Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1000-75.-4-28
If I>E—=C: _AMAT.I0r4 OF 6 6'V`Eh1EtVTS . � � • �� ^Wn t t-c3-r � I CT I CANS �o n:N >� � &-rAPAwo it (�" "� 1� ; WNEREAS. SALVATORE CATAPANO and JEANNE CATAPANO, 2. No more than one single family dwelling may be �� x r l-Qi' residing at 3701 Courtney Lane. 3ethpa0e, New York 11714, are the erected on lots I and 2 on the map entitled SAOATORE.CATAPANO asX: owners IN •fee-simple of certain eremises in Town of Southold. approved by the Planning Board of the Town of Southold.' s LU LU Kc- G U'S _ • . N Suffolk Count ' New York known and designated is SALVATORE 3. That there shall be no further subdivision of lots N. �q° qI oil e. 627-41 y' g CATAMWO at the southerly side of Route 25, the easterly side of shown As number 1, 2.snd 3 on said subdivision plan, in BU1LaN(r 5areA49 ` A i 1 South Narbor Road, and a portian of the westtrly side of Bayview perpetuity. ^� I n�., (J Road, 1n the Town "'Of Southold. 4. .That sni further subdivision of lot numbered 4 on W t P'1'¢ +-�.1v WHEREAS. .said Geclirarents are.desirous of placing' said subdivision plan shall only be permitted with the consent of N _certjin Nestrittions upon said pre>nises which shall be° binding.. the•Southotd Planing Board and,shall be limited to • minor P2x1_1= 1 upon'All purchasers and their gryntees, mortgagees,,br successors subdivision containing not more than four (4) lots. T in interist of the individual lets shown on said map as approved 5. That, except as set forth above, Deciarants'reserve by the 'Planntng #bard of the town-of Southold. Suffolk County. •the right to impose additional -tovenantsand restrictions. and.. \ PPrLKn�a tel` New Yeirk,- - Yurther reserve the right to modify. change and/or annul any such NOW TNEREFORE,'THIS DECLARATION WiTN1:SSETN: a�ddltonal covenants 'and r 'strittlons that may be imposed from LV \ , S OWE That the said Declarants. for the benefit of time to time in the future. y ) O a themsel-vis, their successors and assigns. in consideration of the 6. A metes and bounds description of the entire Z Q�1 LDi NG serve K _, N 0 g I — -- - - - -- -- -- - - --- ---- - -- --- n, 0 -- — - — �, N premiies'and for,the purpose of carrying out the above expressed subdivfsion is attached herrto e'made a pert hareof. ` .S 7qo f 'r�Oq W l�I�. %tentios. do hereby make known.. admit, publish. cove'nant'and INFir1T�ES5,WHEREOF, the Declarants have executed the A �- agree .tft`the said premiseshereinabove set forth, snail foregoing Declaration this ,j�'dgy of June, 19!A. e - - L-0T 1 � __�'1 1 ,�1r� hereafte be subject to the Collowing''tovenants, easements; �Ct p LDT LAT- LOT' Lr T zI LOT LOj' LOT LOT i-�i restricCons and fgreements: a vatore a a aao r af�T�Z.� QI J �j ei�ae a pano (ate l2 13 14- _____1r Q I.`toning regulations hnd ordinances of the.Town. ZZ STATE Of TORK) it- t Lz-1- County State or other governmental bodies in which the COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) 7 ? CEI�2oN SEAMAN SJW4rAE- -NgoEW KROPAL MARiNESE BOLUAAN FIzIEDMPN I3VFFa' .�l premise ie.. - t' On the• / day of June. 1986, before are persondlly came t \AU A4E OF G►ZEENPOg ID • SALVATORE CATAPANO and JEANNE CATAPANO. to me known and known to ' ! me. to be the individuals described in an who executed.the �1 foregoing instrument, -and acknowledged th y they xecuted the' V 1 same. % �A W G1 E FZOAD ADJOl N I NGi PRO P�QTY f�.AN ar b � X5.1 14. / <..............�,... _ - . } � � -� ,` �� � � �25.o Wort" `.. ;• ,1 , - , �/. ���' •- �/� L U me 120-7 - N►EfZGt1R'i� 'LAMP Uccti. Q JLs ) Z. �, Z $7 4 �., °= N '?q 41 3®u ta 27►43' S 2 2-I°tXNf2 ei���v 'V 0 • I l2 AFIbr� �������`•Q`^}^/� �� (} ! `�y���1 f �I,. ... - PPIo.1tlNro©N .- u ry v1d � J.-P 1 ,o I2�1 .� � - F�2.P P/�I'Z I�(�N G �l`,Jim � C' �.. 3-GUc,YU.��'I � . ,•� - s -- - ( J R�r , , '12,to I 12+1 , Iz sTbWam t! s5 • . � ,, , ► r --- LA 4 r �o D 20,x" D ° 0-01-4 �Ix� 1 m � _ HT1' �1 \ �\ ' . :: .: ' , • ''j • Cie j ife 4i5 AI ` 1r1�•1'1.)R',s - N11✓ a" FwUET Vmm F ff:R;z PAVer Hfz'06%f cc W _ 3 41- 1 f ge�Ar�,z Nei+ If Go E d� CHUiRC, - npCC ' T7 O 0 r LOWS 10L,S02L0'` -- ff.,�Ll2=o` W O 14►4 Tv2E Pa � ' I z ca �L IZP�,,P .$ITUM1Ndt1S IV1N!� 0,"Z MDPt-E 1G �, E-------�-GY41 Scu I-}�D AND F D - h� RMQI R- 0 TU121s PaiLwt� ( G�)25} 1 ' (n MAA x s7q q Oil '�. I� ) i I4 i3 I2 ►I `DI� i�S� I2• �, .1 ,., ..� . �„ �.... PINS TE�-`� J '�- t�rv�T r+Frga -> (v O Ig�'7 2P�o a. 18 �.co�o -> ,ft 1 !°f LfF1R l4ro {ou�an�o lu/8 -� 2IPVIv�r N1=� �wvt�T't�c-cam Z PIZ4VE H�D�E 5 Go Lo -tx�cx� I J `�` i 114 (f� ONN APP PLA lP+d E3 2 - 1_= Pt_AN -I�►ATA „ ' DRAINAGE DATA a k e HARD_SURFACE AREAS �t G BOAR ------ ------ t`is e Vc r 38.500 SF X .16 FEET:X 1 6160 CF OF �►a�T� PAVED AREA ---- = MC CUBIC T ........_.1 s... _ � � - • 198 ' +---------- 30. 00 SF VOLUME REAUIRED' SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX'MAP IESIGNATION ROOF AREA --------- - 81000 SF � E Xi.+,T1 rJ�GOt�.C►i�V(Z ���� ' --------•-------- -- ------ 1:0 WOODLAND AREAS ---..•------------------ COEFFICIENT'OF RUNOFF---- ----------- ------------ PARCEL: WREAS I S,,.,.__.., PRor'OSi;9 P NEW conk OM PT, OF 9.2 --------` --- BLOCKS 6 WOODLAND ---- --•-------- -- 53.500 SF VC m 53.5 X .i X .4 ` L N I�_ 00 SF 6 FEET - 428 CF 1 nN I SECTION: 069 CDEFFICIENT OF RUNOFF --- -------" .03 . REQUIRED - �I S E �v sG VOLUME RE D - 428 Cf. ------------- DISTRICT: 1000 .. - - — -- - �l ' .----•-------------�'--- 125.500 SF BRASS AREAS ��VORT ' GRASS � � u COEFFICIENT OF RUNOFF .s...r.____-- .15. -------- ------------ ------- • 5 o ------ -----•--------- -------------- Vc m 125.500 SF X .16 FEET X m 3012 CF OWNER OF RECORD RAINFALL --•-----=------'w---- R ' � 2INCNES NEW •• a . TOTAL VOLUME R AUI ED ":` 600 CF S�LVATDRE.;1 JEANNE CATAPANO 'VOLUME�CALCULATION FORMILiV VC a ARC 16 - BASINS,10'-0 a DIANEIER '•0' BEEP i MAIN ROAD 628 CUBIC FEET VOLUME PER BA APR , t. ����i1987 . ' S<aUTHDIb, NEW YORK-11971 } - VOLUME PROVIDED e 10049 CUBICEET UEF01,� T D SL Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 April 14, 1987 Mr. Paul A. Caminiti Attorney at Law P.O. Box 992 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Church of the Open Door Site plan Dear Mr. Caminiti: The -following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, April 13, 1987. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan for the Church of the Open Door for construction of a church located at Main Bayview Road, Southold, site plan :dated as revised February 6 , 1987. It was noted that a special exception had been granted by the Board of Appeals and the plan had been certified by the Building Department. Upon receipt of the endorsement from the Chairman, we will forward a site plan to you. If you have any questions, please don' t hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHA RMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary cc: Building Department Board of Appeals 4 SITE PLAN ELEMENTS 4100-134 Town Code ( �) Lot, block, and section number, if any, or the property taken from tax records (� ) Name and address of the owner of record ( X ) Name and address of the person preparing the map ( �) Date, North arrow and written and graphic scale ( ) Sufficient description or information to precisely define the boundaries of the property. All distances shall be in feet and tenths of a foot. All angles shall be given to the nearest ten seconds or closer. The error of closure shall not exceed one in ten thousand. (x ) The locations, name, and existing width of adjacent streets and curblines ( X) The location and owners of all adjoining lands, as shown on the latest tax records r ( ) Location, width and purpose of all existing and proposed easements, setbacks reservations, and areas dedicated to public use withinor adjoining property. (�) A complete outline of existing deed restrictions or covenants applying to theproperty (� ) Existing zoning Existing contours at intervals of five or less, referred to a datum satisfactory to the Board ( ) Approximate boundaries of any areas subject to flooding or stormwater overfl (� ) Location of existing watercourses, marshes, wooded areas, rock outcrops isolated trees with a diameter of eight inches or measured three feet above the base of the trunk and other significant existing features. ( ) Location of uses and outlines of structures, drawn to scale on and within one hundred (100) feet of the lots. - (�) Paved areas, sidewalks, and wehicular access between the site and public streets ( ) Locations, dimensions, grades and flow direction of existing sewers, culvert and waterlines as well as other underground and above ground utilities within and adjacent to the property. Other exi.9ting deve opment, including fences, landscaping and screening ( 7� ThEJ lidatiab of proposed buildings or structural improvement The location and design ofall uses not requiring structures such as off street parking and loading areas. ( �) The location, direction, power and time of use of any proposed outdoor lighting or public address systems. ( 7�) The location of, and plans for, any outdoor signs ( �) The location and arrangement of proposed means of access and egress, including sidewalks, driveways or other paved areas; profiles indicating grading and cross sections showing width of roadway, location and width of sidewalks and lcoation and size of water and sewer lines. OVER. . . Pt Site plan elements cont. (3100-134) ( Any proposed grading, screening and other landscaping including types / and locations of proposed street trees. ( ) The location of all proposed waterlines, valves and hydrants and of all sewer lines or alternate means of water supply and sewage disposal and treatment. ( ) An outline of any proposed deed retrictions and/or covenants. ( ) Any contemplted public improvements on or adjoining the property. ( ) If the site development plan indictes only ' a first stage, a supplementary plan shall indicate ultimate develoment. ( ) Any other information deemed by the Planning Board necessary to determine conformity of the site plan with the intent and regulations of this chapter._ czz .'PEALS BOARD MEMBERS • �' SUFFU(,� Southold Town ;1al1 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman �� 53095 Main Road C' James Dinizio, Jr. y P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora ^x+ Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 George Horning l �� Telephone (631) 765-1509 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2001 Appl. No. 4903—L.I. HEAD START CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. STREET& LOCATION: 1850 Main Bayview Road, Southold 1000-75-4-28 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: January 4, 2001 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS: The subject property comprises 5.0 acres off the west side of Main Bayview Road in Southold. It is improved with a building formerly used as a church, which includes several classrooms. Applicant occupies the property as tenant. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: On October 19, 2000, under Application No. 4880, this Board granted applicant a Special Exception pursuant to Code section 100-31(B)(4) authorizing operation of a nursery school on the lower level of the building. Applicant stated at that time that a request would be made for authorization of additional nursery school space on the upper floor,and it is that request which is being made in the current Application. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW: (1) Applicant presented materials showing that the upper floor of the building will be used for one classroom for up to 18 children, plus office and meeting space. Each of the three classrooms on the lower level accommodates up to 18 children. The Board understands that applicant has authorization from relevant authorities to operate a nursery school for 72 children. The three existing classrooms plus the proposed additional one would accommodate this number. (2) Applicant stated that all information presented in Appl. No. 4880 remains correct. No objections to, or comments about, applicant's operation was submitted to the Board. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Dinizio, seconded by Member Horning, it was RESOLVED,that the findings set forth in the Board's grant of a Special Exception under Appl. No. 4880 are deemed restated in their entirety, and that such Special Exception is AMENDED to authorize applicant to conduct a nursery school on the subject property for up to 72 children. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Members Goehringer (Chairman), Dinizio, Tortora, Collins, and Horning. This Resolution was duly adopted ("). GERARD VGOEHKINGER, N JAN 1 a 1001 Southold Town Planning Board Q� APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS• O S FFD( • Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman �� y� 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. H = P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora p • Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collinsd p! ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 George Horning l �p Telephone (631)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2001 Appl. No. 4903—L.I. HEAD START CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. STREET& LOCATION: 1850 Main Bayview Road, Southold 1000-75-4-28 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: January 4, 2001 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS: The subject property comprises 5.0 acres off the west side of Main Bayview Road in Southold. It is improved with a building formerly used as a church, which includes several classrooms. Applicant occupies the property as tenant. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: On October 19, 2000, under Application No. 4880, this Board granted applicant a Special Exception pursuant to Code section 100-31(6)(4) authorizing operation of a nursery school on the lower level of the building. Applicant stated at that time that a request would be made for authorization of additional nursery school space on the upper floor,and it is that request which is being made in the current Application. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW: (1) Applicant presented materials showing that the upper floor of the building will be used for one classroom for up to 18 children, plus office and meeting space. Each of the three classrooms on the lower level accommodates up to 18 children. The Board understands that applicant has authorization from relevant authorities to operate a nursery school for 72 children. The three existing classrooms plus the proposed additional one would accommodate this number. (2) Applicant stated that all information presented in Appl. No. 4880 remains correct. No objections to, or comments about,applicant's operation was submitted to the Board. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Dinizio, seconded by Member Homing, it was RESOLVED,that the findings set forth in the Board's grant of a Special Exception under Appl. No. 4880 are deemed restated in their entirety, and that such Special Exception is AMENDED to authorize applicant to conduct a nursery school on the subject for up to 72 children. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Members hringer airm in io ora, Collins, and Horning. This Resolution was duly adopte -0). ERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRM i APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS gUFFO(,�COG • ". hold Town Hall �.� y Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman p 55 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. y OCT 3 0 2000 P.O. Box 1179 QIh Lydia A. Tortora p Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins O`' Southold TOVATeP�A Fax (631) 765-9064 qy Ol �a i' anning Boafflephone (631) 765-1809 George Horning BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD b FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2000 G f Appl. No. 4880 — L.I. HEAD START CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INC. (` Parcel: 1850 Main Bayview Road, Southold 1000-75-4-28 " Zone District: R-80 Residential ULI v Date of Public Hearing: October 19, 2000 FINDINGS OF FACT Southold Town Planning Board PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Applicant-L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc., is the proposed tenant of a building formerly occupied by The Church of the Open Door with school facility. The property contains five acres with access off the westerly side of Main Baview Road in Southold and is referred to as Lot 3 on the Minor Subdivision Map of Salvatore Catapano. The building and existing parking areas received approvals on April 14, 1986 from the Town for the former church facility and related uses. APPLICANT'S REQUEST/BASIS OF APPLICATION: The Applicant is requesting a Special Exception under Article III, Section 100-31, subsection B(4) of the Southold Town Zoning Code for a nursery school. The proposed Nursery School is proposed for 45 students on the lower level of the existing building, with the applicant returning to the Board for consideration of occupancy of the first floor. Details of the layout of the site, as exists, are more particularly shown on the Sheet A-1 of Plan dated April 12, 1989 prepared by Richard A. Keillor, R.A. All parking and screening will be determined by the Southold Town Planning Board as provided under the Zoning Code site plan regulations and/or approved site plan of record. STANDARDS/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: After review of the requirements set forth pursuant to Chapter 100, Article III, Section 100-31-B, governing a Nursery School Use by Special Exception review, and on the basis of testimony presented and personal inspection, the Board finds: 1. Nursery schools are permitted in this R80 Residential Zone District under Section 100-31B(`/) of the Town Zoning Code, subject to special exception authorization of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In this review the Board determines that the proposed Nursery School Use is in harmony with the zoning ordinance and will not adversely affect the neighborhood if such requirements are met. 2. The proposed Nursery School complies with the lot size provisions of the Zoning Code. This building and facility will be located on five acres of land. In addition, the Board has reviewed the General Standards governing Special Exception uses set forth in Section 100-263 and finds that: Page 2 —Appl. No. SE-488 • L.I. Head Start Decision Rendered 10/19/00 A) This Nursery School will not prevent the orderly and reasonable in this Residential Zone District and adjacent districts. The adjacent property to the north is agricultural with sales of farm products. B) This use will not prevent 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 uses in adjacent use districts. C) The safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, and the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location. The proposed expansion will allow the Nursery School to provide enhanced services that will benefit all of the community. D) The use will be in harmony with and will promote the general purposes and intent of the code. E) The use is compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regarding to visibility, scale and overall appearance. F) The structures, equipment and material will be accessible for emergency protection. In making this determination, the Board has also reviewed other matters under Section 100-264, and finds that no adverse conditions will result from this authorization: A. There will be no adverse change in the character of the existing and probable development of uses in the district and the peculiar suitability of such district for the location of such permitted uses. B. Property values will be conserved. A Nursery School use is encouraged and allowed by Special Exception approval from the Board of Appeals. C. The location of the proposed Nursery School will not cause traffic congestion on public streets, highways and sidewalks. D. There is availability of adequate and proper public or private water supply and facilities for the treatment, removal or discharge of sewage, refuse or other effluent (whether liquid, solid, gaseous or otherwise) as a result of this use. E. The use or the materials incidental thereto will not give off obnoxious gases, odors, smoke or soot. Page 3 —Appl. No. 5E-488J • L.I. Head Start Decision Rendered 10/19/00 F. The use will not cause disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, dust, light, vibration or noise. G. The operation of a nursery school facility will not cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public of parking or of recreational facilities, existing or proposed by the town or by other competent governmental agencies. H. The necessity for bituminous-surfaced space for purposes of off-street parking of vehicles incidental to the use and whether such space is reasonably adequate and appropriate and can be furnished by the owner of the plot sought to be used within or adjacent to the plot wherein the use shall be located, and by approval of the Southold Town Planning Board under the site plan regulations. I. There is no evidence to show that there will be any hazard to life, limb or property because of fire, flood, erosion or panic by reason of or as a result of the use or by the building to be used, or by the accessibility of the property or structures thereon for the convenient entry and operation of fire and other emergency apparatus. There will not be undue concentration or assemblage of persons upon such plot in the normal activities of a library. 1. The use and the building location will not cause an overcrowding of land or undue concentration of population. K. The plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for this library use. L. The use to be operated is not unreasonably near to a church, school, theater, recreational area or other place of public assembly. M. The site is particularly suitable for a nursery school, which was formerly use as a church with its own school facilities. N. No evidence has been presented to show that there would be any detrimental impact to adjacent properties and land uses. O. Adequate provision has been made for the collection and disposal of storm-water runoff, sewage, refuse, solid, and liquid waste. There will be no gaseous waste generated from this project. P. The natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems or processes and without risk of pollution to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Dinizio, it Page 4— Appl. No. 5E-48800 • L.I. Head Start v Decision Rendered 10/19/00 was RESOLVED, to GRANT the application, as applied for, with the understanding that occupancy of the first (upper) floor will be subject to review by Special Exception in a separate future application for expansion or similar use. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS GOEHRINGER (Chairman), DINIZIO, TORTORA, and COLLINS. (Member Horning was absent during this Resolution.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). ff . GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN S T U D I O �K Architectural Group, P.C. September 8,2000 Town of Southold Southold Town Hall l� P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road SEP i l 2000 Southold,New York 11971 ATT: PLANNING BOARD SQ.'"tloki -town Planning 9 oerd RE: REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS 1850 MAIN BAYVIEW ROAD,SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK To whom this may concern: The above referenced facility has recently been purchased by Long Island Head Start Child Development Services and is being renovated to serve as a new childcare facility. Presently, we are in the process of applying for a "Special Exception for Educational Use". To assist us in expediting the application process and for general information purposes, we are formally requesting access to the public records, specifically the site plan records, relative to the subject site. The following is pertinent information relative to the subject site: Prior Owner Of Record: The Church of The Open Door Salvatore and Jeanne Catapano Main Road, Southold,NY Project Location: 1850 Main Bayview Road, Southold,NY Current SCTM# District 1000, Section 75,Block 4,Lot 28. (Suffolk County Grantor/Grantee, Libor 10333, Document 373, 05/27/87). Expired SCTM#: District 1000, Section 69, Block 6, Part of Lot 9.2. Please call me at your earliest convenience to schedule a time and date for me to visit your office and access the subject records. Thank you in advance for you attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Studio A Architectural Group,P.C. Jean-Pie ardoux, AIA President cc: Mr. Charles K. Evdos,Deputy Director, L. I.Head Start. 7PLSTUDIOA/LIHEADSTART/Foa ETMR.DOC 441 Eastern Parkway,Suite A Farmingdale,New York 11735-2436 Phone:516-249-3735 Facsimile:516-249-3910 E-Mail:StudioAGrp@aol.com PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 3' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Richard G.Ward, Chairman °� -� �4 George Ritchie Latham,Jr. � ;;. 'Y P. o. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. ' �± Southold, New York 11971 )� Mark S. McDonald °r tiu y' Fax(516) 765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards _ r" Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 29 , 1994 Edward Hansen Church of the Open Door < 1850 Main Bayview Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Request for guidance for propopsed expansion Church of the Open Door Main Bayview Road, Southold Zoning District: Low Density Residential (R-80) SCTM# 1000-61-1-25 Dear Pastor Hansen, Thank you for your letter of May 9, 1994, requesting the Board' s guidance in the proposed extension to your present facility. As you had indicated in your letter, a review of the Special Exception granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals contained a condition that any future expansion would require a further review by that Board. A submission of the preliminary plan should be made to the Building Department to determine if a site plan is required. If the Building Department determines that a site plan is required I have enclosed a site plan application for your use. Please indicate the use or uses of this new facility on the plan. In summary, you must review your plans with the Building Department to see if a site plan is required. If a plan is required a site plan application must be filed with the Planning Department. Further, a review of the condition of the Special Exception must be made with the Zoning Board of Appeals. If you wish to review your plans informally with this Department please contact Mr. Robert Kassner of my staff at this office. ar, y, ' Ward Chairman CC: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals. Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector in Charge �iCh�rch Open Dour !I I it II May 27, 1444 Richard G. Ward,Chairman Open Door Ministries Southold Planning Board Southold, Long Island, 53045 Main Road New York 11971 Southold,N.Y. 11471 (516) 765-4137 Pastor Dear Mr. Ward, Edward I lmuen Thank you for your recent kind letter outlining steps is : _or our proposed expansion. I look forward to contacting Mr. Robert Kassner for an informal review of our plans. Sincerely, Reverend d Hansen Pastor MAY 3 1 1994 SOUTHOLDTOWN PUNNING BOARD ci yrri" Open Door _ _- May 9, 1994 Mr . Richard Ward, Chairman Open Door Ministries Southold Town Planning Board Southold, Long Island, Town Hall New York 11471 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4137 Pastor Dear Mr . Ward, Edward I lanscn Church of the Open Door is anticipating the construction of an extension to our present facility . Our original Special Exception contains a paragraph / limiting construction to this present facility and this would need to be amended. Would you advise us as to the specific application and procedures to grant this amendment . I have enclosed a preliminary site plan of the new construction - and emphasize the preliminary aspect of this work. We look forward to working with you on this project to the benefit of Southold Town . Sinc-erely , f Edward Hansen E:MA:Y94RD Page 2 - No. 3478 rpFF / Metter of CHURCH OF THE OPEN OCOR O- Decision Ren ere Novem er 20,X986 o Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD. L.1., N.Y. 11971 v TELEPXONE(5161765,16M 99 feet from the east property line. ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4. It is noted for the record that this action is for a House of Worship. as more particularly shown an the Site Plan prepared June 18, 1986 and is not deemed Appeal No. 3487-SE Application Dated March 19, 1986 to be a Special Exception for any other construction which should be proposed In the future, , TO: Paul A. Caminiti , Esq. as [Appellant(all Attorney for CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR S. Located along the south property line are parcels Main Road, Box 992 improved with single-family dwellings, as well as dwellings Southold, NY 11971 to the west and to.the northeast. 6. It is also noted for the record that this project • At a Meetino of thisd Zoning Boarof Appre Appeal= held rr November 20, 1986 shown on the site plan under consideration will meet the the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken requirements of sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 100-308 of the Zoning Code at to minimum setbacks and maximum tot on your I I Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access .o Property coverage as noted therein. New York Town Law, Section 280-a IX) Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance in considering this application as shown with a 4 P P minimum setback of 70 feet from the south property line Article III , Section 100-30(8) depicted on Site Plan prepared June 18, 1986 by Keillor Arch.: I I Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance (a) The House of Worship will not prevent the orderly and Article Section reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (b) The House of Worship will not i I Request for prevent the orderly and re4sonable use of permitted or • legally established uses in the district wherein the Application of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR for a Special Exception to proposed use is to be located, or of permitted or legally the Zoning Ordinance, Article 111, Section 100-30(8)[2] for permission established uses to adjacent use districts; (c) the to construct and establish House of Worship with related religious safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order activities on a five-acre tract of land referred to as Lot 03, Minor of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed of Subdivision of Salvatore Catapano, which received Sketch-Plan Approval House of illWorbe and its location; pro the House er 4/14/86 by the Town Planning Board. Location of Property: West Side Worship will be to harmony with and promote the general of Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, purposes and intent of this chapter. The Board has also Section 69, Block 6, Part of Lots 8 and 2. (Current Owners: S. and considered subsections [a] through [1] of Article XII. J. Catapano). Section 100-121(C)[2] of the Zoning Code. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on October 2, Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by 1986 in the Matter-of the Application of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR Mr. Gri goof s, it was • under Application No. 3487; and RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception for a "House of WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard Worship" in the Matter of the Application of CHURCH OF THE were heard and their testimony recorded; and OPEN DOOR, No. 3478, as shown by Site Plan prepared June 18, 981 6 y�Keillor Architects (indicating- setbacks at 70 feet WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all 'testimony and from the south property line, etc.), subject to receiving final documentation submitted conce ruing.this application; and Site Pian approval by the Pl annt nn-Board as required by Article III. Section 100-300 o the Code. WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and Oouglass,. Doyen and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, applicant requests a Special Excep- Ik GOEHIrINGER,tion under under the Provisions of Article III, Section 100-30(6)[21 November 24, 1986 for a "House of.Worship" to be located on a five-acre tract of land along the west side of Main Bayview Road, Southold, referred to as Lot 03 inn, pending Minor Subdivision of Salvatore Catapano and more particularly shown on sketched subdivision mapped October 15, 1985 by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. 2. The premises in question is located to the "A=20" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and has received Sketch-Plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board on the pending subdivision on April 14, 1986. 3. The Site Plan under consideration shows a proposed new church building with a setback of 70 feet from the southerly proDerty.iine. 185 feet from the west property line. DATED: November 20. '1986. CIDLIRMAN, BOU:AOLD 1'J'r'.V ZONING BOARD OF AIPLAS5 1 N.7q°49' Sot p 627,43 i Is AgftA 5.0 CHPGN 'I StauaPLK N DO'IItSO�E 438,9 Q Acµ6s Bu ILOI Pte► °� - -- - \ L-- --- ----- 47 - Z F)WeD OF4vF- J� ga r 6UILDIN65bT9GGKUNF� — - �I -�eillor i �� Architects ENa survey srtm , 1642 Edgavrood Amnus South I I SITE PLAN, MADE FOR CUM OF THE OPEN/00011. LOCATION t St Louis Park Mlmstwta 5542E SOUTHOLD. SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEN YORK, SCALE 1' = IOp CONTOURS SNONN IN U.S.S.S. DATUM, LOT 13: SUBDIVISION OF Tslstlhons 16121 345•1324 _ SALVATORE CATAPANO, GUARANTEED TO SOUTHOLD SAYIN69 BARK AND OIL Ssl- ={est er' �+.i '�. AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY 1803-5-5415, DATED3 APRIL, 12, Ift F0(,Y�, 0 00 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 1� Southold. New York 1 1971 1 TELEPHONE (516) 7651938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Planning Board DATE: December 18, 1989 RE: Walter Glasser SCTM #1000-61-1-25 The following is in response to your request of December 7, 1989 for comments on application number 3890 Walter Glasser. The Planning Board is in favor of this use when Local Law Number 23 takes effect upon its filing with the Secretary of State. `sera rn Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 *' Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Victor Lessard Building Department Southold, NY 11971 RE: Church of the open Door SCTM #1000-iO6 9 6 Dear Mr. Lessard: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, June 5, 1989. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board recomend to the Building Department that they issue a certificate of occupancy for this site plan located on Bayview Road at Southold. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Ver my yours, B_NNETT ORLOWSKI,Jr. CHAIRMAN cc: Mike Jacgby, Church of the Open Door jt �'(ir.N Town Hall. 53095 Main Road p '� P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 2, 1989 Tom Christianson c/o Church of the Open Door Southold, New York 11971 RE: Church of the Open Door Dear Mr. Christianson: The Planning Board reviewed the amendments you submitted on April 14, 1989. Please submit an As Built survey for the site. This must be signed and sealed by a licensed surveyor or engineer. Please notify the Planning Board when all work is done on the site. Very tr ly yo r BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN _ HIS a *t.�� _+ D JJ SOUiHOLD i^�^:1 -TO �E7�✓!�(2 Qr(Di-v Ski PLANNI�"�'�` _ P �eas� 9,,Ac/ eDar ammcv-4ed n;( -- p/�dn.) —Merc a/ C -( O Ce awloitevl C{ �s each I�2d I CQ7�� /�1 R!Q( 641 ie si nn P/dn , r 1 , tt -siJeLc1A 70 14e se"Aeds f cvt f rancc a. Oe Wa(Ald ACUIC. One is)ancl iti the prbn, f 49 rhea // // J J. r[ Con-�ourcd h /1 i0 our 1O/dy "kr%c/ area ( i watLld b e scec�ed e •) ��11 I jack have- am / Ue4" ®r conee.-ns teja rc ,,wr -gcs<- aavr please calf v-- Lvr(A A ►kc . 7.34-5-467 C/b C�"rc0/-t, Do.0 60 Q( �j y /191 , 1 � D � gHonsen, MAR 2QSo�Tr� y March 14, 1989 Mr. Benny Orlowski Planning Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 RE: Certificate of Occupancy E . Dear Mr. Orlowski , Ogen Door Ministries As you may know, the Church of the Open Southold, Long Island, Door, Main Bayview Road - Southold, has New York, 11971 been under construction for the past year and a half . (516) 764-2603 We have a problem and we need your help. Our lender, Southold Savings Bank, will not convert our building loan to a permanent mortgage and will not give us our final building loan payment until we obtain a permanent Certificate of Occupancy. According to the terms of our loan agreement , we have until May 18th. to convert from a building loan to a mortgage. We believe we have complied with the site plan and are ready for our final inspection by the Planning Board in order to secure our Certificate of Occupancy. Would you be kind enough to call me at my home (765-5331 ) or at the Church ( 765-4137) to set up an appointment at your earliest convenience . Our local creditors sure would like to see us receive that last installment from Southold Savings Bank. Thank you in advance for all your help. Sincerely,A 41� Don Aldrich Chairman of the Trustees P g�FFOLK� r4 D .c T LD S Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 January 20, 1987 Mr. Paul Caminiti Attorney at Law P.O. Box 992 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Church of the Open Door Site Plan at Southold Dear Mr. Caminiti: As per your request, the Planning Board reviewed the above mentioned site plan dated January 7, which you left with us. Enclosed is the site plan with the Board' s notations regarding those items which must be addressed on the final plan. If you have any questions, please don' t hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, ��- BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD enc. By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary CHU 6UI LfJING � '' -- L.OWEi2 FLS EL. 1_210, -;` � • -- _� � i \ y –� r1q 0- - � � � • 17,5 _ �— fy _ ' i B � - 114-1-0" I lGf IS w-wiLiry � I�JED'SEME�.Ij' DRAINAGE DATA -------------------------------- T AREA -------------- 22.400 SF Rop 12c�Ni/4/h�/�C�G �I j --------------------- -2 INCHES T OF RUNOFF ---------------- 1 AS CULATION FORMULA Vc = ARC ) SF X .16 FEET X 1 = 3584 CF TIRED = 3584 CUBIC FEET 8'-0 • DIAMETER X 8'-0' DEEP 'IDED = 3617 CUBIC FEET "to sere. 127 I x1l T14 II \ LPPLAING1 LI4r \ N 1�t �. \ /��� 141% I IPARKI�NG2 0- Alt RSP I'2�-� r, R \\ Su I li 4c-d{i I , i FLow Ilk 4 v - rr is 7 M'D D'. 2 ate'_o• �.�_1'/�': • AFM Drz 1 6Wt- 4412 N — — ,YRIa/�S?C 1 t - -7 - Iw is r= STI r.I�s Gpt tt UUIZ —l5 PRoPO=�:D NE,nI Cor1N�12. I1 ® �XlSTINGi SPOT ELEIJI I7n EXISTI NCS YIIEIE- INJORT , / I 2 -- --- _ PROP. CHL) 2C 5UI LC '�_ - - - -- - - ,2 F t_GwEL L -----ll--U 414- I(F14 o s 1-7 161 i / I t,PLiT- 12P-IL fry W--- 1 SITE PLAN DATA i XXXX##;#X##XXXf#XfXf#XffffXf###X #ffif##f#X#XfX#fX#fffXXfffffX#�\ SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP DESIGNATION DRAINAGE DATA ' ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- PARCEL: PT. OF 4.2 BLOCK: 6 PARKING LOT AREA -------------- 22.400 SF SECTION: 064 RAINFALL ---------------------- -2 INCHES C DISTRICT: 1000 COEFFICIENT OF RUNDFF ---------------- I VOLUME CALCULATION FORMULA Vc = ARC _ OWKER OF RECCR: V: = 22.400 Sr X .16 FEET X 1 = 3584 CF ----------------------------------------- VDLL'ME REDUIREL = 3584 CUBIC FEET SA:VATDF- S JEANS- CATAPANC MAIK RD-' - BASINS E'-0 ' DIAMETER X E'-C' CEEP ?NDLh. krw YORK Ili-,! VOLUME PROVIDE: = 3617 CUBIC FEE- 15 I� / D�zNCWAY f4je. 1K6— ( '5& CAI Z.) o�l Lo --- iuT �\ �ZZ IV - C I I-1CLG"�t `" i ; _,�_ _ _ �XIr„�1GGU(MMJ7�vI2 SITE PLAN l S PKoPc7::�°D N Ew G0�172i111�. II 0 EM XINr e.POTELE\)4M `-J scale.0 III=341 o s Io 20 30 — 40 _50 FflsnW& Y2E0 NORTH,06 ) g�FFO(,Y P D T LD S Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 January 13 , 1987 Mr. Paul Caminiti, esq. Attorney at Law P.O. Box 992 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Church of the Open Door Site plan at Southold . Dear Mr. -Caminiti: Your correspondence of January 7, has been reviewed by the Planning Board. It was the consensus of the Board that crushed stone would be acceptable to the Planning Board, as per the specifications of the Inspector. However, the Board would like a commitment on the site plan that at some future date the parking area will be improved with asphalt. If you have any questions , please don' t hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, Z ,L4-,C 0P-1 O -j (�,� BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary ,�JAi�' U 1987 ®Yaw © suFFOLK OFFICE OF 84078 MAIN RD. COR. BECKWITH P.O. BOX 992 Aa _/f r� REPLY TO: BOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971.0992 l�(J(`/ (818) 788-1401 January 7 , 1987 r-1 NEW YORK CITY OFFICE 198 COURT STREET Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman BROOKLYN, N.Y. 11201-8287(718) 849-1800 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall IRWIN R. KAPLAN Southold, NY 11971 OF COUM99L Attention: Diane Schultze Re : Church of the Open Door Site Plan Dear Mr. Orlowski : In reply to your letter of December 11 , 1986 , please be advised that our architect is redrawing the site plan so as to comply with the suggested changes numbered one, two, four through seven. The Church has elected to eliminate the storm drainage area and, therefore, suggested change number eight referring to the test holes can be eliminated. As far as the paving is concerned, however, we would very much like to pave the driveway and the entire parking area with either crushed or powdered stone to the specifications of the Town Building Code. The cost of paving the same area with asphalt, as suggested by your Board, is prohibitive to us at the present time. It is respectfully requested that you will reconsider this matter and allow us to pave the entire area as outlined above. I have been informed that the Universalist Church in Southold recently used a similar material and it is appealing, not only to the eye, but also to the pocketbook. Other arguements for the use of crushed stone have been previously raised by our Pastor, namely environmental integrity and better drainage, however, I believe that the deciding factor is the cost that is involved in asphalting the entire area. As soon as I receive the amended site plans, I will forward the same to you. In the meantime, if you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to communicate directly with my office. Thank you for your continued courtesy and attention in this matter. Very Zrully yours, UL A. CAMINITI PAC: sel P11V j D �c T �� 'LD S �..9 Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 January 5, 1987 Church of the Open Door Reverend Edward Hansen Open Door Ministries Southold, NY 11971 n Re: Church of the Open Door Site plan at Southold Dear Reverend Hansen: We are in receipt of your December 18 correspondence with regard to the above mentioned site plan. The Planning Board can only make a recommendation to the Building Department for a certificate of occupancy upon completion of the site elements. The Board's policy has been not to make recommendations with regard to requests for temporary certificates of occupancy. Please contact our office when you are ready for your certificate of occupancy. The Planning Board will make an inspection and recommendation at that time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, igu)L� CL�S , ( , �- D BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIR SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD December 18, 1987 Pastor Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Edward Hansen, Jr. Planning Board Southold Town Hall OOpen Door Ministries Main Road (� Southold, New York 11971 Southold, long Islond, Nein York, 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski, (516) 76r&2603 Church of the Open Door has completed its construction work, plumbing, heating, electrical, etc. on the main floor of its sanctuary on Main Bayview Road, Southold, New York. The surveying stakes are all in place, septic system approved, retaining walls built, handicap ramps installed, rough grading finished etc.. As winter has set in we are presently unable to complete our parking lot and landscaping during these months. We would like to occupy our building with a temporary CO subject to your approval. Mr. Lessard suggested we make this request to you. The following contractors have been retained for parking lot, South Fork Asphalt Company, Drywells, Oliver Campbell, and landscaping, Mr. Cliff Goldsmith and Mr. Joseph Betty. The drywells will be installed at the earliest possible date, they have already been ordered. The parking lot will be installed as soon as Spring weather permits. The landscaping will begin in May. Please note that most of our shrubs and trees have already been selected and are waiting for the completion of the parking lot. The parking lot lighting will be installed previous to the installation of the parking lot. It will cause us great hardship if we delay occupancy of our building. On behalf of the congregation of the Church of the Open Door I ask that you kindly grant our temporary CO, subject to and contingent upon the above scheduled completion. Sincerely, Reverend Edward Hansen S�FFO(kc2 PN 1! D T LD S o Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 April 2, 1987 Mr. Paul A. Caminiti Attorney at Law P.O. Box 992 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Church of the Open Door Site Plan Dear Mr. --Caminiti: Please let this confirm the following action taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, March 30, 1987. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the site plan for the Church of the Open Door for construction of a church with related ministries located at Main Bayview Road, Southold to the Building Department for certification. Site plan dated as amended February 6, 1987. Would you please forward three (3) additional site plans for our referral to the Building Department. If you have any questions, please don' t hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, Anmj± oALGw LL. W cLry.,y BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary cc: Building Department S�FFD(,r� P CU D T LD S Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 December 11, 1986 Mr. Paul Caminiti Attorney at Law P.O. Box 992 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Church of the Open Door Site Plan Dear Mr. Caminiti: The Planning Board reviewed the site plan for the Church of the Open Door. The enclosed is a list of those items which have to be deleted or added to the site plan. Upon receipt of six (6) amended site plans in accordance with the list, we will schedule this matter on the next available agenda of the Planning Board. If you have any questions, please don' t hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours , BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc. CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR Changes to the site plan: 1. Amend the map to eliminate the "lot for future residence" on the key map and eliminate the "future addition" 2. Indicate the drainage and calculations 3 . Indicate the paving in the parking area - asphalt requested. 4. Indicate the type of outdoor lighting - this is to be shielded so it remains on the property 5. Submit a landscape plan, including the buffers to the residential area. 6. Show the playground area. 7. The driveway should be 90° with Main Bayview Road. 8. A test hole should be done inthe storm drainage area to determine if it is suitable for drainage. If it is suitable, the drainage area should be fenced with curbing and piping; if it is not suitable, provide drainage in the parking area to the Town specifications. 15 December 22, 1986 Church of the OPEN DOOR Planning Board Pastor 11Town of Southold L-lEdward Hansen, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Ogen Door Ministries Dear Por. Orlowski, Southold, Long Island, Neu� Vork, 11971 As regards Church of the Open Door Site Plan- (516) 764-2603 Parking paved areas . It is my hope you will consider the follow ing reservations and concluding proposal. We have four con- cerns as regards asphalt, each important; aesthetics, envir- onment, drainage and finance. (1) Aesthetically we prefer crushed stone, juxtaposed to black top. Consider the very recent (re-done) Universalist Church parking lot installed by George Schroeder to King Kullen. It also allows more freedom for landscaping. (2) Environmentally-crushed stone has none of the potential hazards of asphalt. (3) Drainage-The total proposed area 24 , 000 sq.ft. of parking paved with an impermeable surface will increase the flooding problem and necessitates creation of an elaborate artifical drainage system. (4) Financially the total cost of asphalt over 35, 000 sq.ft. plus additional cisterns is extravagant. It is our desire to use a crushed stone blend entirely in the parkin area. Proposal: (1) Asphalt entire driveway 8 , 000 sq. ft. (2) 3 inch rolled packed loam base 2 inch crushed stone- blend ,later fine crushed colored stone cap. Sincere EH/bcm Reverend ; Edward Hansen Olt W LY�. -OL NOV 2 5 1986 I S�FFat,r0 0 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD ' MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI November 25 , 1986 Paul A. Caminiti , Esq . Main Road , Box 992 Southold , NY 11971 Re : Application No . 3487 - Church of the Open Door (Spec. Exc . ) Dear Mr. Caminiti : Attached hereto is a copy of the official findings and determination recently rendered and filed this date with the Office of the Clerk concerning the above matter . In the event your application has been approved , please be sure to return to the Building Department for approval of any new construction , in writing , or other documents as may be applicable . If this application involves a pending subdivision or site plan , please return to the Planning Board for further processing by their office . Please do not hesitate to call either our office (765- 1809) or that of the Building Inspector (765- 1802 ) if you have any questions . Yours very truly , GERARD P . GOEHRINGER Enclosure CHAIRMAN Copy of Decision to Building Department By Linda Kowalski Planning Board Richard J . Cron , Esq . Suffolk County Planning Commission o�c��EFO�,(rC�G C= , Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.1., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 7651809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3487-SE Application Dated March 19 , 1986 TO: Paul A. Caminiti , Esq . as [Appellant (s) ] Attorney for CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR Main Road , Box 992 Southold , NY 11971 At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on November 20 1986 the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property New York Town Law, Section 280-a [x ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance Article III , Section 100-30 (B ) [ ] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section [ ] Request for Application of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-30 (8 ) [2] for permission to construct and establish House of Worship with related . religious activities on a five-acre tract of . land referred to as Lot #3 , Minor Subdivision of Salvatore Catapano , which received Sketch-Plan Approval 4/14/86 by the Town Planning Board . Location of Property : West Side of Main Bayview Road , Southold , NY ; County Tax Map District 1000 , Section 69 , Block 6 , Part of Lots _8 and 2 . (Current Owners : S. and J . Catapano ) . WHEREAS , a public hearing was held and concluded on October 2 , 1986 in the Matter of the Application of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR under Application No. 3487 ; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded ; and WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all ' testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application ; and WHEREAS , the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question , its present zoning , and the surrounding areas ; and WHEREAS , the board made the following findings of fact : 1 . By this application , applicant requests a Special Excep- tion under the Provisions of Article III , Section 100-30 (6) [2] for a "House of .Worship" to be located on a five-acre tract of land along the west side of Main Bayview Road , Southold , referred to as Lot . #3 in pending Minor Subdivision of Salvatore Catapano and more particularly shown on sketched subdivision mapped October 15 , 1985 by Roderick VanTuyl , P . C . 2 . The premises in question is located in the "A-80" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and has received Sketch-Plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board on the pending subdivision on April 14 , 1986 . 3. The Site Plan under consideration shows a proposed new church building with a setback of 70 feet from the southerly property line , 185 feet from the west property line , DATED: November 20, 1986. CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) Page 2 - No . 3478 Matter of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR Decision Rendered November 2^ , 198r 99 feet from the east property line . 4. It is noted for the record that this action is for a House of Worship , as more particularly shown on the Site Plan prepared June 18 , 1986 and is not deemed to be a Special Exception for any other construction which should be proposed in the future . 5. Located along the south property line are parcels improved with single-family dwellings , as well as dwellings to the west and to .the northeast , 6. It is also noted for the record that this project as shown on the site plan under consideration will meet the requirements of sub- sections (a ) and (b ) of Section 100-30B of the Zoning Code as to minimum setbacks and maximum lot coverage as noted therein . In considering this application as shown with a minimum setback of 70 feet from the south property line . depicted on Site Plan prepared June 18 , 1986 by Keillor Arch . : (a ) The House of Worship will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts ; (b) The House of Worship 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 uses in adjacent use districts ; (c ) the _ _ safety , health , welfare , comfort , convenience or order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed House of Worship and its location ; (d ) the House of Worship will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The Board has also considered subsections [a] through [1 ] of Article XII , Section 100- 121 (C) [2] of the Zoning Code. Accordingly , on motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr . Grigonis , it was _ RESOLVED , to GRANT a Special Exception for a "House of Worship" in the Matter of the Application of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR , No . 3478, as shown by Site Plan prepared June 18 , 1986 by Keillor Architects (indicating setbacks at 70 feet from the south property line , etc. ) , subject to receiving final Site Plan approval by the Planning Board as required by Article III , Section 100-30B of the Zoning Code . Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Grigonis , Douglass , Doyen and Sawicki . This resolution was duly adopted. 1 k Z� /6101� GERARD P . GOEHWINGER, CHAIRMAN November 24 , 1986_ r '. L ^^^ 06THOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEO' MATTER OF CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING 9: 25 p.m. Appeal No. 34875E - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR. Special exception to con- struct and establish House of Worship with related religious activities on a five-acre tract referred to as Lot #3, Minor Subdivision of S. Catapano which received sketch plan approval 4/14/86 by the Town Planning Board. W/s Main Bayview Road, Southold. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey which shows the 5 acre parcel, March 6, 1986 in question which has 142.19 feet on Bayview Road or what we refer to as Main Bayview Road. I 've seen in the application in reviewing it several times, a copy of the subdivision plan approximately 22. 95 acres of which this one lot of which is dated October 15, 1985 being lot #3; shown indicating a building envelope of 50 feet from the south side, 75 feet from the north side and approximately 150 feet in width. A copy of a pencilled in, colored in area indicating the building which now shows a distance from the south of 111 feet as phase one construction and 60 feet from the north side approximately north. It' s a little more to the west. No. It is almost due north. And I have a copy of the site plan dated June 25, 1986 indicating the building plus a little bit further to the rear is the one prior that I just read. Again, a simi- lar type of building and parking spaces so on and so forth. And I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there anybody who would like to be heard? I think it' s Mr. Caminiti . Would you like to be heard on this matter? MR. CAMINIT'I : Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, Mr. Lessard. This is a big evening for us tonight. As you can tell, there are a number of people from the church. They're not all going to speak but they are here to indicate their support for the application. We have been waiting a long time for this tonight. So we are somewhat excited about it. So our enthusiasm shows. I see also though unfortunately, some other faces that I don't know. I might as well address that issue right now. I have reason to believe that there is some opposition. Unfortunately, in cases of this nature there is opposition. But the law is very clear in New York and in the constitution of the United States I 'd like to make two points in this regard. I don't think it' s necessary to go through the application because it' s fairly clear. We're making an appli- cation for the house of worship with all the specifications. All the activities, everything we need are completly in the file. Of the two points that I would like to make, the first point is this; under the town code, under section 30 sepcifically, numerates the permitted uses in A-Residential zone. And in section B of that same section, it clearly states that the following uses are per- mitted as special exceptions. The code lists 14 categories. And ` it starts off with the most advantageous use of the property and Page 2 - October 2, 1980 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINIT; (Continued) : that is two-family. The second is a place of worship. And than it goes on to colleges, libraries, hospitals, nursing rest homes, sanitarians, fraternity houses, golf courses, recreation camps, labor camp, (if you so wish) docking facilities, stables, ceme- taries and wineries. What I would like to call to mind is, we are making an application for a house of worship which is the second most on the list. The most advantageous use of the proper- ty that it be used. . . It' s not for a labor camp. It's not a sanitarian. And in this regard, I'd like to make one point, if I may be permitted to read something from Mr. Andersen and his book on zoning as far as what may be permitted. I 'd like to have him treat this bluntly. It subsequently pointed out in his book that I can't elaborate any better on it and it reads; the courts re- peatedly emphasize a high purpose and morale of religious insti- tutions. The contributions of religious use to the public welfare is regarded as beyond discussion or dispute and the fostering rather hindering of such uses is considered to be the established policy of this state. It logically follows that zoning regula- tions which must be reasonably related to help safety, morals or public welfare, are difficult to justify when they propose limi- tations on a religious use. The constitution of the United States and the State of New York guarantee freedoms of religion. Reli- gious uses are unique in their management. Of this application, the courts have invoked these sections and support decisions which limit municipalities to impose zoning regulations upon churches and their institutions. If you will bear with me, it goes on just a little further. Religious uses possibly to a greater extent that is true of most uses, must be centrally located. Commonly, they serve a limited primary area. The efficiency of their service _ would be impaired if they were required to locate in places incon- venient or unaccessable to their members. In addition, they serve neighborhoods by providing a meeting place for civic and charita- ble groups. Some of these events can be achieved only if the building which houses the use is within walking distance of homes. The need for a central residential location has set religious uses apart and justify special treatment. If a religious use if broadly defined, it may include schools, recreational facili- ties which do produce traffic, noise and litter luxurious to a residential district. The second point I think really is the crux of the matter inas far as there is opposition from adjacent neighbors. And again reading from Anderson the next point, con- siderations of what he is discussing, section 121 of our code, He says; these considerations presently are not relevant where religious use is involved. A permit for a religious use may not be denied because the use will be detrimental to the neighborhood and the neighbors thereof. The church may not be excluded simply because it will have an adverse effect on the land values in the vacinity. The high purpose and moral value far out weigh losses of a few persons. And there is no other inconveniences or insufficert basis for a denial of a permit. A special permit for a religious use may not be denied on the ground that the use will generate traffic, congestion or that it will diminish property values. So I felt those two points should be made right from the Page 3 - October 2, 190 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI (Continued) : beginning so that they can be kept in mind' as the hearing pro- gresses. The -balance of time remaining to us; we would like to break into 3 segments if it pleases the Board. Number one; our pastor, Pastor Hansen would like to address the Board and introduce some of the members that will explain to the Board about our church and very breifly indicate why we're here, where we came from and what we expect. And then the second segment we have a parish where we are presently located, Mr. Mulgraff who would like to read a short statement into the record: And then there are one or two other people that would like to indicate their support for the application who are from the Grange Road and Bayview area section. And finally if the Board has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I 'm going to ask you one question Mr. Caminiti . This is a question I've never asked anybody. We have had this room inundated with people probably at the point of 150 maybe 200 people when we had an application for windmill towers in Orient. I 'm going to ask you a question and I 'm going to ask you to think about it during the period of time that the remaining people and part of the congregation are speaking. I'm going to ask you how you can best tell us how we can grant this application to you and I will further expound on that towards the end of the hearing. Ok. But this is something that is rather difficult for us to deal with. There is screening involved here. There are noise level areas that we have to deal with. And I want you to think about that and see what you can do to help us in granting an application of this nature. MR. CAMINITI : I think I can give the answer now Mr. chairman. Section 100-30 of special exceptions indicate. . . Paragraph indi- cates the permitted uses in an A zone. Paragraph B shows the following uses are permitted as a special exception which mean's that with your approval. That' s why we're here, for you to grant this special permit. It is specifically permitted. The next sentence is the important part. Subject to site plan approval. Why we 're here is to have you say yes. Under the law you' re al- lowed to build a house of worship in a B zone but we have to regu- late how it' s going to be done. These are all subjects, all areas for site plan approval. At that time we can discuss buffers, light- ing, location, any limitations that are within reason can be dis- cussed and final. Everybody can have input on it. At this point, I see no reason a special application, special exception can not be granted subject to site plan approval. At that time, whatever the objections are, whatever problems there are. . . Page 4 - October 2, 190 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean site plan approval by the Plan- ning Board? Alright. I thank you and we 'll continue. I just want to say to the people that are in the audience, and I apolo- gize for interrupting the people who are going to speak and pos- sibly change somebody's train of thought and I am not doing that intentionally. There are certain people in the audience that are waiting for decisions tonight and I doubt seriously if we are going to get anywhere. I know I see Mr. Warwick in the rear of the room. I see the gentleman from Metro Electric in the front of the room. And I doubt seriously if we're going to get to any of those tonight. And not totally because of the length of this hearing, but because we do have one hearing after this one. And the only application that I know we will be voting on tonight is the application out in New Suffolk. I believe the name is Thomas Shalvey. So if you're here to wait, we'll not be dealing with anything other than that (to my knowledge) tonight. MR. HANSEN: Good evening. Mr. chairman and members of the Board. I am a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and I'm also a gradu- ate of the Boston University. I earned my master of divinity de- gree from Gordon Cahnwell. We are evangelicals. We are members of the national association of evangelical of 32,000 evangelist churches in the United States with a constituency of 10 million people. So we are not just some little group on the coin. We are Christians. We are bible reading Christians. We love the lord Jesus Christ. , The god of whom it serves and to whom I repre- sent tonight who are natives of heaven and earth of whom has said the earth is the lords and the followers thereof, would like to use 5 acres of his land. That it is why we are here. And I know it sounds like a big thing but we have a building on one tenth of an acre. We are purchasing 5 acres. Fifty times more than what we have. On some Sundays we have to ask people to stay outside. 160 people at the Sunday service, that is a lot of people to cramb into a little building. You understand. So this building now sits on 75% of it' s property. We are seeking to build on 48 of 5 acres. These things are not unreasonable. They're absolutely within our rights. They're god given privileges as well as our constitutional privileges. The amendment to the constitution that congress will make no law restricting an establishment of religion. New York State does not have a church incorporation code. It has a religious incorporation code. It has a broad, a wide reading as interpreted by the state. I know this because we had to do this time and time again with the state. In their application in 1981 for special exception, it was granted to us to be there. We have grown. God has blessed us. The people of the community I know have profited from the ministry there and they also would like to. And I'd just like them all to stand (if they would) and show those that are here from the church. They are in favor of going ahead with this project. You guys may all be seated. The rest are home watching their children or their elderly or something like that. But I do ask that you look favorably upon what is my life' s work. I have put all my energy since I came here in 1976. Working in a shipyard, start- ing bible study in a shipyard. The church grew from that base. We had no outside support. The -money raised from this land for the purchase doesn not come from yard sales, bake sales, anything. Page 5 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. HANSEN (Continued) : It was the free gifts of the people of Southold Town that want us to go ahead. I 'd just like to say that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Pastor. Who is the next person that would like to speak? MR. CAMINITI : I believe Mr. Malgraf would like to read a short statement into the record. MR. MALGRAF : No. I'm not a member of the church but we have been neighbors since 1979 when I first rented the building from the Grange and we 've found them and considered them to be most cooperative as neighbors. I own the building next door. I work in my shop every day. I remained in my house for two days and I 've got no complaints to the church, children, meetings, study, worship or anything else that' s going on over there. I just want you to know that I 'm in favor of this church being granted a spe- cial exception to build a house of worship. I hope that they sell the facility and the new neighbors will be cooperative as they've been. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. MR. CAMINITI : Miss Jane Bender would like to make a br ,.f state- ment also Mr, chairman. MISS BENDER: I just want to state that my husband and I have purchased a lot on Grange full we1T' knowing that the church intends to be built almost directiv behind our house and we feel that it' s a good use of the land and that we have no objection. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Sir. Kindly state your name. MR. BENDER: John Bender. Rather than go through a rebuttal later on, you addressed the noise level. And if you would care to come up to my house some Sunday morning and you want to hear a noise level with little sons of parents riding their motor bikes across this area and the constant pounding of air cannons and water can- nons, I would just assume hear a little choir and carolling. MR. CAMINIT•I : Sandy Kaiser (Mr. chairman) would also like to speak. MS. KAISER: My name is Sandra Kaiser. My family and I live across the street from Grange Road. We've lived there for a good many of years. As a matter of fact, the land the church is now hoping to build on was once owned by my grandfather. We have no objection to this church and school becoming part of the neighborhood. As a matter of fact, we welcome it. For many years my family has been associated with local education and there can be no two finer as- pects of stability in the neighborhood than a church and school and we really are in favor of such a thing. And I can attest to what Mr. Bender said. The other Sunday evening when I took a walk Page 6 - October 2, 1980 Public Hearing of Church of the Open poor Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. KAISER: (Continued) : on Grange Road to visit a friend, there was a motor bike going back and forth and some sort .of a gathering at a house with loud music. So there is noise there and I think that the as- pect of a church and school being run by responsible people who do care about the area that they're in and they are responsive to the criticisms or feelings of the neighbors and they are al- so caring about the way the children would behave. So we're in favor of this coming into our area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. MR. CAMINITI : I don't know of anybody else that I know of that would speak before the Board tonight. But by all means if any- body in the audience wants to speak on our behalf may do so. If not, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Board might have at this time or if there' s no on else to speak. I know the time is getting late. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you just tell me how far away from the south property line you intend to build the church. The reason why I ask is I have 110 feet on one application and I don't have any footage on the other, on the actual site plan I believe which was submitted to the Planning Board. You don't necessarily have to give me that right away. MR. CAMINITI.: It' s 5 acres. And we've been back there and it' s extremely, appears to be flat. And originally, we thought we could just locate the church as far away as possible from the back yards of the people on Grange Road. And it' s not that we haven't given it some consideration. We did before we even contemplated buying the land and we did send out letters and have a joint meet- ing with all the people on Grange Road. And our plans were openly discussed with them and we indicated to them just about where we intend to place the building. The final site plan you have is , _ takes into consideration the contours of the land. We were hoping that we could utilize the natural contours of the land by putting in a lower ground floor that would accomodate the handicap so that we could have an entrance from the ground lever right into the ground floor very similar to the special exception and the plan that was granted to the Mattituck Community Fellowship -where they do have access to the ground level without the benefit of an elevator. I don't know what the final results were there but that is basical- ly why the site plan was submitted in the form that it was. I be- lieve the distance from Grange to the back house would be between 2 to 3 hundred feet from the rear of anybodys house. And the way the church is presently contemplated, it' s going to be a sufficient distance. That' s not a final site plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. IL also thank the group of people here tonight for their courtesy and I thank Mr. Caminiti for placing groups of people to speak rather than having each individual person speak and I think that was extremely helpful. Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application. Mr. Cron ? Page 7 - October 2, 190 • Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals RICHARD CRON ESC : Mr. chairman, members of the Board. I 'm here to represent a group of property owners that border on the proposed use of this property. And that is to wit: the various owners that live in the Grange Road area. I can agree with Mr. Caminiti when he had indicated that there are people that he doesn 't know. I share the same sentiment. I think it's wonderful that the people that are present here reflecting their support for this particular project. However, I want to make it especially clear to the Board and to the people present that I 'm not here in terms of speaking on a religious issue for that is not the issue that is coming before this Board. I will be the last person to stand here or on any other occasion and speak against god. That is not the issue here. The issue is one of zoning. The issue is one of a proposed use of land. The issue is one as to whether the application as it is presented to the Board, is one which this Board can grant under the zoning ordinance. I would like to rephrase your question to Mr. Caminiti and then I will answer your question. And that is; how can I best serve the Board by showing the Board why it can't grant the application. The application as it is proposed, is under section 100-30B2 which is a section that exists under article 3 which is the residential section of the zoning ordinance. What the applicant ' s seeking is a special exception to (and his notice has indicated) construct a house of wor- ship. Now within that area, there are a creat number of other pro- posed uses . However, if the Board looks at the application itself, it is clearly confined to section 100-30B2 . The other uses that would be forth coming, I would submit, would have to come under 100-30B3 . The Board is confined and subject to what the ordinance says. I am well aware of what the New York State Constitution pro- vides. I 'm well aware of what the United States Constitution pro- vides in terms of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. I am also well aware of what the courts have said in terms of religious uses and how they construe them. However, the courts also go further and are not oblivious to the fact that reasonable rules and regulations promulgated under a zoning ordinance in order to control land use in terms of the public health, safety and welfare and comfort of the general community are clearly recognized and can be applied if they are fair and reasonable. I submit to you that the proposed uses of the land would require a total of 12 acres of land use. You're going to ask me how I arrived at that and I 'm going to tell you. Under a house of worship since it' s in a residential area, it requires a total of 80 thousand square feet or approximately (under our ordinance) 2 acres . Excluded from a house of worship is a parsonage which is eventually a proposed use by the applicant. Since it 's excluded, it too would have to have its own 80 thousand square feet of land area or approximately 2 acres. So there you're required 4 acres of land use. I would: submit to you, if you would examine the site plan, on the southwest corner there is a parcel delineated of a size which is obviously less than 2 acres or 80 thousand square feet as being a proposed parsonage area. Now this is all on this 5 acres of land. On top of the 5 acres, the application also seeks a number of school type of institutions. Now you can talk about these as being church related. You can talk about them as non-public. Or as the ordinance says, they're educational institutions. The point being is that the ordinance clearly delineates that if you're going to seek as a special exception a school of whatever nature it is, you're going to have to comply with the requirements of section 100-30B. And that section Page 8 - October 2, Public Hearing of the C urch of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CRON : (Continued) : requires that if you're going to have a school of any nature, you're going to have to have 5 acres of land plus one additional acre for every 25 students. If my recollection serves me in terms of what was indicated to the Planning Board as the anticipated pupil capacity of the project which I believe was somewhere be- tween 14 or 15 students per classroom with the site plan or the drawing that accompanied the site plan, indicating a total of 5 classrooms, you're somewhere in the area of 70 or 75 students. That being the case, you're going to require 3 additional acres on top of 5. So you've got 8 for the school, 2 for the parsonage and 2 for the house of worship. The 5 acres clearly will not do the job and I understand what the applicant is doing and it' s nice work if you can get it. But they're packaging everything under a house of worship and you may be able to argue that. I'm not saying that you can't. However, our ordinance specifically says you can't. Now I think you as a Board, are obligated to follow the dictates of the zoning ordinance and you can't seek all the things that the ap- plicant is seeking under the B2 special exception because B3 re- quires you use special exception with respect to the school. Another factor that has to be considered is; that since the land area would be totally insufficient to do all the things that the applicant seeks. An area variance would be required. Now you're going to run into a lot of difficulty. Because the area variance that would be sought would be so substantial that (in my opinion) the Board could not legally grant it. It would be going contrary to the spirit and purpose of the ordinance. It would require (if you ex- cept my argument) approximately a 60% deviation from what the or- dinance would require which would be very substantial. The case law of the State of New York also recognizes that when you're deal- ing with zoning ordinances, you can impose reasonable rules and regulations which are intended to promote the public health, wel- fare and safety of the community. Andl.when you 're dealing in areas of side yard, front yard and height and area, you (the Board) .are bound by the dictates of the ordinance. Oh sure, you can make in- substantial deviations by nothing which is going to not promote the public health, welfare and safety of the community. I would refer the Board to the ordinance itself in terms of what the powers and duties of this Board are under section 100-121 and those specifical- ly that deal with special exceptions. The Board can't disregard those specific requirements. S understand some of the cases in terms of what they indicate, has to be the leniency or so called leniency that you would give to areas of noise and so forth. That may be fine with the church use. ' I 'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is your ordinance which says you must give consideration to all those areas in determining the application. Under A, you have got to give recognition to the change in the character of the area by virtue of the particular land use. You've got to give (by the Board) the consideration to the conservation of property values. I ' ll conceive that that may be a difficult thing to es- tablish at this point but there is the possibility that the land and the residences in the vacinity of the particular application Page 9 - October 2, 190 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CRON : (Continued) : would lose their marketability value. In which event, the next step down is the loss of market value. You can't markets some- thing when the price goes down. You've got to consider what ef- fect the vehicular traffic will have in terms of congestion in the area. There' s a whole group of things. I would venture to say that from A to I, there must be at least 9 of those that this Board would have to consider in terms of ruling on this application. I just don't think that the Board can grant the application as it is proposed on the basis of the fact that sufficient land does not exist to do all of the things that they propose. In addition, I have no idea what the applicant proposes with respect to the 40 by 80 building which is in another phase. It's clear that on the basis of what the applicant proposes under B2, they're only looking at 40 parking spaces. That doesn't consider at all the parking that might be available for the parish or the school. It' s strictly the number of parishoners that are anticipated which I think they indi- cate to be 200. I think in the light of what I have said, I think the Board has to look at this as being an application that strictly confine to section B2. There is no application pending for a school under B3. There is no applicaiton pending for a variance from area requirements. Which in fact in my opinion if it were made, I don't think you could grant it. So I hope that in terms of what I have indicated, it may be of some direction to the Board. In futherance of the things that I've said, I secured an expert opinion from Ed- ward Hinderman, the former Building Inspector which I ask to be made part of the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? Excuse me just one second. Would you like to take a look at this affidavit that Mr. . . . . What I'm going to do at this time, if you don' t mind, is recess for approximately 5 minutes and let Mr. Strang finish his hearing if you don' t mind. Mr. Strang let me just recess this and I'll be right with you. - 10 : 08 Two-minute recess (to continue with Egan hearing ) . 10 : 10 Five-minute break in meet,ing . 10 : 15 Church of Open Door Hearing reconvened . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Caminit , could I have that back. That which I have given you. I 'll give you a copy of it if you'd like. Ok . (Mr . Caminiti paused for a few minutes . ) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any time you're ready. MR. CAMINITI : I have so many thoughtsthat are on my mind at this point Mr, chairman. And three years ago, I probably would have some fire coming out of my nostrils on what I heard, I can't believe the preposterous idea that he just proposed 12 acres. If he wants us to buy 12 acres, take 12 acres back there, we'd be more than happy to do that. He' s complaining aboutfive acres. We want Page 10 - October 2, 1 • Public Hearing of Churc of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI (Continued) : to put 12. We' ll gladly put 12. We're operating out of a lit- tle school right now. One tenth of an acre. We'd be more than happy to do that. But we're not here to insight or to argue. We love our neighbors. We love the people on Grange Road. We want to accomodate them. Some day I hope that this Board per- mits, we will move our church down there and some day I hope that they'll even attend our services and our parishoners will welcome them with open arms.: I want to address this to a point of view that we have Mr. Hinderman' s letter. Let the record show that Mr. Hinderman is not here. He can not be cross examined. I won't go into Mr. Hinderman' s record. The record speaks for itself. He states that it' s his opinion only that he blatantly indicates in paragraph 2 that section 100-30 permits houses of worship and underlines the word only. It does not say that. It says it specifically authorizes special exception for the construc- tion of a house of worship. What does the case say about house of worship? What is a house of worship? I 'll quote you cases that I just happen to have. It just so happens these happen to be New York cases. They're all public cases. What is a church or house of worship? It' s been held that the term is not to be so narrowly construed as to limit strictly to formal worship and the use of the premise for the construction or establishment of a church. But on the contrary, it is to be considered to be broad enough to include a permit of related activities such as a men' s and women's social club, religious teaching and training, use of the premise for cor- porate meetings, meetings for girlscouts and boyscouts, Sunday schools, kindergarten and playschool facilities for children, pro- visions for sleeping quarters for retreatants and parking accomo- dations. An example: see Community Synagogue vs. Bates a 1956 case. Diocese of Rochester vs. Planning Board, 1956. Zoning ordi- nances permit the use of property in a residential district for a church or similar place of worship, parochial school, rectory, con- vent, see section: held that the contemplated use of the estate is permitted by the ordinance. And that since there is nothing to indi- cate that such would adversely effect the health, safety and morals or general welfare of the town, the Zoning Board would be directed to is- sue a certificate. A mere statement that health, morals and public welfare is at stake, is a general statement and there's nothing in the record to indicate that a church would indicate any moral decay of this town. When you're fighting beer parties, you're fighting distribution of porn and everything else that goes on, you strip away the provado and you strip away all the legal arguments. What are we complaining about? A school of 24 kids that they are laugh- ing. Is that what they're objecting to? People, kids are going to laugh and scream in the playground. That seems to be their basic objection is that they're against the school. I want to continue. The courst said that the uses proposed can, within the true intent of the ordinance, they can permit places of worship. Schools and it allows buildings for a community looking for the purpose of re- ligious study, education and followship. Stark' s appeal, the build- ing in the rear of a Roman Catholic church is sleeping quarters for retreatants was upheld by the court. Another case, common law sis- ter' s home was to be considered an intrical part of any Roman Catho- Page 11 - October 2 , 1* Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI : (Continued) : lic church project. Another case, in terms of the zoning ordi- nance, churches were permitted in residence district. And para- graph 10 of 211 for accessories to buildings, upheld at the Board' s discussion, granted the permit, was consistent with the Board' s interpretation of section paragraph of parking allows for church members and staff was ok. I have a couple left. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you furnish the Board with copies of those actual cases? MR. CAMINITI : I would be happy to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. (Changed- to Tape 3 . ) MR. CAMINITI : The word package deal was mentioned in the oppo- sition. Diocece of Rochester where the court would refrain to so called package deals submitted at an application by a church organization for a permit to build a class A residential. The church being more than merely an edifice affording the people an opportunity to worship god. The court said a church is more than merely an edifice affording the people the opportunity to worship god. Strictly religious uses and activities are more than prayer. And sacrificing all churches recognizing that the area of their responsibilities are broader in leading the congre- gation of prayer. Churches have always deviated social groups for adults and youth for the fellowship of the congregations with the result of a parish, church or school. All these cases, I don't make these cases up. These are reported cases of public cases. I think Mr. Cron ' s silence in referring to these cases, screams out loud. You can't disregard them. This is the law of the State of New York. The law, the law of the United States, the law for 2, 000 years. 2, 000 years unfortunately, is on my mind because for 2000 years people have opposed churches and for 2000. years, they've not been successful. And to this day, there is not one city, one little town that hasn't had the same argu- ments raised. They have no approval and this town certainly (I think) is bounded by the tradition of the United States. If this town wants to be the first to say no to God, fine. The notoriety will go forth and I don't think we could ever come to grips with that. Mr. Cron says he doesn't want to argue against God. He is arguing against God, I'm sorry to say. When he stands there and opposes the application of a house of worship on a novel idea that we need 12 acres, I 'd like to point out the very section 121 that he reads. He didn't read all of it. Let me read you Article I. I beg your pardon. It's Article L. It lists A through K whether the use is incidental; obnoxious gas, electrical dis- charges. But in L, the last item says; is the use to be. . . . Under the use to be operated is unreasonably near a church or school or a theatre. So all your previous paragraphs A through Page 12 - October 2, 19• Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI (Continued) . L were all for one purpose. That' s to protect the church, pro- tect the school. You don't want these other items close to the school. 121 absolutely gives the Board the right to look at the questions on a site plan. It gives the Planning Board the right to look at it to see that these various parts of the site plan do not interfer with the church, do not interfer with the school. Not to be against the church or the school. I don't want to go on. The reason that I made the two points that I made, I read from Anderson. Let me make this point. Every field of endeavor has a bible. We have a bible that we follow. The zoning has a bible. And as far as I know, this is the lead- ing authority. This is the bible for zoning. Robert M. Anderson, New York Zoning and Practice. He devotes a whole chapter on uses of land by religious institutions. I read the pertinent parts and each one was called to your attention. The cases they they site with respect to zoning restrictions, New York adheres to the majority view. Majority view that religious institutions are beneficial to the public welfare by their very nature. Consequently, a proposed religious use should be accomodated even when it would be incon- venient for the community. There is a case in 1983; Unification for all Christians against Roosevelt . Another case application. Garden City Jewish Center Diocese of Rochester which there are more than 40 , for a religious use permitted in a residential district only after a permit. A permit can not be withheld solely on the ground that the use may compound traffic problems. First West- minister Presbyterian, have a community church and are permitted to construct a church and a parochial school may not be denied solely on the ground that the use will create traffic. State of. New York against Miller, Community Synagogue vs. Bates also with mention to religious uses, there' s a whole paragraph on it. The church is merely more than an edifice supporting people. Again quoting the Diocese of Rochester. Consistent with this view, activity related to the purpose of a religious organization isa - religious use. The concept has been held to include the- church itself, a parish house, a convent, a parochial school, recreational facilities and accessory parking areas. The very package deal that we are talking about. The same conclusion was reached in the case for a school for teaching of secular projects. Subjects operated as an intrical part of the synagogue. Westbury Hebrew Congregational against Dowser - 1969 directly and to the point. Let me just read you something also very important. Faith of Today, Inc. 1952 . An organization engaged in conducting televised religious services and operated a religious correspondence school and acquired a building in a residenital district and remodelled it to include an office and a stuido. Equipped the office with postage meters, address-a- graphs, offset press. The organization sought a permit for further remodelling to add a print shop, storage room, bible classrooms, kitchen and dining room. The Order was denied. The special permit was denied. However, the Appellate Division-Second Department, this department Suffolk County reversed the court and the Board holding that the ordinance did not prohibit the philantrophic or elemontinary corporation from carrying .out its functions in the manner proposed. The court of appeals affirmed that in their opinion. The highest court in the state affirmed. That was 1960. Page 13 - October 2, 106 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI (Continued) : Faith of Today, Inc. Application for Faith of Today, Inc. gives a parental judicial sanction to use of commercial and even indus- trial equipment by the religious organization. So that' s the law we're faced with. Those are the regulations. That's the zoning that we have and that' s the law that we must follow today. Any other departure from that is setting new law. Setting new law in the entire country. We've been in touch. You're going to in- timidate, I'll intimidate. We've been in touch with many organi- zations. We're a member of the national association of evangi- cals. They're looking for a test case. iBy golly if this town wants to adhere to regulation of a religious use by zoning to come up with 12 acres for a proposterous little school that has 24 students, we'll make history. One other point. I would like Mr. Hinderman' s letter to be reviewed by town coun .1. I would like that to be reviewed. It' s blantantly in error. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any objection to that , Sir? MR. CRON I have no objection . I find it interesting that Mr. Caminiti seems to think that I'm opposing that which is pro- posterous. I think it' s the zoning ordinance that has the require- ments which obviously he feels that he would not wish to fulfill. Let me take each of some of his things that he has said in the least of importance first. That I consider to be of the least im- portance because I did not propose that 12 acres had to be secured. I 'm saying that the ordinance seems to dictate in the way the or- dinance is written, that you would require 12 acres for that which they seek to do. Period. And I'm not making this a religious is- sue that Mr. Caminiti would seem to like me to do that. It' s strict ly a zoning issue. It' s strictly what the ordinance provides. That' s the law that you're faced with. If you want to construe of the cases in the courts of the State of New York, that' s fine too. But I'm saying to you the law that you're stuck with is the law that you've got in front of you. The Southold Town zoning or- dinance. And I say that that ordinance shows you've got to do cer- tain things and that the applicant has got to do certain things. when he wants certain things. Mr. Caminiti referred to letter L in the 100-121 powers and duties of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I don 't know how he reached the distorted conclusion that since L provides that you must take into consideration in granting a special exception, churches etc. , that are in the surrounding area. I thought this was an attempt to create one. Not to put something where one already exists. Now going back to one of the more cru- cial issues of the case. Mr. Caminiti refers to the fact that the house of worship incorporates a number of things and I don't dis- pute that. The case in the courts seem to indicate that. However, we're not dealing with zoning ordinances here in which that is the only provision of the ordinance. His argument may have some merit if the only thing in the ordinance says a house of worship may be granted by special exception. You might get away with that argu- ment. However, we go one step further in our ordinance. Our town fathers in adopting the ordinance says, hey; we're going to look Page 14 - October 2, 1 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CRON (Continued) : into the uses that are going to be employed in the terms of the special exception. One of which is the house of worship which re- quires (in an A zone) 2 acres. The second special exception is that which deals with the school, and there is no delineation of what a school is defined as. As far as I'm concerned, a rose by any other name is still a rose. A school is a school and it does not fall within the ambit of the special exception of the house of worship. Now if you want to over rule your own ordinance, if you want to find your own ordinance unconstitutional in its appli- cation, that' s your perogative. I can't stop you. But the ordi- nance says you've got to treat them separately. And if you've got to treat them separately, they can't do what they want to do with the application that' s pending before this Board. Is is simply that simple. You can broaden it all you want. But Mr. Caminity' s argument would then reach the logical conclusion that the land re- quirements in terms of the public health and safety and welfare, is such that you can do anything you want if you're a religious organi- zation, on 2 acres of land. That's what he ' s proposing because that' s all the ordinance would require him to do. If his argument is to stand, he can put his parsonage, he can put his house of wor- ship and he can put his school which incidentally, by their own ad- mission, is not 24 students. I understand when they appeared before the Planning Board, they already had 48 and they anticipated approx- imately 70 or 75. But be that as it may, that' s what you've got to deal with. And you can address all of the case laws in the State of New York as to what' s incorporated in a house of worship. That' s wonderful. But your zoning ordinance tells you what you've got to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Cron Mr. Caminiti, do you have anything to say before we close the hearing? MR. CAMINITI: That's exactly the point I'm making. It' s a religious institution. All the cases. Anderson and his book, the two points I initially raised. There is that special consideration that is given to churches, religious institutions, in zoning. Paragraph B says very clearly the following uses are permitted in an A residential zone. Places of worship. What is a place of worship? We discussed that. It includes everything in the package deal provided it meets with site plan approvals and meets with all the other regulations of safety, traffic and so forth and we're willing to address that issue in our site plan approval. We're here only for special ex- ception. The only two requirements are no building shall be erected nearer than 50 feet to any street. We 're not nearer than 50 feet and the total area is 20 feet. Paragraph 3; and Mr. Cron is insistant that we be as ,a private school. We are not a private school . We are not a college. It says or other institutional edu- cational institution. It says any such school. Paragraph c shall be a not for profit corporation within the meaning of internal reve- nue. We are not a not for profit educational school under the mean- ing of internal revenue. What is a ministry? A ministry of the church and it is not a private school. It sometimes is called a Christian school and it is sometimes called parochial school. It P6ge 15 - October 2, 1 rch of the Open Door Public Hearing of the u Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINIT -I (Continued) : is sometimes called jewish school. I don't know what you call it but it is a ministry of the church. It is not a private school in no stretch of the imagination. No amount of badgering is going to make it a private school. It is a ministry of the church and protected under the United States constitution and State of New York in all the reported cases that I know of. I have given you the cases. I will be glad to give you a photostated copy of these cases. It has been decided by Mr. Taskerand the attorney general in 1981 when we opened up on Beckwith Avenue; that the school was permitted and a special exception was given by this very Board that we were allowed to operate a school as part of our ministry. And to change that now in midstream because we still don't know how many people are objecting to it. Mr. Cron never saw fit to respond to my letter that I wrote to him in response to a suggestion made by this very Board and we still have no idea of how many people are opposing it. Whether it be one or two or four. That' s not ma- terial at this point. The question is, is that we come under 2 or do we come under 3. I would respectfully suggest that this matter be referred by this Board to Mr. Tasker for his opinion. And I have no doubt at all as to what his decision would be. We are not a private school and no stretch of the imagination can make it. As far as numbers, we have 24 students in our classroom. We have 24 students in the pilgrim school. There are 6 little kids in each school . We have a nursary school which we have 2 and 3 4-year old kids and we have a kindergarten with 5 and 6 years. In the pilgrim school there ' s 24. The good lord be willing, the most that could .happen is that that would double and that certainly does- not mean 12 acres of land for 48 kids. Even the catholic school sac- red Heart, would laugh if you ever told them they needed 12 acres down there. Sacred Heart school in Cutchogue certainly doesn't have 12 acres. At the most, they have a couple. Christian Science, you gave them special exception to the Christian Science church right here just within recent times down on Indian Neck Lane and no question was ever raised about schools or their bible school. So I respect- fully submit to this Board that the matter be referred to town' at- torney for their opinion before any credance is given to considering the Church of the Open Door as a section in 2 or 3 category. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Caminiti just before you sit down, you said in the beginning of the hearing that you had met with certain people on Grange Road and I don't know if those people were in favor or opposed. Was there any specific buffer and footage that was spok- en about or anything of that nature that would construed to be a noise level buffer? MR. CAMINITI: Right now there' s a natural buffer right behind Mr. property. Right behind Mr. Bu ( ) property on the corner property, there' s a natural hedge right there now. We would be happy to comply with any site plan provision for buffer or scenic trees or whatever pleases the neighbors. As I said before, we're not looking to antagonize anybody. The bible says love thy neighbor. It' s difficult at times but by golly, that's what we want to do. We don' t want to antagonize. If you want to have a buffer. . . . . There' s all kinds of rumors in the streets. I can't believe the streets. I hear about the ball fields and the lights and the lights Page 16 - October 2, 1 Public Hearing of Chur of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI (Continued) : we're going to have on all night long. It's fear. Fear of their own making that they are projecting these ideas. Yes we met with them. We discussed buffer area. And in response at the meeting that we had with them, they wrote a letter to the Planning Board voicing their objection and I would like to say to you, the letter says we have two serious, very serious objections. Number one; that this property can be used to build a church in a strictly resi- dential agricultural zone. That was their objection. That it' s being built in a residential zone. That' s the only place you can build a church. That' s what the law specifically says. It's the only place you can build. Number two; it 's going to come off the taxrolls because we don't pay any tax. That land doesn' t pay any tax now. It comes under the agricultural exemption. We are paying 100 dollars a year_ or 400'.dollars a-year. We sell our building, com- merical property more than pay for the tax loss. Those are the only 2 objections they raised. This is the first time (in all honesty) that I knew the objection was based on section 3 of the code. It was anticipated of course. I wouldn't have had the cases here avail- able. But this is the first time that it' s been raised. We were happy to meet with them. We were happy to have a liason. One of the neighbors on Grange Road has volunteerd to act as an inter-medi - ator. To this day, we haven't met. We're happy to do so. We're happy to submit all our plans to the Planning Board and go over it in great detail so there' s no disillusion. Other than that, I don't know what else we can do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Caminiti , can I just ask you. Mr. Cata- pano owns all the property now. Is that correct? All 1 , 2, 3, 4. All lots. Have you approached him at any time or is he aware that any time there could be a modification of site plan where this or- ganization may require additional land? MR. CAMINIT"I : Well I' ll tell you very frankly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm asking the question because it was asked tonight. I 'm not specifically asking the question. MR. CAMINITI : No. It was never specifically put to Mr. Catapano. I don' t want to delay the point but the story is quite long. He offered to sell us 5 acres. We were trying to buy that land our- selves from the man that he purchased it from and he offered to sell it to us for exactly what he paid for it. And I know it' s a great financial burden to him at this point to sell us the land at the contracted price that he bought it from Mr. Staller . He did a minor subdivision purposely so that we could have his house on the corner of South Harbor and Main Road and his nursery on 14 acres. I believe he reserved the other 2 acres so that his daughter could eventually build a one-family house. I might also add while I 'm talking about one-family houses, the code section 2 specifically allows the creation of a parish house. Not that we intend to do it, but it specifically allows it. A house of worship. I don 't under- stand the other aspect of what Mr. Cron is referring to about the extra 2 acres for the house of parsonage. The code specifically says. . . . Page 17 - October 2, 1 Public Hearing of Chur of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Just let him finish his statement. MR. CAMINIT'1: The code specifically says, place of worship in- cluding a parish house. So section 2 does allow a parish house and it doesn't say you need another 2 acres. I would think that 5 acres would be more than enough to accomodate 200 parishoners, a small school and a parish house if necessary. If Mr. Catapano would like to address that issue, I would be happy to hear from him. MR. CATAPANO: On the additional acreage. At this time I have to. . . . At this time I don't know whether I can truthfully say anything on that subject. But I really feel that this is not an issue here. The issue, I really feel , stands on the fact the you gentlemen are here tonight to give us a special exception for a church. It' s a place of worship. It's not going to be a place of rowdiness. It's not going to be a place where we' re going to hang out. It' s going to be a place where we are going to worship. It has not even been denied to anybody else in the Town of Southold. And in the code it says that we need to have 7 acres, 10 acres, or 14 acres. I thought at that time that 5 acres would be a suffi- cient piece of land to offer to the church. If need be, I would take that under consideration. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just say this to you Mr. Catapano while you're up and I appreciate you're speaking so frankly to the Board. Any decision that I recommend to the Board and we drum out in deliberation, is always open to the public, will be to crowd the north line. Ok. And it might be better for the Church of the Open Door to eventually purchase more land or re- draw the subdivision map to a certain degree. Now I realize that that is something that costs money. At the same time, I realize that the Planning Board has given you sketch plan approval. But it' s something that we're looking at. An imaginary buffer between the residentiality of what exists there now and the church which appears to be a very active church and something of which we have no objection to in any way, manner or form. But I just want to point that out to you and that is the reason why I asked. MR. CATAPANO: Is that the buffer on the north side that would be adjoining my side of the property? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. On the north side. We haven't dis- cussed it. We have looked at it but we haven't measured it. We haven't done anything at this particular time. MR. CATAPANO: As I spoke at the other Board, my intentions were fully to stay in the greenhouse and nursery business for my life- time. It may be today or tomorrow or whenever the lord calls me home. My son is in the same thing. He will continue on in the business and hopefully stay on in the Town of Southold for his lifetime. We do not plan at any time within the future to take me off that property. I plan to live happily ever after in my retirement out there. You know my hair is white on top of my Page 18 - October 2, 1 • Public Hearing of &Aof the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CATAPANO (Continued) : head. I'm not that old but I'm still able to do a days work. But as I see it right now, I don't feel that in any stretch of the imagination that the Board can deny them any kind of use of that property for a church. Being my heartfelt situation was that I could not afford to give them the property at the time, I still can not afford to give them the property. I am not one of those big westerners that come into town. I gave it to them what it cost me and I did it out of my love for the lord and my love for the church. Whether it be this church or some other church that I belong to, that' s what I would have done. The lord has laid that upon my heart by now. I would truly like to ask the Board to agree to a special exception on that piece of proper- ty. I do not want to fight my neighbors. I love my neighbors. I don't know any of them but I would at any time, speak at length with any of them. We were up in Hicksville. I was born in Hicks- ville. which is the western end of Nassau County. My father was established in 1919 on Flatbush Avenue coming off the boat from Italy. So we are Long Islanders at heart. We have seen the rava- ges of what they did in Nassau County. We can understand truly and lovingly what you people are trying to do and uphold. That' s why we moved out here. We tried to keep it in that rural vane . So we do want to see that you do grant a special exception for this purpose as far as the church is concerned. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. CRON I just want to make one observation. I do agree with Mr. Caminit- that under B2 a house of worship would include a parish house. However, their application doesn't ask for that. The application says we may be seeking a parsonage and that is excluded and would require 2 additional acres of land. Secondly, he said I have not indicated the people whom I represent. So I would like to read that into the record. They are: Mr. and Mrs. Seaman, Mr. and Mrs. Savage, Mr. and Mrs. Baldwin, Henry Freidman, John Buffer, and Mr. and Mrs. Mariccini. Filing one last point, I havetmo objection to the Board consulting with the town attorney. I am sure the Board realizes it must be their decision that'.s rendered on this matter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I now come to the point where the Board and myself sometimes do not agree. . So I 'll mention this point and we' ll hammer it out one way or another. We have a situation where we can do one of two things. We can close the hearing at this point and render its decision within 60 days or we can recess the meeting until October 22nd in hopes that you will meet with these people and come up with what we would construe to be a buffer that we can work with. I have no idea if the Board would go along with that and I have no idea if council objects. I 'll leave it open for discussion. Sir. Page 19 - October 2, 1986 Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINITI. Mr. chairman, wouldn't the creation of a buffer be the proper element of the site plan? What authority does the Board have to set up a regulation on a buffer? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. CaminitY, we had spent 2� hours ago- nizing over a buffer for a funeral home in Cutchogue. And after we agonized for 2� hours in front of the applicant, several peo- ple on the block came before us after that and we received letters and they stated they didn't want a buffer. Yet at the hearing, they stated they wanted a buffer. MR. CAMINITI : We'd be happy to comply with a buffer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When I referred to a buffer, I'm referring to a scenic easement. Be it of a green character, god given tree to plants. MR. CAMINIT`f: We plan on doing that. That' s no problem. MR. CAMINITJI.; Which is the proper form to do that in? We have no objection to the scenic barriers, scenic buffer. We want to . I don't like looking at Mr. Bowman' s swimming pool either. I don't like looking at Mr. Duffy' s swimming pool. There' s other things I don't like about back yards. So we want the buffer area as well. I'm just trying to determine where is the proper forum? I'll meet with them. I'm more than happy to do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We haven't established that yet. The point in question is, we have the right to reasonably place the building where we feel the building should be placed based upn the testimony and evidence that has been presented before us. Ok. MR. CAMINIT$: We're not against asking for a little contour sur- vey and the building is located based on an engineer' s report. To have 72, 000 square feet to accomodate the buffer scenic area, would be construed as an unreasonable limitation on the use of the property by a religious use. I 'm not meaning to get into an argument with the Board on this point but I'd like to establish the perameters of the proper forum. CHAIRMAIN GOEHRINGER: The parameters of my recommendation may be to crowd the north line unless there is a redrawing of the sub- division which will place the line some 145 feet north which would place the building in the center of the property. MR. CAMINIT'I. We have sketch plan approval for the subdivision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I 'm aware of that. Page 20 - October 2, 106 • Public Hearing of Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CAMINIT7.1: Whether the special exception is granted or not, the subdivision would be approved. Mr. Catapano could do what- ever he wants with that 5 acres. We have entered into covenants already, recorded copies not .to subdivide lot 4 any further. There is a copy of that also being placed on record that he' s not going to subdivide. It' s starting at square one all over again on sketch plan approval to a buffer. We can establish a buffer area without changing the sketch plan or without changing the line distribution. I don' t have any objection to that. But to redraft. . . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. I'm not saying that you have to redraft. I'm just saying that we would like to place it closer to the north line than what you have proposed so as to create a buffer on the south line. And I didn't say we. I should say I 'm making that recommendation. I have no idea what the other 4 gentleman on this Board are going to do and they don't listen to me. So that' s neither here nor there. That' s not true. Now the point in question is, do we close the hearing at this point or do we recess it to the next meeting in hopes that we can arrive at some buffer which everybody can live with. And let me just give you a brief explanation of how this situation has worked in the past. About 808 of the time, it' s worked out very very nicely. We have had people that come into this Board that are ready to have a fist fight. We have called police and had them escorted from the room. And that is the 258 or the 208. In the other case, we have them go out into the hall for 20 minutes as you have seen tonight between the architect and one of the mem- bers of the organization and they usually come back arm in arm as they did tonight and the gentleman did not object because he under- stood the application. I can' t say that that' s the case in all cases. We have had several applications in the past couple months have gone 3 hearings. One of which concerned 2 people down in New Suffolk who are not speaking to each other. And I specifically told them that was a very upsetting thing to the Board. But they still substanti- ated in those 3 hearings that they had no other choice but to deal with it in this particular manner and we (of course) don't like those adverse conditions. Everybody has been extremely courteous _ to everyone tonight. I personally think this group can work to- gether. Regardless if there ' s a school involved or not in the future, we have an application before us for a church and that' s the application we will entertain. Yes. MRS. LONG: For you, my name is Susan Long, East Marion. I do attend the Church of the Open Door. I do want to go on record as being in favor of the application as submitted. However, be- fore you choose to take any action to close this meeting or re- cess it, I do have some signatures here that are in favor of the application and I would like to put it on record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINC'ER: Definitely. Thank you. So what will it be? Mr. Caminiti . MR. CAMINITI : I would just urge the Board to close the meeting , grant the special exception and take a buffer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cron? Do you have any objection to meeting with this group? • Page 21 - October 2, 1� Public Hearing of the Church of the Open Door Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CRON I can't answer that question without consulting with my clients firstly. Secondly, I have no objection (I also) for you to close the hearing and make a decision. The only de- cision you can make is one you can't grant them what they want. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I 'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving the decision until later. All in favor - aye. Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded during the hearing . By Nadia Moore 10/21 /86 Officers *OCT V 19$6 1� / C UTILITY OFFICE TEL. Y ilia e of tJ (516)477-1748 MAYOR 9 reeRport GEORGE W.HUBBARD INCORPORATED u.. POWER PLANT TEL. NEW INCORPORATION APRIL T.1... (516)477-0172 TRUSTEES REnOCORPOR.rioN ..DE. D..EO.L LAW Nu x., 1... JEANNE M.COOPER GAIL F.HORTON DAVID E.KAPELL - -•'• ••y, ,F{}'qs� WILLIAM H.LIEBLEIN NG I S LAND f� .r SUPT.OF UTILITIES JAMES I.MONSELL r 236 THIRD STREET - GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 October 20, 1986 Mr. Bennett Orlowski , Jr. Chairman - Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Church of the Open Door Dear Mr. Orlowski : The Greenport Water Supply will be able to serve the Church of the Open Door with a 1" service line from the 6" water main on Grange Road, through Lot No. 15, with an easement. The easement must be on file in our office before construction can start. If I can be of further service, please call . Very truly yours, James 1. Monsell Superintendent of Public Utilities JIM: nr i co Pym *SUFFOLK oFFICE OF 54076 MAIN RD. COR. BECKWITH P.O. B02 552 REPLY TO: BOUTHOLO, NEW YORK 11971-0992 (616) 756.1401 • October 6, 1986 NEW YORK CITY OFFICR lye cover Breeer BROOKLYN, N.Y. 11201.6287 (718) 643-1600 IRWIN R. KAPLAe or COUNSEL Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board Of Appeals Main Road-State Road 25, Southold, L. I . ,New York 11971 Re: Special Exception #3478 Church of the Open Door Dear Mr. Goehringer: In response to your request made during the course of the public hearing in the above matter held on October 2, 1986 , I am pleased to enclose a photocopy of the cases that I cited and the documentation that was used in the applicant's presentation. The text material is taken from the treatise, NEW YORK ZONING LAW AND PRACTICE, Third Edition, by Robert M. Anderson. Source material was also used from Vol 74, American Law Reports, 2nd Series , pp. 403-405 . A photocopy of the text from Anderson entitled "USES OF LAND BY RELIGIOUS INSITUTIONS" is enclosed. The major points that I made in my opening remarks can be found in their entirety on pages 571 and 572 and on paqes 577 and 578 . The cases cited can be found in the footnotes of the respective pages as well as other cases on the remaining pages which I have highlighted in yellow. I would in particular like to call to your attention the comments made by the author on page 576 in discussing the board' s determination requiring a religious user, as a condition of a permit, to provide a 130 foot setback and a 40 foot side yard. The Appellate Division clearly held that was unconstitutional and I think your insistence at the hearing to re-draft the subdivision lines, relocate the church and create a Scenic easement and otherwise publicly embarass Mr. Catapano to sell more land to the church was likewise unconstitutional . I am of the opinion that you far exceeded your authority and have charted the Town into Constitutional waters. I personally feel that your actions were unconscionable and completely out of line. If there is any question concerning site plan approval or the creation of a buffer zone between the church and the rear yards of the Grange Road residents, it should be left to the Planinq Board to determine. Page -2- Church of the Open Door Furthermore, before the Church even contemplated purchasing the land, I personally inquired of the Building Department, and Mr. Hinderman in particular, as to what would be required by way of acreage to construct a church which would accommodate both our parishioners and our school . I received advices that two acres would be sufficient but that five would be preferable if we could get them. Subsequently on February 28, 1986 a Notice of Disapproval was prepared by Mr. Hinderman himself ( a copy of which is in your file) in which he clearly states that a Special Exception is required under Sec. 100-30 B (2 ) . I don 't even want to discuss the propriety of the affidavit he submitted at the hearing or the means in which it was obtained. It is completely contrary to the Building Department 's position and his own prior opinion and must be reviewed by Mr. Tasker, the Town Attorney. In the ensuing discussion of the meaning of "A HOUSE OF WORSHIP" as authorized by Sec. 100-30 B(2 ) of the Code, I also cited many cases from the annotated reports as contained in 74 ALR 2nd p. 403-405. A photo-copy of those pages is enclosed with the appropriate cases underlined for your ready reference. Not one case to the contrary was submitted to the Board by the 5 property owners apposing the application. Not one bit of evidence was submitted to sustain their position. THEIR ENTIRE CASE RESTS UPON THE OPINION OF EDWARD HINDERMAN dated September 30, 1986 ( 2 days before the hearing) . Incidentally the affidavit is probably inadmissable in so far as it does not comply with the Best Evidence Rule and I was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine him as to his prior background, degree of experience and basis for his opinion all of which would reflect on his "expertise" and credibility. I also call to your attention Sec. 11 : 35 of Anderson entitled "Dimensions of Religious Uses" as found on pages 580 to 583. A Court of Appeals Case is cited, namely, Community Synagogue v Bates, 1 NY2d 445 ( 1956 ) as well a Second Department (Suffolk County) Appellate Division Case, Application of Faith For Today, Inc. , 11 AD2d 718 ( 1960 ) . Both cases clearly support the fact that a Christian School is permitted as part of the Church and does not come under a separate zoning ordinance any more than our Drum & Fife Corps . , bible classes, Sunday School or our Pastor' s Library. All this information was supplied to you prior to the hearing pursuant to your request by a detailed letter written by Pastor Hansen and yet you seemed completely surprised by our position and took extraordinary steps to try to discredit us. e Page -3- Church of the Open Door I am formally requesting a full copy of the transcript of the hearing so that it can be read objectively by other members of the Bar. I am very disturbed in the manner in which the hearing was conducted and in particular your demeanor. Your suggestion that I go out in the hallway and discuss the matter with the neighbors with the view of compromising the situation was unbelievable and an insult to all who were in attendance. It seems to me that the conclusion is inescapable and that is that a Special Exception must be granted subject only to Site Plan Approval by the Planing Board. At the site plan stage all questions regarding buffer area, etc. will be resolved. Very my urs, j P UL C NITI / PAC:sel Encls. - • FOnM NO.3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD,N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVVAAL 9 Date' 19 . . To ./. 1�.4L. •. .1 �Nl1Ni /.� . . . . 70� n�:itc h/ c-F 7,21 ozw / /L /QQ'lv�r�! . . . . . . . . yQz 1v.c.i?lv�i� -. . .N. . . . . . . . . . L PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated .G . "...'.__.--.z . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1946 . for permit to �tiiS c 5� /1.�. . . S!Sc. . ctC'.(XA!����!fes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . at Location of PropertyJo�il+Fi D House No. /G Street / Hamlet ce County Tax Map No. 1000 Section . . . .�. . .!. . . . . Block . . ..(7. . . . . . . . . Lot . .Q 1-.Z. . . . Subdivision . ... . . .'.-'. . . . . . . . Filed Map No. . . . . . . . . . . . . Lot No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . is retired herewith and disapproved on the following grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �i�?,crS.ti=.4. . �!sc. . .lt-c. 11. . . l�.l.<..=�:'(iiR�=. . . .�.���. .�,1,:!•y �ylfvo�C . 111: A00 .30 . . c3. � �.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t „-•, aBuilding Inspector RV 1/BO Other Trade's License No. . �!�11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �� �, IIIIIIII ► I � i � i , , , .� REGULATION OF USES ! § 11.30 di- R USES OF LAND By RELIGIous INBTrrUTIONs!, ]m ot- § 11.30. Religious uses. ;d- I The problems generated by municipal regulation of religious j uses require separate consideration, because the courts have ire I detected in such uses qualities which entitle them to special ity treatment. Churches, synagogues, and other institutions dedi- thGated to religious objectives are in some degree protected from ng the full impact of zoning restrictions. These uses are favored for !, of I reasons ranging from their unique contribution to the public ri- welfare to constitutional guaranties of freedom of worship. The of " courts have consistently focused their attention on the singular be characteristics of religious uses, rather than upon the features I which are common to religious and other uses of land." v The courts repeatedly emphasize.the high u g P rpose=tlnd moral . P value of religious institutions. The contribution of religious use ./p 7i D_ U to the public welfare is regarded as beyond discussion or dispute, Y to ! and the fostering rather-than the hindering of such uses is ' a_ considered to be the established policy of the state0it logically ;n follows-that zoning regulations, which must be reasonably re- yelp Ft "lated to health,`safety, morals, or public welfare, are difficult to, „ if s p, of20. See generally, Note, Zoning World Christianity v Rosenfeld, 91 t Laws and the Church, 27 St. John's L AD2d 190, 458 NYS2d 920 (1983, 2d le h Rev 93(1952). Dept) t i- Annotations: What constitutes All schools, public and Private, and 4 "church," "religious use, or the like religious institutions are protectedwith } h 197.in zoning ordinance. 62 ALR3d from the full impact of zoning restric- ie Zonin regulations t1On8 because of their contribution to churches. 74 ALR2d 3e s as affectin g the public welfare. Ginsberg v Yeah- { 1.8 ' iva of Far Rockaway, 45 AD2d 334, �o L'btocese of Rochester v planning* 358 NYS2d 477 (1974, 2d Dept), affil Bd. of Brighton, .1 NY2d 508, 154 36 NY2d 706, 366 NYS2d 418, 325 'NYS2d 849,,;136 NE2d 827 (1956); NE2d 876; citing 1 Anderson, New discussed m McKay. Constitutional Work Zoning Law and Practice 2d rLaw, 1957 Survey of NY Law, 32 H 9.07, 9.29. ,5 6 ' NYUL Rev 1338 (1957), and noted in Religious uses ,5 31 St.John's L Rev 318(1957). - which are sufficiently sdifferent ent bfr ms 7), "With +2 �� respect to zoning restrictions, other Uses as to warrant separate ,7 New York adheres to the majority' treatment. Jewish Reconstructionist ,d ;n view, that-religious"institutions are- Synagogue, Inc. v Roslyn Harbor, 38 beneficial to the public welfare by NY2d 283, 379 NYS2d 747, 342 NE2d their very nature . . . . Consequently, 534 (1975), cert den 426 US 950, 49 L 1 'a proposed religious use should be Ed 2d 1187, 96 S Ct 3171; citing An- accomodated, even when it would be derson, New York Zoning Law and inconvenient for.; the community." Practice (2d Ed); discussed in Ander- Holy Spirit Asso, for Unification of son, Land Use Control, 1976 Survey of 571 � I K fiJ,N lilt 1 � I {{ j ,r U ff.f� 1Y 'f'ij�) flt�ilf�fJf��ltll�{il ���IYl��ll ifs flf fife H* j , f 'ffl �it � ►i11=1 +1}frKl'•4 ,1l � Y 0pi It'r P h"nifi✓ ' �s"'�.- "• k'.. �''' '` .;: .r f 1 C Ifs ^T• eP i KIchan Classroom DOO E=M � 'DOOM Com❑ C JC70❑ �C 1 paw �> Cr�❑o❑ L GG UG 'Cmc-LO r T 1-i-T� ❑ —&I]maaPurposel❑❑ 0 0 LQZZ ❑ OL 1fT1LLL] G� ❑❑❑OOOOD ULr� 00101 wbtt»a 0 Clantoom G�1-DM❑❑MQ ❑EIJJEII= o J❑DOE I IJ--E Tlf 1� =F=000L C7❑❑❑C xoom �.+a MODE= ®CO❑ o 0 DOE= ®❑ O CMaroom -- ---- ------I Mail C . Fbyw 0"Ift Classroom Vestibule � � MARANATHA CUSTOM CHURCHES Genesis Plant A Box892 D Jamestown, North Dakota 58401 1.30 NEW YORK ZONING I , justify`when they impose limitations upon a religious use or F' impede the construction of a building intended for such a �, purpose. The constitutions of the United States' and the state of New York' guarantee freedom of religion. Religious uses are unique in their enjoyment of this protection, and the courts have invoked these sections in support of decisions which limit munic- ipal power to impose zoning regulations upon churches and other..,religious institutions�I)In addition, the courts occasionally have referred to the constitutional tax exemption of religious y institutions, along with other charitable and educational organi- zations.' Religious uses, possibly to a greater extent than is true of- most uses, must be centrally located. Commonly, they serve`a limited primary area; the efficiency of their service would be 1 impaired if they were required to locate in places not convenient 1 ` or accessible to their members. In addition, they serve neighbor- hoods by providing,a"meeting place for civic and charitable groups:Some of these ends can be achieved only if the building ...,which houses'the use is within walking distance of homes If these considerations exist with respect to other uses, arguably I � they obtain to a lessdegree.�Phe'need for central, residential location has-set religious uses apart and justified special treat- i `Tment> r 11 Finally, it should be noted that a church or other place of worship has characteristics which present problems that are the t r y legitimate concern of zoning regulation. A church generates Ali New York Law. 28 Syracuse L Rev American Friends of Soc. of St. Pius, 109(1977). Inc. v Schwab, 68 AD2d 646, 417 See also, Rhema Christian Fellow- NYS2d 991 (1979,2d Dept). ship v Common Council, of Buffalo, See Community Synagogue v Bates, 114 Misc 2d 710, 452 NYS2d 292 1 NY2d 445, 154 NYs2d 15, 136 NE2d ! (1982). 488(1956)." 2. US Const First Amendment. 5. NY Const Art XVI §1. 3.NY Const Art I §3. 6, A religious use may not be 4. Where the proposed erection of a treated differently merely because its _ church creates a conflict between a members are not residents of the zon- village's constitutional duty not to ing municipality. Jewish Reconstruc- infringe religious freedom and the tionist Synagogue, Inc. v Roslyn Har- need to protect the public health, bor, 38 NY2d 283, 379 NY82d 747, safety and welfare, the village should 342 NE2d 534 (1975), cert den 426 US meet both requirements if possible. 950,49 L Ed 2d 1187, 96 S Ct 3171. 572 it t § 11.31 NEW YORK ZONING Commenting on the refusal of a board of zoning appeals to grant . a permit to establish a synagogue, the court said: The men and women who left Scrooby for Leyden and eventu- ally came to Plymouth in order to worship God where they wished and in their own way must have thought they had terminated the interference of public authorities with free and unhandicapped exercise of religion. We think that we should 4 accept the fact that we are the successors of 'We, the'peopW of the Preamble to the United States Constitution and that a court may not permit a municipal ordinance to be so construed that it would appear in any manner to interfere with the 'free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship.'0 .r if Thus, the total exclusion of places of worship is regarded not only as a regulation not within the scope of the police power, but one which infringes freedom of religion guaranteed by the constitution.10 Some municipalities have tried to protect the character of x residential neighborhoods by excluding religious uses from resi- dential districts. Regulations of this kind apparently pparently are invalid for reasons which outlaw the total exclusion of such uses. Thus, the Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld a decision (� that a village ordinance which barred places of worship from residential districts was unconstitutional." And the Court of s. Appeals, commenting on a finding of an administrative board s that churches ought to be built where future residential develop- r' j� ment could accommodate itself to the church, said: We know of no rule of law which requires that churches may i; only be established in sparsely settled areas. On the contrary, as 9. Community Synagogue v Bates, 1 ity view that religious institutions are S NY2d 445, 154 NYS2d 15, 136 NE2d beneficial to the public welfare by?W( t 488(1956). their very nature. . . . Consequently, r�1 °. A zoning ordinance which purports a proposed religious use should be; to place a religious use at the mercy accommodated,even when it would be of certain rigid restrictions is uncon- inconvenient for the community." Y: stitutional. Jewish Reconstructionist Holy Spirit Asso. for Unification of ?. Synagogue, Inc. v Levitan, 41 AD2d World-Christianity v Rosenfeld, 91 fit. 537, 339 NYS2d 274 (1973, 2d Dept), AD2d 190, 458 NYS2d 920 (1983).2d affd 34 NY2d 827, 359 NYS2d 55, 316 NE2d 339. Dept)., ' , See generally,Comment, Zoning Or- See generally, Note, Religion and dinances, Private Religious Conduct, the Zoning Laws, 15 NYU Intra L " and the Free Exercise of Religion, 76 Rev 194(1960). ' Northwestern Univ L R 786(1981). 11. Pelham Jewish Center v Marsh, ; I 10. "With respect to zoning restric- • 10 AD2d 645, 197 NYS2d 258 (1960, 1 tions,New York adheres to the major-' 2d Dept). y; `I 574 5. ti, § 11.32 NEW YORK ZONING t. In Diocese of Rochester v Planning Bd. of Brighton," the Court I of Appeals disapproved the restrictions imposed by the board, but added: "That is not to say that appropriate restrictions may , (' never be imposed with respect to a church and school and accessory uses. . . ."The difficulty lies in determining what restrictions will be deemed appropriate. The cases seem to consider, and to reject as insufficient, the objectives which commonly motivate regulation and establish its relation to the police power. Many municipalities, seeking a solution to the religious use problem, require that the approval of the board of zoning ap- peals be secured before a church or other place of worship is constructed. This requirement apparently is not objectionable." But°it'is-difficulVto discover in the opinions grounds which will justify a; board-of zoning"appeals in refusing to approve a E proposed religious use. Refusal of a permit on grounds regarded �� as'adequate where other uses a_re involved, may invite court, reversal, 'and'a-judicial-opinionwhich places thea positio ust short'of adalliance with the forces of evil. Thus, a -I• ' plannin commission's'determination requiring a religious user," ' as a''condition"of a permit to expand, to provide a 130 foot setback and a 40 foot side yard, was held to be arbitrary and senfeld, 91 AD2d 190, 458 NYS2d 920 Local Government, 1967 Survey of (1983,2d Dept). New York Law, 19 Syracuse L Rev A church which applied for a spe- 326(1968). 1=i cial use permit for a religious retreat 16. 1 NY2d 508, 154 NYS2d 849, j in a single-family zoned neighborhood 136 NE2d 827 (1956). 1 ' could be subject to regulation without being subjected to an unconstitutional 17. Application of Garden City Jew- restraint. Holy Spirit Asso. for Unifi- ish Center (1956) 2 Mise 2d 1009, 155 - cation of World Christianity v New NYS2d 523 Castle, 480 F Supp 1212 (1979, SD where a zoning ordinance requires j NY). that religious uses be reviewed by the The use of land by a religious insti- board of zoning appeals and that such c� tution is subject to reasonable restric- uses be permitted only in accordance tion in the interest of public health, with "height, area and yard require- Ii safety, and welfare. Westchester Re- menta", the board is without author- form Temple v Griffin, 52 Misc 2d ity to permit construction of a reli- r- 726, 276 NYS2d 737 (1966), affil (2d gious use which will not substantially Dept) 29 AD2d 672, 287 NYS2d 499, comply with side and rear yard re- affil l 22 NY2d 488, 293 NYS2d 297, strictions. Halberstadt v North Hills, 239 NEW 891; discussed in Hyman, NYLJ,July 15, 1963. 576 .e, e REGULATION OF USES § 11.32 Ir, unreasonable in that it interfered with the applicant's free exercise of religion." - I F A one-year moratorium on permits for noncommercial uses in an area where federal, state, and local governments are under- i taking to rehabilitate a commercial district was held, by a lower court, to be constitutional as applied to a religious institution t seeking a permit to establish a church in the area." _ A prime consideration in the granting or denial of a special fn permit for many uses is the effect which the proposed use will Ay sit have on land in the vicinity of the site. A special permit (or1 - approval) is required so that new uses may be located where �l il they will impose a minimum of hardship on the neighborhood.f0 �l Such considerations apparently are not relevant where a reli- gious use is involved. A permit for areli 'ous use may_not_be__- 1 denied because the use will be detrimental to the neighborhood �Jp� Iand the residents thereof.' A church may not be excluded simply because it will have an"adverse effect on the land values in the _12<O << _ vicinity of the proposed site. The high purpose and moral value of the use outweigh "mere pecuniary loss to a few persons." And ' "noise and other inconveniences" are an insufficient basis for denial of a permit'A-special permit for religious use may not be 18. Westchester Reform:Temple'V American Friends of Soc. of St. Pius, Brown, 29 AD2d 677,'287 NYS2d 513 Inc. v Schwab, 68 AD2d 646, 417 C � (19 ,2d Dept),affd 22 NY2d-488, 293 NYS2d 991 (1979, 2d Dept); discussed NYS2d 297,239 NE2d 891. in Mayo, Land Use Control, 32 Syra- A-zoning-regulation-is unconstitu- case L Rev 421 (1981). tional which imposes an inflexible A zoning ordinance which purports 100-foot setback requirement on reli- to place a religious use at the mercy gious uses and prohibits any variance of certain rigid restrictions is uncon- �. — y Jewish Reconstructionist of the restriction.,Jewish Reconstruc- stitutional. = tionist Synagogue, Inc.v Roslyn Har- Synagogue, Inc. v Levitan, 41 AD2d bar, 38 NY2d 283, 379 NYS2d 747, 637, NYS2d (1973, 2d 342 NYS2d 534 (1975), cert den 426 affd 344 NY2d 827,, 3 359 NYS2d bb5,, 16 3316 NYS2d 939. US 950, 49 L Ed 2d 1187, 96 S Ct — ' 3171; discussed in Anderson, Land 19. Rhema Christian Fellowship v s Use Control, 1976 Survey of New Common Council of Buffalo, 114 Misc I York Law. 28 Syracuse L Rev 109 2d 710, 452 NYS2d 292(1982). (1977). 20. §24.19, infra. Where the proposed erection of a 1. Application of Garden CityJew- church creates a conflict between a ish Center, 2 Misc 2d '1009;"165 r' village's constitutional duty not to NYS2d 523(1956). i' infringe religious freedom and the need to protect the public health, 2. Diocese of Rochester v Planning safety and welfare, the village should Bd. of Brighton, 1 NY2d 508, 154 meet both requirements if possible. NYS2d 849, 136 NE2d 827 (1956). 577 IF vt � ;J_ ! ; § 11.32 NEW YORK ZONING denied-on-the ground that the use will genera4.,traffic conn i l 4 I gestion,', or�that it.will diminish property values.Denial of a permit may not be based on a tendency to produce a fire hazard unless there is substantial support in the record.' The extent to which a tendency on the part of a place of worship to increase traffic hazards at a particular location might support a denial of permit has not been fully articulated by the courts. In relation to secular uses, this factor may be considered by a legislative body, or by an administrative body if the ordinance so provides. The Court of Appeals rejected the poten- tial traffic problem of a proposed religious use, as a ground for denial of a permit, but consideration of this factor apparently 1 J was not specifically authorized in the ordinance" A requirement �' that off-street parking space be provided before a permit is l�r f issued apparently is valid, but a board of appeals may not require that the facilities be sufficient forfj uture as well as o current needs.' 3. Where a religious use is permit- lid. of Brighton, 1 NY2d 508, 154 _ ted in a residential district only after NYS2d 849, 136 NE2d 827(1956). securing a special permit, a rmit A permit to construct a church and may_not be withheld solely on t e parochial school may not be'denied ground that the use may compound solely on the ground that the use will traffic ro ems an eve some detri- create traffic and will generate noise. mental im t on t e value of ear- Greater New York Corp. v Miller, 56 —roundroperty, first Westminster ;;Mist 2d 727,290 NYS2d 673(1967). Pieebytetten Church"v City Council of 7 Application of Carden City Jew- Yonkers, 5T"AD2d 556, 393 NYS2d ish Center, 2 Misc 2d 1009, 155 .Il180(1977-,2d Dept);' NYS2d 523(1956). 4 Denial of a conditional use for An off-street parking variance may establishing a religious use cannot be not be denied to a religious institution justified on the grounds that the pro- without substantial evidence that a # posed use will•increase traffic and traffic hazard will result if the vari- noise,, will affect the use and enjoy- ante is granted. Mikveh of South ment of neighboring property, and Shore Congregation, Inc. v Granito, that it will change the character of 78 AD2d 855, 432 NYS2d 638 (1980, . ' the neighborhood and diminish prop- 2d Dept). arty values. Covenant–Community A board of zoning appeals is with- -i Churcb+.Inc vir (Gates Zoning Bd.'of out authority to condition a permit Appeals, 111-Mile 2d 537, 444 NY82d for a place of worship upon provision 1 416(1961) for adequate parking facilities, where power to impose such condition is not 5.Mikveh of South Shore Congrega- set forth in the regulations. Titus St. tion, Inc. v Granito, 78 AD2d 855, 432 i NYS2d 638(1980,2d Dept). Paul Property Owners Asan v Board j of Zoning & Appeals, 205 Misc 1083, ; i' 6. Diocese of Rochester v Planning 132 NYS2d 148(1954). -i' 578 .i it is I REGULATION OF USES § 11.34 A Permit may not be denied merely to prevent lose of taxes _I1 _ due to the tax-exempt status of the religious user or to the = expected depreciation of neighboring land.$ This is consistent �— – ;with the rule applicable to the granting or denial of variances for uses other than religious. Applicants for special permits to establish religious uses are, '--- of course, entitled to notice and hearing. And a permit may not be denied except on the basis of evidence which is made a part j of the record' The Court of Appeals has ruled that a religious applicant may not be treated differently merely because most of its members are not residents of the zoning municipality.10 a § 11.33. —New York City. The zoning resolution of the city of New York permits churches, rectories, parish houses, and seminaries to locate as of right in, all residential districts." These religious uses are per- mitted in all commercial districts" and in MI. districts, where light manufacturing uses are allowed." The same provision is made for convents, monasteries, and novitiates," except that these uses are excluded from commercial districts where general service uses are permitted (C8), and from all manufacturing r R districts." § 11.34. Permits; conditions. Where a zoning ordinance authorizes t board of zoning appeals to issue permits for religious use an o impose condi- ions, the board may impose conditions which do not unreason- ably restrict the use. In Application of Garden City Jewish -Y,'Planning/ Survey of New York Lew. 28 Syra- �ioeeee of'Rocheater Bd. of Brighton,,I',NY2d x 508, '154 cure L Rev 109(1977). – NY82d 849,198.NE2d 827(1956).>'.r. 11. Zoning Resolution, City of New "` York§22-14(1961,as amended). 9. Community Synagogue v Bates, 1 12 ZoningResolution, City of New 488(1966). _— _ NY2d 495, 164 NYS2d 16, 136 NE2d York§22-1 (1961, as amended). – 1 13. Zoning Resolution, City of New - 10. Jewish Reconstructionist Syna- York §42-11(1961,as amended). gogue, Inc. v Roslyn Harbor, 38 NY2d 14. Zoning Resolution, City of New 283, 379 NYS2d 747, 342 NE2d 534 York§22-13(1961,as amended). ? (1975), cert den 426 US 950, 49 L Ed — 2d 1187, 96 S Ct 3171; discussed in 15. Zoning Resolution, City of New E Anderson, Land Use Control, 1976 York§32-12(1961,as amended). 579 I ` - E ! ? § 11.34 NEW YORK ZONING ;. j. Center, the court approved the following conditions attached to a r permit for religious use: (a) the premises shall be used solely for public worship and other religious uses in accordance with the discipline, rules and usages of the Reformed Branch of the Jewish religion and of the ecclesiastical governing body, if any, to which the petitioner is subject; (b) the said use shall be confined to the ground floor of said premises and limited to a maximum occupancy of 214 persons; (c) no recreational, social, educational or other group activities i; other than conduct of religious services and conduct of a Sunday School, or similar school for religious instruction of the youth, shall be conducted or carried on at any time in the premises. In approving these restrictions the court refused to assume that the board of zoning appeals would construe the conditions so narrowly as to prevent use of the building for Boy Scouts, men's clubs of the church, etc. Such a construction would render the conditions invalid under Community Synagogue v Bates.1° A board of zoning appeals may impose only those conditions authorized by the applicable zoning regulations. Thus, where the regulations empowered the board to impose conditions relating to height, setback, and the like, the board was not authorized to condition a permit on adequate provision for off-street parking." § 11.36tDimensions of religious uses. ` The severe-limitations which the courts have imposed upon the power of a municipality to regulate religious uses gain added significance when the cases describing and defining such uses are examined. Religious use is not defined in terms of religious worship or even religious education. Rather it'is broadly ex- tended to conduct with religious purpose.-Even where an ordi- i ' nance authorizes a "church for public worshi. and other strictly religious uses" it is construed to include the social activities of the-church-group.'Thebroader�concept'of religious use was expressed bi the Court'of Appeals as follows: - A church is more than merely an edifice affording people the } opportunity to worship God. Strictly religious uses and activities II / are more than prayer and sacrifice and all churches recognize I 16. 1 NY2d 445, 164 NYS2d 15, 136 Ass'n v Board of Zoning & Appeals, + NEW 488(1956). 205 Misc 1083, 132 NYS2d 148(1954). j17. Titus St. Paul Property Owners 580 . i i REGULATION OF USES § 11.38 that the area of their responsibility is broader than leading the = congregation in prayer. Churches have always developed social groups for adults and youth where the fellowship of the congrega- tion is strengthened with the result that the parent church is I — f strengthened. . . . To limit a church to being merely a house of prayer and sacrifice would, in a large degree, be depriving the e church of the opportunity of enlarging, rpetuating and — strengthening itself and the congregation. . . It is true that the =- religious aim of strengthening the congregatio through fellow- ship may not be permitted to be perverted into a justification for �- establishing . . . a country club . . . and each case ultimately rests upon its own facts. ,q �> P Consistent with this view that activity related to the purpose of a religious organization is a religious use,the concept has been MIN hPeld include the`church itself, a parish house,`a convent,'a_'. reroc 'recreational facilities, and accessory parking f a " 'day care center for children of pre-school age, operated s by a religious institution through a non-profit corporation, is a religious activity protected from unreasonable interference by zoning rest rictions."<The-same conclusion was reached in the AIDT case of a school for tlie"'teachin of secular subjects operated as — –_ fan integral part'of`a aynagoguepA contrary result was reached _— where a dwelling in a single-family district was occupied by four families, all of the same religious persuasion. The court held that the use was not a religious one notwithstanding that the children were given religions instruction each day.' — > The notion that a religious use includes all f. the facilities — ,: employed to achieve a religious purpose w extendee( further in xA - 18, mmit7 >�raa[n[us v Bates ' (1960), affd (3d Dept) 13 AD 863, 217 1 NY2d VIC 16r NY84d 16. lglt NF.va-- NYS2d 567. — ` for Y Churches generally, nd Burns, Uses, NYS Annotations: What constitutes ac- Planning News Vol 22 No 4 p 5 ceesory or incidental use of religious Planning or educational property within zoning ordinance. 11 ALR4th 1084. 20. Unitarian Universalist Church What constitutes "church," "reli- v Shorten, 63 Miec 2d 978, 314 NYS2d — 1' 166 (1970); citing Anderson, Zoning gioue use; or the like within caning Law and Practice in New York State ordinance.62 ALR3d 197. §9.33. 19.Diocese of Rochester v Planning 1. Westbury Hebrew Congregation, Bd. of Brighton, 1 NY2d 508, 154 Inc. v Downer, 59 Miec 2d 387, $02 F NYS2d 849, 136 NE2d 827 (1956); NYS2d 923(1969). . Ibuf Diocese of Cent. New York v Schwar- 2. People v Kaleyjian, 76 Miec 2d zer, 23 Miec 2d 615, 199 NYS2d 939 1097, 352 NYS2d 115(1973). 581 � I § 11.35 \, NEW YORK ZONING Application of Faith for Today, Inc.' In 1952, an organization engaged in conducting televised religious services and operating a religious correspondence school acquired a building in a resi- dential district and remodeled it to include an office and studio. It equipped the office with postage meters, addressographs, and an offset press. Later, the organization sought a permit for AI�' further remodeling to add a printshop, storage room, Bible hltLupEp classrooms, kitchen, and dining room. The permit was denied ' f and the denial was affirmed by the board of zoning appeals. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the board's action was affirmed' The court said that irrespective of the purpose of the petitioner's activity, the zoning regulations did not permit a "factory" in a p residential district. However, the ,Appellate Division, Second ���� V Department, reversed the court and the board, holding that-the :.IvD'i�,�ir' ordinance did not prohibit a philanthropic and eleemosynary p�s corporation''from'"carrying out its`functions in the manner- 'S,rf7<oUL 'proposed:"The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion.' " Application'of Faith for Today, Inc.,' gives apparent judicial �I sanction`to'the use of commercial and even industrial equipment - by a religious organization, without regard to the residential character of the neighborhood, provided that the equipment and its use forward the salutory purposes of the organization. If there are limits upon the extent to which the residential charac- ter of a district can be destroyed by a religious user engaged in a =I publishing or manufacturing business, they are not apparent in this case. Perhaps the construction of a large, incompatible structure in a well-developed neighborhood may be so unreason- able as to come within the "country club" category mentioned 3. 11 AD2d 718, 204 NYS2d 751 See also, Cromwell v American Bi- (1960, 2d Dept), affd 9 NY2d 761, 215 ble Soc. 202 AD 625, 195 NYS 217 NYS2d 70, 174 NE2d 743. (1922). A center for counseling drug users, 4.,Application of Faith for Today, conducted at a church parish house Inc.; 20 Misc 2d 634, 194 NYS2d 708 by arrangement with a hospital, is a .i (1959), revd (2d Dept) 11 AD2d 718, "valid religious use." The scope of 204 NYS2d 751, affd 9 NY2d 761, 215 judicial definition of"religious use" is NYS2d 70, 174 NEW 743. very broad. Slevin v Long Island Jew. , ish Medical Center, 66 Misc 2d 312, 5. Application of Faith for Today, 319 NYS2d 937(1971);citing 2 Ander- Inc., 11 AD2d 718, 204 NYS2d 751 son,American Law of Zoning§9.25. (1960, 2d Dept), affd 9 NY2d 761, 215 6. 11 AD2d 718, 204 NYS2d 751 NYS2d 70, 174 NE2d 743; noted 12 (1960, 2d Dept), affd 9 NY2d 761, 215 Syracuse L Rev 284(1960). NYS2d 70, 174 NE2d 743. 552 I i , _. _ -cac: ten± *11,11: is, ANNO: ZONING REGULATIONS—CHURCHES 403 nt re,r.l fe time, as in,their discretion may zoning authorities.with respect to ap- -'lam best, but notice of any.such pro- plications for the proposed erection Posed change .shall be given in the orestablishment of a church, it has =:manner provided in the preceding sec- been held.that;the,term-ls-not toibe 'action of this act." .. 84�taarrowly:reonseruedi as•.to+tlimit r'Attention may also be called In this strictly.,to,formaliworship:.tha.:Van'of etannection to Linden Methodist Epis- promises4ornChar-construction . es, ptopal Church v Linden (1934) 113 NJL tabliahmont"fre-ehurchiFbat"n-the WH '188, 173 A 693, in which.the court •contrsry�is-to.be,construed,aa being held Invalid a supplemental zoning or- broad enough i•torincluda„oropermit. der which reclassified certain premises related .activities, such,as,man's,,and —aeon which was a two-story frame women's,social,group.,asetivities,,rel- structure which had theretofore con- gious teaching and training, use of the ti farmed to the limitations set up by the premises. for,ircorporate :,, meetings, city zoning ordinance for a two-family meetings of Roy and Girl Scouts, Sun, —' residential zone—so as to constitute day schools; kindergarten. and ,play the particular. piece of property in facilitidJ!,for; children,,provisiow.for ;i question,.as a ..business zone, upon sleegin¢ quarters,for,retreatants,.and Which the owner planned to operate pl rkilip7atoo flnodations. ;, asaloon, and which property.was only FbY'axample,',In i'nmmnnitv.&vna., r 119 feet distant from that ofa church, nr.aue v 3atea (lexai �J, NY2d,446, } which protested the reclassification in 164 NYS2d.16, 136 NE2d 488, the court Question.. The court was of the opin- held that petitioner was .entitled,to _ ion that the reclassification ordinance a change-of-use permit from that,of was not a reasonable exercise of mu. a one-family dwelling in a 'residence nicipal power in view of a statute A,district to that of a church for pub- Which, in authorizing municipal bod- lie worship and other strictly religious -'; Ies to adopt zoning regulations, pro- uses, petitioner's aim being,to estab- tided: ."Purposes in View. Such reg- lish a permanent place for ,religious '. alations shall be made in accordance worship, religious teaching and train- t with a comprehensive plan and de- Ing, fellowship, guidance of Indoor R signed for one or more of the follow- and outdoor, activities for youth, and -, Ing purposes: 'To. lessen congestion community work, theluding,.a:SAnday a•. In the.streets; tosecure safety from school,�men'sa clubr—womsu4LwAaCW Are, panic and other dangers; to pro- group,and youth-activities. The court �.' mote health, morale or the general was of.the opinion.that such use,was welfare; to provide adequate light and authorized under subdivision 3 of i r' air; to prevent ,the overcrowding of ¢261 of Article II—A, relating to resi- ' land or buildings; to avoid undue con- dential districts, but permitting there- es eentration of population. .Such reg- in churches for,pub]le..worship and 't; Ltion shall be made with reasonable other strictly.,rellgious,!uses and in Consideration, among other things, to accordance with the discipline, rules, R:. the character of the district and its and usages of the religious corpora= __�- Peculiar suitability for .particular tion, and subdivision 7 of ¢ 602 of Ar- mes, and with a view of conserving ticle VI providing for accessory uses — the value of property and encouraging of,the same character and nature,as S, . the most appropriate use of land the use .to which the same is acces- throughout such municipality.",:. , sort', and authorizing the board of ap- peals ' y a� ., to require, as a condition of an 119. w".,, .,.., ,... 9 y r 4i8(�ip4wlA ;Permit, for the,purpose of establish- �R ' wenh ing reasonable safeguards for the Although the cages indicate the dif- safety,health,and welfare of the occu- ficulty of attempting to define in pre- pante and users of buildings and their else terms what constitutes a accessory structures, that the appli- "church," within the meaning of zon- cant and the buildings and their ac- Ing ordinances, or for purposes of cessory structures on the premises determining the validity of rulings of comply with the requirements of the i � i 404 P AMERICAN 'LAW' REPORTS; 'ANNOTATED' 74 ALR2d ; i I [■lsl ..,, building construction'code prepared meetings, meetings 'of' the`congrega= r by the state building code commission, tions' sisterhood and men's club, or and to require that the premises, the meetings of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts .. subject of the application,not be used .composed of children' of the congre. for the purposes' permitted 'by the gation. .I'"' •+ ' board of appeals except upon Issuance So, too,"in Dincese+of-Roeh stet.v by the building Inspector of a 'certi. planning Board of Rriohtan (1966) t ficate of occupancy certifying that the NY2d 608;'164 NY82d 849, 136 NE2d terms anueonditions of the permit 827, revg'1 App Div 2d 86, 147 NYS2d have been complied with. ' The.court 392, which affd 207 Misc 1021, 141 tisaid: * "A church Is more than 'merely NYS2d 487, the court, with reference 41 an'edifice-affording people the,oppor- to a-so-called,$,'packaseadea$':submit- tunity to worship God.' Stridtly reli- ted in an application by a church gious uses and activittef are more organization fora permit'to build in i than prayer) and jaaeilfice and all a class A residential district, the map churches recognize that the area of accompanying the application--show- > their, responsibility 'is broader than ins the ,proposed location ' of the leading theScongregation 'in prayer. church, dchadrmeeting room;-kinder- Churches have always developed social garten, small games, open field, and i groups for adults 'and'youth where hardtop play areas, and a parking lot the fellowship of the congregation is which would accommodate 144 cars, titrengthened with the'result that the held that the uses proposed*ere with, . 7 pat8nt'church19-11trongtheneda'. in the ecppeof-a,church's=actibitiee+ .a 1 It is a'religious'activity for the church a church'being'nam!thairtnerely'an ;- =a to 'provide a place for these social edifice--affording+peoplenthekoppor- _! groups to meet, since the'church' by ,tunity to"worship'-.God. doing so IsMeveloping Into a stronger Where a zoning ordinance permitted ` -� and closer knit religious unit.' -Toaim- use of property is it residential dig- It a eburahto being,rperelyra, Ouse trict for a "church or similar place of ■ of prayer,:and aacrldoe.would r,in la worship,' A'ylardehiaLdsehoblil 'Rec. .- large degree, be depriving,ths,church tory," and "Convent"'and a religious ,bf the'opportunityl'oi'_enl6rging,.per- organisation proposed to use a 36-acre a petuatin"ndatralpgthepingataelf and estate, which for years had been oc Fhs-wongregatl9% 'The ordinance un- cupied as a family residence and con der consideration recognizes this in slated of a main residence house, ten its terms'for. It provides for'the use not house, boathouse;' and barn, as of a building for the purpose: ' '3. a religious education center where Churches for public worship and other adults and selected 'teen-aged youths strictly' religious uses and in accord- would attend a series of programs of ' ante' with, the'ldlseipline, rules' and supervised religious seminars, con usages of the'irellgious' corporation templation, and training with emphal :. which will own;support'and maintain' sia on Christian living and 'service� it '{emphasls supplied by the court]." such proposed programs to run from And 'In'Anplication of Garden Clty one day to one week�lh duratlon'with ' Jewish Center (1 Eai' MISC as - participants numbering from 26 to 30, 167' NYS2d 436, the court held that a the court in'Diocese;of•+Central••New. ' permit issued by the!board of appeals lYork.v Schwarzer-(1960)---_Mise•2d to use ground'hoo, of _'building —, 199 NYS2d 939, hold-that•4he con: as a church; synagogue, •or temple for template&use`of,the estate was per- "" religlous purposes,'the permit stipu- initted by the ordinance and that eine! )sting that at no time should any poi- there_was .notbing�to,indicate°that tion of the premises be used for pub- such use+viould adverselylAffect,the lic,'gatheringd ''of' any nature other health„safety, morals; or general wel- than'thoae embraced within such pur- ,fare of the-town the zoning board poses, was”not, to be' construed as ,would be directed 6 Issue li ce,'rtinthte i precluding'the,,permittee, a:religious .of 0dd'dPhhZy71Stating that because ; corporation, from 'holding corporate the property would not be exclusively _ _. I SIS r 'M ANNO: ZONING REGULATIONS--CHURCHES 406 a church, parochial school, parish Board of Zoif ntn •A eels v Wheaton. o house, or convent did not mean that (IfldAl t1R ind pg g$ 711 NP d_59-7,' its use was banned by the ordinance, In Mahrt v First Church of'Christ, and that the quoted portions• of the Scientist (1966, Cl?) 76 Ohio L Abs 6;, =- ordinance should be considered and 142 NE2d 667, reasoning and conclu� 1 Interpreted as a whole, so that the sion upheld in (App) 76 Ohio L Abs naked dictionary meaning of separate 24, 142 NE2d 678, reh den 76 Ohio L -_ words would not distort -intent, the Abe 27, 142 NE2d 680, an action by court,eald tF&1.tliri3"i%% ddreaihtl owners of residential property in a 'withinthatruefntent*f:the-ordinanca-; residence A district against defendant ton permitrplaFeD]yf�rorshipxachoolo, church, a nonprofit,organization, to = -anddo allow..buitdipst.,toft%Qommunitr enjoin it and Its members from parks living�-forktheiMi: posatofareligtour ing automobiles on a lot recently puri 1 study, p4uq%tiQg41Uowuhlp�and con- chased by defendant In this,district,' p= templation. Since even under a strict which lot was immediately to the rear and literal interpretation of the ordi- of another lot owned by defendant and nance the property could be used as on which its church structure stood, an edifice for worship (a church), or and where it appeared that permission j U as a place of instruction maintained for parking on the lot in question had by a religious bodyr(a'*"'pafoebtal been granted by the zoning board of �- school),-oPea"&- eS£erK61^social:Hfe appeals, and it also appeared that by of members of a religious faith (a the'•terma• of utheuzoning.uDWinaucq parish house), or as an abode for per- churches.were,permitted-in,residence sons devoted to a particular religious A districts,.and+that paragraph410,0+ ' 1= life (a convent or monastery), the 1 211 of such ordinance provided for a court said that the organization accessory,uses;R;_buildinga,qustp narilg should not be-denied-the'-right ta-use- incident to any use permitted therein, ,the property for-these^variouvpurrit Maq held that the p4ard'.s decision poses even thoughrthe-proposed-Pro- gra kln'juth�,Npaj7i�l�ypliq �pbetetegt i l/G ,grams did•not exactly coincide with with the fppt�Xpretatiorr of,euch jA (< j i the dictionary'de8nitiona of the-uses paragraphy P ittilMrkinfkJet.fori a,,,, b 1 enumerated byTthelordinatree. thus'ch's,_ptgmb s,end,:staffamay,Vp And in StarkeAp eg.al (1x60] 72= considered,a.use-customarily inotdem Pa U do C 168 98 Pittab 7 r Qar tel•�gnd_accessory...to4ahurehesi�both _ where a ruling of the board of adjust- new and old, having adjacent:land ment permitting a building in the rear available for off-street parking. • . ' '_ of a Roman Catholic church.as sleep- '�\time. : + •t, • � � . � � �ing quarters for retreatante! was- up as o prem seaas teTi0r-prodheld, the court, in negativing the con- td camp meetings hasbeen-heldtention that a retreat house is not a na horized under a permit for thechurch, said that-whenTs• property ctru ion of a tabernacle for re- i located in a-mi c -or aayi' lus.P Poses. ` -'6ther'dfdfilk usac h; hus, in ortage Township' J Fullit maybe ased,^withodE'anywiolation" vation 'on (1947) 818 Mich 693,-pf the zoning ordi�nor,'.fonany-pur? 2W2d 297, P diamd for want ofpose connected wlth'the^raligions'prat: abatantiel fe rel question; 833 USticeswhichthe'grdtgrodbectmsintain- 892 L ed 1183, 3 Ct 786, rah dening that paetioulirfthtifth^deaires`to' 3US 830, 92 L ed 67i 68 S Ct 1336,_pursue, unless there is a'substantial tcourt denied the Mention madeand unreasonable interference with, n ecclesiastical for ration whichor injury to public health, morale; been granted 'a pe It to con-safety, and welfare. sct a tabernhcla for re loue'pur- A convent or-'sistere4•home6mu&tr s, under a zoning'ordi nee ex-b4 W6Jdsrlld'7�Wtfft Q`rnitpart'of any aly allowing churches in a siden- Roma"tb1pJft ahtifmhq"jaebWithin tarea, that the use of the pr leesthe meaning of asoning-ordinance per- holding camp meetings the on twitting churches in a residential area. weeks at a time, the worships • I� N I 1 CNUC'GN GF- TµG � %" — 4-4uLY A- A//Z. AL-L-c -z, #fie. ru6['Jss Or- Woi Nwi- As SSG/dL �gCG. Y JW A LRr—�. }{�jy u o ({,�� I S ��� }nuc- COdJ7Tt� lis l Ili Derr g�. tuirFuz- �I.AYC�20u.1v 4�A1G/A-!Ce _ r)R\JtWP'f o' "Ya I Al4 rpYvi&w Fp, _- - SEND ftlL (�LTIFiG4�1Ct.l li I � ciwfi=tJ b6+4 r S-71 - INE � �cF,00 _ ears = z . ` IBi7 14iq 114 -0" E.pS E MF�.fr' #YYYY#i##liYYi#i#Viii#iiYitiYYi## ii#iYii##iiY#ii##tYY#Y##iiiiiYYi i 4-FA DRAINAGE DATA HARD SURFACE AREAS ----------------------------------------- ------------------ YY#YY#Y Vc = 38.500 SF 1 .16 FEET 1 1 = 6160 CF PAVED AREA -------------------- 30.500 SF VOLUME REQUIRED = 616C CUBIC FEET N ROOF AREA --------------------- 8.000 SF ----- COEFFICIENT OF RUNOFF --------------- 1.0 WOODLAND AREAS ----------------------------------------- -------------- WOODLAND ---------------------- 53.500 SF Vc = 53.500 SF 1 .16 FEET 1 .05 = 428 CF COEFFICIENT OF RUNOFF --------------- .05 VOLUME REQUIRED = 428 CF GRASS ------------------------ 125.500 SF GRASS AREAS #####s Y COEFFICIENT OF RUNOFF --------------- .15 ----------- ----------------------------------------- Vc - 125.500 SF 1 .16 FEET 1 .15 = 3012 CF ` RAINFALL ---------------------- 2 INCHES ----- TOTAL VOLUME REQUIRED x 9600 CF - VOLUME CALCULATION FORMULA Vc = ARC 16 - BASINS 10'-0 ' DIAMETER 1 8'-0' DEEP 626 CUBIC FEET VOLUME PER BASIN VOLUME PROVIDED = 10048 CUBIC FEET AUG 2 0 1986 .�. 1q� IOE ® BUFFo� OFF OF 04078 MAIN RD. COR. BECKWITH P.O. BOX 002 AM/ REPLY REPLY TO: BOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11071.0992 tJ(�J(L/ (01 EI 700.1401 IPEW YORK C1TY OFFICE 130 COURT STREET S/^^ /`` BROOKLYN, N.Y. 11201.0207 `Q4`+✓/\t Yt (710) 041-1000 po � IRWDT R. KAFXAN OF COUMBR August 21 , 1986 Richard Cron, Esq. Cron & Cron Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Church of the Open Door Dear Mr. Cron: At one of the recent meetings of the Southold Town Planning Board, you indicated that you had been retained by several residents along Grange Road. I have not received any correspondence from you to that effect and the records at the Town Hall do not re- flect that you filed any type of Notice of Appearance. would you please be kind enough to send me a letter indicating the names of those you are representing and forward copies of all cor- respondence addressed to the board to my office. Very truly yours , PAUL A. CAMINITI PAC:sel cc: Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Planning Board✓ g�FFO(,tr�, P , D T LD S Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 July 24, 1986 Mr. Paul Caminiti Attorney at Law Main Road P.O. Box 992 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Church of the Open Door Dear Mr. Caminiti: Please let this confirm the following action taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, July 14 , 1986. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the following comment to the Board of Appeals with regard to the application for a special exception of the Church of the Open Door: 1. The Planning Board is not considering site plan approval at this time. If evidence is found, in the review by the Board of Appeals, to substantiate the granting of a special exception, the Planning Board will proceed with the site plan review. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Very truly vours , ENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary cc: Board of Appeals - ® • • 'JUN 2 � i986 ® SUFFOLK OFFIOE OF 84076 MAIN RD. COR. 13ECKWITH P.O. BOX 992 REPLY TO: BOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971.0992 tJr�7fL/ yV� (618) 786-1401 NEW YORK CITY OFFICE 198 COURT STREET BROOKLYN. N.Y. 11201-8287 (718) 649-1600 IRWIN R. KJUFLAN or COOK9LL June 25, 1986 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Salvatore Catapano - Minor Subdivision Church of the Open Door - Site Plan Gentlemen: Enclosed is a copy of the covenants and restrictions as executed by Mr. and Mrs. Catapano. The covenants and restrictions have been amended in accordance with the suggestions made by Mr. Tasker. Also enclosed are three copies of the site plan for lot #3, together with our check for $100.00. The Zoning Board is awaiting your comments before proceeding with our application for Special Exception. Please don't hesitate to contact my office if you require additional information. Very Yrul yours f PAU CAMINITI PAC:sel Enc. c - *-*— 'Doc�- SITE PLAN ELEMENTS §100-134 Town Code ( ) Lot, block, and section number, if any, or the property taken from tax records ( Name and address of the owner of record i ( Name and address of the person preparing the map ( Date, North arrow and written and graphic scale ( Sufficient description or information to precisely define the boundaries of the property. All distances shall be in feet and tenths of a foot. All angles shall be given to the nearest ten seconds or closer. The error of closure shall not exceed one in ten thousand. ( ✓) The locations, name, and existing width of adjacent streets and curblines ( The location and owners of all adjoining lands, as shown on the latest tax records ( Location, width and purpose of all existing and proposed easements, setbacks, reservations, and areas dedicated to public use withinor adjoining property. ( ) A complete outline of existing deed restrictions or covenants applying to theproperty ( ) Existing zoning ( Existing contours at intervals of five or less, referred to a datum satisfactory to the Board ( •.� Approximate boundaries of any areas subject to flooding or stormwater overfloc ( Location of existing watercourses, marshes, wooded areas, rock outcrops isolated trees with a diameter of eight inches or measured three feet above the base of the trunk and other significant existing features. ( ✓) Location of uses and outlines of structures, drawn to scale on and within one hundred (100) feet of the lots. ( ✓) Paved areas, sidewalks, and wehicular access between the site and public streets ( VI Locations, dimensions, grades and flow direction of existing sewers, culverts and waterlines as well as other underground and above ground utilities within and adjacent to the property. ( ✓j Other existing development, including fences, landscaping and screening ( ✓f The location of proposed buildings or structural improvement ( VII The location and design ofall uses not requiring structures such as off street parking and loading areas. ( �/ ) The location, direction, power and time of use of any proposed outdoor lighting or public address systems. ( f) The location of, and plans for, any outdoor signs ( ✓S The location and arrangement of proposed means of access and egress, including sidewalks, driveways or other paved areas- Cprofiles indicating grading and cross sections showing width of roadway location and width of sidewalks and lcoation and size of water and sewer lines. OVER. . . Site plan elements cont. (§100-134) ( ' ) Any proposed grading, screening and other landscaping including types and locations of proposed street trees. ( V ) The location of all proposed waterlines, valves and hydrants and of all sewer lines or alternate means of water supply and sewage disposal and treatment. ( ) An outline of any proposed deed retrictions and/or covenants. ( ) Any contemplted public improvements on or adjoining the property. ( ) If the site development plan indictes only a first stage, a supplementary plan shall indicate ultimate develoment. ( ) Any other information deemed by the Planning Board necessary to determine conformity of the site plan with the intent and regulations of this chapter. TOWN P SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK / APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION Application No. Date Filed: TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK: I (We) , CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR of Beckwith & Traveler St. (Residence, House No. and Street Southold, New York 11971 Te; (516) 765-1401 (Hamlet, a e, Zip Code, Telephone Number) hereby apply to THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION in accordance with the ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE III , SECTION 100-30 , SUBSECTION B(2) for the below-described property for the following uses and purposes (and as shown on the attached plan drawn to scale): 1. We wish to build a HOUSE OF WORSHIP on 5 acres of land zoned A Residential, as more fully set forth in the attached Subdivision Plan filed by Salvatore and Jeanne Catapano dated October 15, 1985. We are contract vendees of the property and the contract is subject to approval of the subdivision. The subject property for the church is indicated on said plan as Lot 3 and consists of 5 acres with access from Bayview Rd. A detailed survey of the lot by Van Tuyl, dated March 6, 1986 is also attached. 2. The Special Exception is being requested primarily .fnr a Hrnce nf-Worchio to a commodate our c2ngrgg4tion an,,,,,d oresently housed at-AeckWi�,S�„T,,E,�,�gJ,��,..�L�gtS,.U],.�outhold�..1'h�..ministries.ut�,4g.�h�LS.� ' inr•hide_ .bLt are not omit C s e ,Sunday.School, Lambsggate NurserySc_ho_o_l� hand Kinderearden. Pilerim School ades l 0 4 Youth Groups,_andbutreac}i ` iml�T`nistrTes. 3. Phase I construction consists of a single 93' Octagonal building approximately_Mrsq.ft. with seating for 200 parishioners. Parking is provided per Bulk Schedule ( 1 space per 5 seats = 40 spaces.) One 2 way drive is proposed from Bayview Rd.for both ingress and egress. Phase II construction (only, as, if, and when feasible) will consist of an addition to the structure of a 40x80 building with an additional 20 parking spaces and possible parsonage. 4. The proposed construction is 26 feet in height and is completely fire retardant and soundproof. It conforms to the regulations and Code in every manner. The structure is 50 feet from any street, is more than 20 feet from any lot and the A. Statement of Ownership and Interest, total area does not exceed 20% of the area of the lot Salvatore and Jeanne Catapano is (are) the owner(s) of property known and referred to as Main ., out o - �use o. , tr et, Hamlet) ( Church of the Open Door is Contract ven ee opo identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 69 , Block 6 , Lot(s) 9.2 , which is not (is) on a subdivision Map (Filed "Map ofatore do Jeanne Catapano " Filed Map No. , and has been apppproved by the Southold Town Planning Board on pending as a [Minor] [9363] Subdivision). The above-described property was acquired by the owner on Aug. 16, 1985 B. The applicant alleges that the approval of this exception would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of said zoning ordinance and that the proposed use conforms to the standards prescribed therefor in said ordinance and would not be detrimental to property or persons in the neighborhood for the following reasons: The attached composite tax map shows that most of, the adjacent land is open land. Of the 17 adjacent owners, 5 of the lots are vacant land. The church is not offensive either in design or appearance. It will be tastefully constructed to blend it with the surroundings and professionally landscaped. There will be large buffer areas completely surrounding the church and any objections from adjacent property owners can easily be resolved. C. The property which is the subject of this application is zoned A-Residential and [ ] is consistent with the use(s) described in the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith. [ ] is not consistent with the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith for the following reason(s) : [ X] is vacant land. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) ss. . Signature) j iworn to be r m 1 20 day of March,1986 19 1161 lB2a '0 b Acnrvipim ro* Pb?S6fi �ew rev. Noe2/6/86N �gi Commission EXP 1 r .. „ I r R r S� � 1 i p"G 1 rt I tl �e i z ' I A - PROPERTY LINE f 8 NO SETBACK PER PREVIOUS PIANS 5 PROPOSED STRUCTURE r, i 1 I . � N C n. > lz 1j11 ' 1 J } Iw I yy��I' C 14 ie ^:I fly r I 1 p 0dN D SG THOLDTO PLANNING BOARD s� ' l 05 25 100EEf _ 2 F 50 ORT NH " 210 50 175 I� IT rr a f 1 S 1 T ,u I I " I .. i DECLARATIC]N OF COVENENTS Index to ®swim tON '�'/ ' J (O AND RESTR I CT I ONS / \ wm V '� c A 1 _ SITE PLAN GpTAPANO L� -7 WHR"S, SALVATORE CATAPANO and JEANNE CATAPANO. 3. No earn than one single family dwelling May 6e " ' A2 - BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN . F200M 101 r.,Idl., at 3701 Canrtney Lane, 3etllpage. New York 11714, are the erected on lots 1 and 2 on the map entitled SALVA70RE CATAPAND Is F I N 2 $H SCHEDULE DOOR SCHEDULE p}+- LX/Kt9�-\/, GUS / z� =KI owners In fee- rSouthold. a< DETAILS y9j fee-simple of certain ° ebl sec 1n the Town of approved by the Noad of the Town of SoulhgJ a. N N• 701° 411' 30" E- • t'9Z •43 Suffolk County, New York. known and designated a SALVATORE 3. THgt there shall be no further subdivision of lots AL - MAIN Fwr LOOR PLAN . ROOM F I N I E3 �y CATAI•\NO at the s.uth.rly side of Rust. 25, the easterly side of shown a number 1, 2,,nd 3 an said subd{vlstan plan, in - SCHEDULE - DOOR SCHEDULE . BUILDIN 'SG y '� I W - w DETA I LS ��/ �'{ �r I South Harbor Road, and , port portion of the westerly side of Ngvlew perpetuity. e{ LOT 3 F=O EI21 ` Road. in the Teyn of Southold. 4. That any further subdivision of lo[ numbered 4 on �N V 4,At Na � A4 _ EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS . STAIR as' �I`ZAVl+L? GAIrPp'vO 1NE� WHEREAS, aid Declararints are desirous of placing said subd+v+slon oil. that) only be permitted with the consent of SECT I ONS . AND DETA I LS - L My certain restrictions upon said premises which ,hall be binding; the Southold Planing Ro.r° dna shall he Hotted t° a minor r/�' room - m ZALESKI AS - WALL SECTIONS �/ 3 sp upon all purchasers and their grantees, mortgagees• or successors subdivision c.rt,Inf.V not more tM1,n four U) tats. ®I P12[)POSEO I N W.well �' E, +.S&g011 in Interest of the Individual lots show° a° said map as approved 5. TM1a[, except as set Porth above, Dec]arvn is reserve Q — -- — — — -- — - -- A6 _ BASEMENT REFLECTED CE I L I NG PLAN m� MI by the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, the right to impose additl on❑ covenants and restrictions• and d' ^ry �11LpNCq _ Q RL- I Lok I NG SECT I ONS . INTERIOR I PPRKINC� . r� _ New Ynrk, further reserve the-right ro modify, change and/or annul any such ELEVAT 110 N'S AND DETA I LS - N LDT `� O NOW THEREFORE. THIS DECLARATION WITNESSETH: atlditanal covenants and restrictions that may be imposed from alown LE!-1R I 0 �wvE That the said Declarants, for like benefit of time to time in the future. A7 _ MAST N FLOOR REFLECTED CE I L I NCa • PLAN INTERIOR ELEVAT I ONS aJILDINQ 5a rBPGK —�— _ — _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ - -_ _— — / ��ryo themselves, their successors and assigns, in consideration °f the n. Ane les And bounds aescri 0.tt°n °( the entire AND DETA I LS promises and for the purpose of carrying out the above expressed subdivision is attached hereto a made a part hereof. • Y u ,� S Y,i- FOOTING $e FOU NDAT I ON PLAN Iz.. e 5. 701 4 40 Yd IOIG. S ntenHoms, do hereey make known, Pdnit, publish, covenant'and X WITNESS WHEREOF, [Ae �ecla ants nae executed the = v m m agree .bhat the said premises hareirabove set forth, shall foregging Declare tion this I'h ayAr of June, 190 DETA I LS - N SC - - LOT I W hereafter be subject to the following covenants. easements, NC.SY /S2 _ FLOOR FRAMING PLAN . SECT I ONS e Q y 19 s LUT LOT LDT?FI LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT T a a ana `P4ANT�Z.E LOT W restrictions and agreements: peJ12 1-5 A 150I 2 4 S ? 1. zoning reyq,air ana and ora,ansa of tnTown, pond(-OT STBCFE OF NEW YORK) SJ - ROOF FRAMING PLAN AND DETAILSCounty and State or other governmental bodies in which theCOUNTY OF SUFFOLK) 'VILLAGE c GIFNPORT RoN SEAMAN SaV�E NRNC-R KROPEL MuRINESE 2ol1MPN FRIEOM�N IIVFF/✓, �//I0 premises Ile. On the, tl,y of Junore me p any cane.( 54 DETAILS Yr I / y SALVATORE CATAPAND atl JEAXXE ne kn antl known tq TOIa OF,� Y nq t° be !He individuals de scwh stated the 71 tt.E , MULE foregoing instrument, and acknaecuted the TOV F INv.le L. 18.9 same. _ ceV p EL. 199915 • G�GANGIE Ro�G ADJOiWJ NG PROPr-RTY PLAr\I � ' b S,83 L�ocHMG - / RUILDINL� 1383 qn� ROL • - oo ad,,.� - .m' 2 w-ro ���p�,�E 4d T INv EL _B I5ly � _n.. SAlEMrL �*;" aJ' • m s N UU � •n +�-�2' 3" _ $.L�OF v147Ere- -6,o' /� 41J H • I5�5 L TikNK 0. 4 INV EL, EL.1 Gu? lois / / \ -•_ - -- - — 13 \\\\ \\ ~ME¢cuRY * 12'-On 15,01, 24 !e)` Tor or 25o wpTrLAMP' - NIovs 6 6MINrlmR '15 PLAN C!1-- sysrtM ! EL.11,33• cDVE2b N ?q °h4' 300E 1�27. 431 V A \ 2-R1cNRe _,-�_ rove-r2 i. \ 14,E \ RP.Tr4Y-ro be _ -a TOP COJ SEE 7Ly.1 0 ' IUV,IB., EL a'-0.0 =N.e3 _IN-� - ., /� • _1 \ \\ oN £dUTMC�T: Iv -VrTJd,�S.. / Il. 4 5 Z 5 \ Is. rAYlrfAOLLE� 1,w ll Cr DICING ON 71 -- QII INLET ' - -N CyWrAow _-- % \ mG-Jro> <E cLA6S " 5 _ FLOUT _� 5 LDV°1,a- 6FGKFItL RPE wI CLSAN / — I —_ hYlN,sdPffIN 2.1 i�� �� �� II. Fmk« P�IZI�ING �I 11 \r - y r LA RFZVT PkE e" F Di MUD (✓\Y�'i�� \D� i .-_ "' -£ \' \ l L`'-'-� \1. '-r'RWIGIJ�Z RfL _ 113 3 _ N von4E _ r Y _ __ _ _ / e. �� - C72EEN ChB - -�• v - OlIp. ' r ' "'' ' . .� _ - I I � Lg RAY AIA a I d AQt-t R %0" OEE �, _ ' sh6EMEVJT Pi. _ 'TVH I� I 8s0:-DNA E'L817 .. IN LEPGNIN� Ek•ILO ._ - - -- I / 2a �,� F�4-1w, IffFd - 1 MC2vsrlEp � YIP- I2,(0 12, 1 1 12 /, S SrDIJI= II m,j t \ I I '(n ea 2HLET \ _iou T 3'RAMV �N A WIDEvN1 R BIS..) \Ic 'Aewkl= ¢^ pl` 7:01Op' ., . on . 1 '.O1, LA14T \ - �]®�{. fn �RN1F.iJ. LIGH 1 - \ � I ll-IC..f'+L 1- i�P•t�'I1�1 .. \ V Iw \ .4 4 _ , LIG1RT FIM E ( I've � \ \ \ (^ C6TGH \ PRIVET HECYnE \ kdle�l>r'� PRIGI/�ST �. .IPLAN lV \ \ I / N Mho- % /4\ f J 8-N eA4hING ' ).seeuo; MIcxe UPPe�tFi . 750 -, FT - � v1 2 - �EGTI �ty � "PLAN SffP11G =h�i�M :I �,S w, 5D sq,�r . a� �Lc \ �\\ IcYu 61 v L,E46L41NG Fel. . �dleYµlbl Al' *' I; \ - ' _ ,-�� _CIEUI- 2 �: o / � .//•,tA'� � i� 13-'� y ' ' IC' 2 N2(J° IIi 60UH PRIVET H$JCaF �`n..- .�- .�-��._ qp� � a � f 3 I \�•- t3UIL:fJli�l� r LOWER PL•6L,11 Lp'' /;� �FiXT 42 \ AA Q 1 -- ------ UTAN Law 1441E NORVJWMA E I \ AN o u�E7NIJD'Y `� \\�Ture-B F'VI2�INC,\ ''(srn)eFlzs �••-.,.,•,/,y O z �? I o D LUQ a� — I. --- 101 my , �� a ,�mo \ ��uTTvv e \- \ I3.ro - 5 aro a m Z NolwPv '' - Pah4V �'o' o" \\ �Sx,AR §1 ` �j BNMINOUS PGVIM \� \"` 21\lEW?l� s a ,/ I' .�) \ MAP7.E <-._ _ . \-�I,i•kI SI-I-ED 5 NE �� \�. 3 /V I _ N O Z = -I ���� I.t;Wr:+ll _ wc>Lr w .fI -pp 1Iip1�^-NN _1h!� li• I y, VEKIF�EyVJ f1 R \ O / Im,4 IaRL-EN \ __ b4>�U, . /� S •o 8 _ u u J u u �10 1 I 'p I.DW PoINr \ \ ) Ag. o I Lµ- hS REaUIIa•E•1.3 \ FUNY2P PVp-F4I�-a ( '-+Cp Cnl�-S � I6 y. \ \ - -- - - g t` �alracR-MP(4.E raHr - -�- - l3 - - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - -_ - -- - -- - -� � �\ � � J ETW2 MW+LE—� 10 �\ \ N6 II m �'V � 0 e, 1 x _ - r fr_ Gk? Sf9 it Ni E 772.6 - 101l01�5 12 w o Q s) { \ IR I IA' 13 12 II .�' . �. s �-- --- y PRivE7 1+FR'aE d L p2IVFT teD4e IB'� �vlwGeRPDo DO XTFl2 IB�7 3.co � -DOU6.4-1 I `� Irx5U�SF1R 19io �\ lG,d ¢rA10anpo \ `3•DdK�RRR- VET IiEDI'oE t)lbti. I'WVET HELYaE + NEW ABC lonew� 5 ry -- ;ESSh" O *##DCzS�I L�N�#CR # ER ,* 2FPTIC TANK CAPACITY - BAYfi FLOW ------1 020 SAL./DAY = 1,640 GALLONS ��L� l� IIY#asfr» oat#M##Ys sx'###r# esi#ss � � o � o �c7od 7 y ^� zr oe ( I f� SITE PLAN DATA --Atb"M� I_ � Y,^�A R1 E ' 66 ., .. v ,,. :,I WHY SEPTIC TAU ---- 2 MYA FLOW - - � � { X /���`` � �1f1n 'Me � „/�� V 3 - " ...�. '1DP'S01 L. 1 P • :'I f r I C1UU"' � l� [J U V Wl I L7 1 ED AREA ----------- - 30,5 1 2 BAY FLOP FABN CNAIY FLGN AlIE IN CUBIC FEET 1 1640 % .1337 = 219,27 CUBIC FEET 1 _O ELId'O --- W OF VOLUME REPUIREU + dIQQECDWCIFEET 6160 CF LEACHING POOL --- 1 OA SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP OESIANATION - ���wJiplF AREA -----------L--- - - B-0(0 SF �• fLOX RRTE PBk'.TNEI BEBIfiX.I HIGHEST TANK SI%E • 5' N 5' % l2' CALCULATES WITH 4' EFFECTIVE NEIGNi e D I' I SITE PLAN - �oNhV7 � + 4' X 5' N 12' • 240 CUBIC FEET X 7.48 = 1795 SAL, CAP. 3LD F1. 12'-0 --------- COEFFICIENT OF RUNOFF ------- LO WOODLAND AREAS ROOM OCCUPANCY N GALL'ON6IOAY/ TOT oR / IS NT77UIZ QTIAN DAY SCHOOL GIVES THE' PARCELI PT. OF 4.2 '--------------------------°------------ ^•"---------- LEACHING POOLS SAND BLOCK: d WOODLAND --------------------- 53,500 OF VD • 53,500 9F X .16 FEEi, 1 .05 • 428 OF Is p6r PERSON --------------- C-IRL�VEI. Scale. Ilse II, 8 V - SECTION: Od9 COEFFICIENT OF RUNOFF --------------' .05 VOLUME REQUIRED • 420 CF - LEACHING TANK SIZE w A'-0a DIAM. X P-P HIGH. al �I ELIC pTl COEFFICIENT OF RUNOFF _________125_500.15 BAA86 AREAS .,r. EEDUCATION AM 11 1 BUCAT[ONTAM9 @N __EN 3a________-____5________.___i3 LEACHING„AATEI G••� U5 lot 1 �I _ - _ J-__1 �� T � NG SI-� L-•i ” ^ -------------------------- ---- Vc • 123.500'SF N .16 FEET 1 .15 • 3012 OF EDUCATION RM 43 30 5 + 15 4 TANKS N A'DIAM. 1 6'H, X 3,14 = 603 SO.Fy, I� 0" � 5. NORTH 6 �> G t N 1 OWNER OF RECORD J- - - - _ _ _-_____ BAL/60.FTIOAY • 401 AALI: N I DAY. -0 ------------------------------------ ___ RAINFALL ---_______ ___ ___ Z INCHE9 , ' - '-----------" -c^02 603 BQ.FT. % L3 — W TEtz- 7 \ +�IJ 00 MAIN ROAD NEN YORK 11971 628 CUBICNFEETEVOLUMEIPERTBASIN 096SEEPF _ 164 S B2 I ON8/DAY LEACH TANK CAPACITY: 0 THESE DRAWINGS A � u� A ______________________ _ SOUT LD, TOTAL • SALVATORE N SEANNE CATAPAND VOLUME CALCULATION FORMULA Vc = ARC 16 - ff . 4 TANKS 1 'N X ;4 N 3.14) 1 6'H •'1205 CU,FT. 17! II RS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF RICHARD KEILLOR, ARCHITECT VOLUME PROVIDES • 10048 CUBIC FEET, i `\ 1205 CU.FT, M 7.48 + 9W9 BRLLONSr AND THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS OR ANY REPRODUCTION IS NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT HIS WR,TTTEN PERMISSION UNDER FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAW. L,O �a mm �� I Gn. PTAPPNO LUKO.S\/IGUS ZM ESIGI N• 79° A' 0" E , 44 •43 L BUILDIN sef66LK 1 _ WT 3 DG ?PLP GATPPANd I PINEjzTM L M E I 20 0 r ZALESKI N•00°I I S0° E• 458,11' �� f p ®1 vl�ovoseo ' 1 ...- d �IIegNCa PvzW — - — — — — — — — - -- -7 LDT s c+ - W C-4 LEE}Iz I NRE lAT 0 �`., . - DWVE W (� Ole Z PanLDINCa Sei LAGK S. 19° 49 1301, W I OIG• s m LOT' II LDT LOT- LOT- LOT LOT LO'r LOT LOT LOT PaNTAZE 12 13 14 IS 1 2 3 4 VILLAGE OFCgIZEENPORT 1p DENDRON SEAMAN SAVACaE 7URNC-R KROPEL MARINESE Px�PN FRIEDMAN C3vFF4 G�ANc�E ROAD ADJOINING PRcPM(zTY fl..Ar-J = o0 rti.1 W 111 411 30" m la 27, 43' � \\ 14,E \N, 5. 2 /// 12 2,5 It 12,1 q F CC R / Il TUr�P_ PpRIUNG 2��alzs 11 \ // J 'TO DRhiNFIEI-0 II I \ 2, 1 \ M 1 12 --- 1 2 V . _ 40' On - 20-_O � 4t)�t1° 22't)n °r ~ \� �\ \ Ir -- � �. Q 0)OO 0) 0 3 Foul L_pItJC� i N '� \ I n Cr Q, -PJfREC4�L,EL,az=o gl i '� - -- -- - - - r - - - - - - - --�\- - - - - - - - -- -- -- - - -- - - -- - - �. ¢ 14�t 1414 i, � O a �� -- ✓ I i � � - - SIGN ' R Q Lu 0 PAI ItiC���3o)cAIzS �`, L Z z _ -0 0 S 1 ti� Is NPI RrP> �\ i,\ \ \�\ DRI\J�w/PY 0 _Z _ T a� I \ —� — p SNP — Ire,4 _ .o M PPIzK'NS ( �CoCAl25) I Dly J 17A 11 ,4- -- -- - --- ----._.._-- ler----- --------- -- - — _ �� 10.5 s�IT IZ PIL frN � I, EJTREFs �\ �S,cE ,4 s 32 18 ,7 1 ,q - Fzlver I+ cue CU (� Jc MID ------ --- -- -----206'=�� - - -- ---- -- � �/ 1 � —IS-- - eAi vnNrscOCNmurzSITE PLAN So lU`� � � �►s86�U +u IS- -- PRorb CDNBuJcaNTOUft DAiE IIie EKISTING SP0TELGVI1710N scale. 11=30 o s� to an so qo 50 0 F-m nNG T12Ef, NORTH. 'm' I_ . 1