Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/04/1983APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR, SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUG LASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board o£Appeals MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD. L.I., N.Y. TELEPHONE (516~ 765-1809 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1983 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Friday, February 4,. 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 were: Mr. Victor Lessard, Administrator (Building Department); Mr. Henry Lytle (Southold-Peconic Seniors Club); Mrs. Lydia Totura (for the Traveler-Watchman); Mr. Jeff Miller (for the Suffolk Times). The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3066. Application of FRANK TARULLI, 1540 North Bayview Road, Sou~hold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 for permission to construct accessory horse stable and stable one horse for personal use in this A-Residential District at 1540 North Bayview Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-79-06-002.1. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:32 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey from Young & Young, L.S. dated December 27, 1982~indicating applicant's proposed loca- tion for the barn and the size of the property which is 1.485 acre (64,686.6 square feet). We also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map of this parcel and the surrounding area. Mr. Tarulli, would you like to be heard in behalf of your application? FRANK TARULLI: Mr. Chairman and board members, I did want to say a few words just to more or less satisfy myself and the board as to the appeal that I had filed for, and that was that certainly I have had, as I stated, the intent that over the years that I had the property in the area that I would be able to maintain a horse on the Southold Town Board of'Appeals -2- February'4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3066 - Frank Tarutli, continued:) MR. TARULLI continued: property, and certainly I have more or less inquired as to the proce- dures and what the Town would require to maintain this property and in stating so I have purchased a tractor, pick-up truck...I have done about everything as far as even the land being cleared and hopefully as I would to state that I certainly intend to maintain a respectable and add to the community as an asset for the area. I feel that you might say, I'm not in a year-round residency now but I have been com- ing out to Southold for over 30 years, so I'm aware of the area and it has been...as I say, it is my intent that in the next couple of years to retire here for that purpose, and I do hope that in the board's decision that certainly I would love to have it approved. At the same time I would like to add that I prefer somewhere along the line that maybe the board reconsider some more flexible means whereby we could have, let's say an area that we could .. or to say that if you have an area and a half or two acres, whatever, the requirements may be that we all know where we stand and we can or we can't have them. So I thank you for your attention and I appre- ciate it. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of the application? Anybody like to be heard against the application? You are aware, Mr. Tarulli, of your neighbor's objecting to your keeping of the horse? MR. TARULLI: No, sir, I'm not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Szybowski...I guess on the one side on the west of your property. MR. TARULLI: Mr. Szybowski? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. It says: "...I, Water Szybowski, residing at 84 West Poplar Street, Floral Park, New York, and owner of the premises situated on the north side of North Bayview Road adjacent to property owned by Frank Tarulli, of 1540 North Bayview Avenue, Southold, New York, and who applied for a variance under Section III, Section 100-30(2)C, ask that this variance be denied on the grounds that the housing of a horse would cause rodents, and create dirt, refuse, and an unplesant odor to adjacent propertY. This would reduce the value of the property .... " And it was signed by him. MR. TARULLI: No, sir, I was aware of MR. CHAIRMAN: Also I would like to briefly read the denial which you received from Mr. Hindermann, which says, "...it is returned here- with and disapproved on the following grounds: insufficient lot area to keep a horse -- total lot area is 64,686 square feet. Existing dwelling requires 40,.000 square feet. The keeping of a horse requires 40,000 square feet. Lot area is short 15,313.4 square feet .... " Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf Of this application? Sir, please state your name. Southold Town Board o~'Appeals -3- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3066 - Frank Tarulli, continued:) JERRY GRASECK: I would like to submit this, the building code law, on the premises of all horse owners. (Mr. Graseck submitted a copy of Page 10025, Section 100~30). MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graseck is referring is page 10025, Article III, which reads, "...(5) Horses and domestic animals other than household pets, provided that such shall not be housed within forty [40] feet of any lot line. Housing for flocks of more than twenty-five (25) fowl shall not be constructed within fifty [50] feet of any line. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to be heard, and please use the mike. MR. GRASECK: Well, I rest my case on what you have there for a- building (zoning) code. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you look at the other part of the code, sir? MR. GRASECK: Yes, I did. As for residential use, accessory use. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tarulli? MR. TARULLI: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, that my variance or appeal has been denied? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no. It was denied by the Building Inspector. MR. TARULLI: 0h~ I'm sorry. I thought you had said it was denied. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that's for the audience to be aware of the fact that how you got here, what were the reasonings behind it and how we interpret how the law was interpreted by the Building Inspector. Ok? Anyone else like to be heard either pro or con on this issue? Yes, would you state your name and use the mike? KATHLEEN GRASECK: My name ms Kathleen Graseck. I'm a neighbor of Mr. TaruIli. I live on North Bayvlew Road, and there are quite a few neighbors of mine who own horses and I don't think there has been any depreciation of property value in that area. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right, hearing no further comments... MR. TARULLI: May I just add one thing. My wife just pointed out what the area we were talking about...as far as the gentleman who owns or made the statement as to being against this request. That piece of land that I know of is still and has been vacant for many, many years, and as far as the distance from that land, certainly, I think that should be taken into consideration. It is quite a distance. I think it's over 70 feet or 75 feet from the property line. And there is no one there now...it's just open land. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any further comments? (None) Hearing no further comm.ents, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserv- .... ing decision until later. Southold Town Board ot-~Appeals -4- Februa~ 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3066 - Frank Tarulli, continued:) MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Gri~onis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of the application of FRANK TARULLI, Appeal No. 3066. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. (The Chairman announced at the end of the hearing that any person desiring to know the results of the hearing tonight may call either the office of the Board of Appeals, Building Department or Supervisor on Monday, February 7th.) PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3070. Application of LAST ASSO- CIATES, Box 796, Cu~chogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100~31 for permission to construct one-family dwelling with reduced front and rear yard setbacks upon parcel located on the north side of Birch Avenue, Sou~hold, NY; County Tax Map Par- cel ID No. 1000-077-001-021. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:45 p.m. and read'the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a sketch of the building permit of what the applicant proposes and there appears to be a 35' setback from Birch Avenue and 33' rearyard setback. I 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, Mr. Murdock? LAWRENCE MURDOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I would like to address the property in general. This property mn Goose Bay Estates is a small subdivision. The subdivision is approximately 40 years old, maybe a little older. Most of the lots in the subdivision are 20-foot lots that have been put together an some combination of 20-foot. This particular lot covers two and one-half lots which has a 50' front. The area is a nice, residential, recreational area. The intent of myself and my son, and Last Associates is a very simple derivative of the first two letters of Lawrence, who is me, and the first two letters of Stephen, who is my son; and we are Last Associates for the purpose of building this house. We have formed a general partnership. I don't know what the future will be. My son Stephen has lived in the area approximately 15-16 years ago along with his mother, and is very well aware of the character of the area and I'd like to put everybody's fears to rest that this is not a monster development corporation coming in to take over all of Goose Bay Estates and build a castle for the world to live in. The mere fact that this application deals only with a front and rear yard setback Southold Town Board o~'Appeals -5- Februa~ 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3070 Last Associates, continued:) MR. MURDOCK continued: is credence to my intentions. The property being only 50' in width in order to comply with the town building, codes, the house was designed to have a minimum of width so that we complied at least with the two sideyard code conditions. The house that we designed is a one-bedroom house. It's designed with the hope of being either a retirement home or at best a vacation home. I have four adult children. I don't know yet which way we're going to go with the house. We would like to build this house. There is a loft that could possibly be construed as being a Sleeping area, and would be available for somebody as a sleeping area; however, would not have any partitions. It will just be insulated and there will be sheet- rock covering the insulation just to keep from looking at bare lnsulation. There are ...I've received copies of two objections from the residents of the area. One objection being from a Mr. George Dalton who apparently lives next door-to the property, and his concern is for the placement of the sewage system and the well. That's not a province of mine nor a province of the Building Department or a province of the Zoning Board of Appeals or province of the Planning Board. The Suffolk County Health Department comes out, looks at a piece of property, and they determine where these facilities should go. Myself, t wouId prefer to have the cesspool system in front of the house...it's less costly in construction. And I would like to have it in the front and cover it with my driveway and have every- thing taken care of. The Health Department says we will put the well in the front and the septic system in the back, and we have no choice. With all due respect to the neighbors' concern, I know of no way we could answer his concern because it's not in our province nor any member of the town's province. The second letter was from again another one of the nezghbors, who says that he would not be able to attend the original hearing scheduled for January 13th and he only opposes the petition because of a lack of information on his part and he requests time to get sufficient information...whatever that would be. Again I would like everybody who certainly lives in the area if there is anybody in the audience here, to be comforted in the fact that this is merely a small house in a small community, and it is designed to fit thoroughly in the communmty and not be obtrusive. It like most houses there will be on a so-called substandard lot. In terms of this particuIar application, I would now say that we are addressing Article III, Section 100-31 which pertains to the front and rear yard sizes. I believe that is the only area that. should be eligible for discussion or consideration by this board. Merely whether strict application of that code would prohibit me from using this property...not only me but would just about prohibit anybody else. As I said earlier, the house was designed to fit within the plot limitations ~n relationship to sideyards. The town code calls for a 50~foot frontyard...a 50-foot rearyard. That would Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3070 - Last Associates, continued:) MR. MURDOCK continued: not leave but 20 feet of buildable space. Even if that were the width, it would be impossible to construct a house with 20 feet. The approvals that have already gone before on this property give credence to the fact that strict adherence of this section would be a hardship in that the Board of Health approval was granted to the current owner, a Mrs. Norma Bunnell. The one other reason that the application was turned down was on the access, and under the Code of the Town of Southold, to what is considered 280~a access is normally handled by the Zoning Board of Appeals...but since it's a filed subdivision it is now handled by the Planning Board. The Planning Board, on a letter dated October 29, 1982 in answering a request from a prospective purchaser, a man.by the name of John Davis who is the inspector, made recommendations to the Planning Board on achieving access to the property. The Planning Board granted approval to the person who requested the approval on the 29th day of November, 1982. Neither of these people who at separate times had tried to deal with the layers of i~terpretation of codes have been able to successfully take the time and the patience to do these things. Respectfully if this application were to be denied, there would be no house built there. The property would again go back to Mrs. Bunnell and that is proof in itself of the fact that a denial of this application would provide a hardship -- a~d a financial hardship to the owner of the property. The front yard setback of 35 feet...there is only one house on Birch Avenue that is two blocks away. It does not front on Birch Avenue. It appears that that has 35 feet sideyard, which in this instance would correspond to a front yard setback. That's the only residence that touches Birch Avenue. I think it's the only application of sideyard, frontyard that would apply to it. Again I think that's the only part to address in this hearing... it's just the interpretation of Section 100-31. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of the application? Anybody like to be heard against the application? Would you use the mike, please, and state your name. GEORGE DALTON: My name is George Dalton and I'm an adjacent property owner. I had asked originally for an adjournment of the hearing because I did not receive notice through. ~o fault of Mr. Mur- dock. It simply was not forwarded to a new address of mine. But in any even~, I decided to come tonight after speaking with the secretary because I was told that you would hear information and that you would reserve decision on it permitting me to submit additional information to the board for consideration~ However, I would like to point out just a couple of major areas %hat I find to be a problem. Mr. Murdock has addressed the problem with the well, and while he is correct that that is a Health Department concern...the Health Department according to the survey that was in the file did not verify the location of my well point. I was able to recently have a plumber find my well point. ~Southold Town Board of~ _~peals -7- February 4~_r983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3070 - Last. Associat.e.~., continued:) MR. DALTON continued: And ! would like to sqbmit to the board a sketch; and it is a rough sketch admittedly because I did not have a whole lot of time, showing that my well point ac~ualty goes toward Mr. Murdock's property; and rather than being on ~he front side of my house, i~'s actuaily much closer to his cesspool than the survey which was reviewed by the Health Department, shows. My well point is approximately 32½' away from my rear property line to Mr. Murdock. His cesspool is another 30 feet approximately, and that would put the well and cesspool approximately 62½ feet apart. Health Department regulations specify for a minimum of 100 feet. If I can submit this to the board-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly. (Mr. Dalton submitted a copy of a rough sketch mentioned above for the file.) MR. DALTON: Once again, I plan on checking with the Health Department and providing them with updated information. I also have a survey that was done by a prior applicant in which the Health Department stated on the survey that the information as to my own well facilities were not available, nor did the Health Department ever check with me on it in regards to Mr. Murdock's application. I also would like to submit this earlier survey which was done in 1980 and it has clearly specified on it that the facilities, my well facilities were not verified by the Health Department; nor is there any indication on Mr. Murdock's survey which you already have a copy of, that the Health Department did verify where my well is located. After I check with the Health Departmant and provide them with this new information on it, I've been told that they will review it again and verify where these facilities are located. Now what Mr. Murdock has stated that that should not be consideration from this board...I have to disagree with him there because the Health Depart- ment, if they should change the location of the sewage system, that my very well change the design of his house or possibly the location of his house~ which could conceivably change the front and rear yard setbacks as well as the side yard setbacks, so I think that it is pertinent for this board to consider that. My second area of concern is the slope of the area. At Mr. Mur- dock's property line, .at Birch Avenue, there is approximately a 36' elevation, sloping down to my property, which is a 20' elevation, and that's at the rear of my property line. That's roughly 16' feet of slope over 120, over an area of 120' long which as you can well imagine is a pretty steep slope. That area right now is covered with trees and uNderbruSh, and that dissipates any ground surface water drainage, so I don't have a drainage problem. I am very con- cerned that if that area is cleared of the underbrush that I will have a severe drainage problem. Mr. Murdock mentioned another house on Birch Avenue, which is about a quarter block away...the slope is no where near the slope that we're talking abou~ right now. On this point als0, I would like the board to give me some additional time. I'm not sure how I would go about it, but I would ~ Southold Town Board ol~_~ppeals -8- February~; 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3070 - Last Associates, continued:) MR. DALTON continued: like to have some analysis done of what effect the clearing of the underbrush and the trees are going to have on the type of drainage and surface runoff. I don,t want my cellar flooding. In this appeal, Mr. Murdock sites several points. He describes a unique hardship that he has, and that existing dwellings in the area are 35' or less. At least as far as my own dwelling is concerned that's incorrect. And I'm not sure that...there are no other dwellings on Birch Avenue aside from the one that is a block away, and I have absolutely no idea what the setbacks are there. But at the very least I would think that it would be beneficial, since he ms about to start a precedent...there are other properties and other lots available that unapproved at this point. Since Mr. Murdock's house will be the first one on Birch Avenue in that specific area, he is about to set a precedent, if you should give him this exception. I would think that ...there are a number of houses along Oak Avenue that's in a similar position to mine...I wouId think that it would be beneficial to all of the neighbors along that, if the rearyard setback ms increased and the frontyard setback decreased...in other words, Mr. Murdock rather than having a 35' frontyard setback maybe he could have a 20'i front yard setback if you should grant the application for the house at all. I think if you give him the precedent of setting a 35' frontyard setback and a 33' rearyard setback, you are going to set a dangerous setback for the rest of the residents. There has been no analysis as to where.their wells are, what type of drainage that would cause, and you're also just putting the houses close together, whereas if you moved the house closer to Birch, you give all the neighbors a little bit more space. There is a statement in the file that vmews with the tidal wetlands area. On the survey that's attached to the front of the file also sites to an unnamed street. That unnamed street was underwater when I was there about 15 minutes ago. I don't when that survey was done. I imagine it was quite some time ago. But the tidal wetlands law requires that any property within 300 feet of tidal wetlands, that any kind of building go before the Department of Environmental Conservation. The statement I believe ms inaccurate. I'm not a surveyor, but lust according to the measurements, my property line lenqthwise is 120 feet. I understand that Oak Avenue is 20 feet, and the property across the street from me, which ms owned by LaDuns is 140 feet, which comes to a total of 280, which is u~der that 300' minimum required by the N.Y.S.D.E.C. They may have an interest in it; they may not. But I think that that law is in effect for specific reasons. Mr. Murdock mentioned the access road, and Mr. Davis' report to the Planning Board. It was very unclear as to Mr. Davis specific recommendations as to how the access road should be mmproved. It is quite overgrown...it's a dirt road is basically What.it amounts to. There has been no statement as to who will do that, whether Mr. Mur- dock will take it upon himself to improve that access road. I don't believe it's Southold Town property. I believe it's a private road owned by Goose Bay Community Association. In informal discussions at least, I don't believe the association was about to improve that road. ~Southold Town Board of~ppeals -9- February 4~ 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3070 - Last Associates, continued:) MR. DALTON continued: We do maintain our roads voluntarily. We each own halfway into the road and we maintain them on a voluntary basis, and I would like it clarified as to who will take care of those access roads. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dalton, that is not the purview of this board. That's the Planning Board's issue because it's within the subdivision. MR. DALTON: Ail right. Thank you. I think that's abou~ the only statements I have. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Mr. Murdock would you like to say something else? Mr. Strang? GARRETT STRANG: Good evening. I would just like to, I concur most enthusiastically with what Mr. Dalton has already presented to the board, but one point I might add is Mr. Dalton has asked that I give him some assistance in this matter since he was in the City and was u~available to some of the records this week. I had spoken with the Health Department, and there's an additional concern which was brought up by Mr. Dalton with respect to the slope of this property. The sloping property is a concern with respect to surface runoff, but it is also concern as far as the location of septic system goes inas- much as the groundwater runoff, groundwater run is naturally towards Goose Creek, and any upland that would be disbursed by the septic system would run in the direction of Mr. Dalton's welt. So they are going to review it quite critically as to the location of his septic system, which again as Mr. Dalton had stipulated, might affect the location of the house and again affect the variances that would be required. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you one more question, Mr. Dalton. Are you still asking for a recess to get some of these questions answered? MR. DALTON: Yes. Most definitely. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Murdock would you like to say something in rebuttal? MR. MURDOCK: Well, in terms of whether I would be willing to cooperate and have a smaller frontyard setback, I would. I base my setback on the one existing house that does have any bea~ing_at all on Birch Avenue, If the board would feel better varying the amount of distance, the dimensions of the house are only 44' in lsngth and if varying the distances of front and rear yard would ease the board's decision-making process, I certainly would be glad to cooperate. It only involves a few more feet of pipe in terms of connecting up to the septic system because I certainly wouldn't move where any of the services are supposed to be. Other than that, that's the only thing germain to this particular hearing that I've heard them speak of. I certainly would cooperate in any way with the Zoning Board of Appeals if the area feels that this is setting a precedent and the residents would like a precedent set, I think this is a fine time to do it. ~Southold T~wn Board o~ ~ppeals -10~ February 4 ..... 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3070 - Last Associates, continued:) MR. MURDOCK continued: Certainly, the first so-called house fronting on Birch Avenue, that would be the time to set a precedent; and if the board wanted to change the setbacks, both front and rear yard...that's no problem. I would be very glad to cooperate and do it. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Murdock, do you have any objection to a recess at this particular time until the next Regular Meeting-- MR. MURDOCK: No if one is necessary. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything else to say, gentlemen? MR. DALTON: If Mr. Murdock would like to address the slope issue, I think that is another concern. You may not have any comment on it at this time. MR. MURDOCK: Well, in addressing the slope, the slope ~s basically probably much more than the problems associated with Mr. Dalton's property is a problem of construction. And what I had considered in terms of runoff after we finished is to leave the area natural. I want as little displacement of woods as possible. That particular section of Goose Bay Estates is heavily wooded. The only house that doesn't have woods is directly to the west, and he does have a lot of trees and grass in his yard. And simply for the time being until other houses come in. It was our intention to leave property as much natural as possible. It is my intent that that should be a quiet either a retirement home or quiet recreational-use home and wooded lot. It's certainly more advantageous than wide open spaces and it was our intent to leave it as wooded as possible. The only displace- ment being for actual construction. MR. DALTON: I believe Mr, Murdock's concern for that and I think it's a great idea. What happens when it is sold to someone else who doesn't think it's such a good idea and decides to take the trees down and would prefer all grass or put in a tennis court or something. Does the board have the authority to specify in its variance that a certain amount be left natural, and that would carry over to any future purchaser of the land. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a very interesting question, Mr. Dalton. What we have done in at least the near past, I would say.maybe two meetings ago was proper screening then. We did not specifically deal with the issue of proper ground cover. We have however dealt with the issue of proper water runoff, which would of course lead back to the question of proper ground cover...so I'm sure we that we could deal with that issue. Let me ask my board members if they have any objections to a recess on this hearing. Gentlemen? (No objection.) Any other questions from anybody? (No further questions.) Hearing no fUrther questions, I'll make a motion recessing this particular hearing until the next Regular Meeting. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -10~ February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3070 - Last Associates, continued:) RESOLVED, to recess Appeal No. 3070, matter of LAST ASSOCIATES until the next Regular Meeting of this board, to wit, Friday, February 25, 1983. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3067, Application for GRACE E. KENNEY, 2020 East Gillette Drive, East Marion, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100~31 and 100-34 for permission to construct additions to existing dwelling increasing the lot coverage over the 20% allowable and reducing the front and rear yard setbacks, at 2020 East Gillette Drive, East Marion, NY; Marion Manor Subdivision Map #2038, Lot 47; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-038-03-030. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:15 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 VanTuyl & Son on August 19, 1982 indicating the proposed setback of 24' from Cleaves Point Road and 12' from the northerly property line and 19' at the opposite corner from the northerly property line (Lot 32). Is there anybody that wishes to be heard in behalf of this application? Kindly state your name. ROBERT KENNEY: My name is Robert Kenney and I'm the son of Grace E. Kenney, who has requested the variance. And good evsning gsntlemen and madam. I'll try to be very brief. The variance my mother is requesting basically is that the house that they have owned on East Gillette Drive for about 10 or 12 years be converted into a full yearround house. My father is now retired and he is requesting that he be allowed to con- struct a garage attached to the house and also a master bedroom on the first floor. As the application indicated, he is an amputee from World War II and it's somewhat difficult for him to get to the second floor to the bedrooms, and he would like to put a master bedroom on his ground floor and also construct a garage for the wintertime for his vehicles. I'm not sure why the request for the building permit was denied. Evidsntly the setbacks from possibly the lot west of this lo~ were too close. I believe that was 19 feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like me to read it to you? you the disapproval. It says, I'll read "...The proposed additions increase lot coverage over the 20% allowable by 835.20 square feet. Garage addition reduces frontyard setback and rearyard setback when deeming sideyard rearyard on west- erly side of dwelling, Article III, Sections 100-31 and 100-34 and Bulk Schedule .... " MR. KENNEY: According to the Planning Board of the Building - Department, there's not enough footage.. What I was going to point out SoHthold Town Board of ~peals -11- February ~ 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3067 - GRACE E. KENNEY, continued:) MR. KENNEY continued: was that most of the lots from that development are either closer to the road than the setbacks of this house or the same. I know there are a number of houses that are only 10' back from the road; and also the lot adjacent to my father's house is also owned by him and assum- ing none of his sons have a fight with him, we're going to be mn that lot...so I don't there will be any problem with anyone putting a garage or something closer to the line on that side. The other lot on the other side that I believe the setback is only 16 feet, that I believe is owned by the builder who's going to construct the bedroom and the garage, and he's given notice to all the owners of the adjacent properties. I don't think anybody has any objection so that he's requesting that the variance be granted and he be allowed to basically convert the house into a yearround house. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you, Mr. Kenney, how he intends to use the garage...where will the doors be, maybe you can show ms on the sketch here? MR. KENNEY: Basically I think that is facing south. MR. CHAIRMAN: So he's going to come mn off Cleaves Point Road? MR. KENNEY: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to caution you that 835 square feet is a substantial amount to exceed the lot coverage by, and it may well be that this board might take into consideration only allowing a ohe-car garage. MR. KENNEY: Fortunately for him, unfortunately for me, he is in Florida vacationing so he couldn't be here; bug he has requested that if it's denied or there ms some problem with it, he could either make the garage smaller or forget the garage. The main thing is the bedroom and deck area. He could change that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? (None) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal No. 3067, matter of GRACE E. KENNEY until later. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. 'Southold Town Board of~Ppeals -12- February 4~1983 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HE~2RING: Appeal No. 3071. Application of GEORGE AND NATALIE ~IESER, Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100~32 for permission to construct accessory garage in the frontyard area at 1415 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000~97-06-010. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:21 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 September 20, 1980 indicating the existing dwelling and the approximate location of the proposed garage. We also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this parcel and the surrounding area. Is there anyone wishing to speak in behalf of the application? GEORGE WIESER (JR.): Mr~ Chairman, basically it's pretty clear what we would like to do. We cannot put a garage behind the house simply because it would put the garage effectively-right on top of the marshland, which borders Eugene's Creek. I have approximately a total of three acres for my property which is two separate lots. The whole front area with this garage where it's going to be located is nothing but woods, so I felt that there wouldn't be any real problem with the area as far as other neighbors go and whatever where this garage is placed. One bigger question I do have, I received from your board in the mail a request for an approved right-of-way for sufficient accessibility by emergency vehicles. Now I already have a deeded right-of-way across my neighbor's property which is a driveway, and I'd like to know from the board if this wOuld be acceptable; and if it's not what are you recommendations to proceed from here? MR. CHAIRMAN: If you have a right-of-way-it has significance to your effect that you have a right-of-way and it makes the property saleable, ok. But it does not give you the right under New York Town Law of 280a, which is approved access. We have certain criteria that we use. We did not look at your property for that particular use when we were over there, and we very simply looked at it for the position of the proposed garage. We will be dealing with that in another application, and there are certain standards that we sometimes impose and others, depending upon how many people use the right-of-way. I can ask you the question now -- how many people use the right-of-way? MR. KENNEY: Just my neighbor and myself. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, so that's two houses. MR. KENNEY: MR. CHAIRMAN: hearing. Right. We may ask you that same question at the next MR. KENNEY: What you're telling me is that I should submit an application for a right-of-way to this, u~ilizing the existing right- of-way? -Southold Town Board of ~_~peals -13- February ~ 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3071 - GEORGE & NATALIE WIESER, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. Can I just see you for one second concerning this? (Mr. Kenney came up to the dais.) MR. CHAIRMAN: These are the pictures that we had taken when we over to the property. This is the right-of-way, is that correct? MR. KENNEY: Yes, that's the r~ght-of-way in. MR. CHAIRMAN: Now is this the correct picture, standing here we would be looking at the proposed structure over here? MR. KENNEY: No, that's my neighbor's house. That is also the turnaround to my neighbor's house. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. So what we are going to come back to do is, another inspection because no one was there at either house when we were there, and I didn't see any stakes on any of the grounds...so what we will do is come back and do another inspection, prior to making any decision on this. So we'll recess this particular hearing until the next date just as we did, not 'the one before this, but the one before that. MR. KENNEY: You would be looking for another application also. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. MR. KENNEY: Another thing, too, I don't know we have time but I'm here to represent Thomas Samuels on his application which ~s not on your roster for tonight. Should I wait until the end? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's two more hearings away. Do you have any objection to our recessing? MR. KENNEY: Bearing in mind that I get the applications in for the other-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? (None) I'll make a motion recessing this particular application until the next regularly scheduled meeting. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to recess Appsal3No.~ 3~7!~ application in the matter of Appeal No. 3071, matter of GEORGE & NATALIE WIESER until the next Regular Meeting of this board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adOpted. (After the hearing, Mr. Wieser i~formed the board that he did receive approval from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation.) Southold Town Board ~ Appeals -14- February ~, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3014 - EAST END SUPPLY CO.) PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3014. Application for EAST END SUPPLY CO., INC. by Irving L. Price, Jr., Esq., 828 Front Street, Greenport, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100~80B for permission to construct warehouse- office building in this "C-Light Industrial" Zone. Location of Property: South Side of Corwin Street, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-48-02-002 & 003. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:28 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a rather large plan here indicating the nature of this application. Mr. Burden, wouId you like to be heard in behalf of your application? WALTER BURDEN: Mr. Chairman and board members, Mr. Price is not available, therefore, I'll do his part of this. The entire parcel of abandoned Seventh Street to land of 125-127 Main Street Corporation is Zoned C-Light Industrial District in which office buildings, wholesale storage and warehouSing are permitted uses under Special Exception. The existing warehouse building to the east was granted a Special Exception by the Board of Appeals in Appeal No. 1537, May 25, 1972, prior to East End's purchase and use of same as a warehouse. These part of premises have been commercial for many years and at one time encompassed grain- milling, oil and coal storage and distribution. The westerly part of the premises for which the Special Exception is requested · s presently ~mproved with ~Qur rundown dwelling units which will be raised to accomplish the building of a new warehouse. The Planning Board has already considered this site plan, and it goes back to some time last year. And in this regard, I would like to ask the board if you grant this Special Exception, because we have applied for a rehearing as I think you are aware of the last hear- ing (Appeal No. 3013), that the Special Exception be granted and applied to that rehearing so that we avoid going through this again and save some time. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Burden. Would anybody else like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to be heard against the application? Questions from board members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal No. 3014, application for EAST END SUPPLY CO., INC. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board ~£ Appeals -15- Februar5 ~, 1983 Regular Meeting RECESSED PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3061. Application of ANITA M. SAMUELS, Box 89B, Haywaters Road, Cutchogue, NY for Variances: (1) to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100~30(A) [1] for permission to construct inground pool on a vacant lot; and (2) to New York Town Law, Section 280-a for approval of access. Location of Property: South Side of Haywaters Road (a/k/a 155 Fishermen's Beach Road), Cutchogue, NY; Lot No. 2, Map of Peconic Bay Properties, Inc., Filed Map No. 786; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-111-1-41. The Chairman reconvened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you state your name, please, for this hearing. GEORGE WIESER: George Wieser. If you have any questions, I'm hear to answer. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were questions in the audience at that particular time (prior hearing) and it does not appear-- we'll find out -- see if anybody has any questions. Ok? Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application? (None). The questli~n that one person had had was, was the water that was going to be used for filling this swimmingpool going to be trucked in or was it going to be used from the existing well? MR. WIESER: I would assume that it is going to be used from the existing well. MR. CHAIRMAN: It.'s my understanding that there will be no enclosure around this pool, or a roof? MR. WIESER: There will be no roof and there won't be any side walls. The only thing that will be around the pool would be a wooden deck. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would there be any overhead lighting? MR. WIESER: I do not think he had plans on putting in light- lng at this point in time. He does have some spot lights affixed to the house, and there will probably be pool lights. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right. I think that sufficiently answers my questions. Do we have any questions from any board members? (None) Thank you for coming in. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. RESOLVED, to close the hearinq and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal No. 3061, application of ANITA M. SAMUELS. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board o~. JAppeals - 16- Febru~ 4, 1983 Regular Meeting ~ Motion was made to recess for approximately 3 minutes, duly seconded and carried. After approximately 5 minutes, motion was made by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and duly carried to reconvene the Regular Meeting. These resolutions was adopted unanimously. RECESSED PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2930. Application for SAL CAIOLA, by David E. Kapell as agent, 143 Sixth Street, Greenport, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Sec- tion 100-50(B) [31 and Article VI, Section 100-51, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct condominium units (multiple dwelling units) to be located at the sough side of C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-51-05-002. The original public hearing on this application was hel"d January 13, 1983, and the hearing was recessed until tonight. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:45 p.m, MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kapell, do you have anything to be added? DAVID E. KAPELL: Just to ask tha~ the project be approved. My understanding is, the reason for the recess from the last hearing is to give this board the opportunity to forward this application with the N.Y.S. Department of Transportation. It is also my understanding that they returned it with no comment; and therefore I'm not aware of any other impediments prior to approval of the project. I'm here to answer any questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask if there are any spokesmen from any groups, that the spokesman speak instead of individual people so that we might move along with the hearing. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of the application? (None) Ok, Mr. Verity. JARVIS VERITY: I'm not speaking for; I'm speaking against. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. That's why I'm calling on you. Anybody like to speak against it? MR. VERITY: My name is Jarvis Verity, President of the Southold Town Baymen's Association. Now we don't want to see that creek be polluted. We've been planting clams there for 10 years and we're finally getting situated so everybody can get clams out of the creek. Now in S0~thold Town there's 2,000 permits, 700 permits for the commercial man and there's 1,300 people of Southold Town. Now I think that's a lot of people that goes in there and gets clams ou~ of that creek, and it produces a lot of money from everybody in Southold Town. We don't want to see that creek be polluted and anything at all. We would like to save that creek. It's the best creek we've got in Southold Town for the clams, for small clams. It has been for years and years--scallops too. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anybody else wish to speak? Southold Town Board o~ Appeals 17- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued:) ALEX BONDARCHUK: Yes, Alex Bondarchuk from Southold, Richmond Road. The questions I have are to the town and Mr. Kapell. What do you plan to do with the cesspools? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bonderchuk, would you 'direct the question this way. You can read all the questions and maybe Mr. Kapell can-- MR. BONDARCHUK: The pollution... I understand it's supposed to be a de-nitrification system. Can you explain it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want him to do it inbetween questions? MR. BONDARCHUK: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you'mind standing at the mike? MR. KAPELL: May I hear all the questions at one time? MR. BONDARCHUK: Oh, ok. Is there a D.E.C. regulation that a building has to be built 10 feet above mean high water, the elevation has to be 10 feet? Do you know anything about that? Also, this system, once I find out what it is, who is going to monitor it and at whose expense and what happens in the future if this system fails and they find that the creek is being polluted? Does it condemn the condominiums and whatever? I have some more questions, but those I would like to be answered first. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kapell. MR. KAPELL: Those are the questions for me? MR. BONDARCHUK: Yes. MR. KAPELL: With regards to the septic system, it is, as understand it, it's called a nitrification/de-nitrification system which I'm not a professional engineer--I'm not personally aware of all the technical details; but the net result is that the effluent from the end of this system if one were to add chlorination, which is what's done on municipal water supplies~..it would be potable water. In other words there are no pollutantS that would eminate from this system. I also understand it's a proven system that has been used elsewhere. It has never been used in Southold Town. think you'll see it required by the Health Department in many other situations in the future. It's a new requirement by the County. Let me answer all the questions, and if they don't satisfy you, if you'll like to ask again, ok. That's what the septic--it comes at substantial cost to the applicant and we are prepared to install it. With regards to the Department of Environmental Conservation regula- tions, there is a section of the Environmental Conservation LaW the Tidal Wetlands Act, which states that property located above 10 feet in elevation above mean high water is outside their juris- diction. They don't have a requirement that you build at 10 feet in elevation; but any land that is above 10 feet in elevation falls Southold Town Board or'Appeals _ 18- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Ca±ola, continued:) MR. KAPELL continued: outside their jurisdiction. Now with regards to the monitoring of the sewage system...this will be done by the County Health Department, and the maintenance of the sewage system will be done at the condominim~s' expense. MR. BONDARCHUK: All right, now, as far as the monitoring part-- let's go back. Number One, it isn't a proven system in Southold? MR. KAPELL: As I understand it, it's a proven system. It has never been used in Southold. MR. BONDARCHUK: Where has it been proven though? MR. KAPELL: You would have to ask the Health Department those questions. I believe it has been used on the South Side, and it is definitely a proven system. MR. BONDARCHUK: We don't know that. MR. KAPELL: It is a proven technology and our plan has been approved by the County Health Department. They're the experts. MR. BONDARCHUK: We don't know that. Now the Board of Health is supposed to monitor it? For how long? MR. KAPELL: Can I ask that I hear all the questions at once so that I can-- MR. BONDARCHUK: Well I did ask you the question, and I'm lust going over it. All right, how long is it going to be monitored-- a year, two years...you know it takes a while for the pollutants to reach the creek. This is not a proven system, which we don't know... it's experimental and it might take a while...it might not take a year, it might not be two years...it might be like five years before the pollutants reach the wetlands, And what happens then after the condominiUms are built and they find out this is the cause of the creek being polluted. Are they going to say, "Well we'll close it, condemn it and close them." What's going to happen now. I'm con- cerned about the creek. We lost Long Creek, you know that for a fact and it was always a good source of income for a lot of baymen or whoever wanted to go out and get a few clams. And now little by little, every year you'll notice they close it further and further down. What we don't need is more of this. And this ~s on the main part. What happens when you close the creek. All right, fine, you have the condominiums but what happens to the rest of the creek? If it's one big polluted area? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kapell, maybe you could supply Mr. Bondar- chuk with the name of the gentleman that you used at the Health Department and he might contact him and ask some of these more technical questions. Southold Town Board or'~Appeals _ 19- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued:) MR. KAPELL: Mr. Robert Jewells is the gentleman that reviewed our application. I do want to say a couPle of things...it is a polluted system. This is not an experimental system. This is a proven system. It has also been specifically required by the Health Department in response to the pollution on this. If all the houses on these creeks had these systems at present, I don't believe you would have the pollution situation that you have at the creeks. So that I want to state emphatically that this is a proven system and it is my understanding that it does not produce pollutants. The question of monitoring is one that you must take up with the Health Department because that is not something...obviously the applicant is not going to monitor it itself, so you will be relying on the Suffolk County Health Department. It is my understanding that the monitoring would take place the same way that it does in a municipal sewage treatment plan, where it will be done a regular basis forever. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kapell, while you're up there. This is an excavated system--it's below ground? MR. KAPELL: Absolutely. MR. CHAIRMAN: And therefore there's no chance of freezing or anything of that. nature in the winter-time. MR. KAPELL: No, sir. I also want to state that we dug two test holes in front of the Health Department so that the location of the facilities and the soil in which they're going to be installed has been witnessed and reviewed and approved by the Health Department. MR. CHAIrmAN: Mr. Bear? FRANKLIN BEAR: I'm here tonight as a substitute for Ruth Oliva, and she called me this afternoon and told me that she had talked to someone in the Health Department and so far as the type of denitrifi- cation is concerned, she was assured by the Health Department that this is a 99% pure method of taking care of the sewage. She did say also in regard to the matter of monitoring, that she was told that the Health Department does not monitor it...it would require an annual report from the owners and if that annual report is not received, then the Health Department would check up on it. She said also that she was told that under normal circumstances that the builder...the sulfur lined stone filter would have to be replaced every five years or so depending of course on the usage, some times maybe a little less but sometimes even more. So that's the information in which she received and which she referred to me. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Bear. Does anybody else wish to speak against the application? Yes, ma'am? MRS. KIRNER: I would just like to say, I'm Mrs. Kirner and the last time I was here I had said I had a letter from the D.E.C. say- ing they had no jurisdiction and Mr. Kapell was waiving a little paper saying it was going by every rule, and I was most unprepared; Southold Town Board ozJAppeals - 20- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal NO. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued:) MRS. KIRNER conninued: I do have %he let%er with me, which is a copy of a letter sent to Mr. Kapell saying that they have no jurisdiction because they are 10 feet above the mean high water. I do have photographs that prove that map, that show the water from the land on the property. I don't know--is this allowed to be shown? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it will be part of the hearing if you would like to give them to us. (Mrs. Kirner gave the board a copy of the D.E.C. letter dated June 9, 1982, and four color photographs of portions of the property in question for the record.) MRS. KIRNER: This does show...it's sort of hard, I know, it was taken from an airplane, but it does show the water. Our house is where all the trees are. It does show the water; it comes right around...the property. Here the neighbor had taken, and shows how far the water does come up. I don't these are of any--you cannot see what we are trying to show. This is from the neighbor's house... his car is in the driveway, to show how far the water does come up. This is at regular tide, and I have a bigger photograph that we keep on our wall. You can't have it but if you would like to see it. MR. CHAIRMAN: When were these taken, Mrs. Kirner? MRS. KIRNER: Mr. Smulcheski wrote on the back. (March 1982 and January 1983). MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to see these, Mr. Kapell or anybody? Is there anybody in the audience that does not know what this complex looks like? We had copies of it circulated. You can place this down on the table. MR. KAPELL: I wouId like to respond to these. MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly. MR. KAPELL: I will do this here because I want to point out a couple of things: Number One, unless I'm mistaken, this is taken from the berm that we've discussed a couple of times, before this. We have no argument that this is water. We've never stated that it's other- wise, and this is most definitely protected wetland area on the property, but I also want to state that that is not this area of the property, which at the last hearing is what was claimed to have been u~derwater. This is a picture taken from this point in a southerly direction over the wetland area. There has never been any statement or representation on our part that it was other than wetland. This area that came up at the last hearing was removed from the tidal wetland map by the Department of Environmental Con- servation after their own on-site inspection and determination that it is not an active tidal wetland. These pictures do not argue any Southold Town Board o~ ~ppeals _ 21- Febru& ~ 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Cai.ola, continued:) MR. KAPELL continued: statement that we made. I'd also like to point out that as long as we're getting into it that there is a-- I don't know whose house this is right here, but adjacent to that somebody u~dertook to build a garage, adjacent to the south of this building right here. I don't think it's shown on this. MR. CHAIRFLAiN: You probably can't see it from the air. MR. KAPELL: I guess that's what it is, obscured by the wing of the airplane, I think here.. In any case, there is a building... there's a house down there where somebody built a garage, I don't know who it is, that is within three feet of this area that we've been discussing .in these past two hearings. So the neighbors in · there in fact have been intruding and encroaching on that area for some time. Also all the houses there are much closer than anything we propose to build. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Kapell.~ Is there anybody else that would like to be heard. Mr. Verity? MR. VERITY: I got a little paper here from the Town Trustees. This gentleman says that he can build 11' from the mean high water. It says that alterations of construction to N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation and the Sou~hold Town Board. So I talked to Mr. Stou~enburgh today. He says they have to get permission from the Conservation Department or permission from the Sou~hold Town Board, or u~til the Building Department gets permission from them ~n order to see if that is wetlands. And whatever that sec- tion is, there is a lot of wetlands there. Do you want to see this, I'll show it to you. (Mr. Verity submitted an informational folder on docks, filling, dredging, mooring, bulkheads, alteration of wetlands prepared by the Southold Town Trustees.) MR. VERITY: It was put out by the Sou~hold Town Trustees. It is the law on the lands. MR. LESSARD, ADMINISTRATOR: It certainly would all be checked before a buflding permit were granted, absolutely. MR. KAPELL: We have it. We have a Department of Environmental Conservation permit for the project. MR. BONDARCHUK: You didn't clear one thing about the elevation part of it. Mr. Kapell has spoken to all of us, as long as it's over 10' above mean high water mark than the D.E.C. has no control over it. Now is this going to be over 10' above elevation or not? MR. KAPELL: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anybody else wish to be heard? (None) Hearing no further comment from anyone, I'll make a motion closing Southold Town Board ol ~Appeals 22- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued:) the hearing and reserving decision until a later date. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of the application of SAL CAIOLA, Appeal No. 2930. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonls, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution Was unanimously adopted. The hearing was officially declared closed. After the close of the hearing, Mr. Bondarchuk asked for addi- tional information concerning the 10' elevation and D.E.C. juris- diction, and the Chairman suggested that he speak directly with Mr. Kapell. The Chairman also made the audience aware that the board had 60~ays to make a decision on this application from tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3073. Application of RONALD J. ROTHMAN, Box 878, Sou~hold, NY (Owner: V. L'Epplatenier) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct new dwelling with insufficient front and rear yard setbacks at Lakeview Avenue, Peconic, NY; Peconic Shores Subdivision Lots 52-56 incl.; County Tax Map Parcel ID Nos. 1000- 67-03-002, 003, 012 and 013. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:06 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey amended on 9/1/81 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. indicating the proposed house to be approximately 15' from Lakeview Avenue and 15' from Lakeview Avenue, both streets are Lakeview Avenue. 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? RONALD J. ROTHMAN: Yes. I'm Ronald J. Rothman, and I've just entered into contract as far as buying this piece of property depend- ing on receiving a building permit, and right now I am following the procedure which is necessary in order to build primarily what will be a one-family dwelling for my own yearround use. I will be enhancing the property as I've stated because what is there now is a previOusly filed subdivision which calls for I believe 4-5 of the subdivision lots two approved Sou~hold Town building lots. Both lots do have DoE.Co approval. The close approximately to Autumn Lake...it is a real hazard. There is some favorable high ground...more favorable high ground would be where this paper road exists. Of course, there is a problem with trying to build on that road, so I'm asking the board to consider the possibility of building as close to that road as possible, asking for - 15' seeing that that came out to be a reasonable amount where I could still build a house on the favorable higher ground. To the best of my Southold Town Board of Appeals - 23- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3073 - RONALD J. ROTHMAN - VICTOR L'EPPLATENIER, continued:) MR. ROTHMAN continued: knowledge, the neighbors in the area who I have spoken with, there is no Opposing-opposition to it, and I would just like to have the board con- sider this, that it's the only way I feel I could build a house sufficient enough for yearrou~d use. And I'm here to answer any questions that the board may have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea what the setback is from Autumn Lake? MR. ROTHMAN: I believe there's about 70 feet, and again that's a plus and minus figure, depending on the mean highwater. The higher ground is about, where I'm asking to build, is about five or six feet above sea level to the best of my knowledge. As you go off to which would be the northerly direction of the property, you go to a lower area in order to get sufficient setbacks off again these paper roads, I would be asking to really build in an area which is kind of spongy and marshy. The other area is favorable...it's dry, solid land and that's my concern in building the house, it would be I would say near impossibly unless you built on stilts to build any closer to Autumn Lake than what I'm askin~ for. MR. CHAIR~N: Concerning the D.E.C. permit, do you have an updated D.E.C. permit? MR. ROTHMAN: I have copies of letter done for the L'Epplateniers concerning each specific lot. Right now as it stands, there are the two lots owned by the two L'Epplateniers. One is a copy which I acquired concerning Lots 12 and 13. The other is a copy which was supplied to me by the L'Epplateniers concerning Lots 2 and 3. And it states that it is out Of their jurisdiction. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any decision by this board will be based upon D.E.C. permits, so you may have to update these if they have run out. 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? (None) Any questions from board members? Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until a later time. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded. On motion by Mr_ Go,bringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal N0~ 3073, application of RONALD J. ROTHMAN. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board o~App PUBLIC HEARING: Appe BERLINER, JR., Box 647, Ma Variance to the Zoning Ord permission to construct gr setback at 105 Love Lane, No. 1000-1'41-04-031. ~als -24- February ~ 1983 Regular Meeting No. 3069. Application of WILLIAM B. ztituck, NY (Owner: B. Norris), for a [nance, Article VII, Section 100~71 for aenhouse addition with reduced sideyard 4attituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID The Chairman opened the hearing at 9-14 p m and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.' - MR. CHAIRMAN:. We hav~ a copy of the 'original subdivision plan indicating Lot No. 4 which_has 2,662 square feet with a building which is approximately 13½' by 36'. The proposed addition is 7J5'' by 54' with a 2' setback toward Lot No. 5. And I have a copy of the Suffolk county Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties mn the area. Would somebody like to speak in behalf Of this application? WILLIAM BERLINER, JR.: Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything to add to my application. If there are any questions, I would be happy to asnwer them. MiR. CHAIRMAN: The board was only interested in why you selected the sideyard, Mr. Ber!iner~ .and not the rear of the building? MR. BERLINER: I'd like the greenhouse to be viewed from the street. MR. CHAIRMAN: For retail purposes? MR. BERLINER: Yes. I'm going to build it out of glass and aluminum and it's going to be a nice appearance, so I want it to be seen from the street. MR. CHAIRMAN: 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? Any questions from board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MF~{BER GRIGONIS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearinq and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal No. 3069, appliqation of WILLIAM B. BERLINER, JR. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3074. Application of JOHN AND SABINA BASILE, 510 Custer Avenue, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning ~rdinance, Article III, Section 100~31 for permission to construct addition to existing dwelling with reduction in frontyard setback at 510 Custer Avenue, Southold, NY; Fairview Park Subdivision Map 3388, Lot 11; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-70-08-033. The Chairman opesed the hearing at 9:17 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sketch of a survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. July 17, 1967 indicating this p~operty. There is a proposed reduction from 53' to 42' in the frontyard. We also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this parcel and the surrounding parcels. Is there anyone wishing to be heard in behalf of this application? MRS. SABINA BASILE: I'm Sabina Basile. This is a wholely new experience for me, and I'll answer any questions that I can. MR. CHAIRMAN: How big is the proposed addition? MRS. BAILE: Eleven feet. We plan to extend the existing garage 11 feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Eleven feet by what? MRS. BASILE: By 12 or 13 feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from board members? Hearing no further ques- tions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until a later time. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the .h.e.a?ing. and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal No. 3074, application of JOHN & SABINA BASILE. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3075. Application of JOSEPH & MARY GNOZ-ZO, by Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60 and Article XI, Section i00~118D for permission to reinstate nonconforming dwelling use for existing building in this B-Zone at 73265 Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-45-03-002. S~uthold Town Board c ,Appeals -26- February 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3075 - JOSEPH & MARY GNOZZO, continued:) i The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:21 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRb~N: We have a copy of a survey dated January 25, 1983 indicating this property which is some 5.126 acres, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Olsen, would you like to be heard in behalf of this application? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Yes. My name is Gary Olsen. I'm an attorney~ having my offices at Main Road, Mattituck. I'm representing Joseph and Mary Gnozzo who are purchasing the piece of property in question from Wayne A. Moritz and under the contract of sale which was dated December 16, 1982, there's a contingency clause in the contract that it's subject to Zoning Board approval to reinstate a residential use of the easterly most building on this property; and I'll just submit the contract for your records. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (Photocopy of the Contract of Sale between Wayne M. Moritz and Joseph and Mary Gnozzo dated December 16, 1982 was submitted for the file.) MR. OLSEN: As you've indicated the subject property is over five acres. Part of it is zoned Business; that's the part where the structures are presently located, and the rest of the property is zoned Residential-Agricultural. What's appealing to my clients as far as this property is concerned is the fact that it can be used as a business and the easterly most structure has historically been utilized as a residsnce, in fact it has a bath and a half, a living room, two bedrooms, and has over the years been used for residential purposes. The building has not been used that way for at least two years...therefore we need to go through the Zoning Board. As you're aware, the Zoning Code used to enable residential use for this type of situation. It has been changed, requiring a variance procedure. We've been advised by Collin VanTuyl, that the living area is 1~,000 square feet and the dimensions of the easterly most building is shown on the survey~ which you have in your file. Also I would point out that the character of the neigh- borhood would not be changed due to the fact that both on the westerly side of this property and on the easterly side are houses that are being used for residences. I think that's about all I have to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olsen, would the applicant have any objection to a-- not an imaginery line on a survey, but a ~ine on a survey indicating that this particular building be placed in a 40;000 sq. ft. parcel not be used as business? In other words, a line between drawn somewhere equally distant between the large concrete building and the building in question and going back to encompass 40,000 square feet? MR. OLSEN: I'm not sure I understand the reason. At this point there's no intention of splitting this house piece off from the rest of the property. It would be used in conjunction with the other buildings that are on the property in the B Zone. Southold Town Board o kppeals -27- February 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3075 - JOSEPH & MARY GNOZZO, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: We just didn't want any clutter.lng if this applica- tion were granted, or any additions to be located closer to th~ resl- dentiality of this particular building. Again if it were granted. That's-- MR. OLSEN: Again I don't understand what you're saying. MR. CHAIRMAN: We don't want business to encompass to run around this building if we're reinstituting the residentiality of this building. Do you understand what I'm saying? MR. OLSEN: No I don't. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to step up here one second? Just a line, i~dicating that this would be used for residential purposes. Not a subdivision. MR. OLSEN: Well, suppose we wanted to incorporate a business use with the residential use? They can do that-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you would probably have to come back to this board. MR. OLSEN: I mean, it is zoned for business. MR. CHAIR~AN: I know that. MR. OLSEN: But supposing for example I wanted to operate an antique business or something, which is permitted out of that build- ing, and plus live there also? I didn't say I want to, but I don't want to restrict what they can do. Sort of like Jim's Diner, or the Wishbone Inn. They're living upstairs and operating downstairs. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do they intend to live in this building? MR. OLSEN: Yes, they do. Yes. MR.CHAIRMAN: It was only a question, ok? MR. OLSEN: Ok. MR. CHAIR~N: Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? BERT LEWIS: I'm Bert Lewis. I'd like to add to one thing that Gary overlooked. There is a kitchen in'there...the house was used as a home for 50 years. This man is going to spend a lot of money and fix it up and pick up the whole neighborhood. MR. CHAIRMAN: He has no intentions at this time of incorporating any business into that house though...the only business use will be the use of the building next door to it. MR. OLSEN: That's my understanding but I don't want to restrict it is a B-Zoned piece of property and I don't want to restrict what he Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3075 - JOSEPH & MARY GNOZZO, continued:) MR. OLSEN continued: can do in that building. As ~ar as what he tells me, he basically wants that for living and he wants~he other buildings on the property for business use. That's all the information I have on it. MR. CHAIRMAN: So at this time, we're only dealing with two uses, is that correct? The residentiality of the house reinstating this house, and then the business or whatever he intends to do with the building next door, which is really not the nature of this application. MR. OLSEN: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just trying to reduce it to how many uses we're dealing with here. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of the application? (None) Anyone wishing to speak against the application? (None) Any questions from any board members? (None) Hearing no ~urther questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision u~til a later time. MEMBER SAWICKI: Second. MR. CHAIRM~N: Thank you, gentlemsn, for coming .in. On motion by Mr. Goehrinqer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve.decision in the matter of Appeal No. 3075~ matter o.f JOSEP.H. & MARY. ~NOZZO, until a later time. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -29- February ~¥ 1983 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3072. Application of IRENE AND POPPI PAPADAKIS, Main Road, Box 28, Orient, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 for permission to use part of residence for a skin care clinic at 26165 Main Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-18-03-023. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:31 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the survey made by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated October 4, 1976 showing the home which is the nature of this application, or a portion thereof, 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? IRENE PAPADAKIS: I'm Irene Papadakis. I have some letters here to add from some clients of mine. (Mrs. Papadakis read each letter.) "...To Whom It May Concern: It has come to my attention that there is some controversy about Irene's Skin Care Clinic in Orient. I am a client of Irene's and feel there is a definite need for this type of service in our town. The type of person using Irene's talents and facilities is hardly one who would be a disruptive force mn the community. Please consider any objections raised as inconsequential. Thank you for your assistance mn this matter. Yours very truly, /s/ Beatrice Farber .... " MS. PAPADAKIS continued: Again, addressed to the Town of Southold: "...Dear Sirs: I am writing to you concerning Irene's European Skin Clinic, 28 Main Road, Orient, NY owned and operated by Ms. Irene Papadakis. I am one of Ms. Papadakis' cliants at her skin care clinic and I thoroughly enjoy my sessions with her. They are both relaxing and important to people who care about their appearance. Irene's Skin Care Clinic is also one of the very few places that offer skin treatments, etc. on this end of the Island, which would mean if it wersn't for them one would have to travel into the City. In a time where our town is so successfully growing, I think it's important to meet all people's needs. I hope you will consider just how important Irene's Skin Care Clinic can be to a lot of people's needs. Thank you for your time. Sincerely yours, /s/ Deborah Barszczewski .... · Sou~hold Town Board o~_.~peals -30- February 4~_~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3072 - Irene & Poppi P.apadakis, continued:) MS. PAPADAKIS continued: Here is one more: "... Southold Town Hall: We feel there is a need for a skin & body care clinic at the East End of Long Island. Irene's will be a great value to the community... Very truly yours, /s/ Gertrude L. Poulson .... " Those are the three letters I have. MR. CHAIRMAN: We will need copies of those for our file, or if it is all right, take the originals and give you copies back. MS. PAPADAKIS: I don't believe I'll be needing the originals. I have signatures here of persons. I've gone to Board of Commerce meetings, approximately two or three Mondays ago, and I have signa- tures here of persons I spoke to abou~ this matter, and which you can also use. And I spoke to my lawyer, Mr. Price, and he gave me a little piece of the Southold Code stating: "...Home Occupations, provided that: (a) No display of goods is visible from the street, and it is not visible at all; (b) Such occupation is incidental to the residential use of the premises and is carried on in the main building by the resident therein with no more than one resident assistance. I don't have have in my residence.., just me. (c) Such occupation is carried on in an area not exceeding 30% of the area of one floor of the main building. And it does not exceed that. (d) There shall be no exterior effect at the property line, such as noise, traffic, odor, dust, smoke, gas, fumes or radiation. Now - there will be no noise because, the equipment, the only noise you WilI hear is us talking actually. No traffic because I will be the only one working there. And the lady outside stated, what happens when the business grows. I'm not planning on hiring anybody. From past experience I've learned that, no way I can manage with one the same way that I can. It will be me and my sister after school, she'll take over the phone. And that's it. And that's official for me. I never wan~ed a big business and bringing in a lot of people working for me and cause a lot of traffic. The most would be four or about five cars a day. It's just going to be one person. And the last one: 'Southold Town Board of~Appeals -31- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3072 - Irene & Poppi ~apadakis, continued:) MS. PAPADAKIS continued: (e) Studios where ... no, excuse me. Odor. No odor whatsoever. No dust; no smoke; no gas, fumes or radiation. (e) Studios where dancing or music instruction is offered to groups in excess of five pupils at one time, or where concerts or recitals are held, are prohibited. This one has nothing to do with me at all. And if you have any questions, we'll be glad to answer. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, what percentaqe of the business is basically devoted to the actual total square footage of the ground floor of the house? MS. PAPADAKIS: We don't know. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you supply us with that information? Do you know what I mean by that question? MS. PAPADAKIS: How wide the house itself is? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. POPPI PAPADAKIS: 90 by 65, the building. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have to know how much area you have devoted to the skin care clinic. MS. PAPADAKIS: Would you like some of the measurements of the rooms, is that it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. You don't have to give it to us right this second. MS. PAPADAKIS: The whole main floor consists of nine rooms approxi- mately. We're using three. MR. CHAIRMAN: And you'll let us know the size of those rooms some time? MS. PAPADAKIS: My father has it. He has it because he did the work on the wall, and we put the carpeting in so he knows how much it is. M~. PAPADAKIS:~ . 14 by 14, both rooms, approximately and a small bathroom. These three rooms were there. Just the paneling and the tile on the wall and the carpeting and the desk and equipment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a waiting room? .MS. PAPADAKIS: Yes. -Southold Town Board of~_~peals (Appeal No. 3072 MR. CHAIRMAN: MS. PAPADAKIS: - 32- February 4~ ~983 Regular Meeting Irene & Poppi Papadakis, continued:) Included in this two 14 by 14 rooms? Yes. One is the clinic, actually the equipment ms, and one ms the waiting room. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. All right. The second ques- tion I have, what type of license to you. have, Ms. Papadakis? MS. PAPADAKIS: Yes. State Board license. New York State. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any additional Health Department approvals for this clinic? Is there anything that would require additional Health Department approval where you would need an addi- tional cesspool or additional well, or whatever the case might be? MS. PAPADAKIS: Perhaps I should have my father-- Would you ask the question again, please? MR. CHAIRMAN: WouId this skin care clinic require any additional cesspools other than what you have within the house now? No. We don't use any water. My father is a construction worker so he would For this business. No additional cesspool? We don't need it. MS. PAPADAKIS: The only, as I said, it's not going to be a heavy load. It's only going to be a few persons per day. Very little water use. So I don't understand what the problem is there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you devoted any parking spaces to the clinic at all? MS. PAPADAKIS: There's plenty of room on the property. I have a garage now that's been there. So they can park out there. MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't have any idea how many parking spaces-- let's assume you had five people at one time, do you have room for five cars? MS. PAPADAKIS: That's impossible first of all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Everything would be done by appointment? MS. PAPADAKIS: Yes. Definitely. That's what I'm trying to say. It will not cause too much traffic because I have it by appointments and I leave room from one client to the other. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak .in behalf of the application? (None) Anybody against the application? If there are any spokesman for any specific group, I'll MR. PAPADAKIS: MS. PAPADAKIS: be able to explain-- MR. PAPADAKIS: MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. PAPADAKIS: ~Southold Town Board o~ppeals _ 33- February 4, ±983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3072 - Irsne & Poppi papadakis, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: take those first. Sir? ROBERT HUGHES: Mr. Chairman and me~bers of the board. I'm Robert Hughes from Orient. I have a petition h~re which I will come to in a few moments. Irene Papadakis has obtained an operator's license to practice skin care and cosmetology. This is not a license to operate a beauty parlor or skin clinic. The Department of State which gives us this information has no record of Irene's European Skin Care Clinic. I've dealt with State Departments before...there may be an application in the way..~I don't know. So we ask, does Irene Papadakis have a license from the State to operate a skin care clinic? Does she have a partnership or a trade name certificate as it is on file with the County Clerk. If she does have a State certificate, has she met the plumbing, electrical and other require- ments of the Town? Here is the petition which is signed 205 people from Orient only, unlike the petition that Ms. Papadakis had circulated at the Chamber of Commerce. "...We the undersigned residents of Orient, urge the board to reject the application of Irene Papadakis for a variance to incorporate a "European Skin Care Clinic" into her residence on Route 25 in ©rient. We in Orient are proud of our hamlet, its traditions, its unique blending of residential and agricultural. This commercial effort to encroach on a residential area must be denied. A variance would be destructive immediately and further set a dangerous precedent for the future .... " (Mr. Hughes submitted the 205-name petition for the record.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to speak against the application? Mr. Bear? FRANKLIN BEAR: I'm speaking on behalf of the North Fork Envir- onmental Council as a substitute for Ru~h Oliva as the President. This type of business is not in accordance with the type of life that goes on in the Hamlet of Orient and it should not be allowed because it could set a precedent which would lead to more types of business. This is the type of thing that could be very well carried on in Greenport. There's no reason why this type of business couldn't be carried on in the East End of Long Island withou~ hav- ing it in Orient itself. One of the things that concerns us is the fact that this is being done at a very time that the town planners are in the process of it being updated. Lots of things are going on in this town right now which could and very well likely will,affect the type of town plan that will come out of this effort ~o update it because things will already be done and will set a precedent which will keep the town plan from, let's say, zoning something one way or another. We feel that something of this kind should not be allowed ~Southold Town Board off'Appeals 34- February 4~ 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3072 - Irene & Poppi papadakis, continued:) MR. BEAR continued: and for one thing, because of the nature of the area and for another thing, because now is not the time to start something new while the town plan is being in the process of being updated. We would like to ask this board to deny this application. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mro Bear. Would anybody else like to speak against the application? Yes, ma'am? PAT LUKEMAN: I believe everybody can hear me from here. I'm Pat Lukeman from Orient, and I'd like to state on my behalf and on behalf of many people that I've spoken with...I thank Mr. Hughes really for getting up that petition. I believe petitions are some- thing, but if people don't really come to meetings and state their opinions, then they mean nothing. I'm asking the board to deny this petition for the simple reason that Orient is a Hamlet where there are no commercial businesses outside of the Candy/nan and I believe he is the only one in Orient that operates as a commercial establish- ment. All the others are nonconforming. I believe also that once we let one person operate without any permission and give them the opportunity to circumvent the law, sort of speak, we're in trouble. And I'd ask the board to please contact lawyers and back up their statement when they deny this petition, because we might be in a position now where we're faced with lawyers from New York City or any other place and we'd be in big trouble. And we also, with respect to the last 20 years, we need a Master Plan. And until this Master Plan is formed, I think it behooves us to stop any develop- ment whatsoever...not only in Orient, and East Marion, but all of $outhold Town. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Lukeman. Anybody else like to speak against the application. Yes, ma'am. MS. WAXBURGER: I'm a homeowner in Orient and while I feel badly if the Papadadis are operating under a misunderstanding abou~ the procedures they had to go through, I feel that just to express a personal feeling abou~ it apart from my very strong commitment to the historic nature of Orient that I think the precedent would be ~ery dangerous. It would make me feel insecure in that I wouIdn't know whether a commercial property might open next door to me or I think it would create a very strang feeling for people who were looking to buy in Orient non knowing whether something might open next to them or the possibility that people might buy in Orient under the guise of buying a residential property with the intention of getting a variance and opening an establishment if the set of a precedence could be that easily gotten to convert residential to commercial property. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak against? Mr. Hughes again. MR. HUGHES: Yes, I would like to submit to you an application _ form from the State of New York that must be filled out by someone operating a beauty shop and there's several various important items 'Southold Town Board of-~ppeals - 35- February 4r ~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3072 - Irene & Poppi ~apadakis, continued:) MR. HUGHES continued: in it conforming to local laws, regulations and whatnot, and it's very stringent and it's filed under threat of perjury. If you haven't seen it, you mmght want it for the file. (Mr. Hughes submitted a copy of the State of New York, Department of State, Division of Licensing Services, Form Rl14-790(5/78) for the file.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? (None) Irene, could we ask you some additional questions? Could you maybe bring those peti- tions up with you for the file? MS. PAPADAKIS: Would you like these now? MR. CHAIRMAN: And the letters, yes. Thank you. Care Clinic operating at this present time? Is this Skin MS. PAPADAKIS: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: It is. You are aware of the fact that you'don't have a license to operate or you don't have permmssion to operate it on the site at this particular time? MS. PAPADAKIS: Yes, sir, but the day that we came to the Building Inspector, we told him about everything that we--the flyers and the ads and everything, and people that have called me so far-- and the gentleman sitting over there (Mr. Lessard), I don't remember his name, he says, "Just go ahead with your plans as normally you wouId until you open and until you come in to the Board of Appeals, and then we'll see what happens when they decide for you." ~.~R. CHAIRMAN: In answer to Mr. Hughes' question, did you fill out one of these applications to operate your skin care clinic? MS. PAPADAKIS: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: If this falls within the jurisdiction of that? MS. PAPADAKIS: No, I haven't. MR. CHAIRMAN: You have not. MS. PAPADAKIS: I would like to say something about the lady that mentioned she called the State Board of Licenses and the busi- ness ms not written down as Irene's Skin Care Clinic. That's because it wasn't. We're just starting it now. And I came up with a name, and when I called four months ago, a gentleman said, we need a State Board License and we would have the permit for you in a matter of two-five days, then you can work. Give us the name. He says as long as the name is not the same as anybody else's business. Of course there's no other skin care clinic around. So any name I used would have been fine. As far as che lady's concern, but the plumbing is as was, it is safe, it's been inspected by my father and Southold Town Board of ppeals _36- February 4 '~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal NO. 3072 - Irene & Poppi Papadakis, continued:) MS. PAPADAKIS continued: his co-worker who is a plumber, and the electricity as well. Now I don't understand why they're worried that if I open up, it will become commercialized. I spoke to Mr. Price, and he says if I decided to sold the house, it will be as it was before, residential. Am I right? I mean I'm curious as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything that this board grants goes along with the land. So if this board were to so grant an application, it would change the nature of your property. You would have dual use. You would have two uses. You saw me ask this gentleman how many uses he had on his property~ prior to your application, and he said. to me, "Two." Residence. A buSiness. You iwould have a similar situation. You would have a buSiness. And you would have a residence. You would have two uses where you legally really only have one use right, now, and that is only residential. Ok. You're in an A-Zone. MS. PAPADAKIS: I understand. But let's say if everything, if I do open, with your u~derstanding, if I open, will that area ever become commercialized and bring in more businesses? Because that's most of these people here are worried. MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't answer that question, all right. It's beyond my scope at this particular point. All I can say is that we appreciate everybody's information, including yours, and we will take everything into consideration. We do have 60'days to make a decision on this application. This board does not agree with the Building Department's interpretation where they feel that you can continue your business. We don't think that you should continue your business. Based upon some determination, we think you should cease operating your business u~til such time that there is a determination, and whatever that determination may be, we'll see, within the 60-day period. MS. PAPADAKIS: Is there any information that you would like me to come back with, or will I get a letter stating-- MR. CHAIRMAN: You will get a letter within a specific period of time indicating a decision if it was granted or denied, and if it was granted what the conditions are, and if it were denied what the conditions are. Member Grigonis would also ask that you look into the licensing situation. MS. PAPADAKIS: I definitely will. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, thank you. Does anybody else wish to comment? Mr. Hughes, did you have anything else you would like to say? Anybody else? MRS. LUKEMAN: In other words, is she allowed to operate now for the 60 days until you 'give a decision? MR. CHAIRMAN: The unique part, Mrs. Lukeman, about the Board of Appeals is that we have the right to vary, if we see fit, any zoning code laws the exist in the code book in Southold Town. We are, however, , Southold Town Board o~.__~ppeals -37- February 4~_ i983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3072 - Irene & Poppi ~apadakis, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: not an enforcing agency. The enforcing agency is the Building Depart- ment, and it is my opinion, as I just mentioned to Ms. Papadakis, that we feel that she should cease and desist in operating this business until such time that there is a determination from this particular board...ok, be whatever that determination is. MRS. LUKEMAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're very welcome. MS. PAPADAK!S: May I ask one thing, please? MR. CHAIRMAN: Surely. MS. PAPADAKIS: When one lady just said, that I didn't contact, felt that I didn't contact everyone-~anyone. I did. We called from New York before we decided to move here permanently. We had this hOuSe for two y~ars. The gentleman 6vet the phone, I don't care who he was, it doesn't make a difference~about his name, because he was from Town Hall, the licensing servic~s~ He told me just bring your State Board License, bring your.permit and then tell us what name you would want in the business, that you cannot open up. I did contact somebody. We didn't just move here and spend $20,000 Without contact someone and ask about the law. MR. CHAIRMAN: What licensing, specifically licensing department when you refer to "bringzng in my license." MS. PAPADAKIS: When I called up the Southold Town Hall. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but what licensing department are you speci- fically talking about when you said, "I have to bring in my license." MS. PAPADAKIS: State Board License Operating License. For skin care and hairdressing, in spite what the gentleman says...that includes hair, make-up, skin care in that one license. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hughes? MR. HUGHES: Yes. As it was explained to me by the Department of State, an oPerating license gives the:recipient the right to go to work, and that may be a beauty parlor, or another.beauty parlor, but it does not have anything at all to do with operating a shop-- you don't even have to have an operator's license to operate a shop--you would be a business. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you understand what he said? MS. PAPADAKIS: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: And you certainly have not gone to the County Clerk's Office as Mr. Hughes had mentioned and filed your name of your business with anybody in Suffolk County, is that correct? ~Southold Town Board o~'.~ppeals _ 38- February 4~ ~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3072 - Irene & Poppi Papadakis, continued:) MS. PAPADAKIS: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lessard, do you have any questions? MR. LESSARD: I would ask somebody from Orient whether or not there are any doctors, lawyers, dentists living in Orient and running a business? Real estate? MRS. LUKEMAN: Floyd King has a real estate in Orient. He has been there for centuries. MR. LESSARD: Ail right. Thank you. MRS. LUKEMAN: Professional people? I don't think we have a doctor in Orient. Wish we did but we don't. (There was some discussion by Ms. Papadakis to Mrs. Lukeman about professionals vs. skin care clinic, but the statements were not audible.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Irene, you're going to have to say it a little bit louder. This is all electronically taped. Ok? MS. PAPADAKIS: From what I u~derstand they won't object to a doctor, but they would object to an itician, what every woman needs...whether she wants to believe it or not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you. Any further comments? Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reseruing decision. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal No. 3072, application of IRENE & POPPI PAPADAKIS. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. DATE FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING: seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was On motion by Fir. Sawicki, RESOLVED, that the date of the next Regular Meeting of this Board be and hereby is SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1983 commencing at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold~ New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Mess~s. Goehringer, Doyen, Griqonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ~outhold Town Board of ~ppeals -39- February 4~J1983 Regular Meeting "CLOSED SESSION FOR DELIBERATIONS" - Motion was made by Mr. Doug- lass, seconded, by Mr. Sawicki, to recess temporarily for closed session for deliberations. This resolution was unanimously carried. "RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING" - Motion was made by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, to reconvene the Regula.r Mesting. This resolution was unanimously carried. The meeting reconvened at 11:30. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: Motion was made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, to declare the following Environmental Declarations pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act: APPEAL NO.: 3084 PROJECT N~E: PATNICK REALTY This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review ~ct 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: IX] Type I! [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Second dwelling use on two-acre business- zoned parcel. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of ~ ~ Su~ol~, more particularly known as: Main Road, Greenport, NY; 1000-45-05-001. REASON(S) SUPPORT%NG THIS DETE~MINATiON: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Foz/n 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) The premmses in question is not located near a critical environmental-area. S6uthotd Town Board o ~ppeals -40- February (E~vironmental Declarations, continued:) APPEAL NO.: 3083 PROJECT NAME: J. ROYAL AND VIRGINIA GIFFORD 1983 Regular Meeting This notice is issued pursuant to Par5 617 (and Local Law ~44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Enviror~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: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Accessory garage in sideyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Minnehaha Boulevard, Sou~hold, NY; 1000-087-03- 050. REASON(~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.: 3080 PROJECT NAME: EAST END SUPPLY CO., INC. 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: Rehearing on Appeal No. 3013. New construction of building with insufficient front, side~ ~ rear yard setbacks. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southotd, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Corwin Street, Greenport, NY; 1000-048-02-002 & 003. 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. Southold Town Board of '~ppeals -41-- (Environmental Declarations, continued:) APPEAL NO.: 3076 PROJECT NAME: HAROLD P. SCHWERDT Februa~ 4, 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, plea~ 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 building in front yard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 2720 Cedar Avenue, Southold, NY; Goose Bay Estates Lots 192 to 195 inclusive. REASON(_S~_SUPPORTING THiS DETERMINATION: (!) 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) Receipt of D.E.C. approy91. ~ APPEAL NO.: 3077 PROJECT NAME: JANET A. DAVIS 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: Use of B-1 Zoned premises for apartment and antique shop. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southotd, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Main Road, Peconic, NY; 1000-075-02-011. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (!) 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) Premises is not located near a critical environmental area. S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -42- February (Environmental Declarations, continued:) APPEAL NO.: 3079 PROJECT N~E: WALTER GAIPA 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, pieas~ 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: (a) Approval of access and (b) to construct accessory building [replacing existing] in frontyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 360 Lake View Terrace, East Marion; 1000- 31-09-012. 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 environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. APPEAL NO.: 30 82 PROJECT N~-~E: 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 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: To construct corral and alter use of existing barn to stable a pony on premises having an area of 39,048 square feet. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southo!d, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 1420 King Street, Orient; 1000-026-02-040. 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) Premises is not located near a critical environmental area. Southold Town Board of Appeals ~43- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continue~:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3069. Upon application of WILLIAM B. BERLINER, JR., Box 647, Mattituck, NY (owner: B. Norris) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 for permission to construct greenhouse addition with reduced sideyard setback at 105 Love Lane, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-141-04-031. The public hearing concerning this matter was held earlier this. evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending delibera- tions. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct an addition to the existing flower shop structure 7'8½" wide by 34' in length, leav- ing an insufficient sideyard setback from the southerly line of two feet. The premises in question contains an area of 2,662 square feet with a frontage along Love Lane of 25 feet. The premises is improved with a stucco building 486 square feet in area. It is noted for the record that the lots in the immediate business area are improved with struc- tures substantial in size and at or very close to their side property lines. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zoning 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 requasted 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 consideration 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. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3069, application of WILLIAM B. BERLINER, JR. (for B. Norris, owner) for permission to construct greenhouse addi- tion with a setback from the southerly side property line at two feet, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR. Location of Property: 105 Love Lane, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000~141-04-031. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Griognis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ~outhold Town Board of A~peals -44- February 4,'-£983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3067 - GRACE E. KENNEY:) RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3067. Upon application for GRACE E. KENNEY, 2020 East Gillette Drive, East Marion, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-31 and 100-34 for permission to construct additions to existing dwell- ing increasing the lot coverage over the 20% allowable and reducing the front and rear yard setbacks, at 2020 East Gillette Drive, East Marion, NY; Marion Manor Subdivision Map ~2038, Lot ~47; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-038-03-020. The public hearing on this application was held earlier this even- ing, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct an addition 16' by 19' at the northerly corner of the existing dwelling, together with an open deck area 28' by 12' and 25' by 25' two-car garage. The existing dwelling contains an area o~ 1588 square feet, and together with the proposed 1445 1,588 square feet would contain a total area of 3,033 square feet. The lot in question is a corner lot and contains an area of 10,989 square feet. The zoning code limits the amoun~ of lot coverage by 20%, or 2,918 square feet. Appellant's proposed application would exceed this requirement by 835 square feet, or 18% over the allowable. It is the opinion of the board that the relief requested is sub- stantial in relation to the code requirements and that a reduction in the proposed construction should be made, as indicated below. Also, in considering this appeal, the board determines that the circumstances are unique; that by allowing the variance as indicated below no substan- tial detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that 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. 3067, application of GRACE E. KENNEY be and hereby is GRANTEp, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That the proposed garage addition be reduced by 13' by 25' with a minimum setback of 24' from the neighbor at the northwesterly corner of the garage addition (to the lot line of Lot ~32). Location of Property: 2020 East Gillstte Drive, East Marion, NY; Marion Manor Subdivision Map ~2038, Lot 47; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-038-03-020. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3074. Upon application of JOHN & SABtNA BASILE, 510 Custer Avenue, South- old, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition to existing dwelling with reduction in frontyard setback at 510 Cu~ter Avenue, Sou~hold, NY; Fair- view Park Subdivision Map 3388, Lot 11; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-70-08-033. The public hearing on this application was held earlier this even- ing, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellants seek permission to construct a 13' wide addition extending 11 feet from the northerly wall of the present garage area leaving a setback from Custer Avenue at 42 feet. The premises in question contains an area of 20,125 square feet with 115.94 feet along Custer Avenue. Existing on the premises is a one-story one-family dwelling with attached garage which is set back 53 feet from Custer Avenue. After inspection of the immediate area, the board finds that the average frontyard setback of the existing homes is approximately 40 feet. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zoning 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 consideration of all the above factors, the interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3074, application of JOHN AND SABINA BASILE, for permission to construct an extension to the existing garage leaving an insufficient frontyard setback at 42 feet, be and hereby IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR. Location of Property: 510 Custer Avenue, Sou~hold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-70-08-033; Fairvlew Park Subdivision Map 93388, Lot 11. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonls, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -46- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3061. Upon application of ANITA M. SAMUELS, Box 89B, Haywaters Road, Cutchogue, NY for Variances: (1) to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(A) [1] for permission to construct ingrou~d pool on a vacant lot; (2) to New York Town Law, Section 280-a for approval of access. Location of Property: South Side of Haywaters Road (a/k/a 155 Fisherman's Beach Road), Cutchogue, NY; Lot No. 3, Map of Peconic Bay Properties, Inc., Filed Map No. 786; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-111-1-41. The public hearings on this matter were held on January 18, 1983 and February 4, 1983, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellant seeks: (1) permission to construct a 25' by 40' inground swimmingpool and fence on a vacant parcel of land known as Lot 2 of Peconic Bay Properties, Inc. Subdivision; and (2) approval of access over the private road known as Fisherman's Beach Road [also known as Haywaters Road]. It is the understanding of this board that the swimmingpool is the be used accessory to the main dwelling on the adjacent parcel. Both parcels have frontage along Cutchogue Harbor and therefore are subject to the rules and regulations of the Tidal Wetlands Act of the State of New York. The adjoining "residence parcel" has minimal reasonable building area, and the board agrees with the reasoning of the appellant under the circumstances herein. Upon inspecting the private road in question, it is the opinion of the board that same is in good satisfactory condition up to the point of access (driveway) into these premises. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zoning 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 consideration of all the above factorS, the interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3061, application of ANITA M. SAMUELS for approval of access and for permission to construct inground swimm~ngpool, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING Sbuthold Town Board of ~eals -47- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3061 - Anita M. Samuels, continued: ) CONDITIONS: 1. That the initial fill of pool be trucked in to prevent salt- wa~er intrusion possibility if taken from ground water in this immediate area; 2. That this application is subject to review by the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter. Location of Property: South Side of Haywaters Road (a/k/a 155 Fisherman's Beach Road), Cutchogue, NY; Lot ~2 of Peconic Bay Proper- ties, Inc.; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-111-1-41. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3062. OTTO ZAPF. Upon application of OTTO ZAPF, by J. Hayes Kavanagh as attorney, 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 19103 for a Variance for approval of alter- native access over rights-of-way located off the North Side of Main Road, Orient, NY, over lands now or formerly of Kyrkostas and Demarest. Location of Parcel in Question: R-O-W off the North Side of Main Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-13-2-4. The public hearing concerning this application was held on January 13, 1983, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an application for permission to use part of an alterna- tive right-of-way adjoining the legal right-of-way to the premises in question along the easterly boundary for a distance of approximately 1200 feet. The original approval of access was given a conditional approval by this board on October 30, 1982 under Appeal No. 3043 to Mr. and Mrs. Gus Kyrkostas, predecessors in title, and was filed with the Town Clerk's Office on November 4, 1982. As shown on plan dated November 1982 and filed with thms application, access to the premises commences at a point on the northerly side of Main Road (running along the easterly boundary of a 2.232 acre parcel now or formerly of Kyrkos- tas) running northerly 424.08 feet, a width of 15 feet, thence running northeasterly and northerly 1597.22 feet, thence running northwesterly and northerly 50109 feet to the driveway area of the parcel in question. It is noted for the record that this is an alternative choice of access for the owner of the parcel in question, and in the event ~the owner does no~ choose this alternative access, then the prior Southold Town Board of Appeals -48- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3062 - Otto Zapf, continued:) decision of this board filed November 4, 1983 shall be adhered. It is also noted for the record that similar improvements are required for this alternative route as that required for the original ~Dccess. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zoning 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 mn harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration 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. Grigonls, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3062, application for OTTO ZAPF for approval of an alternative access route, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That this access road running along the easterly side of premises now or formerly of Kyrkostas a length of 424.08 feet (from the northerly side of Main Road), shall: (a) be improved and .cleared a minimum width of 15 feet [except that the stone wall existing near this right-of-way shall not be disturbed]; and (b) be improved with a minimum of 4" of stone blend to a width of 15 feet. 2. That the remainder of this alternative right'of-way, which is a length of approximately 1597.22 feet and 50~08 feet, shall have a clear and u~obstructed with of 15 feet and shall (a) be improved with 2" of three-quarter-inch stone blend and properly leveled. 3. Where the terrain of the land over which such access road is to be traversed is such that drainage problems may occur in the future, the applicant (or subsequent owners) shall be required to construct such drainage facilities as may be recommended by the town (road engineer). 4. Ail work required as hereinbefore set forth shall be performed under the supervision of the town (road) engineer, and no certificate of occupancy for vacant land or structures shall be issued until these requirements have been complied with. 5. That this approval of alternative access is subject to SOuthold Town Board of Appeals - 49- February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (ApPeal No. 3062 Otto Zapf, continued:) approval by the owner of the alternative access (now of H. Demarest) giving his written consent therefor. 6. That the Board of Appeals may make any reasonable exception as in its judgment it deems appropriate under the circumstances con- cerning the improvements of this right-of-way. 7. That in the event this right-of-way is to service more than one residence, then this entire right-of-way must be brought up to the specifications adopted by this board on March 22, 1979. Location of Parcel in Question: County Tax Map District 1000, Section 013, Block 02, Lot 004, containing 3.136 acres, at Orient, NY. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3073 - RONALD J. ROTHMAN. Upon application of RONALD J. ROTHMAN, Box 878, Southold, NY (Owner: V. L'Epplatenier) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct new dwelling with insufficient front (and/or rear) yard setbacks at Lakeview Avenue, Peconic, NY; Peconic Shores Section II, Subdivision Lots 52-56 incl.; County Tax Map Parcel ID Nos. 1000=67-03-002, 003 and 013. The public hearing concerning this matter was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to locate a proposed one-family dwelling on a parcel of land containing an area of approxI- mately 34,750 square feet and comprising Subdivision Lots 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of "Map No. 2 of Peconic Shores, Map No. 654 as filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office." The proposed dwelling is to be located at the southeasterly end of the subject premises with a setback from both Lake View Avenues of 15 feet. The appellant has indicated that the rear yard setback from Autumn Lake will be a minimum of 50 feet as required by the zoning code. Survey amended September 1, 1981 for Victor L'Eplattenier, Jr. by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. indicates that the parcel in question has a higher elevation at this proposed location in comparison with the remainder of the lot, between 10' and 5' It is noted for the record that this property is located in the Flood Zone A-8 which requires a minimum elevation above mean sea level of the lowest floor at or above 11' The board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant and find that this area is the most feasible and practical building area. ~outhold Town Board of'~ppeals - 50- February 4, ~_J~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3073 - RONALD J. ROT~LAN, continued:) In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zoning 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 consideration of all the above factors, the interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonls, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3073, application of RONA~D J. ROTH- MAN for permission to construct one-family ~welling w.ith insuffiCient frontyard setbacks at t5 feet, B~ AND ~EREBY IS APPROVED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the grant of this variance is subject to the conditions of Appeal No. 2897, application of Victor L'Eplattenier, filed with the Office of the Town Clerk on November 10, 1981, granting approval of access. 2. An updated N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation review concerning this~project. 3. Compliance with the Floodplain Management Law of the Town of Southold. Location of Property: 54, 55 and 56, Map No. 654; 2, 3 and 13. Peconic Shores Subdivision Lots 52, 53, County Tax Map Parcel ID Nos'. 1000-067-03- Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3075 - JOSEPH AND MARY. GNOZZO. Upon application for JOSEPH & MARY GNOZZO, by Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, NY [Owner: W. Moritz] for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60 and Article XI, Section 100- l18D for permission to reinstate nonconforming dwelling use for existing building in this B-Zone at 73265 Main Road, Gresnport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-45-03-002. The public hearing concerning this application was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellants seek permission to reinstate the use ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -51- Pebruary 4, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3075 - JOSEPH & MARY GNOZZO, continued:) of the easterly most building on the subject premises as a one-family residence, which use has been discontinued for over two years. The building in question contains approximately 1,000 square feet of living area, upon information supplied to the board, and is set back approxi- mately 35 feet (exclusive of canopy area) from the front property line abutting the Main Road. Also existing on the premises are a concrete block, one-story building containing an area of approximately 2400 square feet, small shed to the rear of the "residence" structure and blacktopped parking areas. The premises contains 5.126 acres and fronts along the Main Road 147.43 feet. The parcels immediately abutting the subject parcel on the west and east are also zoned B-Light and appear to have been used as one-family residences prior to the adoption of zoning. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the use applied for will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; that the use will no~ prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adja- cen~ properties or of property in adjacent use districts; that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located, or of permitted or legally established use in adjacent-use districts; that the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as noted below. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigon~s, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3075, application for JOSEPH AND MARY GNOZZO for permission to reinstate one-family dwelling use in existing structure, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) Any change of use of this structure to be used as a one-family residence must comply with the zoninq laws; i.e. no more than one use of this structure shall be permitted at-one time). (2) Review by the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter. Location of Property: 73265 Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-45-03-002. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. ~-Southold Town Board of Appeals -52- February 4~- 1983 Regular Meeting NEW APPEAL ARPLICATIONS: APPEAL NO. 3081 - R.T. KROEPEL, D.D.S., P.C. - The board, upon reviewing the application of Dr. Kroe~el filed on February 1, 1983, noted that the Planning Board has not had an opportunity to review this proposed subdivision and comments from the Health Department have not been received. It was the consensus of the board to await comments from the Planning~ Board and the County Health Department before scheduling this matter for a public hearing. The secretary was instructed to forward a letter to the applicant's attorney advising him of the above. APPEAL NO. 3078 - MARION SADICK and MURRAY SCHLUSSEL by Shepard M. Sch~inberg, Esq. - The board, upon reviewing the application of Sadick and Schlussel filed on January 27, 1983, noted that the Planning Board and N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation have not commented or approved the proposed project. The following resolution was adopted: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of Marion Sadick and Murray Schlussel, Appeal No. 3078, be and hereby is held in abeyance pending written receipts of approval from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental ConservatiOn and the Southold Town Planning Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. SET-UPS FOR NEXT REGULAR ~ETING: seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was On motion by Mr. Douglass, RESOLVED, that the following application be scheduled for public hearings to be held at the next Regular Meeting of this board, to wit, Friday, February 25, 1983 commencing at 7:30 p.m. and that the same be advertised in the local and official newspapers of the town pursuant to law: 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3076. HAROLD P. SCHWERDT. Accessory building in frontyard. Oak Avenue, Southold. 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3077. JANET A. DAVIS. To reinstate non- conforming use as an antique shop and residential use in this A-Zone. 45395 Main Road, Southold. 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3079. WALTER GAIPA. (t) remove and replace accessory building in frontyard area; (2) Approval of access. 360 Lakeview Terrace, East Marion. ~outhold Town Board o~ ~ppeals -53- February 4 1983 Regular Meeting (Set-Ups for February 25, 1.983, continued:) 7:50 p.m. 7:55 p.m. 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3082. BURKE E. LIBURT. Utilize existing storage building for corral to stable pony, with less than required 40' setback from property lines. 1420 King Street, Orient. Appeal No. 3083. J. ROYAL & VIRGINIA GIFFORD. Accessory building in sideyard area. 1515 Minnehaha Blvd, Southold. Appeal No. 3084. PATNICK REALTY CORP. Two residential dwellings in this B-Zoned District. 69430 Main Road, Greenport. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. TENTATIVE SPECIAL MEETING DATE: seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was On motion by Mr. Goehringer, RESOLVED, that a Special Meeting be scheduled for Saturday, February 19~ 1983 at approximately 9:15 a.m. for the purpose of transacting suCh business matters that may properly come before the board at that time. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. REQUEST FOR RE-HEARING IN THE MATTER OF EAST END SUPPLY CO., INC. APPEAL NO. 3080 (to re-hear Appeal No. 3013) WHEREAS, on January 13, 1983, this board rendered a conditional approval of Appeal No. 3013, for East End Supply Co., Inc., and WHEREAS, on February 1, 1983, East End Supply Co., Inc. filed an application for a rehearing of Appeal No. 3013 (see Appeal No. 3080) stating its reasons for this request for a rehearing, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3080, application of East End Supply Co., Inc. be granted a rehearing, and that the public hearing concerning this matter shall be sched'uled and advertised pursu- ant to law, to be held at the board's next Regular Meeting, Friday, February 25, .19.8.3, to be held at the Sou~hold Town Hall, Southold, NY. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. C Southold Town Board of~ ~ppeals -54- February 4'~ '1983 Regular Meeting Being there was no Other buSiness properly coming before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meet- ing was adjourned at apProXimately 1t:20 p.m, Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals RECEIVED AND FILED BY T~E SOUTHOLO TOm D~/~?~