HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/13/1983 APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR,
SERGE DOYEN. JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWlCK[
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- BTATE ROAD 2.5 ~OUTHOLD. L.I., N.Y. 11cJ?~l
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 13, 1983
A Regular Meeting of the Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals was held
on Thursday, January 13, 1983 at 7:15 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, Executive Administrator
(Building Department); Mrs. Shirley Bachrach, League of Women Voters;
Mrs. Ruth Oliva, North Fork Environmental Council.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3063. Application of MR. AND MRS.
EDWARD PRESSLER, by Environment East Inc. as agent, 3075 Indian Neck
Lane, Peconic, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-31 for permission to construct residential addition with
reduction in frontyard setback, at 110 Grove Drive, Southotd, NY;
Reydon Shores Filed Map No. 631, Lots No. 4 and 5; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-G80-04-024.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:15 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey dated October 10, 1966
indicating the present two-story frame dwelling and one-story frame
garage, and we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating
this parcel and the parcels in the surrounding area. Mr. Stoutenburgh,
would you like to speak? i
iPETER STOUTENBURGH: Mr. and Mrs. Pressler are present.
MR. CHAIRMAN.~: Oh, certainly. Mr. Presser.
MR. PRESSLER: The fact that you have the survey here showing
Southold Town Board of'Appeals -2- January 1-3, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3063 - Edward Pressler, continued:)
MR. PRESSLER continued;
the structure on there, I'd like just to point out that the obvious
way of adding to the existing house by means of fact that it leaves
less problems as far as the structure of the house...had I gone the
other way, I would ingringe on the garage. Also the oil tank that's
buried below there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this a one-story structure, sir?
MR. PRESSLER: No, it's a two-story.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Approximately 12' by --
MR. PRESSLER: 12' by 20. There's the existing porch there now,
which is just the old glass windows construction which are leaking
air tremendously right now--heat loss is what I'm referring to. But
I'd like to be able to enclose that and insulate properly and then
be able to utilize it as a living space. I have four children so we
need larger living quarters for eating and such. That is the purpose
of it.
MR. CHAIR~AN: Thank you.
PETER STOUTENBURGH: I'm sure you gentlemen when you were down
there you noticed that even though there are dimensions on the survey
this frontyard appears to be far bigger. There is a right-of-way
that's given for all in this particular development and it's a
relatively good-sized right-of-way. They only intend to use about
a half of that. And for some reason in this particular location that
half came out of the opposite side of the right-of-way on both
roads. The frontyard is a fair size frontyard and the direction of
the water on Lake Drive appears, when you look at it, appears for
practical purposes, unless they plan on taking out a lot of trees
and moving the road...there's another 20 some odd feet on the actual
( ) of the survey. We're only asking for a reduction on that one
side of approximately 35 feet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: To 35 feet, is that correct?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes. To 35 feet which is still a far larger
frontyard than in the direction of Grove Drive, the way the house
was originally set up. That's something in the neighborhood of
abou~ 24 feet if it's at its best location. The appearance of the
building will continue the same with exactly the same siding. It
will only be a one-story addition on that end, second-floor bedrooms
upstairs, and there are no plans right now other than ~o roof it.
I had sent out letters and I believe Mr. and Mrs. Pressler had
spoken to at least their nearest neighbor~ and there was no response
that we had gotten back. We hope that whatever decision you gentle-
men come up with could be as quickly as possible because today may
have been about the last day above freezing. We still have a couple
of days I think we can work down there bu~ not much more than next
Monday or Tuesday. Thank you.
Sou'thotd Town Board of Appeals -3- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3063 - Edward Pressler, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Was there something else you would like
to say, Mr. Pressler?
MR. PRESSLER: No, I was 3ust also going to point out that I had
discussed with my neighbors and they are all in favor of it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that
would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone wishing to
speak against the application? Questions from any board members?
(None) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the
hearing and reserving decision until later.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigon~s, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 3063, application for MR. AND MRS. EDWARD PRESSLER.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonls, Doyen,
and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent at the time of this resolu-
tion.) This resolution was unanimously adopted.
(Member Douglass arrived [7:25 p.m.]).
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 per-
mission to construct inground 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. 2, Map of Peconic Bay Properties,
Inc., Filed Map No. 786; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-111-1-41.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:25 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey prepared on Septem-
ber 27, 1982 indicating the pool and deck area, which is approximately
16 feet to the fence line, 20' on the survey to the east side of the
property o~ Lot #2° Does anybody wish to be heard in behalf of this
application? (None) Is there anyone wishing to speak against the
application? (None)
MRS. JEAN TIEDKE: Neither for or against. Where is the water
coming from for all these swimmingpools?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no idea. That was the question I was going
to ask the board if they would like to recess this until we write a
letter to the Samuels and ask them to come down. We have certain
questions we would like to ask them. Would you gentlemen care .to
So,third ~n~Board o{ Appeals -4- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3061 Anita M. Samuels, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
recess this application until such time as the Samuels could be here,
or some representative of theirs?
MEMBER GRIGONIS: I'll offer a resolubion to recess this until
February 3rd.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Mr. Grigonis made a motion, I'll second it,
recessed until February 3rd, Mrs. Tiedle. Ok?
On motion by Mr. Grigonls, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to recess Appeal No. 3061, public hearing Of ANITA M.
SAMUELS until February 3, 1983, the date of the next Regular Meeting
of this board.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonls, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolubion was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3062. Application of OTTO ZAPF,
by J. Hayes Kavanagh, as attorney, 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY
10103, for a Variance for approval of alternative 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 Chairman opened the hearing at 7:30 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sketch referring to the
proposed access road made November 1982, and we have a copy of the
Suffolk County Tax Map indicating the rights-of-way in question and
the parcel to which this right-of-way is referred. Is there anyone
wishing to speak in behalf of this application?
J. HAYES KAVANAGH, ESQ.: The proposal as stated is for the
approval of access that includes a portion of the driveway which
is presently used by Mr. Demarest and his brother, and Mr. Zapf
has proposed to Mr. Demarest, that he assure the use of this road
and of course the maintenance of it in lieu of his constructing a
road righ~ along side it. You may recall that the board approved
an application for a variance for the use of a right-of-way which
is only 10' wide because that was all we had, and of course we could
construct a driveway on that right-of-way but Mr. Demarest has
indicated a willingness to grant us a right-of-way and to use his
driveway and that would make it easier for us and it would eliminate
the need to build a parallel road.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Am I with the understanding that you're still
going to use the access through the original owner's property?
Southold Town Board o~ Appeals -5-
(Appeal No. 3062 - Otto .Zapf, continued:)
MR. KAVANAGH: Yes.
January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
MR. CHAIRFLAN: And then it wouldn't be between the barns or
anything of that nature?
MR. KAVANAGH: No. It would be over the 15' right-of-way of that
property still owned by Kyrkostas.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So that would be improved?
MR. KAVANAGH: That would be improved. Then we would just cut over
to the existing drive all the way down to the Demarest property and
then cut back over onto the property which Mr. Zapf has in the mean-
time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That would also be improved up above the area
where you cut off the Demarest right-of-way?
MR. KAVANAGH: Yes, it would. It consists of what the specifications
in your decision are.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that there is no agreement at this
particular time between yourself, the owner, and Mr. Demarest.
MR. KAVANAGH: We felt we could possibly save ourselves the
trouble of doing all the paperwork necessary for a right-of-way if
we could first find out whether we could get it approved. We do not
have an agreement. I believe one could be reached. I would of
course be happy to accept the approval subject to there being an
agreement.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you what your time limit is on construc-
tion?
MR. KAVANAGH: Well, construction isn't going to begin until
the Spring, and weather permitting I suppose the beginning of April,
although probably the last thing that we would like to do in the
construction would be that right-of-way, the driveway, because there
are heavier trucks or equipment going over the newly constructed road,
they might damage it. So the thought was to either use-- the thought
was that if we could use Mr. Demarest's drive to drive over an exist-
ing path which is not exactly on the right-of-way over the Kyrkostas'
property, but there is a right-of-way which Mr. Kyrkostas has dedicated
a willingness to let us use it "as is," until we are ready to construct
an improved driveway.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you asking for a "no-improvement" status over
the Demarest right-of-way?
MR. KAVANAGH: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's basically what you're asking?
MR. KAVANAGH: Yes.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -6-
Januar~ 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2062 - Otto Zapf, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have one little problem in reference to our
inspections-- we like to inspect these right-of-ways usually in wet
weather. And the last time we went out on inspections it was very
dry and we therefore did not get what we consider to be a viable
estimate of what the rights-of-way in general looked like. And I'm
saying, there were other rights-of-way in general that we were in-
specting. So I do want to go back and reinspect this right-of-way,
and that probably won't be for another two weeks. If you do allow
us to take a little time, we do have 60 days, I think if will take us
a little time to come up with a decision.
MR. KAVANAGH: Well, to be perfectly honest there isn't a great
urgency right now because there's no construction contemplated over
the next few months, although Mr. Zapf is, of course, anxious to
know the finality to it, but I can appreciate your desire to--
weather--we'll have to cooperate of course. A few days ago we had
an excellent opportunity. Perhaps Mr. Demarest can at least-- I see
your concern with the water conditions after a heavy rain with other
accummulations of how the run off is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And the ability to support fire vehicles during
or after the Spring thaw, when the ground has a tendency to be very
over saturated. This is one of the things that we deal with.
MR. KAVANAGH: There are of course two alternatives to consider,
one is unimproved and the other would be with an improvement to the
Demarest driveway now which is not what we would prefer if we're going
to end up having to do that. I suppose we end up Constructing our
roads depending on what types of improvements the board may desire.
I've been there and as a lay person I can say that it seems like it's
in good shape. It has been used for awhile and Mr. Demarest says it
stands up well under adverse weather conditions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Demarest, would you like
to say something?
MR. DEMAREST: Only that I have used it for 21 years. When I
first used it wasn't too good in the winter ~ime after a bad thaw,
but over the years we've added bankrun and gravel at times and it's
fairly stable. It might get a little soft in spots in the winter
time, but there has been no time that we haven't been able to get up
and down in the cars.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How many people use the right-of-way?
MR. DEMAREST: Just my brother and I.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak in
behalf of this application? Anybody wish to speak against the appli-
cation? Any questions from any board members? (None) Hearing no
further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserv-
ing decision until a date some time in the near future.
Southold Town Board o~ Appeals -7- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3062 - Otto ~Z.apf, continued:)
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. 3062, matter of OTTO ZAPF.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
WILINSKI
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3064. Application of CATHY %~9~-t~=K~
by Robert Ketcham, Box 295, East Marion, NY for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70(C) [11 for permission to
place wall sign on existing building at 27980 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-102-86-part of 006. Zoning District:
B-1.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:40 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the approximate placement of the
sign on the building, and we have a copy of the County Tax Map showing
this property and the surrounding parcels. Is there anyone wishing to
speak in behalf of this application? Is there anyone wishing to speak
against the application? (No one spoke regarding this application.)
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. 3064, matter of CATHY %~AINS~I.WILINSKI.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigon~s,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3068. Application of CYNTHIA
KAMINSKY, 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to con-
struct enclosed pool and deck areas, which will exceed the maximum
permitted 20% lot coverage requirement of the zoning code. Location
of Property: 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map
Parcel ID No. 1000-107-07-028.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:44 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map.
Mrs. Kaminsky, is there something you would like to say?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3068 - Cynthia Kaminsky, continued:)
MRS. CYNTHIA KAMINSKY: If I may address myself to a couple of the
problems that came up at the last meeting (Re: Appeal No. 3060, hear-
ing held 12/22/82), I think I can answer some of the questions. There
was a question brought up about run-off from the back of my garage. We
put gutters on the garage and set up a cement block retaining wall
against the back of it. That should eliminate that problem completely.
There was another question about the size of the garage that we
had put up~ And I went back and checked the application. The appli-
cation put in as for a 24' by 24' garage and we did build a 24' by 24'
garage. The 17' by 23' figure that was brought up was the dimension
of the old garage which was attached to the house previously. Aside
from that, I would just like to offer to the board a copy of a letter
that I received from Dr. James Sellars who is the property owner of
a vacant lot directly behind me, and he indicates no objection to our
request for a variance and indicates that he is also the owner of the
small lot, and understands the type of predicaments that we can run
into. (Mrs. Kaminsky submitted the handwritten letter from Dr. and
Mrs. Sellars for the record.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in behalf of the application? Anybody against the application?
Sir?
MR. BUCKLEY: Since Mrs. Kaminsky brought up the objections that
I brought up on the next hearing we're supposed to have, I feel that I
can speak on this too. At the last hearing (Appeal No. 3060, 12/22/82),
she stated it would be a hardship on that because they do have a small
lot. Well I have a small lot, too, right~ Now what I objection to at
this time is, in asking for a variance they are infringing somewhat on
my rights, and at the last meeting you, as Chairman, brought up the
point that if Mrs. Kaminsky turned that building the other way, there
would be no variance required for side yard. She told me and the board
that at that time, that there wouldn't be any light to her kitchen, but
she's asking me to give something up. Why can"t she give something up.
Skylight could more than rectify any light in her kitchen. Now I'm
willing to compromise on this thing. I like and I told Cindy that we
do not object to the pool, but we object to the fact that they are
applying for a variance. NOW if they turned the building the other
way, we have no objection to the variance on the bulk.
MRi CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. BuCkley. Does anybody else wish
to speak against the application? Ma'am, could you state your name
please.
MRS. McCOURT: I live directly across the street from Mrs.
Kaminsky, and I have no objections to the pool but I would like to
know what the building is going to look like because our house looks
directly out on it, and if it's a building that's attached to her
house and it's going to go almost the way the length of the property.
It could have an effect on our house, on the value of our. property.
I would like to know what it's going to look like.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It came up at the last hearing, that we are not
a board that specifies the type of construction. The construction
is really mandated by the Building Department. They're the ones
that have to pass judgment on the construction of it. I can't tell
Southold Town Board o2 Appeals -9- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3068 - Cynthia Kaminsky, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
you what it's going to look like. The board at this particular time
has not asked Mrs. Kaminsky for any type of architectural drawings or
anything of that nature.
MRS. McCOURT: Well once the variance is granted, that's it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well it's up to the Building Department to meet
the specific snow-load qualities to do whatever is designated to meet
the State Code, Building Code, so on and so forth.
MRS. McCOURT: I see. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you want to say anything on that, Vic?
MR. LESSARD: No, I think you answered it right. It will be de-
signed so that it meets the Codes and I'm pretty sure that it won't
be an eyesore.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I should, to make you feel more relaxed, note
that we do have the power to ask for proper screening of that build-
ing when it's proposed to be added to her dwelling. Are you thinking
in those lines, or what did--
MRS. McCOURT: Well, whatever. Just so long as it isn't going
to look like a cement factory or whatever. I have no idea what she's
planning to do. I wanted to make sure that it's not going to be an
eyesore or something that will detract from our property.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mrs. Kaminsky?
MRS. KAMSINKY: If I could just answer that as best I could. We
have not yet had a meeting with the architect. I have an appointment
with him very shortly. I will be designed by an architect to be as
tasteful as possible, certainly in keeping with the neighborhood.
We're not looking for something that's going to be an eyesore. It
will be a regular addition to the houSe...it will not be just a balloon
type dome or something over a swimmingpool. And we will endeavor to
make it as attractive as possible. I can't tell you right now what it
will look because I haven't met with the architect yet. But it's not
something we're just going to throw together but it will be designed
as properly as possible,
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to say anything in behalf
of this particular 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. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 3068, matter of CYNTHIA KAMSINKY.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3060 - Cynthia Kaminsky:)
RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 3060. Application of CYNTHIA
KAMINSKY, 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the
Zoning O~rdinance, Article III, Section 100-34 for permission to
construct addition (enclosed pool) with reducion in the rearyard
(sideyard) setback at 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel ID No. 1000-107-07-028.
The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 7:50 p.m.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will reopen Appeal No. 3060, which was the nature
of the last meeting on December 22, 1982 and ask Mrs. Kaminsky if she
would like to say something concerning the old application.
MRS. KAMINSKY: I don't think there's anything I can add at this
point.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in behalf of the application?
MR. BUCKLEY: I'd like to thank the Kaminsky's for doing what they
did-- they've corrected the water problem, and I feel the new building
will generate no water problem now. But I still stand on What I said
on the previous application (Appeal No. 3060 on 12/22/82). I feel there
should be a compromise. I'm more than willing to give up the bulk area
variance, but I feel that the side area should not be granted; and if
they're willing to do this, I have no objection to the bulk. But if
no~, I object to the bulk variance. You yourself mentioned that at
the last meeting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I didn't mention it-- I asked the question.
MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, that it could be done. And Mrs. Kaminsky made
the statement that she did not want to give up the light in her kitchen.
Yet I'm supposed to give something up. Now I think there should be
fairness in this--give a little, take a little.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Buckley. Is there anybody else
that would like to speak against this application? Any questions from
anybody concerning this application? Nothing? (Nothing). Hearing no
further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving
decision until some time in the near future.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 3060, matter of Cynthia KAMINSKY.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
So~thold Town Board oz Appeals -11-
Janua~3 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2930. Application for SAL CAIOL~, by
David E. Kapell as agent, 143 Sixth Street, Greenport, NY for a Special
Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section 100-50(B) [3] and
Article VI, Section 100-51, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct
condominium units (multiple dwelling units) to be located at the south
side of C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-51-5-2.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:54 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of several sketches. Would you
people like to see the sketch. We have a table down below we can put
it on. (For the record, the Chairman asked Mr. Kapell during the
reading of the application whether the "12" unit figure should be
"10," and Mr. Kapelt agreed that it should read "proposed 10 unit~"
rather than the 12 originally planned.)
DAVID E. KAPELL: Mr. Chairman, if I may just for a moment to
erase any confusion that might be raised by the prior reading. The
swlmmingpool and the paved parking areas have been removed from the
project.
(At this point a few persons were out of order when they were
reviewing the map.)
MR. CHAIP~4AN: Mr. Kapell, would you like to speak in behalf of
this application?
DAVID E. KAPELL: I would, thank you. May I not use the mike?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly unless somebody has some objection.
MR. KAPELL: My name is David Kapell. I appear on behalf of Sal
Caiola, the owner of the property for which the condominium project has
been proposed. I'd like to go over, just for a minute, the history of
how this project has evolved.
Number One, Mr. Caiola acquired a piece of property that's Zoned
M-l, which is the General Multiple District Zone in Southold Town, in
which one could build condominium-residence units. One can also build
a motel. This particular property is of sufficien~ size wherein we
could apply for the 12 units that were initially asked for in the
original application filed the 14th of November of last year. The area
zs sufficient to sustain that number of units. In addition, the original
application that was filed read just a couple of minutes ago, included
a proposal for a swimm~ngpool, numerous paved areas around the swimming-
pool and a blacktopped driveway and parking area. What has happened in
the course of the application-review process on this project is that we
have become more familiar with the site and also more familiar with the
concerns of this board and the neighbors and have taken a number of
mitigating steps in an effort to render this project environmentally
acceptable. Number One, was that we immediately reduced or initially
reduced the project to ten units from the 12 that we could still ask for.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- January/13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued:)
MR. KAPELL continued:
Number Two, we have removed the swimmingpool from the proposal.
Number Three, was we switched from a paved parking area and driveway
to a gravel surface parking area and driveway, so as not to allow for
any run-off containing any contaminates that would run with the
storm water off a macadam surfaced area.
Number Four, in response to this board's request, we prepared or
had the H2M Corporation prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
which looked in depth at the issue particularly, the issues of storm-
wa~er run-off and the issue of sewage disposal. What evolved from
that process was a sewage system that involves a process known as
"nitrification" "de-nitrification," which is a system I don't believe
exists anywhere else in Southold Town as of this date, --~does that
exist (to Mrs. 01iva)?
MRS. OLIVA nodded negatively.
MR. KAPELL: I think actually we are the first project that will
install this type of a sewage system, and we do propose to do so. We
have at this point Health Department approval of a plan including
such a system and the net effect is that the sewage, the effluent
that will be emitted from the end of the system will essentially,
with the exception of the florination will be potable water. There
would be no toxic waste. There's no contaminating waste eminat~ng
from this system. It's essentially a complete sewage treatment system
that will be contained on site and therefore no organic material would
be placed back into the groundwater or into the adjacent salt-water
area. In addition to that, we took into consideration the issue of
stormwater run-off and designed the project in terms of the location
of the building and in terms of the grading of the driveway and park-
ing area so as to contain all stormwater run-off on site. We went
over this in depth with the Planning Board and have submitted a plan
to the Planning Board, that it's my understanding it's acceptable to
them in terms of its ability to keep all stormwater run-off on site.
In addition as was described in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, during the construction phase, we will set up essentially
a berm on the south end of this property to prevent any stormwater
run-off during the construction phase before this final grading takes
place from entering Arshamomaque Creek. We will also plant that berm
to make sure that it remains stable during that phase.
So we believe we have taken all those steps that is reasonable
to expect us to take to prevent any stormwater run-off from entering
Arshamomaque Creek or to prevent any contaminated substances coming
out of the sewage from this property, from entering either the ground-
water or Arshamomaque Creek.
One other thing I would like to say is that initially in revmew-
ing this project were the Department of Environmental Conservation
from whom, by the way we got today our permit for the driveway area,
Southold Town Board or-Appeals -13- January~13, 1983 Regular M~eting
(Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued:)
MR. KAPELL continued:
so we now have all approvals from the D.E.C. and I'll provide you with
a copy tomorrow.
We have relocated the buildings and such a manner to make sure
that they are either at locations or elevations that would keep them
from adversely affecting the adjacent wetland area.
These are basically the things that we have done. We feel that
to reduce the density any further would render this project economi-
cally unviable. Ten units is the minimum number that would allow us
to realize a profit from the construction of this project, and essen-
tially what the alternative use would be frankly, would be a motel-use.
And we feel that a condominium use is a more attractive use in that it
will improve property values in the area. It will not generate the
type of traffic that the alternative use would, and we feel that we
have taken all the steps that we can...and all those steps that we can
...and all the steps that we've been asked to take to mitigate any
potential adverse environmental impact resulting from the project.
That's essentially what I have to say, and I'm here to answer any
questions this board might have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Kapell. Is there anybody
else that would like to speak in favor of the application? (None)
I should note that I have five pages of a petition with person's
signatures of persons in the immediate area...it appears to be the
immediate area on the addresses, objecting to this particular applica-
tion. Now we will go into the people who wouId like to speak in
objection.
MR. H. LYTLE:
the road from 48?
: May I ask one question? What's directly across
MR. CHAIRMAN: The beach area.
MEMBER SAWICKI: The town beach.
MR. LYTLE: Town beach. Ok. Thank you.
MR. SMULCHESKI: My name is Mr. Smulcheski. Will this is any way
affect the marshlands that are there. Are they going to fill that up?
They called it here meadows, but if you were there within the last
two days, you would have seen the tide move in there. It's a santuary
for our birds and whatever else. I just want to know what there plans
are as far as that is concerned.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kapell?
MR. KAPELL: Can I ask you to point out that area that you're
concerned with?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued:)
MR. SMULCHESKI: Ail the area along '(the east side area).
MR. KAPELL: That is not tidal water. That is an area that's been
declared by the Department of --
MR. SMULCHESKI: That was changed.
MR. KAPELL: That is not tidal wetlands.
MR. SMULCHESKI: Originally it was, buH it was changed.
(There were several interruptions at this point and more than one
person was speaking.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ma'am, you haven't been called upon yet--
MR. SMULCHESKI: The question I want to ask now is, has the board
been there to visit the area and take a look? Then it would be much
more clearer to what I'm trying to bring up.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll answer that question in one second, Mr. Smul-
cheski. Mr. Kapell, could you come here please and tell us where these
people were pointing to, so that we could put it in our record as the
area they were referring to?
MR. KAPELL: Initially, let me say that, one of the things ...the
area that they are talking about is this area which is a low area on
the easterly boundary of the property. This is an area that my under-
standing from Mr. Cichanowicz who is Chairman of the Conservation
Advisory Council, when I met with that group, was that this was a
ditch that was actually dug. It's called a mosquito-control ditch
and is a manmade feature and no~ a natural feature of the land. And
we intend only to disturb that area to the extent of grading this
parking area properly to keep the water on site. And it is not an
area that is protected under the Tidal Wetlands Act of the State of
New York.
MR. SMULCHESKI: The question I want to know is, are they going
to fill that marsh area up?
MR. CHAIRMAN: And you asked if we have seen the area.
MR. SMULCHESKI: Yes, right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are welcome to look at the file if you would
like. We have pictures that were taken on several occasions indicat-
ing, and we do not have the greatest camera in the world I should point
out, nor am I the greatest photographer I assure you. But yes, the
entire board has been there, and two of the board members do live in
Southold, so they are very well familiar with the area.
MRS. KIRNER: I am Mrs. Kirner and I live right on Carol Road,
down the street...the private street where the motel is.
Southold Town Board of~Appeals -15-
January-13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No~ 2930 Sal Caiola, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Oliva was next.
MRS. KIRNER: Oh, I'm sorry, Mrs. Oliva.
MRS. RUTH OLIVA: I disagree with Dave Kapell. I don't care what
Mr. Cichanowicz has said, because I was even was down there last Spring
and in that low area there, there is definitely spartina grass, which
is classified as wetlands under the Tidal Wetlands Act of the State.
MR. KAPELL: We have a letter from the Department of Environmental
Conservation which states that they do not consider this area to be
active tidal wetlands and does not fall under their purview, which is
why we were able to obtain the permit. They have the same plan that
we've presented here tonight and that we're asking for approval, and
it is not tidal wetlands for the purpose of their jurisdiction. And I--
MRS. OLIVA: How much fill is going in there, Dave?
MR. KAPELL: Actually we're not talking about much fill. We're
talking about regrading it to the extent of allowing us to build a
driveway. It is not our intention to fill that thing entirely. It's
right here. You can see the proposal, and the grading lines. It's
right here. Everything is on the map.
MRS. OLIVA: Becauss even that little wet area if it can be
preserved is still important for the different birds and so forth
coming through there. They are on the Atlantic flyway and I'm sure
they do come in there.
MR. KAPELL: I'm sorry. I feel that the issue of the protection
of the tidal wetland is an issue that falls before the Department of
Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, and they have
inspected the site at our request and essentially de-mapped this area.
And it is not protected for the purposes of the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation. I'd be misrepresenting if I said we could build
this project without disturbing that area.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you have any objection-- (interruption)
MRS. OLIVA: How much of it is going to be filled? Will there
still be some water lying there.
MR. KAPELL: Definitely.
MRS. OLIVA: With the grasses.
MR. KAPELL: You can see where the grade is going to be changed.
Do you see where this comes in here, that's going to be altered to
this extent. Our fill will come into this area. It's low right down
to the property line.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you a question, Mr. Kapell? Do you have
any objection before this board makes a decision to have us contact the
D.E.C. and make sure that there's--
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued:)
MR. KAPELL: I'll provide you with the documentation. That's no
problem. And I think I have provided you with that documentation. I
believe it's in the file. But any further documentation there's no
problem. That's definitely been done. And I have a permit from the--
(interruption)
MRS. KIRNER: If I may put in something--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I just want you to know that we go in order.
MRS. KIRNER: I understand. I do understand. But I have been in
touch with Chuck Hamilton for so long, over a year since this project
first began, and they were very much against it at that time until
plans were revised and the units now are going to be built above the
high mean water mark, which means whether they like it or not, it is
out of their jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction, whether they
want the jurisdiction or not. And he said to me, "I have it in writ-
ing. I have a letter from the D.E.C." And he told me on numerous
occasions. But what concerns me is the man is a little incorrect
where it does not show private roads down by that motel...now there
are only, what, six homes on the road. And I am second to the end.
So one more house and you"re in the drink. So I ~m at the end. Now
when the tide is high, I am surrounded by the pond on three sides...
to the east, to the south, and to the west. The only thing that
separates us is a little bit of private road. We can't even walk
down there or you go in...when your neck, but at high tide...at real,
real low tide or when the moon is full, you can sort of walk down
there and get squishy feet. But this is all tidal. That's why I
ask, have you been and really looked and seen? How you could fill
that in...the swams, the Canadian...they all nest there. It's
unbelievable. The mallards. They are up on our lawns. All right.
Maybe you're not interested in wildlife, fine. But I'm interested
too in this land. I'm sure the baymen are very interested. I know
Jarvis Verity and you'll see his name on the petition. And he
signed on behalf of the whole Baymen's Association. We are very
concerned.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Kirner, the reason I asked you the question
what you wanted to say, we are all very involved and very, very aware
of the way people feel concerning this project, so please, don't ever
take the view that any one member of this board doesn't -- we all care
very, very much concerning everybody's opinion. So we--
MRS. KIRNER: And on the other hand can we feel Mr. Caiola
bought a piece of property and he has a right to build something.
all do. But within reason. When you're talking abou~ filling in
the marshes and part of the wetlands.
We
MR. KAPELL: We're not talking about filling in part of the
wetlands.
MRS. KIRNER: But the piece that you'd-re talking about. We know
-- it's tidal. We live here. We've lived here for a number of years,
So~thold Town Board o~ iAppeals -17- Janual~ -t3, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued:)
MRS. KIRNER continued:
and when we haven't lived all year round, we've been coming out here.
And vacationing for 25 years these people. I mean, we know what it's
like. We've seen the water come up almost on our lawns, and cover the
road. This is tidal.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Kapell.
MR. KAPELL: The only thing I can add really to clarify the issue
of that...there's no question that the marsh area that shows on this
plan, as a meadow area, up to this point is tidal wetlands. But this
entire area is in fact tidal wetland, it shows on the map and is
protected tidal wetland. But at this point there is most definitely
a berm, and the tidal flow is interrupted. The D.E.C. has been down
there to inspect it, and at our request, and what they did instead of
actually--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Point to it so everybody can see.
MR .KAPELL: Right in this area here. There is essentially a
dam, and there ~s no culvert and there's no tidal flow in and out of
there. What they are seeing is probably rainwater collecting in
that low area, draining off the rest of the side.
MR. SMULCHESEI: That dam you're speaking of ...there was a
culvert in there and it's probably plugged up now, because from the
North Road to the water at one time was open until Mr. Haas, I
believe it was Mr. Haas, built that little piece in there. But he
did have drains in there at one time. I wonder if it's plugged up
or what...I don't know. It's overgrown...the regular marsh, weeds
or whatever. We're not objecting to the upper part past the dam
towards the North Road. We're objecting to the other part, which
is the lower part which is the marsh part now.
MRS. KIRNER: It's right on the pond.
MR. KAPELL: The only thing that I can add is that this is the
permit that we received from the D.E.C. They have reviewed the same
plan that we've presented to you and this is a permit specifically
for the road work and the regrading that's required in connection
with the road work. And I'll provide you with a copy of this tomorrow.
MRS. KIRNER: There's something more. We want to put a second
story on our house and we're on a lit bit of 1 nd, 50' by 100' and
we wrote to the D.E.C. and as far as they're concerned, we can do
anything we want because we were buIkheaded before 1979. It is out
of their jurisdiction. This is out of their jurisdiction. Of course
we would have to have the approval of Southold, but I'm saying just
because the D.E.C. says that they're not saying it that it's ok.
They are not saying it's ok. They are saying it's out of their
jurisdiction. They have no say.
MR. KAPELL: I take exception with that. The area in which the
gravel driveway and parking area is going to be constructed--
(interruption).
Southold Town Board o2 Appeals -18- Januar~13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued:)
MRS. KIRNER: I have it in writing.
MR. KAPELL: I'm sorry, ma'am. I have their permit here. We do
not claim...and we would love to be able to claim that it is out of
their jurisdiction, and that would have made it a lot easier for us...
but the area in which we propose to build the gravel driveway and
parking area is definitely within the D.E.C.'s jurisdiction and we
duly applied for a permit and this is the permit that we were issued.
So the issue of grading and regrading, construction of that driveway,
is not something that has not been reviewed by the D.E.C. and
approved by the D.E.C. The area which falls outside their juris-
diction is the area in which the buildings are located. And that area
which is above the 10' elevation is out of their jurisdiction. But
that is not the driveway area and it is not the low area which these
people are referring to.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak
against the application? Mrs. Oliva?
MRS. OLIVA: I would just like to make a comment neither for, nor
against. It seems to me that this is lust another case of a piece of
property that was incorrectly zoned in the first place. This small
piece of property and now zoned "Multiple," so we are stuck no matter
which way we do it...either condominiums or motel unit. Frankly, I
do go along with Mr. Kapell's idea that a condominiums are a far
better idea. I do believe to Mr. Kapell's credit and to the Board
of Health's credit and the Planning Board that as far as I can see
except for this one little disagreement here about the driveways, they
have taken into account and tried to do the best they possibly could
with the denitrification system out of the grade to any stormwater
run-off to prevent any type of pollution into the meadows and into
Arshamomaque. I just, of course, yoiu never know what's going to
come about when they start building and the project is in place.
We only have to wait and see how it-- but I would just like to point
ou~ this is the importance of our uPdate of the Master Plan to not
get into this situation again.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to ask the audience if they know
the ramifications of the M-1 Zone. Do you know what Mrs. Oliva is
referring to?
MRS. KIRNER: Oh I agree with her completely. I think it's
completely zoned wrongly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But you're aware of the fact that the property
is already zoned "M-l?"
MRS.. KIRNER: Oh I am aware. I happen to agree with Mrs. Ol~va
and feel that it's wrong. And I happen to agree with Mr. Kapetl
that we'd rather have condominiums than a motel, but either one causes
concern, and at that particular location I feel it should be resi-
dential. And now the law is one acre, one house.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right, Mr. Kapell, did you have anything else
you would like to say? No? Anybody else concerning this hearing?
SouZhold Town Board o~"Appeals -19- Januarz i13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I make any judgment concerning the closing
of this hearing, I would like some feedback from my board, and I'm
going to ask the audience's indulgence for a period of about five
minutes. We would like to go into closed session and I would like
to discuss something with them. We Will recess for approximately five
minutes. Can I have a motion, gentlemen?
On motion by Mr. Grigonls, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to recess for approximately five minutes.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
The entire board left the room to discuss the subject hearing.
The board returned to the meeting room at 8:40 p.m. and motion
was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and unanimously
carried to RECONVENE the public hearing in the matter of Appeal No.
2930, for SAL CAIOLA.
The hearing reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kapell, could you tell us if the Department of
Transportation has looked at this?
MR. KAPELL: I'm not aware of i5. Nobody has ever asked me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a question that the setback is proper
enough from the County Road at 50' b~aring in mind that certain appli-
cations that we've had, through the wisdom through some of the gentle-
men on the board, they have required setbacks of 70 to 72 feet from
the property line, and we would like within the next three weeks to
investigate that. So we would like to recess this hearing until
February 3rd, 1983, and send a letter to the County asking them to
review the project if they have any objection to that. Do you have
any objection to that?
MR. KAPELL: Well I only have an objection to the lateness, you
know, to the late nature of the request because the project has been
before this board for 14 some odd months. I don't understand why
that wasn't raised some time ago. The 50' setback is the setback
that is been proposed from Day One. Frankly, I'm not sure to what
degree they're involved in. What right of review do they have?
MR. CHAIRMAN: On the setback.
MR. KAPELL: Why was it not forwarded to them earlier?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would tend to think because we thought the
50' was adequate.
Southold Town Board of Appeals --20- Januar~ 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2930 - Sal Caio!a, continued:)
MR. KAPELL: It meets the Town requirement.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. This is based upon the Fanny Behlan
application which was before our board two years ago, up past the Nursing
Home, and they had a 68' setback.
MR. KAPELL: Wouldn't that be an issue for site plan, Mr. Goehringer?
Wouldn't that be an issue for the Planning Board as opposed to this board?
It would seem to me that that cites a specific issue and would be an
issue for the Planning Board to take up as opposed to this board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know. But I would be very happy to contact
Henry Raynor if you wouid like.
MR. KAPELL: I'm afraid I'm not an attorney. I would definitely
like to say that I do object to the extent that it's coming very late
in the process, and that we've made every effort possible to comply to
this board's requests. This has never been brought up.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will be perfectly honest with you and tell you
that it's something that has been relatively new, and we just feel that
we would like to check it out. We did investigate the timeliness
involved, and it takes approximately 19 days to get something back
from the County, and we feel that three weeks is sufficient between
the two meetings to get that. Or maybe sooner.
MR. LESSARD: Mr. Chairman, if I may interject something.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Lessard.
MR. LESSARD: Under 239K of the County Municipal Law, any property
that touches the border of a County Road, the County has to be notified,
and they will lay down the ruIes and restrictions on construction or
anything else before any permits can be issued by the Town. Under the
law here, Dave, you know, that's why I brought it with me...I read the
law and I re-read it. What I'm trying to say in a nice way, it would
be very foolish of this board to grant anything and then two weeks
later have you stopped dead in your tracks if it went~your way.
MR. KAPELL: I appreciate that--
MR. LESSARD: What they're trying to do, because they are lead
agency and to make sure that everything has been covered and nobody
winds up getting arrogant.
MR. KAPELL: I would definitely...I take exception and place
objection to the extent that this application has been revised and
re-revised at the applicant's substantial expense to meet the various
considerations of this board and the various considerations of the
Planning Board with regards to all the site's specifics, and that for
us to be delayed again and for us to perhaps to redesign the site
plan around the new issue that was not raised earlier on the process
I think is unreasonable. To that extent I do obgect.
Southold Town Board oL _~DDeals -21- Januar 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(ADDeal No. 2930 Sal Caiola, continued:)
MR. LESSARD: I understand your. position, sir, but what I am also
statina is--
MR. KAPELL: I would like it on the record to that extent I object.
MR. LESSARD: True, I agree with vou. But what I am saying, be-
cause vou~have been into this so long, for three more weeks to clarify
all the problems rather than qunshot-the thing and have it kicked back
later on...whether it's an oversight on my Dart or whatever the fact
is the problem is there, and whether it's my mistake or whoever'sv
all riaht, it will not qo awav until it's DroDerlv resolved. And I
know where you are coming from, and after 14 months I would have been
climbing the wall myself. But the fact is this problem has arisen,
whether it's my oversight or whatever, the problem is here and for 14
months, we're askin~ you a couple of weeks more...that's all we're
asking.
MR. KAPELL: I'm in no position to force this board to take action
but I do want it on the record that I do auestion the timin~ of it.
(Recording tape was changed.)
MR. KAPELL: I would like it on the record that we Question the
timing of this request on your Dart. We feel, I certainly feel that
this shouid have come up a lon~ time a~o as opposed to this Doint in
time after we've gone to the extent that we have With the site ~lan
~rocess.
MR. LESSARD: It could be nothing. It could be a formality. I
don't know. But I iust don't want it han~in~.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I should also note, Mr. Kapell, that we are going
to now, since we have had the first part of this hearing, going to
send this application to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for
their comments, and they would not have looked at it of course unless
we had the hearing, so now we've had this part of the hearin~ and
we're ~oin~ to send i% up.
MR. KAPELL: So that's going to take place now?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, we're going to do both. We'll send out
the County Road issue and briefly send it up to them and tell them
we need their comments back bv February 3rd. Ok? On your Dart, Mrs.
Kirner, if you have any specific information concerning the area in
guestion that you feel is endangered area, kindly come to the
February 3rd hearing and suQ~ly us with the information that you
may have.
MRS. KIRNER: May I ask one thing? We do have several neighbors
that are very concerned and could not come here tonight. They were
either out of town or out of state. Will they be allowed to raise
any obgection at the hearing February 3rd?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. The hearing is still open.
Southold Town Board o~ApDeals -22
(ADDeal No. 2930 - Sal Caiola, continued:)
MRS. KIRNER: Thank vou.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anv comments from anvone? David? (None) Hearinq
no further comments~ I'll make a motion recessin~ the hearinq until
February 3, 1983.
On motion bv Mr. Goehringer, seconded bv Mr. Griqonis, it was
RESOLVED, to recess the hearinQ of ADDeal No. 2930, SAL CAIOLA
until February 3, 1983.
Vote of the Board: Aves: Messrs. Goehrinqer, Doyen, Griqonis,
Douqlass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
JanuarV'-13, 1983 Regular Meetinq
DATE FOR NEXT MEETING: On motion by Mr. Griqonis, seconded by
Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that Thursday, February 3, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. shall
be the date for the next Regular Meetinq of this Board, to be held
at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Sou~hold, NY.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Griqonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Griqonis, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the December 22, 1982
Regular Meeting of this board.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehrinqer, Doyen, Griqonis,
Douqlass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
CLOSED SESSION FOR DELIBERATIONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass,
seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to recess temporarily for "Deliberations in Closed
Session."
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehrinqer, Doyen, Griqonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adoDted.
Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -23-
Januarv~3, 1983 Regular Meeting
RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING: After approximately 1½ hours in
closed session, the board ~econvened the Reaular MeetinQ.
On motion bv Mr. Douglass, seconded b~ Mr. Goehrinqer, it was
RESOLVED, to RECONVENE the Regular Mseting. (The Regular Meetin~
reconvened at approximately 11:0.0 p.m.)
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3060.
Upon application of CYNTHIA KAMINSKY, 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck,
NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-34 for
permission to construct addition (enclosed pool) with reducion in the rear-
yard (sidsyard) setback at 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel ID No. 1000-107-07-028.
The board finds and determines as follows:
By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a 33' by
42' addition (includin~ an 18' by 36' swimminqpool) in line with the
southerly line of the existing dwelling and with a setback from the
westerl~ property line at 15'8". Existin~ on the premises is a one-story
one-family dwellin~ with attached garage and accessory 24' by 24' storage
buildin~ in the northwest corner of the premises. The premises in ques-
tion is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-34 of the zoning code and
contains an area of 16,875 square feet.
In reviewing this matter, the board finds that the proposed
addition would create excessive lot coverage by a total of 275 square
feet over the permitted 3,375 square feet, and applicant was advised
of same at the original public hearing held on December 22~ 1982. On
December 29, 1982, the applicant filed an application for a variance
due to the excessive lot coverage, which is determined as noted in
Appeal No.~ 3068, same date hereof.
It is the opinion of the board that the proposed addition could
be turned lengthwise to the house which would allow more of a setback
from the rear property line, or the applicant could reduce the size of
the pool area to an 16' by 32', and therefore a maximum reduction at
20 feet from the rear (west) property line should be yielded.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
circumstances are unique; that by allowing the variance as indicated
no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that
the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to 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 ~ustice will be served by allowina the
Sou%hold Town Board of Appeals -24- January 13, 1983 Regular MeetinH
(ApDeal No. 3060 - CYNTHIA KAMINSKY, continued:)
variance, as indicated below.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3060, application of CYNTHIA KAMINSKY,
for permission to construct addition (inground swimmingpool) be and
hereby IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
That the pool addition shall not be set back closer than 20 feet
from the rear (west) yard property line.
Location of Property: 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-107-07-028.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, GriHonis,
DouHlass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3068.
Upon application of CYNTHIA KAMINSKY, 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck,
NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for
permission to construct enclosed pool and deck areas, which will exceed the
maximum permitted 20% lot coverage requIrement of t.he zoninH code. Loca-
tion of Property: 75 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map
Parcel ID No. 1000-107-07-028.
The public hearinH on this application was held earlier this
evening.
The board finds and determines as follows:
By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a 33' by
42' addition (including the 18' by 36' swimmingpool) in line with the
southerly line of the existin~ dwelling to be set back from the rear
property line at 15'8" and exceeding the maximum~permitted lot coverage
by 275 square feet. Existing on the premises in question is a one-story
one-family frame dwelling with attached garage and accessory 24' by 24'
storage building at the northwest corner of the premises. The premises
in question is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-34 of the zoning
code and contains an area of 16,875 square fee~. The total lot coverage
p~rmitted by the zoning code is 20% of the lot area, or 3,375 square
feet. The total lot coverage proposed is 3,650 square feet.
It is the opinion of the board~that the lot coverage as proposed
is not excessive, approximately 8% of a variance from the zoning
requirements. For the record, it is noted that a decision has been
~endered simultaneously herewith under Appeal No. 3060 granting a
variance for a 20' setback from the rear property line for this same
proposed construction.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
Southold Town Board of'~ppeals -25-
January 13, 1983 Reqular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3068 - CYNTHIA KAMINSK~, continued:)
variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements
of the zoning code; that the circumstances are unique; that by allow-
ing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will
be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a'method fea-
sible for appellant other than a v~riance; that the relief requested
will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of z~ning;
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 bv Mr. Goehrin~er. seconded by Mr. Gri~onis. it was
RESOLVED. that APPeal NO. 3068. application of CYNTHIA KAMINSKY
for approval of excessive lot coverage at eight percent for the con-
struction of a pool and deck areas~ be and hereby IS APPROVED, PROVIDED
THAT THE SET BACK FROM THE REAR PRbPERTY LINE (W~ST LINE) IS NOT LESS
THAN 20 FEET.
Location of Property: 75 Woodcliff Drive. Mattituck. NY? County
Tax MaD Parcel ID No. 1000-107-07-028.
Vote of the Board: Aves: MeSsrs. Goehrin~er. Doyen. Gri~oniso
DouGlass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3063.
Upon application for MR. AND MRS. EDWARD PRESSLER, by Environment
East Inc. as a~ent, 3075 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY for a Variance to
the Zoninq Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to con-
struct residential addition with reduction in frontyard setback at 110
Grove Drive, Sou~hold, NY; Reydon Shores Filed Map ~o. 631, Lots No. 4
and 5; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-080-04-024.
The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening,
at which time the hearinq was closed pendin~ deliberations. ~
The board made the followino findings and determination.
By this appeal, appellants seek permission to construct a 12' by
20.9' addition at the northerly en~ of the existing one-family dwelling,
which would leave a setback from Lake Drive at approximately 35 feet as
shown on survey submitted with the application and dated October 10,
1966. The premises in question is a corner lot as defined by Section
100-34 of the zoning code and fron~s along Grove and Lake Drives of
Reydon Shores Major Subdivision, Map No. ~3t, Filed July 2, 1931. Exist-
ing on the premises is a two-story frame dwelling and accessory frame
garage in the rear yard area.
Upon inspection of the premises and the immediate vicinity, the
board finds there are several homes set back closer to Lake Drive. It
is the opinion of the board that the area chosen for this addition is
~outhotd Town Board of ~ppeals -26- January~13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3063 - MR. &.MRS. EDWARD PRESSLER, continued:)
the most feasible under the circumstances.
In considerinq this aDpeal, the board determines that the
variance reguest is not substantial in relation to the ~equirements
of the zoning code; that the circumstances are unique; that by allow-
inG the variance no substantial detriment to adioining ~roperties will
be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method fea-
sible for appellant other than a variance; that the relief requested
will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoninq;
and in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in
consideration of all the above factors, the interest of iustice will
be served by allowinq the variance, as indicated below.
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Gri~onis, it was
RESOLVED, that ADDeal No. 3063, application for MR. AND MRS.
EDWARD PRESSLER for permission to construct addition te dwellin~,
BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR.
Location of Property:
Shores Subdivision Lots 4 & 5;
80-04-024.
110 Grove Drive, Southold, NY; Revdon
County Tax MaD Parcel ID No. 1000=
Vote of the Board: AVes: Messrs. Goehrinqer, Doyen, Gri~onis,
DouGlass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
RESERVED DECISION: ADDeal No. 3064.
WILINSKI
Upon application for CATHY VOLI~, by Robert Ketcham, Box 295,
East Marion, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Sec-
tion 100-70(C) [t] for permission to Place wall sign on existing buildin~
at 27980 Main Road, Cutcho~ue, NY; COunty Tax MaD Parcel ID No. 1000-
102-86-part of 006. Zoning District: B-1.
The public hearin~ on this matter was held earlier this evening,
at which time the hear~n~ was declared closed, pending deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
BV this appeal, appellant seeks permission to place a wall sign, to
be attached at the west side wall of the existinq business structure,
advertisin~ the buSiness conducted within this buildinq, which at the
present time is "The Alleluia Shod - A Christian Family Gift Store." The
premises in ~uestion contains an area of approximately 6,175 s~uare feet
with aDDroximatelv 65 feet of frontage along the Main State Road, and is
zoned "B-1 General Business.." Currently under Article VII of the Zonin~
Code, there are no p~6vis~ons~or~requIations concernin~ siqns, which
have inadvertently been left ou~. It is the feeling of the board that
the provisions stipulated in Article VI, Section 10060(C) [2] should be
applied to the B-1 Zonin~ District as well as the B-Light District.
Sout~old Town Board of-Appeals -27- January~13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3064 - CATHY ~~, continued:)
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements
of the zonln~ code; that. the circumstances are unique; that by allow-
inq the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will
be crea~ed; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method fea-
sible for appellant other than a variance; that the relief requested
will be zn harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning;
and in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and mn
consideration of all the above factors, the interest of justice will
be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3064, application for CATHY ......... ~
for permission to attach sign to west side wall of existing building,
BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That the subject wall sign shall no% be illuminated;
2. That the subject wall sign shall only advertise the busi-
ness being conducted in such building;
3. That the provisions of Article VI, Section 100-60(C) [2] (b)
shall be followed;
4. That this approval is subject to review by the Suffolk
County Plannin~ Commission pursuant to the Suffolk County Charter,
Sections 1323, et seq.
Location of Property: 27980 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-102-6-part of 006.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Griqonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3031.
Upon application of THOMAS AND JACQUELINE OCCHIOGROSSO, 77 Vander-
bilt Boulevard, Oakdale, NY 11769, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to re-locate dwelling with
insufficient front, side and rearyard setbacks at 1580 Corey Creek Lane,
Southold, NY; Corey Creek Estates Filed Map. ~4923, Lot 28; County Tax
Map Parcel ID No. 1000-78-04-019.
The public hearing on this application was held on December 22f 1982,
at which time the hearing was declared closed pending re-inspection and
deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, appellants seek permission to relocate the proposed
new dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback from the east
property line at Corey Creek Lane at 13 feet and rearyard setback at
45 feet from the ordinary high water mark in order to locate the house
on the filled dredged spoil area. The N.Y.S. Department of Environmental
Conservation has approved this location over the previously approved
Southold Town Board o~-Appeals -28-
January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3031 - THOMAS & JACQUELINE OCCHIOGROSSO, continued:)
location, approved during 1979 by this board in Appeal No. 2610 and by
the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation under TW #15276-
0186A, and Town Board Wetlands Permit #27 dated September 11, 1979.
It is the feeling of the board that the new dwelling structure should
not be located any closer than is necessary to the high water mark,
and practical difficulties in relation to the insufficient rearyard
setback relief requested has not been shown. The premises in question
contains an area of appr6ximately 20,000 square feet and is vacan~ land.
It is noted for the record that previous applications have been made to
this board u~der Appeals No. 2610 dated September 14, 1979 and No.
2547 dated May 2, 1979.
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 allow-
ing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will
be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method fea-
sible 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. 3031, application of THO~LAS AND JAC-
QUELINE OCCHIOGROSSO for permission to construct new dwelling, BE
AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
t. That the rearyard setback shall be no less than 50 feet
from the high water mark (rear property line, whichever is closer);
2. That the frontyard setback from the east property line at
Corey Creek Lane shall be no closer than 20 feet;
3. That this approval is subject to compliance with the Flood
Plain Management Laws of the Town of Southold.
4. That this approval is subject to review by the Suffolk County
Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk
County Charter.
Location of Property: 1580 Corey Creek Lane, Southold, NY;
Corey Creek Estates, Filed Map No. 4923, Lot 28; Suffolk County Tax
Map Parcel ID No. 1000-78-04-019.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. Thms resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board Os Appeals -29-
Janua~-y 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3013 - East End Supply Co., Inc.)
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3013.
Upon application for EAST END SUPPLY CO., INC., by Irving L.
Price, Jr., Esq., as agent, 828 Front Street, Greenport, NY for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-81, Bulk
Schedule, for permission to construct warehouse in this "C-Light
Industrial" Zoned District with insufficient front, rear and side
yards as shown on building plans accompanying the appeal application.
Location of Property: South Side of Corwin Street, Greenport, NY;
County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-48-2-2 & 3.
The public hearing on this application was held on November 18,
1982. The board made the following findings and determination:
The premises in question is located at the northerly side of
Corwin Street in Greenport and is more particularly identified on
the County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 48, Block 02, Lots
2 and 3. The subject parcel contains an area of approximately
51,000 square feet with approximately 875 feet along Corwin Street,
incluSive of a 25' strip from Seventh Street and 50' strip from
Eighth Street, which road strips have been abandoned by the town.
Existing on the premises are two dwelling structures in disrepair,
accessory building, and a 32' by 156' one-story storage building
located on the easterly portion.
By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct a
warehouse building with an office of approximately 21,000 square
feet first-floor area on the westerly portion of this property,
eliminating existing dwelling structures and accessory building
thereto. The existing building on the easterly portion will be
exterior-modernized and is to remain a one-story structure. The
proposed new construction at the westerly portion of the premises
will be approximately one-halff two-story, and one-half, one-story
construction.
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 allow-
ing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will
be created; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and
promote the general purposes of zoning; and the interest of justice
will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVEDf that Appeal No. 3013, application of EAST END SUPPLY
CO., INC. for permission to construct warehouse with insufficient
front, rear and side yard setbacks in this "C-Light Industrial"
Zoned District, be and hereby IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. Ail construction from the rear property line shall be
no closer than 13 feet;
Southold Town Board o~'Appeals -30- Janual3 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3013 - East End Supply Co., Inc., continued:)
2. There shall be a minimum of twenty [20] parking stalls on
the premises;
3. All loading and unloading must be done on the premises
only [with no protrusion of vehicles onto the streets];
4. Screening shall be provided as submitted on the applicant's
10/16/81 plan;
5. All storage must be contained within the buildings;
6. Acquiescence by the Planning Board of the above conditions;
7. Suffolk County Planning Commission review pursuant to the
Suffolk County Charter, Sections 1323, et seq.
Location of Property: Sou~h Side of Corwin Street, Greenport,
NY; County Tax Map Parcels ID No. 1000-48-2-2 & 3.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was u~animously adopted.
SET-UPS FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Douglass,
seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the following applications be and hereby ARE
SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THIS BOARD, to be held
at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY commencing at 7:30 o'clock
p.m.:
Appeal No. 3066.
Appeal No. 3070.
Appeal No. 3067.
Appeal No. 3071.
Appeal No. 3014.
FRANK TARULLI. Horse & stable at 1540 North
Bayview Road, Sou~hold.
LAST ASSOCIATES. New dwelling - reduced front
and rear setbacks at Birch Avenue, Sou~hold.
GRACE E. KENNEY. Additions increasing lot
coverage over 20% allowable, and reducing
front and rear setbacks at 2020 East Gillette
Drive, East Marion.
GEORGE & NATALIE WIESER. Accessory garage in
frontyard area at 1415 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue.
EAST END SUPPLY CO., INC. Special Exception
for warehouse building with office in C-Light
Industrial Zone at Corwin Street, Greenport.
Southold Town Board O~ Appeals -31-
January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Set-Ups continued:)
Appeal No. 3061.
ANITA M. SAMUELS. Recessed from tonight until
our next regular meeting. (1) Ingronnd pool
on vacant lot; (2) Approval of access.
Appeal No. 2930.
SAL CAIOLA. Recessed from tonight until our
next regular meeting. Condominium units at
S/s C.R. 48, Sou~hold.
Appeal No. 3073.
RONALD J. ROTHMAN (V. L'EPPLATENIER, JR.)
Variance to construct new dwelling with
insufficient front and rear yard setbacks at
Lakeview Avenue, Peconic.
Appeal No. 3069.
WILLIAM B. BERLINER, JR. (B. NORRIS). Green-
house addition with reduced sideyard at 105
Love Lane, Mattituck.
Appeal No. 3074.
JOHN & SABINA BASILE. Addition to dwelling
with reduction in frontyard setback at 510
Custer Avenue, Southold.
Appeal No. 3075.
JOSEPH & MARY GNOZZO. To reinstate noncon-
forming dwelling use in B-Zone (in addition
to business use of premises). Main Road,
Greenport.
Appeal No. 3072.
POPPI & IRENE PAPADAKIS. To use premises for
business (skin care clinic) in this A-Zone at
26165 Main Road, Orienq.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigon~s,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS:
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following ~eqative Environmental
Declarations pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act
and Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, to wit:
~ ~ ~outhold Town Board c Appeals -32- Janua3 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
APPEAL NO.: 3066.
PROJECT NAME: FRANK TARULLI.
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 ~ake 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: House horse and construct stable for
horse on less than two-acres, inclusive of one-family dwelling use
of subject premises. ~ ~-
LOCATION OF PROJECT:
particularly known as:
1000-79-06-002.1.
Town of Southcld, County of Suffolk, more
1540 North Bayview Road, Southold, NY;
R~ASON ~)~SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the
environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned.
(2) Project in question is not located ~ear critically-designated
areas,
APPEAL NO.: 3070.
PROJECT NAME: LAST ASSOCIATES.
This notice la'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: [X] Type It [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: New dwelling with reduced front and rear
yard setbacks.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southotd, County of Suffotk, more
particularly known as: North side of Birth Avenue, Southold, NY;
1000-77-01-021.
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 imp!~mented as
planned.
(2) Subject premises is not located near critically-designated
areas.
~ ~ '~o~thold Town Board o~' Appeats -33- Janua~~ 13., 1983 Regular Meeting
APPEAL NO.: 3067.
PROJECT NAME: GRACE E. KENNEY.
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: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Additions with excessive lot coverage
and reduced front and rear yard setbacks.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 2020 East Gillette Drive, East Marion;
1000-38-03-020.
REASON(.S] ~UPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(!) An Environmental Assessmen~ 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
plann~) Parcel in question is not located near tidal wetlands or
other critic~! ~e~. ~
APPEAL NO.: 3071.
PROJECT NAME: GEORGE AND NATALIE WIESER.
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law 944-4)
of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law.
This board determines the within project not to have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. Also, pleas--~-take notice that this
declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other
department or agency which may also have an application pending for the
same or similar project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Accessory garage structure in frontyard
area.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 1415 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, NY; 1000-97-06-010.
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) Proposed garage location is farther away from wetlands area
than existing dwelling structure.
~ ~3 ~-o~thold Town Board o ~kppeals -34- Janua~ 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
APPEAL NO.: 3014
PROJECT NAME: EAST END SUPPLY CO., INC.
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4)
of the ~mplementing 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: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special Exception to construction warehouse
building with office in C-Light Industria'l Zone.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: South Side of Corwin Street, Greenport, NY;
1000-48-02-002 and 003.
REASON-(~)~UPPORTiNG THIS DETERMINATION:
(!) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the
environment ars likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned.
(2) The premises in question is not located near tidal wetlands or
other critical'environmental area. ~
APPEAL NO.: 3073.
PROJECT NAME: RONALD J. ROTHMAN (V. L'EPPLATENIER, JR., Owner)
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: New dwelling with insufficient front and
rear yard setbacks.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Tow~ of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: Lakeview Avenue, Peconic, NY; 1000-67-3-02,
03 and 13.
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 o ~ppeals -35- Janua~ 13., 1983 Regular .Meeting
APPEAL NO.: 3069.
PROJECT NAME: WILLIAM B. BERLINER, JR. (B. NORRIS, Owner)
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: Greenhouse addition with reduced sideyard.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southotd, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as:
105 Love Lane, Mattituck, NY; 1000-141-04-031.
REASON~).._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
ptann~ Premises is not located near tidal wetlands or other critical
environmental area. ~
APPEAL NO.: 3074.
PROJECT NAME: JOHN AND SABINA BASILE.
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: Addition to dwelling with reduction' in
frontyard setback.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southo!d, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 510 Custer Avenue, Southold, NY; 1000-70-08-
033.
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 no~ located near tidal wetlands or other environ-
mental area of particular critical concern.
Janua~_ll3, 1983 Regular Meeting
Southold Town Board o~Appeals -36-
APPEAL NO.: 3075.
PROJECT NAME: JOSEPH & MARY GNOZZO.
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: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To reinstate nonconforming dwelling use
in B-Zone in addition to business use of premises.in
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 73265 Main Road, Greenport, NY; 1000-45-03-002.
REASON~)~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
plann~ Premises is not located near tidal wetlands.
APPEAL NO.: 3072.
P~OJECT NAME: IRENE & POPPI PAPADAKIS.
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 ACTIQN: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To use premises as skin care clinic in
addition to residential use .... .~
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 26165 Main Road, Orient, NY; 1000-18-03-023.
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment i~ 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 tidal wetlands or other environ-
mental area.
So'hold Town Board o~'Appeals -37-
(Environmental Declarations, continued:)
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. (
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution w~
PENDING DECISION ON APPEAL NO. 3062 - OTTO ZAPF.
The public hearing on this applicat~.on was held earlier this
evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed, pending
a reinspection and deliberations.
January 13, 1983 Regular Meeting
;oehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
.s unanimously adopted.
Being there was no other business pi
board at this time, the Chairman declare(
The meeting was adjourned at approximate[
Re sp e(
South(
'operly coming before the
the meeting adjourned.
.y 11:00 p.m.
:tfully submitted,
F. Kowalski, Secretary
,id Town Board of Appeals