Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/20/1983APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT .I. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SDUTHOLD, L.I,, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 1983 A Regular Meeting of the Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, April 20, 1983 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Sou~hold, New York. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Also present was Mr. Victor Lessard, Administrato~.(Building Department) and approximately 30 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 o'clock p.m. and proceeded with the first public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3097. Application for ROBERT AND JOANNE DEVOE, by Irving L. Price, Jr., Esq., 828 Front Street, Green- port, NY for a Variance to Section 280-A, New York Town Law, for approval of access over a private right-of-way located off the north side of Main ~S.R. 25) Road, at Terry's Point, Orient, NY; Parcel in Question: Subdivision Lot ~3 of Minor Subdivision of Jonathan D. Stern; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-17-02-001.2. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:30 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a subdivision map surveyed June 25, 1970 indicating the nature of the right-of-way which is some 480 feet from the Main Road to the beginning of the subdivision of Jonathan D. Stern. We also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Price, would you like to be heard in behalf of this application? ~outhold Town Board o~Appeals -2- April 20,--1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3097 - ROBERT AND JOANNE DEVOE, continued:) IRVING L. PRICE, JR., ESQ.: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board: In addition to the statements upon the application, you will note that the Notice of Disapproval of a Building Permit dated March 9, 1983 is upon the grounds that there is no access approval from State Highway, Route 25, Main Road, to the Minor Subdivision per 280-A. I submit that this is incorrect for at least four reasons. One, the ignored right-Of-way or access is actually shown on the Minor Subdivision Map entitled, "Minor Subdivision for Jonathan Stern at Orient, New York" as of September 30, 1976. This was approved by the Planning Board when this subdivision was approved. It shows 480' long, 33' wide, running from the Main Road to the subject Minor Subdivision. The same ignored access is shown on the ancient filed subdivision maps of Mantalo~ken Hills, Mantaloken Bungalow Sites Amended, at Orient, New York under Filed Map ~620, 163, 765, filed in the dates of 1908 to 1921. It is conveyed to the applicants by a deed dated December 14, 1982 and recorded' in the office of the clerk of the County of Suffolk on December 21, 1982 at Liber 9287 of conveyances at page 464. It is shown as a separate parcel on the Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 0171, Block 03, Plot No. 14. The Town Engineer has recommended as to updating the 30' right- of-way, really 33~ from the State Highway, for heaving trucking and construction equipment, Report 1268, December 28, 1982: "...Access to the 30' right-of-way from the State Highway should be updated for heavy trucking and construction equipment. 1. The macadam section should be patched with bituminous material where necessary. 2. Place 4" of compacted medium size gravelm(similar to present gravel) 12' in width on the gravel sections. 3. The concrete section may take construction traffic. If damaged would have to be repaired or replaced with other material. 4. Place 4" of compacted medium size gravel 12' ~n width in the 30' right-of-way following the alignment of the prior road, to the left hand turn (grading started here). Place 6" of the above compacted gravel as a top course on the graded section (250 ft, more or less). 5. Some provision should be made for turning emergency vehicles. A graded and stabilized road area, right and left of the .access road, in the right-of-way in front of Lots #1 and 92 should provide T fnrns. 6. Medium size gravel is recommended as it would be in harmony with other gravel roads in the area. Stone blend can be Substituted if gravel is not available. /s/ John W. Davis .... " ~Southold Town iBoard off'Appeals -3- April 20,~i983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3097 - ROBERT AND JOANNE DEVOE, continued:) MR. PRICE continued: February 12, 1983...same engineer...same right-of-way: "...Gravel (Report 268) was recommended for updating the exist- ing access road and also for the new 250 ft. section, more or less, to be in keeping with other gravel roads in the vicinity. I would approve stone blend as an alternate material for the road where gravel had been recommended. This material to be compacted and used at the widths and depths as called for with gravel. The macadam section of the road should be patched with bituminous material as noted in Report 268 .... " /s/ John W. Davis. Now, as to the present condition and circumstances of the said access to Main Road, your speaker personally in a 1982 Chryslar New Yorker on or about April 14, 1983 traversed this road to the minor subdivision turning east on the road, bordering the south and an old cemetery beyond the subdivision to another, private road runnmng north and south with access to the same Main Road and after a short distance southward turned west along another road until he reached the same access. He could have turned south and traveled to the Main Road; instead he went north, %hen east along minor subdivision to the other south road and then south to the same Main Road, thus there are in fact four possible ways to reach this minor subdivision while they are private roads. The public including the applicant have rights over these private roads from their predecessor in title and as members of the public by right of prescriptions. During your speaker's inspection, he encountered no difficulty in driving said car over these access roads. In fact, he has driven over these same roads for some 50 years and has observed no change in their condition. He also observed driveways of existing houses off the subject access that there probably at least eight existing houses now using said right-of-way for access to their homes. If any of the other 15 to 20 houses located on the other private roads described above were to use this right-of-way or access, it could, be said almost 30 existing homes are using the same access in the same present condition. There would be no problem for emergency vehicles to obtain access to the minor subdivision upon the existing roads, thus it seems we have demonstrated that there is access to the minor subdivision; that it is in use by the occupants of other dwellings in the same area and has been used as such for upwards of 50 years. Further, to require this one applicant to expend their sums of money to uPdate the same access road for use by heavy trucking and construction equipment is packly unfair and unequal treatment. We are a Country of laws and one of the laws ms a part of the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to our Federal Constitution without which it would not have been adopted. And that right is that indivi- duals must be treated equal. To require applicant to fix UP this road at a great expense and not to require the other present users ~Southold Town Board o~Appeals -4- April ~20,-1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3097 - ROBERT AND JOANNE DEVOE, continued:) MR. PRICE continued: is unequal treatment and unconstitutional. It would also constitute hardship under the zoning ordinance of one not shared by the other properties in the vicinity and will not violate the spirit of the ordinance. Therefore, a variance should be granted and the building department should be instructed to issue a building permit to appli- cants as far as the 480', 33'-wide road from the Main Road to the minor subdivision is concerned. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Price, Would anybody else like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? (None) Any questions from any board mem- bers? Anything further, Mr. Price? (Nothing further). Thank you. Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision u~til later in the matter of the application of Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3092. Application of ERNEST H. PRUSSNER, 910 Old Shipyard Lane, Sou~hold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct extension reducing the rearyard setback and exceeding the 20% maximum allowable lot coverage at 910 Old Shipyard Lane, Southold, NY; Founders Estates Map 834, Subd. Lot 91; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-064-04-022. This hearing was recessed from the last Regular Meeting of this board, to wit, March 23, 1983. The hearing was reconvened at 7:45 p.m. MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Wickham, did you have anything you wish to add to the application? ABIGAIL W.tCKHAM, ESQ.: Yes, I would. First, I'd like to give the board a set of copies of the revised map of the property. There is a small shed in the rearyard which was not taken into account in the initial computations, and I apologize for that oversight, and I have revised it to show that. (MisS Wickham distributed five photo- copies of the amended plan.) Also, in initially measuring the house, the existing house is 47' long and it is actually 45' long. And that difference is that the rearyard would be somewhat in excess of 39' ~outhold Town Board o~ppeals -5- April'~_~~, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3092 - ERNEST H. PRUSSNER, continued:) MISS WICKHAM continued: as opposed to 38' and the proposed lot coverage would be just over 24% rather than just under 24%. As far as the application itself goes, as you can see from your inspection, the Prussners have a rather small house and they recently acquired a large number of artifacts and special items from all over the world as a result of their son's death; and since they have a specialmeaning to them, they would like to find a place to keep them. They also have very small rooms and only one bathroom in the house and would like to expand to a larger master bedroom/bath area and also a laundry area. They did attempt to buy a larger home in the neighbor- hood and found that. none were available. Mr. Prussner and Mrs. Pruss- net are here tonight, and I think he would like to explain to you the process he went through in designing this proposed addition. MR. PRUSSNER: Gentlemen. What happened, as you know I was taken back with the loss of my son, and he was a high school teacher over at Shelter Island and within eight months he was gone with cancer and it sorn of gave mom and me a loss and an oppohtunity came up where this bungalow was vacant next to Bettyann, which is my daughter, and we thought, gee this was great to purchase it. So in the interim now we find as we want to make it a fulltime home for ourselves, it seems there are so many things of Ernie's that we just can't seem to part with and what we thought, that we would like to add this additional room and a bedroom with a bath for ourselves-'~th~ additional room would be like a den where you could put Ernie's artifacts and things that he brought home to us from all the years. He was a musician and he had an organ and a piano which is part of our family and we would like to keep is with us, and I had spoken to ... I made a drawing, I didn't know what procedure I had to do and then I spoke to a builder and he suggested I get somebody that I was a little too vague with my plan. So Ne proposed for me to talk to Miss Wickham and I did, and then she wrote me a nice letter and told me I had to bring it all down, and in two or three times she finally came up with a size that she thought would be excellent. We had gone on our side down here a little bit a few feet and she said, "Please bring that back." And we did all that, and if you would like to see this letter that Miss Wickham wrote to me and she thought this was a fair variance to apply for. Outside of that, I really don't know what to say. I don't think it's...we plan to cver the whole house with vinyl to make it look neat and be an asset to the community, which I'm sure that the people who have seen since we've moved in what we've done to the place. I don't know what else to add. I guess it's up to you, gsntlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you a question? MR. PRUSSNER: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the contents of the new addition--will it be one large room, several rooms, or what? MR. PRUSSNER: The new addition will be one den, which I plan to ~Southold Town Board off'Appeals -6- April 20,~ i983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3092 - ERNEST H. PRUSSNER, continued:) MR. PRUSSNER continued: use for the piano and the organ and Ernie's artifacts; and then the other room would be a bathroom and a bedroom and a laundry room. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. MISS WICKHAM: I'd be glad to give a copy of this to the board. I don't have an extra one with me. I can send it in. This is not the final plan but it's proposed-- MR. PRUSSNER: No, in other words in will be in that area, but this is the idea of the library and den, which would hold that, and this would be the new bedroom and the bath, and the laundry room. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's strictly a one-story structure. MR. PRUSSNER: Oh, yes. Yes. MISS WICKHAM: Mr. Prussner didn't say, but when he first came in to me he had an addition that provided for a 12' rearyard and I told him that would be a little too much to ask, and I sent to the drawing board two or three times, and he did revise it down as far as he could and still meet their needs of size. And I also him to try and maintain the sideyards so that there wouldn't be any jutting out of the house. MR. PRUSSNER: Both sides will be exactly like they are now. It's just a rearyard addition. MR. CHAIRM_A_N: The reason for the alleyway in between the existing dwelling and the proposed addition is so that you have light? MR. PRUSSNER: That's right. Exactly. This is the kitchen over here and the.bathroom, present bathroom, and the bedroom. MR. CHAIRMAN: So you don't want to close that light off? MR. PRUSSNER: That's it exactly, sir. MISS WICKHAM: I was going to mention, and Mr. Lessard has just corrected me...I was going to mention that the rearyard setback would comply with the proposed revisions. I understand they're no longer proposed; that they are actually in effect. When the application was submitted to the building inspector, they did not meet the code, So we're talking basically about excess lot coverage, and really the hard- ship I think is that it is a small lot, and so when you're talking about 20%, that's really geared as much as anything that's based on 40,000 square=foot code and here we're even, with a lot of only 11,250 which is comparable to many of the lots in the neighborhood, you're talking about a variance or an increase of only about 4% over the coverage requirements. And as I mentioned in the application, since the garage is part of the house, that complicates their problems in ~outhold Town Board o~ 'Appeals -7- April 20~'1!983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3092 - ERNEST H. PRUSSNER, continued:) MISS WICKHAM continued: terms of expansion. I don't think it is going to be a detriment to the neighbors because there is at least some vegetation in the rear more dense in the summer than the winter; and I don't think that since the house, the addition will be at the back and will not be visible it is jutting out from the sideyards that it would be not all the problem. If you have any questions we'll be glad to answer them. MR. CHAIRMAN: You'll send us a copy of that plan? MISS WICKHAM: I will. Yes. It's a little askew; as you can see he had it jutting out, and I had him move it over...bu~ with that correction that's where it would be. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Sir, would you please state your name? MR. MEREDITH: My name is Meredith. My mother lives next door to the property. I own the property next to my mother. I object to this extension on the basis that it puts the house in a size quite ou~ of keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Unless the figures have changed, I didn't get what the dimensional changes were, but the exten- sion will be from the old figures 55 square feet larger than my own mother's house. The house as it stands now excluding the 181 square feet for the garage is over 1500 square feet. Our house I think is considered a good size house and it's just under 1500 square feet. We're talking a 2675 square house in an area where I dare say that something 1500 would be the average--well u~der 1500. That's all I have to say. MR. PRUSSNER: May I ask you a question, Mr. Meredith-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Prussner. You have to address everything through the board. MR. PRUSSNER: I just wanted to know--did Mr. Meredith have to get a variance for his extensions on the garage? He's on the same piece of property as mine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Meredith, did you understand the question? MR. MEREDITH: The extension to our house was built in 1960-- no, that's not right. 1963, I believe. I owned the property and I never had to apply for any variance, no. Actually I was living out of the Country at the time, but I don't think anybody could have handled it for me because I signed no papers. MR. CHAIRMAN: ts there anybody elSe? Yes. ELIZABETH GOLDSMITH: My name is Elizabeth Goldsmith, and I live on the other side of my parents' home, and I would just like to say ~Southold Town Board of ~Appeals -8- April 20~1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3092 - ERNEST H. PRUSSNER, continued:) that our house is a two-story house, Mr. Meredith's mother's house is a two-story house; we have lived in the neighborhood since 1965 when we were married so that's almost 18 years. Mr. Meredith's extension was built after that. Not only Mr. Meredith's, but many homes in the area .have had additions and changes put on them for various reasons. No one in the neighborhood has ever objected to any of the changes or any of the additions that have been put onto~the homes when we realized the needs of the neighborhood have changed. And whatever changes have been made have enhanced the. neighborhood and so the neighbors have never objected, But believe there have been many changes made in the 18 years that my husband and I have lived there. MR. CHAIRMAN: .Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak against this application? (None) Any questions from anyone? Miss Wickham, anything? MISS WICKHAM: I'd just like to mention that Mr. Meredith didn't produce any evidence to show what the average size of the house in the neighborhood is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you hear-- MISS WICKHAM: WOuld you like me to repeat it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please. MISS WICKHAM: You didn't produce any evidence to demonstrate what the average size of the homes in the neighborhood is. MR. MEREDITH: That I have any ~vidence? MISS WICKHAM: That you did not produce any. MR. MEREDITH: I didn't go aroUnd and measure house for house, no. But my own house from observation is a good-size house and it's under 1500~square feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you want to say something, Mrs. Prussner? MRS. PRUSSNER: The only thing I want to say is, Mr. Meredith is quoting the size and his objection, but he doesn't live next to us. It won't affect him. MR. PRUSSNER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make another sugges- tion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. PRUSSNER: Originally as Miss Wickham said, there was a home which I tried to buy rightCnext door in fact to Mr. Meredith, and naturally they weren't interested, but I also asked Mr. Meredith if he...I know his mother is getting on in age and I said, "If at any time ~outhold Town Board o~Appeals -9- April 20%~1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3092 - ERNEST H. PRUSSNER, continued:) MR. PRUSSNER continued: that you should decide to sell your mother's home, I would be delighted and still am to be thought of as a chance to buy it." And I would like that also to go on the records because then it-isn't that he is going to have a hardship because I have or would offer to buy it, if it was within reason. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any further comments from anyone in the audience? Questions from board members? (None) 'Hearing no fur- ther questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER SAWICKI: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearinq and reserve decision until later in the matter of the application of ERNEST H. PRUSSNER, Appeal No. 3092. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3106. Application for ANDREW KRUPSKI and another, by William B. Smith, 220 Mechanic Street, South- old, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of two lots having insufficient area and width. Location of Property: Lots 23, 24 and 25 of Subdivision Map of Jona- than T. Overton; more particularly known as 1460 Town Harbor Lane, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~064~05-12 and 13. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:00 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. on September 13, 1976 indicating the house lot of 14,937 square feet and a lot, Lot B, of 15,862 square feet. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Would somebody like to be heard in behalf of this application? DAN SMITH: I'm Dan Smith and my brother B~ll asked me to take his place since he is not able to come. And this came up all of a sudden so I'm not too familiar with it, but this subdivision...this property is on the Subdivision of Jonathan Overton which was original- ly laid out in 50' lots and most all the houses in that subdivision are on 50' lots...a couple of them were on 75' lots, and then the subdivision to the rear of this property, which was Founders Estates was all laid out on 75' lots and most of the houses uver there are on Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- April 20, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3106 - ANDREW KRUPSKI and another, continued:) MR. SMITH continued: 75' lots, so that's all I can tell you about it. If there are any questions-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Smith. We'll see what happens as the hearing goes on. WouId anybody else like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? (No one) Any questions from any board members? (None) I just have one question, Mr. Smith. Concerning the driveway which we observed when we took pictures, it appeared that the driveway that is being presently used seems to go over that Lot B. Would that be re-routed then back onto Lot A if this division was approved? MR. SMITH: Well, according to -- it doesn't show that driveway on here, bu~ I assume that the driveway won't be on the same 75' lot with the house. MR. CHAIRMAN: I mean there won't be any deeded right-of-way over that Lot B? MR. SMITH: No. No there won't be anything like that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Hearing no further comments concerning this hearing, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of the application of ANDREW K~UPSKI AND ANOTHER, Appeal No. 3106. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grig.onis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3105. Application for N. CHARLES AND SYLVIA DeLUCA, by Richard F. Lark, Esq., Main Road, Cu~chogue; NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100- 31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct one-family dwelling with deck addition with an insufficient rearyard setback, at 1235 Wells Road, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~86-2-part of 1. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:04 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey amended, on 12/15/82 in- dicating the existing setback and area of the proposed deck to be ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -11- April 20/1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3105 N. CHARLES AND SYLVIA DeLUCA, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: constructed on two sides of this parti~ular dwelling. We also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Would somebody like to be heard in behalf of this application? MR. DeLUCA: Ail I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that my application speaks for itself. MR. CHAIRMAN: You are Mr. DeLuca? MR. DeLUCA: Yes, I am. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. MR. DeLUCA: Pleasure. MR. CHAIRMAN: At no time was this proposed deck, Mr. DeLuca, ever be snclosed? MR. DeLUCA: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: You wouId have no objection to that restriction being placed on it? MR. DeLUCA: Not at all. In fact I'm a conservationist. This is one of the reasons why I chose to combine both lots, just to build one~house to enhance the beauty of the area. It is on the creek and I felt that being a naturalist, putting one house and letting the natural scope of the land, would really look good. If you had a deck you can appreciate it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would anybody else like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from any board members? (None) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserv- ing decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the heateD.g, and reserve decision until later in the matter of the application of N. CHARLES AND SYLVIA DeLUCA, Appeal No. 3105. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ~outhold Town Board o~Appeals -12- April 20~ 1983 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3087. Application for LULA M_AE LATHAM, by Twomey, Latham and Shea, Esqs., 33 West Second Street, Riverhead, NY for a Variance to Section 280'A, New York Town Law, for approval of access over a private right-of-way located off the south side of Main (S.R. 25), Orient, NY; Parcel in Question: 1000-019-01-010. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:13 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. amended May 25, 1978 indicating a right-of-way of approximately I6' wide running southerly approximately 1283' from the Main State Road into the property and thence going 25' wide for a period of approximately 691' into this 40,000 square-foot parcel. We also have a copy Of the County Tax Map showing this property and the properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to speak in behalf of this application? AMY TURNER: I'm Amy Turner and I'm an attorney with Twomey, Latham and Shea and we represent LuIa Mae Latham. I wanted to elaborate on the application. We have pending with the Planning Board an application to set-off a one-acre lot as it shows there on the map. The first meeting with the Planning~ Board was Monday. The purpose 6f the subdivision is to enable Mrs. Latham to convey this lot to her daughter, Diana, who is frequently out here and frankly it's a bit of estate planning rather than anything else. As you can see from the map, there is no frontage on a public road. There is a right-of-way...I believe it's not as long as 1,283' That measurement is from the Main Road to the beginning of the scenic easement. It's less than 1,283' but it is substantially far. That right-of-way has been used for at least a century by the Latham's family. It ~as conveyed to them by virtue of a deed. I mailed to you a deed; I'm not sure that you've received it. SECRETARY: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it's in the file. MISS TURNER: It's very co~fusing in that area as you are all aware of. It's a very old deed. We believe that the character of the community would not--that the surrounding area would not be changed in any way. The purposes of the subdivision is to convey the lot to Mrs. Latham's daughter. She already uses that lot when she comes out and uses the right-of-way when she comes out to visit. As you'll notice there is already a building on the lot proposed to be set off and that building hasn't been occupied for quite some time. It was built way before 1950 but it is the Latham's intention to renovate that so that Mrs. Latham's daughter can have a place to live our there--ou~ here. Certainly the applicant would suffer a hardship; Mrs. Latham has been using that right-of-way--she's got Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- April 20, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3087 - LULA-MAE LATH .AM, continued:) MISS TURNER continued: substantial property there and if this variance is .denied it is to be precluded from ever being conveying one lot to her daughter, and cer- tainly I think the difficulty here is unique in that many of the lots in the area do have access. And I'd also like to mention something abouG the condition of the right-of-way. I believe it's about 8 to 10 feet wide and it's hard-packed dirG and the Lathams have .... I believe the only neighbors who have done any work on that r'ight-of-way, they managed to go out every Spring; if there were any potholes that had developed over the Winter, with stone and it is currently used by not only the Lathams bug farmers who lease the lower part of the property as well as some of the TuGhill farmers who farm on the Tuthill land, and I u~derstand that town vehicles do go down there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you a question, and we ask everybody the same question. Mrs. Latham does have a legal right-of-way over this particular parcel leading to her property~-a deeded right-of-way? didn't get a chance to read-- MISS TURNER: Yes, I brought to you this 1888 deed which has-- it's a v~ry old kind of description bug it extends from the Main Road down to -- this actual right-of-way was'deeded to a 10-acre piece and the Lathams acquired their property in segments, so, in fact I believe this lot is even within that 10 acres. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? ROBERT WEBBER: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the application, not against it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I have your name? MR. WEBBER: Yes. My name is Robert Webber. I'm the owner to the north, and my only question is--I have no problem with the access you know for the Latham property as the attorney mentioned, for 100 years they have been using it, and I have no problem at all with the~ Lathams using it. The question I have is that my deed, which I received from Edward Koroleski, makes no mention of an easement or a right-of-way. And that's the thing I would like to have cleared up. My deed describe~ the property and my survey map' shows a traveled way but no easement. My survey is my Robert Smith, L.L.S., January 9, 1980 where he shows a 10' traveled way in use--which it is. I have a tenant farmer who farms my ten acres. He uses that traveled way, and the Lathams use the traveled way. It is a private road~-marked is a pri- vate road up here. I would be interested in seeing the deed that provides for that right-of-way. As I say I have no opposition--it's just a question of clearing i't up on my deed. And also I have a guaranteed title that does not mention any deed. ~outhold Town Board o~Appeals -14- April 20~ 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3087 LULA MAE LATHAM, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess my best bet would be to take this out of the file. Do you have a more discernable copy than ours? MISS TURNER: Well, that's very difficult. any better. don't think it's MR. CHAIRMAN: I think mine is a better copy. (Mr. Lessard made a copy of the 1888 right-of-way easement for Mr. Webber. A copy of Mr. Webber's survey and deeds were provided for the record.) MISS TURNER: The deed describes the right-of-way as going over land of that was formerly David Petty's lot which I belleve is the predecessor to Webber, so the legal right-of-way is actually over the Webber piece. The traveled right-of-way as I'm sure the survey shows--I have one from Mr. VanTuYt which I'll give you, it shows that it now varies a little through use over now Hoey property as well as the Webber property. And as far as Mr. Webber's deed, we're aware that the deed doesn't contain a subject-to clause nor did his prede- cessor, but the deed, I think it's likely that there was some confu sion here because these deeds are very old and it's very, very diffi- cult for us to track them down. And that wasn't mentioned in the title report that there's a right-of-way --Mr. Webber's title report, an existing right-of-way being used and subject to the possible~ use by others. MR. WEBBER: I have a title report. There is mention 6f a-- MR. CHAIRMAN: This is your title report (the Chairman quickly reviewed the title report). MR. WEBBER: Yes, this is my title report. They mention a 10' traveled way partly over the westerly portion of the premises which is true. MR. CHAIRMAN: They don't give any indication of whose. MR. WEBBER: No. I mean it has been farmed for years, you know, the farmers all use it and of course the Lathams used for a good number of years. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is certainly not within my purview, ok, but I'll ask the question. I would assume there has been no title insur- ance on this property and that's the reason why you have-- MISS TURNER: There hasn't been. We have tried to, plan to concern in terms of cost here and they have not obtained the certi- ficate of title, and all of these parcels have been in the family for going back at least 1883, 1888. So there has been a recent title _ report. I don't think there even was-when these were all conveyed between 1888 and 1903. ~outhold Town Board od~ppeals -15- April 20~ 1983 Regular Meeting (ApPeal No. 3087 - LULA MAE LATHAM, continued:) MR. WEBBER: Is the deed recorded in the County Clerk's Office? MISS TURNER: Yes, it is. It's Liber 313 page 239. It's from David Petty and his wife Josephine to Fred Latham and that pertains to a 10-acre parcel which is part of that area. I should also mention that there was a subsequent deed to a five-acre piece that excepted in favor of someone else a right-of-way...it gets kind of confusing but it was Orange Petty, with a history of the area which referred to a right-of-way going from the Main Road north and south alonq all of this property sufficient for the passage of two--the deeds a~e, all subsequent deeds in the Latham Family refer to rights-of-way, but this deed that I just cited, Liber 313, spells out the right-of-way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions, Mr. Webber? MR. WEBBER: Yeah, I think--there will be no question, I think, as far as the rights of the Lathams.~ They have used the road for 100 years and there'S nobody that a~e ~oing to say that you can't use it. So they've acquired that right whether they have a deed or they don't have a deed. I think that -- I'm not an attorney but I would say that would be true. My question would be on the subdivision, whether the subdivision would have the same -- draw the same rights. I realize in this case it's in the family, but it could be sold as a separate parcel once it's subdivided it could be sold and there would be another owner using that traveled way. MISS TURNER: May I interject for one second-- That's true, but the Lathams, neither Diana or her mother Lula Mae, have any intentions of further subdividing the property. Most of it is in a scenic ease- ment and they are trying their hardest to keep it within the family in the state which it is in as I explained to you, the purpose of this is really for estate-tax purposes. But even assuminq if at some future date should Diana when this lot would be conveyed ~ant to sell that lot--the intensity of the use is not going to change in any way certainly. It will bE then two families or two occupants on a practically 30-acre piece. I can understand your concern with res- pect to future subdivisions should they want to come in and carve up this property, which is highly unlikely, but certainly you will have an opportunity at that point to object to applications for 280-A access on those lots, and can certainly argue that that may unreason- ably burden the right-of-way. MR. WEBBER: I have no problem at all with the Lathams using the right-of-way. I might have a problem with a subsequent owner. I don't really know. They have been good neighbors like all the people out there are very good neighbors, and that is the reason I bought out there. As they know, it's a nice area. I have no problems with the Lathams at all, but if that property was sold, I might have a problem. That's my only concern. Since it's being subdivided, if it's a family parcel, while it might be subdivided for estate planning I don't quite see the need for the subdivision. That's my concern -- -why is that being subdivided? ~outhold Town Board of~ppeals -16- April 20, '~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3087 - LULA MAE LATHAM, continued:) MISS TURNER: You get into a lot of technicalities, but it would have to be subdivided in order for it to even be conveyed to her daughter. That's why we're in before the Planning Board at this juncture. MRJ CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, this is a two-lot subdivision here. Let me add here that we are basically entertaining this 280-A for the purpose of one lot and one house. There is a great possibility there may be a restriction placed on this 280-A that any further construction, meaning on the remaining parcel, the larger parcel, may require additional improvements for that particular piece of property which would then, may be the nature of a public hearing and you would then have'the right to voice your opinion again, Mr. Webber. So that's all I can suggest to you at this particular t~me. MISS TURNER: Could you write down the restriction that might be considered? MR. CHAIRMAN: The restriction could be -- there could be a restriction...I have no idea what the other four gentlemen on this board feel, that's ohe of the reasons why we don't make immediate decisions. That since this right-of-way is being improved for only one dwelling, if it's being granted, I'm sorry, at this particular time, there is a great possibility that any further dwellings that may exist will require further improvements to the right-of-way, depending upon whatever those improvements may be. MISS TURNER: Oh, I see. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok? Thank you very much. wishing to speak in behalf of this application? tions from any board members? Bob. Is there anybody else Against? Any ques- MEMBER DOUGLASS: Can you tell me how many people altogether have a right over that right-of-way? MISS TURNER: Out as far as I know it would just be the Lathams at this point. The people who--the owners of the Latham property which is Lula Mae Latham and her family. I don't think that there are any--as far as I know I don't think there are any other property owners who have a legal right-of-way over that road. I know it is being used by the farmers on what was formerly the Tuthitl property, but I'm not familiar really with their rights to that. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Would ou check on that? MISS TURNER: Yes. But I know in fact that~it's'only used, aside from the Lathams and their lessees and Mr. Webbe~ and his tenants occasionally, the Tu~hills do have farm vehicles that tend to go down there, but it's not used by anybody else. MEMBER DOUGLASS: You might find that there is other land down farther. ~outhold Town Board of-kppeals -17- April 20, ~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3087 - LULA MAE LATHAM, continued:) MISS TURNER: Farther that has a right of way over that? MEMBER DOUGLASS: (Nodded yes.) MISS TURNER: What would you like from us in terms of that? MEMBER DOUGLASS: I would like to know how many, altogether; I would like to have it investigated and let us know how many alto- gether have a right over that at the present time. If there is anybody other than them. MISS TURNER: Yes, well, as far as I know from o~r d~eds, they're not. I don't know if Mr. Webber can shed'some light on that. It's really his property there. MR. WEBBER: The only other one I know would be the farmer who I lease my land to and I believe he also farmed the Latham piece, and that's Edward Latham. He is leasing the property from me and he has permission to use that road. I think he's aIso farming the others. MISS TURNER: I have no reason to believe that there is any other lot in the area that has a right-of-way over this. I haven't seen anything. I don't know if Mr. Webber has. I will look into it--._~ MR. WEBBER: There is one other thing, Mr. Chairman...%he Oysterponds Rod and Gun Club do hunt in that area. They do have permission from me to post the property and actually to.hunt on the property. I've given that right in writing, so they could be people from the Oysterponds Rod and Gun Club using that road and the road on the other side of the property. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll make a motion closing the hearing With the pro viso that possibly'you research and see if there is anybody else concerning Mr. Douglass' request and sense us a letter to that respect within the next two weeks, something of that nature. MISS TURNER: Ok, fine, I will make-inquiries...I don't know tSat I can search deeds-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Just send us a letter if you can't find anybody but let us know if you have found anybody else. Would that be all right with you, sir? MR. WEBBER: Yes, it would. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Hearing no further comment, I'll make that motion. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -18- April 204 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3087 LULA MAE LATHAM, continued:) On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision, with the pro viso that a research be conducted by the applicant as to any record coKcerning other persons having rights over the subject right-of-way. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonls, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. TEMPORARY RECESS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to temporarily recess the Regular Meeting of this board for approxImately three minutes, at which time the Regular Meeting will be reconvened. (Time of recess: 8:34 p.m.) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. 8:43 p.m. REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED: On motion by Mr. Doug- lass, seconded by Mr. Grigonls, it was RESOLVED, to reconvene the Regular Meeting of this board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3100. Application for ROGER L. MUNZ and VICTOR CATALANO, by Philip J. Cardinale, Esq., Main Road, Drawer W, Jamesport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Sections 100-70 and 100'71, Article VIII, Sections 100-80 and 100-81 for permission to establish retail sales of boats in a B-1 Zone. Location of Parcel: 13175 Main Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-03-038. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:44 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sketch by Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C. dated January 12, 1951 with several changes. It appears a boat-showroom area 50' by 40' and an outside boat display area of 24' by 50' with a parking area of approximately 5500 square feet, and a planting along the ~oad of approximately 6' by 45'. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property Southold Town Board o~ppeals -19- April 20~ 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3100 - ROGER L. MUNZ AND V. CATALANO, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: and the surrounding properties in the area. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to take a look at the survey as we see it prior to p~ceeding with this hearing? (Mr. Schaaf borrowed the map.) I'll call on Mr. Cardinale, would you like to say something in behalf of this application, sir? PHILIP J. CARDINALE, ESQ.: Yes, just briefly. The proposal as you have it in a sketch, probably speaks much more distinctly than I would as far as what we would like to do. What we need the board to consider is three th£ngs. Under the statute, we need a use variance to provide a use here which is permitted by C-1 but it's permitted in C but not permitted in B-1. I note that B-i, the use presently existing apparently requires a Special Exception as well even in a B-1 area-- that would be a gasoline station. We appear as contract vendees. Mr. and Mrs. Moisa, the owners, are here. We have a contract contingent upon obtaining this change of use. One of the factors I know you'll be looking at is the unneces2 sard'~hardship that might result to the contract vendees, as we stand here essentially as agents of the present owners, who indicate that it is very difficult to, if not impossible to, sell the premises as they exist without an alteration of the use and as an indication of that, they've had it on the market for some time and they have signed a contract that is contingent-upon our obtaining this use. The factor of unnecessary hardship being the difficulty in obtaining a reasonable return if we used it as it presently exists. The land is occupied now by a masonry back piece which would remain approximately 50' by 40'. There is a piece around 60' by 40' which I think most of you have all observed passing by Main Street which is on the site which would be torn down and it would give a great deal of course of ~rontyard space, which would be left open with the exception of 24' by 50' area, which would be utilized as outside display area for the boats. A large parking area 5500 square feet with good access in and out is indicated on the plan and we of course will have to convince the Planning Board. We were before them on Monday night. As far as the traffic pattern, et cetera. We're providing for a great deal of parking area in the front. We will not store anything in the front 75' here as you can see indicated on the plan. The buildings that present exist again going to this aspect of unnecessary hardship, together with the lack of obtaining a reasonable return in the present use, the buildings as present exist are deteriorated and make use of them for any of the permitted pur- poses is not economically feasible. One of the quirks of your -- of the present situation I pointed out just in passing is that in a B-1 District...we're in a B-1 by ~outhold Town Board off-Appeals -20- April 2~"; 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3100 - ROGER L. MUNZ AND V. CATALANO, continued:) MR. CARDINALE continued: Special Exception as a gasoline area, gasoline sales. In the B-1 area as I read the statute, you ~can~have retail stores, retail sales, but you can't have retail sales of boats. That's reserved for the Light Industrial C-1. This piece of property because of it~ configur- ation, its narrowness, accessibility to the Main Road, the condition of the structures on it, is uniquely appropriate for this use particularly in view of the fact that it is within a stone's throw of boat marinas. So it would be uniquely appropriate for this particular use, and the use we're proposing is a retail use. It is a retail use just as would be permitted except that it happens to be the sale of boats which is required under the code to be in a C-1 District. Finally, the character of the neighborhood I wanted to address myself to, the unnessary hardship, the uniqueness of this particular hardship in the character of the neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood I think, just a quick ru~down just to show that we're not the first persons to have the idea that this would be a go6d place to sell boats. Incidently, these will be sailboats. There are a' number of boating establishments there now. The rest of the area seems, is basically retail. Since we're in a retail situation...we're simply selling a product that happens to be the sale of boats...I think we would be in conformity with and in harmony with and complimentary to the existing uses. Yes, Roger. Mr. Munz spoke to Mr. Cardinale. MR. CARDINALE: Yes, Roger (Munz) asked me to illustrate for you a little bit about what kind of boats we're talking about. We're talking abou~ sailboats. What's the approximate square footage -- big boats, little boats? MR. MUNZ: ~ifteen to 204foot, eight-foot wide, the Catamarans. MR. CARDINALE: Fifteen to twenty-foot boats and eight-foot wide Catamarans. That's what he proposes to sell there. He would service those boats he sold. Any storage of boats that went on of boats to be sold would be in the back on your plan here. It would be in the back portion away from the Main Road and we.do not propose...Supercat is the distributorship, and the boats would be the size indicated. The storage would all be in the back. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cardinale, could we have one of those brochures? Thank you. (Mr. Cardinale submitted a brochure "Supercat" for the record.) MR. CARDINALE: In regard to the use variance, I have nothing further to say other than to indicate as I have, that unnecessary hardship would result in this situation, I believe, for the reasons Southold Town Board o ~peals -21- April 2 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3100 - ROGER L. MUNZ AND V. CATALANO, continued:) MR. CARDINALE continued: stated; and it is a unique situation for the reasons stated. Finally that the character of the neighborhood would not be injured by what we're requesting. The area variance is required because we're moving apparently to a situation in which we need 40,000 square feet. Presently we have 17,000--we've always 17,000 in change, and would have sade it 30 in the district we're already in so we are operating apparently there undersized. The utilization of the space would not since we will have no storage in the front would not adversely affect the area. The den§ity would not be affected, it would be a business that would be run only during the formal working hours, and essen- tially I think it would be in conformity with what is going on there now. On the area variance aspect I just want to say that--and the only other thing I would like to say on the Special Exception, be- cause we're going to need that as well. Even if we were to get a use variance for this C use, we w0uld s~ill need a Special Excep- tion just as in the B-1 use we need a Special Exception which is what we're presently permitted to do. The Special Exception that we have now is just to operate a gasoline dispensing -- I can give you the exact language-- service or repair of motor vehicles. The use we're requesting would also require a Special Exception but certainly the Special Exception presently in use and a Special Exception request, it seems to me that they would have no greater impact or worser impact upon the community. In fact, if anything I think perhaps it would improve the area. So with those remarks, I'll take any questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: While you're standing--it's my understanding that there will at no time be any noxious uses of any flammable products on this site, is that correct? MR. CARDINALE: That's absolutely correct as far as I know. But I cannot contemplate--as I uHderstand from Roger and'he can correct me, he proposes to sell boats--he proposes to repair th~ boats he sells and he will need, of course, the backspace for storage for the boats he is going to sell. I don't know if he's going to have that for boat storage. Do you think you'll have any uses for any noxious materials for any purpose? MR. CHAIRMAN: Other than cleaning fluid or something of that nature. MR. MUNZ: We do not anticipate nor are we looking for outboard boats, motors rep'air. It would not be that. It's strictly sailboats; catamarans do no~ lend themselves to outboard motors. I have currently ~outhold Town Board of'~-Appeals -22- April 2~ 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3t00 - ROGER L. MUNZ AND V. CATALANO, continued:) MR. MUNZ continued: two franchises for Catamarans, that being one, and another company also some Boston Whaler products but we're not looking for outboard motors or outboard motor repair. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Munz. It is my understanding that there will be no display forward of what you referred.to on this plan as outside boat display area--is that correct? When I say forward of, I mean into the parking area. MR. MUNZ: Yes, that's the plan. There may be something situated there if somebody pulled something in to work on or something, but it would not be something that is to be permanently displayed there or something that is asked to be put in there. I purposely tried to keep it back, to keep it away from the road to leave the parking in front realizing of course that it could, by having the cars there, could effect the visibility of my product--but I think it's the only viable way to utilize the property, having an in-and-out control of traffic pattern so you don't back out on the Main Road. I think it would satisfy everybody. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there presently storage tanks for the storage of gasoline on this site? MR. MUNZ: Yes, there are and we contemplate either removal or tearing the tops off and filling them. Either one is acceptable to the Health Department and I believe be acceptable to the Town when I mentioned that to the Planning Board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. You show in the rear on the rlghthand side of the survey a "proposed easement for rear access." Have you engaged in that easement yet? MR. CARDINALE: Yes. In fact Mr. Bruer represents Jim Nabors the neighboring landowner who is here tonight. We have agreed--we met Monday and today he is here with, actually the written agreement that we're prepared to sign so that has been accomplished. MR. CHAIRMAN: I then Rave only one other question. And I'll save that until the latter part of this particular hearing and hope- fully we'll be able to work it out together. Let's ask if anybody else has anything to say in behalf of this application? RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. BRUER: Rudolph Bruer on behalf of Mr. Nabors. I'll just point ou~ the agreement has hot been signed yet. It's agreed in principal but it hasn't been executed yet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you anticipate any problems with that, sir? ~outhold Town Board or'Appeals -23- April 20,~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3100 ROGER L. MUNZ AND V. CATALANO, continued:) MR. BRUER: I don't know. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Mr. Scha~f? DAVE SCHDLAP: My name is Dave Schaaf and my wife, Geraldine Cohif6n Schaaf. George Coulton (?) is deceased. He talks of repair now to these boats. What are we talking about--are we going to fiberglass and sand, and such like that, which would contaminate the air for where 1 live. I had one problem. I don't want another one, in reference to health. And that's one objection that I do have. If this is going to be done, it should be contained in some sort of a room or a tent and (i~audible) and let him breathe his stuff or go withou~ them or whatever. I don't want to breathe it if this is going to be so. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well let's ask the question. Mr. Munz? MR. MUNZ: I would anticipate small fiberglass repair. I do not undertake large repair jobs. If it was, I would turn it over to somebody else on a subcontract basis. If a boat gets a small area that needs to be repaired--what's a small area. It means a little work on the bottom or if somebody had holed the hull by hit- ting a stake or something like that. A small area. We're talking an area, like this (showed a 1½' in diameter). Whether I believe-- I understand your concern. But I believe the area that we're talking about an area that is so small that any amoun~ of sanding, noxious or offensive odDrs would not in any way harm or adversely affect your property or yourself. That would be done inside. But in nice weather it would be done outside. MR. SCHAAF: Would'~t be contained outside with a tent though? MR. MUNZ: I can't say that it would be. But I don't feel that working on an area of approximately this much size would-- MR. SCHAAF: Well, you count my objection right there. Ok. You know what I feel abOut that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Can I ask you, any further discourse-- could you just cut it in the middle and address it to the board because this is being taken electronically and my hand and it's a little difficult. MR. SCHAAF: Ok. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else on that, Mr. Schaaf? MR. SCHAAF: Not on this one. On the next hearing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else like to speak against this application? Any further questions from you gentlemen? (None) Mr. Munz, anything else? Any questions from board members? (None. That leaves me to ~outhold Town Board o~-kppeals -24- April 20, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3100 - ROGER L. MUNZ AND ~. CATALANO, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: one final question, and that is of course that we did set up this hear- ing, Mr. Cardinale, bearing in mind that we were going to have Planning Board approval. Now, you had a preliminary meeting with the Planning Board the other night. What did they tell you? MR. CARDINALE: They indicated that they were pleased with the plan because of the lack of structure in the front and the lack of backing out--in and out aspect. They also indicated that they wanted to take a look and schedule it for a physical inspection. We indicated to them that we wOuld appreciate and I would expect their getting back to us with some speed because of the seasonal aspect Of this business we would like to get started as soon as possible. They' indicated they would contact us' and indicate that we could go ahead and prepare a proper plan as opposed to the sketch plan here. I could only--two members of the board indicated that they felt that the use requested and the manner in which it was set up would be ~ondusive to the area and would be granted. It is our impression it will be granted. We won't know. The first indication we'll get is they will notify us -- I expect within the next 10 days to go ahead witha more complete plan. Once they indicate that I expect that we'll be working out the details instead of working about the concept. The concept seems acceptable. They'll be scheduling a site inspection and then they'll be giving us the ok presumably to go forward with a more involved plan. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, this is where the problem lies, gentlemen. If I sought to recess this hearing until the 19th of May, is that timeliness difficult for you? MR. CARDINALE: You need Planning Board approval before you can act? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, there's basically a problem here and that is the fact that if the Planning Board intends to change anything on this particular plan, and once we close our hearing, we would assume that within the 60-day period we're going to have to make a decision. And any changes the Planning Board sought to make may affect this particular decision. And that's a problem. What do you suggest we do? MR. CARDIN~LE: If we could have a minute-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schaaf, do you understand what I asked these gentlemen? MR. SCHAAF: Not fully. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Is there anything you would like to ask me or the board about concerning this? MR. SCHAAF: Is this on Appeal No. 31017 MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it isn't. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- April 20, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3100 - ROGER L. MUNZ AND V. CATALANO, continued:) MR. CARDINALE: Roger was there Monday night. I was there. He has indicated that if possible that we could submit this plan and we'll take our chances %hat the Planning Board will accept the concept of this plan, so that you can consider this plan as the proposal. If we have to change it, it is his understanding and my understanding that we have to resubmit essentially and it would delay us. But in either event we're going to be delayed. It's his impression as it was mine that this plan will be approved- will substantially be approved so~- they were asking the same question about the easement, et cetera, and that is going to be worked out. So I would ask that you consider this plan and act upon it, and if we have to come back to you and resubmit, we'll just have to do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, can I get a motion from you so that the hearing can be closed subject to two things? MEMBER GRIGONIS: I'll offer that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right, I'll make a motion closing this hearing subject to two things, and that is, favorable response from the Planning Board concerning this particular application, or response from the Planning Board; and secondly, a legal ease- ment in the rear of the property indicated as 15' MR. MUNZ: Sir, may I just back up a minute and point something out? There is on the west side of the property a 10' right-of-way which affords vehicular traffic to come through, certainly enough to get what I have going in and out. It has not been used, however, Mr. Dohm, who is the neighbor there indicated, "If you need that, go right ahead. I realize that's your property there." Because these boats are eight-foot wide you have them on a trailer...you're towing them behind a car; I-felt for safety reasons that 15' would be much better. It wouldn't be as tight running along the side of the build- ing and whatnot, so I set up this arrangement where we would have more room. I don't think I'm necessarily objecting to your saying that the 15' easement has to be arranged, but I just want to point out for your information that we do have suitable access going down on the west side and it will provide us the ability to get in and out of the back of the property. However, I'm doing it as a con- tingency basis to make it easier for myself and anybody else who might be coming back there. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been--I just wanted to say, Mr.. Munz, and further reaffirm what I just said, but the reason why this board is so--feels that that 15' is so important is mainly for fire access. MR. MUNZ: Ok. MR. CHAIRMAN: At this particular point. That's my opinion, that's not the board's opinion. I'll go with that motion gentlemen. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. ~ Southold Town Board oYJAppeals -26- April 20,~-/t983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3100 - ROGER L. MUNZ AND V. CATALANO, continued:) On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearinq and reserve decision, pending receipt of the following two items: (1) response from the Planning Board and (2) legal easement for the rear access as shown on the 1/12/51 plan. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. After the hearing, Philip Cardinale, Esq. informed the b~ard that there would be a 7½-year mutual license to the use 15' easement and storage area in the rear with the abutting property owner. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3101. Application for ROGER L. MUNZ and VICTOR CATALANO, by Philip J. Cardinale, Esq., Main Road, Drawer W, Jamesport, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning-Ordi- nance, Article VIII, Section 100-80(B) [14] & [15] for permission to utilize premises for boat sales on the premises in question zoned B-1 General Business, which use is permitted in a C-Industrial District by Special Exception. Location of Property: 13175 Main Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-03-038. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 9:10 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appli~ cation. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have the same sketch dated January 12, 1951 with the~'P~ncilled-in areas that I mentioned before; and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Cardinale. PHILIP J. CARDINALE, ESQ.: Yes, I just wanted to refer you to my earlier remarks (see Appeal No. 3100 prior to this hearing) where I indicated that apparently presently in the B-1 Zone we needed a Special Exception to run it as a gasoline station and repair facility. 'If ~e move into a "C" use we will need this Special Exception which seems to me to be if anything in greater conformity with the retail area in which it operates, remembering that we're seeking a retail use that happens to be excluded from the B-1 area. And the only other note that I would make is that the requirement as I understand it for approval required that it be a reasonable basis for the approval and that such approval be at harmony with the act--that is the promotion of the health, safety and welfare of the community. Certainly, on what I had indicated earlier, there is a reason- able basis for granting a Special Exception and I believe it would be in harmony with the act and in the best interests of the community. ~outhold Town Board o~kppeals -27- April 20, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3101 - ROGER L. MUNZ and V. CATf~LANO, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. ts there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anyone to speak against the application--Mr. Schaaf? MR. SCHAAF: This parcel of property I understand is owned by the Mattituck Park District which is right adjacent to my land. Now that little piece of property is used for a drain/runoff for the parking lot, and underneath there they have a dry well, whatever you want to call it. I feel the continued use back there would probably do some damage to that dry well and I'll be back to my water problem... which is a continuing problem anyway with that there. This is not going to improve it, that's for sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the same piece of property, Mr. Schaaf. We're just dealing with a Special Exception. MR. SCHAAF: I know you are. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Go aheah. MR. SCHAAF: You were talking about the piece of property that is actually attached to the parking lot. MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I'm talking about the exact same piece of property as the nature of the other hearing, except that we're just talking about a Special Exception. MR. SCHAAF: Yeah, the Special Exception you're talking about is the Mattituck Park District property. MR. CHAIRMAN: No. It's the nature of the same application. MR. SCHAAF: I don't understand it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you come on up and we'll show you? MR. MUNZ: It's the same piece of property, here. We're not talking about anything different than what you just looked at. This is the Mattituck Park District over here. MR. SCHAAF: Oh, ok. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you have any objection to this one, Mr. Schaaf? MR. SCHA3~F: No, not that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak against this ~pplication? Any questions from an~ board members? (None) Ok, I'll make a similar motion closing the hearing and reserving deci- sion subject to Planning Board. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. 'Southold Town Board o~Appeals -28- April 2~0~, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3101 - ROGER L. MUNZ and V. CATALANO, continued:) On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision'in the matter of Appeal No. 3101, subject to receipt of comments or approval from the Southold Town planning Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING3£ Appeal No. 3098. Application of HENRY JOHN PAVEAK, 3505 Grand Avenue, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100~32 for permission to construct accessory garage structure in the sideyard area. Location of Property: 3505 Grand Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-107-01-005. 'Th~ Chairman opened the hearing at 9:15 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sketCh showing the proposed structure 22' by.32'~ and approximately 10' from the rear property line. I also have a copy of the County Tax Map showing this property and the properties in the surrounding area. Mrs. Pavlak, would you like to be heard? MRS. PAVLAK: I think the application speaks for itself. MR. CHAIRMAN: When we were down to your house last Saturday, your husband mentioned that you may be moving this 15' from what I'll refer to as the rear property line. Is there any truth to that or are you still going along with this application? MRS. PAVLAK: Well, does it make a difference whether it's 10' or 15' from the back property line? I understand the gentleman said that as long as it Was not"in front of the house line itself, it would be ok. Now it could be either 10 or 15 feet. Would you prefer it to be 10 feet? MR. CHAIRMAN: It really doesn't make any difference at this particular point. MRS. PAVLAK: Well we have i~t set up for 10 feet right now, and my husband said it could vary by two or three feet if it didn't make any difference to the board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lessard, would you have a problem with that? MR. LESSARD: No, I don't really. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, no further than 15 and no closer than 10. MR. LESSARD: As long as it stays in the sideyard and doesn't 'Southold Town Board o~-~ppeals -29- April 20, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3098 - HENRY JOHN PAVLAK, continued:) MR. LESSARD continued: go out into the front yard. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you do, Mrs. Pavlak, any courses and distances from the house, how far this wOuld be? MRS. PAVLAK: No, we haven't. It just on the other side of the driveway. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you possibly give us that information-- call our secretary some time in the very near future? MRS. PAVLAK: How far from the house on the other side of the driveway. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MRS. PAVLAK: Now we have a variance going through there--do you have it on the map? And we have to keep that garage from a certain distance from that variance on the lot on the far side. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's just that it is very difficult to write the decision and the findings, assuming the board grants this application, without knowing exactly where it is supposed to be placed on the property. Ok? MRS. PAVLAK: Oh, all right. Ail you need is the width--the distance from the house and where the garage would be set? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. From the front of the house across, or from the newest addition that you have on there. Ok? MRS.-PAVLAK: Ok. Fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any questions from any board members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving deci- sion until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearinq and reserve decision until later in the matter of the application of HENRY JOHN PAVLAK, Appeal No. 3098. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. 'Southold Town Board o~JAppeals -30- April 20, 1983 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No~ 3102. Application for JOHN F. and MARY McFEELY, by Gandia Associates, ~nc., 19 Brookfield Road, North- port, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec- tions 100-31 and 100-32 for permission to locate dwelling with an insufficient sideyard setback from the east side line, and establishing frontyard location of existing garage structure. Location of Property: South Side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-128-02-009.1. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:21 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the survey prepared on March 11, 1983 indicating an irregularly 58'8" by 56' proposed dwelling and an existing framed garage of 12.2' by 20.1'; and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Would somebody like to be heard in behalf of this application? Sir. JOHN McFEELY: I'm John McFeely. We have a large family, six children, five teenagers, that's why after looking at hundreds of plans this is the house that seems suited best. We hope some day to retire out here. The house is, we thOught, beautiful and it would enhance the neighborhood. The existing houses that are out there are no further set back and most of them closer on either side. I have firstly spoken to Mr. Rosansky, my neighbor to the east and Mr. Delaney to the west, and discussed it with them and they both agreed that it would be all right. Mr. Rosan~ky's initial objection was he'd like it moved over to the other side. They compromised the 2½ feet movement west from where it is situated there, and it will be 12½ feet from each boundary line. We've looked at many, many houses and could not find something where we cOuld get five bedrooms for the children, but we'd like to live in the house we've come up with. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you familiar, Mr. McFeely, with the request from--it's not a neighboring owner, but a lady down the street-- a Mrs. Coulter, who has sent us a letter by Special Delivery indicating that she was unable to appear at this hearing and she would like us to recess the hearing until such time that she coul~-- MR. McFEELY: I became aware of that today...My agent/general contractor, Mr. Gandia. Where does she live? I'm not familiar with her name. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would assume that she lives approximately five to six parcels down to the east. When we were down inspecting as late as yesterday taking another picture of the garage, which we did not get a good picture of when we were out on Saturday, and I did see a name sign on the road approximately five to six parcels down to the east. MR. McFEELY: I became aware of that today. I thought we went through all the proper procedures. I thought everything was filed in time, and we have been wai~ing a long time to do it. I've owned ~Southold Town Board o~Appeals -31- April 2b~ 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3102 - JOHN F. AND MARY McFEEL~, continued:) MR. McFEELY continued: the parcel approximately five years and finally became prepared to build. I think it's a little unreasonable. It seems to me self-evident what I want to do. I Would hope that it wouldn't have to be put off a month if someone six to eight parcels away wanted to take a look at it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, let me say this--are you familiar with her letter? (The Chairman read Mrs. COulter's letter dated April 18, 1983): Gentlemen... I and my neighbors, property owners on Peconic Bay Boulevard, in the immediate vicinity of the above mentioned premises, have just learned of the application for a variance before the Board of Zoning Appeals to be held on Wednesday, April 20, 1983. Due to such short notice, we have been unable to retain an attorney to represent us at the hearing, and we respectfully request that the hearing in its entirety be adjourned at the pleasure of the board and we will at that time have an attorney present to represent us. Yours very truly, /s/ Mrs. Frederick Coulter... MR. CHAIRMAN continued: It is my understanding that wSen We do receive these-- and I have not discussed this with the board because I had not seen the board since receiving this the other day -- I doubt seriously if we are going to close this hearing. But I will discuss it with the board in one second. Sir? FREDERICK COULTER: My name is Frederick Coulter, and I think we've mixed up the parcels. In other words, we thought you were closer; we're further east down Peconic Bay Boulevard. MR. McFEELY: Now you are adjacent tO and west of Rosansky? MR. COULTER: That's the parcel you're talking about. Then I retract that letter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody wishing to speak against the application? (No one) Hearing no further comment -- it ms my understanding, Mr. McFeely, that this would be a one-family dwelling? MR. McFEELY: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. ~Southold Town Board o~IAppeals -32- April 2b-~ 1983 R~gular Meeting (Appeal No. 3102 - JOHN F. AND MARY McFEELY, Continued:) On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hea.r, ing and reserve decision until later in the matter of the application of. JOHN F. and MARY McFEELY, Appeal No. 3102. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3104. Application of ANNE POLASHOCK, 570 Third Street, New Suffolk, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to replace and increase size of existing porch. Existing and proposed construction will exceed 20~ of lot coverage. Location of Property: East Side of Third Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117- 09-021. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:29 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey dated November 1, 1956 indicating a 52.50' by 102.0' parcel with existing and proposed construction; and we also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard in behalf of this application, sir? MR. POLASHOCK. We've done three sides of the house; we've reshingled them and weather,proofed everything. ~hen we get to the back, there is so much rot there that we thought the only way to fix it would be to tear it down, a~d in the process while we were build- ing, we would like to extend it two feet to the west, and continue 24' across the back of the house. Because right now the way we are now, you get an east wind like we~e had the past month or more, its blowing cold and wet all through that place. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would assume the addition from what I can read here is 9' by 24', Mr. Polashock? MR. POLASHOCE: I believe so. I don't have anything with me. Can I look at that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. POLASHOCE: That's correct, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: And the nature of this will be an open porch or a heated porch? MR. POLASHOCK: Enclosed porch. 'Southold Town Board of-Appeals -33- April 207 1983 R~gular Meeting (Appeal No. 3104 ANNE POLASHOCK, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: And added to the house. Ok, let's see if there is anybody Else that would like to be heard. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? (No one.) Is there anyone that would like to speak against the application? MR. POLASHOCK: one of my neighbors. ing his place done. As a matter of fact, I have a letter here from He's just moving in from Brooklyn. He is hav- I guess you saw. that when you were down there? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, on the south side. MR. POLASHOCK: Yes. Mr. Polashock submitted for the record a letter from Mr. Richard Sullivan indicating he has no objection to this proposed plan to enlarge their porch. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you. Anyone else, any questions from any board members? (None) H~aring no further questions, I'll make a motion granting this application as applied for. By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to enlarge the exist- porch, which would be set back from the southerly side property line approximately 15' and which enlargement would be in line with the rear line of the dwelling, approximately 48' from ~he rear property line. The area of new construction or addition is a two-foot by 24 foot section for an enclosed porch. It is the opinion of the board that applicant's request is minimal and reasonable under the circum- stances. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zon- ing code; that the circumstances are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible for appellant other than a variance; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in considera- tion of all the above factors, the interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3104, application of ANNE POLASHOCK for permission to replace and increase s~ze of existing porch, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR. Location of Property: East Side of Third Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-09-021. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. · Southold Town Board oY~Appeals -34- April ~, 1983 Regular Meeting RECESSED PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3094. Application of NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, C.R~ 48, Mattituck, NY (by Gerry~L. Horton) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of lot having insufficient area and frontage along Westphalia Road. Location of Entire Premises: C.R. 48 and Westphalia Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-121-02-021.1. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 9:33 p.m. This hearing was recessed from the last Regular Meeting of the Board, to wit, March 23, 1983. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for this application? MR. GERRY HORTON: It speaks for itself. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to speak in favor of this application? MRS. ROSENFELD: Which application is it. MR. CHAIRMAN: I apologize. North Fork Baptist Church. MRS. ROSENFELD: I would like to speak. MR. CHAIRMAN: Surely. W~uld you like to look at the map? MRS. ROSENFELD: Yes, I would. Everything that I said at the last hearing I reaffirm and I have several other-things I would like to say. There are many uses that that property could be used-- tennis courts for the family, for the church; gardening plots for their children. There's lots of uses they could make of that land. It's a new--it isn't an old house that has been in existence for a long time. This is new property. We have acre zoning and I think we should stick to acre zoning. And it is my understanding there are to be two acre lots sold to the west, is that right? This is my property here on the corner, and I understand that there would be two acre lots to be sold here. Is that true? MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no knowledge of that. We're only dealing with this particular application right now, Mrs. Rosenfeld. MRS. ROSENFELD: Oh, I see. Ok. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak against this particular application? (No one) Any questions from any board members? (None) (The Chairman showed Mr. Doyen the new survey recently received.) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. 'Southold Town Board or'Appeals -35- April 2~0~, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3094 - NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, continued:) On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the he.ar.ing and reserve decision until later in the matter of the application of NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, Appeal No. 3094. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Mrs. Rosenfeld asked after the close of the hearing whether she would be notified of the board's decision. The Chairman suggested that Mrs. Rosenfeld call our office within the next two weeks or so to find out the status of the pending decision. TEMPORARY RECESS: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to recess for approximately three minutes. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. The meeting recessed at 9:37 p.m. RECO~VENE REGULAR MEETING: At 9:50 p.m., the Regular Meeting was reconvened. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to reconvenetheRegular Meeting of this board at this time (9:50 p.m.). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. 'Southold Town Board o~ Appeals -36- April 20, 1983 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2956. Application for PARKSIDE HEIGHTS CO., by David Eo K~pell as agent, 400 Front Street, Green- port, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Odinance, Article V, Section 100-50 to construct 18 dwellin'g units in two buildings with accessory garage on premises zoned "M-1 General Multiple" and located on a private rmght-of-way off the west side of Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY; Minor Subdivision of E. Kontokosta, Subdi- vision Lot 3, Map No. 171; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1Q00-038- 07-004.2. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:50 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sit~ plan dated January 15, 1982 indicating the placement of these two buildings incorporating the units and which is the nature of this application, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Kapell, would you like to be heard in behalf of this application? DAVID E. KAPELL: David Kapell on behalf of Parkside Heights. We have an application before you to construct -- for a Special Use Permit to construct 18 condominium units in the M-1 Zone. This project is contiguous with an existing condominium development similar to the 9.~e proposed, and it also is adjacent to an existing condominium ownership on the west. We feel that the use is appro- priate for this property in question, and we have an approved site plan for 19 units, which we have r~duced further to 18 units so that the buildings would be symmetrical. We have D.E.C. approval. We have Health Department approval, and all we need is yours. Barring questionS, that's really all I have to say. The applica- tion speaks for itself, and I'd be glad to answe'r any questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application. Anybody like to speak against the application? (No one.) Any questions from any board members? (None) I will add for the record, the board has been down to the site many times, Mr. Kapell, based upon the other project to the east of this one, and we've been down at least two times for this particular project. We are aware of your D.E.C. permit. We are aware of your Health Department approval, and we have no other further questions of you. So I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision-~until later. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close .the h.earing and reserve decision until later in the matter of the application of PARKSIDE HEIGHTS CO., Appeal No. 2956. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. $outhold Town Board old-Appeals -37- April 20,~,_~83 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3099. Application for DOROTHY REISE (Owner), and RIAL REALTY CORP. (Contract Vendee), by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(A) and ~B) for permission to construct garage and tennis court with fencing, for principal use on this vacant parcel. Location of Property: 675 Private Road No. 18A (East Hyatt Road), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1G00- 50-03-009. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:55 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey dated April 2, 1971 showing the 30,571 square-foot parcel in question, and a copy of the tax map showing this property and the surrounding property in the area. I would add that there is a letter in the file which we received from Mr. Rudolph H. Bruer: ...April 19, 1983... Dear Sirs: The above application is presently scheduled for public hearing at your regular meeting on April 20, 1983. Our client, the president of RIAL Realty Corp., after making every effort, finds it will be impossible for him to attend this public hearing in person. On my client's behalf~ I hereby respectfully request an adjournment of this hearing to the date of your mid-May meeting. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. /s/ Rudolph H. Bruer .... We also have a letter of objection from Catherine Garcia and Renee Sileo in the file. Mr. Bruer, would you like to be heard in behalf of this application? RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, I believe my letter of the 18th pretty much speaks for itself. I would like the opportunity to request a postponement of this meeting until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, at which time with Mr. Capor~ who is the President of RIAL Realty Corp.-- we will present our argument why we think this application should be granted. Mr. Caponeis presently out of the country at this time. I apologize to all the people who are here and who have not gotten notice. I wasn't able to give them notification of my request. It happened late last week and it was unavoidable. I believe Mr. Capone should be able to have a voice in this application and I would request that the adjournment be granted please. MR. CHAIRMAN: You are aware, Mr. Bruer, of the nature or the performance in the way we deal with this. There are people here tonight ~outhold Town Board of~ppeals -38- April 20, '£983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3099 - DOROTHY REISE/RIAL REALTY CORP., continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: which I will ask them, if they are u~able to make the May 19th meeting; I'll ask them if they have co~u~ents concerning this application right now. And I'll take those comments if it is all right with you. MR. BRUER: I have no problem with that at all. ANTHONY TOHILL, ESQ.: May I be heard, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly. MR. TOHILL: Anthony Tohill. I'm an attorney at ~ East Main Street, Riverhead, New York. I'm here on behalf of the following households: Aldee, Crest, Garcia, Sileo, Bangert, Dreuger, Winter, Kidirka, Lewis, Harnon and Moss. There are approximately 17 people who are here this evening, six or seven of them are from New York. One of them is a doctor who canceled all of her patient appointments. Others have changed their plans and candidly I appreciate the cour- tesy that normally prevails under circumstances of this type, but I don't think that if Moses were in Europe Mr. Bruer could win the application in May or June or July or September. And under those circumstances, I wonder if inquiries have been made as to what testimony Mr. Bruer intends to illicit from Mr. Capo~ and toward what end. In view of the rather restricted specific testimony that would be needed on an application at this time, ~nd I would ask the board not to elicit from these people any testimony under the cir- cumstances until that's done, and then I'm not sure candidly that as to the clients that I represent, the households that I represent, that ~ would want people testifying and getting things out of order. The burden of proof remains on their side. I might add that candidly, even if there is a courtesy that prevails, when you have this number of people here and when you have such an uhusual application as is being made here this evening, it's not your ru~-of-the-mill area variance for sure. It's not a typical interpretation. It's a ons- of-a-kind type of case that, given the significance of all of that and the specificity of all that, that whoever the applicant is, that applicant should have been here. That applicant by the way isn't necessarily the contract vendee of this parcel of land but instead more appropriately it might be said to be Mrs. Reise, who is an owner of this land for approximately 20 years...more than 20 years; and therefore Mrs. Reise should be here Her absence hasn't been explained. I wonder if the board would con- sider making the inquiry that I've suggested of Mr. Bruer to proceed in that fashion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen? Could we just cover this problem in one second, sir, and I'll be right with you. Mr. Bruer, c~uld you reflect upon some of the ~nquisitiveness of Mr. Tohill? MR. BRUER: Yes, but first I'd like to point out that the appli- cation as being made to this board and. not to the audience here tonight, ~outhold Town Board o~kppeals -39- April 20,<~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3099 - DOROTHY REISE/RIAL REALTY CORP., continued: ) MR. BRUER continued: and not to Mr. Tohill's clients. With respect to my client, Mr. Capone, he is RIAL Realty Corporation. He is the individual who in actuality is going to purchase this property if this variance is granted. It is he who is going to construct the tennis court and the garage. Mr. Capone is an architect. I believe at this hearing that he would show up at, he would be able to answer the questions that the board will have with respect to the property, and what he is going to do in an architectural sense and an artist sense, and very hopefully answer the questions of the people who are sitting here. I know they have many questions with respect to it in connection with this, as they sit here now view their objections. I am hoping that with Mr. Capone present he could alleviate their fears with respect to this applica- tion and what he intends to do with it. There are certain questions that the board I believe will have with respect to this application that I presently cannot answer. And the only person that could answer them would be Mr. Capone. It would seem to me that if Moses was alive and around and couldn't be here, I'm sure the board would postpone the hearing on his behalf for the next meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bruer. Just let this gentleman speak, Mr. Tohill, please. Sir, could I have your name? MR. : Walkman (not clear). MR. TOHILL: Who did you want to speak first~-you want me to? MR. BITSES: (Nodded affirmatively.) MR. TOHILL: I don't want to go into a detailed analysis of how my clients intend Zo oppose the application, but if Mr. Capone intends to come in and testify an artistry, candidly I don't know why you have to wait until May. This is a Zoning Board of Appeals. We are all bound by the rules as Mr. Bruer knows and that I know and I'm not talking about the rules of courtesy which are not common but the substantive rules that Anderson and Rathkoff, people of that type write about and artistry isn't one of the areas that I think the board is going to have an interest in, when and if the hearing occurs. I renew my suggestion that in view of the fact that the people are here in substantial numbers and in view of the fact that a number of them have driven, approximately six or seven, from New York City this evening in order to be here that the application be heard on its merits. MR. BRUER: Just one further point with respect to that-- under the present rules of this town, even if this hearing went on and it was denied tonight, we would have a right to come on for the next hearing and re-present our argument again, and also if I withdraw the application right here, I would have the right to make the application again and either be the May or the June meeting. Ail ~outhold Town Board of'~ppeals -40- April 20, ~1~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3099 - DOROTHY REISE/RIAL REALTY CORP., continued:) MR. BRUER continued: we're doing is really postponing this one month rather than, say two months. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Sir? JAMES BITSES, ESQ.: Even though Mr. Capone is not here, his application is before you and I submit to you that, examining the application we have reason to believe that there are quite a few anomalous statements in the said application which can be profit- ably attacked tonight, and which we request the opportunity to attack tonight, particularly not just in the application itself showing of uniqueness, et cetera, but the environmental impact statement is full of anomalies which could be profitably attacked tonight. I 'therefore request that since there is a large turnout and since there is a very great interest in that area concerning this application, that we be allowe~ to proceed on the basis of the application that is before this board, to raise our objections and point ou~ the anomalies that we have noted therein. Thank you, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think what's in order at this particular time is for this board to caucus to see if we intend to grant Mr. Bruer what he refers to as an adjourr~ent~-we're going to refer to it as a recess. And the only thing that I am aware of, Mr. Tohill, is the fact that what I did say is and u~derstand what you're saying, and Mr. Bitses, concerning the testimony with your clients, what I am basically interested however is the inconvenience for those people that did drive that far. I understand that some of the testimony that they may give us may not be as privy because it may not be in context...but I am very interested in the fact that-= I am aware, for all intensive purposes, that they did come this far. I will however say one other thing, that the recess that Mr. Bruer is asking for is in order. It was not done at the last minute. It was done by letter and we are aware of these things and these things do exist, and unfortunately there is not much we can do about them. MR. TOHILL: If the board is going ~o grant the application for the recess, then one thing I would want from the board would be the right to have the meeting not only go through May but at the objectants' option assuming it closes in May as to the applicant, that the objectants have the right to put in further matter in June, and the reason is that I may not be able to have people that are here this evening here in May, and further I think I would have intended candidly to do that if the case were presented in a certain way in any event. However, once I oppose this applica- tion tonight for a recess and then you grant that, then he'll oppose my application in May for a recess when I want to go until June in order to bring in somebody who is a witness ~n response to what he is doing. So we want it built in to any approval of his application, my option-right in behalf of my clients to go into the June Meeting. ~outhold Town Board of~kppeals -41- April 20,-t983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3099 - DOROTHY REISEJRIAL REALTY CORP., continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I just reflect upon that, Mr. Bitses for one second-- MR. BITSES: I understand this i~ the first time it,s on-- I would not object to the adjournments providing that both sides that ~he~.matter be marked preemptorily against bot~ sides; and if Mr. Capone does not appear at the next occasion, that his application be rejected out of hand. In fact it's only fair that both sides, it should be marked preemptorily against both sides. And failure of either one or the other side to appear, the petition will either be accepted or denied in its entirety. MR. TOHILL: I wouldn't want it marked preemptorily against the seven people who are here including myself. I don't want it marked preemptorily against my clients or against me. I'm here; I'm ready to proceed. My clients are here; we,re ready to proceed. If we were able to proceed, there ~is~ chance I ¥ould have asked to go into the May Meeting in order to rebut the matter. I don't know what he's willing to produce in the way of testimony That's why I said before about Moses because I'm not sure what'he~s going to do. So I don't want to be prejudiced if I ask to go to June. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you just stay there one second, Mr. Tohill-- MR. BITSES: Can we get a commitment from Mr. Bruer that he will be here with his client on the next occasion? MR. BRUER: Barring any unforeseen problem, w~'ll be here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Tohill, I just-- can I say one thing, Mr. Bitses, before -- Mr. Tohill, it has not been the nature of this particular board to grant two recesses, ok, which is basically what you're looking for--a multiple recess. However, we will entertain that option when we caucus in approximately 30 seconds and we'll come back and give you our determination at that time. MR. BITSES: I move this board for a directive ordering the applicant to appear preemptOrily on the next date of appearance. I ask for a motion to this board-- MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll make a motion going into closed session, temporarily, for the purpose of dealing with this issue. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonls, it was RESOLVED, to recess temporarily for "closed session" concern- ing the above matter of DOROTHY REISE/RIAL REALTY CORP., Appeal No. 3099. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ~outhold Town Board o~ppeals -42- April 20,~'~983 Regular Meeting (APpeal No. 3099 - DOROTHY REISE/RIAL REALTY CORP., continued:) HEARING RECONVENED: On motion by MK. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to reconvene the public hearing of Appeal No. 3099, application for DOROTHY REISE/RIAL Realty Corp., and the Regular Meeting of this board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. The public hearing was reconvened at 10:20 p.m. MR. CHAIRMAN: It has been the nature of this board also to never shut anybody out, and to continue wha~e~er type of discussion is generally unique to any hearing. And I therefore had discussed with the board members that possibility of a recess tonight, and they have agreed to grant Mr. Bruer his recess. They have also agreed to take into consideration, Mr. Tohill, your thoughts and recommendations toward a further .recess if it need be. As for your statement, Mr. Bitses...I can't force anybody to be here, ok? But I will assure you that we will go with this application on May 19th, bearing some severe weather conditions or whatever the case might be, and I will at this particular time ask anybody who might not be in the group of persons named by Mr. Tohill, that would like to say something and would be unable to make that May 19th meeting; and I will also say that we will attempt to schedule that meeting earlier for those people. I apologize; if need be we may even change it to May 20th, which is a Friday night, if that makes any difference to you. MR. TOHILL: Yes. Several Persons in Audience: Yes. It's much better. MR. CHAIRMAN: If that would help some of you out. LADIES: Yes. That would make a big difference. MR. CHAIRMAN: So is there anybody that would like to say anything tonight concerning this application that may not be here? SEVERAL PERSONS said they would rather wait. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion recessing this hearing until the next Regular Meeting, which is tentatively May 19th or May 20th. MR. BITSES: Friday night, please, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have not discussed that and I can't make that determination at this moment. MR. (fm3c~Dwn): Can we ask that the people here be notified by mail ~outhold Town Board off-Appeals -43- April 20, -±J983 Regular Meeting MR. TOHILL: MR. MR. TOHILL: my office. MR. BITSES: (Appeal No. 3099 - DOROTHY REISE/RIAL REALTY CORP., continued:) MR. continued: when the hearing will take place, whether it be the 19th or the 20th? I'll help. : You can help with that? Linda and I will do that. I'll speak to Linda about that-- If i~ will please the board, I represent four people who are not here tonight and will be able to be here on a Friday night. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Tohi!l, by your suggestion you're saying you will call our office and then inform these people. MR. TOHILL: I'll speak to Linda and then I'll do a mailing from my office. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Can I have a second on that motion, gentlemen? MEMBER SAWICKI: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to recess the matter of Appeal No. 3099, application for DOROTHY REISE/~IAL Realty Corp. until the next Regular Meeting of the board, tentatively May 19th or May 20th, 1983. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. APPLICATIONS TO BE HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the following applications be held in abeyance pending receipt of comments, recommendations or approval from the South- old Town Planning Board concerning the site plans as f~llows% Appeals Nos. 3109, 3110, 3111, 3112 - CUTCHOGUE FREE LIBRARY. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. 'Southold Town Board of~kppeals -44- April 2~ 1983 Regular Meeting APPEALS NO. 3119 and 3120 - WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of WARREN AND ELLEN HUFE, Appeals No. 3119 and 3120, be held in ABEYANCE PENDING receipt of comments, recommendations or approval from the Sou~hold Town Planning Board regarding the site plan [Section 100-60(A)]. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. APPEALS NO. 3117 and 3118 - KATHRINE FARR. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the matters of KATHRINE FARR in Appeals No. 3117 and 3118, be held in abeyance pending receipt of the following: (1) six copies of a site plan accurately drawn to scale and certified by a licensed engineer or surveyor, including all proposed parking at 350 square feet per parking stall as required by Article XI, Section 100-112C and Article XIII in its entirety; (2) written comments, recommendation or approval by the Southold Town Planning Board concerning this site plan. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was u~animously adopted. APPEALS NO. 3114 and 3115 - WILLIAM A. and CATHERINE LINDSAY. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonls, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of WILLIAM A. AND CATHERINE LINDSAY, Appeals No. 3114 and 3115, be held in abeyance pending receipt-of comments, recom~endations or approval from the Southold Town Planning Board regarding the site plan. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigon~s, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. 'Southold Town Board o~-Appeals -45- April 2~ 1983 Regular Meeting APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to approve the following Minutes of this board, to wit: March 23, 1983 Regular Meeting April 1, 1983 Special Meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonls, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING: seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was On motion by Mr. Douglass, Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. SET-UPS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded~by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the following applications BE AND HEREBY ARE SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS TO BE HELD at'the next Regular Meeting of this board, to wit, May 19, 1983 cpmmencing at 7:30 p.m., and that the same shall be advertised pursuant to law in the local and 6fficial newspapers of the town: Appeal No. 3108 - Wilhelm and Silke Franken. Appeal No. 3107 - Richard E. Sullivan. Appeal No. 3113 - Burke E. Liburt. Appeal No. 3116 - John Grigonis. Appeal No. 3122 - William J. Hilliard. Appeal No. 3081 - Robert T. Kroepel Appeal No. 3121 - Alfred and Zina Hull. Appeal No. 3123 - Henry Pierce. Appeal No. 3124 - Southold Lumber. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the date for the next Regular Meeting of this board is hereby tentatively scheduled for May 19, 1983 commencing at 7:30 o'clock p.m. to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY. ~outhold Town Board c Appeals -46- April "' 1983 Regular Meeting RESOLVED, to de~lare the following Environmental Declarations: APPEAL NO.: 3108. PROJECT N~E: WILHELM AND SILKE FRANKEN. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, pleas--~-take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: New dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southo!d, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Osprey Nest Road, Greenport, NY; Cleaves Point Section I; Map No. 2752; Lots 14 and 15 and described. R~ASON.(~) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) DEC Permit ~10-82-1178 issued February 3, 1983. APPEAL NO.: 3107 PROJECT NAM_E: RICHARD E. SULLIVAN. This notice islissued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project2 TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Deck addition exceeding maximum 20% lot coverage. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particu~ar!y known as: 440 Third Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel #1000.-117-09-020. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this pro3ect be implemented as planned. $outhold Town Board o~Appeals -47- April 2~. 1983 Regular Meeting · ~(ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARk~IONS, continued:) - APPEAL NO.: 3113. PROJECT N~: BURKE E. LIBURT. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the EnviroD~ental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please 'take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Accessory stable for horse in sideyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southoid, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: King Street, Orient, NY. REASON(~)~UPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the envlronment are likely to occur should this projec~ be implemented as planned. APPEAL NO.: 3116. PROJECT NAME: JOHN GRIGONIS. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project2 TYPE OF ACTION: iX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: One-family dwelling in B-Zone. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particu~ar!y known as: 860 Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) ~n Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. Southold Town Board o~.Appeals -48- (ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS, continued:) APPEAL NO.: 3122. PROJECT NAME: WILLIAM J. HILLIARD. April ~n.. 1983 Regular Meeting This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Relocate accessory structure in a differen~ frontyard (or sideyard) area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southotd, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Heathulie Avenue, Fishers Island, NY. R~ASON~S)_~UPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. APPEAL NO.: 3081. PROJECT NAME: ROBERT T. KROEPEL. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board 'determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project~ TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Area and width variance for two lots containing approximately 37,070 sq. ft. each. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Indian Neck Road, Peconic, NY. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THiS DETERMINATION: (!) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mltted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) The subject premises is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands. ~outhold Town Board ~ ~.Appeals -49- ~ ~ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARatIONS, continued:) APPEAL NO.: 3121. PROJECT N~E: ALFRED AND ZINA HULL. April 1983 Regular Meeting This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please-take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted E ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Two dwellings on one lot; exceeds 50% of fair market value (nonconforming preexisting use discontinued for more than two years). LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 3630 Soundview Avenue, Peconic, NY. R~ASON(~S)_~UPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. APPEAL NO.: 3123 PROJECT NAME: HENRY PIERCE This notice isf'issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, pteas~ take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project2 TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type Ii [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Accessory garage in side/front yards. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Wells Road, Peconic, NY. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) D.E.C. permit ~10-83-0014TW issued March 24, 1983. ~outhold Town Board ~r~Appeals -50- ~(ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARatIONS, continued:) APPEAL NO.: 3124. PROJECT NAME: SOUTHOLD LUMBER Apri~ q0, 1983 Regular Meeting This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law $44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental ConservatiOn Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, pleas~ take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Fence exceeding four feet in height alOng frontyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Hummel Avenue, Southold, NY. REASON[SJ~UPPORTING THIS DETErmINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. APPEAL NO.: 3125 PROJECT NAME: JACK LEVIN (Special Exception) This notice is~issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law $44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar projectJ TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type ii [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special Exception for two-family dwelling on a two-acre parcel ..... _~. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southo!d, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: North Road (C.R. 48), Greenport (near Southold); 1000-44-4-5. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (i) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. ld Town Board c~ /Appeals -51- April (ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS, continued:) .APPEAL NO.: 3126 PROJECT NA~4~E: JACK LEVIN [Variance) This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not .to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please--take notice tha~ this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [XI Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance - second dwelling unit less than 850 square feet of living area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: C.R. 48, Greenport (near Sou~hold), NY. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETER~IINATION: (1) An'~Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the enviror~ment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehrlnger, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Saw±cki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. The board agreed to meet one day next weekat a Special Meeting in Order to deliberate and possibly make decisions on all. pending matters. Being there was no further business properly coming before the board this evening, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting officially adjourned at approximately 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals