Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-109.-1-23June 13, 1994 'SITE PLAN DATA I' · Southold Town Planning Board ~ SCTM #: 1000-109-1-23 Town of Soulhold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road : ~ ~' I / I~/~ P O Box 728 ~ OWNER: Southold New York 11971 ~ PETROL STATIONS LTD ' / c~o THOUAS J OORUAN ~PPROVED BY RE Petrol Stations P 0 BOX 1445, MATTITUCK N Y, 11952 0989 Tel fl 516~298-847~ ~ANNING BOABD Dear Sirs: O~ Below are the calculations for rain water runoff for the asphalt parking/driveway areas , ARCHITECTS: T N OF SOUTHOLD at the Real Estate, Architecls Office and garage Drainage calculations for lhe SAMUELS& STEELMAN ARCHITECFS ~TE~ ~ ~ subdivision road were submitted 5/23/94. 25235 MAIN ROAD , CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 ParklnglDrlveway sudace: 516- 734-6405 6154 sq fl of asphalt sudace X 2" rainfall ( 0 1667) X 1,0 runnoff factor = PECONIC SURVEYORS , Lawn/Landscaped Area to absorb rain water runoff from asphalt sudacing= ~ LICENSE ~ LS 49618 12,500 sq ft area ' DATED 01/12/87 ' ~ . REVISED' 08/20/93 RAIN WATER RUNOFF: ~,026 cuft AREA TO ABSORB RUNOFF: 12,500 sq ft PARKING REQUIREMENTS: ~ ~ Z I Analysis Rain water ~unoff is equal to an additional 1 inch of rain water over the 1 REAL ESTATE OFFICE 7 8 spaces I~WR and landscapped areas (1 Space/lO0 SF) 780/100 = 7 8 spaces I If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us, ~T~o~ ~ ~l~ ~ ~,,~:k ~ (1 Space/100 SF) .... ~z''/ 796/100 = 7.96 spaces SAMUELS & STEELMAN ARCHITEGTS (1 space/1000 SF) ~ (2 spade/Dwelhng) I SITE PLAN' ~ ~/~ ~o o~ o,~-r :30'-0" /~ ~'"~ ~ s.C.T.U.* ~ooo ~o~ o~ ~o ~~<- -' ' SITE PLAN TAKEN' FROM SURV~ PREPARED BY PECONIC SURVEYORS & ENGINEEfJ~ P.C., SOUTHOLD N.Y. ' FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REFER TO PARTI^'L ,, RECE]VED BY 0'8 Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Date: Scale: Sheet Title: SITE PLAN Sheet No: '.SP-2 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett OHowski, Jr. Mad( S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Terephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 28, 1995 Nancy Steelman Samuels & Steelman, Architects 25235 Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Proposed site plan for Petrol Stations SCTM# 1000-109-1-23 Dear Ms. Steelman: The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, March 27, 1995: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assumes lead agency, and as lead agency makes a determination of non-significance, and grants a Negative Declaration. WHEREAS, Petrol Stations Ltd. is the owner of the property known and designated as Petrol Stations Ltd., SCTM# 1000-109-1-23, located at Main Road in Cutchogue; and WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on May 5, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, declared itself lead agency and issued a Negative Declaration on March 27, 1995; and Page 2 Proposed site plan for Petrol Stations March 28, 1995 WHEREAS, a special exception was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 1, 1995; and WHEREAS, this site plan was certified by Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector, on March 26, 1995; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated February 8, 1995, subject to a one year review from date of building permit. Enclosed please find a copy of the survey which was endorsed by the Chairman. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely,/7 icnard G/Ward Chairman cc: Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector Scott Russell, Chairman, Board of Assessors enc. Presub mission confere-~ce SITE PLAN (within 30 days of written request} Complete application received (within 4 months of presub, conference} Application reviewed at work session (within 10 days of receipt} Applicant advised Of necessary revisions' (within 30 days of review}' ]; evised submission received .'ad Agency Coordination i;:QRA determination I I:FERRED TO: Zoning Board of Appeals (written cgmments within 60 days of request} Board of Trustees Building Department (certification)f?/',,-//-?.2 Suffolk County Department of Planning Department of Transportation -State Department of Transportation - County Suffolk County Dept. of Health Fire Co m missioners .,.IVED. Received.~ Draft Covenants and Restrictions Filed Covenants and Restrictions Landscape plan Lighting plan Curb Cut approval Health approval Drainage plan Reviewed by Engineer A[i t'~val of site plan · t'ith conditions En,~ ,l'sement of sire'plan Cer: 5icate of Occupancy inspection (~ne '(:ar review Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN Date of Application Filing Fee~/~.c~ Date Rec'd New Use Change of~se Re-Use Extension of Existing' Use Revisio~ of an Approved Site Plan~ (Date of Approval Other Specify~ ~t~nB~i~ or Si te~ ~ +~__ _ ~ ~ 7~ Address of Site, if a~ailT~able Z~ z~ Telephone 2 Applicant,s interest in site-check one: Owner of Land ~ner of Fee Title to La~ ~ Under contract to purchase Address~~,~~ ~_~ ~ -- ~ -- ~ ~o~ "/~/~ '~ ~~ Telephone ~~= " .... Total Land Area ~f Site_=5~z /g~.~ Sq. Ft. Zone Distr~ct ~O Existing Use of uite ~/~<~/~--=~r ' ' - ~'~g= oposed Use of Site Gross Floor Area of Existing Structure(s) ~ sqft. Gross Floor Area of Proposed Structure(s) ~ , sqft.-- e cent Coverage of Lot for Parking (where appl~able) Percent ) sqf; Percent of Lot for Landscaping(where applicable) Dat~(Specify)u.S.G.S. ~ ~t~,, -- Other Has applicant been gra~ted a variance and/or special exception by Board of Appeals Case N~er Name of Applicant ~)ate of Dec'ion ExpiratiOn Date 4ill any toxic or hazardous materials, as define~ by the Suffolk Coun ~oard of Health, be stored or handled at the site? if so, have proper permits been obtained? q~ber and Date of permit issued ~0 ACTION (EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION) ~y BE UND~T~ ~IL APPROV: ~F SITE PL~ BY~E PLYING BO~. APPLICANT's AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ~~y~o~ a=t.~ ~n/~g d~.~Ly SWOrn, de - ~L ne is ~ ~. ~--, ana that h~ ~ ~ ~. ~_~f~ ~ poses --~ ~ -~ ~s one OWner o~~~ (T~ of the~]~i~e ~bo!e~ ~f_CorDoration) which iS hereb ....... (Spe~~ ==ners~if OWner or his he'rs, su~ = ,,=~lng application; that the eS~ors or assigns Will, at his o of the Code of the Town of So~thold for the area Stated %Te C?ZZ and that there are existing Structures or improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that title to the entire Parcel, install the re~ired S~te improvements in accordance wit iIino including all · r~ghts-of-way, have been clearly established and are shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes Upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he has ex~ined all rules and regulations adopted by the Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and Will comply with S~e; that the Plans SUbmitted, as approved, will changed in any manner without the approval of the and.that the actual physical improvements Will not be altered or Strict ac~th the Plans submitted. Planning Board; be installed in Slgned~ Sworn to before me this (~ner) ~~ ~ Signed~ SEQR 617.21 I Appendix C . State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only pART i~PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Proiect sponsor)  2. pROJECT NAME APPLICANT/SPONSOR /~'~ ~'~ ~ ~"~¢~)'~/ pROJECT LOCATION: ~.~ ~..~.~ ~ County ~~ ~ ' ~A~ON (Street address and road ~nters _'~~ ~.~ f · ~1 - 5. IS pROpOSED ACTION: [] New [] Expansion /~ Modification/alteration DESCRIBE pROJECT BRIEFLY: AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: t~ ~.~_.~------- acres ,. WILL pROPOSED ACTION COMPLY~-~H EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRiCTiONS? [~Yes [] No I! No, describe bdefly VICINITY OF PROJECT? [] Other g. WHAT IS pRESENT LAND USE IN ./~Commerctal /~['.Agricu[ture [] Park/Forest/Open space _~Residentla~ [] Industrial Describe: DOES ACTION INVOLVE A pERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHLIt GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (F~DERAL,~ 11. STATE OR LOCAL)? [] yes //~LNo I! yes, list agency(s) and permit/approvals DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACT[ON HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? [] Yes /~,No If yes, fist agency name and permit/approval 12. AS A RESULT OF pROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING pERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICAJ'ION? [] Yes [] No I CERTIFY THAT THE iNFORMATION pROVIDED ASOVE iS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE App&lcantlsbonsor name: · ~ ~ lete the--"~ be/~, and you are a state agency, comp ~ore proceeding with this assessment .__J OVER 1 PA..~R'~ II--ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE'. ENT (To be COmpleted by Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXC~AN~ ~PE I THRESHOLD ~N 6 N~CRI -- ' · ..~ Yes ~]No CRR, PART 617 12-~ If v~. E. WILL ~ ~ .-_ ~ .es, cOordinate the review process and use the FU RDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FO~-~NUNLiST~ AC~ ~ LL EAF. may be superseded by another involved agency. ONS iN 6 NYCRR, FART 617.67 If No, a n~eclaratlon [] Yes [] No C. COULD ACTION RESULT iN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATE~WiTH THE~---'~OLLOWING: (Answers may potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? be handwritten, it legible) Explain briefly; C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or COmmunity or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, s~gnificant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of ~and or Other natural resources? I C5. Growth. SUbsequent development, or re~ated activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. C6. Long term, short term. cumulative, or Other effects not identified in Ct.CS? Explain briefly. C7. Other impacts (inCluding changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly. D. IS THERE. OR IS THERE L~KELY TO BE, CONTROVERSy RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACTS? [] Yes ~J No If Yes, explain briefly PART/II--DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ('To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For e~ch adverse effe~i identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of OCCurring; {c) duration; (d) irreverslbility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude· If necessa,,y, add attachments or reference explanations contain sufficient detail to Show that all relevant supporting materials. Ensure that adverse impacts have been identified and ~dequately addressed [] Check this box if you have identified One or more potentially large or Significant adverse Impacts~hich occuc Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration· Check this box i,f you have determined, MAY based on the information and analys s above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any s gnificant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary, the 'reasons supporting this determination: $'gnat~je O~lcer in Lead Agency~ ~ 2 Page 2 SEQR Negative Declaration- Petrol Stations Ltd. March 27, 1995 Reasons Supporting This Determination: This project involves the removal and relocation of an existing driveway and a reconfiguretion of the parking area on a 254.172 square foot parcel containing a real estate office with an apartment above an architect's office, and a garage. These are permitted uses in this Residential Office and Low Density Residential R-40 zone, thus the proposed action is consistent with zoning. An Environmental Assessment Form has been submitted and reviewed, and it was determined that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. There has not been any correspondence received from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the allotted time. Therefore, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. The applicant will have to comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC) and all relevant standards of water supply and sewage disposal systems. Design and flow specification, subsurface soil conditions and site plan details will have to be approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). This impact is not considered significant due to the anticipated project compliance with established requirements of the SCSC and the SCDHS and the required relevant permits. For Further Information: Contact Person: Robert G. Kassner Address: Planning Board Telephone Number: (516) 765-1938 cc: New York State Dept. of Transportation Judith Terry, Town Clerk Southold Town Building Dept. Applicant ENB :: REQ~4~NTS FOR SITE PLAN ELEMENT~ & CERTIFICATION ,~SECTION-BLOCK-LOT TAX ~p NU~IBERS ~-'~7 ~N~E & ADDRESS OF PERSON PREPARING MAP J~ DATE, NORTH POINT AND WRITTEN & G~PHIC SCALE ~DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY & INFO~TION TO DEFINE BOUNDARIES ~LOCATIONS, N~ES & EXISTING WIDTHS OF ADJACENT STREETS & CURBS LOCATION & O~ERS OF ALL ~JOINING LANDS, AS SHOWN ON TAX RECORDS LOCATION & PURPOSE OF ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED EASEMENTS :~COMPLETE OUTLINE OF EXISTING DEED RESTRICTIONS APPLYING TO PROPERTY ~AREAS SUBJECT TO FLOODING OR STO~ WATER OVERFLOWS WATER COURSES, ~ARSHES, WOODED AREAS, TREES 8" IN DI~ETER OR MORE OUTDOOR LIGHTING OR PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS 239K SIDEWALKS LOCATIONS WIDTHS; SIZ~F WATER AND SEWER LINES APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Lydia A. Tortora Southold Town Hall~/~ 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS /~ Appl. No. 4298-SE. ~~ Application of PETROL STATIONS LTD. Request for Special Exception under Article VII, Section 100-7lB for approval of office use(s) in thin Residential-Office (RO) Zone District, in conjunction with the existing single-family dwelling unit, at premises known as 25235 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-109-1-23. Subject premises consists of a total of six acres, which is located partly in the Residential-Office (RO) Zone District and partly in the R-40 Low-Density Residential Zone District. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 1, time persons who desired to be heard were heard and recorded; and 1995, at which their testimony 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 is requesting a Special Exception for use of 780 sq. ft. floor area on the first floor of the existing principal building for a real estate management office in conjunction with the existing single-family residential use which occupies 993+- sq. ft. of the entire building: 510 sq. ft. on the first floor including the kitchen area and 483 sq. ft. on the second floor. No other project for expansion or additional floor area has been filed with the Town at this time. The two-story building which exists was built prior to 1957 and was used continuously as a single-family dwelling since prior to 1957 and ~t until a~bout 1989_ while it was. in different owners over these years. ~e~,,~m~.~anuary or 1989 the zomng of this parcel was changed from ~ ~ to "Re" Residential Office The - - .subject real estate management office was added around this time without the required Special Exemption approval. Home office use is normally a permitted accessory use by the resident of a single-family dwelling, however, a Page 2 - Appeal No. 42]~r Application of PETROL STATION$~ LTD. Decision Rendered March 1, 1995 real estate office has not been designated as a permitted accessory use as provided by the Code (p. 10028-10029). 2. The setbacks of this principal building are shown on the site plan map prepared by Samuels & Steelman, Architects, dated February 8, 1995, to be as follows: (a) front yard at variables of 23 feet and 32 feet; (b) easterly side yard at nine feet, (c) westerly side yard at 92 feet. Also existing at the premises is shown is a building located in the rear yard which is occupied as a professional architect's office (converted from an antique-storage building). Also existing is a one-car garage of 285 sq. ft. along the northerly zone district line and a 120 sq. ft. storage shed, all in the rear yard area. 3. The subject site plan map (revised 2/8/95) has been submitted showing a treed landscape at a point 35+- feet from the front property line, as well as a 23 or 24 ft. wide buffer area along the westerly property line, which shields the driveway area as relocated from view from the west. Also on the site plan map the future parking area is designated to be in an area centered, close to the existing one-car garage, in the rear yard area, rather than as originally designated when the applicant first applied to the Planning Board under a subdivision proposal. The premises consists of a total acreage of six (6) acres. Applicant has agreed, as part of this application, to not less than 80,000 sq. ft. of land area for the two principal uses (for a single resideuce with office use by the owner and resident, and architect's office in the rear building). In the event any other use is added, the code requires an additional 40,000 sq. ft. of land area (per principal use). At the present time the p~operty consists of six acres which is more than adequate, however, a subdivision is pending at this time which must provide sufficient land area for the present uses. 4. Additionally, (a) in the event of a finalization of the pending, or other type of subdivision of this property, there shall be a minimum land area applied for the requested real estate management office used in conjunction with the residence, by the owner without a separate rental or separate tenancy or use occupancy, shall be 40,000 sq. ft., plus 40,000 sq. ft. for the use and occupancy of the rear building as an architect's office, for a total of 80,000 sq. ft. (b) this Beard finds that the request for the owner's office use in conjunction with the residence of the owner is not improper, when sufficient land area is continued; and (c) the master plan revisions adopted on January 10, 1989 changed the zoning of the subject premises from "A-Residential" to "Residential-Office (RO)"; Page ~ - Appeal No. 429 Application of PETROL STATIONS, LTD. Decision Rendered March 1, 1995 (d) there has been no substantial change in the dimensions of the property or size of the buildings since immediately prior to January 1989 which may have effected the circumstances of the present lot area or this application; (e) the surrounding area consists of the following: (1) to the west, residences; (2) to the south is the Main State Highway; (3) to the east, now or formerly residential; (4) to the north, vacant land located in the R-40 Low-Density Zone District. 5. In considering this application, the Board also finds and determines: A. That the use is appropriate for this zone district and will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; B. That the use will not prevent the orderiy 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. That the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; D. That the use is listed as an authorized Special Exception under Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Town of Southold as enacted in January 1989 and this use as a real estate management office will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent thereof; E. That the use will be compatible with its surroundings, with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scale and overall appearance; F. That the access to the building in which the office use is hereby authorized is accessible for fire and police protection. G. The Board has also considered subsections A through p of Article XII, Section 100-264 of the Zoning Code. Accordingly, on motion by Member Villn, seconded by Member Dirrizio, it was RESOLVED, that permlgsion is hereby GRANTED for the addition of a real estate management office for use by the resident of the existing dwellir~g, as applied, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: Page 4 - Appeal No. Application of PETROL STATIONS~ LTD Decision Rendered March 1, 1995 Any expansion, now or in the future, will require compliance with the Iand area minimum requirements designated by the Zoning Code (Bulk Schedule), i.e. 40,000 square ft. of land area per use occupancy or tenancy. Vote of the Boax~l: Ayes: Messrs. Dirrizio, Villa, Doyen, Tortora, and Goehringer. This resolution was duly adopted. lk TO SAMUELS & STEELMAN ARCHJ~CTS 25235 Main Road CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935 (516) 734-6405 FAX (516) 734-6407 WE ARE SENDING YOU ~' Attached [] Under separate cover via the following items: [] Shop drawings ~ Prints [] Plans [] Samples [] Specifications ,~ Copy of letter [] Change order [] COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [] For approval [] Fcr your use ~As requested [] For review and comment [] EDR BIDS DUE [] Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections [] 19 [] Resubmit [] Submit [] Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints __ [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS. COPY TO PLANNING; BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchle Latham. Jr. Bennett Odowskl, Jr. Ma~ S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards FEB - 8 Town Hall, 53095 Mal~l Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Gerard p. Goehringer, Cha|rman, Board of Appeals FROM: Richard G~ Ward, Chairman~ RE: Proposed Site Plan for Petrol Stations, Ltd. Main Road, Cutchogue SCTM# 1OOO-109-1-23 DATE: February 9, 1995 As requested in your January 30, 1995 memo, following are the Board's comments on the above referenced site' plan. The Board h.a.s not received a copy of the 1/17/95 site plan, the last plan this Board had commented on was dated 9/8/94. ~o~eVe~ The xero×ed portion of the 1/17/95 site plan you had sent to us resembles the earlier plaM wlth the exceptio. that the entrance drive and parking area has been moved to the east. IF this arrangement is satisfactory to the neighbor to the west, and all parties agree with this new arrangement, the Planning Board has no objection to the 1/17/95 plan. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: RE: Gerard P. Goebringer, Chairman, Richard G. Ward, Chairman~ Proposed Site Plan for Petrol Stations, Ltd. Main Road, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-109-1-23 DATE: February 9, 1995 Board of Appeals As requested in your January 30, 1995 memo, following are the Board's comments on the above referenced site plan. The Board has not received a copy of the 1/17/95 site plan, the last plan this Board had commented on was dated 9/8/94. The xeroxed portion of the 1/17/95 site plan you had sent to us resembles the earlier plan with the exception that the entrance drive and parking area has been moved to the east. If this arrangement is satisfactory to the neighbor to the west, and all parties agree with this new arrangement, the Planning Board has no objection to the 1/17/95 plan. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Ge-ard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Planning Board Chairman and Board Members Board of Appeals January 30, 1995 Petrol Stations, Ltd. RO Zone - Special Exception and Site Plan Requirements As a coordination in the above application, please confirm whether or not the Planning Beard will require any amendment to the new site plan dated 1/17/95. It is noted that a new buffer area has been added between the dwellings to the west and the subject property, and that the access points to the parking areas will be as shown on the 1117/95 map (rather than as previously planned). For your convenience attached is a print of the 1/17/95 map showing the areas under consideration for the Special Exception and site plan. If no response is received relative to the buffers and parking areas, we will assume there is no further change to this plan affecting these elements as shown. Attachment JAN311995 Southold mown Board 6 eptember 12, ]994 Mr. Ward: Petrol Stations - This site plan is to remove and relocate existing driveway and reconfigure parking area on a 5.8 acre site located on Bt. 2~ in Cutchogue. SCTM~ !000-]09-~l-23. Is the applicant here? Ural Talgat: Samuels and Steelman Architects. I represent Petrol Stations and basically we've been waiting for a determination on this project. Last month we came here waiting for something, but at the last moment there was a glitch with, I think with the Building Inspector. The Building Inspector basically didn't want to sign off on it -- certify it -- and he gave us reasons of square footage of lot area and number of uses on the property. We worked that out. We too'( out our variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals so we could move ahead with this. And right now, last minute again (today), he's coming up with other reasons for stopping us, basically from proceeding. The reasons that he's given I believe have to do with the number of uses, again. What is office, what is residence, etc. It seems to be that there is somebody, or someone, some body of government wanting to stop this and basically we've been trying to satisfy the Planning Board. You came up to us a couple of times and said that you need to do these changes, and we complied, and here we are again tonight and nothing has happened. I wish the Planning Board would take the bull by the horns and do something about it, that's one. Second of all, we're not intensifying the use. I think what we have to remember what we're trying to do here which is just a parking area and a driveway, and that's all. It has nothing to do with the back parcel, what we'r going, to do or if we're going to do anything with the back parcel, it's just a parking area and I think that's what we should keep in the back of our minds when we decide what to do about this. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Thank you. We will be discussing this and holding it open until October ?, and by then we hope to have the determination from the Building Inspector. We understand your problem and we were hoping we'd have it for tonight, but we don't. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board on this particular project? Mary Lou Folts: Yes I would, please. I'm Mary Lou Folts with the office of Richard Lark, and on behalf of Barbara Harris who owns the adjoining property to the west of the Petrol Stations property. Mrs. Harris strenuously objects to the PlanniNg Board approving this proposed partial site plan, submitted to you by Samuels and Steelman on behalf of Petrol. What I'll be handing up to you is a letter specifyingMrs. Harris' concerns and objections and I ask that you review these and seriously consider them before making any final determination on what is before you, the partial site plan. Attached to this letter is a transcript of the ~on~ng Board of Appeals meeting held on October ]8, 1993, at which Mrs. Harris and Mr. Lark both sp~¢e in connection with Petrol's application for an area variance. I understand this variance has been withdrawn, but ~t would be helpful I think for the Board to read the transcript of how Mrs. Harris explained 'the history of the uses of the property and then Mr. I~rk tracing the zoning of the property to show at what points the uses -- legal, ~llegal -- became non--conforming when back it would have required special exceptions. I thin]( if you look at that as a package, you'll understand where Mrs. Harris is coming from and that without a special exception for the uses on this property, the Planning Board should not even be considering approval of this partial site plan. If the Plannln~ Board proceeds and approves the partial site plan, Mrs. Harris is going to have no choice but to see]c her legal remedies for the illegal actions of Southold To%~n Plann] ~oard 7 12, ~994 the Planning Board. The Town Attorney, I think, will tell you that if you do something ~cnowing it to be illegal that you could be held personally liable for that. So on behalf of Mrs. Harris, I do request the Planning Board not to approve this partial site plan of Petrol Stations and not to give special consideration to the plan as prepared by Samuels and Steelman, Architects and tenants of the property. I respectfully submit that the Planning Board should not consider the application until all the illegalities surrounding the use of the property are properly addressed and taken care of by Petrol Stations or its agents. And I think that's what the Building Inspector is presently looking into so we would like it if you would put this in obeyance, pending looking into that further. Mr. Talgat: We'd like a copy of that so we can also review it. One other point I'd like to make. I believe at date, and I'm not sure of this, that onr architectural office went through site plan approval. 91be Building Inspector had to review all the buildings on the site and I believe at th~ time there was a real estate office there because our drawings did show it. We applied for our architectural office and there was also an apartment above that. He certified it at that point in time, and why is it being held up now? Mr. WarJ: I'm not the Building Inspector. We'll hopefully find out this week. Mary Iou Folts: I'd just li~e to hand Mr. Talgat a copy of this letter. I don't have an extra copy of the transcript, but it is on file at the Board of ~ppeals office. ~r~ Ward: Anyone else llke to address the Board on Petrol Stat].ons? TC not this wi]>~Co~ on the calendar for October 3. Any ether business that %{ou]~ dike to come heb~o~e the Board at this time? We will be adjourning !nto~0r!¢session and you certaib~l~ are welcome to join us for that. Anyone on t~0ard ii]ce to have anything on 6he.public record? ./ James Spiess: I re. sent Mr. Charles Sit. nons. b~/Sin~nons has a subdivision that's pending...actua]q~ approved. My purpose/f~Sr being here this eveninw is to follow up on his request ~ a reconsiderati~fo{ the flrewell requirement (inaudible). I've reviewed ~ file and.w/a~ n?t involved with the original application. I've bad several t~vers,_~ion_s wi. th,Ms. Spiro a}kout this and I understand that in ]98~. e~js.si.oners recommended a f]rewel] and Mr. Simmons reques~nsl/~ra~i~on of that in early June by letter to the PlanninD Board - I bel]e~ June 7~.<~The Planning Board then sent that letter to the fire distri~ their comme~ts or recommendations, and approxi.mately one ,month 1/a~er t~e Board of Fi~.~ommissioners adopted the resolution that ,, re_ mmendatlons for minor subdivisions and refuted the matter back to the Pla~ing Board. I believe they specifically addressed Mr. Simmons s]tuatlon, k"~ere it~t~ands at this point we don't know. /· Mr. Ward: ~e only record we have is from the recom~nendat]on ~fOm the fire distric/~to put the firewell in, I believe this Board would probabiF, stand !0y tha t/~ecommenda t ion. ~ · Mr. Spless: Even with the subsequent resolution that was made... RICHARD F, LARK RICHARD F. LARK MARY LOU FOLTS September 12, 1994 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Proposed Site Plan Application of Petrol Stations Main Road, Cutchogue, New York SCTM 1000-109-1-23 Gentlemen: This office represents Barbara Haurus, an adjoining property owner of Petrol Stations, Ltd. It has come to my attention that Petrol Stations Ltd. has filed an Application for Consideration of Site Plan for the above-mentioned property dated May 4, 1994. Be advised, Mrs. Haurus strongly objects to the Planning Board approving the proposed site plan for the following reasons: 1. The present uses of the property as shown on the plan do not have proper certificates of occupancy because a special exception has not been granted for the use of the two story house on the premises as an apartment and real estate office. Attached hereto is a copy of the transcript of a Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals hearing at which Mrs. Haurus and Mr. Lark appeared on October 18, 1993 in connection with Petrol Stations Ltd. 's application for an area variance. I believe a reading of this transcript will be helpful to the Planning Board in understanding the history of the property and the need for a special exception to cure the illegal uses on this property. 2. The "Partial Site Plan" dated May 2, 1994 and revised 5/20/94 and 6/21/94 is deficient in several aspects: SEP 1319o $OUTHOLD TOWN _ PLANNINO BOARD Southold Town Planning Board RE: Petrol Stations, Ltd. -2- September 12, 1994 (a) The site plan does not show the entire property; rather it refers to "for additional site information and site continuation see site plan" but this site plan is not in the Planning Board's newly created file for the May 4, 1994 application. (b) It does not show the names and addresses of adjoining landowners. (c) The key map does not show the location and owners of all adjoining lands within 500 feet of the subject property and the distance to the nearest intersection. (d) It does not show the existing zone lines and dimensions. (e) It shows existing concrete curbing for the curb cut but does not indicate this has not been approved by the Planning Board. In fact, work on the new proposed driveway/ROW was stopped by the Southold Town Building Inspector immediately after installation of the curb cut because the owner did not have Town approval for installing the curb cut or roadway. (f) It does not show the location and use of all buildings and structures, including curb cuts within 200 feet of the boundary of the subject property. 3. Although I have been told the Planning Board is only reviewing the parking as shown on the "Partial Site Plan" dated May 2, 1994 and revised 5/20/94 and 6/21/94, this map shows a 16' wide proposed asphalt driveway in a proposed 25' right-of-way and refers to "See R.O.W. plan" and "See subdivision plan." If the Board is not to be considering this new driveway/right-of-way, then it should be eliminated from the Plan and the existing driveway shown as it currently exists, not as "existing asphalt driveway to be removed." Besides the illegality of what has preceded this application, Mrs. Haurus objects to the location of the proposed driveway which will cause noise, disturbance and loss of her privacy as well as create a safety hazard to persons using the driveway and traveling on Main Road (State Route 25). Mrs. Haurus' concerns about the driveway are expressed at pages 63-66 of the enclosed transcript of the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing held on October 18, 1993. Southold Town Planning Board -3- September 12, 1994 On behalf of Mrs. Haurus, I request the Planning Board not consider this application of Petrol Stations, Ltd. until the illegalities surrounding the use of the property are properly addressed and resolved in accordance with the law. Very truly yours, Mary Lou Folts MLF/m Enclosure I N D E X PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS October 18, 1993 - ZBA Regular Meeting APPL. NO. 4193 4197 41~94 ApDlicant NICK CYPRUS. HARLEY B. ARNOLD RACHEL VOEGELIN . 4192 4191 4196 4198 ROGER AND MADELYN STOUTENBURGH BECKY JOHNSTON. ALLEN OVSIANIK. PETROL STATIONS, LTD. DR. GEORGE KOFINAS. Pa~e:~ 3-6 7-9 10-12 13-18 19-30 31-41 42 A Hearing of October 18, 1993 pl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 43 APPLICATION NO. 4195 - PETROL STATIONS~ LTD. Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-72 for approval of Lot No. 4, as proposed, with more than one principal use for this proposed 39,219+- sq. ft. parcel of land (exclusive of right-of-way area). The premises, as exists, contains a total lot area of 5.835 acres and is improved with: (a) the northerly building which was converted in 1988 from a barn for the storage of antiques to an architect's office as shown on the site plan map prepared by Samuels-Steelman, approved by the Planning Board 12/14/87; (b) the front main building utilized as a single residence and a real estate office; (c) a separate garage structure; (d) a separate shed. Location of Property: 25235 Main Road, Cutchogue; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-109-1-23. 8:32 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the survey produced by Peconic Surveyors, and it was originally done June 27, 1990 -- the most recent revision is August 20, 1993; and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area~ Appearance: j. Mr. McLaughlin, you are representing? Kevin McLaughlin, Esq., for the Applicant. THE C}{AIRMAN: How are you tonight? J. KEVIN McLAUGHLiN, ESQ.: Good. As you indicmte, we are before you for an area variance on Lot No. 4 of a proposed ~BA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 44 subdivision which is pending before the Planning Board of this Town; and I know there has been significant correspondence between this Board and the Planning Board regarding this particular parcel, and I know you are fairly well aware of Some of the histor~ of this application; but just basically to review it: Petrol Stations purchased this property back in December of 1986. In the spring of 1987 a subdivision application was filed with the Planning Board and has gone through innumerable revisions, at least seven or eight revisions of the map. We were in fact in front of the Town Board --the applicant was-- several months ago, to establish the bond estimate for the improvements when it was first discovered after lo, these many years, that maybe there was a situation with Lot No. 4 that needed to be rectified. So the applicant has been pursuing a subdivision application that has been --as far as Lot No. 4 is concerned-- has not varied a great deal for the last seven years. Basically, lot No. 4 as it is presently proposed and constituted and as requested by the Planning Board, is a 40,000 square-foot lot. The front 30,000 square feet of Lot No. 4 is in the RO District; approximately 10,000 square feet is in the R-40 District. Ail of the present structures on the property, except one very small COrner of the garage, are located within that RO District, as it was drawn the district line by the Town Board. The uses on that Lot 4 or proposed lot 4 have been the same since approximately the spring or summer of 1987; add that is the front one-and-a-half or two-story building on the first aZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. page 45 floor contains a real-estate office; the second floor contains a very small apartment, which is enhanced and occupied for the last five or six years by Michael Gorman, who is one of the principals of both the owner Petrol Stations and also a partner in the real-estate business that is operated on the first floor. The other frame building is --that used to be an antique sales establishment-- I think as it's shown on the property card for this premises, has been converted into architect's office. A building permit was secured for that, site plan approval has been obtained for that, and a C.O. has been issued for that use. The rest of the proposed subdivision would consist of three residential building lots, one slightly in excess of one acre, and two closer to two acres, in the R-40 zone. The real problem here, from our vantage-point, is that there were these three uses and have been these three uses on this property since the spring or summer of 1987. And, at the point when the Master Plan was adopted and new zoning ordinance, the RO District line was drawn approximately 300 yards back from the Main Road; and what that has done is effectively put three uses or arguably two ,uses within that district. It was an arbitrary drawing of the line which obviously had to be done somewhere, and it has resulted in this problem for us. Again, we went through years of application process with the Planning Board without this issue ever being raised, and now we are here. ~BA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 46 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. I believe that this Board has had other applications regarding undersized lots in the RO District. In particular, I believe there was an application No. 4011 by Mr. Fischetti in which he was applying to convert a dwelling into a professional business office on a parcel in the RO zone of 11,656 square feet, which is basically less than a third of the required lot size in the RO zone; and I believe that application was granted by this Board. And as part of the decision in that application, this Board indicated that the Town has created non-conformities of properties and adopting new standards for uses in this new zoning district, again speaking of the RO District. I want to indicate to this Board that while there are multiple uses in the front area of that property, and that the area is contained within the RO District, they are not overly intensive uses. We do have the architect's office. There are two architects and one or two support staff there. There is the real-estate business which basically is a business for Tom Gorman and his son Michael, and Mike lives upstairs. Right now, that is the only people that are using that; and what we are intending to do is simply to add three residential building lots. If you look at it from the total amount of acreage available, which is 3.8+ acres, it is located within two zones. One is the RO zone which requires 40,000 square footage of lot area per use, and the R-40 zone which also requires 40,000 square feet. Here we have five, almost six acres of land. So, conceivably, if you divided that by the required 40,000 square feet, you could easily have fire.uses on that five to six-acre · ,ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 47 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. parcel of land. And that, in fact, is basically what we are looking for. we are looking for the same uses. We understand that because of the arbitrary division line of the RO District, that does result in many of the nses being on the front portion of the property, and that is why, frankly, we are before tonight to try to get some relief. Also if you will look at the proposed subdivision map, becomes apparent from the fairly irregular shape, almost a flag-lot type of situation, if you take that into consideration along with the uses that presently exist, you see what our dilemma is. So that is why we are here tonight. We think that what has been done on the property has been very tastefully done; we are trying to work something out so that we can Page continue to have the existing uses, and also develop a portion of the property for residential uses. I do have Mr. Gorman, Tom Gorman, Jr., with me this evening, and we are here to answer any questions the Board may have regarding this application. THE CHAIRMAN: Could you just go over one thing with me? Petrol Stations took title to this property when? MR. McLAUGHLIN: December 30, 1986. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And before that, their original location Was in Mattituck, was it not, the end of Love Lane and County Road 48? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Correct. THE CHAIRMAN: When did they actually move into the building? ~BA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 48 MR. McLAUGHLIN: Renovations were started basically immediately after purchase right at the beginning of 1987. I think you have in your file a sign, a building per, it for a sign which they got toward the middle or end of January of 1987. It was at that time that they moved into --Petrol Stations, I don't know if that moved in then-- but the real-estate office itself which is called Gorman and Associates moved into the front first-floor space at that time in the latter part of January of 1987. THE CHAIRMAN: The only reason I say that is becanse the Planning Board's site plan map of 1989 shows that the building was unoccupied, and that is the reason why. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Clearly an error. THE CHAIRMI~N: The other issue before us is the fact that we have a curb-cut and a roadway leading to the back property. MR. McLAUGHLIN: There is a curb-cut and a roadway that Starts and doesn't go very far, and will not go any further until there is some agreement with the Town. THE CHAIRMAN: Now, that, of Course, is going to take 25 feet away from this property, and, therefore, is not going to be-- When I say 25 feet, in reference to total lot width. MR. McLAUGHLIN: 'I would disagree with that. There's a right-of-way Over the westerly -_ proposed right-of-way, if you look at the proposed subdivision map, Over the westerly 25 feet of Lot No. 4. We have had a determination --that was an issue that was raised back in I believe 1991-- the Planning Board had indicated that we may have to seek a lot width variance for Lot ~BA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 49 No. 4. The Planning Board and I went back to the Building Department; and they said No, that since it was just a right-of-way, it should be included as part of the lot width; and I have a letter to that effect. I believe you have a copy in. the file. I have actually in red underscored the Planning Board's language regarding that issue, and they in fact agreed that we would not have to seek a lot width variance. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, we're with the understanding then as we sit before you tonight, we are not here concerning the width of this lot. MR. McLAUGHLIN: That is not part of the notice of disapproval of the Building Department; and when I went to the Building Department, very frankly, I specifically asked them to write up a notice of disapproval for any problems they saw with the proposed site plan regarding any violations of the zoning ordinance. The first time I took it to them, I will be very honest with you, they told me there weren't any violations. I had to go back and explain to them why I thought I might have to be before this Board. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. What I am trying to do, let me just give you a small analogy-- If we have an application before us for a.front yard/side yard/ total lot width variance, whatever the case might be, and we find out that we now exceed 20 per cent of the lot coverage, we are going to, of course, mention that to the applicant in general, okay. That is the reason why I am mentioning this, okay. I want to put this total hearing to bed, okay. I don't want something else to co~,e back; and in the Z~A Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 50 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. interim, we will then further discuss that with the Building Department because if this is an issue that has to come before us, it should come before us in toro also. BOARD CLERK: I was told that it was. I just want the record to show that. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Beg pardon? BOARD CLERK: I spoke with the Building Inspector, and I was told it needed a lot width variance for that, for frontage. That is why I advertised it that way. It just - THE CHAIRMAN: The other thing I just want to ask you is: Are you asking for all the uses now on the 40,000 square feet? Is that what you are asking for in the nature of this application? MR. McLAUGHLIN: That is the way it is presently constituted before the plans before the Planning Board. also? THE CHAIRMAN: Is that the way you are coming before us MR. McLAUGHLIN: That's the way it is coming before you, but if the Board has some other thought in mind about how much lot area should be part of Lot No. 4, it would be certainly something that the applicant would consider. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Gorman? THoMAs GORMAN, JR.: Yes, if I may speak briefly? THE CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. GORMAN: Thank you. Basically, I just wanted to mention, we really want to work with the Town. Specifically, we kind of got off on a bad footage here after, I guess, seven or ~ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 51 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. six years of going back and forth with somewhat of a paper jungle, so to speak. Specifically, I think we should take a look at what has already been done to the property. I think we should also look at specifically how large these buildings are and also the intensity of these uses. The front building is 1700 square feet. The apartment does not have a separate entrance, on the second floor. Basically it is a one-bedroom L-shaped bedroom and bath. That is it. The back architect's office is approximately 900 square feet that is occupied by a husband-and-wife team, who runs a professional architectural business out of that. The front is run by a family operation: My brother, my father primarily. I work part-time occasionally. But I guess my point here is that the three uses are not an automotive repair, they are not a gasoline service station, they are not these intensive uses which may have been addressed on some of the prior applications this evening. They are basically a low-key family business operation, and I think that is really what is at stake here, and I just want to address that. We have tastefully restored the front building. I have personally been involved with standing approvals, personally involved with bringing out the windowsills, restore that as a 1700 hist6rical house, into a tasteful office. The back office, the antique barn which was a retail use according to the records that I have prior to our purchase, at Christmas time it looks like a Currier and Ives post card. We have tastefully redone that building, and I just think that we want Some cooperation as ~BA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 52 opposed to what I believe is somewhat of a mass of paper, so to speak. It is nothing personal. THE C~AIRMAN: Right. Notwithstanding the fact that we are, with the understanding that the roadway which you are planning to put in, whatever way the conformity of the subdivision occurs in the near future, did excavate a curb-cut most recently, approximately how close --How close is property line? okay, exists, that you and this curb-cut is this to the westerly MR. GORMAN: Yes. That was closely by the State as well. One reason the curb-cut was enacted promptly was I think my brother and father was somewhat frustrated with respect to the process of six or seven years, and they didn't want this particular approval to once again go into limbo land, so to speak. The other point I wanted to make --Do you have a copy of the ordinance of 1986 when the front was zoned B-1 Business? THE CHAIRMAN: Not before me. MR. GOd, AN: May I give it? (Copy was submitted.) THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. GORMAN: Also this would be section 170, Use Regulations in B-1 District, which make reference to a variety of uses-- MR. GORMAN: It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, it was made in conformity with the plans that were approved by the Planning Board. THE CHAIRMAN: So it is approximately 25 feet or thereabouts from-- ~BA Hearing of Appl. No. 4195 October 18, 1993 Paae 53 Petrol Stations, Ltd. ~ THE CHAIRM/%N: Sure. MR. GORMAN (continuing): And also the minimum lot area of 30,000 square feet, which was at the time of our purchase. MR. GORMAN: For the record, I want to enter a copy of the zoning map, B-1 General District which is highlighted, is now BO. Also for the record, I want to enter Article VII, B-l, General Business District. THE C~AI~: Thank you. MR. GORMAN: Thank you. I time out to hear us. THE CHAIR~N: No problem. rectified here. appreciate your taking this We want to get this thing MR. GORMAN: It's basically the thought that the uses are not that intensive, that when the property was purchased, the B-1 District was very liberal. Since then it has been downzoned to BO, and you know I think we really ought to work out something without going back and forth. That is the reason I came tonight. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. McLaughlin, do you have anything you would like to add? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Not unless there are any other questions. THE 'CHAIRMAN: I just want to ask you another question. The question of adding this lot width issue and amending the application, do you have any particular problem with that? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I don't have any particular problem, if the Building Department in fact is going to require that and give me a Notice of Disapproval on that. Again, it was my ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 54 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. understanding that that issue had been addressed two years ago; there was a determination made that the lot width included the right-of-way as long as the right-of-way was not constituted as a separate lot, but was merely part of the fee of Lot 4 subject to the rights of others to pass over it for ingress and egress. That is where it had been left a little over two years ago. If there is a different determination by the Building Department, would like the opportunity obviously to discuss that with them; if that is the final determination, then I have no problem with that application being considered at the same time as the present application. BOARD CLERK: We would also have to file new papers on that. He would have to do separate neighbor notices, and -- THE CHAIRMAN: Just let me finish. MR. McL~JGHLIN: Again, my problem is that I have given paper work regarding how this issue was considered and disposed of a couple years ago. I specifically went to the Building Department before I brought this application and had them review the site plan and asked them to please give me a notice of disapproval for each and every problem they saw where this proposed subdivision plan would be in violation of the zoning ordinance~ THE CHAIRMAN: You are referring to -- I am just looking for the notice of disapproval. You are referring to the notice of disapproval of September 24, 19937 MR. McLAUGHLIN: September 24, 1993. Yes. And that is all that they put on there. So, again, I aSSumed that the lot Z~A Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 5 5 width question had been resolved two years ago and was not an issue at the present time. THE CHAIRMAN: And you are referring to the letter of June 12, 19917 MR. McLAUGHLIN: And the fact that, there was prior correspondence where the Planning Board additionally said, you are going to have to go get a lot width variance from the Zoning Board because you've got to subtract out the width of the right-of-way. There was discussions with the Planning Board at that time. Those discussions between the Planning Board, the Building Department and myself resulted in that letter I just gave you a copy of from the Planning Board saying No, you don't have to do that because it is all part and parcel of the same lot. BOARD CLERK: Is there a letter from the Building Department on that, too, withdrawing his disapproval originally? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I would have to check my file for that. I am not sure. THE CHAIRMAN: I just want you to know, in all fairness, to everybody here, I appreciate your giving me a copy of the letter, but in all fairness, we are not bound by this, and all I want to do is get everything totally involved here, so that I know exactly what is before us; and that is basically the situation. I am not here to find fault or cause any more disruption in ~nybody's lives, other than to know what is before us at this particular time. ~BA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 56 MR. McLAUGHLIN: Perhaps I can seek this Board's help then in getting the proper notice of disapproval from the Building Department. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will certainly send them a letter indicating that it is something that should have been added. No question about it. Thank you, Kevin. MR. GORMAN: Thank you. Basically, I want to indicate on what you are calling the right-of-way, I think maybe if we understood it as an access easement, so to speak? THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. GORMAN: That it probably would still be held in fee simple title and that the fee simple area will exceed the 40,000 square feet. The front Lot No. 4 will in effect have an access easement given to the property owners utilizing the adjacent lots, that in effect the lot would and I think that is Mr. McLaughlin straightened out that before, around I thought approximately June 1991, we expected that, and the Department at that time did agree. Finally, I do have one other letter I want to enter into the record, from the Planning Board Office, dated November 27, 1990. Basically it said that an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will not be necessary. I would like to submit'this for t~e public record. THE CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you, Mr. Gorman, just explain this. Petrol Stations is a business which owns real estate. So this is the management area of where you would manage those properties. Together with that, you have a small real-estate business, where you have clients coming and going in the normal Z~A Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 57 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. sense which, of course, we know since subsequent 1986 or thereabouts there hasn't been a great amount of real estate that has occurred in this Town. I understand that. You only work for the firm part-time, is that what you are saying? MR. GORMAN: Exactly. I am an appraiser and helped m~ brother out between 1986 and 1990 with a large contract with the Town of Southampton in open-space preservation. I worked in conjunction with my brother on that. However, to answer your first question with respect to Petrol Stations, my father has other properties in western Long Island which he basically is now managing. Basically it is a managerial office, an administrative office. It is a ver~ clean, low-key operation. It is not like, you know-- THE C~AIRMAN: We noticed that from the Mattituck operation. I saw one or two cars there most of the time, okay. What is your father's name? MR. GORMAN: Thomas, Sr. THE CHAIRMAN: So you are Thomas, Jr.? MR. GORMAN: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Just so I understand what is involved in this building situation-- MR. ~ORMAN: And as I mentioned before, the office in the back is basically a husband and wife. It is very innocuous, low-key use. Like I said earlier, it is not like we are having automotive repair uses and gas station and that type of thing. Nothing to do with that. The name unfortunately I guess brings up those fears, but it is basically an administrative operation. ,ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 58 THE CHAIRMAN: Your brother uses the kitchen downstairs? MR. GORMAN: Yes; there is no separate entrance, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the second floor. It is an internal ---it would only work if it is a family operation. It would not work if you or I wanted to make an investment and rent it out for a second-floor apartment. It is just not do-able. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. GORMAN: I appreciate your time. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Anything else, Kevin? (There was no audible response.) THE CHAIRMAN: I think that pretty much puts us where we are at this time for the other people that are ~nvolved in this application. Mr. Lark, you are representing someone? Appearance: Richard F. Lark, Esq. MR. LARK: Yes, I represent the next-door neighbor Barbara Haurus. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I know Mrs. Raurus personally. What would you like to tell us, sir? MR. LARK: First of all, they can do all these wonderful things with the property that they have just presented to you -- I submit to you, if they had Some appreciation and understanding of the zoning law of,the State of New York, and particularly the zoning codes of the Town of Southold. They can't do any of what they have proposed here without variances and special exceptions from this Board. Nor have they been able to do anything. And you are going to see, with my little presentation and oral history Mrs. Haurus is going to give you since she has lived ~BA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 59 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. there for sixty years, and with the history of the zoning codes, that what is there today, with all these businesses on this thirty thousand square-foot portion, are self-imposed hardship, there are no vested rights. The building permits and the CO's are void, and we are really going to have to start from scratch. But they have to come here; they have to meet the standards of both use and area variances as well as your standards for special exceptions. The code says so. I don't say so, and the Court cases say so. So I hope we come to the end of the administrative road with this Board for permits for Petrol Stations, Ltd., on this particular property because after reviewing the record very briefly, I am appalled at the ignorance of both the Planning Board and the Building Department in allowing this applicant since '86 when he purchased it the end of the year, to get as far as he has gotten. A review of your file --because you also had an area variance heariug on this that went nowhere-- which ! will cover. The Planning Board file indicates misleading opinions and incorrect information. It reminds me of sorta like reading the SUFFOLK TIMES, you know. It is more of a fiction than fact, what's in the file here. In fairness to the applicant, though, I am going to suggest at the outset that the Board keep the hearing open to allow the applicant and its tenants sufficient time to correct any misinformation in the file and in the ZBA records, and to allow this Board to get.its facts straight concerning the property. I think you will want to have the applicant probably provide a Z~A Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 60 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. title search and also the Town Attorney to do a zoning history to verify what I inform you of tonight, because not to do so --and not to have this done properly at this time-- just invites an Article 78 proceeding; and after I submit to you after a Court heard what is involved here, it would just remand the case back anyway, so we may as well do it to save the Court time. I realize that the applicant, with its activities, does have unlimited money. The neighbors do not. (Tape ended & new tape inserted while speaker continued talking. What follows is where new tape starts.) MR. LARK (continuing): --A little oral history is in order so the ZBA can get a better perspective of what is going on here. The reason I say this is, the variance application sworn to on September 27, 1993, which is before you this evening, would read at first blush to be a simple and pure area variance application. The notice to the neighbors that was furnished by the applicant also gives this impression as Lot 4 only has insufficient area. But when yo~ look at the past history and what is happening both at the present, and what is proposed to happen in the future, you get an entirely different picture; and it is very possible that we are involved with the use variance. Unfortunately, these other Boards and the Building Department probably doesn't understand the difference. But there is a tremendous difference as this Board understands between a use variance and an area variance. In an area variance; the applicant only has to prove practical diffi- ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. culties, stay away from self-imposed, unnecessary hardships, but the use variance requires to prove that he has --land can't use a reasonable return and the compatibility with the neighborhood in complying with the spirit of the ordinance. The legal notice in the newspaper though, I did note, attempts to indicate that this is very possibly a use variance. That was a very clear notice and it tuned me to the fact to look further than just the application, because there is more than one use on this property. So at this time I would like to introduce the next-door neighbor Barbara Haurus, who has lived immediately adjacent, personally lived immediately adjacent to this property for over sixty years, so that she can give you a little oral history of it, and then I will conclude with the zoning history. Barbara? 61 BARBARA HAURUS: Good evening. My name is Barbara Haurus. I reside at Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. I was born in Cutchogue on January 20th, 1929, and have lived there all my life. I am familiar with the property owned by Petrol Stations Ltd., because I have lived next to this property all my life. My property has been in my family for two prior generations. At the end of World War II when we got out of the Service, I married John Baurus oh April 28, 1945. My parents gave us the property next door to theirs in 1947, upon which property my husband built our house, as he was a builder. After 1947, when we moved into the house, I can specifically remember the property to the east being owned by Kenneth and Lydia Cadugan (Phonetic, no spelling supplied record). The property contained Z~A Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 62 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. a two-story frame house which sits near the Main Road and barn behind the house, which is now used by Samuels and Steelman, Architects. The house has been built many years prior, but the barn was built between 1943 and 1944. Mr. and Mrs. Fedoogan lived in the house and used the barn for their dealings in antiques. It was a very low-key and casual business. From what I can remember, Cadugans lived and ran their business on the property until 1957. I remember because my kids were about ten and eleven years old. Cadugans sold to Walter and Josephine Rollin (phonetic, no spelling supplied record). As Cadugans before them, the Rollins lived in the house, and both Mr. and Mrs. Rollin operated an estate-antique-appraisal business. They used the barn originally to store antiques and eventually sold antiques from the barn, which was primarily a week-end and summer business. As you may recall, in the 1940's, until 1970, Cutchogue was primarily a summer community. For example, in the wintertime, especially in January through April, the antique store was virtually closed, and Mr. Rollin would, as a hobby, restore antique furniture on the property. As I said, up until the time of their death, Mr. Rollin died on August 9th of '84; Mrs. Rollin died on March 3rd of 1986-- They lived in the house. know that sometime in the late 1960's and early 1970's Mr. Rollin tried to get permission from the Town to develop portions of the back acreage of the property but was turned down because he did not have access to Alvah's Lane. I believe the ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 63 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. properties from the corner of Alvah's Lane and Westwood, including Sid Beebe's property was zoned B-1 Business because C. Grathwohl operated the business out of the former house, Mr. Rollin operated the antique business. My husband, who passed away on August 25th of '86, operated a contracting business on the property on which we lived, and Sid Beebe operated his contracting business from the property on which he and his wife lived. It is important to note that all these people lived on these properties and merely ran their businesses and conducted ~their occupations from their properties. The Board should remember that in the 1940s and '50s this road was basically a two-lane road with no shoulder. Sometime in the 1960's the road was widened and widening to where it is at the present time. The reason I bring this to the Board's attention is that at the present time it is very difficult to exit my driveway. In fact, in the summertime, in order to be safe, I can only make right turns out of my driveway, even though I want to go left, because of the heavy traffic on the Main Road. Due to the constant speed of fifty-five miles per hour this has become a very hazardous condition because you cannot see oncoming traffic from the west. From ~he existing Rollin driveway you have a better view because it is a little higher. I am absolutely shocked and dismayed the Town and the State are even considering allowing the present owner to move the driveway directly adjacent to my property and have increased traffic trying to exit and enter into the driveway. 'ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 64 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. I know from my personal knowledge that in the last five years there have been numerous accidents right in front of Petrol Stations Ltd. property. I will predict there will be many more if their driveway is moved next to mine. The Board should realize that since the Samuels and Steelman architect business has been there, the traffic has been constant throughout the week, in and out of this property. But before, when owned by Rollins, there was no traffic or a little traffic and then only on weekends and when people were antique-ing. From a personal point-of-view originally I was not opposed to the architects having a separate'business on the property; but I have been informed that the creation of this separate business is illegal, and now the Planning Board is considering allowing three additional lots in the rear and moving the driveway for these building lots and the businesses on the property to be adjacent to my bedroom and bathroom windows. Not only will this cause noise, disturbance and loss of my privacy, but it will be a safety hazard to those persons using the driveway and traveling on the Main Road. In addition, I am alarmed by the fact that Petrol Stations, Ltd., seems to be so sure of getting the Town's permission to move the driveway that in August, 1993, it had concrete curbing installed and entry partially paved with blacktop. Even after being warned to do nothing further on September 30th of 1993, Petrol Stations, Ltd., had a paving contractor and crew on the property, and I believe the Town at that time ordered that no further work be done on the proposed ~BA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 65 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. new driveway. The driveway should remain where it is because it is a much safer approach to any residence which may be built in the rear. Thank you. TBE C~AIRMAN: Thank you. MR. LARK: As Mrs. Haurus indicated, the applicant's operations --do whatever it wants to do and then get the permits later-- I don't think it is going to work anymore. I think they are at the end of the string. Let's look at the record. Mrs. Haurus stated the property now owned by the applicant Petrol Stations, Ltd., was previously owned by Kenneth Cadugan. By deed, Cadugan July 31st, 1957, both Kenneth and Lydia Cadugan, sold the property to Walter P. Rollin. Walter P. Rollin owned the property until his death in 1984, and his wife also was an owner until she died'in March of '86. As indicated by the applicant earlier here, the Rollins estate sold the property to Petrol Stations, Ltd., by deed dated November 24, 1986, and I think they closed on December 30th of '86 and recorded the deed sometime in January. I have that date. It is interesting to note that zoning was adopted by the Town of $outhold on April 9th, 1957. The first zoning in Southold was 300 feet deep just as it is today, off the Main Road~ and it was zoned "B" Business District, which allowed at that time, when the '57 ordinance which carried through all the way to '72, allowed a one-family dwelling in a "B" Business District, stores and offices. The size of the lot for "B" Bus,ness District.at that time was 7500 square feet with a road frontage of 50 feet. It also allowed accessory uses on the same ' ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 66 land which were customarily incidental to any permitted use, the o main permitted use. That is how the Zoning Ordinance read. the residential use of the house by the Rollins at the time of zoning in '57 and the use of the barn for antiques and shed, and the shed for storagre, as incidental or accessory uses was all okay under the ordinance that went through in 1957. It stayed that way -- until November 23, 1971. Then the Zoning Ordinance in that area was amended, and the subject property along with the adjacent properties, from Alvah's Lane down to Beebes was zoned B-1 Business District. That allowed commercial agriceltural operations, accessory uses for them, barn, storage building, boarding and tourist houses, banks, retail stores and restaurants, all of which were subject to site-plan approval, at that point. But it did not allow, as a permitted use, one-family dwellings, so all the one-family dwellings with the 1971, the redoing of the ordinance, became non-conforming uses. Okay? Which people seem to forget. They are all non-conforming uses. Therefore, in 1971, the antique shop, which was accessory to a non-conforming use, which was a residential use, because the Rollins lived in the house, as you heard from the history. MR. ARNOFF: Yet the antique shop was not permitted then either? ' Is that what you're saying-- MR. LARK: A retail store could be a permitted use-- MR. ARNOFF: I didn't know what your position was. MR. LARK: It could be a permitted use, but it was an accessory use to them because at the time, I know from my own personal knowledge, that Rollin, he was an estate appraiser for ZBA Mearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 67 personal property, antiques and stuff. He ran the business out of his house, and he put the stuff back there, refinished it and then sold it or he bought and sold antiques there and used the shop in the back to do that. That is at the time they bought it. Now, interestingly enough, on October 26, 1976, the accessory use section in the H-1 use district was amended by the Town Board to allow uses on the same lot customarily incidental to any permitted use on the lot, but not including a separate business. That is how the amendment in 1976 of accessory uses was for B-1 Business District. Interesting. THE CHAIRMAN: It is. MR. LARK (continuing): So then the, of course the zoning upgraded it from the old "B" zoning to 30,000 square feet, with 150' of lot width, which was referred to here before. This existed right up to the time the property was sold to Petrol Stations. So when they bought, they bought with the zoning in effect at that time as having a non-conforming use to the house, which was a house within six, seven months prior to the closlng because Mrs. Hollln lived there; and then they had, at that time they had an accessory business use to that house which was all Owned as one because Rollins had the appraisal/antique business, and so on and so forth. Now, obviously Someone when they bought, didn't do their due diligence as to the non-conforming use, because as he indicates, right afterwards --and they got a CO from the Building Inspector dated December 31st -- I think it is part of yOur record-- which lsa pre-CO; it calls it "non-conforming ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 68 premises,,, but the reason that it is non-conforming, he says, is there is an insufficient frontyard setback and an insufficient side yard setback. Never mind the use of the house, the residence as being non-conforming. He leaves that out. Although he does list all the property, I mean all the buildings. He lists a two-story one-family dwelling, a two-story shop, one frame garage, two sheds, and he says they are all in an "A" zone. So I submit to you, when you read that pre-CO December 31st, 1986 Certificate, it is worthless, because he's got the non-conformity for the wrong reason, and he's got it all in "A" District. So I don't know what happened, but they closed on that, closed that day, and life went on. Okay. Now, that is a very unique situation that they had at that time, when they bought, because the house was non-conforming, but the barn and the antique store was a conforming as an accessory use which was incidental to the non-conforming use because it had pre-existed that zoning amendment. Okay. Wow. But when you are using the zoning law terms, that is what the status was at that point. Okay. Their deed was recorded January 21st of 1987. Then they began to immediately renovate the two-story dwelling while they say in their Correspondence and they ~aid tonight, while Michael Gorman occupied the residence, they started to.renovate. Now, but they never applied for a building permit to renovate it at that point, nor did they apply at that point for site plan for renovation of this non-confor~ing nor for a special exception, because to allow at that point in a B-1 District in 1987 when they were ~BA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 69 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. doing ~heir renovations, they would have had to have come here to convert it, or use it or upgrade it to any type of a residential use, they would have had to come for a special exception or a variance and then a special exception because that is what the Code said, at that point. They didn't do that. They just went ahead and did it. Then they tell us that what they did is that --and he says it tonight-- that they had, they put a real-estate business called Gorman Associates on the main floor and then this accessory apartment which was not allowed at that time in 1986, until recent amendments, in a B-1 District at all, without a variance. But they went ahead and did that. So we now have in that, we have the Petrol which is a New York corporation as he said, owning the property;and then having Gorman Associates, a real-estate operation, one business, and then the second use of the house being an apartment or a residential-type use. Okay. Now, keep in mind, they were admittedly changing this non-conforming use by expanding it to a conforming real-estate use and a non-conforming apartment, all without any types of permits. Then in the spring of '87, three or four months later, they entered into a lease~with Thomas Samuefs to use the b~rn which was the former antique-storage and antique shop, as an architectural office, clearly a separate business. Now, keep in mind that we had the B-1 Zoning at that point. In order to do that, they had to, under the B-1 Zoning at that point, which was a permitted use --Professional architectural office would be a permitted use, subject to ~BA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 70 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. getting a special exception and site plan approval-- because that is what the Code said. Samuels read the Code that he wanted to. He applied for site-plan approval. He also applied for a buildlng permit, but they never came here for a special exception to create this new business on the land, which for the first time since the history of that barn, was now not an accessory to the people living in the house. That is also important to remember. THE CHAIRMAN: Now a prlmary use. MR. LARK: Yes, but they didn't come for a special exception, although they did get a site-plan approval. He did get the site-plan approval for it. And in conjunction with that site plan, if you look at the Planning Board record, they were also applying for a mlnor subdivision in the back with two or three lots at one point. Now it is two lots, three lots, but they were applying for it, so they were doing things simultaneously, and in the applicant's behalf, the Planning Board for reasons whatever kept telling them you are going to have to move your entrance of your right-of-way further to the west next to the Haurus property. You are going to have to do that; then we want all the business uses, which are three, to use that driveway by'the Haurus property, as well as the lots in the back. They kept telling them that, in fairness to that, but they never came to this Board, which is where the authority lied-- not with the Building Inspector and not with the Planning Board. In order to validate the use of the property~ I am not ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 71 Appl. No. 4195 Petrol Stations, Ltd. saying you wouldn't validate the use at that time or you wouldn't validate it now; but what is there is not proper. Now, to make matters worse, this architect, in the midst of this, renovates it and moves in. He didn't get a CO for about three years later. That is the way they do things. That is the way this whole thing goes. Okay. Now, interestingly enough, on January 10th, 1989, the zoning on this property as well as the adjacent pieces, the 300 feet just like it has been since '57, is zoned RO Office District, which permits a one-family dwelling; and that one-family dwelling is back to okay. That was in January of '89. However, we don't have a one-family dwelling on this property in January of '89, okay? We got a business and an apartment Over lt. Okay. Now, the professional and business office, which was characterized by the architects, is allowed in a B-1 District in '89 providing you get a special exception, and secondly the proof because that hasn't changed, so don't need the special exception which we don't have. Okay. Then, for some reason --the Planning Board required it, they say-- in August 10th, 1990, the applicant said, "The Planning Board made me do it," files for an area variance; and on Nove~be~ 1st, 1990~ you people have a hearing. Some of these issues are discussed; some are not; but the interesting thing of the hearing is --because Mr. McLaughlin is here tonight and can defend himself-- when you asked him the question as Chairman, "Where are your CO status?" - he said, "Oh, we got COs for everything, we got a CO on the house, w~ got a CO oK the ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 72 architects, office." There was no CO issued on November 1st of 1990. Okay. January llth of 1993 the Building Inspector did give Mr. Samuels or Petrol Stations on behalf of Mr. Samuels a building permit for a CO --excuse me-- gave him a CO for a building permit that had been filed on July 31st, 1987, for alteration and conversion of a seasonal antique store to an architects, office, so he gave him clear, independent CO. Without a special exception. And I submit that the CO is no good because at this point the residential office when he gave the CO, now made it a non-conforming use again, okay. At the time when he applied for the building permit, it was okay, but now it is not okay. All right. So at least he had to get a special exception to do it, and they didn't. Now what we have now is, we have the three different uses on this 30,000 square-foot and when the ordinance got amended, both in the --when it went to RO, it said that you are only allowed one use for 40,000 square feet. It didn't say you could have three uses. Now you would have to get a variance from that if you were to go under that, which is what they are, I think, attempting to do here. Also, I agree with your analogy they are also going to have to get a variance for the width of the lot because the Planning Board --maybe not in this case, but historically-- whenever a right-of-way was created, especially now you are using business property to go to residential property, which is what this is all about-- they excluded the area as well as the Z~A Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 73 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. width from zoning requirements. In other words, setbacks had to go from where that right-of-way stopped, and they still do that, because I have been involved with other applications. But this one Mr. McLaughlin says no, they didn't tell him to do it. We are going to include it in the area and we won't include it in the sideyards and setbacks for the sideyards. So that is a departure from the way they have handled all other minor subdivisions; admittedly, they were in "A" Residential Districts or R-40 Districts or R-80 Districts where they make out and exclude from the computation the area of right-of-way and then make you use the setback from the edge of the right-of-way and not the property line. But now here he says they don't. Well, they got to be consistent. THE C~AIRMAN: In fairness, I just want to tell you that we have to take a short break for about two or three minutes. MR. LARK: Okay. THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to mention two things: The most recent situation that occurred and I thought was a very good situation -- that this Board has been chastised for-- is the request to determine who has jurisdiction over these matters, as initial jurisdiction, as an opinion, okay, and we were asked that by the ~own Board; and we then said that ~he Building Department has jurisdiction of where these applications come initially, okay, and we said that and, of course, we were chastised for doing it. But that i~ediately puts these two letters from the Planning Board concerning whatever they did, okay, in suspect because the application went to them first. 'ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 74 Appl. No. 4195 Petrol Stations, Ltd. Then after making that determination, we then had a meeting with the Chairman of the Planning Board, and it was at that particular time the Assistant Town Attorney and myself and a member or the Chairman of the Planning Board, and that is what outlined these three uses and the amount of acreage that was required for the three uses, which then precipitated this application. Okay. Just so you are aware of how we got to this particular point, that is how we got here. And it was somewhat of a tough, hard road, but we are here now, and we are still dealing with this application, and the chronological order is absolutely impeccable, Mr. Lark, as by the way, we always get from you. In fact, we haven't seen you in such a long time (jokingly). With everybody's indulgence, could we just take a two or three-minute recess. I need a resolution, gentlemen. MEMBER VILLA: I so move. (Seconded and carried.) 9:35 p.m. Hearing resumed. Same presences as indicated on title page, except Town Attorney Arnoff was no longer present.) THE CHAIRMAN: I am not cutting your presentation short; but you are going to tell us what your opinion is on what this applicant should have or what should exist or should be before us? MR. LARK: Yes. He has got to present a --it is a mixed bag here, both an area and a use variance, and he is going to have to prove the.practical difficulties te~t, so he doesn't end up with this what he has got here now, this ad hoc planning of ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 75 this particular piece of property with the aid and abetment of the Planning Board and the Building Inspector. But, more important. No matter of whether you deal with the RO Code or you deal with the old B-1 Code, which he had, he has to get in here for a special exception. Here is where he is going to have problems, have problems in particular with Mrs. Haurus. As you know, your Code --and it has the time and memorial laid out in conditions, "special exceptions" is a bad word --It should be a special permit-- MR. LARK (continuing): Which is really what this is. In Riverhead they call it a special permit; but he has got to show how substantial the variation is in relationship with the requirement. The requirement calls for one use per 40,000 feet. He is trying to get three on 30,000. He has that hurdle to overcome. He has got to get over the variances allowed, the increased population density, which isn't, I submit, a great deal here; and then whether a substantial change will he produced in the character of the neighborhood, and whether there will be any detriment to the adjoining properties. Mrs. Haurus claims the way they are putting the right-of-way, the driveway, if you would, not only for this three businesses but for the three houses in the ~ack-- they are putting it right across her, next to her property, which her house sits about 5 feet off the line because it didn't require any zoning back in '46 when she built it, '47 when she built it-- and this driveway then would be virtually right on her house. There is a cure for that. If they are going to have access to go in and go out, and if the ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 76 Board is going to give them a special exception, they could as part of the consideration --as you know you have done in the past-- and there is no reason and it would also prevent any further expansion whatsoever if you are going to grant the variances and the special exception, to leave the driveway right where it is. If you talk to the architect, he would just as soon have it where it is. It is a much safer ingress and egress there. And you can service both his business and go right by his barn where he has his architects' store, and go right to the rear of the property where that proposed cul-de-sac would be. That would give her relief, and he wouldn't have to get over the substantial detriment to adjoining properties. I could have come in here with appraisals and shown what that right-of-way is going to do of valuation to her land and so forth, as opposed to the way it is now, as opposed to the way it would be proposed. So if you get into a special exception hearing, he has got to address that issue. Also-- THE CHAIRMAN: That is the reason why I raised the issue of why putting in the curb-cut now. That I couldn't understand that. MR. LARK: Nor could Mrs. Haurus either. The Planning Board, as he said, had kept telling him that is what it is going to be, over there, over there; so, without a permit --well, he got a State permit, I understand-- but he never got clearance from the Town on it yet. So here is where we are. THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. Go ahead. ~BA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. MR. LARK: And then~ as I said, ~hether his difficulties can be obviated by some other method, both the difficulties of locating --see, he has got some history going for him with the types of uses on the property. Legally they are not the same as they were since the '57 zoning; but, nevertheless, there were some uses. It is not like, you know, brand new. They are just separate uses now, as opposed to having the one use as an accessory use. He has got to show whether he can obviate it by some other method, and I submit her big complaint, of course, is with the driveway; but his big problem is whether to get the area variances, whether in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, considering all the factors which I have given you, the interests of justice will be served, which the Board has to take into consideration the adjoining property owners. I know there is some other ones that have some reservations, but I told them that the application for the residential lots is not before this Board. They can talk all they want, but it is not relevant to this issue; what is only relevant to this issue is in effect an area variance which I submit crosscuts somewhat into a use area also, as well as the special exceptions. Now, in the special exception standards, he has to show that the use will no~ prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties in the adjacent use districts. Where he has got his driveway, which is part of the consideration that you have to take into when you do your special exception --you know, how are you going to get your ingress and egress. He has to show that he is not going to cause her any problems. She is 77 'ZBA Hearing of October ]8, 1993 Page 78 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. going to have difficulty unless he moves that because experts, appraisers and real-estate people will destroy him on that issue, so he is going to have to show that. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me just ask you a question. You are going to continue to represent this lady? MR. LARK: Mrs. Haurus, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: So that during the continuation of this hearing, if there is not a lack of movement, you will then como in with this data that is required? MR. LARK: Uh-huh (affirmative sound). THE CHAIRMAN: I am not requiring-- MR. LARK (continuing): You only get into the dollars-and-cents proof later on in the area of use thing, but it carries over what you are doing to adjoining properties, you know, when you read the decisions on that. Okay. Plus you have to make, the problem with the special exception is, you have to make damn specific findings on every one of those things in the statute. That is the problem with it. I don't know how you get around that, unless he can show some alleviation, okay? The other thing, and then it goes into the general ones, the health and safety and general welfare and harmony and so on and so forth, and the use will be compatible with the surroundings and character of the neighborhood. As Mrs. Haurus said to you, she is really not opposed to him because what everybody misunderstands here is what goes on there today is very nice, because they are nice people, it is low-key. The zoning runs with the land, so you've got to be particularly ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page careful when you grant a variance and special exception --since they run with the property, forever, until changed by some reason, or become non-conforming with the change in zone, but they still stay there just like a zone change-- is that you have to be concerned just what is going to be used or not going to be used there. Like she really has no personal objections they are running the real-estate office, and one of the people living there. It doesn't have to be them. They could rent it out to anybody they want. But she doesn't want all that traffic going next to her property. She has really no objection although she has testified that there is a significant difference in traffic now from when the Rollins had it as an accessory antique shop, to a full-blown architect. Because, don't forget, he has got --What is going to kill him is the traffic study. He has got two or three employees there. They have two or three people, so if you even take two or three trips a day, you are going to be up to fifteen, twenty trips a day any business day coming in and out of there. You know, when you take YOUr residential uses, if you do the traffic-study people, they will come up with two cars in the house and then you end up with four trips a day minimum, you know, in that business, plus he has a couple employees, plus Mr. Samuels and his w~fe are in there. They have separate vehicles. They come and go. Never mind their business traffic that comes in and out of there. You know, their clients that come in and out of there. So she is absolutely right when she says that the traffic is much, much greater than it ever was. 79 ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 80 That is going to be his biggest problem. The State apparently just doesn't care where they put a curb cut because-- THE CHAIRMAN: They knew that one had to go, so if that is where they chose to put it, that was it. MR. LARK (continuing): Because what nobody has said here for reasons best known to somebody, and I am not an advocate of lower speed, but the speed limit really is 55 miles an hour. When you study the signs, as you go by the applicant's property, Mrs. Haurus's property, you are legal at 55. As soon as you get by it, you got to start slowing down because there is a sign 50, and then they slow you down as you go into Cutchogue; so you are pulling out at 55 mph (tape is turned over) -- and it is just a little too much, you know, the way the thing is set up, especially concentrate: Her driveway and this driveway literally next to one another coming in and out. This is absurd, so the traffic is her biggest concern; she is not against them trying to run some type of, you know, professional business office over there, which is really what they have, real-estate professional office in the main building, and then the professional architects, office in the back building. They have done a nice job constructionwise. She has no complaint against that, you know, but she just doesn't want that traffic and it is a big concern; and the problem with them, the applicant is --I realize you only have appellate jurisdiction in the area of variances, and you have some legislative jurisdiction with the special exceptions because you are allowed a bit more latitude there-- but if someone decided to take the ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 81 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. applicant to Supreme Court and void out all these permits, they are not going to lose. And the point of it is, we would be back to Square One. So I am advising just let us not waste the money, let's see if we can get it all straightened out because nobody wants to see them tear down their businesses, nobody wants any of that, you know, that is not the issue here. But you just can't continue to get frustrated with the process and get improper advice from the Building Inspector and the Planning Board, the same as you just said or let me put in the curb-cut and see what happens. That will get some activity. Well, it did get some activity. THE CHAIRMAN: newspapers. I got three calls in Hauppauge from the MR. LARK: Okay (laughter), so it did get some activity. So here's where we are, so, yes, Mrs. Haurus would be glad to work with them, but she just wants that driveway moved and she won't stop until it is. THE CHAIRMAN: What is her setback from the road? MR. LARK: Her house? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. LARK: Fifty or sixty feet, something like that, I think. That is set back fairly decent. Almost parallel with the barn, the architects, building, somewhere in there. THE CHAIRMAN: It was my understanding that she was mainly concerned with the road running as close to her hous~ as possible. She was not necessarily --and I am not speaking for her, I am only hearing other people that have mentioned this tc 'ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 82 me, okay? She was not as concerned with the position of the ingress and the ingress at 25 feet from her property line. MR. LARK: That is true from a selfish point of view, but from a good neighbor point of view, she is saying it is a dangerous spot to be because that is where her driveway is and it is dangerous because you can't see. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. LARK (continuing): trying to get out. THE CHAIRMAN: Because that-- And that is the problem with it, I am only going with the premise MR. LARK: Her house per se is 97 feet back from the road. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. exists there? Is the road wider than what actually MR. LARK: Yeah, so it is actually, probably been widened out about 20 or 30 feet, so she is probably within, you would have --this is a '67 survey-- so there has been one widening since that. So I would say conservatively she is probably in the neighborhood of eighty feet there. So she wasn't too far wrong, when she said Sixty. Her mother's house, which is immediately adjacent, is a little farther forward of that, so that could be 40 or 50 feet off the road, something like that. THE CHAIRMAN: The reason why I asked you the question and, of Course, I am mystified at this point of where we are going from here --okay?~- only, as you heard me say to Mr. ~BA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. McLaughlin, that I would like to take everything in toto we can clean this entire situation up, okay. The only reason why I asked that question about the access --or the ingress and egress-- is because I was wondering if the road could not be bent over toward the two businesses and remain in its present location, if that had to be the access. MR. LARK: I am not opposed to that. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you know what I am saying? MR. LARK: I do. I do. To the east as you come in. THE CHAIRMAN: So that may be a possibility, okay. So where we are. at this particular point, I assume, is --and correct me if I am wrong, and this is both attorneys-- We are going to correct the notice of disapproval to include the lot width for the right-of-way or the ingress and egress or going to the back of the property. We are going to discuss the possibility that a special exception or a special permit as the case might be, may be in order concerning the use of this particular back building as it concerns-- MR. LARK (interposing): And the main building. THE CHAIRMAN: And the main building? Okay. MR. LARK: Because the accessory apartment requires special'exception. It~ is not illegal, just needs a special exception. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. plus lA and B or a total of And so we are basically talking four --well, let's basically mention-- and then we are talking the area aspects of each one of these which were mentioned here. So we have all ~'our, so we are Page 83 so that ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 84 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. really only talking the special exception as you are indicating on those two buildings, so we have 5A and B, total of five. Okay. All right, so we will endeavor to make the Building Department aware-- we will give you plenty of time, Kevin-- what occurred at this hearing. We will see what develops after that, and then we will keep you apprised of the correspondence and reconvene the hearing based upon what the applicant wants to do or what he does not want to do. The reason why I asked you that question concerning your continued --I don't mean to belabor thls, ladies and gentlemen, I apologize-- and I am referring to Mr. Lark now, your continued representation of this applicant (sic), but I assume, and I want to reaffirm this, that if you are unhappy with the way this thing goes, then any decision by this Board will be the nature of an Article 78, which I would think and, as you know, I would try to do anything to alleviate that at this particular point, because I see this particular applicant going since '86 now, we are talking seven years. We could go nine or ten. Some of us could not be on this Board at that time conceivably, you know, and there is no question about it. MR. LARK: The point I made too, what you end up getting, the Appellate Divisi®n sends it right back here anyway. I have learned that from experience. So try to work it out here. You go all the way up to prove your point, and they send you back. We don't have jurisdiction to tell you where to put your driveway. They do. That is what the Court would say. Okay. ~BA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. THE CHAIRMAN: So, in other words, what you are saying is if they spent twenty-five hundred dollars, you spent twenty-five hundred dollars, we spent twenty-five hundred dollars, and we are only going to be back here in 1995 or 1996 anyway. Mr. McLaughlin? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I don't want so much to rebut what Mr. Lark had to say really. I just want to give it a slightly different flavor for this Board --and I am sure you probably appreciate that. I think to a certain degree we were made out to be the bad guys in the presentation. I want to submit to this Board, we are not the bad guys here. We have been doing what we have been told by the various Boards and Departments of this Town for the last slx or seven years; whether that be the right thing or the wrong thing, except for the putting in of the curb-cut itself, I think we have been relatively justified in the actions that we have taken in accordance with the determinations that we have had from the Building Department and the Planning Board in the past. We are ~ertainly ready and willing to sit down with anyone and everyone involved to try to work this out so that we do end up with a decision out of this Board that is comprehensive and all-inclusive of all the problems ~nd will reshlt in a decision that everybody can live with because of all the factors that, you know, have been presented. We have no interest in prolonging with an Article 78. I am not saying we wouldn't if we were displeased with the decision, but we would hope to be able to work it out along some lines that everyone can live with, and we would like to get it 85 ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 86 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. all finalized so that some day maybe we can even get the subdivision finalized. But I don't want the Board to be sitting there and those people who may not be as familiar as others, thinking that we have sat here and tried to devise a plan as to how we get around this Board. That has never been our intention. We have been, if you will, diverted by other Boards from having to come here and specifically told that we didn't need to come here. THE CHAIRMAN: Kevin, I never thought that in the beginning. You know, to be honest with you, and certainly I don't think it is something you really have to worry about. I just want to ask something of our Clerk, and I will be right back to you. (Off the record inaudibly to Board Clerk.) THE CHAIRMAN: We are only concerned with how we are going to concisely present this material to the Building Department and I just think maybe the better way to do it, rather than have the entire --this hearing, for everybody's benefit, of course, is going to be typed and made part of a permanent record, but it is going to take us a little while to do that. A more concise method would be just to have Mr. Lark outline what he said, plus I will afford you a copy of it, and we will zip that over to the Building Department and explain to them this is what happened during this hearing concerning the next-door neighbor's attorney as it was presented, and let them review it and see if they want to do anything or if they don't want. Certainly the issue of what width is going to exist, okay. As for the special ~ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 87 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. exception portions of it, that is for us to make the determination; but certainly since the Building Department, the new Building Department, okay, as it exists with the two gentlemen that are in there, they are the ones who are going to have to be apprised of what actually went on; and that is the reason why I think that is probably the most expeditious way of dealing with it. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I have no problem with that, as long as I am afforded an opportunity to review and comment on what is submitted. THE CHAIRMAN: Could you do that for us, Mr. Lark? MR. LARK: Sure. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there anybody here tonight-- MR. LARK: I would be willing to meet with Kevln with the now Head Building Inspector because I don't see, if he has the codes in front of him, how he can read it any other way. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I don't have a problem with that. MR. LARK: Then we can try to straighten it out. THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't you do that? And then we will all meet back here. Do you want to meet back here in Novembdr or do you want to wait for the December meeting? · MR. LARK: It'is up to Kevin. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I would just as soon move it along. MR. LARK: I won't impede it. It's going to go anyway. THE CHAIRMAN: You guys can do that in the next two or three weeks? BOTH COUNSELLORS: Yes, sir. ~Z~A Hearing of October 18, 1993 Appl. No. 4195 Petrol Stations, Ltd. BOARD CLERK: Our next meeting is November 8th so-- THE CHAIRMAN: Again, is there anybody --We thank everybody here for your courtesy. Is there anybody here that would like to say anything, that may not be here for the November 8th meeting? no hands-- MEMBER DINIZIO: make a statement. Page I know most of it has been said. Seeing I'd like to make a comment. I'd like to THE CHAIRMAN: It is so rare that you make a statement, Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well,' it's maybe even an apology, Jerry. There was a letter, a memo written about this with this particular map attached to it at one time, and I read it and said to myself "Gerry has to be crazy." I couldn't understand what he was trying to say. And, Mr. Lark, you made it so crystal clear to me tonight that I have to apologize to Jerry for thinking what I thought. statement. THE CHAIRMAN: This is I just wanted to make that a first! (jokingly) MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to thank you very much for making that clear to me. I really find it extremely hard to believe that an applicant could walk into the Town Hall and actually go through what this applicant has gone through and not be any further than sketch --he is at step one as far as anybody is concerned. THE CHAIRMAN: That is because of the re-routing aspects that occurred prior to our determination. I applaud the Town 88 ~Z~A Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 89 Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Board for asking for that determination. And, as I said, we were Chastised by other Boards for coming up with that determination; but the buck has to stop somewhere, and it has to start somewhere, and that is the whole purpose of it. And this re-routing aspect only cost people time, and money. MEMBER DINIZIO: The decision was made --I may be getting into trouble but-- decision was made that our opinion, with the hopes that a competent person would be making those decisions, and maybe the "Town" goofed in this one. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much, Dick. It was a great presentation. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you again for your courtesy. I will make a motion recessing the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting. (Seconded and carried; see Board Clerk's minutes.) jdr SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER SENDER: SUBJECT: SCTM~: 10ft CO~ENTS: ' SOUTHOLD TOWN ' I~.ANNING BOARD J' APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Halt 53095 Main Road P,O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: ChAi~.man, planning Beard Chairman, Beard of Appeals August 22, 1994 Petrel Stations - Preposed Subdivision Road New Site plan Application (1994) Would you please coordinate the above project with our Department. The preject apparently is now appearing on your board's calendar. We were just this afternoon contacted with an inquiry on the layout on the map, and found that this map was not coordinated either under SEQRA or through normA! precedures. The Board of Appeals would like to review the map before it it given final appreval. Thank you. AUG 2 3 1994 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Read P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: RE: Gera~d P. Goehringer, Chal~...an, Board of Appeals Richard G. Ward, Chairman ~ Proposed Site Plan for Petrol Stations Main Road, Cutchogue SCTM9 1000-109-1-23 DATE: August 24, 1994 As requested in your memo of August 22, 1994, attached is the site plan for the proposed relocation and reconfiguring of the parking lot for the above referenced project. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southo~, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 1994 Matthew Martin, Secretary Cutchogue Fire District New Suffolk Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 Dear Mr. Mar[in: Enclosed please find two (2) surveys for y sc7'~,~1,,~:~¢~-'/o 7-2- Please notify this office as [o wt{ether any firewells are needed. specify whether shallow wells or electric wells will be needed. Please reply by ~ , 1994. cooperation. S[nr'e, rel , Please Thank you for your Porn'il Fee: $ Tolat Received; $ Check or MO. No,' OF' NEW YOF~K DEPAR'IMENT VI ION HIGHWAY WORK PERMIT 10 ' 93 ProjEct Idenllf~calloh · Colnplet~On h I :~xpiring SH No: Chock or MO. No,; :., Pem~tllee: Estimaled Cost of Work Performed In tho Sl~te Right-of. Way S: I'~ ~ ~,~ :. ,',i ~,q,' , i !u ChargoabJe to Bond No.: ~;~ I'i'~ [ ~Vt~ ~ i~RI orUndodakingonFil(~: -0270 Under the provlsi,3ns of tho Highway Law or Vehicle & Traffic Law porn'4sslon Is hereby granted to the pefmlllee to; THE PERMI~TEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ]ME MAINTEHANCE AND PROTECTION OF TRAFFfC. IN AODITION, ANYBoDy WORKING ~IE RIGltT OF WAY IS REQUIRED TO WEAR A HARD HAT AND A ~BFLECTIV~ SAFETY VEST, ANYONE WORKING WITHIN R O.W. WILL WEAR HIGH VISIBILI~ APPAREL (ORANGE~ELLO~ AND HARD HAT. County M~tf ,~1 g Municipality- ,~,~;rH~;~l i Rouie ~- as set fodh and resposentod in tho aEached a~pl!cation at the pa~lcular location or area, or over tho routes ~s stated therein, i~ required; pursuant to the conditions and tabulations whether, general or special, and methods of peflormmg work, If am/ all of which are set fo~h application and form of this permit m ..... I~PORTA [This permit, with application .nd drawl.~,~?,r co?es thereoO aUached shall N t ,,, be placed in the ~ands of the cor~tractor b~fore any work NOTICE: Before work la staded and ppon tS co~p et on the erin tree abeo ut m notl~t~he ~ea sept Ep~i~eqr. MPON COMPLETION OF WORK AUIHOItlZEB, THE FOLLOWfNG WILL BE COMPLE'I~D AND SIGNIZD BY THE PERMI~EE Ai DELIVERED %0 THE RESIDENT ENGINEER. Work auth~rizo¢ by th~8 Per~lt wa9 co.plated on Rofu2d of desposll or return of bond or rodu¢llop of amount charged aga~st bond or deposit on file for ii, is permll whichever is ~eque~ted. Upon acceptance of work podormod as s~[isfaclorily completed, tho Resident Engineer will sign the following and fo~ard to the Reglo~ Office. Work authorized by Ihls Permit has boon satisfactorily compleled and is accepted (Reverse aide of this form must be c0mpieted}. ~o Rogicna~ O~ce wdl forward this form to ibc Main Office with the appropriate box checked. 10: HIGHWAy PERMITSECT~ON: I .~ . ,~ ~ U iii-- :~ LONG ISLAND. REGII 10 ' ,~ ,',"' -- TRAFFIC ENGINEERING & SAFETr __. FAX: (5161 360-60£9 NUMBER OF PAGES [NCLUO{NO FHIS ONE ~ lC: HIGHWAy PERMIT SECTION: (~ nofund nf Del)O~il on this Permit is authorized. Ul Return of Bond furnished for this Pe~nllI t~ authorized, U ArHoun c ~ ged ~ga nsf I3'ankot Bofld roi Ihis permit may be cancelled. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett OHowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 3TO~ ~homas Fisher, Building Inspector In Charge FROM: Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer~ RE: Proposed Site Plan for Petrol Stations Ltd. Main Road, Cutchogue SCTM9 1000-109-1-23 9ATE: July 27, 1994 Please review the attached for certification. The Board is not requiring Health Department approval, as this site plan is for relocating and reconfiguring the parking lot only. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchia Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 July 12, 1994 Nancy Steelman Samuels & Steelman, Architects 25235 Main Rd. Cutchogue, NY 11935 Proposed site plan for Petrol Stations Main Rd., Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-109-1-23 Dear Ms. Steelman: The following resolution was duly adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, July 11, 1994: BE 1T RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, start the coordination process on fids unlisted action. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely//' //t ~Rii:h~ard G. Ward Chairm~ TO SAMUELS & STEELMAN ARCJi[ITECTS 25235 Main Road t CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 1~]~5 (5],6) 734-6405 FAX (516) 734-6407 WE ARE SENDING YOU /~Attached [] Under separate cover via [] Shop drawings ~.~Prints [] Plans [~ Copy of letter [] Change order [] [] Samples the following items: [] Specifications COPIES I) TE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: /~For approval [] For your use /¢~.. As requested [] FDr review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE [] Approved as submitted [] Resubmit [] Approved as noted [] Submit__ [] Returned for corrections [] Return [] copies for approval .copies for distribution corrected prints 19 __. [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS SOUIHOLB IOW~I PLANNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 21, 1994 Samuels & Steelman, 57125 Main Road Southold, NY 11935 Architects RE: Proposed Site Plan for Petrol Stations Zoning District: Residential Office SCTM# 1000-109-1-23 (RO) Dear Ms. Steelman, The Board has reviewed the above referenced site plan dated May 2, 1994. The following changes/additions are required before the Board can proceed with its review: · Drainage calculations must be shown on the site plan. If you have any questions, or require assistance, please contact this office. Chairman cc: Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector in Charge S A M U E L S & S T E E L M A N June 13, 1994 Southold Town Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P,O, Box 728 Southold New York 11971 RE: Petrol Stations Dear' Sirs: Below are the calculations for rain water runoff for the asphalt parkJng/d~ ,ew;~y at the Real Estate, Architects Office and garage. Drainage calculations f=,' the subdivision road were submitted 5123194. Parking/Driveway surface: 6154 sq ft of asphalt surface X 2" rainfall (0,1667) X 1.0 runnoff faclor: 1,026 cuft rain water Lawn/Landscaped Area to absorb rain water runoff from asphalt surfac ' ~: 1..2..,,~.00 sq ft area RAIN WATER RUNOFF: 1,026 cu ft AREA TO ABSORB RUNOFF: t2,500 sq ft Analysis: Rain water runoff is equal to an additional 1 inch of rain wa.~;r cver lawn and landscapped areas If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us. Sincerely. SAMUELS & STEELMAN ARCHITECTS Principal Architect CC: Thomas J. German AI~C HITECTS 25235 MAIN CL~T,,.'H(,)GUE, NEW YORK 11935 JUN i 4 1994 PI.MINING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 10~ 1994 Samuels & Steelman. 57125 Main Road $outhold, NY 11935 Architects RE: Proposed Site Plan for Petrol Stations Zoning District: Residential Office SCTM$ 1000-109-1-23 (RO) Dear Ms. Steelman, The Board has reviewed the above referenced site plan dated May 2~ 1994. The following changes/additions are required before the Board can proceed with its review: · Drainage calculations must be provided. If you have any questions or require assistance please contact this office.  inc/~e lv., ' Chairman cc: Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector in Charge SAMUELS & ST££LMAH 25235 Main Road CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORKt'~935 (516) 734-6405 FAX (516) 734-6407 TO WE ARE SENDING YOU ~ Attached [] Under separate cover via the following items: [] .<;hop drawings //~Prints [] Plans [] Samples [] Specifications [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION ~ / THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: /~For approval [] For your use [] As requested [] For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE [] Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections [] 19 [] Resubmit.__ [] Submit [] Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints __ [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS coPY TO PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Terephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~ay 17, 1994 Samuels & Steelman, Architects 57125 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Petrol Stations Ltd. Main Road, Cutchogue Zoning District: Residential Office (RO) SCTM# 1000-109-1-23 Dear Mr. Samuels, The Planning Board has received your letter of May 5, 1994. The following changes/additions must be made before the Board can proceed: 1. Show spot elevations for drainage review. 2. Indicate phase 1 and phase 2 of the proposed project. 3. Show drainage calculations and/or method of drainage disbursement. The curb cut permit in the Board's file does not indicate any drainage requirements for the cut and driveway, please indicate drainage treatment of this area. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. Chairman cc: Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector In Charge SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER DATE: SENDER: SUBJECT: SCTM#: COMMENTS: SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER s~c~.- /~rrol ~ SCTM#: I d)~ ' / - ~-~ 7 MAIN F~OAD (N.y. STATE FIOUTE 25). inch of ~:a~n Water over the US. I t~ L._ //,, SITE PLAN DATA SCTM #: 100i):109-1-23 PETROL STATIONS LTD. CIO THOMAS J. GERMAN P.O. BOX 1445, MATTITUCK N.Y., 11952-098g Tel. # ' 519-298-6474 ARCHITECTS: SAMUELS & STEELMAN ARCHITECTS 25235 MAIN ROAD CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 516- 734-6405 SITE PLAN TAKEN FROM SURVEY~REPARED BY: PECONIC SURVEYORS REVISED: 08/20/9,3 PARKING REQUIREMENTS: 1. REAL ESTATE OFFICE 7,8 spaces 79611 7.96 spaces t ' ~ ' ~ TOTAL SPACE'REQUIRED 17 SPACES 'l ~ ~ ~ :~ ' TOTALSPACES~NDBA~ED · · · t'~ r'-n'¢"l I saoeds 6'Z (lUa~Medv/eoeds~) I I VJ. Va NY-Id 3J. IS' :j June 13,1994 Southold Town Planning Board Town of Southold Town Halt, 53095 Main Road P.O Box 728 Southold New York 11971 RE: Petrol Stations Dear Sirs: Below are the calculations for rain water r~noff for the asphalt parking/driveway areas at lhe Real Estate, Architect~ Office and garage. Drainage calculations for the subdivision road were submitted 5~23~94. ParklnglDrlveway surface: 6154 sq ff of asphalt sudace X 2" rainfall (0.1667) X 1 0 runnoff factor = 1,026 Cuft rain water Lawn/Landscaped Area to absorb rain water runoff from asphalt surfacing= 12,600 sq fl area RAIN WATER RUNOFF: 1,026 cuft AREA TO ABSORB RUNOFF: 12,S00 sq ft Analysts: Rain water runoff is equal to an additional I inch of rain water over the lawn and landscapped areas. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us. Sincerely, SAMUELS & STEELMAN ARCHITEOTS SFTE PLAN DATA OWNER: PETROL STATIONS L, TD. CIO THOMAS J. GERMAN P.O. BOX 1445, MATTiTUCK NY., 11952-0989 Tel. #: 516-298-8478 ARCHITECTS: SAMUEL~ & STEELMAN ARCHITECTS 25235 MAIN ROAD CUT~HOGUE, NY 11935 516- 734~8405 SITE PLAN TAKEN I~ROM SURVEY PREPARED BY: PECONIC SURVEYORS LICENSE # LS 49618 DATED: 01/12/87 REVISED: {38/20193 PARKING REQUIREMENTS: 1, REAL ESTATE OFFICE (1 Space/100 SF) 780/100 = 7 8 spaces 2. ARCHITECTS OFFICE ' (1 Space/lO0 SF) 7961100 = 7,96 spaces 7.8 spaces 7,9 spaces (1 space/1000 SF) 373 SFI100~)',~ 0.3 APARTMEN~T 1 space (1 space/Apt,rtment} TOTAL"SPACES REQUIRED 17 SPACES TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED 10 SPACES TOTAL SPACE8 ~ND BANKED -- t I ' Project No: Drown ~: Ch~k~?y: Sheet Title: LOT 4 ~ LOT 3 ~ ~ ~,. ~ __ ._ of.__~_._W~y_ RIGHT OF WAY ~ I / \ ~ ~ $CALE..I =20 LOT I CASE NO. 93-5 PLAN SCALE. 1" = 60' PROFILE TYPICAL CROSS SECTION ROAD WA Y SCALE: VERT. HORIZ ' compacled fh/ckness $Ione blend or crushed co~Tcrele bose 60' ,DRA~IVA~E CALCULA T~ONS PAVEMENT ~ t2~6~$q, fib 0 THER = 4 ?4E sq. ft. A = AREA R = 2' RUNQEF C ~ COEFFICENT RUNOFF ]2,56~x O J7 x 1.0 = ~136 cu. It. 474~ x 0.17 x 0.3 = ~4~ ~378 ~378~8.4 = 35, V.F. PROVIDE 3 L.P.s I0~1~' DEEP PLAN & PROFILE 25' RIGHT OF WA Y PETROL STATIONS LTD. A T CUTCHOGUE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N Y. ~000 - 109- 01- 23 JAN 41~1193 (revisions) 71[~19~ ( revisions MAIN SOUTHOLD~ LIC. NO. 49E1~ N.Y. 11971 86-650D