The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1000-117.-8-6 . Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P,O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 '. PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 31, 1988 Kevin McLaughlin P.O. Box 803 Greenport, NY 11944 RE: East Wind Corp. SCTM #1000-117-8-6 Dear Mr. McLaughlin: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Tuesday, August 30, 1988. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the survey dated April 18, 1987. This site plan is located on King Street at Cutchogue. The conditions of final approval are located on the map. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. v.;;r~::JrUlY ~~~rs~:,../") ;:;1 IJ/ I ( /'LIl I:. k. - '-.I' . ~:~--;i~""'-) i .... __, ' r . " ... /' :T. __ .,l:,.-- .',/ '),~ 0'" ,;;.r {;-:,/ ( _J" /!/' ;/tA~ '- ... 1/ BENNETT ORLOWSKI; JR. ;.1 CHAIRMAN cc: Building Department Garrett Strang enc. jt . . Town Hall, 530.95 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765.1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 27, 1988. .. Kevin McLaughlin P.O. Box 80.3 Greenport, NY 11944 RE: East Wind Corp. SCTM #10.0.0.-117-8-6 Dear Mr. McLaughlin: The following action was taken by the Southold Town .' Planning Board on Monday, July 25, 1988. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve this site plan on 21,430. sq. ft. located at New Suffolk subject to satisfaction of the following conditions: 1. resolving the grading problem as shown on the marked map received by the applicant at the July 25, 1988 meeting. 2. showing the location and grading of the of the new curbing and concrete aprons relative to the existing street. These locations and grading must be approved by Raymend Jacobs, Superintendent of the Highway Department prior to the issuance of any bUilding permits. As discussed at the meeting, a floor plan will be submitted with the Planning Board at the time a bUilding permit request is filed with the Building Department. . If ~ou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. . '~:;;a BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. CHAIRMAN v ,-- ~r .'_ _ _'_1111I" _,_ . _'_'_'_1_'_ _ _ _1_~I_I_I_l_1_1_ _1_1_1_1_'_I__~""J-"." TOWN CLERK i TOWN OF SOUTHOLD i Suffolk CUWlty, New York 516 - 765-1801 N? 23120. I ~ , Southold, N. Y.1l971 ()~J 1'7 19K2i C'1 RECELYED OR '1!.JU!.v. Ll-- r cjJ Lli 2 AA-'" V u t G"" -,(Lc~< ~. Jr'" 1/" dJv.A..- l {J") .~ DoIIara. '1 sO i For P Q fb'Y\/f' rt~~ 1-- u ~ {} '/Yl..{/ll.ff? Fr 0 ",,' / - -- t (i Cvy.....J!. 7f Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk i 't ~Q i Ca.oh D Check r.:v"-ir /0 7 g-- By () 't-t~_.t--- ~~_I_I_I_I~I_I_''''_'_I_I_'_I__''_ -,- F- ~1i'---,-- _____r_ .. I i ,I I I , .._, . , } d x y. \)'0 j APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS \ Q{) \ Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman .t. ~ Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa ... \' "'~"':od: "~.~ o~,., .. ..,..... .. -f<... .su8Fi~ ~b .'.... ~ " " ,,,,,.'- .-.J.-,....:t1 ... Telephone (516) 765-1809 :,' ,; ;i:21 " ""e:,'JV']' .., '.~"", - ~~ -' ,'-, ''':/.'!:';Z', c,,' ...1". ).' -.;::. ;. ,;~ 1l \''''. ~' ,'\ ' ., '. ...- , "::"7t' ( ~;}~~!' -::;"":>'~'--(~'~'-'- >'-'- SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD, OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 16, 1991 William D. Moore, Esq. Clause Corrunons P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Application for East Wind Development Corp. Dear Mr. Moore: Almost a year has passed since the original notice of the above application, which, as you know, has been deemed incomplete for some time. For these reasons and the fact that the Notice of Disapproval is outdated, the application has been deadfiled, without prejudice to the filing of a new application together with the required notices and all other dQcumentation, updated accordingly. " Very truly yours, ",C Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman , cc: ( Building Department Planning Board v w & & & U \Yl m I''''.'l 1 D' l ~; SEP I 6 1991 'U, LD TOWN PlANNING BOARD - , ( <, <' FORM NO.3 "'- r ( C "1 -~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. , NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL / '1.' , Date ..JJ.~~...~.....,19.'1.~.. ~:l:~~~:::::~~~:~~, ~' ..X1:).~.~.~:~.....U.~~.~ . . ....,. 0",,- PLEAS~TAKE NOTICE that your application dated . .9.~1 p..~~.. ~.<;f....., 19 .9.~ j~1819 fO';:::'-::::-"'~';;;, ";,~-R.",, :':~,:"Cr. ~"t~ ..:. Location ofproperty . ~.~~. K"~. ~."!. ~~4..~... .~~..... .'f)._.~~... . House No. \ Street r;~~/et County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ...JJ 7. . . . . . . . Block .. Q .~ ~ . . . . . . . Lot . Q ./.p. . .. . .. . . Subdivision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " Filed Map No. ,............... Lot No. ................. is return:d herewith and disapproved on the following grounds . '~n' . . ~ l.~c\.~..~..~~..~~.~...~~...~.. ~ ~~. .~~. 'b...~ IA ?~.... Y.>1.o;,,~.~) :)~.. .~,4.... ;t.~.:t... .~-.1tJ...,.. .Q..c;t%..~.~ ..~~~~ .b~~:........................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - . . - . . - . {~~ . . . . . . . . .. . .................. Building Inspector .. .- - . . . . . . . . . . . . . RV 1/80 ~ . .. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM FROM: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman 'DO. 0'(1$. Site Plan for East Wind Corporation King and Second Streets, New Suffolk SCTM # 1000-117-08-06 TO: RE: DATE: January 8, 1991 In answering the questions posed in your memorandum of December 17, 1990, I first wish to emphasize that the Planning Board does not have a policy or determination about interpreting the specific sections of the Zoning Code which you are being asked to interpret by the applicant. Our understanding of the sections of the Zoning Code that are referenced in your memorandum of December 17, 1990, is that the Town Board's 1989 rezoning of the property made null and void any approved site plan where the zoning designation changed. If this is true, the only exception would be if the use for which the site plan was approved remained an allowed use under the new zoning district designation; and the bulk and area restrictions remained unchanged. The facts of the situation are: 1. The East Wind Corporation site plan was approved on August 30, 1988. The zoning of the parcel at that time was "B" Light Business. 2. On February 25, 1989, a new zoning map pursuant to the Master Plan went into effect. The zone changed to "R-40" residential. 3. The new zone does not allow the uses permitted by the previous zone. . . 4. The content of two previous decisions of your Board on similar cases; specifically, pequash Commons and Jordan's Partners, buttress the position that the site plan is no longer valid. Accordingly, a new site plan may be required for any proposed use that is allowed within the "R-40" district, but which also requires a site plan, as specified in Section 100-31 of the Zoning Ordinance. \~., . . ..-- 5u6f/Lt Po .c;T/'rF f ?corr L. HARRIS Supervisor APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard p, Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr, Serge Doyen. Jr, Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr, Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P,O, Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS ~-r ;'i'ul 3 - Appeal No. 3907 - Application of N::CHOLAS ALIANO.._.. ,'_ Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III-&r-Section 100-30 A.2 to construct a retail/office complex. Proposed construction is not permitted in this R-40 Zone District. Property Location: 29950 Main Road, 30 Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 102, Block 3, Lot 1. WHEREAS, public hearings were held in the Matter of the Application of NICHOLAS ALIANO under Appeal No. 3907; and WHEREAS, at said hearings all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, 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. This is an appeal of the January 5, 1990 Notice of Disapproval in which an application dated January 4, 1990 was considered by the Building Inspector to construct a retail office complex and which was disapproved on the following grounds: "...Under Article III A (R-40 District), 100-30A.2, proposed construction is not a permitted use in this district. Action required by the Town Board (Zoning Change) or by the Zoning Board of Appeals... ." 2. The premises in question consists of .860 acres, or 37,462 sq. ft. in area with 200 ft. frontage along the west side of Pequash Avenue and 207.62 feet along the south side of State Route 25 (Main Road) in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold. " . . Page 2 - Appeal No. 3907 Matter of NICHOLAS ALIANO Decision Rendered June 27, 1990 3. The subject premises as of January 9, 1989 has been situated in the R-40 Residential Zone District and is improved with an existing one-story frame building having a total floor area, inclusive of attached garage, of 1408+- sq. ft. 4. By this application, the appellant requests a Variance for permission to construct new 1426 sq. ft. (One-story) masonry building to be occupied by retail stores and commercial office . uses, uses which are not permitted in this R-40 Zone District. 5. Certificates of Occupancy have been furnished for the record indicating that on January 14, 1988 renovations were made to an existing real estate office in an existing building (C.O. #Z-16582) and that on August 2, 1973, Certificate of Occupancy No. Z5343 was issued for a business building with apartment (public garage). 6. Although the present use of the site has been nonconforming in this R-40 Zone District since the January 9, 1989 Master Plan Zoning Revisions, the relief requested in this application is not under the nonconforming sections of the code and was applied for a variance under the "permitted use" section of this R-40 Zone District. 7. For the record, it is noted that expansions, enlargements, alterations or reconstruction of nonconforming buildings and/or nonconforming uses are not permitted without variances from the Board of Appeals (Section 100-243 of the Zoning Code). 8. It is the position of the Board Members that the grant of the subject variance under the present terminology and definitions of the current zoning code is not appropriate. 9. In considering this application, the Board also finds and determines: (a) sufficient proof has not been demonstrated as required by the statutes to show that: (1) the property cannot yield a reasonable return with underlying facts in dollars and cents proof; (2) the burden of proof of unnecessary hardship or that literal application of the zoning ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship has not been sUfficiently met (Otto v. Steinhilber) ; ~(3) the use to be authorized will not alter the essential character of the locality; ., . .' Page 3 - Appeal No. 309 Matter of NICHOLAS ALIANO Decision Rendered June 27, 1990 (b) the uses proposed are not permitted uses in this zone district and will not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance; (c) the current uses of the property and the zone district regulations are not so restricted that the premises could not be used for reasonable purposes; (d) the circumstances and nature of the uses of the property are unique; (e) the property in question is centrally located in the R-40 Residential Zone District and is not immediately adjoined by any other zone district; (f) this Board cannot under the semblance of a variance exercise legislative powers. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appl. No. 3907 in the Matter of NICHOLAS ALIANO be and hereby is DENIED for the reasons noted above. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Sawicki, and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted. * * * lk /7 /) / / / /' . .'~ / ~?k/~~ l?~__ GERARD P. GOEHRINGER /J' CHAIRMAN 1/ ~~ ;J".j ~ { I c~ l,<<:cf-- t-j/;,,<: r:- -J<-F/)/i''''-- CC-J?>f--?-rt-<//l,/,}- · 5R,:'5J51T ?ic..E ~r ~LJ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. Telephone (516) 765- I 809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS '",3 Appeal No. 3915 - Application of JORDAN'S PARTNERS. ......-- -~ . Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, as disapproved, for permission to construct retail stores in conjunction with office building uses; proposed retail construction is not permitted in this RO Zone District. Property Location: 1000 Main Street and 160 Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 34, Block 2, Lot 1. WHEREAS, public hearings were held in the Matter of the Application of JORDAN'S PARTNERS under Appeal No. 3915; and WHEREAS, at said hearings all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, the physical characteristics of the land, its present zoning, its previous zoning classification(s), and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. This is an appeal of the January 31, 1990 Notice of Disapproval in which an application dated May 9, 1989 was considered by the Building Inspector to construct office and retail stores, which was disapproved on the following grounds: "...Under Article VII, Section 100-71, proposed construction is not a permitted use in this district. Action required by the Zoning Board of Appeals... ." 2. The premises in question consists of 4.75+- acres with frontages along three streets: (a) North Road (a/k/a State Route 25) along the northerly end of the premises, (b) Main Street (a/k/a State Route 25) along the westerly end of the premises, and (c) Knapp Place (a town street) along a southerly 79.97 ft. portion which is situated in the Residential Zone District, Hamlet of Greenport, Town of Southold. ( . () . , Page 2 - Appeal No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 3. Since January 9, 1989, most of the Subject premises has been situated in the Residential-Office (RO) Zone District, and only a small section (approximately .30 of an acre) has been situated in the R-40 Residential Zone District. The entire tract is vacant land, except for partially completed foundation construction which includes footings and concrete wall extending 372.6 feet in an east-west direction. 4. Surrounded on its southerly and easterly boundaries are residential communities in the R-40 Residential Zone District. To the north are State Route 25, and to the north thereof a preexisting restaurant located in the Limited Business (LB) Zone District and residential communities in the R-40 Residential Zone District. To the west are Main Street and residences in residential use districts. 5. The following facts and events are additionally noted for the record: (a) On October 3, 1985, the Southold Town Board adopted a moratorium concerning all business and industrial zone districts; (b) On October 10, 1985, an application was pending before the Southold Town Planning Board (referred to as "280 North Road," applicant) and which was under a town-wide moratorium affecting all business and industrial zone districts in the pending "Master Plan Revisions"; (c) On October 22, 1985, the Town Board denied the request of the applicant (by his attorney, John C. Tsunis, Esq.) for the requested Waiver under the provisions of Local Law #14-1985 for the reason that the uses proposed were inconsistent with the proposed Residential-Office Zone District provisions; (d) It is apparent that during 1985 and 1986, and up until January 9, 1989 (the date of adoption of the new zoning regula- tions), the subject premises was being considered by the Town for a change in the zoning use district to Residential-Office (from B-Light Business). In the applications before the Town Board and Planning Board during the period from 1984 through 1985, a site plan dated September 9, 1985 was filed for an office mall area in excess of 12,000 sq. ft., together with retail stores and bank facility. (See copy of site plan on file with the Southold Town Clerk and Planning Board). . ~ . Page 3 - Appl. No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 5. (e) Again, on January 13, 1986, John Tsunis, attorney for ~ the property owner, requested a second Waiver under the provisions of the moratorium, and the record is clear, as is also shown in the February 4, 1986 Town Board minutes and in its resolution granting a waiver at the same meeting, that: "...the applicant proposes to utilize the premises to conform with the uses in a Residential-Office Zone District...." (Emphasis added) (f) Following the grant of the waiver to utilize the premises to conform with the uses in a Residential-Office Zone District, the applicant/property owner proceeded to make amendments to the Planning Board under the site plan process. (g) On June 23, 1986, the Planning Board adopted a resolu- ~ tion approving a site plan for the building and on-site changes. It should be noted that although the Planning Board proceeded under the site plan process, the Town Board waiver was strictly for those uses which would conform to those in the Residentia1- Office (RO) Zone District. (h) It is noted for the record that the Planning Board is and has always been without authority to consider a change of ~ use, change of zone, or use variances, and the proper forum for ~- those requests are before the Town Board as a legislative agency and/or Board of Appeals as a quasi-judicial agency. (i) The applicant has also furnished the board with copies of canceled checks, invoices, and a list of expenses which the applicant asserts was expended during the course of this project. The Board has evaluated the record and notes that the expenses are not itemized and are without a clear breakdown for the total claim, thus the Board questions the validity of some of these claims, including real estate taxes on vacant land; fees for consultants as well as attorney fees to review the town files and represent the applicant in the proceeding before this Board; certain expenses for real estate commissions (which are normally paid by the seller rather than the purchaser if the commissions were for the sale of the premises); closing costs were not itemized; mortgage payments with interest were claimed without specific time periods or any breakdown as to how the figures were arrived at; the amount given for the purchase of the land differs from that shown in the Suffolk County real estate transfer records; insurance expense was given without a breakdown as to type or coverage or time periods covered; purpose of payment of corporate tax and miscellaneous expenses was not provided; and the purpose of incurring certain expenditures as a necessity in the process to the extent charged is not provided. ( . () . Page 4 - Appl. No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 6. At this juncture, it is noted that on May 18, 1989, approximately 2-1/2 years after receiving final site-plan approval, an application for a building permit was filed with the Town Building Department. 7. On June 8, 1989 Building Permit No. 18187Z was issued by the Building Inspector's Office for an "office and retail store shopping center." At the time the building permit was issued, retail stores in thE RO Zone District were not -- allowed or permitted uses; and the building permit was issued in error. Approximately three months later, the footings and partial foundation construction was placed. 8. On November 30, 1989, a Stop Work Order was issued. 9. On January 31, 1990, this appeal application was filed with the Office of the Board of Appeals and Town Clerk. 10. In addition to evaluating all documentation in the Planning Board file, Town Clerk file, Assessors records, County real estate records, and the Building Department file, and documentation and testimony submitted in support of the application, the board has also considered all testimony and written material against the application, or as otherwise presented by mail, in person or during the public hearings. The public and the landowner were provided with full opportunities to present their views. 11. Article VII, Section 100-71B, Residential-Office Use regulations of the Zoning Code do authorize several uses proposed in the applicant's site plan construction project, to wit: professional offices and business offices, by Special Exception by the Board of Appeals subiect to site plan approval by the Planninq Board provided that not more than one (1) use shall be allowed for each forty thousand (40,000) square feet of lot area. 12. Article VII, Section 100-71B of the Residential-Office (RO) does not, however, provide for retail stores or shops, and certain retail uses are provided for in business zone districts and then only as specified therein (i.e., Limited Business (LB), Hamlet Business (HB), Business B, etc.) 13. In considering a use variance, the Court of Appeals has set three requirements which must be clearly shown by the evidence before the variance may be granted. First, that the land cannot yield a reasonable return for allowable purposes; second, the plight shall be due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions of the neighborhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance; and third, that the use sought by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. e) .> Page 5 - Appl. No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 14. With reference to the first requirement, there is no doubt that the property owner has offered proof of many expenditures during the entire site plan process, with excep- tions as noted in paragraph 5(i), supra. This board will not question that large sums of monies have been expended, but it is questionable as to whether the sums paid were properly applied in "dollars and cents proof," and whether some of the sums paid were to the same individuals.who sold the property and those that purchased the property. It appears that one individual seller was also the purchaser in the property transfers. Therefore, sufficient proof has not been furnished showing a "proportioned" sales price proportioning a part of the financial loss in this project. Also, the record does not disclose any other individuals or parties which have had a financial interest in the property which might affect the sales prices over the years. 15. With reference to the second requirement, the Board finds that the property owner has not proven that the subject premises could not be used for other uses under the same provision of the Residential-Office Use regulations (100-71B); i.e. 100% professional offices and business offices as compared to the partial (15,000 sq. ft.) proposal in the subject project. In fact, the property owner is proposing to use the premises and proposed building for permitted office uses (by Special Exception). Additionally, other uses which are also authorized by Special Exception in this Residential-Office (RO) Zone District are residential use, funeral home use, art galleries, museums, libraries, wineries. It is noted that within a few short blocks of the SUbject property there is a hospital and professional office building. The record is clear, by the maps, that office use is feasible for future construction on this vacant parcel. Appellant in the Board's view did not establish that the present investment was inadequate for professional/business office use; and it is well known that due to the conditions of the economy throughout the North Fork, land values have depreciated. It should be noted that many of the expenses paid may also be applied to professional/business office mall uses," and the landowner has not been deprived of his right to use the land as zoned. (Gordon v. Town of Huntington, 1962, 230 N.Y. S2d 619). A landowner who seeks a use variance must demonstrate factually, by dollars and cents proof, an inability to realize a reasonable return under existinq permissible uses, and not, however, in foreseeable context. Conc1usory testimony of a witness, unsupported and unsupplemented by underlying concrete facts is not sufficient proof. c . () . Page 6 - Appl. No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 16. With reference to the third requirement, it is the opinion of this Board that the essential character of the locality will be altered. The locality consists mostly of single-family residences, and there is one preexisting restaurant. 17. In considering this application, the Board also finds and determines: (al sufficient proof has not been demonstrated as required by the statutes to show that: (1) the property cannot yield a reasonable return with underlying facts in dollars and cents proof; (2) the burden of proof of unnecessary hardship or that literal application of the zoning ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship has not been sufficiently met (Otto v. Steinhilber); (3) the use to be authorized will not alter the essential character of the locality; (bl the uses proposed are not permitted uses in this zone district and will not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance; (c) the current uses of the property and the zone district regulations are not so restricted that the premises could not be used for reasonable purposes; (d) the Board does not dispute that the circumstances and events which have taken place are unique; (e) the property in question is centrally located in center of other Residential Zone Districts, and although the Residential-Office Zone District does permit office use as well as residential use; (f) this Board cannot under the semblance of a variance exercise legislative powers; (g) the denial of this use variance will not cause a building to be destroyed or replaced since the land is vacant with the exception of the foundation wall/footings as mentioned previously; (h) this variance may not be granted because the applicant claims a higher return for retail uses rather than office use or other uses authorized in this RO use district; .' I , .) . Page 7 - Appl. No. 3915 Matter of JORDAN'S PARTNERS Decision Rendered October 17, 1990 (i) Good faith reliance on an invalid permit does not automatically entitle the applicant to a variance {See Reiman v. Welch, 112 AD2d 795, 492 NYS2d 295 (1985, 4th Dept.)}; (j) The issue of a use variance is not whether the use as presently zoned is the most profitable use, but merely whether that use will yield a reasonable return, (see Bellanca v. Gates, 97 AD2d 971, 468 NYS2d 774 (1983, 4th Dept.), affd. 61 NYS 2d 878, 474 NYS2d 480, 462 NE2d 1198.) (k) An application for a change of zone is not without merit and has not been exhausted. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to DENY the relief requested in the Matter of the Application of JORDAN'S PARTNERS under Appl. No. 3915, for the reasons stated above. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis and Dinizio. (Member resolution was duly adopted. Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Sawicki was absent.) This " " " lk ~ GERARD P. GOEHRINGER'~IRMAN . . ~<3> INCLWldq' CD7lIfES_ "t!/( -iNS 10/:1-7 VS APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Telephone (516) 765-1809 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Attention: Bob Kassner or Valerie Scopaz FROM: Board of Appeals ~ DATE: December 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Site Plan Application - 1000-117-08-006 Our File Reference East Wind Development Corp. As you may know, we have an application pending at this time concerning "activation of the site plan as approved by the Planning Board" by way of an interpretation under Section 100-255 of the Zoning Code. It is necessary to receive from you a written confirmation as to whether or not the above site plan is in effect at this time and valid, and to confirm your Board's policy/determination as to the changed circumstances in the re-zoning of this property to R-40 on January 9, 1989 by the Southold Town Board and! its effects on the site plan approval. Please note subsection B of Section 100-255, which reads as follows: "B. All site plans which have received final approval prior to the enactment of this Article shall remain valid for a period of three (3) years from the date of such enactment. This period will begin when all governmental approvals have been obtained," and also address the following: 1. Does the Planning Board deem its August 1, 1988 approved conditional site-plan map to be valid and in effect at this time, in lieu of the changes under the new Master Plan Revisions adopted 1/9/89? To: From: Date: SUbject: Planning Board Board of Appeals December 18, 1990 East Wind Development Corp. 1000-117-08-006 2. If the August 1, 1988 approved conditional site plan plan is not valid at this time, would it be normal for the Planning Board to consider a new site plan based on the new zoning district and new site plan regulations, and would the Planning Board consider the 1988 approval void in its entirety? 3. If the 1988 site plan approval is not null and void, to what extent is the site plan map valid (or in the alternative, what areas would the site plan map be permitted to be activated)? Since this is a legal matter under quasi-judicial review by our board at this time, we must ask that you please limit your response to the actions or policy decisions made by the Planning Board concerning the site plan above-referred at this time, and whether or not the site plan is "in effect" {regardless of the new zoning district}. Please note that we will also be coordinating comments from the Planning Board at a later date once the file is accepted in complete form and processed. The file at this time before us is incomplete and has been temporarily tabled. For your information, the property at the present time is nonconforming in several respects in this R-40 Zone District, which are findings considered by the Z.B.A. before and after the public hearing as part of our normal review process. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ '< ____.....-,_.........,.._c " .... , FORM NO.3 ....... ( . ( . ,- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL / y.' . Date ...A.h:~~~...~......19.'t.~.. Tol~.~~.....~~"r..W~ ~r' ..~9~.1.-a.?-:-?:-:. ................ ..' ..X1.1.~.~.~:~.....U.'t~.~ . '. "'""" 0~ PLEAS.!' TAKE NOTICE that your application dated . .C.~ll'.~~.. ~.1f....., 19 .9.,?/ j~Ja'\< f"~~,,~ ..:~,. Xf)"", ~.<t. ~?~..-:; Location of Property . ,.~~ .I\~. ~."f. ~~4..~... .~~..... .'n._.~~... . House No. \ . Street ~~n;"let County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ...U 7. . . . . . . . Block .. Q .~ . . . . . . . . Lot . 0.1.,.. . . . . . . . . Subdivision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Filed Map No. ,............... Lot No. ........,........ is return~d herewith and disapproved on the following grounds . '~n' . . ~ l~'\..+;o...~..~~..~~.~..~~...~.. ~ ~ \ -c-. ~'1 I \ 1,vI < ?n O~. "n . ."":"' 11 .... ~"~~.'-b...~ ..~.i.'2....r.rI.o;.,1#,....J.A~"'~1~"" i.~.~...tZ-.1tJ.~...~.cl:~..~.~..~~~ .b~~:.... .... .... ...... .... ........... .......... ..... n....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . {~~ ........~~iidl~~i~~~~~~;~...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RV 1/80 . . .. TOWN OF SOUTH OLD. NEW YORK ....-,., APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. 3 cp '1 Cf DATE ~1-.:.~.;:-.:2!?......... TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1, (We) Ea.s t. ..Wi.nd...De.ve.lopAlGmt. ..COI;P..' .of .:/.2J...Mi.dd.le..,Co.un.tz;'{...R.<aad................... Nome of Appelrollt Street and Number .. .:;im~t.!)..t9.WP.. ........................................ ... ..... .... .... .. ....... ... Municipality .......MX................HEREBY APPEAL TO State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO. .................................... DATED ......Q.9.t!??~E...?~.(...~.~.~.q........:. WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO John DeReede.r...a/c:...Eas;t...W.ind..D.elTe.loprn.en.t..Co;r;p. Nome of Applicant for permit of E'...Q.....a.Qx..J..3.22.....M.at.ti.tuc.kJ~,....... ............................f1X............................. Street ond Number Municipolity State ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY (X) Building Permit for site plan approved 8/1/88 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY K.:i,ng...s.t~.r...s;ec.qoo...,c;;t..T:rlaiJ:.d..St.../N.ew...SUff.olk/ R-40 Street {Hamlet Use District on Zoning Map .~.~.~.~:..~~.~...~.~??..~~.:.:.~.~.~...~.~~.~.~.:.~.~.~..~.~.~..~.~...Current Owner East Wind Development Corp. Mop No. Lot No. Pri or Owner Jeffrey & Ann Hunter 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- , section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article xxv Section 100-255 J. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is mode herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( A VARIANCE due to lock of access (State of New York Town Low Chop. 62 Cons. Lows Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection J (xl Interoretation to nvprrirlp rlpni~l of hllilrlinQ p~rmit 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) (has not) been mode with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for 0 special permit ( ) request for 0 variance and was mode in Appeal No. ...............'::................Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection J ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance (x~ Interpretation of Section 100-255 of the Zoning Ordinance , is requested for the reason that owner received site plan approval on August 1, 1988 for an alteration of an existing commercial building in what was formerly zoned BLight Business in the pre-1989 zoning ordinance and map. The property was rezoned to R-40 with the new' zoning map on January 10. 1989.\ In spite of section 100-255 of the zoning ordinance which provides a. 3 year period to I'erform the work approved on the site plan, the building\deRak-tlment has Form ZBl (Continue on other side) ',' .. \ \ disapproved an application to perform work approved on the site.plan on the grounds that the zoning has been changed as described above. It is respectfully requested that' thiE's'l~bar,d reverse the determination of the Building Department -and provide ai'l1'rn'terpr~.t;it;r(m authorizing issuance of the building permits to perform/the approved site plan improvements. 'f, ", d....' '-," !";, ....1t <:'" - '., ,r, :_',"""': REASON FOR APPEAL Continued " 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because Not Applicable 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because Not Applicable 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because Not Applicable STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ./ ..........:.~~.............. Signature , agent for owner cembeJ:.............................. 1990 John ''''" '0' ;, . ..J/lf:ww do, 0'... n Notary PublIc \~ '". . . ..M" MQOM ~... !I!'" c 4832 ... ,hed in Suffaiii CDUiiIIr .... "'.'on EKpirea........, If. ,_ WIWAM D. MOORE '**" Ptlbllc. State of New YDIt No. 4832728 ...._ au.'1ffed In Suffolk County __ .......ml8slon Expires January 31,~ ('1,V . ~ll . ~ ":;::: '. ,,I>',:.j.,:.t.~f;-''''' " -.. ~" , (...... '. -:li;~~d ... ,",~ t~"'l .J > .. , . t,;... . ,. ,-,., .- .'~ , \ . ..... i'- .- .. "./ Ii.... ,..... ,.;.", . ... . ~)>. , , ,'t " ,iCOIIIC ,A't 1.~ .-' '. . , ,. ,filA.!\,.. /C~Y ~~ '.-";"',.,' "'<"..-':. '.i.\'..-.. "'.. ;'.,. "...:". /\\AP I\\AP ,A.JQ. J/Nt:., E XI~TI1V4 PR."PQ4ED /000 - 1/7 - 06 - 00<0 i ..~" L-1c:::fHI' ~\J~\N~"f:::>. HP--/AL-E-"'- ~\J~l N E:-?? Ex/...)rIAJt., PR.OF>o.!:.(f 1:>: 'E~ry C'~\VNeJ< 'P-?-e../I\ 1:.:12;... & LJrl:'-- ~/^,A ~.I~ t::---r 17 ~ A e.1/^, t::- N -r 6"'" ,.:? lZ- E- ....Ja~e:PH ~. A-rroAJ,rO "'/0 E~r \V/Ne c:: c~p 2..2. 7 /\\/DDLE c..cw...-rn.y t<.c.AD ..3^"THTOWAJ, IV Y. 1/787 p' A?-r; -F A.-p-r. An;mj 0H-:!"', ,.", . ""--' '" ...;...1 :.... l P! !\tn...i'I'~:" ;"r-~ '\ .:'.\ ..,,..., ~I", ~...;: ""'V,~\; ~ 1 1 f :\ TO",,, o~ .. - . ',' v n t" ;;>;,Jv 1'lOLO . Dt.~~ AUG ~ 01988 I la~:71 , ., f' The fallowing action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, July 25, 1988. . RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve this Slt7 plan.on 21,430 sq. ft. 19cated at New Suffolk subject to satlsfactlon of the fOllowing conditions: 1. resolving the grading problem as shown on the marked map received by the applicant at the July 25, 1988 meeting. 2. showing the location and grading of the of the new curbing and concrete aprons relative to the existing street. These locations and grading must be approved by Ra~end Jacob~, Superintendent of the Highway Department prlor to the lSSuance of any building permits. As discussed at the meeting a with the Planning Board at the time filed with the Building Department. floor plan will be submitted a building permit request is NOlL Thl.!. .s I T'E, P......AJ \VA!, rf2tE PA.iLF'J \V /7'J/ /A;rOI2^\A7"OI.J TA I< cAJ ,c-/',,) O^\ ,t, .!o<J....W;1 ^\.A",~ By Y e:. (nU <; c; Y.c.UM::j , L- ICE "'J.j 1:1.0 ./. A..AJD _.l"ui:JV~\Jr.." "-- '" .. ----. A.=r,... a , IOQ~ [JOl'!!fff AUG - 1/988 I ... . . GARRETT A. STRANG ARCHITECT MAIN ROAD. P. O. BOX 1412 SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 5 t 6~ 765-5455 .July 79, 1988 m&~aw~:i~ AUG - I 1988 l.0 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman SOllLhold Town Planning Soard 11il i n ROild Southold, New York, 1I97L .: '\ ~ I ('~I~ Re: Appl ication of J .R. .'\ttonito, Premises Second Street, New Suffolk (East lJind Corp.) Dear 1Ir. Orlm/ski: I have enclosed herewith, f{)r your (6) cODies of the site plan for the Drojeet. endorsement, six a:Jove refE~rcnced Yeu will not the plan has been amended in eom~lianee with the hoards comments and annot~ted print returlled to mc at the meeting of Julv 25th. HO'dcver, ehan'Jcs: I would like to COfnn.ent on the followinq 1. The changes in the site cleviltions of the PQrkinq area differ than tl10SC noted on the print returned to me. I believe you will find the revised pitch to ;:)e acceptclhl~' however, inosmuch as it docs not exce8d G% in the worst ca~e.. 2. The nole reqarding a railinq ot st3irs 21o~q tile Nortllerly sidewalk is inappropri0te given the fact there will lJe no steps l~ut i) rOOD in the sidewalk providinq handicApped 3CCCSS. If there are any questions, please contact ~i office otherwise please forward the endorsed copy of the Site Plan 0t your earliest convenience. \/ery truJy ~/o- yours, ~/ C~"'---- /~&C~.:.:::..__.. -~ CJrrctt l\. Strcn~), H.I\. G\S/c Ene. cc; r1r. Kevin r~cLaIJlI1]in, Esq. i'~r. .Jos'Dph Attonito " . ~ r;r u/" -"~" c/-. .....7l~n, Jll ATTORNEY AT LA 828 FRONT STRBJo:T, I~ o. BOX 803 GHBENPORT. NY 11944 15161477.1016 April 19, 1988 Re: East Wind Development Corp. Valerie Scopaz Southold Town Planner Southo1d Town Hall Main Road Southo1d, New York 11971 Dear Ms. Scopaz: Pursuant to our recent meeting, I have requested that Garrett Strang forward to you elevation drawings in connection with the above-referenced site plan application. Additionally, we will forward to you a floor plan for the existing second story apartment, along with a statement of the intended uses of the building and the respective square footage for each use. Upon receipt of the above information, it is my under- standing that the Planning Board will be in a position to finalize its review of this application. JKM/ lmt I cc: Garrett Strang Joseph Attonito .~ (\::~ ~ li ~~O f~ AlA/IV 1 P p 13/ ~4_'S- ":J /z,<" ~/.7 0lr-1 4-(28' ;?2l -;; ~~--..~,~ It<-?FF / ~ ~ ~oo..f/!_ ATTORNEY AT~..........-rv 828 FRONT STREET. P. O. BOX 803 GREENPORT, NY 11944 (516) 477-1016 iln.. SOUTHOLO TOWN PLANNING BOARO April 19, 1988 Valerie Scopaz Southold Town Planner Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: East Wind Development Corp. Dear Ms. Scopaz: Pursuant to our recent"meeting, I have requested that Garrett Strang forward to you elevation drawings in connection with the above-referenced site plan application. Additionally, we will forward to you a floor plan for the existing second story apartment, along with a statement of the intended uses of the building and the respective square footage for each use. Upon receipt of the above information, it is my under- standing that the Planning Board will be in a position to finalize its review of this application. JKM/ lmt cc: Garrett Strang Joseph Attonito < D Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-191 -I Av,; \ !l 1(,11 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review Act and 6NYCRR part 617, Section 617, Section 617.10 and chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency for the action described below has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The site plan of East Wind Corp. is for 21,430 sq. ft. located at New Suffolk. The project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: An environmental assessment has been submitted which indicated that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. Because there has been no correspondence received from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services in the alotted time, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. Because there has been no correspondence received from the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation in the alotted time, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. The project ~ill meet all the requirements of the Code of the Town of southold Subdivision of Land Regulations. Further information can be obtained by contacting Jill M. Thorp, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. . .' --'-.;.61'" / ft.->- ~ c-L--- p Southold. N. Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 February 5, 1988 Garrett A. Strang P.O. Box 1412 Southold, NY 11971 RE: East Wind Dear Mr, Strang: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, January 25, 1988. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board send the site plan of East Wind to the Building Department for certification, The plan is for alterations to existing building for retail department store located at New Suffolk. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Very truly yours, P-~' W~~r 9/,.::; BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD cc:. Building Department BO/jd ,:i~>>,.l /})I (lr:f' ".Z ,dlc-L ,t.~ " ( j;t) "'L...eL~ {:/j'~(F.;C.Jr 0 t; . lit (' I-'''/..,/ c/ 5-- f V . r:;JJJ-r::n- ~" -,-,.,!~ "," '""'\\........, 1!'" -<?_. ,...,tj\ ~'-1 /' ~ P~;~ffiN.li1I,G:. ~..B.'O ~~\D A'/<~ ,,; I""~' ~" 'l,- :" ~n'; ,-, ....c:. N TO'W~ (j 'sou . D ~ u~, .~!,~' JJl}f S uiF~LKJ;ogN'TY %:,'1)1 ,'.' /1/\0':',# ~ . Southold. N, Y, 11971 (516) 765-1938 January 27, 1988 . Garrett A. Strang P.O. Box 1412 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Strang: On January 25th, the Planning Board moved to forward the site plan to the Building Department for certification. Notification of same will be forthcoming. However, the elevation drawings and floor plans which were to be sent under separate cover, as per your letter of December 17, 1987, have not been received. Before the Planning Board can proceed further, these items must be submitted for review. Sincerely, ~~::~;e'~ Town Planner cc: Joseph Attonito ~~,u . . GARRETT A. STRANG ARCHITECT MAIN ROAD, P. O. BOX 1412 50UTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 516-765.5455 DeCPMrH:::r 17, lS87 !'Jr. R(~nn':~tt Orlow~,ki, Chairmar' S(~llthold Town PJannin~J Bn~':Inl :lc1in I~oa.J SOllthc)ld, :~cw York, 11971 Re: '\;J;,licati('In of: J.P. 7\ttonito, Prr::'fT1i~,'?s :;econd Street, 1"ow Suffolk (F,ast \iind C0r".) ;)C2r ;"lr. Orlow~ki ,1.nd ~:ler:1t)(~rs (Yl the B03.rrl: I huve enclosed herewith. for your copies of the site n18r anended as ncr donee fran ~'s. Scopa7., (Jf 'lour office, 'I, ] 91\7. review, six (0) t~1:2 co~-:-re,3D(1n.- elated SC'ptcrf;cr l\lJ the inf"ormDtio!1 you hZ1VC r(~quc~tc:d fror:l the 0urvcyor has hcon o~toincd and in now sllown on the Site Plan. In ~ddition 1 h~va i'clu(j~d D copy of tllQ lJpctated survc'l [or vour records. T '-E'snectflllJy rcq\Jcst this np9Jication he schcciulcrl for putlic hc~rina 03 coon as no~sitlc. Pl2~cc note the ~uildinG fIcor p13ns and clcvntior drawinqs wil.] he for- warded uflder sep0r~te cClver. If YOIl have' any additional C1ucstion:-; nlc;:l.sc COl-,tact. f:lV office. \]E~rv t ru 1" . ...- ./ / '~D / yours, /' I ..~/ -,..../ . ---"".-..., .::-- .............. - "- G~rr0tt A. Stra~0, J~.^. GAS/q cc: ~:r. :JoscDh Altanite. i)'.._.'\'~~ BY LL .>:' " C.I SOUil'~~J .c.. 'u, 2iJARD --Dl.~I.,J~87 ..... GAil: T . D LD y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 September 4, 1987 Mr. Garrett Strang P.O. Box 1412 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Proposed Site Plan East Wind Corp. S/e/c King and Third Streets, New Suffolk SCTM# 1000-117-8-6 Dear Mr. Strang: As per our meeting yesterday, I've enclosed a copy of the elements which should be shown on the revised site plan. Sincerely, ~$ Town Planner - /' ~ -'t.~ V;Nh.;?~__' ATI'ORNi~:;~-" 828 FRONT STREET, P. O. BOX 803 GREENPORT. NY 11944 (516) 477-1016 t~ ( Li August 12, 1987 Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Site Plan for East Wind Building Corp. Dear Ms. Scopaz: I am the local counsel for East Wind Building Corp. regarding site plan approval for its property located at 950 Second Street and 600 King Street, New Suffolk, New York. I was disappointed to learn that your appointment with Garrett Strang for August 6, 1987, to review this site plan was cancelled. Apparently, the appointment was cancelled because a field inspection of the property has not yet been made. This site plan was initially received by the Planning Board on June 8, 1987. By letter to Mr. Strang dated July 2, 1987, the Planning Board made recommendations for changes to the site plan. It seems odd that the Planning Board would recommend changes .without a field inspection and then not be in a position to discuss these recommendations without a field inspection. Please let me know how I can assist you and the Planning Board in your consideration of this site plan. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience so that we may pro- ceed expeditiously with this application. . f/J' JKM/lg . cc: Southold Town p~anning Boa /'., / _ Joseph R. Attonl.to, Esq. ... ~ RECEIVED BY S1JUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARO AVG 1 ;; 1q87 DAre ........'--<;.;;,-'- -- .~ ~' GARRETT A, STRANG \ ARCHITECT . ~ECE:1/n, "V SOUTHGl~ lu' ,,' " u, /lU ','" I V,, ',. j, r;nlnD ,.., '" ...... lji)rli\ , C70F~": ',D n;.... - MAIN ROAD, . O. BOX 1412 50UTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 516.765-5455 August 5, 1987 Hr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of J. R. Attonito, Premises, Second Street, New Suffolk Dear Mr. Orlowski and Members of the Board: I have been advised by Valerie Scopaz, of your de- partment, that a meeting scheduled for today, had to be cancelled, due to the fact that the Board has not as yet made their field inspection of the above premises. Inasmuch as the Site Plan application was made on June 19th, I would appreciate the Board's concerted effort in making this necessary inspection, so that the application process can proceed in a timely fashion. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours, GAS/b A. Strang, R.A. / .. A' . ".. ',,' .~4f ~ ...-, .'1 ,.' ..' . . ,," .. .' .." C,'. .. .... , I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PAll,T r.RECE'vr:;~ .ru.~ ~UTHpUJ. J ' '!' ''''Y- -0 -~i PROJECT It{FORHATION JuN'1~".19$~n ~; . . _. . ... J)A"iE-:-- ~ ~ r."-' This ~c~.ent is desianed to nsi!t: in det2:~nh9 '.nec:"::!:r ~-:e lc:ioR ~ro;:05rJ -nay ~a'V... :4:gnfricanc ~..;;:. ~n tne I"V1renment. Plets. c;l=le~1 t::e ~ntir. J~~l She'll:. MS"."':O ~:-:es~ .;uestl~ns ..1 ~l ~. c:~nslaer~d :S' .,.~ of ';". aopl iC.lClOn fo,. iporav&1 tnd. may ~. suoj'K": t~ i"-Jrtner 'Iertfic.lt~an 1I1d ;Juollc nVlew. Prov1C1e lIlyatl4iCiOnal Into....cion you 0.11... "HI ~e nleeK :0 c:r.ollcl ~ART1 Z .no 3. ;: Is UOIC:I.s CIIat ::moiecion of t.~1 OAF ,.ill be dIPlne..,>: on Informuian cu.....ncl.' ..al1oDI" .nd '.ill nac ~n.,oh. ~eM s:,",~es. rIS..r:., or fnvest1q4t1an. tf tnl"Q~1:1on l""IGut ring such !ddt~iona I ':.Iork f s~unay~:13o Ie. N tnfltcnl _ sOlcify tiC.' Ins.uncI. ( -TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . .. .. . . .~. '. :~. '_..~' - . . .-.- .... " ;;,u:~ ,'F P'lOJE~:, 'lolI'E 1~O ..CCR::SS ~F nl/HER I [f Ql f~.nncl --,..: -:-"", ''-'''''Ba:~t-W'i:f1a "c6-tj;,';-':B'1dg: Joseph R. Attonito (:I...a I 227' Middle Country Road t:atr~ec: .. "T..... :. .... AOO~E!; 1no ~~~E OF '~D~!~~~T: Garrett A. Strang, Architect (;i.ua: Smithtown, N.Y. 11787 (,1.;J~} {Statal. >US1ME~ ~HQ:IE; , 516-265-8500 l~:~1 ....Jlta'in "R'aad",:' P. 6 .'Jrox .-1412 (~'n='; . . , ~ --... ..., ..._-------~-_._._-........_'~ .,. Southold, New York 11971 [",').; lSucal \41~1 O~;~RI~r!o~ OF '.OJE~7: (Sri.fly dtlcr'b. tYPI of ~"'J'c: ~r aC:1.n) Al teration of ex'isting building, former ly a supermarket., to accommodate a retail department store. (~~S, ~~P~Ei~ EA~~ ~U.Si,J~ . !ndjc~t. ~.A. , If noc lo.llc~ol~l '"." A. 51:'! ~~5~ll?na:1 :'.'~~~~~. .'. ...~~..~~'~~' -."#:.:;.:..1:' .~ :.~.:: .~:'P~' . .;~,!,..~: \..~, ':i:'~ ':'~:.I:'~:~ ~ ,.".- _.. ".,,~,;;.I:' :r~~:;:, >'~~~i'I\I""~ ;.~' ~ (~~1'tc:' iat:~n; flf OYI~'1 proJ~c:. both dl'eloc~ .nd _~de.elcaed Ir..s) ,. " . .. :~..~~:;";';-:..',~;. "~;i~"~~'~.::'~;..," 1. Gdner!1 ~'arac~lr ,f ~~e 14ftd: r.ine~ailt unif~~ slaae x Gineraily ~I.en and rolling ~r.lrro9ular .-" ~. :-ar:sanc !ana J1': :Jre.n . [ndus:r'tal "':.:......: :..":'t....... _, A9~1cultu" _, 1)'Co-'er J. ;oc~1 ocr~.ql of ~roJIC: .roo: 0.5 acro.; -' Ccmerc~AI -L, SlIauroan~. ~u:':l'_. 'For!!s~ , ....'..... . Aporo.xi:wca JC~3.CJe: ~e~~'w or ~rusnlQnd :tresencl;- Af':ar 'ompI4t~on ...:... ~re$ent:1 Aftar ~cmal.t1~ FQr~s tiC ~!cr~s -2.-'c~'!s ~!cr~s -.Q...!C:'"!S --2..!'=:,,~s ~at!r SU~3C! ~~! ~!c:"'!s --.Q..tCF ..\qrO:C:Ji'::.:rll ~!e:-u UnV!~~t3t~1 ~~cx. ..r:~ ~r fill: ~!C~~S o tcr-c: - ~ ~.~t:r.e r=~~snw.t!~ or rf:!i 11 :~~ lr~":~!!s :t, 15 ;r !.:.~.' -2.-Jcr~s --2..H::"~'J ,c~c~. ~uf!~~~~s lr.~ -::.'";~,. Ja..,:';f. i:"r:-':C~5 O~,o:::"''U ~'C~! . ~~-:!~ ! :na1:J::! ':1~ei !c:"'!s _lC::"'~ ~. dh~: 't 1r~~Cm~nJn~ SOli tY~4(S) 1" ,ro:~~ i~~!: N/A 5. .c. Ar~~ ~~~~~ ',ecl"":c:< :uc:~:;)t:1:)s :n 2r-:1j~o:-: s::!? _1U ~'Ia 3. .~lt Is ~!,t~ ~~ :ed~cx? N/A H~ "e~~} ...;.'. .,' JIt!1a .' -- ..... . .....: ~ ... . .. ".. .... -.. ~ ,..... ,';' ,',~,~~'~,,:.,~,.....r~~,.....t- ..~ '.":.~.~.11: .-..,.~;:.::::..:..:._~...::.; '.: :,''';~.'f .f .". to:--:.r.r-..~....". . ..... _ .^.,e.il". " ".! +, , .". ~' . . . . 6. Ap~ro.il"..te ~erc.nt.se of Proposed project sice with slopes: 0.10: l.QQ..:: 10-15: _____':; 15: or gretter _";. . 7. Is project contiguous to. or contain a building or site listed on the Hational Register of Historic Places? 'es X No - - 8. lIhit 1s tile daptll to tile water tablel 15 feet . - 9. 09 hunting or fishing opportunities presantly exist in the project ar.a? _Yes ~Io 10. Ooes project site contain any sp~ci.s of plant or animal llf. that 1s Id.nt1fied as thr~!tened or endancered - ______yes ~Ia. "carding to . Identify each species 11. Are ~~ere any unique or unusual land foros on tho project sita? (i.e. cliffS. dunes, ather geologica fOl'lllltions - _res -2L.No. .(Describe 12. Is tile project site presently used by the ca~nity or neighborhood as .n open s~ce or'recreat10n .na . _Yes -LNa. '.. . . . :. . , 13. Ooes the present sHe offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to ,the C'OlIIlIUnityl _'es -2L-No . 14. Str.lIIS within or contiguous to project .rea: l<I/A. . a. Har.e of stre.m and name of rher to which It 1s trlbucary I. i 15. Lakes, Ponds. Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. N4lI'.e N/A l'h. Size (in acres) 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of tile project (e.g~ single family residential, R-2) and tile scale of development (e.g. ~ story), Singl'e Family Res{dentia~, A~Residential, l~story "'8. PROJECT D~SCRli'Tlal' '. 1. Phystcal dicensions and scale of project (fill In dimensions as appropriate) D." a. Total cont1guaus acreage owned by project sponsor acres. Project acreage d.veloped: .ll..:..2.. acres .initially; ..Q..:.2acres ultllll4tely. .. Project acreage to remain undeveloped D .' p; ,.. ,.;. ~ Length of project. In miles:, (If appr-opriate) If project 1s an expansion of existing. indicate ~ercent of expansion proposed: bUilding square fcot age, l developed acreage . / A . ,', NUll"ber of aff-st~t parking spaces existing 3.; proposed 26' ." Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 6 (upon completion of project) If nsid~ncial: liUt.lller and type a~ housing units: N/A One 'Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Ini tial i".; '. .....0:. Ul t im~te f. If: OriencHion liei~h~or~oad'C'tl'~egionaJ Co!lT:ircia I X Indus tri a I J. Tat.l height of tallest Propoud 1tructllre _~_feet. " + Es t il1lol ted Emp 1 oymen t 1') " .... . .... ", , 0"' -~ t::;-;. .:'.:itg~. . " . . ,~.:.,., . . .. . "".,2. , . .. " How auch nlturJI mJteriel (t.l. rock, eerth, etc.) will ~e r.~~..d from the sit. _ o tons .. ... 7. 3. How ..ny ICMlS of v~getltlon (trees. shrubs, groun~ covers) will be removed '4. Will Iny...ture forest tover 100 y..rs old) or other loclllY-"'~orUnt ve~.tltlon be removed by this project! _Yes --..1'10 , 5. ~. th.r. eny pI... for ..-v.~.tltlon to rlplece thlt rev~ved during construction! ~Yes ______Ho If .Ingl. phiS' projlct: Antlclplted periOd of canstructlon ~Donths. (Including demolition). " . (.f aul tf-ph"ed projlct: e. TGtll nllllber of phl"s entlclpltld "':-Ho. b. Antlclplted dlte of coomence~nt phasl I ~nth -----year (Including ~lltion) ,------ , ' o cubic ~Ir frOl:l site - :..!2...acres: -..." . I. - , - 10. 11. Co ApproxllUtl complatlon dlta fln41 phIS' t".onth --year. d. Is phis. 1 flnlnclllly d.p.ncent on subsequlnt phlsas? ,-=---,VIS ______H I. Will bllstlng ac~~r during constr~ctlon? YIS X Ho - ------ ,. IIUIIIlllr .of Jobs glnerated: du~ng construCtion -L: .ftlr project h colllplltl ~. Hur.lllr of jobs IlImlnlted by this project O. . - 11111 project rlqulre relocltlon of &n~ projects Or flCllltlls? _Yes 2Jto. If ~IS, explain: .... .'.... .... 12. I. Is surflCI .or SubSUrflCI liquid W..tl dls~osll Involvld? X Yes - _No. . b. If yes, Indlclte tYPI of IIlSt. (Slwlge, Industrlll. ItC.) Sewage , c. Jf surface disposal n.... of stree.. Into which Iffluent will be dlschlr;ed 13. lIill surfacI are. of 1.lstlng likes, ponds. stre~s, blYs or o~~er surfica witlr~IYS be Increased .or decrlised by proposll? _YIS _HG. 14. Is proJect, or iny portion .of project lOCAted In thl 100 Yltr flood plain? 2....Ves _Ho 15. I. Ooes project In.ol'l disposal of solid wlste! ~YIS _____Ho b. If yes. will In uhting solld WlSte disposal flclllty be used? -!:.-YI$ _No C. If yes, give n...e:Southciid Landfill; locltlon Cutchogu'e' 16. . d. 1I111..y wlstes not go Into I Slwlge dls~osll syste.. or Into a sanitAry landfill? -!-..-Yes 11111 project use her~lcides or peSticides! _Yes ~'o X no - 17. 11111 project routinely produce cdors' (more thin one hour per dlY)? _Yes 2-Ho 18. lIill project produce operating noise exceeding the local er.bfence noise levels? _Yes X No - 19. 11111 project resul~ In an lncretse In energy use? _Yes ~Ho. If yes, IndiCAte type(s) 20. If weter supply Is fra~ wells IndiCAte pu~~ing C!Plctty ZI. Toul antlclplt,~ wlter usage ~e,. dlY __1 00 qals/dJY. ZZ. Zaning: .. :/h.c Is dCClinant ':onlng cl,ssiflc:ticn of sit., "B"-Light Business 8 gals/minute. b. Curront s;eclffc :onir.~ clJssificHion of si:e Same c. rs prr:PQud use C:"I is::~nt wi t~ .,reilnt %onin91 Yes d. If no, IncICH! desired lonins ,', .~. '.' -3- - , ,0 '~:i.;,..,..~i-.~.. ..... ;,~~:~~rr? .... . ..'.- 26. Approvlls: I. ~~o Is Iny Federll permit reG"'red? ______'IS -, -, . . b. Does project Involve State or Federsl funding or flnlnclng1 ______'es ~No c. Loc.l..d Regionll approvals: . ApprovII Reeuired (Yes, 110) (Type I . I City, Town, Villlge Board C\ty, Town, Village Planning Soard City, Town, Zoning Board City, County Health OeplrtMant Other loc~l agencies Other regional agencies '. State Agencies Federll Agencies N -y- !:;~te Plan r:r -r- ~anlt:,ary + -n- ::n:: :.'. . . ; : - .; '.; ': ....' . .,' ~ :~'.' ~."~' . . C. INFOR.'1ATIlllW. DETAILS .. Submit ta 1 (Dace) b/ 1,,/~7 ~/ 1~/87 "-. Approval (OHel Att~ch any additional lnfanoatlan.as ~~y ~e needed ta clarify your praject. If there are ar may be any Idverse tm~acts associated with the proposal, plea.e discuss such imp4Cts and the measures whlcn can be take" to mitigate or avald the., /' . >":~~ 4;/2. 'WARER'S SIG:l.\TURE: . . TlTI.E: REi'FJ:S..~TIIlG: , DATE: I Garrett A. Stranq, Architect JOseph Attonito - owner June 19, 1~87 ,I', ' '. :,.::. ..' "", ..... (.'" - :.' '.~";".' .".. :. " " .-' . ", t',.::".:-'I ,.~.. - ".... .. .. . --".~ . ...., , . " ..--':-,. .,~. . . . . I MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: ..FILE Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner RE: Site plan - East Wind Corp. S/e/c of King and Third Streets, New Suffolk 1000-117~8 DATE: September 3, 1987 The above referenced site plan was reviewed by the Planning Board in the field. The following intormation should be shown on a revised plan: 1. Show location of existing paving, curbing and sidewalks on Third, King and Second Streets relative to the subject property lines. 2. Show addition of curbing and sidewalk along King Street. Replace steps on Second Street with curb and landscaping. 3. Show landscaping elements as follows: A. Street trees along all street frontages, 40 to 50 feet. apart. B.. Show two existing large trees on northwest corner of lot as being -retained within a landscaped exit from the parking lot. C. Show landscaping along the entire southerly property line and along the south side of the existing structure. 4. Redesign parking area as follows: A. Access to site from Second Street shall be marked for. ingress only. B. Access from site to King Street shall be marked for egress only. C. All parking spaces shall be angled. D. In~lude a low fence between parking and street along ~hird Street. ~~ will ~ t4<~ -t .;' A.t.jiG ~~ tte~6) Show I cation of dumpster for proposed retail use. Indicate screenage for same. 5. 6. Include existing and proposed topography and elevations 7. Show proposed on -site drainage and calculations for same. 8. Elevation drawings and floor plans. 9. Proposed signage. 10.. Site data should indicate square footage for each proposed use including the apartment. . /' ~ L~~Nn.f~A" A1TORNi~;;:T~-'. 828 FRONT STREET. P. O. BOX 808 GREENPORT, NY 11944 (516) 477-1016 . August 12, 1987 Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Site Plan for East Wind Building Corp. Dear Ms. Scopaz: I am the local counsel for East Wind Building Corp. regarding site plan approval for its property located at 950 Second Street and 600 King Street, New Suffolk, New York. I was disappointed to learn that your appointment with Garrett Strang for August 6, 1987, to review this site plan was cancelled. Apparently, the appointment was cancelled because a field inspection of the property has not yet been made. This site plan was initially received by the Planning Board on June 8, 1987. By letter to Mr. Strang dated July 2, 1987, the Planning Board made recommendations for changes to the site plan. It seems odd that the Planning Board would recommend changes without a field inspection and then not be in a position to discuss these recommendations without a field inspection. Please let me know how I can assist you and the Planning Board in your consideration of this site plan. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience so that we may pro- ceed expeditiously with this application. JKM/lg cc: Southold Town Planning Boa Joseph R. Attonito, Esq. RECEIVED BY SOUTHOlD JyWN PLAKN1NJI. BOAllll AUG 1;) 1981 DAlE . Valerie Scopaz Town Planner South old , N.Y. 11971 (516) 765- 1938 July 2, 1987 Mr. Garrett Strang Architect P.O. Box 1412 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan for East Wind Building Corp. Dear Mr. Strang: The above mentioned site plan has been reviewed and the following information is requested prior to any further review and consideration by the Planning Board: 1. drainage plans 2. landscape plans 3. building elevations If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, Y~~~(Xll-dj~ Town Planner dms . . ---.. .. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN lL'\LL SOUTHOLD. NEW YORK . CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NONCONFORMING PRE1\lISES THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the r I Land Ixx! Building(s) C../ Users) Pre c.o. #- Z-15160 Date- January 5, ]987 located at 950 Third Street & 965 Second Street & 600 King Street Street Hamlet shown on County tax map as District 1000, Section 117 ,Block New Suffolk 08 , Lot 06 , does(not)conform to the present Building Zone Code of the Town of Southold for the following reasons: Insufficient front yard set-backs non-conforming residence On the basis of information presented to the Building Inspector's Office, it has been determined that the above nonconforming CI Land IX"! Building(s) C}Use(s) existed on the effective date the present Building Zone Code of the Town of Southold, and may be continued pursuant to and subject to the appli- cable provisions of said Code. IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that, based upon information presented to - the Building Inspector's Office, the occupancy and use for which this Certifi- cate is issued is as follows: Property contains business buildings, residence; and concrete floor of demolished building; all situated in 'B' light business, with access to Second Street; a Town Road The Certificate is issued to JEFFREY & ANN HUNTER (owner, I~~ of the aforesaid building. Suffolk County Department of Health Approval NIA UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. NIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the owner of the above premises lL'\S NOT CONSENTED TO AN INSPECTION of the premises by the Building Inspec- tor to determine if the premises comply with all applicable codes and ordin- ances, other than the Building Zone Code, and therefore; no such inspection has been conducted. This Certificate, therefore, does not, and is not intended to certify that the premises comply with all other applicable codes and regula- tions. ~-b,~"~ 'I 1. . II, _ , . ~" , ,:,': -"' 'or;- . \ ...:.'. h .. ,'-', ", '. , '. - ';'-" '.~, "':, > ,-. ." . . .. / "\. t-J ~l'C;~ ..5nu;~;r ~ . ~ ;<"', ~ z ~ ,. .. ~ . , ~ I' I ~,' 1 , 1<>',"" 495' 24-8 24, / / / / / a 0:: :r: I-- 21.4 I-- W W ~ U) 0../, ton: 24.8 " , , .... 0."0' 24. / ~-._- 22"I.I4Plf 24.8 o Q lD Q CONcRETE BlOCK RE1lIl'NING WAll 20.. CHAtN LINK FENCE T/~ .... ... u z 11.'--', I.: ~ .......... - !! .... ".0 / / / / / / / / # / / 2", / / .x 23.2 -~ i o u o CXl Z "' ~ o ", Area = .?143b s.f. / ----- N.8302 30' W. ..., STOckADE FENcE now or former' y Nicholas J. Mondusic NOTE'FOLK COUNTY TAXKM~~ LOT 006 SUF SECT. 117 BL '_ DIST.IOOO - ED · - MONUMENT ON ARE REFERENC - N HERE ELEV. SHOW M S.L. DATUM TO APPROX . ..... 22.6 RECEIVED BY SOUmlllJl.lOWN PlANN!i\G BOARD . E r. 1 7 1987 0-", lATE ;, " ~ '.4 I.,' ~ o N I~ 1 , I - -.rOv....., U'k.'" CI" . .. """c. ""TlbI .. -~~..._-.-----""~~ ~"' .. ,"Tl.POL. .; 204.10 CILIIO.. "'''''6ij IV., STREET R.o.W. 49.,' 2<0 51..' o N' 7:1... , STORy FORMER SUPERMARkET 2ND STORY 4PARTMENT FIN. Fl.~ 20.8 la,7' .. .. 20.. lI,a' '.0' '4.7' / / / I I / t6> / CESSPooL~ \ CONC.COVE / 18.3/ j \- / / AS PHAl T PIl VEMENT STOCkAOE FENC; 204.30' I / now or formerly Mote; 8 MiChele Rousson 3_~ OM It) Ol ,., Q \ \ \ ii \ \ 1--\ W \ / W..../ 0:: I- C/) ;, .. '" .. " ~ " ~ I ~ . ~ ~ 0 0 U U .. U .. 18.8 1: le I ~: o I _0 I Il :: ,... ~ s cri , : I i I ~ , : I All, I I ;. . .. REVISIONS NOV 5,1987 0,. :;fo' A(JOITlON TV llD ALTtRAII OF SECTION l)NAUfH0H1 EY 15 A VIOLATIO~ EDLiCATlON fHIS SUAV .. YOR~ STA, [ l209 OF THE NE '_AW NOT BEARING HIS SURVEY PolAP. EAL OR r:OP'ES OF ~UAVEYOPl'S INKED : ~ONStOERED ~HE lAND EAi. SHALL NOT B v EM60SSEO S 0 TRUE copy ro BE A VA.LI 0'-1 SHAl.L RU,. 'NO:CATED HERE 'HE GUARANTEES PERSON FOR WHON 'BEHAL' T TO THE ND ON HIS ONL Y IS PREPARED, A GOVEqNMENTAL StJR~[ l':TI.-E COMPANY, UTION USTEJ TC .HE ENDING INSTil' OF THE AGENr;y AND, \0 THE ASS1GNEES"s A"E EON AN GUARANT HE:D1NG INSTITUTIONro ADDIT!ONA.L "RANSFERABLE ENT OWNERS, NOl' T OR S\J8SEQU INSTiTUTIONS 49.,' a 2 o u W C/) "8 Z4,4' CONcRETE Bl.OCk . GARAGE 0 FIN. Fl. =: 22.4 .. 22 . / (I,'lf ;., c:i / / (; d ".0 17.5 400 , 18.. I I / I / ~ . ~ ,. c . , .. YOUNG & ER AVENUE, OSTRAND YOUNG 0 ALDEN W~AL ENGINEER ANNO 128.45 ROFESSIO Y,5. LIe. . p 0 SURVEYOR. N. LAN SURVEY FOR: CORP EAST WIND . I --',",' E/PAVEM'EIIT "' en .,. ~ "~........... YOUNG RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK HOWARD ~.o~OUNG LAND SURV:O A8803 N< Y. S. Lie. . 4T NEW SUFFOLK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK CO., N. Y. , DATE'APRIL 9,19 SCALE: II = 20 .. II N 'Z~ O4t . I0' ,'U 8-3"2_7,o ,, ,,u/ ~ /~- IOO0- 117-08 RECEIVED BY SOUTHBkBlOl,,.lu,lli'il~l~BOA~ DATE GARRETT A. STRANG architect Main Road P.O. Box 1412 Southold N.Y, 11971 516- 765 - 5455 ,I UP- t N '[: /000 - 117 - 0~5 - 00(~ RECEIVED BY RO[ITHO].D IOWH PLANT, LNG BOARD IlII I [4 10O7 GARRETT A. STRANG architect Main Road P.O. Box 1412 Southold N.Y, 11971 516 - 765 - 5455 vuor-,,.Lo may /OOO- 117- 0,~ - OOro ~J[ l ' MainRoadP. O. Box1412 Southold N.Y. 11971 RECEIVED BY DE6 17 1987 DATE N ,/ / / /- ~-Au~ U b.A-r' I~M ~ /X\AP /OOO 117 O~ - 006 GARRETT A. STRANG architect Main Road P.O. Box 1412 Southold N.Y. 11971 516- 765 - 5455 /000-117-0~ - 00(o GARRETT A. STRANG architect Main Road P.O. Box 1412 Southold N.Y, 11971 516- 765 - 5455 tlr / I .%- I000- u7-o8 - o0~ GARRETT A. STRANG Brchitect Main Road P.O. Box 1412 Southold N.Y. 11971 516- 765 - 5455 .