/28/89.
indicating this and
And I have a copy of
that was produced by Ward
recent date is 4/17/89
Suffolk County tax map
surrounding area.
MR. SEELEY: Lawrence Seeley from Ward
Associates speaking on behalf of the applicant.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. SEELEY: The relief that's sought is
obviously the rear yard setback as described.
What we did here is simply to map it out for you
and show you the building envelope would be
given the setback which is required, which is
this dark area as indicated on the map, which
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
leaves us very little area obviously to create a
structure to maintain as a residence. Basically
that's what we are seeking relief for. The
other setbacks are all conforming to the zoning.
MR. GOEHRINGER:
We are waiting for an
evaluation from Soil and Water Conservation.
They have indicated to us that we will
receive that in the very near future. I haven't
made a decision if we are going to close the
hearing or recess it until next session or close
it upon receipt of that.
It's a pro forma action to receive that.
If we had any comments concerning it we would
reduce it to writing at this particular point
when we closed it. we will inform you and
anybody else that had an interest in this
particular hearing. So I will make that
decision at the end of this hearing if we are
going to close it or recess it to the next
hearing.
In reference to the swimming pool area and
the decking, what is the elevation factor above
grade?
MR. BREWER: Pool bottom is 10.5.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
Elevation 10.5.
MR. GOEHRINGER:
of the deck above the
nOW ·
MR. BREWER: Deck would be
which is approximately five feet
grade. And diminishing as
east.
MR. GOEHRINGER:
How about the elevation
existing grade that exists
elevation 20,
above existing
it goes toward the
Okay. The decking is
rather extensive. Is there any particular
reason why it's that extensive?
MR. BREWER: Just a requirement of the
owner.
MR. GOEHRINGER: What are we talking about
in reference to total square footage on the one
story, the first story, or -- I don't know if
it's a two-story structure.
MR. BREWER: Yes, it is, two-story. I
believe it's 2600.
MR.
the deck
MR.
MR.
square footage
GOEHRINGER: We are talking 26 without
or with the deck?
BREWER: Without the deck.
GOEHRINGER: Can you calculate the
for us with the swimming pool and
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
let us know within
have that information
hearing on October
speak
the next two weeks so we can
for the closing of the
4th?
Thank you, thank you.
Anybody else like to
MR. BREWER:
MR. GOEHRINGER:
on behalf of this application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak
against the application?
MS. ONGONI: Representing neighboring
property owners George and Irene Malis. Mr.
Malis is deceased. Mrs. Malis currently
occupies the property to the east of this
parcel. Mrs. Malls is concerned that this
application is precedent setting in nature. The
area itself is relatively undeveloped. There is
quite a bit of open space out there. And many,
actually, most of the lots fronting on the Sound
have not yet been improved.
The granting of this application and the
variance to the hundred foot setback could
indeed be a precedent for other future
applicants before this Board. In that case, the
purpose of amending the statute to the hundred
49
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
foot setback could indeed be -- render the
purpose of the statute completely null and void.
It is in
the application.
aesthetically this
that spirit that Mrs. Malls is opposing
In addition she fears
construction could interfere
which would
give me an
with her view of the coast,
negatively impact on her.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Could you
indication of where her house is basically?
MS. ONGONI: I went out there yesterday.
Her house is very close to the bluff. She, too,
has a pool with decking around the pool.
Actually, she has several decks, levels of
decks. But it is close to the Sound.
know if its 50 or a hundred feet from
She owns a ten acre parcel which runs
Main Road all the way back. Her house is
up on the Sound.
I don't
the bluff.
from the
right
MR. GOEHRINGER: If you should speak to
her, I will go out and look at this again,
particularly after we receive Soil and Water so
she might find at least two or a couple of us
roaming around out there.
MS. ONGONI: Thank you very much.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
September 21,
S,E..O,.R.X.
TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION
1989
Appeal No. 3849
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Cipitelli Bros.
1000- 14-2-24
Petty's Drive,
Realty
Orient,
NY
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Relief of setback from top of bluff.
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.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further
Board of Appeals,
(516) 765-1809.
information, please contact the Office of the
Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
tr
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
FAX NO. (516) 765-1823
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. NO. 3849
Matter of CIPITELLI BROS. REALTY. Varianc~ to the Zoning
Ordinance Article XXIII, Section 100-239d, A.1, for permission
to construct a one family dwelling with insufficient setback and
within 100 feet from Long Island Sound in this R-40 Zone
District. Location of Property: 90 Petty's Drive, Orient,
County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 14, Block 2, Lot 24.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of CIPITELLI
BROS REALTY, under Appeal No. 3849; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning,, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the east of
Petty's Drive, Town of Orient, and is identified on the Suffolk
County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 14, Block 2, Lot 24.
2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning
Code Article XXIII, Section 100-239d A.1, for permission to
construct a one family dwelling, proposed construction will be
within 100 feet of the Sound.
~ge ~ - Appl. No. 3549
~atter CIPITELLI BROS. REAL~
Decision rendered October 12, 1989
3. Article XXIII, Section 100-239d A.1, requires all
building located on lots adjacent to Long Island Sound and upon
which there exists a bluff or bank landward of the shore or
beach shall be set back not less than one hundred (100) feet
from the top of such bluff or bank.
4. The subject premises for the one family dwelling is
known and referred to as being built within the building
envelope, as identified on the site plan from Ward Associates,
also a copy of the Survey from Roderick Van Tuyl, Dated 4/17/89.
5. In considering this application, the Board finds and
determ~.nes:
(a) that the circumstances of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(b) that there is no other method for appellants to
pursue, and placing the proposed dwelling in any other location
on the premises will require other variance relief;
(c) that the area chosen for the dwelling is not
unreasonably located;
(d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial
effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience
and/or order of the Town;
(e) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, 'the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr.
Dinizio, it was
Pa~3e 3 - Appl. No. 3849
Matter of CIPITELLI BROS. REALTY
Decision rendered October 12, 1989
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
application of CIPITELLI BROS. REALTY as applied under Appeal
No. 3849, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That there not be any construction that includes
decks, swimming pools (Building Envelope), not be any closer
than 60 feet to the top of the bank.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
and Dinizio, (absent Serge Doyen, Fishers Island and Joseph
Sawicki). This resolution was duly adopted.
df
GOEHR~NG~CHAIRMAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
else
MR.
MR.
comment,
Seeing no further
GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Anybody
like it speak concerning this hearing?
(None).
GOEHRINGER:
I'll make a motion recessing this
hearing until October 4th, waiting for an
evaluation from Soil and Water Conservation.
MR. SAWICKI: Second.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor?
(All ayes).
GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is in
Richard DiBlasi? It is a file number
MR.
behalf of
3852.
(Reading).
MR. GOEHRINGER: A copy of a site plan
from Sandbeck Associates dated 3/3/89,
indicating a -- actually its about a one
and-a-half story, one and-a-half story out of
the ground and one above it, probably a loft,
existing residence 41 feet from Bay View Drive,
48 feet. 4 feet at its closest point.
Applicant is requesting a deck on what is
basically the rear yard but in this particular
case we have a regular curvature and
51
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
feet from existing
Mr. Sandbeck, would
hear you say you're
approximately 23 and a half
pond shoreline in question.
you like to be heard.
MR. SANDBECK: Did I
waiting for --
MR. GOEHRINGER: We do this on all
parcels. We asked Suffolk County Soil and Water
Conservation to do an evaluation.
accept or reject based upon their
MR. SANDBECK: I was
had to file something else.
We either
findings.
wondering whether
MR. GOEHRINGER: No.
MR. SANDBECK: Here, again, this is R-40
zone Gardiner's Bay Estates subdivided back in
1927. Most of the properties are very irregular
shaped. This particular piece of property is a
pie shape, has a big radius on Spring Pond.
front of the house faces Spring Pond and the
owner originally wanted to put a deck on the
bottom at the lower level?
Due to the right-of-way and the
The
of people coming down to launch
and take their boats out, he decided
like to expand the upper deck four
possibility
their boats
he would
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
feet.
the house
setback.
rear yard.
MR.
that.
MR.
The upper
The existing deck as now constructed
is encroaching on the front yard
Whether we call this a front yard
53
or
GOEHRINGER: I didn't want to get into
SANDBECK:
deck would
It's quite a problem.
give them more privacy?
They would like a little more room for their
family when they come out. In the decision from
the building department it calls for parking.
Now, we have plenty of parking on this parcel.
We have parking at the lower level in front of
the garage, and there is parking on the upper
extended the building a couple of
level where we
months ago.
MR. GOEHRINGER: We are elongating the
deck. What are we doing with the lower?
MR. SANDBECK: Nothing whatsoever. We are
to the upper deck.
didn't understand
we had 35 and
upper
going to add four more feet
MR. GOEHRINGER: So I
when we to the existing balcony
now we have 22, or 23?
MR. SANDBECK: Right.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
four
wide
MR.
very much.
MR.
speak
MR. GOEHRINGER: That's a lot more than
feet.
MR. SANDBECK: Four feet out and 23 feet
in front of the existing deck.
GOEHRINGER:
54
Very good. We thank you
SANDBECK: Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to
on behalf of this application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER:
Anybody like to speak
Questions from Board
against the application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER:
members?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: No further questions,
motion to close the hearing pending receipt
the evaluation for Soil and Water. All in
favor?
(Ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Motion,
five minute recess.
MR. SAWICKI: So move.
gentlemen, for
of
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
Southold Town Board o£ Appeals
HAIN RI3AD-BTATE RDAD 25 5DUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-]809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
JAMES DINIZIO, .IR.
September 21, 1989
S,E.Q.R.A.
TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION
Appeal No. 3852
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Richard DiBlasi
1000- 37-4-1
360 Bayview Drive,
East Marion, NY
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Construct deck with insufficient front yard setback.
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.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further information, please contact the office of the
Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
(516) 765-1809.
tr
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, .IR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZ[O, .JR,
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD ~ STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765"1809
FAX No. (5~6) 765-1823
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 3852
Matter of RICHARD DiBLASI. Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30A 3, as disapproved, for
permission to construct open deck in front yard, nonconforming
with bulk area and parking regulations in this R-40 Zone
District. Property Location: 360 Bayview Drive, East Marion,
County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 037, Block 04, Lot 01.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the application of RICHARD
DiBLASI, under Appeal 3852; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the south
side of Bayview Drive, Town of East Marion, and is identified on
the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 037, Block
04, Lot 01.
2. this is an application for Variances from the Zoning
Code Article 100-30A.3, for permission to construct open deck in
front yard, nonconforming with bulk area and parking regulations.
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3852
Matter of RICHARD DiBLASI
Decision rendered October 4,
1989
3. Article III A, Section 100-30A.3, no building or
premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be
erected or altered in the Low-Density Residential R-40 Zone
District unless the same conforms to the requirements of the
Bulk Schedule and of the Parking Schedule, with the same force
and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in full.
4. The subject premises consists of a proposed open deck
to be 4 feet by 25+- feet and will be located in front yard
area, 20+- feet from the property line at its closest point.
5. In considering this application, the Board finds and
determines:
(a) that the circumstances of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(b) that there is no other method for appellants to
pursue; and placing the proposed open deck in any other location
on the premises will require other variance relief;
(c) the area chosen for the open deck is not unreasonably
located;
(d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial
effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and
or order of the Town;
(e) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, Seconded by Mr.
Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
application of RICHARD DiBLASI as applied under Appeal No. 3852.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Sawicki and Dinzio. This resolution was duly adopted.
df
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR.
(Ayes).
(Whereupon,
taken.)
MR. GOEHRINGER: Motion
MR. SAWICKI: Second.
MR. GOEHRINGER: All in
(All ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGER: The
385 .
GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor?
a five minute recess was
Aingegno,
to reconvene?
favor?
next appeal
is number
(Reading).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Copy of a survey Joseph
most recent date is March 2, 1988,
indicating one-story framed structure with a
raised wood deck and a lower deck just above
ground level, which I believe is the nature of
this application, in the rear yard of these
premises. A copy of the Suffolk County tax map
and surrounding properties in
like to be heard on behalf of this
Mr. Chairman and members of
Charles Cuddy, with offices at 180
55
indicating this
the area.
Anybody
application?
MR. CUDDY:
the Board,
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Old Country Road, Riverhead, New York. I
represent the applicants. Mr. Paskoff is with
me to night.
The parcel in question at North Sea Drive
and the
in Southold runs between North Sea Drive
Sound. Because of its proximity to the Sound,
Mr. Paskoff suffered on this piece of property a
great deal of erosion around 1986, 1987.
that
a small house,
He hired a
Because of that, he had to move the house
was located there, which was
back a considerable distance.
contractor to do that.
The contractor in fact did move the house.
The instructions from Mr. and Mrs. Paskoff were
to move it precisely from the center of the lot.
For reasons not known to them or anybody at this
point, the house was angled towards the west
side of the lot, and it shows that clearly on
the survey. Because of that angulation, when
the entrance way to the house is built, which
involves the deck, the deck was slightly over
for a vertical distance of about six feet was
over the side line.
At the time all of this was done, it was a
56
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
ten foot setback line in January of this year,
of course it was changed and now it is 15 feet.
What happened is for a distance of about six
feet -- it was in 1988 -- any way, six inches
too far. This was mainly because there had been
no updating of the survey. That was done
because Mr. and Mrs. Paskoff had been in an
accident. They weren't able to oversee what was
being done by the contractor.
As I say, the contractor moved
unfortunate
there. To
it to an
position because it shouldn't be
remove the house at this point is an
enormous expense based upon what would have been
a six inch variance, which is now five feet six
inches because the distance now is 15 foot set
back on that side.
This is a case, because of all the facts,
because the Paskoff's made an effort, filed a
permit, they understood the permit covered all
of this, including the deck, removing of the
house, certainly the neighbors are not going to
be hurt by this. Nobody's health and welfare is
going to be adversely affected. I submit to the
Board it would be appropriate under the
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
circumstances what would have been a six inch
variance is now five foot six inch variance.
Mr. Paskoff talked to his neighbors. They have
no objection.
That's one part of the application, we
have a second part of the application. That's
for a trellis located in the front yard and
covers the driveway. There's a reason for that.
If I could give you a copy of the Suffolk Pines
of 14 September, just last week, there is an ad
for Cliff's Lobster House. The claw of Cliff's
Lobster House is across from Mr. Paskoff's
house. The parking field, and I think most of
you are familiar with the parking field, was
extended to the east. The macadam in that
parking field is directly across from the
entrance to the Paskoff house. There is no
screening. There is no buffering. So what's
done is that the sand was flattened out and
macadam was put there for probably upward of
more than a hundred feet. What the Paskoff's
used to look out was an unthreatening sand area
with some vegetation in it. There's virtually
nothing in there now except black top.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
To try and solve even that, they thought
they'd build a trellis there. It's not complete
yet. It's about two-thirds complete, and they
were told to stop because it violated the fence
ordinance. It's nine feet. It's higher than
four feet. The reason for it is across the
street there is absolutely no buffering and no
screening on the parking lot.
I think, aesthetically, when it's finished
it will be an addition. It's going to be
finished with lattice, roses or clematis on it.
I don't think its offensive in any way to the
neighborhood. I would hope the Board, in
looking at this would think that the fence
ordinance I don't think is really designed for
trellises? Trellises all over don't have
building permits. This didn't have a building
permit at the time.
I don't think Mr. Paskoff or the fellow
working on it realized they needed a building
permit. They now know that they do. I would
submit to you if you move it back a few feet and
move the bushes back a few feet, you could have
bushes or statues in the front yard eight or
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
nine feet high. I don't think this is
to the neighborhood. I think what was
across the street, this Board should allow
type of thing
didn't require on the other
He's trying to do it on his
as screening effect that the
side of the
side of the
to screen out the parking lot. I would
to permit the trellis to exist.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I
a question, Mr. Cuddy? Is this trellis
the entire distance of the property?
MR. CUDDY: The outline of the
there right now.
60
offensive
done
this
Town
street.
street
ask you
want to ask
to run
trellis is
MR. GOEHRINGER: Indicated at 13 feet.
MR. CUDDY: The total distance is closer
to 14.
MR. GOEHRINGER: How close to property
line is it?
MR. CUDDY:
determine is two and a
MR. GOEHRINGER:
MR. CUDDY: Thank
MR. GOEHRINGER:
to speak in favor of
Setback as far as I can
half, three feet.
I thank you very
you.
much.
Anybody else would like
this application?
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
th Icl Tow B rt lapp Is
~...,,,~ ou o n oar o ea
~:;~%:~ N ( 09
APPEALS HOARD '
MEMHERS
GERARD P. GOEHR[NGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
JAMES DINIZ)O. JR.
September 21, 1989
S,E.,O,.R.X.
TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION
Appeal No. 3853
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Elliot Paskoff
1000-54-4-4
North Sea Drive,
Southold, NY
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Sideyard variance for deck and app~6~al'of trellis height.
Both additions are presently in existence.
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.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further information, please contact the office of the
Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
(516) 765-1809.
tr
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD ' STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOI_D, ,-.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
FAX No. (516) 765-1823
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DIHIZIO, JR.
ACTION OF THE BOAP~) OF APPEALS
Appl. No 3855
Matter of ELLIOT PASKOFF. Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30A.3, (Article XXIII,
Section 100-231 (A), as disapproved) for permission to construct
an attached deck with insufficient side yard and accessory fence
(trellis) in front yard at the height of more than required four
(4) feet. Lot area is nonconforming in this R-40 Zone District.
Property Location 205 North Sea Drive, $outhold, NY County Tax
Map No. 1000, Section 54, Block 4, Lot 4.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the application of ELLIOT
PASKOFF, under Appeal No. 3853; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and .are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the north
side of North Sea Drive, Town of Orient, and is identified on
the Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 54, Block 4, Lot 4.
2. This is an application for Variance from the Zoning
Code Article III A, Section 100-30A.3, (Article XXIII, Section
100-231 (A), for permission to construct an attached deck with
insufficient side yard and an accessory fence (trellis) in front
yard atthe height of more than required four (4) feet.
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3853
Matter of ELLIOT PASKOFF
Decision rendered October 4,
1989
3. Article III A, 100-30A.3, no building or premises
shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected
or altered in the Low Density Residential R-40 District unless
the same conforms to the requirements of the Bulk Schedule and
of the Parking Schedule, with the same force and effect as if
such regulations were set forth herein in full.
Article XXIII, Section 100-231 (A), Fences, walls, hedges
or other live plantings within five (5) feet of the property
lines may be erected and maintained, subject to the following
height limitations: A. When located in the front yard along the
front lot line, the same shall not exceed four (4) feet in
height.
4. The subject premises consists of a proposed deck to be
9' 6" from west property line, and proposed trellis will be
located in front yard area and will approximately 12' 3" in
height, 18' in length and within 3 feet of the front property
line.
5. In considering this application, the Board finds and
determines:
(a) that the circumstances of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(b) that there is no other method for appellants to
pursue; and placing the proposed deck or trellis in any other
location on the premises will require other variance relief;
(c) the area chosen for the deck and trellis is not
unreasonably located;
(d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial
effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfor~ convenience
and/or order of the Town;
(e) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr.
Goehringer, it was
Page 3 - Appl. No. 3853
Matter of ELLIOT PASKOFF
Decision rendered October
4, 1989
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
application of ELLIOT PASKOFF as applied under Appeal No.
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
385§,
1. That the trellis will be approximately 12' 3" in
height and within 3 feet from the property line, a length not to
exceed 20 feet.
2. That the deck (trellis) be no closer than 9 ft. 6
inches from the west property line.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted.
df
//GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, /~HAIRMAN
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak
against the application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Questions from Board
members?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further
questions, motion to close the hearing reserving
discussion until later.
MR. SAWICKI: Second.
MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
(Ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much for
coming in, gentlemen. Next appeal is on behalf
of Nancy Stein, appeal number 3854.
(Reading).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Copy of a survey dated
dated at this point -- I'm sorry, July 4, 1972.
It indicates an existing one-family dwelling.
Penned-in on this survey is a deck area,
61
somewhat irregular in conformity, indicating
approximately a reduction of 35 feet to the high
water mark. I have a copy of the Suffolk County
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
tax map indicating this and surrounding
properties in it the area.
MR. STEIN: My name
is Kenneth Stein, my
wife is Nancy Stein.
MR. GOEHRINGER: How do you do?
MR. STEIN: We have to build a deck to
replace the one we had to take down because it
rotted. Our house is sitting there ten
feet
if you walk out the living
That's the way it's been
above the ground so
room you just drop.
all summer.
The old
the survey as
deck, which I think is shown on
a porch, was too narrow to be
usable, anyway. When you open the windows to
the living room and you put chairs in, nobody
can pass by anybody else. Now it all rotted and
we have to do it. We spent the last number of
years trying to find a design that would not
It would
sight lines.
up -- the property slopes down. We tried
find a design that wouldn't wind up with a 14
foot wall facing the water, which I guess
be offensive to everybody, also
with other people's
wind
to
or 20
would
interfere
Having
gone through two architects, landscape
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fellow, and various secondary types we came up
with Lou Fisher from Penny Lumber came up with
the best idea. Because of the stepdowns, he
extends it in the irregular fashion that you've
noted. I think I enclosed one of these what
he's labeled bird's-eye view.
MR. GOEHRINGER: I think
Penny Lumber View.
MR. STEIN: Didn't that have
page?
MR. GOEHRINGER: No.
I only have the
a second
MR. STEIN: If I might hand up, I do have
two spare copies of this so called bird's-eye
view. This would be the view from the water.
It's in the upper corner here. I magnified it
little bit. Even that--by the way we are
thinking of softening the wall by moving the
a
63
deck area back slightly and stepping the wall to
reduce the impact of the size of the wall. If
you step and put some plants there, you step it
up and solve even it.
We think this proposed deck permits us to
utilize the property effectively. It creates an
attractive addition to the property, is
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
inoffensive architecturally with the area
because it matches the bulkheading that's there.
We don't interfere with the sight lines on the
properties to the north because we step it down
and they can still see out their livingroom
towards the bay, which is to the east.
The old deck, as I said, was within,
think, the house, is within 75 feet of the
water. By the way, that's been there since
late 30's.
I just hope to have you people grant me
the application.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Maybe I could ask
step over here, if you wouldn't mind.
MR. STEIN: Sure.
MR.
that is
house,
MR.
could walk
be level.
away,
which
rises,
GOEHRINGER: This
going to be in the
is that not correct?
STEIN: That would
I
the
you to
is the proposed deck
rear view of the
right out of the house.
This was the old section,
be the part -- you
That would
was torn
so's to get to this,
You get down four
thing down.
then you do that
is the real deck.
so you drop the
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR.
the old deck was?
MR. STEIN:
level. It is a
GOEHRINGER: What's going here where
I guess you would
level. It would be
around here. It probably have a kind of
area here with maybe a little rail right
But this is really what we are trying
because that's the main area.
call this a
benched
service
there.
to get to,
MR. GOEHRINGER: This is elevated four
feet down, approximately?
MR. STEIN: Four rises down.
MR. GOEHRINGER:
MR. STEIN: That
a half feet.
MR. GOEHRINGER:
wall or proposed wall?
Four rises, okay.
would come out to two and
This is what, existing
MR. STEIN: That's an existing curb.
MR. GOEHRINGER: That we see of the
picture over here?
MR. STEIN: Right. We've also tied in to
the existing, this is a retaining wall that's
been there for years. We have tied this to come
down again to provide access from this walkway.
We've had to -- this has been a kind of
65
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
66
structure on the whole thing, because we've tied
into these existing cement steps. You have to
get to that path way, as well. You have to kind
of configure it.
MR. GOEHRINGER: It's a little difficult
to understand. That's why I asked.
MR. STEIN: This wall exists as you come
down this wall narrows down to next to nothing.
This is only about six inches.
GOEHRINGER: I viewed there by
MR.
from your
MR.
MR.
MR.
with it.
the way
next door neighbors' property.
STEIN: From north or south?
GOEHRINGER: South.
STEIN: Both the neighbors are happy
MR. GOEHRINGER: You get a pretty good
view from the south?
MR. STEIN: It's about 900 feet. Existing
house and garage is 2115.
MR. GOEHRINGER: You're adding 900 square
feet on a multi-level deck?
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you so much, Mr.
Stein.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
Southold Town Board o£ Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE RI-lAD 25 SOUTH{3LD. L.I.. N.Y:
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
September 2l,
TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION
1989
Appeal No. 3854
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Nancy Stein
1000-37-4-10
2535 Cedar Lane,
East Marion, NY
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Construct deck within 75' of bulkhead.
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.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further information, please contact the office of the
Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
(516) 765-1809.
tr
S th ldTo B d lapp is
OU 0 Wn oaY o
MAIN ROAD -STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. '11971
TELEPHONE (516} 765-1809
FAX NO. (516) 765-1823
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GR~GONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO. JR.
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 3854
Matter of NANCY STEIN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-119.2. [Article I, Section 97-12C), for
permission to construct a deck addition within 75 feet of water
or wetlands, in this R-40 Zone District. Property Location:
2535 Cedar Lane, East Marion; County Tax Map No. 1000, Section
037, Block 04, Lot 10.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of NANCY
STEIN, under Appeal No. 3854; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas: and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the north
side of Pine Place, Town of East Marion, and is identified on
the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 037, Block
04, Lot 10.
2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning
Code Article III, Section 100-119.2, (Article I, Section
97-12C), for permission to construct a deck addition within 75
feet of water or wetlands.
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3854
Matter of NANCY STEIN
Decision rendered October 12,
1989
3. The subject premises for the proposed deck is known
and referred to as being 35 ft. from the existing bulkhead, from
Spring Pond.
4. In considering this application, the board finds and
determines:
Ia) that the circumstances' of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(b) that there is no other method for appellants to
pursue; and placing the proposed deck in any other location on
the premises will require other variance relief~
(c) that the area chosen for the deck is not unreasonably
located;
(d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial
effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience
and/or order of the Town;
(e) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, Seconded by Mr.
Dinizio, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
application of NANCY STEIN as applied under Appeal No. 3854 for
the placement of a deck, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That the deck be no closer than 35+- Feet to the
existing bulkhead, from Spring Pond.
That the deck not exceed 20% of the lot Coverage.
Vote of
and Dinizio
Sawicki)
the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
(absent Serge Doyen, Fishers Island and Joseph
~ .QERARD P. GO~HRI~, CHAIRbIAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody else would like
to be heard on behalf of the application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak
against the application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Questions for Board
members? No further questions, motion to close
hearing reserving decision until later.
MR. SAWICKI: Second.
MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
(Ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Next appeal
Michael Toffalis is number 3857.
(Reading).
MR. GOEHRINGER: What is the square
footage?
At this particular time, we are reflecting
a, I believe, ten by twelve deck is the nature
of this application, which appears to be side
yard plus really the rear yard in this
particular application? Would you like
in behalf?
in behalf of
67
to speak
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
THE WITNESS: Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Toffalis, at the time, he is away in Europe.
He did ask me, as a favor, if I could come over
and speak for him. Any questions you have you
may address to me. I am familiar with the
situation. I would like to answer them to you.
Now, as far as my own personal opinion of
this, I live in the area, he has one of the
nicest homes in the area. There is no objection
from either side of the neighbors. What he
wants to do is to enhance and improve the
appearance of his property and in general
neighborhood rather than what he has done
present. The present deck
call it a deck. It's more
you see it's extremely small,
and a half to three feet by
completely -- he only wants
chairs out and a table,
evening breezes.
that.
MR.
cement patio there
THE WITNESS:
the
at
he has--I wouldn't
like a fire exit. As
something like two
four feet. And it's
to put a couple of
maybe, and get a few
Nobody has any objection to
GOEHRINGER: There's an existing
now, is there not?
This is on top of that.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
high
MR. GOEHRINGER: Do you have any idea
it would be elevated?
THE WITNESS: No more than eight feet.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Strictly opened?
THE WITNESS: Strictly opened.
69
how
MR. GOEHRINGER:
the house.
THE WITNESS:
MR. GOEHRINGER:
speak in favor of this
Attached to that side of
Thanks.
Anybody else like to
application?
MR. MARKAKIS: Mr. Markakis of Southold.
I happen to be President of the Hellenic
American Association.
so are the
the area.
Mr. Toffalis is a member,
neighbors. I'm very familiar with
I have been there very often. I'm
involved deeply with the Greek
help them solve their problems
authorities such as insufficient
I try to
the local
during
house.
Church.
through
lighting
the night or flood in areas.
I like to offer my humble opinion, in this
case. From what I have seen it's a beautiful
It's unfortunate Mr. Toffalis had to be,
for family reasons, in Cyprus and couldn't be
here to night. It's a beautiful site. The
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
17
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
70
neighbor to the left of the house has a sizable
deck to the back of the property. This proposed
extension does not obstruct any view, because I
went to the neighbor next door, Mr. Plessis. I
went to the back to Mr. Masskudis' property, and
tried to see if there would be any obstruction
by reason this piece of deck.
Personally, I couldn't see any
obstruction. It is my opinion that it's really
going to beautify not only the place but the
immediate environment also.
Thank you.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you, sir.
Anybody else like to speak in favor or against?
(Show of hands).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you, sir.
MR. TOFFALIS: My name is Chris Toffalis.
My father requested this variance. I took it
upon myself in addition to these nice gentlemen
here who represent my father, I had contacted
the Town Hall this morning just to confirm that
the request would be submitted today and it was.
It was also given to me the information that
there might be a problem by one of the
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
neighbors, the request of the actual deck.
Now, I was in support of building this
house for my father. He had purchased the
property back in the early '60s. The property
itself is approximately a quarter of an acre.
The house As the
gentlemen
on that was a very small home.
did say, the house is pretty. My
father takes great pride in his home, in
addition to that a small area requested for a
deck to be built. Small deck put on the actual
floor where the kitchen is located.
They
downstairs
a problem.
as they
them to
kitchen and
of coffee.
As
would be
71
are an elderly couple. To go
to the actual yard at present is not
I don't think that is an issue. But
get older, I think it would be nice for
have something they can go from their
go outside and relax and have a cup
the gentlemen both expressed there
no obstruction whatsoever. He
requested that in the past. I believe there was
a denial by one of the neighbors again. My
father had stopped that request back in early
1987. We are resubmitting one more time. I
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
think
hopefully we'll get past it this time.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
Anybody else would like to speak for or against?
MR. TOFFALIS: May I add something I
forgot to mention before? The neighbors on
either side of him, they received a letter in
which they both approved this extension. I
omitted to say this before.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you
Hearing no further comment, I
closing the hearing reserving
again.
make a motion
the decision until
later.
MR. DINIZIO:
Nicholas Cyprus is?
MR. GOEHRINGER:
audience?
MR. DINIZIO:
Does anybody have any
MR. MARKAKIS:
summer resident.
matter with him. He
time. I don't think
works in the city.
MR. GOEHRINGER:
I would like to know who
Is Nicholas Cyprus in the
I see a letter here.
idea?
I know Mr. Cyprus. He's a
I saw him and discussed the
has no objection at this
he could be here because he
Again hearing no further
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
Southold Town Board of Appeals
·. .!
~-. ~ '~,~x ,r MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHO .. .
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN. JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKt
JAMES DINIZiO, JR.
September
TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION
2l , 1989
Appeal No. 3857
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Michael Toffalis
1000- 106-3-28
50 Captain Kidd Drive,
Mattituck, NY
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Construct deck with insufficient rearyard setback.
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 944-4 of the Town of Southold.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further information, please contact the office of the
Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
[516) 765-1809.
tr
rd o£App als
S th Id Town Bo
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 76~1809
FAX No. (516) 76~1823
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H.$AWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
ACTION OF T~E BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 3857
Matter of MICHAEL TOFFALIS. Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article X/IV, Section 100-244, as disapproved, for
permission to construct a deck addition insufficient rear yard
setback for nonconforming lot in a R-40 Zone District. Property
Location: 50 Captain Kidd Drive, Mattituck, County Tax Map No.
1000, Section 106, Block 03, Lot 028.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of MICHAEL
TOFFALIS, under Appeal No. 3857; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the north
side of Captain Kidd Drive, Town of Mattituck, and is identified
on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 106,
Block 03, Lot 028.
2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning
Code Article XXIV, Section 100-244,for permission to construct a
deck addition with insufficient rear yard setback for
nonconforming lot.
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3857
Matter of MICHAEL TOFFALIS
Decision rendered October 4,
1989
3. Article XXIV, Section 100-244, a nonconforming lot
separately owned and not adjoining any lot or land in the same
ownership at the effective date of this Article and not
adjoining any lot or land in the same ownership at any time
subsequent to such date may be used, or a building or structure
may be erected on such lot for use, in accordance with all the
other applicable provisions of this chapter, provided that proof
of such separate ownership is submitted in the form of an
abstract of title showing the changes of title to said lot,
which abstract shall be in the usual form, shall be certified by
an attorney or a company regularly doing such work in Suffolk
County or by a corporation duly licensed to examine and ensure
title tO real property in Suffolk County and shall contain a
certification that no contiguous property was owned by an owner
of the property involved since the date of any previously
applicable Zoning Law. Such lot shall be granted relief for
front side and rear yard dimensions as follow.
4. The subject premises is 9669+- sq. feet, from the
dwelling it is 10+- feet from the north property line, 35.1+-
feet from the west property line, 10.5+- feet from the east
property line and 44.5+- feet from the south property line.
5. In considering this application, the Board finds and
determines:
(a) that the circumstances of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(b) that there is no other method for appellants to
pursue; and placing the deck in any other location on the
premises will require other variance relief;
(c) that the area chosen for the deck is not unreasonably
located;
(d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial
effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience
and/or order of the Town;
(e) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, Seconded by Mr.
Sawicki, it was
Page 3 - Appl. No. 3857
Matter of MICHAEL TOFFALIS
Decision rendered October 4,
1989
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
application of MICHAEL TOFFALIS as applied under Appeal No. 3857
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That the deck does not exceed 10 ft. by 12 ft. in
location applied for and not to exceed 8'+- above existing
cement slab.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted.
df
/GERARD P. GOEHRINGE~ CHAIRMAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments, make
until
a motion to
later.
MR. SAWICKI: Second.
MR. GOEHRINGER: All
reserve decision
in favor?
(Ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGR: The next application to be
heard is number 3858.
(Reading).
Copy of a survey from Roderick Van Tuyl,
P.C., dated February 10th, 1964. In that area
we have a penciled-in deck of approximately --
not seen here, approximately 30 feet in length.
Half of the house in the rear yard area and
approximately 54 feet from the bulkhead.
Somebody like to be heard concerning this
application?
MR. DELUCA: My name is Jim DeLuca. I'm
here representing Mr. Cosimano in this matter.
Basically, we have obtained D.E.C. approval to
construct this deck. We had submitted the
prints, but Mr. Cosimano started the deck before
he received the final permit. In the meantime
before he received it, he thought everything was
okay, but he received a rejection letter after
73
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
he submitted the papers. So he started
construction of the deck. He was told to stop,
he did stop.
I submitted the papers on his behalf.
The
He
size of the deck is about 450 square feet.
has no patio or other structures in the rear
yard. To the west of him, I believe, there's an
association beach that would be on the
right-hand side of his property. To the left
there's a single family residence. I didn't
hear any objections from the neighbor.
He would just like to complete the deck.
That is the only, as I said before, the only
it
structure in the rear yard. He wants to use
for lawn furniture.
MR. GOEHRINGER: The only thing the deck
is that correct?
and steps, that's
is missing now is railing,
MR. DELUCA: Railing
about it.
MR. GOEHRINGER:
Anybody else like to
application?
(None).
74
Thank you Mr. Deluca.
speak in favor of this
MR. GOEHRINGER: Against the application?
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN 1~I3AD-~TATE ROAD 25 SOUTHEiLD, L.I., N,Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, Jr.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKt
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
September
S.E.O,.R.A.
TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION
21, 1989
Appeal No. 3858
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Bernard Co$imano
1000-88-5-63
Watersedge Way, Southold, NY
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Construct deck within 75' of rearyard bulkhead.
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.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further
Board of Appeals,
(516) 765-1809.
information, please contact the Office of the
Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
tr
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, .IR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES D1NIZ[O, JR.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.L, N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
FAX NO. {516) 765-1823
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 3858
Matter of BERNARD COSIMANO. Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239d, B. (Article X~IV,
Section 100-244, as disapproved) for permission to construct a
deck addition within 75 feet of bulkhead. Construction has
insufficient total side yard setbacks in this R-40 Zone
District. Property Location: Watersedge Way, Southold, County
Tax Map No. 1000, Section 88, Block 5, Lot 63.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of BERNARD
COSIMkNO, under Appeal No. 3858; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the south of
Watersedge Way (private road), also south of Main Bayview Road,
Town of Southold, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax
Maps as District 1000, Section 88, Block 5, Lot 63.
2. This is an application for Variances from the zoning
Code Article XXIII, Section 100-239d, B, (Article XXIV, Section
100-244, for permission to construct a deck addition within 75
feet of the bulkhead, construction has insufficient total side
yard setbacks.
Page 2 - Appl. No 3858
Matter of BERNARD COSIMANO
Decision rendered October 4,
1989
3. XXIII, Section 100-239d, B, Ail building located on
lots upon which a bulkhead, concrete wall, riprap or similar
structure exists and which are adjacent to tidal water bodies
other than sounds shall be set back not less than seventy-five
(75) feet from the bulkhead. --
XXIV, Section 100-244, a nonconforming lot separately
owned and not adjoining any lot or land in the same ownership at
the effective date of this Article and not adjoining any lot or
land in the same ownership at any time subsequent to such date
may be used, or a building or structure may be erected on such
lot for use, in accordance with all the other applicable
provisions of this chapter, provided that proof of such separate
ownership is submitted in the form of an abstract of title
showing the form, shall be certified by an attorney or a company
regularly doing such work in Suffolk County or by a corporation
duly licensed to examine and ensure title to real property in
Suffolk county and shall contain a certification that no
contiguous property was owned by an owner of the property
involved since the date of any previously applicable Zoning Law.
Such lot shall be granted relief for front side and rear yard
dimensions as follows.
5. In considering this application, the Board finds and
determines:
(a) that the circumstances of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(b) that there is no other method for appellants to
pursue; and placing the proposed deck in any other location on
the premises will require other variance relief;
(C) that the area chosen for the deck is not unreasonably
located;
(d) that the variance will not
effect on the safety,health, welfare,
and/or order of the Town;
in turn cause a substantial
comfort, convenience
(e) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr.
Grigonis, it was
Page 3 - Appl. No. 3858
Matter of BERNARD COSIMANO
Decision rendered October 4,
1989
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
application of BERNARD COSIMANO as applied under Appeal 3858,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That it not exceed the size of 14+- ft. by 30+- ft.
and the east side addition of 3+- ft. by 9+- ft., and to remain
unroofed.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Sawicki and Dinizio. this resolution was duly adopted.
df
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Seeing no hands,
questions from Board members?
MR. DINIZIO: None.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Motion to close hearing
saving decsion until later.
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
(Ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGER: The next appeal is on
behalf of Cliffside (Tide Mark), 3542.
(Reading).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Copy of several site
plans, the most recent one that I have received
or we have received in our office is one from
Douglas P. Herlin. It is dated receipted our
office 6/27/89. I have a copy of Suffolk County
tax map indicating this and surrounding
properties.
75
I will mention to the attorney I see
moving around we will be closing this hearing on
the 4th of October pending discussion with Town
attorney concerning acceptances of Planning
Board and final determination of impact
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
statement.
I'll refer to that at the
worry about that.
MR. HAEFELI: This I just
evening. This is a copy of the
which contains drain annual, et
everything else. This is to be
with the Planning Board.
Here is, for purposes of to night,
schematic which follows that.
name,
MR. GOEHRINGER:
please?
MR. HAEFELI:
end. So don't
is received this
improvement plan
cetera, and
filed tomorrow
here is the
Could you state your
Richard Haefeli, 184 Main
Street, West Hampton Beach, on behalf of the
applicant.
First thing I would like to point out,
there is a modification to the application. It
is not for 76 units it's for a total of 68 units
plus a manager's unit or total of 69 units.
Number of units reduced downwards. Locate in
R.R. district which permits a resort motel by
way of special exception and with approval of
the Planning Board.
In order for it to be permitted in that
76
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
district you need a minimum area of five acres,
maximum number of units with water and sewer and
for the Board's purposes, we have signed paid
contracts for
with Greenport Water
Sewer District. One
both public water and public sewer
District and Greenport
per every four thousand
square feet, that would work out to 78 units.
As I said this particular application reduced
downwards to six units.
The other two things you have to have in
the use, no music or loud speakers audible
beyond the property and no lighting beyond the
property. This plan does not provide for either
of those.
As
far as special exceptions provisions
are concerned, even general standards and
specific standards. As far as this particular
application is concerned, the property and the
adjacent properties are used for motel on the
east. The properties to the west are used
either for the vacant property, condominiums and
motel on the west. A and B would be complied
with since this use is compatible with and same
as other current properties in the area.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The safety and welfare and health would
not be adversely affectd. As this Board knows,
there was an extensive environmental review of
this particular application that took two and a
half years. There was a final environmental
impact statement adopted by the Planning Board
in March of this year.
Among the recommendations by the Planning
Board was a reduction in the number of units,
reduction in the sizes of the buildings and a
reduction in the square footage of the units,
and a requirement for a 30-foot buffer on all
sides.
There is no provision in the code as to
the sizes of the units, but the applicant has
agreed that the units will be 600 square feet
size.
As far as
is 25 feet? We've
the Planning Board
the buffer, I think the maximum
also agreed to 30 feet that
has set forth in FEIS?
in
78
As a result of the reduction of the number
of units are also reduced footprint and the size
of the buildings.
As far as adverse effect upon the traffic,
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
this is a proposal no left turn
the project onto County Road
left turn only. Part of the
environmental process was the number of units
and the reduction down and the number of units
think accomplishes the concern as far as
traffic.
As prior to the recent changes
zoning code this property was zoned
motel uses. There was an extensive
the Town with respect to what uses
permitted what zoning districts.
particular property was rezoned
79
coming out of
48. It has to be a
concern in the
in the
for resort
review by
should be
This
and the same use
was permitted. Therefore I think it's
compatible with the area.
All of the other provisions that are set
forth in both 1263274 I believe have been met by
the applicant and are being met by the applicant
as far as this application is concerned. Almost
all of those were considered and taken into
consideration in the environmental review
process. I'm open to any questions which any
members of the Board may have. I have Mr. Samet
hear from the engineering firm He can answer
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any of the technical questions you may have.
The architect is also present.
MR, GOEHRINGER: When we originally came
before the Planning Board concerning the
objections of the traffic plan which now are
somewhat minimized by your discussion concerning
the left-hand turning lane, there was some
discussion about the actual widening of County
Road 48 at that particular point. To my
knowledge County Road 48 is going to remain
the present state. No center lanes turning
in
into
the project at all, from westbound to eastbound
direction.
MR. HAEFELI: I think that's correct. I
don't know of any, let's put it that way.
During the period of the
our office and your
contracts that you had
MR. GOEHRINGER:
correspondence between
office, basically, the
just mentioned with the village of Greenport
concerning water and sewer, it's been my
have been taken care of
If this particular
started tomorrow and so as
or six months, you would have
8O
understanding that they
as you just mentioned.
project was to be
completed in five
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
the use of those two facilities; is that
correct?
MR. HAEFELI: That was considered in the
environmental impact. They found the same
thing.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Under the present
mandates of Greenport Water has -- whatever
problems they have based on their requirements
from Suffolk County.
MR. HAEFELI: This project is in their
calculations. That's what I have been told.
MR. GOEHRINGER: On the top of the list.
MR. HAEFELI: The contracts have been
signed. All of the money for them have been
81
paid to Greenport. We also have Health
Department approval.
Just on the traffic question, I think the
major concern were cars coming from the east to
the west and the sight distances were somewhat
less coming from the east to the west. Steve,
you can correct me on this.
Whereas coming from the west and going to
the east, which would be a turn in, I think it
was determined that there was adequate sight
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
distances.
MR. SAMET: You have good sight distance.
If you stay in the site and look east, you have
adequate sight distance, about 500 feet. As you
look from the site towards the west, it's
slightly less. From an engineering standpoint,
that having a left turn into the site and/or out
of the site would be acceptable.
The claimant is willing to limit the site
to only a right turn out if the Board so choses.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. HAEFELI: That was considered in the
environmental impact statement.
MR. GOEHRINGER: The other concern
basically was, did he follow the bank or
encounter any particular problems during the
type of construction that may affect the lip of
the bluff, which is not really a bluff, it's a
bank, so to speak, okay?
I don't think this was properly addressed
when it was a concern of ours, but it may have
been a concern during the period of time that
the other Boards have looked at it.
MR. SAMET: That was addressed in the
82
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
environmental impact
requested they would keep back
from the bluff, which is this
statement. It was
a hundred feet
line over here,
as
you can see the it. Ail
exception of the ramp coming
would be kept within outside
development with the
down to the beach
on the hundred foot
setback. We have erosion control plans within
the plans to show protection of vegetation
within that area.
MR. GOEHRINGER:
mention, Mr. Haefeli,
Anything else you want to
concerning this?
MR. HAEFELI: Absent recitation of each of
the provisions in the general and special
provisions, as I say the impact statement which
is part of this entire process has covered all
of that.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Our concern with the
impact is something we want to discuss with the
Town attorney. So we will recess this hearing
again only to discuss it with him and close the
hearing with no other oral testimony on October
4th at our next meeting. It only concerns the
remaining findings of that final impact
statement. It shouldn't affect anything at this
83
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
point but we want
that.
If you have
84
to make sure we are correct on
any questions I'll do the best
I can to
MR.
MR.
March of 1989
statement?
answer them at this particular point.
HAEFELI: I'm not sure of --
GOEHRINGER: Planning Board voted in
to accept the final impact
MR. HAEFELI: That is correct.
MR. GOEHRINGER: We are not sure if there
had to be a reduction of findings at that
particular point. In other words, culled from
that
findings
imbedded
particular impact
themselves, rather
in that particular
statement the actual
than having them
statement.
MR.
and all other things as the final
impact statement.
MR. GOEHRINGER: We were unable
the Town attorney today, we want
that that's fine with him.
MR. HAEFELI: Okay. Very good.
MR. GOEHRINGER: It's nothing of great
significance. We noted this project was
HAEFELI: They adopted the D.E.I.S.
environmental
to contact
to make sure
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
earnestly on the fire for a
to make sure we are correct.
MR. HAEFELI: If I could
back, when the Board
MR. GOEHRINGER:
speak in favor of the
(None).
few years.
here,
in the audience
85
We want
get the schematic
is finished with it.
Anybody else like to
application?
MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody in the audience
who has not had time to review these documents,
would like to sit down with them, place them on
the table, place them on the side, welcome
to take a look at them, and get
back to the after the next hearing if you have
any comments that you would like to review.
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGR: Anybody would like to
speak against this application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further
comments, I will make a motion recessing this
hearing. No more oral testimony simply just
from the legal standpoint of reviewing the final
D.E.I.S. with the Town attorney. We will close
it on October 4th at our special meeting. I'll
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
86
offer that as
MR. GRIGONIS:
MR. GOEHRINGER:
(Ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGER:
gentlemen, for coming
appeal number 3770.
(Reading).
a resolution, gentlemen.
Seconded.
Ail in favor?
Thank you very much,
in. The next appeal is
MR. GOEHRINGER: We've had several site
plans. I've had at least one informal
discussion with members of the planning staff,
not necessarily the Planning Board. One
discussion with the member of the Planning
Board. Before me I have a site plan that has
It is received on August
checked by Roderick Van Tuyl,
printed by him, but it was
just been received.
18th, 19887
It says it's
P.C., and probably
prepared by consultant. I have a copy
indicating this
in the area.
probably
of the Suffolk County tax map
and surroundinging properties
The issue at hand is a proposed boat
storage building of approximately 125 feet in
width and rather extensive enough in size placed
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
on the east side of Port of Egypt property.
I'll ask Mr. Wiggins if he would like to
speak.
MR. WIGGINS: First I would
the variances and the differences
and explain some of the history and
hardship that goes with it.
like to review
in the code
background
The first is for excessive lot storage.
Code 30 percent, or less than one percent.
Front yard is 20 feet the code is 50. The front
yard borders what we term colloquialy as Old
Route 25. That is no longer used as state
highway. It's been used for various people for
parking and other uses.
Mr. Leibline is in the process of getting
a long term lease or a purchase of that piece
that's in front. But this probably will take
over a year because the State does not move
rapidly on disposition or disposal of their
87
property. The rear yard is approximately 40
feet and it goes to 75.
The rear yard 40 feet is made into a small
section of boat basin. If the rear yard was
used to go back to the waterfront, it would be
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
over two hundred feet, but the portion of the
boat basin used for boat launching is within 40
feet of the proposed rear end of the building.
This is located there particularly to
facilitate movement of boats from storage out of
the building and into the water. The side yard
is approximately 15 feet. The code says 30.
This is based on the critical nature of the
width of the building.
The parties involved in the discussions
have no objection to the location of that
particular 15 feet.
The background of this has been quite long
and varied. There was originally a proposal to
put in a motel. Through suggestions and
unofficial input from Town officials this whole
idea was dropped. The proposed dry rack storage
which is an extension of the owners' present
operation, and also is a permitted use under the
definition of a marina.
There's been extensive
revisions and
Board. We've
requirements.
discussion and
input from the Town Planning
indicated every one of their
The size of the building, the
88
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
critical size, is
the length of the
forklift,
experience
width. For dry rack storage
boat, the movement of the
turn-radius is based on a lot of
and a lot of people doing this.
Billy Leibline spent months developing
this. It has been submitted to you as a
package, also the economics that go with it.
The D.E.C. approval has been given. What
remains is a final planning board approval.
the approval of the GBA. I'll be happy to
answer any questions anybody might have.
MR. GOEHRINGER: The last time -- I
believe the last site plan we received was
And
twelve and a half feet on the east property. We
are now back at 15. That's a figure that we can
live with on one side, assuming the Board is so
inclined to grant this series of applications
which we
this
89
have gone through which are embodied
one package, so to speak.
I notice that you had changed the parking
to slightly skewed instead of being
perpendicular to the building and perpendicular
to the bulkhead. I also notice in particular
that the sizes of the building is pretty much
in
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the same, 125 by 212.
MR. WIGGINS: The ideal width is the 130
feet. We reduced it by making plans, the owner
made plans to locate the smaller boats on one
side, which would restrict some of his
versatility. We also moved the building
somewhat away
make diagonal
from the east property line to
parking. Doing those two things,
he's able to reduce the width of the building
and move to the building to 15 feet of the
property line.
MR. GOEHRINGER: I don't have any
particular questions at this time. My
discussions with the planning consultants were
in reference to the drains and so on and so
forth. I did see the drainage plan. That
basically, although it's not the nature of this
application, that was one of the concerns that
had had. We are talking about a maximum
elevation here of 45 feet.
98
I
MR. GOEHRINGER: How many racks is that on
the side of the building?
MR. WIGGINS: I think it's 116 racks.
MR. GOEHRINGER: What's the elevation on
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those racks, three rack high?
MR. WIGGINS: Yes, three racks high.
MR. GOEHRINGER: He would be placing a
certain size boat on one side of the bill and a
larger side?
MR. WIGGINS: Yes. Two things on the
narrow width. One side to the shorter length
and on a third height rack would be a real small
boat by shortening it actually five feet or
narrowing it extra five feet.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We'll see
what develops throughout the hearing.
Anybody else would like to speak in favor
of this application?
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Anybody in the audience
that has not had a chance to take a look at this
site plan most recently? If you would like us
to furnish a copy again, we'll place it on the
table, and you're well come to look at.
to speak against the
Yes, Mr. Flynn?
Anybody like
application?
(Show of hands).
MR. GOEHRINGER:
91
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
MR. FLYNN: My name is F. M. Flynn Taupin
Drive, Southold.
I consider this an important complicated
matter, one that my very well set precedence for
the future. I have some questions. I would
like to make some comments. I would like to
explain some calculations that I've made.
In the first instance in the environmental
assessment in the application that I've seen,
the site is listed as being somewhere in the
vicinity of two acres. 2.1 acres, I believe.
However, in the environmental assessment form,
it states that the continuous acraege owned or
controlled is seven acres. If this is correct,
what we have here is a classic example of
segmentation.
We are now explaining the use of
the entire property for the benefit of the Board
and anyone else who may be interested.
Segmentation
explain. Presuming
land with 30
three acres
should they
structures
is relatively easy to
somebody has ten acres of
percent coverage, they can cover
of that land or 125,000 feet. Now
choose to build all 125,000 feet of
at one end of the property, they
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
certainly can't
other end of the property
plan a structure for it.
Now, that
here.
There's another
rather serious one.
come in later and say that the
is vacant land and
appears to be what's happening
question involved and a
The application states, again, that the
contiguous acreage owned or controlled is seven
acres. This is the easterly two lots which are
currently the main site of the marina operation.
But there's another lot there that is owned or
controlled by Mr. Leibline and that's the site
of the motel.
Then, if you
together, you have
add all three of those lots
a total of 9.1 acres. Now,
this question of segmentation is a very
important one. It goes right back to SEQRA and
Because SEQRA does not permit
And this, again, I state is an
of the same.
SEQRA approval.
segmentation.
obvious case
Now,
9.1 acres,
entirely
if you were to take the total area of
including the motel site, we have an
different piece of property to deal
93
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with. What we have -- incidentally, there's
another lot there that may very well owned by
Mr. Leibline. I believe it is. I don't have
enough detail on it. That's lot 2.2, 1.7 acre
site, currently the site of Albertson Marine.
If
it
I can't, at this moment, go into detail.
you'd like the information later, I'll supply
to you.
If you start off with 9.1 acres, you have
to subtract from that the three-acre
requirement for a motel.
down to a property of 6.1
has been made on my part for the 6800
foot Albertson Marine building on the
minimum
You're immediately
in area. No reduction
square
same
parcel or the fish store of approximately 3800
feet, which totals 10,400 square feet. It might
very well require 40,000 feet of site for their
operation, or if not that, would have to be
deducted from the net buildable area for the
marina.
Now, we have the 6.1 acres after having
deducted the motel. Now, we have a restaurant
on the site. The restaurant requires 80,000
square feet, which totals 1.8. That leaves us
94
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with 4.3 acres. Now we have two basins
these lots. I calculate them to be
approximately 7,000 square feet or,
95
cut into
again, 1.8
acres. So the net for marina operations on this
property is actually approximately 2.5
acres.
2.5 acres equals 108,900 square feet, at 30
percent coverage, allows for 32,670 square feet
for buildings.
I don't have and it may very well be on
that site plan you have there, I don't have the
exact area of the existing storage building, but
I believe it to be in excess of 30,000 feet.
Now you have already on the proposed site area
an office and shop of 3,078 square feet and
sales area of 720 feet or 38 square feet, so
essentially you have, say, 34,000 square feet
plus already on the site where the total
coverage could only be 32,000 square feet. We
are now being told that it's proposed to put up
a building of 28,000 square feet where there is
simply no area to build it.
To grant this application is to, in
effect, rezone the property, contrary to the
newly revised zoning ordinance. The proposed
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
new building is 28,210 square feet. There is
also a boat washing pad there which constitutes
a building of 3800 square feet. So we propose
or it is proposed, I'm certainly not proposing
it, that 32,010 feet of structures be erected on
this site, newly. 32,010 feet divided by 30
percent, the coverage allowance, indicates
106,700 square feet, or approximately 2.45 acres
additional would be required to put up this new
building. If you grant this variance it's
equivalent to giving Mr. Leibline a present of
two and a half acres of land.
That's putting it as succinctly as I can.
You cannot do this. It is not within your
power.
I've even gone into there based on
the seven acres, which is stated in the
environmental assessment form. I don't believe
this, and were it to be contested at law, it
would be nine acres. But for the sake of the
proof of the matter, we go into it based on the
seven acres of entirety, which is conceded by
the applicant. From this you would have to
deduct, again, the area of the restaurant, or
96
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1.8 acres. And the area of
1.8 acres, which is a total
leaves you with an
3.4 acres.
Now, 3.4 acres
operational marina site
the basins, another
of 3.6 acres, and
of
is 148,104 square feet,
again times the 30 percent coverage, equals had
44,435 square feet. Then you have to deduct
existing 35 plus or minus square feet, and what
you have left, there, obviously is less than
10,000 feet of building area, versus the 30 some
odd thousand feet of building that's proposed.
I
Again, it makes absolutely no sense.
question who came up with these figures to
support any such thing. I also question what
kind of site analysis has been made of this
property.
Now, there's another action made by
Peconic Associates with respect to this easterly
area which they have arbitrarily apportioned
from an entirety which it can't do. It's
against SEQRA and it's against any normal
planning procedure. You have to account for the
entire property. What they say on that plan,
and it may very well be on the plan in front of
97
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you, that the planned area of development is
82,430 square feet. You have a building of
28,210 square feet, that's 217 by a 130. A
boat wash of 3800 square feet, that's the pad.
An office and shop of 3,078 feet. And a sales
office of 720 feet or approximately 36,000
square feet.
36,000 square feet divided by 82,430
indicates 43 percent coverage, or approximately
45 percent more than is permitted by the zoning
ordinance even if we go along with this
arbitrary chopping off of two acres from an
overall parcel, which, again, I say you can't
do. So there is no way that this meets
anybody's standards within the
surprised that this application
far.
Now we come up to the
analysis, which may very
plan that you have there.
Peconic Associates,
respect to parking
operation, for the
should be 122
Town. I'm
has gotten this
question of parking
well be on the site
This was prepared by
I believe. They say with
that for the marina
boats in the water, there
spaces. For the current dry
98
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
storage there should be 80 spaces, and for the
proposed dry storage in this new proposed
building, there should be 160 spaces. There
should be for the employees four spaces, and
for
the restaurant 43 spaces. This totals 429
spaces at 350 square feet is a 150,150 square
feet, or 3.49 acres, which is more than they
have to begin with to operate on.
What they have done here is arbitrarily
reduce the Town's parking requirements. They
have submitted a schedule where for the boats
the water they have reduced parking
in
requiremements by 50 percent. Rather than
having one parking place, they propose to have
half a parking place. For the dry existing
storage, they propose to provide one quarter
space. And for the dry proposed storage, again,
one quarter of the space.
Now, this is very interesting because
99
particularly with respect to this dry storage
area what you have is a parking requirement that
is as much or as little as one sixth of the
parking requirements of some of our neighboring
communities who also launch boats on the common
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
facility here of the Peconic Bay. The obverse
of this is, if you cut the parking requirement,
you can then launch six times as many boats.
This is far from an equitable sharing of a
common resource.
At any rate, to follow this thing -- I was
going to say to it is a logical conclusion but I
guess it's an illogical conclusion, under their
proposition, you would be providing for 188
spaces rather than 402 spaces or 65,800 hundred
square feet of parking or 1.51 acres. The
shortfall in terms of acreage against the
existing ordinance is 1.93 acres or 241 parking
places.
Now, no parking reduction has been made in
addition to these figures, if I were to accept
them, for the motel or marina operations,
charter or party boats. People come in to use
the ramps and leave a vehicle with a trailer
there on the site as well. So this in my
opinion, if I may use the term, is a thoroughly
ridiculous projection of parking requirements.
Now, entirely overlooked in this
situation, and I'm sure you're aware of it, is a
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
requirement marine II zoning for 20 percent
landscaping. Now, even based on seven acres
rather than the -- first we'll take it on the
9.1. You require 1.8 acres of landscaping.
That's going to detract from the parking, it's
going to detract from other uses on the
property. But it's in the ordinance. Based on
the seven acres, it still requires a reduction
of property that couldn't possibly be used for
parking of 1.4 acres or 60,984 square feet.
This is the equivalent for reduction of parking
for 174 cars.
There simply isn't enough land area here
to support this application. I don't know how I
can say this again without sounding endlessly
repetitive, this, in my opinion, is a clever way
to segment the application and in effect pull
the wool over the eyes of the Board.
And the Board of course doesn't simply
grant variances like passing out peanuts.
There's some proof needed on the part of the
applicant. We have none of the usual proof
here. There is a distinct type of proof that is
required for waterfront properties, at least by
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
the New York Department of State, with respect
to their waterfront management program,
waterfront revitalization program or however you
want to term it.
They say that in effect they have adopted
the premise that marina construction or
expansion is based on need demonstrated need.
This subject property for the last several
years, any of you have driven by Route 25, and I
presume you have all observed the
continuously "slips available".
sign out there
As a matter of
"Slips
this year."
fact, there was a sign out there:
available until after July 4th of
I guess I inadvertently caused its
removal
fact
slips.
no
because at one of the meetings before the
revitalization committee I mentioned the
that there was apparently no shortage of
If there's no shortage of slips there is
demonstrable demand. And this is all an
exercise in futility.
Now, I've heard mention of the fact that
the eaves of the building will be 25 feet in
height giving a maximum of 45 feet at the ridge
and an average height of 35 feet. Frankly, I
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
believe 45 feet is pretty excessive height to
build any place. And I question whether you're
going to get boats three high within an area --
against a wall height of 25 feet.
What has been ignored here also is the
question of health, safety, and general welfare.
What is proposed is to put this ponderous
structure in close proximity to the east of the
property line.
Now, this is an extremely dangerous
building. Boats are stored in it with full fuel
tanks or even worse, with partially filled fuel
tanks. You have the potential for an explosion
of fire or other types of catastrophe to which
marinas are particularly prone. I speak from a
background of 45 years exposure to shipyards and
marinas. What you have here is possibly
presuming
on the ignorance of the neighboring
property owners, as to what a potential for
catastrophe you're locating in direct proximity
to their property and in general direct
proximity to Route 25.
Another aspect of it is the traffic
problem, which hasn't been touched on. I know
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
numerous,
numerous
There's
heavily
boating
And the
extreme.
some mention has been made of parking on the
north side of Route 25. This in itself is a
hazardous situation. You're going to have
if it's permitted, you will have
drivers strolling across Route 25.
no traffic control whatsoever. It's
traveled road, particularly during the
season. There's no traffic control.
possibility of injury to pedestrians is
You also have a situation there that
certainly should be brought to the attention of
the Department of Transportation where in effect
Route 25 is used as part of the marina
operation. Boats are transported across Route
25 routinely by forklift, truck or other
instance by travel lift. These are bulky slow
moving vehicles and present a hazard to the
motoring public. This is a question that has
been ignored in this context.
Now, I am coming to the end of this, I'm
presuming you will be glad to hear.
There are other things here that really
should be gone into. There's the question of
104
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
boat storage. 122 boats in the water. 122
boats in the water require winter storage.
my experience with boats of this type and
particularly where you intend to have rack
storage for smaller boats, is that these 122
105
Now ·
boats in the water would be boats of medium to
large size. When you handle these boats with a
travel lift, you require somewhere 1000 to 1,250
square feet of upland area per boat to allow for
the use in maneuvering of travel lift and
required space between the boats.
What you obviously have here is a
requirement for winter storage. Incidentally,
some--few of the boats that are stored in the
water -- moored -- docked in the water in the
summertime may not be stored in the upland
storage area in
concede that.
But on
remunerative
the winter time. I have to
the other hand one of the most
sources of marina business are
private boat owners store boats at their own
dock side in the summertime and bring them to
the marina site for winter storage. Presume
these two things to cancel themselves out, you
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
106
have a requirement for winter storage for boats
other than the ones in rack storage in the
building of approximately 122,000 feet, or
acres, of ground storage.
So in conclusion, I
somebody go over
three
would suggest that
this thing methodically. I'm
sure they'll come to the same conclusion that I
have: That there is absolutely no room on this
property for the proposed erection of the --
erection of the proposed structure.
If you'd like,
somewhat complicated,
course of the coming
I realize what I've said
I'll be glad during the
week, to present this to
is
you in written form so you can analyze it in a
context of the site plan. I've come to the end
of my over long presentation. If you have any
questions I would be happy to try to answer
them.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Appreciate you coming in
Mr. Flynn and we appreciate your suggestion to
us to reduce it to writing. But we do have this
very nice lady over here. She will transcribe
it for us.
MR. FLYNN: I'm not the most eloquent
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
speaker. I recognize that.
MR. GOEHRINGER: When we get the
transcript back, we'll analyze it based on
comments.
transcript. We appreciate your
MR. FLYNN: Thank you.
the
up?
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. WIGGINS: Mr. Chairman, can I finish
MR. GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MR. WIGGINS: Two things. The site
coverage, lot sizes, was based on survey by Van
Tuyl. The area to the west, which is -- was
excluded also all of the basins was excluded.
107
We did not exclude the property owner across the
street. Those were itemized on the site plan.
I would like to request an adjournment to
this hearing, get a copy of the transcript and
give the owner and the applicant a chance to
respond to those for your information.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Sure. Could you supply
us, possibly with whatever deed you may have
concerning not the original, of course, but
copies so we can take a look and see if there is
apparent rights here, or whatever the situation
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
might be, concerning this marina in total
basically. I would appreciate that.
MR. WIGGINS: yes, will do.
MR. GOEHRINGER: At this particular
I guess -- unless anybody else would like
speak.
MR. FLYNN: Mr. Van Tuyl submitted to you,
I believe, a survey of the property which
encompasses the motel site. So I would consider
that as being rather proof positive if the issue
arises as to whether it belongs to Mr. Leibline
or not. It says I believe it was entitled
property of the marina operation.
Also, there's a little bit of a trick
involved, here. It may be shown as being in
County Industrial
However, I checked
Suffolk County Development
They said they are only the
point,
to
ownership of the Suffolk
Development Corporation.
that with the
Corporation.
the
Titular owners. Mr. Leibline actually owns the
property and can put it back into his name
whatever he pays, whatever the balance due to
them is. And in fact, their ownership makes the
property tax exempt. That was part of the
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
109
reason for pits being may have had in that
ownership.
MR. GOEHRINGER: You're referring to the
motel, not to the marina.
MR. FLYNN: I'm not Albertson Marina. I
haven't checked in Riverhead. The assessment
shows Bud Pine (ph.)is the owner. Mr. Leibline
is the an officer of the Bud Pine. I do know
Mr. -- the proprietor of Albertson Marina leases
at least some of the property from Mr. Leibline.
Thank you.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
At the request of consult, we'll
with no date, waiting for
to be transcribed and
recess
the
reduced to
DINIZIO: Can I ask a question of Mr.
this hearing
transcript
writing.
MR.
Flynn?
MR. GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MR. DINIZIO: Is what you're saying, and
I'm relatively new to the Board of Zoning, what
you've said tonight is fairly new to me, that
the buildings that are on the property -- that
may not include the new building but the old
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
buildings, you feel that in effect
coverage of this new building --
MR. FLYNN: They approximate
110
the lot
the maximum
lot coverage that would be permitted on the site
without adding this new structure. That's what
I'm saying.
MR. DINIZIO: Say a
certain amount of parking --
MR. FLYNN: The inimum
80,000 square feet, which is
acres for a restaurant.
says that.
There is a requirement not of
acreage but actual acreage of three
restaurant needs a
requirement of
approximately 1.84
In the ordinance it
builders
acres for a
motel. And for any other use, special exception
use, you would also require a minimum plot of
80,000 square feet.
take
with
So the property is there. You have to
out the prior developed areas and end up
the net area for marina operations.
MR. DINIZIO: This is all included on that
particular site plan, the restaurant is on
there.
MR. FLYNN:
The restaurant is. The motel
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
isn't. What I'm maintaining, the motel site
should be, because as stated in the application,
the question in the application was what was in
contiguous and current common ownership. I'm
maintaining that the motel is also part and
parcel of that contiguous portion of the south
side of the road.
MR. DINIZIO: Even though it's under a
different name?
MR. FLYNN: It doesn't make any
difference.
MR. DINIZO: You're saying that the use of
that and the amount of land that would be
applied to the motel would --
MR. FLYNN: -- have to be three acres.
MR. DINIZIO: To this new building also?
MR. FLYNN: Over 9.1 acres.
By way of clarification, it says in the
application not only in effect owned by, but
also says controlled by. And this Suffolk
County Industrial Development Corporation told
me in effect no matter what it may appear on the
surface, it is controlled by Mr. Leibline.
MR. DINIZIO: Thank you very much.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
Date: September 2l, ']989
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
UNLISTED ACTION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
Appeal No. 3542
Project/Applicants: Cliffside (Tide
County Tax Map No. 1000- 45-1-1
Location of Project: 61475 County Rd.,
Mark)
Greenport
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction before this Board in this Project:
Construct 76 Mote] Dhits in this Res0rt/Residentia] (RR)
Z°~is 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.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned, and:
{ X ) this Board assumes Lead Agency status and determines
this project to be an Unlisted Action (uncoordinated) noting
these findings:
{~} the project is proposed in an area with land
contours 10 or more feet above mean sea level;
{ } the area seaward of the proposed construction is
bulkheaded;
structures
} the project is proposed landward of existing
{ } this Board does not wish to be Lead Agency since the
area of jurisdiction is minimal and not directly related to new
construction (such as nonconforming use variance or use permits);
{ } this Board wishes to assume Lead Agency status and
urges coordinated written comments by your agency to be
submitted within the next 20 days.
For more information, please contact our office.
Copies to: Planning Board, Town Trustees, N.Y.S.D.E.~. and/or
Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
tm
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD F. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, .IR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
JAMES DINIZtO, JR.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 $OUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
FAX NO. (516) 765-1823
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 3542
Matter of CLIFFSIDE (TIDE MARK). Special Exception to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section 100-50B [Article XIII), for
permission to construct 76 Motel Units in this Resort/
Residential (RR) Zone District. Property Location: 61475
County 48, Greenport, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 045,
Block 01, Lot 01.
WHEREAS.. a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of CLIFFSIDE
(TIDE MARK) under Appeal No. 3542; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the north
side of County Road 48, Town of Greenport, and is identified on
the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 045, Block
01, Lot 01.
2. This is an application for a Special Exception from
the Zoning Code Article V, Section 100-50B, [Article XIII), for
permission to construct 76 Motel Units.
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3542
Matter of CLIFFSIDE (TIDE MARK)
Decision rendered on November 2, 1989
3. At the time of this hearing on 9/21/89, by letter to
the attorney for applicant, the Code sections were changed to
indicate updated Section of present Code, Article VI, Section
100-618(4), as corrected.
(1) Article VI, 100-618 (4), the nature of this
present application is for a special exception for 68 motel
units and one manager's unit on this 7+- acres. As directed by
Final Draft Environmental Statement on this project.
(2 Hotel or motel uses as set forth in and regulated
by 100-618(4 of the Resort Residential (RR) District.
(3 Definition of a Motel: Buildings or Building
providing overnight accommodations for motorists (p.764,
Language of Zoning, taken from New York Zoning and Practice,
Third Edition, By Robert M. Anderson).
4. In considering this application, the Board finds and
determines:
(a) that the circumstances of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(b) that the area chosen for the Motel Units are not
unreasonably located;
(c) that the Special Exception will not in turn cause
substantial effect on the safety, health welfare, comfort,
convenience and/or order of the Town;
(d) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, the interests of justice will be served by
granting the Special Exception, as applied conditionally noted
below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr.
Grigonis, its was
Page 3 - Appl. No. 3542
Matter of CLIFFSIDE (TIDE MARK)
Decision rendered November 2, 1989
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception in the matter of the
application of CLIFFSIDE (TIDE MARK) as applied under Appeal No.
3542 for the placement of 68 Motel Units and 1 Manager Unit,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That the 68 Motel Units not. D~c~ed 600 sq. ft. in size.
[Article VI, Section 6IB 4(e;] '
2. That a sign be placed on west.side of turning lane, to
be added on the island, as shown on Site Plan of Henderson and
Bodwell, Dated 11/6/89, indicating right turn only, the sign is
to be approximately 2 sq. ft. in area and placed in full view of
all vehicles exiting from complex.
3. That all construction be setback a minimum of 100 ft.
from the bluff, with the exception of the ramp leading down to
beach.
4. That together with erosion controlled plans, as
indicated in DEIS, it is the suggestion of the Board for this
Special Exception, that Hay/Straw bales be placed outside the
100 ft. mark (landward) during construction.
5. That it is the understanding of this Board that only
the Managers Unit will contain kitchen facilities.
6. That a contract with the Village of Greenport exists
at the commencement of this construction project, for water and
sanitary facilities.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted.
df
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. FLYNN: Thank you.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Getting back to the
motion. I'm offering a motion to recess this
particular hearing without a date and specific
reason for it is to reduce the testimony that
was put before us tonight to writing so that we
may study it. In the interim so will the
applicant.
We will then get back to the applicant as
he will get back to us and we will readvertise
this for
digested
MR.
the new date when everybody has
this information.
SAWICKI: Second.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor?
(Ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much
everybody for coming in.
The second to last hearing is appeal
number 3842.
(Reading).
MR. GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the
buyer plan. We are talking about building
number 16, here. The construction on that
particular parcel, that particular site. I have
112
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
a copy of the Suffolk County tax map and
surrounding properties. Referring to the
113
site,
referring to
overall site
Condo.
tax map -- not the tax map but the
of 4.8 acres of Crescent Beach
I believe,
MS. MOORE:
Pat, you would like to speak.
Yes, thank you. Patricia
Moore, law offices of Moore & Moore in
Mattituck.
I have packaged together everything so you
don't have to search through the file.
We represent the Crescent Beach
Condominium Association. As you can see from
the audience, the majority of the people here,
little over dozen people, are members of the
a
condominium association, they're owners.
This property is located in East Marion
off of Maple Lane. The reason we are before you
tonight is that in 1979 a condition was imposed,
a variance for setbacks. The condition was that
a certain patio, which was a substantial patio
built out of wood, be restricted to screening
material so a deck could be improved with
screening.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The decks were
114
approved and there was
various communications back and forth. In 1986
the Association stated that they would like to
time,
replace
there was
Hinderman,
the screening with glass. At that
some communication between Mr.
who was the building
time and back and forth between
and Mr. Hinderman.
Mr. Hinderman's
was that the
and that the
internal roadway
inspector at the
the Asociation
recommendation or opinion
original variance was unnecessary
reason for that was that the
system was not a street within
the definition of street in the code and
therefore a setback was not required. That
along with an application by one of the owners,
I believe unit number 21, which obtained the
building permit and the C. O. for their
renovation.
The occurrencs of 1986 resulted in some
confusion by the property owners. After that
time, they began to replace the screening with
windows. At this time, when they went in for
future refinancing or whatever the purposes were
to obtain C.O.'s or updated C.O.'s for the
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
units, they were advised that the glass was not
a permitted material and that we should appear
before the zoning board and possibly add the
condition that was -- prior condition imposed.
At this time, the 20 of the 21 -- 19 of
the 21 units have the glassed-in porches. This
would result in a great hardship to replace and
restore the units to their original screening
material. The windows themselves do not change
the character of the community. The structure,
and I refer you to the diagram which was
included as part of the application in'79, shows
a wood frame structure with openings that show
not
screening as the material used. This has
changed the outside dimensions of the structure
remain the same. The difference being that the
screen was replaced with windows, in fact
improving aesthetically and structurally the
request that
or amend the conditions
appeal number 2552 and allow
glass screening
integrity of the building.
With that in mind we would
this Board rescind
imposed in 1979 in
the porches to be screened with
that is currently there.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In addition, we noticed in the file
number -- we reviewed the file for any
correspondence, the Board may have questions
about parking or barriers. We saw two notes
were trying to decipher what that meant.
owners here.
and
If you
would like to discuss it with the
MR. GOEHRINGER: Being honest with you,
every time I had gone down there, there was a
chain across the road. It was a cold day.
didn't know if anybody was going to take a gun
out and go after me, kiddingly. I didn't
transverse the chain. However, I did go down, I
guess, sometime in July. I was curious to see
that that road does exist. It goes around and
wraps around the rear of the major group of the
buildings.
My concern was how much of that area is
used for parking and how well used is that road.
MS. MOORE: Well, just to start with some
points. The road itself is in very good
condition if you noticed. It is in fact going
to be upgraded again. It is going to be
resurfaced, engineers have worked on some
116
drainage so the integrity of the road continues
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
in the condition it his now.
The parking, each of the units has a very
restricted parking that is self imposed by the
117
Association. Some of the units park behind in
the circle. The ones that are facing the water
park behind -- the ones facing the water, park
seaward of the driveway -- parallel parking.
And the ones in the back park behind their
building. So it is strictly enforced. There is
adequate parking. It has not changed, parking
needs have not changed really since the '79
appeal, which at that time the site plan was
referred to the building inspector.
There was a letter in the file, I can get
one for you if you'd like, that talked about the
adequacy of the parking and that it was
sufficient. That is still the case today. If
you'd like to ask any one of the property owners
if there is any problem with parking, I'm sure
they would enlighten you.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Let me understand this
again. Buildings D through J are the ones that
primarily wrap around the circle and are on the
east side.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
MS. MOORE: Those were the ones that face
the water.
MR. GOEHRINGER: They park in front of the
buildings primarily.
MS. MOORE: Well, not all along the front
of the building. There is a designated area for
parking. They park parallel to the road.
MS. MOORE: No, perpendicular to the road.
In front of the buildings.
MR. GOEHRINGER: What is the purpose of
the road?
MS. MOORE: Purely for access to the
individual units and to the beach. Internal
access system.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Let's assume on the
weekend we have several people staying with us
as guests in one particular unit.
MS. MOORE: As guests.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Would guests use that
road to park next to or near those units?
The reason I ask that question, when I
viewed the grass in the rear of this unit, the
grass looked like it was in very good condition.
It didn't look like it was parked on. Now, that
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
doesn't necessarily mean that whoever parked
there was probably a transient person and didn't
leave their car there for a long period of time.
Is that the case? Could you have parking there?
A PERSON: In other words, when you come
off the driveway, you just park in
perpendicularly into the building. If you have
a guest, he just park alongside of you. On that
circle, nobody parks in back of the building one
to six, or 21, which is the little independent
building. They just pull in front of the
building.
that's all
where they
all on the
MR.
across?
A PERSON:
they come down
perependicular
MS.
guests.
Nobody parks behind
lawn in there. One
put the extensions on,
lawns facing west.
GOEHRINGER: What about
the building,
to six would be
that that's
the buildings
road.
The buildings along the water,
to the road and park
to the water.
MOORE: There's enough room there for
A PERSON: Always on the east side of the
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The other thing I wanted to comment is
that one of the reasons you found the grass in
good condition is at that in most cases, the
primary use of the place is on the weekends
during the summer months. It's not as if it's
120
heavily used all week all the time.
MR. GOEHRINGER: When would somebody park
in the area closest to the porches?
A PERSON: Nobody, never.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Nobody would ever park
there.
A PERSON: No, never.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Why is that area not
chained off, then, so that there is really
ingress or egress through there?
Why is it not chained up?
MS. MOORE: It's self regulateing. Each
of the owners regulates their own.
MR. GOEHRINGER: What I was concerned with
when I saw the project, I'll be honest with you,
there was a significant amount of parking down
in that area. Not in any way degrading your
structures in any way, manner or form, I was
concerned with vehicular traffic down there and
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
proximity to those buildings from the reverse
side. That was the purpose of the question and
the purpose of the area in question concerning
the barrier.
To screen the building
sense from the roadway if it
roadway and it was used by all the
overflow or for very
use. So we've taken
problem. We thank you
MR. GOEHRINGER:
is, how have you -- how
enclosure enhanced your
pragmaticly I know how
me particularly.
A PERSON:
practically in
furniture, and
allows us more
MR. GOEHRINGER:
not in a practical
was an active
residents for
simply your own particular
care of that particular
for that.
The only other question
has this particular
unit? You know, I mean,
it's enhanced it. Tell
Well, it-- primarily and
inclement weather, it keeps the
so on, from getting ruined,
time to spend in that area.
These structures are only
used during what particular periods of time?
A PERSON: Summer months from April until
October.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Good, then the water is
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
122
shut off. There is really no way to get to it
unless you have a key to the chain. How are
they heated, in any way?
A PERSON: The units have radiant electric
heat. They have always had that.
MR. GOEHRINGER: You could come out in the
winter if the heat was on but not use the
plumbing?
A PERSON: That is correct.
MR. GOEHRINGER: That's not a violation of
any ordinance?
A PERSON: A little inconvenient to travel
a hundred miles and not have use of the
facilities.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Is this the first time in
the existence that I have been on the Zoning
Board that we have had a joint meeting where
everybody has spoken.
MS. MOORE: For the record, I believe one
of the conditions imposed in the original
application was that restriction on the use,
months, the April through the October.
MR. GOEHRINGER: I don't have any further
questions. I'll see if anybody else has any
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
Southold Town Board of Appeals
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZ[O, JR.
September 21,
S.E.Q.R.A.
TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION
3989
Appeal No. 3842
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Crescent Beach Condo Association
1000- 38.1-1-Units 1-21
End of Maple Lane, East Marion, NY
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Rescind Condition #3 under previous Appeal #2552 in which
decks or patios were not to be enclosed.
This Notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the
implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.$.
Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental
Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines ~his
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further information, please contact the Office of the
Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
(516) 765-1809.
tr
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD ' STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, t_.l., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
FAX NO. (516) 765-1823
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appeal No. 3842:
Application of CRESCENT BEACH CONDOMINIUMS. Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXVIII, Section 100-271 (D), for
permission to enclose decks or patios of units with glass
windows with insufficient setback. Property Location: End of
Maple Lane, East Marion in this Resort/Residential (RR) Zone
District, County Map No. 1000, Section 38.01, Block 7, Lot 21
units.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of CRESCENT
BEACH CONDOS. Under Appeal No. 3842; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
W/~EREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the south of
Route 25, Town of East Marion and is identified on the Suffolk
county Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 38.01, Block 7, Lot 21
units.
2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning
code Article XXVIII, Section 100-271 (D), for permission to
enclose decks or patios with glass windows with insufficient
setbacks.
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3842
Matter of CRESCENT BEACH CONDOS.
Decision rendered October 12, 1989
3. Article XXVIII, Section 100-271 (D), in addition to
such powers as may be conferred upon it by law, the Board of
Appeals shall have the following powers:
D. Interpretations: on appeal from order, decision or
determination of an administrative officer or on request of any
town officer, board or agency, to decide any of the following:
(1) Determine the meaning of any provision in this ~hapter
or of any condition or requirement specified or made under the
provisions of this chapter.
(~) Determine the exact location of any district boundary
shown on the Zoning Map.
4o In considering this application, the Board finds and
determines;
(a) that the circumstances of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(b) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial
effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience
and/or order of the Town;
(c) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance, as applied.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, Seconded by Mr.
Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
application of CRESCENT BEACH CONDOS as applied under Appeal No.
3842 for the enclosure of existing decks or patios with glass
windows.
Vote of the board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Dinizio. (Absent Serge Doyen, Fishers Island and Joseph
Sawicki). This resolution was duly adopted.
dff
GEREARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We'll discuss
two members on there that
concerning this.
(None).
MR. GOEHRINGER:
still have
in 1979.
MS. MOORE: I was noticing Mr.
and Doyen were still on the board.
MR. GOEHRINGER: How old
condominium project?
is this
A PERSON: I have been there
We finally got it approved in '67.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank
it. We do
were there
Grigonis
since
'65.
123
a
you very
coming in. This is a unique hearing.
Hearing no further questions, I'll make
motion for the close the hearing. Make a
decision later.
MR. SAWICKI: Second.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor?
much for
(Ayes).
MR. GOEHRINGER: The last hearing in the
agenda is Dr. Paul Mitchell. We apologize for
putting you on as the last hearing, Doctor. And
you, Mr. Garrett and Mrs. Mitchell, is that who
that is?
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is the next
DR. MITCHELL: Yes, it is.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Number 3860
appeal.
(Reading).
MR. GOEHRINGER:
Suffolk County tax map.
like to be heard?
MS. MOORE: Yes, good evening. We have
two matters I guess before the board this
evening. One obviously is the 280 A action for
access to the site. Simply, we did submit
photographs of the site. I assume someone from
the Board has been out to observe the right of
way, would find it as we did to be the first
half of it paved and well-maintained and second
half of it to be unpaved but maintained and
I have a copy of a
Mr. Strange, would you
travel on a regular basis as well right-of-way
not only serves the Mitchell property but
124
several surrounding properties that are used on
a year round basis for full time residents.
Thusly, it is kept in a relatively good state of
repair.
I think with regard to this point, unless
the Board had any questions about the
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
right-of-way access, I have
other than it appears to be
125
no further comments
adequate for
criteria normally set down with right-of-way and
private roads and adequately serve this parcel
and other that abut it.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Are you willing to
improve the portion that's dirt as to minimum
requirements? What would be the nature of those
improvements?
MR. GARRETT: To the hedges.
My client mentioned to me earlier someone
had done something to the road when they made a
recent inspection about a week ago. I hadn't
been to the site in six weeks. So it obviously
happened since I have been there that there has
been improvements made. There may be a normal
occurrence in the area that they improve the
road for the winter traveler. I'm not exactly
certain or at all knowledgeable at the moment
to what the extent of the improvements were.
MR. DINIZIO: That road has always been
very well maintained for a dirt road. No way
it --
as
is
DR. MITCHELL: It's really pebbled. It's
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
very nice.
MR. DINIZIO: It's a good road. I grew up
on that road. It was definitely not the stone
blend that's there now. But I have no trouble
with my car.
MR. GARRETT: It's a serviceable road.
There are numerous vehicles that use it on a
day-to-day basis. My initial response to your
comment is it maybe an unfair burden to place
upon my clients to improve and extend part of
this rode to the mutual benefit of all the
neighbors.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Well, we can do one of
two things. We can ask the fire department to
go up there and appraise it and see if they are
happy with the extent of how much time they have
if for any reason there is a brush fire or a
house fire. Or we can simply impose what we
would consider to be minimum standards after the
house is built so any disruption of the
right-of-way existed would be taken care of and
go back and look at it. We'll talk about it.
That's all I can tell you.
MR. GARRETT: Okay.
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
MR. GOEHRINGER: And possibly, you know.
It's something that I don't want you to walk
away and think that there aren't some minimum
improvements that need to be done.
MR. GARRETT: The second aspect of our
application deals with the request for relief
from the front yard setback. The property as
indicated in the application is somewhat unique
given the fact that it has a requirement for two
front yards as well as a requirement for a
setback from Long Island Sound.
What we are asking for is relief from one
of the two front yards and the nature of the
reductions from 50 to 40 feet. The site and the
uniqueness of the site in addition to the given
setbacks and the Long Island Sound, some
graphical criteria, being the topography of the
site is such that there is a depression pretty
much right smack in the middle of the site.
Well, we do have to meet certain Federal
Flood Plain requirements for which there is, if
you will knows on the map, line of F.E.M.A.,
flood plain elevation setback, elevation 11,
runs through the site at elevation 11. It's a
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
dotted
We
aware of
or dashed line with X's through it.
also, in an attempt to be somewhat
this area, although we since have come
to find out it's a misnomer, it's been
designated as a wetlands area, is not considered
to be a wetlands area since it's not in any way
connected to Long Island Sound and doesn't meet
any criteria of definition of a wetland.
We still do want it to be aesthetic to its
existence and want to pull the house and deck as
far as possible from that, and still maintain an
envelope that would be adaptable to our design
approach.
Another consideration we had in setting
this up is aside from the site constraints, the
geographical constraints that we have is the
fact immediately to our south the property noted
property. There is an existing
Right now the Robesen do enjoy
as the Robesen
dwelling there.
a view of the Long Island Sound. Our attempt
hold the house to what I'll refer to as the
south-westerly corner as it's depicted was done
also in an attempt to minimize or eliminate, if
possible, the impact on the Robesen's view.
128
to
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
129
There is also a house on the Tuttle
property, which is to the east. And, again, the
attempt is to keep as far away from Tuttle as
possible to minimize the impact on him, although
our distance from him is less critical I think
he's pretty far away, and I don't think will be
of any impact to him. More importantly was the
impact to Rosa.
Again, to reiterate the nature
request, was to reduce a second front
requirement from 50 feet to 40 feet.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Where would
and egress be on this site?
of our
yard
the ingrees
MR. GARRETT: The ingress is immediately
in the south-easterly corner right where the
right-of-way comes in and splits, the
intersection of the Robeson, Veil, Tuttle and
Mitchell plots. At that point we'll enter the
site, come along the southerly boundary of
property, or hug the southerly boundary
property, not necessarily right on the
line, but in that area between, let's say,
within the area of 50-foot zoning requirement
would be the area where the drive way access to
the
of the
property
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
$
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the house would be.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Certainly -- quite a
gully there.
MR. GARRETT: There certainly is. We try
to deal with it as best we can. We are making
attempts to design the house around and work
with that gully so we don't have problems to
deal with, especially with the flood plain.
For the record, if the Board doesn't have
130
it in their title, we do have a D.E.C. permit.
We also have approached the Southold Town
trustees who had a hearing and had indicated it
really wasn't any significance to them and
granted a waiver accordingly.
MR. GOEHRINGER: We do have that. I don't
think we have the D.E.C. That would be good for
it
wouldn't mind supplying
With the D.E.C.
us to have, if you
with us.
MR. GARRETT:
a copy of that and
MR. GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MR. GARRETT: I'll make
get it to the board.
MR. GOEHRINGER: I have
problem with the placement of
no particular
the house as you
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
131
have so designed its placement. It's very
difficult to understand when looking at the
site. There's lot of poison ivy up there.
MR. GARRETT: That's for certain.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Or down there.
Therefore, I didn't go down. I attacked this
site from the beach.
I have no particular problem with it. I
don't know if any of the other Board members do.
I'll go back and look at the right-of-way
before we make a decision to see what we can do
about that. We thank you again, Doctor and Mrs.
Mitchell. We apologize for this most sincerely.
Thank you for your indulgence.
MR GARRETT: Two pointed questions, the
references you made to soil and water, what is
that and what is involved and how long a process
is that?
MR. GARRETT: That is simply a
recommendation from them concerning any areas
that they feel could be minimized in the
construction of the dwelling. We don't have a
cliff or a lip or anything of that nature. So I
don't know of anything they're going to be
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concerned with.
much.
I tend to think probably not
We are not bound to wait for their
decision. We think we will have it within the
next two weeks. It's something that you know,
if we were 165 feet in the area and 70 feet lip
of the bluff. We are not concerned with it in
this situation. We deal with soil and water
whenever it concerns anything on the water,
usually on the Long Island Sound.
That's the primary reason.
MR. GARRETT: If the point comes to being,
I think part of the one of the D.E.C.
requirements was to during the course of
construction was to protect the area below the
ten foot contour we will do with.
MR. GOEHRINGER: That is probably the same
situation.
MR.
GARRETT:
fare these days.
The other question
Board may act on its
meeting?
MR. GOEHRINGER:
That seems to be
is, is
decision at
standard
132
it possible the
the next
Yes. Because I'm sure
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
you want to start this construction.
MR. GARRETT: Yes, we are awaiting the
Board to take action on this in addition.
MR. GOEHRINGER: On the 280 A aspects,
briefly, if we so desire to ask for
133
improvements, we will -- they can be done after
the construction and we'll come back and look at
them. This is nothing that an engineer has to
look at because of the pretty good situation
exists there.
We have no idea what it will look like
during the spring thaw. That's our concern
DR. MITCHELL: We've been out there many
seasons. Thank you.
MR. GOEHRINGER: Best of luck. Have a
good night.
Hearing nothing further, motion to chose
the hearing reserving decision until later.
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
MR. GOEHRINGER: The hearing is closed.
(Time Noted: 11:30 P.M.)
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168
th lclTo B cl lApp is
ou o wn oar o ea
.~ ~,~ ~o~o- s~ ~o~o ~ ~o~o~o. ~.,.. ~.~. ,~
~ ~ tELEPHONE (5~6) 765 1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
September
s.~.o,.~.~.
TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION
21 , 1989
Appeal No. 3860
Project/Applicants:
County Tax Map No.
Location of Project:
Dr. Paul Mitchell
1000- 17-2-8
1015 Munn Road,
Orient, NY
Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project:
Construct a single family dwelling with insufficient front
yard setback
This Notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the
implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the NoY.S.
Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental
Conservation Law and Local Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold.
An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted
with the subject application indicating that no significant
adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be
project be implemented as planned.
It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction
concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this
application to fall under the established list of Type II
Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is
excluded as an involved agency.
This determination shall not, however, affect any other
agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj.
For further information, please contact the Office of the
Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at
(516) 765-1809.
mc
So th Id Tow B d lApp is
: ' u o n oar o ea
~ TELEPHONE (516) 76~18~
FAX NO, (516) 76~1823
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAtRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONI$, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 3860
Matter of DR. PAUL AND ELLEN MITCHELL. Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30.A.3, and 280-A
Access for Right of Way, for permission to construct a single
family dwelling with insufficient front Yard setback in this
R-40 Zone District. Property Location: 1015 Munn Lane, Orient,
County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 017, Block 02, Lot 08.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on
September 21, 1989 in the matter of the Application of DR. PAUL
AND ELLEN MITCHELL, under Appeal No. 3860; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is located along the north
side of Main Road 25, Town of Orient, and is identified on the
Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 017, Block 02,
Lot 08.
2. This is an application for Variances from the Zoning
Code Article III A, Section 100-30A.3, 280-A Access of
Right-of-Way, for permission to construct a one family dwelling,
with insufficient front yard setbacks.
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3860
Matter of Dr. Paul and Ellen Mitchell
Decision rendered October 12, 1989
3. Article III A, Section 100-30A.3, no building or
premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be
erected or altered in the Low-Density Residential R-40 District
unless the same conforms to the requirements of the Bulk
Schedule and of the Parking Schedule, with the same force and
effect as if such regulations wee set forth herein in full.
(A) 280-A Access of Right-of Way.
4. Subject premises for the proposed dwelling is known
and referred to as being on 1,3756 Acres, the proposed house,
with decks and catwalk will be 5,890+- sq. ft., the proposed
location of the house will be 40+- ft. away from the west
Property line, 15+- ft. from the north property.line, 115+- ft.
from the south property line, and 165+- ft. from the high water
mark.
5. In considering this application, the Board finds and
determines:
(a) that the circumstances of this application are
uniquely related to the premises and its established
nonconformities;
(b) that there is no other method for appellants to
pursue; and placing the proposed one family dwelling in any
other location on the premises will require other variance
relief;
(c) that the area chose for the dwelling is not
unreasonably located;
(d) that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial
effect on the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience
and/or order of the Town;
(e) that in carefully considering the record and all the
above factors, the interests of justice will be served by
granting the variance, as applied conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, Seconded by Mr.
Grigonis, it was
Page 3 - Appl. No. 3860
Matter of Dr. Paul and Ellen Mitchell
Decision rendered October 12, 1989
RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance in the matter of the
application of DR. PAUL AND ELLEN MITCHELL as applied under
Appeal No. 3860 for the placement of a one family dwelling with
setback and a 280oA access Right-of-Way, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: -
1. That within the findings of the Board that it is our
understanding that the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) and the Town Trustees are dealing with the erosioo control
aspects of this construction, and we suggest that all possible
precautions be used in the construction of this one family
dwelling.
A. Setback for the one family dwelling as shown on
Site Plan, By Garrett A. Strang, Dated 3/28/89
B. It is understood that the erosion control aspects
of this project have been mandated by the other agencies of the
Town and the State, however, it is the suggestion of this Board
that a retaining wall may be deemed necessary on the side of the
proposed dwelling that is closest to the property line (15')
$ideyard, and that the distance of this wall not exceed the
distance of the dwelling.
2. 280-A, Access be granted from the unpaved access
the edge of the property line, a distance of approximately
(525'+-), subject to the following improvements:
to
(a) after construction a minimum of 2 inch 3/4 stone
blend at a minimum width of eight feet and a suggested width of
ten feet, after completion it is to be inspected by Members of
the Zoning Board before a certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) is
granted for the property.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis
Dinizio (Absent was, Joseph Sawicki and Serge Doyen, Fishers
Island). This resolution was duly adopted.
and
df
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATION
I, JENNIFER MAUE __, a Notary Public
and for the State of New York, do hereby certify:
THAT the witness (es) whose testimony is
hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn by me;
and
THAT the within transcript is a true record
of the testimony given by said witness (es).
I further certify that I am not related,
either by blood or marriage, to any of the parties
to this action; and
THAT I am in no way interested in the
outcome of this matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
my hand this 6 day of October , 1989.
Respectfu'lly su3pmitted,
Acting Clerk to the
Board of Appeals
~ENNIFER MAUE
in
RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168